Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy

Transcription

Greater Anglia
Route Utilisation Strategy
December 2007
2
Foreword
I am pleased to present Network Rail’s Route
Amongst the key improvements proposed by
Utilisation Strategy covering the Greater
this strategy are an additional 1000 seats each
Anglia route. Principally this route covers
day over the “peak period” on London –
the lines into London Liverpool Street and
Norwich services and longer trains on the vital
London Fenchurch Street. It also extends into
London – Stansted – Cambridge corridor. Both
Cambridgeshire, East Anglia, Essex and parts
of these improvements will create additional
of Hertfordshire.
space and comfort for existing passengers
In November, Network Rail published its
Strategic Business Plan (SBP) for 2009-
and allow the potential for new passengers to
experience the bene¿ts of rail travel.
2014. This plan explained the extent to which
Across the rest of the route the strategy lays
passenger and freight demand is growing
out clear plans for longer trains and more
across the country, and set out Network Rail’s
frequent services to many destinations,
ambitious agenda for growing the capacity of
creating a much improved overall service for
the railway to meet this customer demand.
customers. The bene¿ts are not just con¿ned
There are few places where this growth can
be seen more in evidence than on the Greater
Anglia route, with London Liverpool Street
already Britain’s busiest railway station with
to passenger traf¿c either, with plans set out
to create additional train paths for freight
trains and enhance the gauge to allow freight
services to carry larger “boxes”.
more than 120million visitors per year. This
This strategy was initially published as a draft
strategy builds on the SBP and offers a more
for consultation in April 2007 and since then
detailed perspective on how the capacity of the
has been subject to a great deal of further
railway can be grown and the quality of service
work and analysis, listening to the feedback
improved, across the Greater Anglia route.
received during the consultation process. All of
this work has been carried out in collaboration
with rail industry partners and wider
stakeholders. I thank everyone involved, and
everyone who responded to the consultation,
for their contribution.
Iain Coucher
Chief Executive
3
Executive summary
effective delivery of its objectives. The aim is to
additional infrastructure. The recommended
strategy comprises a range of measures for
meeting growth, some of which will require
provide properly performing train services that
considerable investment.
Improved rail capacity is a central element
of the Government’s transport plans for
accommodate passenger and freight growth in
a way that maximises overall value for money
Freight
and is affordable.
The Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) and the
With the forecast housing growth contained in
the draft East of England Plan and the London
Plan driving passenger demand, and the
planned expansion of the Ports of Felixstowe
and London Gateway Port (Shell Haven)
driving freight growth, the long-term use of the
routes in the Greater Anglia area needs urgent
consideration.
Context
The Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy
(RUS) encompasses the Thameside, Great
Eastern (GE) and West Anglia (WA) routes
and covers the period to 2019. In order to tie
in with the Regional Spatial Strategy and the
Government’s recently published White Paper,
the RUS also looks forward to 2021 and
beyond.
Passenger
Crowding at peak times is a key issue on these
routes. Passenger counts show that crowding is
heavy on all routes into London and a number
of regional centres. The worst overcrowding
in the region occurs on West Anglia services
running from Cambridge to Liverpool Street
in the morning peak. The Regional Spatial
Strategy and the London Plan allocate high
levels of housing and employment to the region
and this is forecast to result in high rates of
growth in demand for rail services in the coming
years, especially on the West Anglia route.
There is some scope to meet demand without
4
Tilbury Loop – North London Line routes are
heavily used by freight train operators. The
expansion of Felixstowe, Bathside Bay and
London Gateway Ports is anticipated to trigger
a substantial increase in deep sea container
traf¿c on both routes. More aggregate traf¿c is
expected on these routes, especially running
to and from Stratford and Thameside. The
RUS looks at the forecast volumes of traf¿c
on these routes and proposes a series of
enhancements in order to meet this growth.
Summary of Strategy
The strategy, which has emerged from detailed
analysis and extensive consultation work, is
developed in Chapter 9 of this document and a
summary of the strategy (reproduced from that
chapter) is presented below.
Strategy in Control Period 3
(to 2009)
The most pressing issue on the routes is
providing capacity for rapidly increasing
numbers of passengers during the peak and
accommodating freight traf¿c. A number of
performance issues have also been raised.
Extra track capacity cannot be delivered in
CP3. However, the development work will
start for all of the measures proposed for
implementation in CP4. Smaller scale works
for delivery in CP3 will concentrate on the
delivery of performance improvements.
Performance improvement schemes that are
trains. On the Tilbury Loop and the Ockendon
recommended are:
branch, extending the platforms to handle
Q Alterations to signal spacing at West Ham
in order to allow more trains to call without
affecting performance.
12-car trains is recommended: First, on the
Ockendon branch as crowding is worse now
on trains that serve this route; and then on the
route via Rainham so that longer trains can be
Q Extension of the bay platform at Grays to
handle 8-car trains.
Q Linespeed improvements between Barking
and Upminster and on the rural routes.
Q Bi-directional signalling between Marks Tey
and Colchester.
operated as demand dictates and as rolling
stock becomes available.
On the GE route, replacement of the rolling
stock used on services running between
Norwich and Liverpool St with new trains is
proposed. The introduction of a modern Àeet
of rolling stock suitably con¿gured to carry
Q Reviewing the Rules of the Plan and
adjusting them appropriately to improve the
robustness of the timetable.
passengers on this important inter-city route
is recommended. It is proposed to use rolling
stock that is not hauled by a locomotive with a
A number of these items are already in
DVT unit and it is expected that this can add
development.
around 1,000 seats during the morning peak
while maintaining levels of passenger comfort
(2009 – 2014)
and providing enough seats for passengers
During CP4 increasing service frequency on
the RUS Draft for Consultation that there is a
the Great Eastern route and train lengthening
¿nancial business case for implementing this
on all three routes into London during the
element of the strategy.
morning peak is recommended. This requires
It is proposed that up to an additional three
modest changes to infrastructure. Works to
trains an hour on the GEML operating between
improve performance on the West Anglia and
outer-suburban stations and London Liverpool
Great Eastern routes are planned to be carried
Street are introduced. One additional train an
out. Initial work on the development of the
hour would run from Southend and two on the
major capacity scheme on the West Anglia
main line to serve Chelmsford and Colchester,
route is also planned. The strategy outlined
though the decision on where these trains
here is entirely consistent with the Strategic
start in the morning will be a decision for the
Business Plan submission to the Of¿ce of Rail
operator and funder. Paths for these trains
Regulation (ORR) and is required to meet the
can be released by calling all services on
Department for Transport’s (DfT) High Level
the main line at Stratford. To accomplish this
Output Speci¿cation (HLOS) requirements.
it is proposed that Stratford Platform 10A is
On the Thameside route more 12-car services
extended to accommodate 12-car trains so
are proposed to be run on the main line route
that the train service frequency increase can
during the morning and evening peak periods.
be realised without restricting the quantum
The platforms already accommodate 12-car
of trains that operate at full (12-car) length.
who now have to stand. It was established in
5
Calling all services at Stratford will also
recommended to facilitate this. Some track
improve connectivity by offering interchange
circuit works are also necessary.
with London Underground, London Overground
and DLR services to all passengers on the GE
route. This is expected to even out passenger
loadings on trains (those that call at Stratford
are more crowded than those that do not) and
alleviate station congestion at Liverpool Street.
The extension of the Fambridge Loop on the
Southminster branch is also proposed to allow
the operation of additional 12-car trains from
Southminster giving the operator the Àexibility
to allocate rolling stock ef¿ciently to meet
demand and ensure that full length trains can
run on this route. The operation of the extra
trains will require power supply upgrades and
additional berthing.
It is proposed that running trains of up to
9-car length on all West Anglia inner-suburban
services (i.e. Chingford, En¿eld Town,
Cheshunt via Southbury and Hertford East
services) to accommodate peak demand is
re-introduced. Shorter trains would continue to
serve inner stations off-peak. This will require
some minor works at stations along the routes
to ensure that modern standards are met
though most platforms and the berthing at
Chingford can handle 9-car trains already. The
use of selective door opening (SDO) at Stoke
Newington is recommended where a platform
extension would otherwise be needed requiring
extensive work (estimated to cost around £20
Two extra trains an hour on the GE route from
million). It is recommended that the minor
Chadwell Heath to Liverpool St are proposed
works are carried out and then that the rolling
as well as starting services that currently run
stock is replaced as it comes up for renewal or
from Ilford at Chadwell Heath to better serve
is cascaded to other routes. A Àeet with SDO
passengers at inner-suburban stations. To
capability will be required. Consideration should
accomplish this, construction of a turn-back
also be given to the internal con¿guration of the
facility at Chadwell Heath is recommended to
rolling stock. High passenger capacity stock
maintain or improve performance.
(such as that being built for operation on the
The replacement of the OLE on the GE route
from Liverpool St to Chelmsford and Southend
is proposed to signi¿cantly reduce delays.
NLL) would help meet the predicted increases
in passenger numbers on the inner-suburban
routes over the longer term and improve train
performance at peak times.
It is proposed that 12-car trains are introduced
on West Anglia outer-suburban services
operating between Cambridge and Stansted
Airport and London Liverpool Street. The peak
services running from Cambridge are the most
crowded in the Greater Anglia RUS area and
very high rates of growth are predicted on the
route as the M11 corridor and Stansted Airport
are developed. It is recommended that all
remaining platforms on the route are extended
to handle 12-car trains (a number of the busier
6
It is proposed to introduce a shuttle service
operating between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters
in peak hours as demand necessitates. The
building of a power operated turnback at Seven
Sisters will be required to facilitate this with
acceptable performance. The turnback will also
serve to improve performance during perturbed
running on the Southbury Loop. The shuttle
service will permit the provision of four trains an
hour at all stations on the Southbury Loop.
stations already have 12-car platforms) and
The strategy recommendations would enlarge
a new island platform be built at Cambridge.
the Àeets of passenger trains operated by c2c
This will allow the Àexibility to provide
and ‘one’ railway. Analysis has shown that
services where demand dictates and the
additional stabling facilities would be required
island platform at Cambridge will allow 12-car
at Harwich Parkeston Quay, Cambridge (or
services to operate on both the West Anglia
Orient Way or elsewhere in West Anglia)
and Great Northern routes. Additional berthing
including CET, tanking and staff facilities.
capacity and upgrades to power supply are
A review of the capacity and provision of
light maintenance facilities would also be
the Ipswich – Lowestoft service to hourly has
appropriate across all routes in the region.
also been examined but this improvement
The removal of at-grade crossings on the
WAML to improve performance on the route
and as part of the early works for four-tracking
the route is recommended. The removal
and replacement where appropriate of three
level crossings between Tottenham Hale and
Waltham Cross has been evaluated (using
the RSSB model) and found to demonstrate
value for money as a stand-alone road/
rail performance scheme. As a result, it is
recommended that the level crossings are
removed/replaced regardless of whether
funding is committed for the capacity
enhancement proposed in CP5.
It is proposed that freight growth is
accommodated on both the GEML and on the
cross country route. The opportunity to run
more trains via the GEML is limited as many
of the off-peak freight paths (two an hour) are
already used and it is therefore anticipated
that growth will be focussed on the cross
country route. Gauge clearance and works at
requires detailed assessment of level
crossings. This work is in hand, but it is not
possible for frequency enhancements on the
East Suffolk Line to be a recommendation
in this RUS in absence of the study results.
Further improvements to services between
Cambridge and Norwich have been looked at
but additional infrastructure would be required
to enable these services to operate. However,
if road pricing is to be implemented in Norwich
and/or Cambridge additional funding would
be available to provide increased capacity to
serve these cities.
During CP4 further development and
implementation of performance projects,
including the doubling of Haughley Junction,
removing the restrictions on Class 6 freight
trains and the full commissioning of Ely West
Curve is recommended. The development of
further small scale enhancements to improve
train performance to support meeting the
HLOS reliability speci¿cation is also proposed.
Ipswich Yard are already committed (funded
Access to the Network was also highlighted
through the TIF and a Section 106 planning
as a gap in the RUS. A range of measures
agreement with Hutchison Ports UK). Further
is proposed to improve access to the railway
gauge and capacity increases are proposed
including: providing additional car parking; and
to provide at least ¿ve additional commercially
building new stations to serve developments
usable paths a day to the WCML, three on top
on the fringes of existing settlements, subject
of that between Ipswich and Peterborough
to additional funding being raised – especially
and nine additional usable paths a day to
from developers and train operators.
South Yorkshire. This scheme is currently in
development and is funded from the TIF.
On the cross country services it is
(2014 – 2019)
recommended that peak capacity on local
On each of the routes into London the
services is increased by the TOCs in line
continuation of train lengthening through
with demand, making use of available rolling
CP5 to deliver additional capacity to
stock. The case for increasing service
accommodate increasing passenger demand is
frequency to hourly has been examined and
recommended. It is anticipated that most train
it is recommended that this is implemented
lengthening in CP5 will be during the shoulder
between Ipswich and Peterborough in
peak hours (as most or all high-peak trains will
conjunction with industry funders and a review
be running at full length by then) and so will be
of the timetable to ensure that the quantum
less effective at providing for passenger needs
of cross country freight paths intended by
than the train lengthening proposed for CP4.
the proposed upgrade are delivered. Moving
7
On West Anglia the running of up to an
work will include improvements at Leicester
additional six trains an hour at peak times is
and will enable at least 14 daily paths to be
proposed. Two of these would run through to
available between Ipswich and the WCML.
London Liverpool Street and four would run
to Stratford as an alternative terminus. It is
anticipated that this will serve the proposed
Stratford City Development, relieve crowding
on services to Liverpool St by providing a link
to the LUL Victoria Line at Tottenham Hale
and enhancing connectivity by providing new
links to the LUL Central and Jubilee Lines
and the DLR at Stratford. It is recommended
that the WAML route via Tottenham Hale is
four-tracked between Coppermill Junction
and Broxbourne Junction to provide adequate
capacity to facilitate the extra services. A
second rail tunnel will need to be built and an
additional platform edge provided to increase
capacity into and out of Stansted Airport so
allowing some extra trains to run between
the airport and Liverpool St. This proposal
provides a long term solution to the predicted
increasing passenger demand on this route
that is anticipated as the M11 corridor and
Stansted Airport are developed.
Crossrail is due to be operational during CP5.
A key feature of this scheme is the delivery
of 10-car running on GE inner services and
the running of these on new lines through
central London. The RUS supports the outputs
of Crossrail and the rail industry is working
with the scheme’s promoters to ensure that
capacity is preserved for other passenger and
freight services alongside those planned to
use the new infrastructure. A further advantage
of the scheme is the capacity that will be
released between Stratford and Liverpool St.
Strategy after Control Period 5
(from 2019)
The capacity released on the GE route from
the diversion of inner-suburban services to
Crossrail could be used to continue West
Anglia services to Liverpool St via Stratford
(though bene¿ts from this have not been
included in the assessment of the business
case of the strategy). This would require
moving the lines across at Stratford or the
the Àeets of passenger trains operated by
construction of a grade separated junction to
c2c and ‘one’ railway. Analysis has shown
link the WA route with the ‘E’ lines. Along with
that additional stabling facilities would be
the four-tracking (that has been established
required at Gidea Park and Ilford, in line with
offers value for money by itself) this could
the proposals in the Crossrail project, including
be used to provide a signi¿cant number of
CET, tanking and staff facilities. A review of the
additional inner-suburban services to
capacity and provision of light maintenance
operate from West Anglia to Liverpool St.
facilities would also be appropriate across all
The construction of the proposed Hall Farm
routes in the region.
Curve to link the Chingford route to Stratford
Service frequency improvements to the
would permit the running of Chingford services
Norwich – Cambridge service (to half hourly)
to Liverpool St via Stratford and release
has been assessed. The work showed that a
capacity through Hackney Downs and
half hourly service would not offer value for
Bethnal Green.
money until Ely North Junction is doubled and
On the GE outer services the opportunity to
so it is proposed that the service should be
increase capacity at the busiest times of the
considered for implementation when renewal
day will be limited once the options proposed
of the junction is due (during CP5).
in CP4 have been implemented. It is proposed
Further upgrading work is recommended on the
to investigate alternatives to meet longer term
cross country route for freight during CP5. This
passenger demand growth. One proposal
put forward during consultation originated in
8
the London to Ipswich Multi – Modal Study which
suggested four-tracking the line between Ipswich and
Chelmsford and then building a new line across to
meet the LUL Central Line. This would in turn need to
be enhanced to allow additional services to run through
to Leytonstone. At Leytonstone the services could then
access Crossrail 2 (once it has been built) and run on
to central London. No development work has been
undertaken for this proposal as part of this RUS.
As freight growth continues further upgrading will
also be required on the cross country route to
remove further bottlenecks.
Conclusions
The strategy contains a range of measures that
make effective and ef¿cient use of rail capacity,
and develop that capacity in accordance with the
requirements of those who fund the railway. These
measures have been selected on the basis of
their value for money, deliverability and potential
affordability. Some measures proposed have no
material cost; some will cover their costs ¿nancially;
and others will require investment that is justi¿ed by
economic bene¿ts. The strategy for each route and
the overall strategy have been appraised using DfT
criteria and values. Strong business cases justify
the required investment on each corridor and as an
overall strategy for the region.
The RUS considers the relationship between
the proposals and the Thameslink and Crossrail
projects. The plans are entirely compatible and
complementary. It also takes account of the proposed
development of Stansted Airport and Felixstowe,
Bathside Bay and London Gateway Ports.
On-going development work from the RUS was used
to inform the Strategic Business Plan, which forms
the industry’s response to the Government’s HLOS.
The proposals in this RUS are entirely consistent
with the SBP submission. The proposals for Control
Period 4 are required to meet the HLOS metrics.
9
Contents
10
1.
Background
1.1
1.2
Introduction
Structure of the document
2.
Scope and planning context
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Geographic scope
Economic context
Timeframe
Planning context – Department for Transport (DfT)
East of England Regional Assembly and the draft East of England Plan
Greater London Authority and Transport for London
Linkages to other planning strategies
Assumptions about other schemes
12
12
14
16
16
16
16
18
18
19
19
21
3.
Current capacity, demand and delivery
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Train operators
Pro¿le of the freight market
Pro¿le of the passenger market
Stations
Berthing
Infrastructure
Current network capacity and utilisation
Performance
Engineering Access – current situation
Summary of baseline gaps and issues
22
4.
Forecast of change – wider demand
62
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Context
Changes to population, housing and employment
Freight growth issues by commodity
Transport proposals and enhancement aspirations
Regional/Local funding
Summary of gaps identi¿ed
62
62
68
72
74
76
5.
Forecast of change – predicted demand increases
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Introduction
Passenger demand
Freight demand
Summary of gaps
22
22
28
43
45
46
47
54
58
60
78
78
78
88
95
6.
Forecasts of change –
infrastructure and train services
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Introduction
Recently completed schemes
Planned schemes
Renewals
7.
Strategic options
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Summary of gaps
Option de¿nition
Assessment of options
Summary
8.
Consultation process and overview
8.1
8.2
8.3
The Draft for Consultation
Consultation responses
Key themes in the consultation responses
9.
Strategy
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
Introduction
Key issues addressed
Recommended strategy
Passenger service proposals
Freight schemes
Contingent projects
Ongoing workstreams
Alternative growth scenarios
10. Next steps
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
Introduction
Network Rail Route Plans
Access Charges Review
High Level Output Speci¿cation (HLOS)
Ongoing access to the network
Review
Appendices
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
Rural routes – loadings on busiest trains
Berthing summary
Congested stations and station facilities data
Delay data
Freight path analysis by commodity
GEML capacity utilisation
Glossary of terms
96
96
96
96
99
100
100
101
104
122
124
124
124
126
128
128
128
131
136
144
146
147
148
150
150
150
150
150
150
151
152
153
164
166
174
178
180
183
11
1. Background
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1
Following the Rail Review in 2004 and
the Railways Act 2005, The Of¿ce of Rail
Regulation (ORR) modi¿ed Network Rail’s
network licence in June 2005 to require
the establishment of RUSs across the
network. Simultaneously, the ORR published
guidelines on RUSs. A RUS is de¿ned
in Condition 7 of the network licence as,
in respect of the network or a part of the
“the effective and ef¿cient use
and development of the capacity
available, consistent with funding
that is, or is reasonably likely to
become, available during the period
of the route utilisation strategy
and with the licence holder’s
performance of the duty”.
Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation
Strategies, June 2005
network1, a strategy which will promote the
route utilisation objective.The route utilisation
objective is de¿ned as:
1
12
The de¿nition of network in Condition 7 of Network Rail’s network licence includes, where the licence holder has any estate or interest in,
or right over a station or light maintenance depot, such station or light maintenance depot.
1.1.2
1.1.4
The “duty” referred to in the objective is Network
The process is designed to be inclusive. Joint
Rail’s general duty under Licence Condition 7 in
work is encouraged between industry parties,
relation to the operation, maintenance, renewal
who share ownership of each RUS through
and development of the network. The ORR
its Industry Stakeholder Management Group.
Guidelines also identify two purposes of RUSs,
There is also extensive informal consultation
and state that Network Rail should balance the
outside the rail industry by means of a Wider
need for predictability with the need to enable
Stakeholder Group.
innovation. Such strategies should:
a) “enable Network Rail and
persons providing services relating
to railways better to plan their
businesses, and funders better to
plan their activities; and
b) set out feasible options for
network capacity, timetable outputs
and network capability, and funding
implications of those options for
persons providing services to
railways and funders.”
1.1.5
The ORR guidelines require options to be
appraised. This is initially undertaken using the
DfT’s appraisal criteria and, in Scotland, the
Scottish Executive’s STAG appraisal criteria.
To support this appraisal work RUSs seek to
capture implications for all industry parties
and wider societal implications in order to
understand which options maximise net industry
and societal bene¿t, rather than that of any
individual organisation or affected group.
1.1.6
RUSs occupy a particular place in the planning
activity for the rail industry. They utilise
Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation
Strategies, June 2005
available input from processes such as the
DfT’s Regional Planning Assessments and
1.1.3
Wales Planning Assessment, and Transport
The guidelines also set out principles
Scotland’s Scotland Planning Assessment.
for RUS development and explain how
The recommendations of a RUS and the
Network Rail should consider the position
evidence of relationships and dependencies
of the railway funding authorities, the likely
revealed in the work to reach them in turn form
changes in demand and the potential
an input to decisions made by industry funders
for changes in supply. Network Rail has
and suppliers on issues such as franchise
developed a RUS Manual which consists of
speci¿cations, investment plans or the High
a consultation guide and a technical guide.
Level Output Speci¿cations.
These explain the processes we will use
to comply with the Licence Condition and
the guidelines. These and other documents
relating to individual RUSs and the overall
RUS programme are available on our website
at www.networkrail.co.uk.
13
1.1.7
issues are highlighted. In Chapters 4 and 5, the
Since the Greater Anglia (GA) RUS Draft for
drivers of change in future years are considered,
Consultation was published, the Government
and estimates of future demand are presented
has published the High Level Output
together with the aspirations of stakeholders.
Speci¿cation (HLOS) within its recent White
Paper “Delivering a Sustainable Railway”. The
document lays down the capacity, safety and
reliability targets for the industry to meet during
Control Period (CP) 4 up to 2014, as well as
its view on long term plans for the industry.
In order to respond to the HLOS and the
White Paper Network Rail has published its
Strategic Business Plan (SBP), which details
1.2.4
Chapter 6 discusses the schemes for
enhancement and improvement on the
routes covered by the study, as well as those
on adjacent routes. This helps to identify
the bene¿ts which will Àow from these
improvements, as well as the potential for
synergy between committed schemes and
those developed by the RUS.
the schemes (developed in the RUS) to meet
the HLOS targets. The SBP also contains the
1.2.5
rail industry’s view on longer term strategy.
A key step in the process is the sifting of the
The ¿nal version of the RUS therefore not
issues and analysis of the future year forecasts
only proposes the strategies required to meet
in order to identify gaps and develop options
growth within the original RUS timescales
for addressing them. These gaps and options
but also contains the view on the longer term
are appraised in Chapter 7.
strategy for meeting strong regional growth.
1.2.6
1.1.8
Chapter 8 covers the consultation process,
Network Rail will take account of the
including a summary of the responses
recommendations from the RUSs when
received and how these are taken into account
carrying out its activities; particularly they will
in the ¿nal document.
be used to help to inform the allocation of
1.2.7
capacity on the network through application of
Chapter 9 deals with the strategy itself
the normal Network Code processes.
and covers the key considerations and
1.1.9
recommendations for both a better use of
The ORR will take account of established
resources and investment proposals for
RUSs when exercising its functions.
meeting growth. The recommendations are
summarised in terms of short, medium and
1.2 Structure of the document
long term interventions. The document also
1.2.1
shows how these interventions meet the HLOS
The remainder of this chapter describes the
targets as well as describing the strategy for
structure of the RUS.
meeting long term growth.
1.2.2
1.2.8
Chapter 2 covers the geographic scope of
Finally Chapter 10 discusses the mechanisms
the RUS, the time horizon and the planning
for implementing the recommendations in the RUS.
context within which it is being developed.
1.2.9
1.2.3
The appendices contain supporting analysis
The current capabilities and usage of the
on the options developed in the RUS.
strategic routes within the Greater Anglia area
are summarised in Chapter 3, drawing on input
from key industry stakeholders, and particular
14
15
2. Scope and planning context
2.1 Geographic scope
The RUS considers the effect of options for
2.1.1
the study area on other adjacent routes and
The Greater Anglia RUS covers the whole of
vice versa.
East Anglia and includes the Thameside route,
the Great Eastern and the West Anglia Main
Lines (WAML), as well as the rural branches.
2.2 Economic context
2.2.1
The area covered by the GA RUS is one of
2.1.2
The RUS coverage by strategic route is
as follows:
Strategic Route 5 – West Anglia (WA):
Q Liverpool St – Kings Lynn
Q Southbury Loop and the WA branches
(Chingford, En¿eld Town, Hertford East
and Stansted Airport)
Q Hitchin – Shepreth Branch Jn, south
the fastest growing and most economically
important in the country. The ¿nancial districts
of London are within the catchment area of the
RUS and these bring substantial bene¿ts to
the UK and its economy. London is 25 percent
more productive than the rest of the UK and
makes a net contribution of between £9billion
and £15billion to the national exchequer.
2.2.2
The RUS area also includes key ports, with
of Cambridge (in conjunction with the
Felixstowe being the country’s largest container
ECML RUS)
port handling around 40 percent of the UK
Q Haughley Jn – Ely – Peterborough
deep sea container trade. With so many of
the goods consumed by the country being
Q Cambridge – Chippenham Jn, east of
Newmarket
Q Ely – Trowse Jn, south of Norwich
Q Coppermill Jn, north of Clapton – Stratford
Strategic Route 6 (part) – Thameside:
Q Fenchurch St – Shoeburyness (including
manufactured overseas the container traf¿c is
vital to the national economy. Other economic
drivers include the growth in the West Anglia
and Thames Gateway corridors as well as the
planned expansion of Stansted airport.
2.2.3
Good rail links between the region and the
the Tilbury Loop via Rainham and the
capital to serve the jobs market, as well
branch via Ockendon)
as capacity to ensure the smooth Àow of
Strategic Route 7 – Great Eastern (GE):
container traf¿c from the container ports are
thus key themes of this RUS.
Q Liverpool St – Norwich (GE Main Line (GEML)
Q GE suburban branches (Romford,
Southend, Southminster, Clacton,
2.3.1
Walton, Harwich and Braintree)
The RUS makes proposals for the period to
Q GE rural routes (the Felixstowe, East
Suffolk, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth,
Sheringham and Sudbury branches)
16
2.3 Timeframe
2019 in the context of likely requirements over
the next 30 years.
Greater Anglia Rail Utilisation Strategy – Geographic Scope
Key
Single line
Double track
Sheringham
Cromer
Multi Track
Regional interchanges
KINGS LYNN
Great
Yarmouth
NORWICH
Middleton Towers
Lowestoft
Thetford
Diss
Peterborough Whitemoor
Yard
Sizewell
ELY
Bury St Edmunds
Felixstowe
CAMBRIDGE
Letchworth
Hertford East
IPSWICH
Harwich
Parkeston Quay
STANSTED
AIRPORT
Sudbury
Manningtree
BISHOPS STORTFORD
Harlow Mill
Walton-onthe-Naze
Colchester
Town
Marks
Tey
Harlow Town
Enfield Town
Harwich
Town
COLCHESTER
Braintree
Clacton
Broxbourne
Witham
Chelmsford
Chingford
Shenfield
Seven
Sisters
Walthamstow
Central
Southminster
Romford
LONDON
LIVERPOOL STREET
Southend Victoria
Stratford
Barking
Upminster
Pitsea
Shoeburyness
Southend
Central
Basildon
LONDON
FENCHURCH STREET
Thames Haven
Grays
Tilbury Freight
Container Terminal
17
2.4 Planning context - Department
for Transport (DfT)
2.4.1
The Government’s White Paper “Delivering a
Sustainable Railway” and High Level Output
Q Make more use of previously developed
land and existing buildings, and use
land more ef¿ciently, in meeting future
development needs.
Q Meet the region’s identi¿ed housing
Speci¿cation (HLOS) (for 2009 – 2014)
needs, and in particular provide suf¿cient
were published in July 2007. The RUS
affordable housing.
recommendations are designed to inform the
rail industry’s response to the Government’s
requirements within the HLOS timeframe and
over the longer term.
Q Protect and enhance the built and historic
environment and encourage good quality
design and use of sustainable construction
methods for all new development.
2.5 East of England Regional
Assembly and the draft East of
England Plan
Q Protect and enhance the natural
2.5.1
Q Minimise the demand for use of resources,
environment, including its biodiversity and
landscape character.
In 2004 the East of England Regional
particularly water, energy supplies,
Assembly issued their draft Plan (covering the
minerals, aggregates, and other natural
growth of population, housing and employment
resources, whether ¿nite or renewable, by
in the Region) for consultation. In response to
encouraging ef¿cient use, re-use, or use
the consultation, the Secretary of State issued
of recycled alternatives, and trying to meet
revised growth numbers in December 2006.
needs with minimal impact.
The East of England’s draft Plan also sets out
the Region’s objectives:
Q Increase prosperity and employment
Q Minimise the environmental impact of
travel, by reducing the need to travel,
encouraging the use of environmentally
growth to meet identi¿ed employment
friendly modes of transport, and widening
needs of the region, and achieve a more
the choice of modes.
sustainable balance between workers and
jobs.
Q Improve social inclusion and access
Q Ensure that the infrastructure programmes,
whether for transport, utilities or social
infrastructure, will meet current de¿ciencies
to employment, services, leisure and
and development requirements; and that
tourist facilities among those who are
the responsible agencies commit the
disadvantaged.
resources needed to implement these
Q Maintain and enhance cultural diversity
while addressing the distinctive needs of
different parts of the region.
Q Increase the regeneration and renewal of
disadvantaged areas.
Q Deliver more integrated patterns of land
use, movement, activity and development,
including employment and housing.
programmes and co-ordinate delivery with
development.
Q Minimise Àooding risk.
Thus the main thrust of the regional objectives
is to cater for growth in a sustainable way
by meeting housing and employment
needs, whilst minimising the impact on the
environment. As the region seeks to achieve a
better balance between population and jobs by
Q Sustain and enhance the vitality and
viability of town centres.
providing access to local employment, the size
of the population growth in various parts of the
region means that there will a strong need for
out commuting to London.
18
Rail has a key role to play by providing an
2.6.3
environmentally friendly mode of transport for
Objectives 2 and 5 are relevant to the
access to jobs in London, as well as improved
development of the freight services which
links to jobs, services and leisure facilities
operate through the capital, whilst transiting
within the region. In addition rail freight is of key
to/from the GEML and Thameside. An
importance in conveying increasing volumes of
extract from TfL’s Freight on Rail in London
aggregate and maritime containers to/from and
publication states:
across the region in a sustainable manner (as
reÀected in the 10th and 13th bullets above).
2.6 Greater London Authority and
Transport for London
“123 million tons of freight pounded London’s
roads in 2002. That equates to 450,000
freight vehicle movements crossing the GLA
boundary every day; HGVs account for 56,000
movements alone. Goods vehicle traf¿c on the
2.6.1
major roads in London went up by 17 percent
In 2003, the Mayor of London published
between 1993 and 2002 and movements
the London Plan which is the key planning
are getting heavier with articulated vehicle
document for the capital. This document
movement increasing most (by 21 percent).
considers forecasts for employment and
There are another 250 million tonnes of road
population growth, together with the main
freight movement every year to and from the
locations which could be developed to meet
South East region, with trade from mainland
that growth. In addition, it sets out the Mayor’s
Europe transiting London and the South East
six key objectives for London:
on top of that. Much of this traf¿c passes on
Q To accommodate London’s growth within
trunk roads used daily by Londoners.”
its boundaries without encroaching on
The Cross London RUS looked at freight
open spaces.
growth and routing issues. The relationship
Q To make London a better city for people to
live in.
Q To make London a more prosperous city
with strong and diverse economic growth.
Q To promote social inclusion and tackle
between via London and cross country freight
routes is developed further in this RUS.
2.7 Linkages to other planning
strategies
2.7.1
deprivation and discrimination.
The RUS covers three important radial routes
Q To improve London’s accessibility.
from London, which link the capital to different
parts of East Anglia, as well as containing a
Q To make London a more attractive, well-
designed and green city.
2.6.2
Objectives 4, 5 and 6 are particularly relevant to
the RUS and underpin the Rail Corridor Plans
(RCP) produced by Transport for London (TfL).
number of rural and cross country lines. The
RUS is therefore related to a number of other
strategies and policies:
Q The Cross London RUS, which looked at
the links between its routes and a number
of other lines radiating out of the capital.
To promote accessibility and social inclusion,
TfL is keen to see metro-style frequencies on a
Q TfL’s Eastern RCP, which has been
number of suburban passenger services in East
prepared to consider the service
and North East London.
speci¿cation options for service
improvements over the suburban routes
leading out of London.
19
Q The East Coast Ports planning inquiries
Q In a similar vein the Eddington Transport
covering the proposed development of
Study highlighted the pivotal role that
Felixstowe (South), Bathside Bay and
transport plays in the UK’s economic
London Gateway Port. These proposals will
productivity, growth and stability (within
increase the demand to convey maritime
the Government’s broader commitment to
containers over the GA routes.
sustainable development). The report also
Q The ECML RUS, which is looking at services
out of Kings Cross to Peterborough,
Cambridge and the North East.
emphasised the importance of maximising
the use of existing transport corridors,
which is a central objective of the RUS
programme. The Government issued its
Q The Freight RUS, which has been
response to the Eddington report in a
established by the ORR and which
further White Paper published in October
contains industry agreed forecasts for
2007. In addition, recent announcements
future freight growth (these have been
by the DfT support the enhancement of
fed into this RUS). The Freight RUS also
infrastructure to international gateways,
identi¿ed a number of capacity gaps (gaps
such as Felixstowe, in order to generate
D-H) for the GA RUS to address.
greater volumes of freight moved by rail.
Q This RUS takes account of the existing
Q Finally in considering the freight context,
Midland Main Line RUS, produced by the
it is worth quoting from the Secretary of
former Strategic Rail Authority (SRA);
State’s statement on rail freight made to
it will also inform the forthcoming East
the House of Commons on 19 July 2005,
Midlands RUS when considering freight
the ¿fth bullet point being particularly
pathing requirements on the Felixstowe
relevant to the RUS:
- Nuneaton route.
1. Continue to support the principle of
Q The DfT has published the Regional
Planning Assessment for the East of
incremental access charges for freight
operators.
England and this document includes
a review of the radial routes out of
London serving East Anglia and the
East of England. The review considers
several proposals, which have now been
developed within the RUS, especially
understand its needs when setting the
strategy for the rail network, and to provide
the greatest possible certainty of access.
3. Ensure grant funding is targeted to
train lengthening on key routes. The
deliver the maximum bene¿ts in terms
RUS does, however, extend the capacity
of reducing congestion, pollution and
improvements to include additional
accidents.
services and additional tracks, in order to
accommodate the forecast growth.
Q In October 2006 HM Treasury published
the Stern Review on the Economics of
Climate Change which estimated that the
dangers of unabated climate change could
be equivalent to 20 percent of GDP or
more per year. Thus there is an increasing
focus on the environmental bene¿ts of
4. Work to ensure that regional and local
planning decisions reÀect government
priorities relating to the sustainable
movement of goods.
5. Work with the industry and Network Rail
to establish how freight growth can be
accommodated on the network.
6. Work with the devolved administrations,
modes of transport with lower emissions,
and with the EU to ensure a consistent UK
especially the movement of people and
and Europe-wide approach to rail freight.
freight by rail.
20
2. Work with the freight industry to
2.8 Assumptions about other
schemes
2.8.1
In considering future years in the RUS
forecasts, it has been assumed that only
committed (funded) schemes will go ahead.
These are assumed to be the following:
Q The Public Private Partnership (PPP)
scheme for London Underground.
Q East London Line Extension Project
including the connection to the North
London Line.
Q DLR extensions to Stratford International
and to Woolwich Arsenal.
Q Integrated Kent Franchise (IKF) running on
HS1 and the freight interchange sidings at
Ripple Lane (Dagenham).
Q The London 2012 Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games (The Games) and
associated work at Stratford.
Q The North London Line (NLL) upgrade
works (for TfL London Rail).
Q The freight gauging and capacity works
between Felixstowe and South Yorkshire
being delivered as part of the Hutchison
Ports UK (HPUK) Section 106 Agreement.
2.8.2
The impact of the East Coast Ports study is
also tested.
2.8.3
Following the end of the RUS consultation
period, it was announced that funding was
in place for both Thameslink and Crossrail.
Whilst these schemes were not included in the
original work on the options, the opportunity that
they give and their synergy with the RUS are
discussed in both Chapter 7 and Chapter 9.
21
3. Current capacity, demand and delivery
3.1 Train operators
into four market-based groups, each led
3.1.1
by their own Managing Director. These are
At present, ¿ve passenger train operators run
Energy (which includes coal), Construction
services over the lines covered by this RUS.
(which includes domestic waste), Industrial
These are:
(which includes metals and petroleum),
and Network (which includes international,
Q ‘one’ railway, which operate services
automotive and express parcels services).
from Liverpool Street over both the Great
Eastern Main Line to Norwich and West
Q Freightliner, which has two divisions:
Anglia Main Line to Kings Lynn. ‘one’ also
Freightliner Intermodal is the largest haulier
operates services on the Great Eastern
of containerised traf¿c, predominantly in
and West Anglia branches and over the
the deep sea market; Freightliner Heavy
rural routes in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Haul is a signi¿cant conveyor of bulk
goods, predominantly coal, construction
Q c2c, which operate the services on the
materials and petroleum.
Thameside route between Fenchurch Street
and Shoeburyness via the main line and the
Tilbury Loop via Rainham and via Ockendon.
Q GB Railfreight (GBRf), which is a
signi¿cant operator of deep sea container
trains and infrastructure services. GBRf
Q First Capital Connect (FCC), which operate
services from Kings Cross to Cambridge
also runs a number of services for bulk
market customers.
and Kings Lynn.
Q Direct Rail Services (DRS), which operates
Q East Midlands Trains, which operate the
traf¿c for the nuclear industry in the UK.
services from the Midlands to Norwich (run
In the last few years the company has
by Central Trains prior to re-franchising).
expanded into running services for the
Q CrossCountry, which operate the services
domestic and short sea intermodal markets.
from the Midlands to Stansted Airport (run
by Central Trains prior to re-franchising).
3.1.2
No other passenger operators regularly run
services into East Anglia.
3.1.3
All of the current freight operators run services
that pass into East Anglia and these operators
are listed below:
Q English Welsh and Scottish Railway
22
3.2 Pro¿le of the freight market
3.2.1
The following are the key inÀuences which
generate rail freight in the route;
Q A thriving economy, which draws
aggregates for construction into the area.
Q Raw materials from several production sites
(sand, petroleum products and furnace feed).
Q The Port of Felixstowe and Thameside
(EWS), which is the largest freight operator
ports. This is mainly, though not
in the UK and has a licence to operate
exclusively, Intermodal (container)
European services. EWS runs services for
business. Developers have proposals for
a wide range of markets. It is organised
signi¿cant port expansions.
Q The concentration of heavy industry along
the Thames corridor.
stations and cement works and distribution of
the rail industry’s own construction materials.
3.2.2
3.2.3
In addition to these main themes, rail freight
The overall picture by commodity is as follows:
serves a number of other locally important
roles including taking waste out of London,
serving other industrial sites such as power
Aggregates/building materials
The terminals involved in this business are
listed in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1 Aggregates rail terminals in the study area.
Location
Commodities
Origins
/destinations
Main routing
Volume
Barham
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely,
Bury St Edmunds
3 tpw
Bow
Aggregate/Building
materials
E.Midlands/Yorkshire
MML/ECML, NLL
8 tpw
Broxbourne
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely,
Cambridge
5 tpw
Bury St Edmunds
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely.
3 tpw
Chelmsford
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely,
Ipswich
1 tpw
Chesterton Junction
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely
5 tpw
Dagenham
Aggregate
Mendips
NLL, Barking
8 tpw
Ely
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough
3 tpw
Harlow Mill
Aggregate
1. Mendips
1. NLL,Cheshunt
10 tpw
2. E. Midlands
2. Peterborough,
Ely, Cambridge
Receiving terminals:
Kennett
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely
3 tpw
Parkeston
Aggregate
Mendips
NLL, GE
1 tpw
PurÀeet
Aggregate
Mendips
NLL, Barking
5 tpw
Trowse
Aggregate
E. Midlands
Peterborough, Ely
3 tpw
Forwarding Terminals:
Dagenham
Sand
West London
Barking, NLL
5 tpw
Marks Tey
Sand
West and South
London
GE, NLL
5 tpw
Middleton Towers
Sand for glass
making
North of England
Ely, Peterborough,
ECML.
8 tpw
Ipswich Grif¿n Wharf
Dredged aggregate
East Anglia
GE
Sporadic
23
Table 3.2 Raw material rail terminals in RUS area – other than aggregates.
Location
Commodities
Origins
/destinations
Main routeing
Volume
North Walsham
Gas distillate
Harwich
GE
4 tpw
Lowestoft
Mud oil
Parkeston
GE
Occasional
Snailwell
(Newmarket)
Furnace feed
Kent
Bury, GE, NLL
1 tpw
Thameshaven
Petroleum
products
S. Wales
Barking, NLL
3 tpw
Foxton
Industrial coal
Avonmouth
NLL, Royston
3 tpw
A new aggregate terminal has recently opened
foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) per annum, 27
at West Thurrock (on the Tilbury Loop). Rail
percent of which are moved by rail to a network
features strongly in this market because of its
of terminals throughout the UK. Twenty-¿ve
success in moving signi¿cant tonnages reliably
intermodal trains per day (each way) currently
and economically. The products concerned
serve the port. Trains mostly travel via the
have a relatively low unit value so transport
GE and NLL, the remainder travel over the
costs comprise a large proportion of the end
cross country route from the port via Bury St
price. Rail secures its market share through
Edmunds, Ely and Peterborough. There are
achieving the maximum productive heavy-
also port intermodal terminals at Tilbury (two)
haul payload per train which, typically, for the
and PurÀeet which forward 8 - 10 trains per day
locations listed, means a daily train service
via Barking and the NLL.
with a net payload of at least 1,000 tonnes.
Intermodal traf¿c prospers best on rail where
Terminal operators mainly produce concrete and
long distance haulage is involved, hence the
coated (tarmac) products which are ‘perishable’
predominance of trains passing through the
and need to be manufactured close to end
route from the ports of entry rather than serving
use. Thus London, as the biggest focus for
destinations within it. In fact despite very keen
construction activity, has rail depots which reach
competition from road, market share has risen
the fringes of the City though the penetration of
from 17 percent in 1997 to its current level of
the rail hauled business throughout the region is
27 percent. To meet Government’s objectives
shown above.
of more freight by rail, especially to the
Other bulk raw material production/
consumption
Other bulk material traf¿c moved by rail in the
area is listed in Table 3.2.
international gateways, it is important that fast
reliable paths are available for these services.
Ely and Ripple Lane (Barking) are the only
import container receiving terminals on the
route. Whilst the majority of traf¿c passes via
Intermodal business
London, it does not have an intrinsic need to
The presence of the East Coast and Thames
travel via the capital. However, the TIF funded
ports is the major inÀuence on this business
upgrade of Gospel Oak – Barking will assist
in the route. Felixstowe is the UK’s biggest
the Àow of traf¿c through London and alleviate
container port with around 40 percent of UK
the need for freight to cross the GE ML using
deep sea container trade passing through.
the Àat junction at Forest Gate.
This amounts to nearly three million Twenty-
24
General merchandise
The only general merchandise rail traf¿c in the
region is listed in Table 3.3:
Table 3.3 General merchandise rail terminal in the area.
Location
Commodities
Origin
Routing
Volume
Ely
Various
Channel Tunnel.
NLL, Cambridge.
10 tpw
Felixstowe
GE, Cross-country
Specialist freight business
Rail market penetration is currently less
in this sector than that achieved with bulk
Specialist freight movements also occur in
commodities. Rail success tends to require
the area;
long distance, high volume trunk haul into
Q Nuclear traf¿c is moved from two power
large distribution centres.
station rail heads via the GE and the NLL.
Other trainload freight
Q Ministry of Defence trains serve
Apart from that listed above, the other bulk train
Shoeburyness.
services in the Region are shown in Table 3.4:
Table 3.4 Bulk commodity rail terminals in study area.
Location
Commodities
Origins/
destinations
Main routing
Volume
Dagenham
Waste dispatch
Bucks. land¿ll
Barking, NLL
5 tpw
Dagenham (Ford)
Import autos and
auto parts.
Various in UK and
Continent
Barking, NLL
15 tpw
PurÀeet
Import and export
autos
Various
Barking, NLL
5 tpw
Tilbury
Newsprint
Various in UK
Barking, NLL
5 tpw
Whitemoor
Rail infrastructure
related
Anywhere in the
All routes
GA RUS and ECML
(south) area
Varies
25
Summary
3.2.4
The above has emphasised the importance
of the intermodal and aggregate traf¿c in the
GA RUS area. A summary key terminals listed
above is shown in Figure 3.1 and the main
daily freight Àows in the area are shown in
¿gure 3.2. The Freight RUS also identi¿ed a
number of issues for this RUS to address and
these are covered in Chapter 5.
Figure 3.1 Distribution of rail freight terminals in the RUS area
Key
Aggregates Terminal
Other bulk raw materials
Intermodal terminal
General Merchandise
Waste and rail infrastructure
Automotive
Specialist freight
Norwich
Peterborough
Cambridge
Bedford
Ipswich
Milton Keynes
Felixstowe
Harwich
Stevenage
Luton
Reading
26
Figure 3.2 Main daily freight Àows in the Greater Anglia RUS
area in 2006/07
Key
Container
Construction
Sheringham
Channel Tunnel
Cromer
Automobile
Other
KINGS LYNN
Great
Yarmouth
NORWICH
Middleton Towers
Lowestoft
Thetford
Diss
Yard
March
Sizewell
ELY
Bury St Edmunds
Felixstowe
CAMBRIDGE
Letchworth
Hertford East
IPSWICH
Harwich
Parkeston Quay
STANSTED
AIRPORT
Sudbury
Manningtree
Braintree
BISHOPS STORTFORD
Harlow Mill
Walton-onthe-Naze
Colchester
Town
Marks
Tey
Harlow Town
Enfield Town
Harwich
Town
COLCHESTER
Clacton
Broxbourne
Witham
Chelmsford
Chingford
Seven
Sisters
Tottenham
Hale
Walthamstow
Central
Shenfield
Southminster
Romford
LONDON
LIVERPOOL STREET
Southend Victoria
Stratford
Barking
Upminster
Pitsea
Shoeburyness
Southend
Central
Basildon
LONDON
FENCHURCH STREET
Thames Haven
Grays
Tilbury Freight
Container Terminal
The size of the line are in porportion to the size of the particular commodity flows
27
3.3 Pro¿le of the passenger market
London demand
3.3.1
3.3.2
This RUS covers the three important radial
Services from the RUS area terminate
routes serving London and the East of
at Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street
England as well as a number of rural and
stations in the City. These stations primarily
cross country routes.
serve commuters and so passenger use is
A number of data sources have been drawn
characterised by high volumes of arrivals in the
upon and assistance has been received
morning peak and departures in the evening.
from Atkins Transport Planning in analysing
Figure 3.3 shows the passenger usage of
the available information. The primary data
Liverpool Street station, as an example. This
sources are:
con¿rms that the greatest volume of passenger
use occurs during the morning peak during
Q The London Area Travel Survey (LATS)
which was conducted in 2001.
Q Ticket sales data from the MOIRA model
a typical weekday. The analysis shows that offpeak demand growth has been signi¿cant on all
LENNON database.
of the routes into London. However, the analysis
Q Transport for London data from its rail
planning database.
Around 109 million rail journeys are recorded
in the LENNON database in 2005/06 in
the GA RUS area.1 Most of these journeys
are wholly within the area. Fewer than ten
percent originate or end outside of the area.
London attracts more than 60 percent of the
total journeys. Regional centres also attract
has focussed on the morning peak period as
this is the time at which gaps are most likely
to be identi¿ed between demand and service
provision. Reduced price pre-peak season
tickets were promoted on West Anglia and c2c
services to try to encourage early commuting.
c2c believed that few commuters were able
or willing to adjust their morning arrival times
into London and withdrew the reduced price
tickets in 2005. The tickets are still available
on West Anglia but from a reduced number of
signi¿cant passenger Àows. The greatest
stations at a discount of about seven percent
non-London Àows are attracted by Cambridge,
for passengers willing to arrive in London before
Norwich and Chelmsford.
28
into London (Liverpool St plus Fenchurch St) on
which incorporates information from the
Q Network Rail and TOC passenger counts.
1
which there are more than 100,000 journeys
07:15. The tickets are no longer promoted.
LENNON records ticket sales but not travelcards sold at London Underground outlets or journeys made using Oyster cards.
Figure 3.3: Passenger Use of Liverpool Street station
(2005 All Day Recorded Gate Entries plus Exits)
Key
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Gate Entry and Exits (Hourly Moving Average)
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
00:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
09:00
08:00
07:00
06:00
0
Source: Atkins analysis of ‘one’ data
3.3.3
Sales of travelcards are not fully recorded in
the industry systems and information about
journeys made using Oyster cards is not
available. In the rest of this section information
is presented from physical counts of
passengers. It is dif¿cult to identify very short
term growth rates from these data due to the
variability in train loadings from year to year.
However, they give an indication of longer
term changes and a useful snapshot of current
demand and peak crowding.
a typical autumn weekday for each of the
last thirteen years, during which passenger
numbers have increased by more than 30
percent. The chart also shows the total PIXC
(de¿ned in the glossary) capacity of the
rolling stock (which includes an allowance for
standing space which has varied over time)
and the number of seats operated, for years
where that data has been recorded2. Though
considerable variation would be expected
between one day counts, the data shows an
upward trend with a downturn in 2000 (when
City employment fell). Since 2005 loads as
Thameside
an average have been reported (where less
3.3.4
variation would be expected), there have been
The Thameside route carries around
sharp increases in passenger numbers – more
29,000 passengers a day into London in the
than 15 percent over the last two years.
morning peak. Figure 3.4 shows the number
Much of the increase has been in passengers
of passengers counted on the service on
travelling to Docklands.
2
The permitted standing allowance for Class 357 rolling stock was increased from 35 percent to 45 percent of seats on trains that have
permitted standing allowances for PIXC calculation in 2007.
29
Figure 3.4: Thameside am Peak Passenger Loads and Capacities 1995
– 2007
Key
Capacity
Seats (for years where data recorded)
Passengers
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1995
0
1996
5000
Source: Thameside peak counts Autumn 1995 – Autumn 2007
Note: Since 2005 c2c has reported average passenger loads on each train over a number of days over the month when running
was not perturbed.
3.3.5
between 08:00 and 08:59, which is the busiest
Table 3.5 shows the average number of
hour each day. These loads are recorded at
passengers on each of the three routes served
the busiest point for each train which - on this
by c2c into London and the average load
line - is usually at West Ham or Limehouse,
factor (passengers divided by seats expressed
where passengers have the opportunity to
as a percentage) during the morning peak
change onto London Underground and the
and for services arriving at Fenchurch Street
Docklands Light Railway.
Table 3.5: Thameside Passenger Loads (October 2007)
Thameside
08:00 - 08:59
07:00 - 09:59
Passengers
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
Main Line
9,832
121%
18,799
108%
Ockendon Branch
2,653
118%
4,669
119%
Tilbury Loop
2,475
126%
5,548
99%
Source: c2c peak counts data 2007, average passenger numbers at the busiest stop.
30
3.3.6
3.3.8
The load factors indicate that travelling
Examination of the loadings along the routes
conditions for passengers are similar on all
has been possible using the train weighing
the Thameside routes in the busiest hour but
data supplied by c2c. The analysis of these
that crowding is worst on trains running via the
data is shown in Figure 3.5. The thickness
Ockendon branch during the shoulder peak.
of the lines shows how much capacity is
Closer examination of the data shows that ten
provided on each route (measured as the
trains were crowded beyond PIXC capacity
number of carriages) while the colour indicates
(only one of which has no standing allowance
the number of passengers as a percentage
for the purpose of PIXC) and that around
of seats provided, i.e. how demand builds
4,300 passengers (15 percent) had to stand.
up along each of the routes. Inspection of
3.3.7
Comparable passenger numbers were
published from Autumn 2005 in the RUS Draft
for Consultation. Comparison to these more
recent data reveals that peak passenger
numbers on c2c have increased by more than
4,000 on average (17 percent) over those
the data reveals that standing occurs from:
BenÀeet on main line services; from PurÀeet
on the Tilbury Loop; and from Ockendon on
services via the branch. Crowding exceeds
PIXC limits on individual trains for no more
than two stops, between Barking and
Limehouse.
two years. The rate of increase has been
especially rapid on services running via the
Ockendon branch, peak patronage increasing
by 35 percent over the last two years.
31
Figure 3.5:
Thameside: 2007 peak capacity & average passenger load factors
(0700-0959 peak London arrivals)
Key
0 - 50%
110 - 114%
50 - 70%
115 - 119%
70 - 84%
120 - 150%
85 - 89%
The thickness of the lines directly relates
to the passenger capacity provided,
measured as the number of vehicles
running towards London
90 - 94%
95 - 99%
100 - 104%
The colours of the lines show the average
load factor (% seats occupied) according
to the key.
TS
EA
Be
nf
le
et
Le
ig
hon
C
ha -Se
a
lk
w
el
l
S
C OU
EN T
TR HE
AL ND
Th
or
pe
SH
Ba
y
O
EB
UR
YN
E
PI
La
in
do
n
Ba
si
ld
on
ER
ST
IN
PM
U
BA
R
KI
N
G
H
T
ES
W
LI
M
EH
O
U
AM
SE
SS
105 - 109%
Ockendon
Dagenham
Dock
Chafford
Hundred
Stanford-le-Hope
Rainham
Grays
Source: October average load factors on unperturbed services arriving at London Fenchurch Street between
0700 and 0959
Great Eastern Main Line
3.3.9
The Great Eastern Main Line carries around
60,000 passengers a day into London during
the morning peak. This makes up more than
half of peak journeys into London from the RUS
area. Passenger count data from the last ten
years suggests that passenger numbers - along
with capacity - have increased fairly steadily on
this route and by 34 percent since 1995. These
3
32
are shown in Figure 3.6 along with seated and
total capacity, which includes PIXC standing
allowances3. The standing allowances (which
with the number of seats make up the total
capacity) on the Great Eastern Line are lower
than on the other main lines into London in the
GA RUS area. This is because all of the intercity services from Norwich and some of the
outer services have no standing allowance for
the purpose of PIXC calculation.
These standing allowances are determined by the type of rolling stock and the calling pattern of each train. If a stop is called at within
20 minutes of reaching the maximum loading stop then a standing allowance is included. If there is a non-stop journey of more than 20
minutes no standing allowance is included.
Figure 3.6: GEML am Peak Passenger Loads and Capacities 1995 - 2007
Key
Capacity
Seats (for years where data recorded)
Passengers
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
10000
Source: GEML peak count data 1995 - 2007
3.3.10
services from Ipswich, Colchester, Clacton,
Table 3.6 shows the number of passengers
and Chelmsford; Southend and Southminster
counted and the load factor (calculated as the
services; and inner suburban services from
TOC’s estimate of the number of standard
Shen¿eld and Gidea Park. These data are
class passengers divided by the number of
recorded at the maximum load point, which is
standard class seats) for each of the four
Stratford for trains that call there and Liverpool
GEML service groups in Autumn 2007: inter-
Street for those that do not.
city services from Norwich; outer suburban
Table 3.6: GEML Passenger Loads (Autumn 2007)
GEML
08:00 - 08:59
07:00 - 09:59
Passengers
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
Inner suburban
11,549
140%
26,448
126%
Southend
8,168
113%
13,449
103%
Outer suburban
7,129
105%
14,324
99%
Inter-City
2,053
113%
4,327
101%
Source: GEML peak counts; Autumn 2007.
Note: Estimates of standard class passenger numbers at the busiest stop.
33
3.3.11
Across the service groups the crowding
situation was as follows:
a) Inner services are the most overcrowded
West Anglia
3.3.13
The West Anglia route carries around 28,000
passengers a day into London during the
with about 6,500 passengers (a quarter
morning peak. This is 40 percent more than it
of the total) standing and 14 of the 33
carried in 1995. Figure 3.7 indicates that much
trains carrying more people than the PIXC
of this increase occurred through the late
capacity of the train;
1990s. Morning peak passenger demand then
b) around 1,100 (8 percent) stood on outer
services while 7 of 21 services carried
more people than the PIXC capacity allows
(though 13 of the 22 trains – and all of
the seven over PIXC capacity - have no
standing allowance for passengers in the
PIXC calculation);
experienced an apparent period of volatility
following a downturn in City employment and
the worldwide downturn in air passenger
numbers following the September 11 terrorist
attacks in New York. Passenger numbers have
climbed rapidly again since 2003. This growth
seems to have accelerated over the last
year, when passenger numbers increased by
c) Southend services had 1,400 standing
more than 8 percent. This recent growth has
passengers (11 percent). Again, the PIXC
occurred as capacity has been increased on
measure has no standing allowance on
inner-suburban and Stansted Express services
some of the trains in this service group (5
while peak journey times have been extended
of 19). Only one train is crowded beyond
for passengers travelling on outer-suburban
its PIXC limit (which includes a standing
services that start at Cambridge and Stansted
allowance) and that runs as an eight car
Airport. The chart also shows how seated and
train and serves inner suburban stations as
total (seated plus PIXC standing) capacity
well as those from Southend to Shen¿eld;
has changed over the period. All West Anglia
d) Anglia inter-city services had about
services now include a standing allowance in
500 passengers (25 percent) standing on
the assessment of capacity for PIXC; this was
arrival at Liverpool Street over the three
not the case in the past.
hours. Calculation of PIXC on Anglia
inter-city trains does not allow for any
standing capacity.
3.3.12
Passenger numbers have increased on the
Great Eastern routes by 5 percent between
Autumn 2005 (the detail of which was
published in the RUS Draft for Consultation)
and Autumn 2007 passenger counts. The
Inner, Southend and Inter-City service groups
have recorded increases of between seven
and ten per cent over the two years while
patronage on the outer-suburban services is
down slightly over the same period, though
this may represent passengers switching to
other service groups at stations where they
have a choice.
3
34
A key element of crowding targets is that no passenger should stand for a journey of 20 minutes or more.
All trains which make a call less than 20 minutes away from the maximum loading point have a standing allowance added.
Figure 3.7: WAML am Peak Passenger Loads and Capacities 1995 - 2007
Key
Capacity
Seats (For years where data recorded)
Passengers
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
5000
Source: WAML PIXC count data 1995 - 2007
3.3.14
standard class seats. This is measured at
Table 3.7 shows the number of passengers
the busiest stop for each service, which are
counted on West Anglia service groups in
Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters for the
Autumn 2007. The load factors are calculated
trains that call at those stations and Liverpool
as the TOC’s estimated number of standard
Street for services that start at Chingford.
class passengers divided by the number of
Table 3.7: West Anglia Passenger Loads (Autumn 2007)
WAML
08:00 - 08:59
07:00 - 09:59
Passengers
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
En¿eld/Cheshunt
3,682
135%
7,334
105%
Hertford
1,799
141%
3,788
112%
Chingford
2,983
117%
5,749
89%
Stratford
609
112%
1,339
71%
Cambridge
2,804
150%
5,533
124%
Stansted Express
1,934
107%
3,757
75%
Source: West Anglia peak count data, Autumn 2007
35
3.3.15
have changed. The number of people
Outer-commuter services from Cambridge
travelling on services via Tottenham Hale has
are the most crowded of any in the RUS area.
increased by ten percent over the last two
Load factors are similar over the three hours to
years and much of this has occurred in the 12
those on the GE Inners but about ten per cent
months to October 2007. Passenger numbers
worse during the busiest hour of the morning
increased more modestly on Chingford
peak when a third of passengers had to
services (three percent) and by about six
stand. However, only two trains were crowded
percent on the Southbury loop. Similarly,
beyond the PIXC standard and one of those
most of the growth occurred over the last 12
runs at 4-car length. The passenger counts
months.
reveal that around 15 percent of all morning
peak passengers on Stansted Express
services stand but that most of these people
3.3.18
are on one train which also serves inner
For the RUS Draft for Consultation, patronage
suburban stations on the Lea Valley.
of inner suburban stations on the West
3.3.16
Seven of the 38 inner-suburban trains on West
Anglia are crowded beyond the PIXC capacity
of the trains and 15 percent of passengers
stand. Five of the seven over-crowded trains
operate on the Southbury Loop but only two
Anglia Main Line was examined. It showed
that Northumberland Park and Angel Road
stations were lightly used (and served) but
that passenger numbers were higher than had
been anticipated. This seemed to be driven by
use of the new services to and from Stratford.
of these are running at full length. A higher
3.3.19
proportion of passengers on the Hertford East
Further station and on train passenger
– Liverpool Street trains stand (19 percent)
counts were commissioned to build a better
which may reÀect the reduction in service
understanding of how trains load along the
frequency to Liverpool Street since some peak
route. The schematic map in Figure 3.8 shows
hour services were diverted to Stratford – as
service capacity as the width of the line for
an alternative terminus - in the December
each service group while the colour coding of
2006 timetable change. However, patronage
the line shows the average load factor building
on Stratford bound trains (which provide a
up along the route over the three hours of
link to the Tube at Tottenham Hale as well
the morning peak. Closer inspection of the
as providing a travel opportunity to Stratford)
underlying data shows that passengers have
has increased rapidly since the service was
to stand from as far out as Bishops Stortford
introduced in 2005.
and that standing continues to Liverpool Street
3.3.17
Comparable data from Autumn 2005 is
published in the RUS Draft for Consultation.
Comparison of these two sets of passenger
counts reveals that passenger numbers on
West Anglia have increased by nearly ten
percent over the last two years. It is dif¿cult
to understand precisely what is happening
between Cambridge, Stansted, Hertford
and the Stratford bound services as there is
overlap between the stations they serve and
have occured some considerable swings
between service groups as stopping patterns
36
West Anglia Main Line station use
– a trip of about 50 minutes. On Cambridge
services PIXC capacity limits (which all include
a standing allowance on West Anglia) are
exceeded from as far out as Harlow Town
and some passengers are unable to board
at Broxbourne. Inner suburban trains carry
passengers beyond their PIXC capacity from
Waltham Cross and, occasionally, Cheshunt.
Figure 3.8: West Anglia: 2007 peak capacity & average passenger load
factors (0700-0959 peak London arrivals)
CS
CSF
Key
Cambridge
0 - 50%
50 - 70%
70 - 84%
85 - 89%
90 - 94%
Audley End
95 - 99%
STEX
100 - 104%
Stansted Airport
105 - 109%
110 - 114%
B
Bishops Stortford
115 - 119%
120 - 150%
Sawbridgeworth
Harlow Town
Roydon
HS
Hertford East
HL
CS
Cambridge slow
CSF
Cambridge semi-fast
HS
Hertford to Stratford
HL
Hertford to Liverpool Street
STEX Stansted Express
Rye House
B
Broxbourne
Bishops Stortford to Stratford
The thickness of the lines directly relates
to the passenger capacity provided,
measured as the number of vehicles
running towards London
Cheshunt
The colours of the lines show the
average load factor (% seats occupied)
according to the key.
Waltham Cross
Enfield Lock
Brimsdown
Ponders End
Northumberland Park
Tottenham Hale
London Liverpool Street
Stratford
Source: Typical June 2007 weekday; Stansted Airport average passenger numbers (5 consecutive weekdays).
37
Stansted Airport
at intermediate stations along the West Anglia
route. In the last two years, some peak trains
3.3.20
Stansted Airport currently handles around
24 million air passengers per annum (mppa)
and BAA expects the maximum permitted
throughput of 25mppa to be achieved during
2008. Of these, around a quarter travel
between the airport and central London by rail.
Stansted Express services between Liverpool
Street and Stansted Airport are also used to
provide a limited-stop service to passengers
have made additional calls throughout the
route to relieve crowding on inner and outer
suburban services. Table 3.8 summarises the
most recent passenger count data for these
services and shows load factors (passengers
divided by seats). This shows that morning
peak demand is more concentrated than
evening demand despite a greater overlap
between airport and commuter demand during
the evening peak.
Table 3.8: Stansted Express Passenger Loads (Autumn 2007)
Stansted Express
Busiest Hour
Three Hour Peak
Passengers
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
AM Peak
(To London)
1,934
107%
3,757
75%
PM Peak
(From London)
1,829
4,607
94%
(08:00 – 08:59 Arrivals)
101%
(17:00 – 17:59 Departures)
Source: ‘one’ peak count data, Autumn 2007.
Note: passenger numbers are reduced by approx 7% as an estimate of the number of ¿rst class ticket holders
3.3.21
from the airport. In the week of the survey it
In order to get a better understanding of rail
was found that nearly twice as many people
demand to and from the airport, passenger
travelled to the airport on the Friday evening
counts were commissioned at Stansted Airport
as on the Tuesday. The range of passenger
station during the morning and evening peaks.
numbers and load factors are shown in Table
These were published in the RUS Draft for
3.9. As in the consultation document there
Consultation. Since consultation additional
was more overlap between commuter and
counts have been commissioned there.
airport passenger use in the evenings when
These revealed that there is considerable
commuter use is less intense and that airport
day to day variation of how many people
passenger numbers were often higher outside
are using the Stansted Express to get to or
of the busiest commuter hour.
Table 3.9: Stansted Airport Rail Passenger Counts
Stansted Express
Busiest Hour
Three Hour Peak
Passengers
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
Morning Peak
Borders
411 – 585
25% - 35%
965 – 1,565
19% - 31%
PM Peak Alighters
535 – 968
1,377 – 3,149
27% - 63%
(08:00 – 08:59 Departures)
32% - 58%
(16:00 – 17:00 Departures)
Source: Network Rail data from counts conducted w/c June 11, 2007.
38
3.3.22
In summary, analysis of the London peak
services shows the following:
Q Similar rates of growth have been
Routes which do not serve London
3.3.23
The rural and inter-regional services have
also been analysed and the data for the
observed over the last ten years on the
most heavily loaded are summarised in
Great Eastern and West Anglia routes
the tables contained in the Appendix. Plots
(around 30 percent) with less growth seen
showing the maximum load per train over
on the Thameside route. The steadiest
the day compared with the number of seats
growth rates have been sustained on Great
are also included. The data in the appendix
Eastern services.
also cover the trains operating the Stansted
Q Passenger demand on the West Anglia line
appears to have been more susceptible to
– Birmingham and Liverpool – Norwich
services.
economic Àuctuations in the City than the
From the data presented in the appendix, the
other routes and was particularly affected
following can be concluded on the rural and
by the short-term downturn in air travel
inter-regional services:
demand in 2001.
Q Crowding is most severe on trains running
Q The rural services are generally well
loaded to/from the regional centres at peak
from Cambridge to Liverpool Street and on
times with some standing at the busiest
the Great Eastern Inner-suburban services
times of the day.
though capacity is exceeded on some
trains on all routes.
Q There is little prospect for further increases
in passenger numbers on the most
crowded services without the introduction
of extra capacity because the best
timed trains are now so full that some
Q Few passengers relative to the amount
of capacity provided use the Ipswich
– Peterborough services. These services
operate two hourly through to London.
Q The Felixstowe branch service is not
well used in the off-peak period but rural
services are growing strongly.
passengers are unable to board those
trains.
Q With the exception of trains from Chingford,
morning peak services are busiest when
arriving at key interchange points (i.e.
Stratford, Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale,
West Ham and Limehouse) rather than at
the London terminals.
Q The number of people travelling to
and from Stansted Airport in the peak
varies considerably day to day. Airport
passengers make use of between a
quarter and two thirds of the total capacity
of Stansted Express trains over a three
Q Non-London inter-urban services within
the region are well used over much of
the day. The greatest loads and some
standing occur on these trains around the
main centres. The busiest corridor being
Cambridge – Ely – Peterborough. These
services are used for travel between
regional centres and for commuting into
those centres.
3.3.24
The RUS presents an opportunity, to consider
how these routes could be better utilised to
deliver improved services for passengers and
freight customers.
hour peak.
Q Angel Road and Northumberland Park
stations are lightly used but patronage has
increased sharply since the introduction of
Stratford bound services.
3.3.25
Additional passenger counts were
commissioned on a number of these routes
to achieve a better understanding of usage
39
(by station and route section) and Passenger
3.3.26
Focus has made available the results of its
The counts data is shown in Table 3.10 and
recent “Passenger Priorities” research on
gives the station use in terms of boarders
relevant routes (discussed below).
and alighters by route and service. It should
be noted that the ¿gures for Cambridge, Ely
and Peterborough include passengers on the
services travelling beyond these locations.
Table 3.10: Daily Boarders + Alighters on Rural/Inter-regional Services
Service
Stansted
London –
– Birmingham Kings Lynn
Liverpool
– Norwich
Cambridge Lst/Ipswich – Total daily
– Norwich Peterborough
Section
Cambridge – Cambridge
Peterborough – Kings Lynn
Peterborough Cambridge Ely –
Boarders +
– Norwich
– Norwich Peterborough Alighters
STATION
Cambridge
Waterbeach
Ely
3,106
7,533
145
555
1,762
2,145
Manea
23
March
625
Whittlesea
Peterborough
1,378
12,017
700
638
750
189
5,493
23
96
22
2,028
1,020
180
901
28
50
562
3,610
Littleport
414
414
Downham Mkt
949
949
Watlington
322
322
Kings Lynn
1,713
1,713
Shippea Hill
2
2
Lakenheath
Brandon
1
91
92
Thetford
274
442
716
28
28
1
18
19
54
428
482
4
4
40
349
389
1,131
1,546
2,677
Harling Rd
Eccles Rd
Attleborough
Spooner Row
Wymondham
Norwich
Source: Network Rail Counts January 2007
40
This table emphasises the importance of the
to re-assess the frequency on the Ipswich –
services between the key regional centres
Peterborough and East Suffolk Line services.
and in particular the heavy use of the corridor
The commissioning of bi-directional operation
between Ely and Cambridge. The stopping
through Ely West Curve also has the potential
patterns for these services are regular
to address both performance and journey
throughout the day, except for calls at the
time issues, by removing the need for both
stations with very low use, where calls are
passenger and freight trains to reverse at Ely.
made only once or twice a day, generally with
one call in the morning and one in the evening.
3.3.28
The Ipswich – Peterborough and East Suffolk
The Passenger Focus “Passenger Priorities”
Line services raise further punctuality and
surveys carried out on the East Anglia
capacity issues. In the December 2004
services (Peterborough – Ipswich, Stansted
timetable both these services were amended
– Birmingham, Liverpool – Norwich and
to run through to London. This has produced
Cambridge – Norwich) showed the following
a number or bene¿ts and dis-bene¿ts, which
priorities and gaps (between expectation and
may need to be considered further as services
experience). Details for stations and trains are
develop:
summarised below:
Priorities:
interchange time penalty for passengers
Stations: Ticketing facilities, security, access
from other modes, availability of
information and cleanliness of
facilities.
Trains:
Punctuality, frequency, value
travelling beyond Ipswich improving access
and journey time.
Q Patronage has increased with around a 15
percent increase in income.
Q There is a capacity mismatch with trains
for money and availability of
generally having too little capacity between
information.
London and Ipswich and too much capacity
north of Ipswich.
Gaps:
Stations: Ticketing facilities, security, access
from other modes, security,
cleanliness and the range of
Trains:
Q The through service removes the
Q Due to the need to match paths either
side of Ipswich, performance is now more
challenging.
facilities available.
Regional services into Cambridge
Value for money, frequency,
3.3.29
punctuality and journey time.
Regional services into Cambridge in the
This shows that in addition to the station
facilities and the ambience of the rolling stock,
punctuality, frequency and journey time are
also issues on some routes.
morning peak have seen considerable
increases in passenger numbers over the
last few years. Table 3.11 summarises the
current (autumn/winter 2006/07) levels of
demand and impacts on travel conditions.
3.3.27
This excludes services from the south on the
The station and rolling stock issues are largely
Great Northern and West Anglia routes where
addressed through existing programmes, train
capacity is provided by the back-working of
operator interventions or through Community
services from London.
Rail Partnerships (which promote a number
of routes in the region). As has been noted,
the majority of services are now hourly on a
regular stopping pattern, but there is scope
41
Table 3.11: am Peak Passenger Arrivals at Cambridge
Services From
Peterborough/Ely
Kings Lynn
Ipswich
Norwich
Peak Trains
4
6
3
3
Passenger Arrivals
613
1,334
148
283
Trains with standing
2
3
-
1
Passengers standing
(total)
65
185
-
25
Duration of standing (1)
(maximum)
50 minutes
(Peterborough)
21 minutes
(Ely)
-
16 minutes
(Ely)
Seated load factor
(maximum)
138%
152%
61%
123%
Load Factor to capacity (2)
(maximum)
102%
113%
45%
91%
Trains over capacity
1
1
-
-
Source: Network Rail Passenger Counts (January 2007) and ‘one’ conductor counts.
Note 1 This indicates the duration of standing on the train not necessarily that experienced by individual passengers.
Note 2: The capacity ¿gure illustrates the effect of assuming that the trains could accommodate extra passengers equivalent to 35 percent of
seats, as is common for commuter services into London.
3.3.30
capacity of the train (a fuller de¿nition of PIXC
Table 3.11 shows that there is currently
is contained in the appendix). The inter-city and
standing on six trains in the morning peak
rural/inter-regional services currently assume
with two loaded above capacity. During the
no standing and this needs to be considered
development of the RUS the power supply and
in relation to crowding on these services,
other restrictions on these routes have been
although in many cases these passengers
considered further to assess whether more or
are likely to switch to car if expected to travel
longer trains could operate north of Cambridge.
regularly in overcrowded conditions.
Crowding targets and policy
3.3.33
3.3.31
Forecast demand for future years is covered
in Chapter 5. However, the need for capacity
improvement will be dictated to some extent by
the crowding targets set for the route.
Whilst the RUS assumes that these targets
will continue to operate (this has been
con¿rmed by the publication of the HLOS),
it needs to be remembered that if standing
on the outer services were to be removed
completely then the demand for rolling stock
3.3.32
and track capacity would rise, leading to
The analysis of peak crowding on London
congestion and cost increases. Similarly if
services in this RUS uses the DfT’s franchise
rolling stock on the inner services were to
Passengers In Excess of Capacity (expressed
be recon¿gured, similar to Class 378 rolling
as PIXC) targets for London and the South
stock, which is on order for use on the North
East commuter routes, which limits standing
and East London Lines, then rolling stock
to less than 20 minutes and to be less than
requirements and costs would decrease.
approximately 35 percent of the seated
42
3.4 Stations
especially at Stratford, Seven Sisters,
3.4.1
Tottenham Hale and West Ham.
Whilst the above analysis has looked at the
3.4.3
capacity on train services it is also necessary
Stations serve as gateways to the network and
to consider stations from three perspectives: a)
thus facilities should reÀect passenger use. The
station capacity, b) station facilities and c) overall
appendix contains a list of stations and includes
access to the network including car parking.
station category together with the facilities at each
These elements are now considered in turn.
station in the RUS area. Whilst the RUS does
3.4.2
not consider the facilities in detail, this list will
In 2002 the SRA commissioned a study to
assist with the identi¿cation of additional facilities
identify and prioritise the most congested
that could be provided in conjunction with station
stations and to survey these stations with a
improvement schemes (such as the National
view to assessing potential mitigations. In the
Station Improvement Programme (NSIP)) being
GA RUS area the stations surveyed were:
undertaken from time to time by Network Rail, the
TOCs and local authorities/TfL.
Q Liverpool St
3.4.4.
Q Fenchurch St
By de¿nition, getting to the station is a key element
Q Chelmsford
of any rail journey and access to stations is a
speci¿c element of the Government’s recent White
Q Seven Sisters
Paper. The ease with which passengers can get
Q Stratford
to stations determines the attractiveness of rail
relative to other modes, and also whether rail can
Q Barking
ful¿l its potential in limiting car-borne journeys
Q Cambridge
that cause congestion and contribute to carbon
Q Chafford Hundred
emissions. In response to poor National Passenger
Survey ratings for “facilities for parking”, Passenger
Q Walthamstow Central
Focus commissioned a report on the issue of
Surveys were carried out at these stations and the
access to stations. This included car parking
issues/mitigations are tabulated in Appendix C.
availability in the Rus area. The report also looked
Whilst the station facility owner (the train
operators at all these stations except Liverpool
St and Fenchurch St) is responsible for
mitigating the effects of overcrowding, the table
also notes that a number of programmes are
already looking into the crowding issues.
The demand modelling work has considered
the issue of interchange with the LUL services,
in detail at how passengers access the railway
at four case study stations (Harlow Town, Grays,
Witham and Royston) and the extent to which
demand for rail is being suppressed because of
the shortage of parking spaces at stations.
Table 3.12 gives a summary by train operator
of the number of car parks in the survey with
high utilisation.
Table 3.12: Car Park Utilisation Summary
Train
Operator
Less than
70%
70–80%
80-90%
Over 90%
No data (No car
park or free)
‘one’
18
12
12
13
23
FCC
4
0
0
4
3
c2c
7
7
1
1
1
Source: Passenger Focus survey 2006
43
This shows that of the 79 stations surveyed
high utilisation (greater than 80 percent
nearly half had over 70 percent car park
utilisation) Table 3.13 contains a breakdown of
utilisation. In terms of the locations experiencing
the data for the stations surveyed.
Table 3.13: Car Park Utilisation Details
Operator
Station
Number of spaces
Utilisation at end of
am peak
Non-railway car park
within 1000 yards?
‘one’
Cambridge
458
100%
Yes
Ipswich
448
100%
Yes
Norwich
370
100%
Yes
Ely
180
100%
Yes
Great Yarmouth
25
100%
Yes
Bury St Edmunds
26
96%
No
Witham
430
93%
Yes
Manningtree
481
91%
No
Broxbourne
480
91%
No
Harlow Town
365
91%
Limited
Marks Tey
197
91%
No
Clacton
26
91%
Yes
Cheshunt
185
89%
No
Gidea Park
78
89%
Limited
Wivenhoe
75
89%
No
Colchester
1493
87%
Yes
Bishops Stortford
570
87%
Yes
Kelvedon
285
87%
No
Diss
168
87%
No
Audley End
506
86%
No
Stowmarket
300
86%
No
Harold Wood
160
86%
No
Billericay
383
82%
Limited
Hat¿eld Peverel
201
81%
No
West Horndon
112
100%
No
Leigh-on-Sea
496
81%
Limited
Royston
262
99%
Yes
Kings Lynn
221
95%
Yes
Downham Market
98
93%
No
Ashwell & Morden
20
92%
No
c2c
FCC
Source: Passenger Focus survey 2006
44
It will be noted that lack of station car parking
Q Similarly the result of the analysis of
capacity is a widespread issue and that it
suppressed demand (the difference
occurs at many of the main regional centres.
between the actual and calculated
‘one’ have also supplied their 2006/07 car
expected demand) in the Witham
park occupancy data, which reÀects the above
catchment area indicated that restricted
¿ndings, and also shows that the following
parking availability is likely to be a factor
additional stations have occupancy levels
causing demand for rail travel to be 19
above 80 percent: Braintree, Chelmsford,
percent lower than expected (although
Stowmarket, Thorpe-le-Soken, Wivenhoe,
more detailed analysis of the data, possibly
Hockley, Prittlewell, Rochford, Shen¿eld,
applied to the whole region, is required).
Wickford, Chingford and Sawbridgeworth. It is
thus a key issue if access to the network is not
to be deterred.
3.4.5
The ¿ndings of the report, including the case
studies and analysis of suppressed demand
as a result of the lack of parking, have
indicated the following:
Q Where most passengers originate from a
3.4.6
The study has highlighted the importance of the
car parking issue and the potential for a lack of
parking to suppress passenger demand.
Overall the study concluded that there was
scope to extend a number of car parks to
prevent additional car journeys. It also showed
that whilst there was scope for promoting more
sustainable modes in some areas, the policy of
relatively concentrated urban catchment
many councils to limit car parking may actually
area, it is practical and realistic to promote
lead to more car travel rather than less.
non-car access such as cycling, walking
and bus.
Q Where the catchment area is rural or
3.5 Berthing
3.5.1
semi-rural these sustainable modes are
The following passenger rolling stock is
not perceived as convenient or practical
operated over the GA RUS area:
compared with use of the car. Here station
car parks will continue to play a major role.
Q Where car parking is limited there is likely
to be an increase in kiss and ride. This
potentially generates twice the number of
car trips compared to parking at the station.
At Harlow Town 18 percent of survey
Q c2c operate Class 357 EMUs.
Q CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains
currently operate Class 170 and 158 DMUs
on services to East Anglia.
Q FCC operate Class 365 and 317 EMUs.
Q ‘one’ operate Class 315, 317, 321 and 360
respondents said they would get a lift to the
EMUs, Class 153, 156 and 170 DMUs and
station if future parking were limited.
a Àeet of Class 90 Electric Loco hauled
Q A full car park may result in rail users
Mk3 coaches with DVTs.
driving to more distant stations resulting in
longer car trips. 38 percent of respondents
at Royston would drive to another station
if parking were limited and 17 percent of
respondents at Witham would drive all the
way to their end destination if future car
parking were restricted.
45
3.5.2
3.6 Infrastructure
Analysis has been undertaken looking at the
3.6.1
overnight berthing of trains when not in use.
Infrastructure characteristics on the routes
c2c, FCC and ‘one’ have stabling depots in the
are varied, reÀecting historic service demands
GA RUS area. The analysis has considered
and development. This has resulted in
the current locations, number of sidings, length
different levels of route capability. The main
of sidings, whether they are electri¿ed or not
infrastructure renewals are listed below. When
and their current usage. A list of the current
renewals are planned synergies with potential
GA RUS area berthing locations is included in
upgrades are considered and this includes the
Appendix B.
policy on gauge enhancements, which was
3.5.3
described in the Freight RUS.
The analysis suggests that capacity is tight
Q On the Thameside route:
just about everywhere but limited space
may be available at Cambridge, East Ham,
The entire route is 25kV AC overhead
Shoeburyness and Norwich. However Norwich
electri¿ed and the majority of the
seems too remote to stable the current
electri¿cation equipment dates from the
EMU Àeet for operations south and east of
1950s. A programme of rewiring and
Manningtree, East Ham and Shoeburyness
component changes is underway. As part
are only practicable for Thameside services
of the RUS analysis, the power supply on
and Cambridge is subject to the requirements
the Tilbury Loop has been re-assessed
of the Thameslink programme and station
against the increased power demand that
development, including the potential for a new
results from the operation of longer trains.
island platform.
The route was fully resignalled in the mid
3.5.4
1990s making it one of the most modern
The ¿ve 8-car Aldersbrook sidings near Ilford
and reliable routes in the country.
are currently unused due to the shunting
The programme of track renewals
moves and lack of staff depot facilities required
continues with S&C renewals planned for
to berth stock there.
Grays and East Ham.
3.5.5
The planned relocation of Thornton Fields
carriage sidings for the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games may offer
the opportunity for the provision of additional
berthing capacity in the longer term. The
locations for the provision of further berthing
capacity are discussed under Option 23 in
Chapter 7.
Q On the Great Eastern Main Line:
The main line and all branches south
of Ipswich (except the Sudbury line)
are electri¿ed with 25kV AC overhead
equipment. Most of the equipment between
Liverpool St and Colchester/Southend
dates from the late 1950s. Due to several
recent de-wirements and the fact that much
of the older equipment is ¿xed tensioned,
3.5.6
a programme of extensive renewal is
This section has looked at the berthing
being undertaken on the Liverpool St
requirements of future rolling stock needs.
– Chelmsford/Southend section, with a
Maintenance depots and their location is being
view to completing work by 2012.
considered in the Network RUS and is not
considered further here.
The route between Liverpool St and Marks
Tey was resignalled in the Mid 1990s,
the section between Colchester and
Norwich having been resignalled in the
1980s. Resignalling of the route between
46
Marks Tey and Colchester is currently
of life extension works on the remainder
being carried out, including the branch to
of the route (pending replacement with
Clacton and Walton, this scheme includes
modular signalling/ERTMS as noted
installation of bi-directional signalling
above). The resignalling at March is
between Colchester and Marks Tey. On
planned to remove the level crossing strike
the rural branches there is a programme
in issue, which currently delays some inter-
of re-wiring and life extensions work on
regional services.
the existing signalling, although modular
signalling and ERTMS technology are
being rolled out across a number of routes
including the East Suffolk line by 2011,
Norwich to Lowestoft/Great Yarmouth
by 2013, Ely to Norwich and Ely to
Peterborough by 2015.
Although the condition of the track
is generally good, the programme of
renewals and life extension work continues
to ensure that track quality does not
deteriorate. It is anticipated that as freight
traf¿c grows on the Felixstowe – Nuneaton
route, the programme of track maintenance
Due to the age and condition of the track,
and renewals will also need to increase as
especially the number of ‘wet spots’ on
the tonnage increases.
the main line caused by the clay substrata, track renewals are concentrated
on the GEML. There are a number of
S&C renewals coming up over the next
few years, including works at Shen¿eld,
Clacton and Colchester. Renewals are
also continuing on the rural and cross
country routes.
Q On the West Anglia Main Line:
3.6.2
For a more detailed description, Network Rail’s
Route Plans should be consulted. These are
available at www.networkrail.co.uk and formed
part of the Strategic Business Plan.
3.7 Current network capacity and
utilisation
Capacity analysis
The main line and southern branches
3.7.1
are electri¿ed with 25kV AC overhead
In recent years Network Rail has developed
equipment. The oldest section of OLE
a measure of the level of congestion on the
(dating from the 1960s) is between
network, known as the Capacity Utilisation
Liverpool St and Bishops Stortford (via
Index (CUI). The CUI is a measure of how
Seven Sisters), with the remainder dating
much of the available capacity on a section of
from the 1980s. The policy of component
line is used by the train service taking account
changes will continue along with routine
of route characteristics, timetable, the order
maintenance but no major work is planned.
of trains in the timetable and the headways.
The power supply limitations between
The CUI map for the Up morning peak 3 hours
Cambridge and Kings Lynn currently
is included in Figure 3.9 and more detailed
restrict services north of Cambridge.
capacity analysis is included below.
The route between Bethnal Green and
Elsenham was recently resignalled under
the West Anglia Route Modernisation
(WARM) project. The remainder of the
route is a mixture of relatively modern
power signalling and older mechanical and
electro mechanical equipment. Signalling
renewals are currently being undertaken in
the March area, as well as a programme
47
Figure 3.9: Peak Capacity Utilisation Index Map
Key
90% or more
70 - 90%
Sheringham
30 - 70%
Cromer
< 30%
Great
Yarmouth
KINGS LYNN
NORWICH
Lowestoft
Peterborough
Cresent Jn
Thetford
Diss
March
ELY
Bury St Edmunds
CAMBRIDGE
Letchworth
Hertford East
IPSWICH
STANSTED
AIRPORT
Sudbury
Manningtree
Walton-onthe-Naze
Colchester
Town
Marks
Tey
Harlow Town
Enfield Town
Harwich
Town
COLCHESTER
Braintree
BISHOPS STORTFORD
Felixstowe
Clacton
Broxbourne
Witham
Cheshunt
Chelmsford
Chingford
Seven
Sisters
Tottenham
Hale
Walthamstow
Central
Shenfield
Southminster
Romford
LONDON
LIVERPOOL STREET
Southend Victoria
Stratford
Barking
Upminster
Shoeburyness
Basildon
LONDON
FENCHURCH STREET
Grays
48
Pitsea
Southend
Central
3.7.2
in speed of trains is utilising at some
The WA route carries a mixture of traf¿c
points nearly 20 percent of the capacity.
types with signi¿cant variations in speed,
This utilisation could be reduced by
acceleration and stopping pattern. There
standardising speeds and calling patterns
are serious issues with capacity on the West
of services.
Anglia route because of this mix of services
and stopping patterns. The suburban lines into
Liverpool Street are heavily used in the peak
and there is little capacity to run additional
trains. The two track section on the Lea Valley
and the mix of services causes a performance
risk throughout much of the day.
The map also shows high utilisation on
single lines, this is partially a function of the
constricted layout and partially the fact that lines
such as the Stansted Airport and Felixstowe
(on the Great Eastern) branches are at or
approaching capacity due to their heavy use.
3.7.3
On the Thameside route the service structure
is inÀuenced by the complexity of the network
and different stopping patterns. The limited
signal capacity at West Ham does not allow
additional trains to call without reducing
Q The analysis of the timetable shows that
the evening peak timetable is very well
constructed to utilise capacity with the mix
of calling patterns in different services. This
forms a more robust timetable than the
morning peak which shows greater Route
Section Usage.
Q East of Colchester the capacity used is
much lower, typically between 10 and 30
percent. This analysis revealed that the
current Rules of the Plan values between
Ipswich and Norwich needed to be revised.
This value has been amended in the 2008
version of Rules of the Plan.
Q In the off peak analysis Shen¿eld to
Chelmsford again shows the highest Route
Section Usage, where a standardisation
of speed and calling patterns of services
would release further capacity.
capacity between Fenchurch Street and
Barking. The single line track section between
Q The amending of calling patterns on the
Upminster and Grays via Ockendon has only
GEML is very dif¿cult as the peak services
one passing loop which causes a capacity
are driven by demand at different stations.
constraint on this section. In addition peak
In the RUS options, the timetable pattern
capacity is heavily used between Barking and
has been amended where necessary to
Upminster where the signalling headways
allow for more capacity to be realised.
increase from two minutes to three.
Where stops have been removed from
services, a different service has been called
3.7.4
The Capacity Analysis for the RUS in respect
at the stop to ensure there is still the same
level of service available at the station.
of the GE ML was undertaken by DfT and the
capacity analysis diagrams can be found in
Appendix F.
Q Standardising the speed of services can
realise further capacity but caution should
be taken as this will require slowing down
The DfT analysis shows that:
Q The GEML is almost at full capacity in the
non-stop services, resulting in longer
journey times for passengers.
peaks. The most heavily utilised sections
are between Liverpool St and Colchester.
Q The difference between the Route Section
Usage and Rules of the Plan Usage shows
that the timetable pattern and difference
49
RailSys performance modelling
3.7.5
RailSys has been used in the RUS to assess
the performance impact of different timetable
and infrastructure options. The base RailSys
model can be examined to identify any issues
reveal some differences between sectional
running times (SRTs) and the point to point
times calculated in RailSys, at the following
locations:
Q Southbury Loop
Q Hertford East branch
with the current infrastructure and timetable.
RailSys has been used to model a ‘normal’
Q Peterborough East Junction
weekday on the network, with all extreme
Q Ely – Thetford
events (such as extreme weather or suicides)
excluded from the delay data.
3.7.8
The SRTs have been reviewed by Train
3.7.6
Planning Centre South on the Hertford East
The following results show the Principal
branch and new SRTs will be available in
2006 Timetable operating on the current
future timetables. The Train Planning Centre
infrastructure. This is used to give an
(TPC) South is currently reviewing the SRTs
indication of lateness of trains within
at Peterborough East and Ely – Thetford. The
the model.
details from RailSys on point to point timings
Unperturbed Model
on the Southbury Loop will be taken forward in
3.7.7
future timetable development.
The diagram below shows that if the Principal
3.7.9
2006 Timetable ran unperturbed then greater
There are also Rules of the Plan non-
than 90 percent of trains would arrive within
compliances within the existing timetable at
scheduled time. This shows that accurate
Tottenham Hale and Bethnal Green. The TPC
planning rules have generally been used in
is working to resolve these issues and
constructing the timetable. However, it did
changes are to be made in the May 2008
timetable change.
Punctuality at arrival – Time to 3 minutes
Key
Limit for punctuality: 03:00 min
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
50
Perturbed Model
3.7.10
In the perturbed model a sample of primary
delays taken from historic TRUST data are
input onto the model. The diagrams below
show the punctuality recorded by RailSys.
Morning Peak Hours – Punctuality – Time to 3 minutes late
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
51
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
The diagrams above show that in the morning
10 minutes of scheduled time, although the
peak it is the WA route which shows most
scale of the diagram makes this very dif¿cult
lateness on arrival at stations. This is due to
to identify. Again the number of trains using
the high capacity utilisation of this route, which
the GEML mean that under perturbation
results in many services being planned to
reactionary delays can quickly become a
minimum planning rules. Stratford also shows
problem in the peak hours.
less than 85 percent of trains arriving within
Off-peak Hours – Punctuality – Time to 3 minutes late
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
52
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
Key
(<75%)
(<90%)
(>90%)
These diagrams show that during perturbed
the punctuality around the Felixstowe branch
running off-peak over 90 percent of services
shows less than 75 percent of the trains
arrive within 10 minutes of scheduled time,
are arriving within 3 minutes of scheduled
showing an improvement to the peak hours.
time. This is due to the increase in freight
This is due to the reduction in number of
movements in this area in the off peak and
services running in the off-peak allowing for
highlights the fact that the branch is now
more recovery between paths. In the off peak
virtually at capacity (with around 25 freight
there are more freight services running and
services per day in each direction).
53
3.8 Performance
these paths are used every hour, this means
3.8.1
that a train running out of course can drop into
A number of generic factors contribute to overall
an earlier or later slot with a proven pathway.
train service performance. These include the
3.8.5
extent of infrastructure and rolling stock failure
Other speci¿c freight delay issues are:
and, as the previous section has emphasised,
these factors also include the ability of train
operations to work within timetable allowances
and the structure of the timetable given
infrastructure and rolling stock capability.
Q GEML – trains late to/from Thameside
cause delay between Stratford and Forest
Gate, where the have to cross all four lines
using the Àat junction between Forest Gate
and Stratford. As trains cannot always be
3.8.2
held between Woodgrange Park and Forest
One measure of passenger train performance
Gate this causes delays in the Up direction.
is the Public Performance Measure (PPM),
which was introduced by the SRA and
continues under DfT and ORR. The PPM
combines ¿gures for punctuality and reliability
into a single performance measure and
covers all scheduled services, seven days a
week. The PPM measures the performance
of individual trains against their planned
Q Automatic Route Setting (ARS) in Liverpool
Street IECC (Integrated Electronic Control
Centre) can cause delays depending on
which train it ‘sees’ ¿rst. In some cases it
can cause trains to miss their paths across
junctions causing delays.
Q In the Down direction trains can be
timetable. The PPM is therefore the number
held at Stratford but bunching of freight
of trains arriving ‘on time’ as a percentage of
services off the NLL means that trains are
the total number of trains planned. For London
sometimes held on Channelsea Curve and
and South East operators (including ‘one’), a
block the NLL leading to delays.
train is de¿ned as ‘on time’ if it arrives within 5
Analysis of recent performance
minutes of the planned destination arrival time
shown in the public timetable (apart from the
3.8.6
Norwich inter-city services that are measured
Performance for 2005/06 has been analysed
against a ‘within 10 minute’ target).
over the GA RUS routes.
3.8.3
3.8.7
The PPM for the train operators as a whole in
The highest levels of delay were occurring at
the 1st Quarter of 2007/08 as published by the
the following key route sections:
ORR were: c2c 94.6%, Central Trains 87.8%,
Q Liverpool Street – Shen¿eld
First Capital Connect 91.0%, ‘one’ railway
92.6% and Silverlink 92.9%. These compare
reasonably well with 2nd Quarter 2006/07,
which were c2c 94.5%, Central Trains 82.8%,
Q Colchester – Norwich
Q Tilbury Loop
Q Liverpool Street – Broxbourne
First Capital Connect 88.7%, ‘one’ railway
54
87.8% and Silverlink 90.5%.
Q Broxbourne – Cambridge
3.8.4
3.8.8
One factor which assists with freight
Analysis of the main delays has shown that
performance is the two Class 4 (75mph)
the primary causes of delay on these route
freight paths that have been built into each
sections are due to infrastructure faults, train
standard hour on the GEML and one Class
regulation and train crew/rolling stock issues.
4 freight path that has been built into each
Details of the delay analysis are contained in
standard hour on the WAML. Since not all of
the Appendix D.
3.8.9
main line passenger and cross country
Whilst generally the highest number of delay
passenger and freight services operate.
minutes occur where train services are
This con¿rms the ¿ndings of the RailSys
the busiest, the average total (primary and
analysis described earlier.
secondary) delay per incident varies across
the RUS area. The effects are shown in Tables
3.14 – 3.16, which indicate that on the GEML
the highest average delay per incident occurs
not only where the busiest passenger train
services are but also on the main freight route
out of Felixstowe. On Thameside the highest
average delay per incident occurs on the
Tilbury Loop where the freight services run and
3.8.10
More detailed analysis has been undertaken
covering the main sources of delay in 2005/06
on each line and results are given in Tables
3.17 to 3.19. Network is also working with
‘one’ railway on its ‘Challenge 90’ programme,
which needs to bring its PPM above 90
percent. This initiative includes a range of
operational and infrastructure imporvements.
on West Anglia the highest average delay
per incident occurs where the busiest
Table 3.14
Great Eastern route section
Average Delay per Incident (minutes)
Wester¿eld Jn – Felixstowe
48
Liverpool Street – Shen¿eld
45
Shen¿eld – Colchester
42
Colchester – Norwich
39
Table 3.15
Thameside route section
Tilbury Loop
31
Fenchurch Street – Shoeburyness
20
Ockendon Branch
19
Table 3.16
West Anglia route section
Liverpool Street – Broxbourne
34
Broxbourne – Cambridge
32
Haughley Jn – Cambridge/Ely
32
Cambridge – Kings Lynn
30
55
Table 3.17
Great Eastern
Total delay minutes
1,169,862
Split (NR/TOC)
53:47
Cause
Issue
Mitigations
Fleet failures
Units failures
Monitored through Joint Performance Improvement Plan
Track faults
Broken rails and track
geometry
Action plans being implemented for each maintenance
depot
Commercial issues
Train regulation,
timetabling, possession
overruns.
Looking at TSRs, timetable margins, dwell times and
possession planning (including the scheduling of
diverted services)
Freight terminal
operations
Late starts
Performance effects of late running freight services
are currently being analysed by Network Rail’s ‘Six
Sigma’ team
Track circuit
failures
Mainly between Liverpool
Street and Shen¿eld
Action plans being implemented for each maintenance
depot
OLE failures
Dewirements and speed
Rewiring programme being prepared
restrictions between Liverpool
St and Southend/Chelmsford
Table 3.18
Thameside
Total delay minutes
194,426
Split (NR/TOC)
32:68
Cause
Issue
Mitigations
Freight terminal
operations
Late starts and waiting
acceptance
Sigma’ team
Fleet failures
Mainly EMU traction problems Looking at traction maintenance
OLE faults
Dewirements.
Programme of OLE rewiring being undertaken
Train crew issues
Awaiting train crew
Revised instructions now in place covering crew relief
Table 3.19
West Anglia
56
Total delay minutes
469,952
Split (NR/TOC)
49:51
Cause
Issue
Mitigations
Fleet failures
Unit problems
Monitored through Joint Performance Improvement Plan
Train crew issues
Awaiting train crew
Revised instructions now in place covering crew relief
Freight terminal
operations
Late starts and waiting for
shunters or staff to operate
ground frame signals
Sigma’ team
Track circuit
failures
Mainly between Bethnal
Green and Cambridge
Action plans being implemented for each
maintenance depot
3.8.11
3.8.13
Analysis of Secondary delay for 2005/06
In order to address these gaps, discussions
also shows that the highest minutes per train
with stakeholders have highlighted several
delayed occur over lines where train services
opportunities for generating performance
run that start/end their journey outside the
improvements. These include:
RUS area. These include the freight routes
to and from Felixstowe, both down the GEML
and cross country, as well as the trains from
the Midlands routing into East Anglia via
Peterborough. This again emphasises the
Gap 1:
Q Constructing a freight loop extending from
Platform 10A at Stratford towards Maryland.
Q Greater use of the Willesden - Gospel Oak –
impact of mixing services, which operate
Barking line to enable trains to avoid having
on and off route, and shows how services
to cross all four tracks on the GEML between
travelling between routes can “transmit” delay.
Stratford and Forest Gate. This includes
In addition freight services are subject to
upgrading the gauge, capacity and capability
different operating restrictions, for example they
of the route, as well as electri¿cation of the
cannot be turned short of their destination and
Gospel Oak – Barking section.
require longer to turnround at terminals. Details
of the secondary delay analysis are contained
in the Appendix D.
Q The proposed construction of dynamic
loops in connection with the proposed new
station north east of Chelmsford.
3.8.12
From the analysis above the main performance
gaps can be summarised as being:
1) Congestion in the Lea Valley, through
Stratford and further down the GEML; and
on the Thameside route at West Ham and
Q Replacement of the level crossings in the
Lea Valley with bridges or underpasses.
Q Carry out local re-spacing of signals at
West Ham and increase speeds between
Barking and Upminster to improve capacity.
between Barking and Upminster.
Gap 2:
2) Single lines, which are close to capacity,
Q Partial doubling of the Felixstowe branch.
especially the Felixstowe and Stansted Airport
branches.
3) The need to review Sectional Running Times
in some sections and potentially review calling
patterns/differential speeds between services.
Q Converting Haughley Junction to a double
junction from a single lead.
Gap 3:
Q Removing speed restrictions on Class 6 (up
This applies to both passenger and freight
to 60mph) freight services on the Ipswich
services. Some work will be implemented in the
– Peterborough route.
May 2008 timetable on West Anglia with Great
Q Reviews of Sectional Running Times.
Eastern later.
Gap 4:
4) General issues including infrastructure
improvements, train regulation, crew/rolling
stock issues, freight workings and imported
secondary delays.
Q Continuing with the development of
performance improvement schemes
using the NRDF, including the removal
of the restrictions on Ely West Curve
and linespeed improvements between
Upminster and Barking.
57
Q Removing the long signal blocks between
Kennett and Bury St Edmunds.
Q Renew badly performing sections of
the OLE.
3.8.14
These various issues have been taken account
of in the options developed in later chapters.
Thameside route, which allows some of the
traf¿c to continue to use rail and the presence
of bi-directional signalling has the potential to
reduce the impact of overnight possessions.
Ipswich – Felixstowe
The Felixstowe branch can be maintained
only on Saturday nights and Sundays when
the freight service is not running. The partial
3.9 Engineering Access - current
situation
doubling of the branch under the HPUK
3.9.1
Harwich Branch
Currently there are three types of possession
The Harwich branch does not currently
for engineering access on the Greater Anglia
suffer from the restrictions that apply to the
routes: normal possessions taken overnight
Felixstowe branch but this may change as
during “white periods” when no trains are
freight demand rises when the Bathside
booked to run; cyclic possessions, which are
Bay development comes on stream. This
taken for maintenance on a route section
may require the use of single line working
generally on a 12 – 13 week cycle; and
(SLW) (or other measures) so that access for
abnormal possessions, which are generally
maintenance can be maintained.
taken as required over a weekend in order to
Ipswich – Norwich
carry out renewal and enhancement works.
The route north of Ipswich does not normally
Both the cyclic and the abnormal possessions
present access problems as suitable cyclic
require the train service to be diverted (in the
patterns are available due to the lower levels
case of freight and some passenger services)
of demand. This may change as the level
or a replacement bus service provided. The
of freight traf¿c grows between Ipswich
current access situation around the various
and Haughley Jn. During longer periods of
route sections is brieÀy described below.
disruption limited passenger services can run
Liverpool St – Shen¿eld
from Norwich to Liverpool St via Cambridge.
The route is maintained by taking two
Other Great Eastern branches
track possessions on a Sunday, although
The rural branches off the GEML do not
major maintenance items, renewals and
normally present access problems due the
enhancements require more intrusive
lower levels of demand on these routes.
proposals should help with this issue.
possessions.
Ipswich – Ely – Peterborough
58
Shen¿eld – Ipswich
This two track section is currently maintained
Maintenance is currently carried out using
using SLW overnight with occasional longer
overnight single line working and a limited
blocks at weekends. As the level of freight
number of 15-hour Saturday night/Sunday
traf¿c rises the lack of bi-directional signalling
possessions. Bi-directional signalling is being
and the delays to freight services operating
installed between Marks Tey and Colchester to
around the SLW mean that this is not a
improve maintenance opportunities, however,
longer term solution to access problems. The
in the longer term, full diversionary capability
development of a W10 diversionary route will
is required.
be required to solve the issue.
Shen¿eld – Southend/Southminster
Liverpool St – Cheshunt and branches
This route is maintained using cyclic and
The section of route between Bethnal Green
longer weekend possessions. The Southend
and Cheshunt can operate as two separate
area is also served by c2c trains on the
railways, so that cyclic access is not a
signi¿cant issue, although publicity needs to
Barking – Pitsea via Basildon
pre-warn passengers interchanging off the
This section is maintained by two track
Underground at Tottenham Hale or Seven
possessions overnight or on Sunday. Services
Sisters, as to which line is blocked. The need
from the Southend direction can be diverted
to keep the traction power live to Chingford
via Grays and passengers from Upminster can
depot for as long as possible (so that units
use the adjacent LUL District Line. This section
can be prepared for service) can also restrict
is equipped with bi-directional signalling but it
possession times.
is only recently that this has started to be used
Cheshunt – Stansted airport
during engineering work.
This two track section is currently maintained by
Barking/Upminster to Pitsea via Grays
possession of both tracks, generally overnight
Again this section is maintained using two
or on Sunday mornings. There is no realistic
track possessions mainly on Saturday nights
diversionary route for the Stansted traf¿c
and Sundays. The growth of the London
when the route is closed. Under the Ef¿cient
Gateway Port is likely to lead to greater use of
Engineering Access programme an opportunity
Sundays for maintenance, although services
has been identi¿ed to reduce overnight access
to Barking can generally be diverted by
when the traf¿c is highest between Thursdays
Ockendon or Rainham. If single line working
and Sundays. In addition it has also proved
were used via Rainham then there may be
possible to reduce the number of weekend
scope to reduce the use of replacement buses
possessions required during the year.
at weekends.
Stansted – Kings Lynn
Pitsea – Shoeburyness
This route section is generally maintained
This section of line is maintained using
in two line possessions overnight and at
overnight/weekend possessions, the main
weekends. The Cambridge – Kings Cross
problem being the need to bus passengers or
route provides some diversions for passengers
ask them to travel via the GE route to Liverpool
travelling between the Cambridge area and
St. An additional issue is the restrictions
London. The layout of the station at Cambridge
on possessions due to the need to keep
does create problems when the platforms need
Shoeburyness depot live for as long as possible,
to be blocked leading to considerable use of
to allow units to be prepared for service.
replacement buses. Further problems will arise
as the growth of Stansted drives longer service
hours and the increase in cross country freight
will reduce access in the Ely area.
3.9.2
The above section has described the current
access arrangements and some of the existing
restrictions. A problem which also needs to
Liverpool St. station
be highlighted is the impact of the increasing
The six track approach to Liverpool St. station
volume of renewal and enhancement works
is maintained by using two track possessions
on weekend travel at a time when customer
on Sundays tied in with the possessions
expectations and ridership are rising. This is
further out. The main problem arises with the
leading to the need to reduce the impact of
need to outberth stock from the platforms,
possessions as well as addressing the speci¿c
which can lead to dif¿culties in gaining
shortfalls identi¿ed in the RUS, which are
possession of the line punctually.
listed below:
Fenchurch St – Barking
Q Whilst there are generally diversionary
This two track section is maintained using
arrangements for many of the services,
overnight and Sunday possessions.
or traf¿c overnight/at weekends is lighter,
Services can be diverted into Liverpool St
analysis of the loadings on the GE route
during such possessions.
has shown that Saturday traf¿c is around
40 percent of weekday loadings and
59
Sunday around 20 percent (although
3.9.3
Saturday midday travel to London is
The above issues are largely being taken
similar to weekday off peak loadings and
forward as part of the Ef¿cient Engineering
on Sunday afternoons/evening services
Access initiative to make the railway as 24/7
are also busy). In addition, on the inner
as possible.
suburban services TfL is keen to extend
used as ef¿ciently as possible maximising
3.10 Summary of baseline gaps
and issues
the use of diversionary routes and
3.10.1
minimising the impact of possessions on
From the above, the gaps identi¿ed can be
two track sections of line.
summarised as follows
operating hours. Thus access needs to be
Q As demand for travel to and from Stansted
1) Passenger demand has increased by
Airport increases, Network Rail and ‘one’
around 30 percent (over ten years) on the
have successfully identi¿ed ways of
Great Eastern and West Anglia routes and by
limiting access to the less busy nights of
around 20 percent on the Thameside route.
the week and leaving the weekends free of
These increases have been steadiest on the
possessions where possible.
Great Eastern route. Demand on the West
Q The need to prepare units for service
Anglia route appears to have been more
means that the option of providing
susceptible to economic Àuctuations: growth
alternative power feeds to the various
on the route via Tottenham Hale was ten
depots, especially Chingford and
percent in 2007.
Shoeburyness, is being considered for
2) Capacity is exceeded on some trains
potential funding under the NRDF.
on all routes with over-crowding especially
Q The growth in freight from Felixstowe
severe on Cambridge – Liverpool Street
and Harwich will lead to increasing
and GE Inner services. Future growth will
maintenance dif¿culties. Building on work
be severely constrained on these services
undertaken as part of the East Coast
without additional passenger capacity because
Ports studies, Network Rail is currently
the best timed trains are so full that some
examining the potential to use the
passengers are unable to board the trains.
Felixstowe – Peterborough – Nuneaton
Passenger numbers are typically greatest at
and Ipswich – Stratford – ECML/WCML as
key interchanges (i.e. Stratford, Seven Sisters,
diversionary routes for each other and this
Tottenham Hale, West Ham and Limehouse)
work forms an element of the cross country
rather than at London Terminals.
freight upgrade project.
3) More than half of London bound peak
Q More widespread use of SLW as
passengers travel on trains that arrive in
a means of keeping trains running
London between 08:00 and 09:00. Reduced
during engineering work also needs
fares for early arrival (before 07:15) on the
consideration.
West Anglia and Thameside routes did not
shift signi¿cant numbers of passengers out of
the busiest hour.
4) The rural and inter-regional services are
also well used, especially on services operating
to/from the regional centres at peak times.
5) Freight operations are dominated by the
container and aggregate markets. Growth is
predicted in the aggregate services, especially
60
those serving the Olympic Park at Stratford.
The volume of maritime containers from
Thameside and Felixstowe is increasing
rapidly and further growth is predicted.
This will require increases in both gauge
and capacity.
6) Performance has been improving but there
is scope for further improvement through
a number of initiatives. These range from
a review of Rules of the Plan allowances
through to improvements to the infrastructure
delivered by both NRDF schemes and the
renewal of poorly performing assets.
7) The growth in traf¿c is leading to the need
to reduce the impact of engineering access on
these routes.
8) There is scope to carry out improvements
to stations: including improving interchange;
reducing crowding at key stations;
development of car parks; and improving
access to the busier stations, particularly in the
rural areas.
61
4. Forecast of change – wider demand
This chapter provides a summary of the
external drivers of change, together with a
description of stakeholder aspirations for
First Capital Connect
BAA
enhancements to the network. Where possible
Passenger Focus (as observers)
these aspirations have been included in the
London TravelWatch (as observers)
strategic options listed later in this document.
Network Rail
4.1 Context
Of¿ce of Rail Regulation (as observers)
4.1.1
of development based growth, the Draft East
4.2 Changes to population, housing
and employment
of England Plan (DEEP) and the London
4.2.1
Plan have been reviewed and a summary
The DEEP sets out the strategy to guide
of the drivers of growth has been included
planning and development in the East of
in this section. The DEEP was published
England to the 2021. It covers economic
in November 2004, with the Review Panel
development, housing, the environment,
recommendations being issued in June 2006.
transport, waste management, culture, sport
The numbers issued by the Secretary of State,
and recreation and mineral extraction. The
in response to the consultation and Panel
tables below show the employment and
report, are also included in this chapter. The
housing ¿gures to 2021 contained in the
London Plan was published in February 2004.
DEEP, each table is then followed by a table
4.1.2
summarising the ¿gures published by the
The stakeholder aspirations have been
Secretary of State in December 2006, together
raised at the key Stakeholder Management
with a brief description of the assumed
Group and in discussion with wider industry
distribution of the main growth areas within the
stakeholders. The Stakeholder Management
region.
Group has met regularly during the
The tables exclude Bedfordshire for two
development of the RUS and comprises
reasons: a) the DEEP only contains very
representatives of the following organisations:
provisional ¿gures for the county due to the
Department for Transport
interaction with the Milton Keynes South
In order to understand the extent and location
Midlands sub-regional strategy and b)
Bedfordshire is outside the area covered by
Association of Train Operating Companies
the GA RUS.
English Welsh and Scottish Railway
Freightliner
GB Railfreight
‘one’ railway
c2c London Lines
62
Table 4.1 Regional Employment Growth 2001 – 2021
District Grouping
Districts
2001 – 2021
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
92,900
Cambridgeshire
Cambridge City, South Cambs, Huntingdon,
Fenland
71,000
Peterborough
Peterborough UA
21,900
Essex and Unitaries
116,000
Essex Thames Gateway
Thurrock, Basildon, Castle Point, Southendon-Sea
55,000
Essex – Haven Gateway
Colchester, Tendring
20,300
Rest of Essex
Harlow, Uttlesford, Chelmsford, Braintree,
Maldon, Rochford, Epping Forest, Brentwood
40,700
Hertfordshire
64,700
Norfolk
42,600
Suffolk
51,900
Suffolk – Haven Gateway
Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal, Babergh
29,400
Rest of Suffolk
Mid Suffolk, St Edmunsbury, Forest Heath,
Waveney
22,500
OVERALL TOTAL (excl. Bedfordshire)
368,100
Source: DEEP December 2004
The numbers published by the Secretary of State
show a general increase spread over the region
with a small reduction in Suffolk.
Table 4.2 Summary of Employment totals published by the Secretary of State
District Grouping
2001
2001 – 2021
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough
359,100
95,000
Essex & Unitaries
648,100
131,000
Hertfordshire
481,800
68,000
Norfolk
347,000
55,000
Suffolk
305,700
53,000
2,141,700
402,000
East of England Total (excl. Bedfordshire)
Source: Plan totals published by Secretary of State 19 December 2006
63
The majority of the development of
Huntingdon and Peterborough, including
interest to the RUS being concentrated in
the development at Alconbury.
Cambridgeshire, the Essex Thames Gateway
and around Norwich, the main developments
being:
Q Essex Thames Gateway – development
developments are also taking place in the
regional centres at Chelmsford, Colchester
and Ipswich, as well as those associated
of the old Shell Haven re¿nery into a
with the ports developments at Felixstowe
container port, logistics terminal and
and Bathside Bay, together with the airport
business centre creating 16,500 jobs;
and associated development around
Redevelopment of the town centres
Stansted.
for retail, leisure and business; and
development of a university campus in
Southend providing 6,500 jobs.
Q Norwich – employment opportunities
building on the industries based on
biotechnology, food processing, ¿nance,
insurance, business services, retail,
leisure, media and education.
Q Cambridgeshire – mainly centred around
Whilst the DEEP is based on the assumption
that out-commuting is reduced, the scale of
development, even if it fully materialises, is
unlikely to prevent continued commuting from
the region into London.
4.2.2
The regional housing development is
presented in a similar format to that for
employment, the split by district grouping being
the knowledge based industries in the city
shown in Table 4.3 with the ¿gures published
and business/research parks, together with
by the Secretary of State are summarised in
the continued expansion of Addenbrookes
Table 4.4.
hospital. In addition there are distribution
centres in the west of the county around
64
Q Other developments – Other
Table 4.3 Regional Housing Growth 2001 – 2021
District Grouping
Districts
2001 – 2021
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
89,300
Cambridgeshire
Cambridge City, South Cambs, Huntingdon, Fenland
68,100
Peterborough
Peterborough UA
21,200
Essex and Unitaries
123,400
Essex Thames Gateway
Thurrock, Basildon, Castle Point,
Southend-on-Sea
39,200
Essex – Haven Gateway
Colchester, Tendring
25,600
Essex – London Arc
Epping Forest, Brentwood
13,900
Rest of Essex
Harlow, Uttlesford, Chelmsford, Braintree,
Maldon, Rochford
44,700
Hertfordshire
79,600
Herts – London Arc
Three Rivers, Watford, Hertsmere, Broxbourne,
Dacorum, St Albans, Welwyn Hat¿eld
36,600
Rest of Herts
North Herts, Stevenage, East Herts
43,000
Norfolk
72,600
Kings Lynn & West Norfolk
Kings Lynn & West Norfolk
Great Yarmouth
Great Yarmouth
Breckland
Breckland
North Norfolk
North Norfolk
Greater Norfolk
Norwich, Broadlands, S Norfolk
11,000
6,000
15,200
6,400
34,000
Suffolk
58,600
Suffolk – Haven Gateway
Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal, Babergh
Waveney
Waveney
Rest of Suffolk
Mid Suffolk, St Edmunsbury, Forest Heath
30,700
5,800
22,100
OVERALL TOTAL (excl. Bedfordshire)
423,500
Source: DEEP December 2004
Again the ¿gures published by the Secretary of
State show an increase spread across the region.
Table 4.4 Summary of Housing totals published by the Secretary of State
District Grouping
2001
2001 – 2021
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough
297,800
98,300
Essex & Unitaries
693,900
127,000
Hertfordshire
430,700
83,200
Norfolk
363,100
78,700
Suffolk
295,900
61,700
2,081,500
448,900
East of England Total (excl. Bedfordshire)
Source: Plan totals published by Secretary of State 19 December 2006
65
The majority of the development of
Again this will lead to commuting into local
interest to the RUS being concentrated in
centres as well as further commuting to
Cambridgeshire, the Essex Thames Gateway,
London.
Central Essex and around Ipswich and
4.2.3
Norwich, the main developments being:
With regard to the growth of jobs in London
Cambridgeshire – mainly concentrated
and the population changes in the east of the
around Cambridge, with intensi¿cation of
city, the Greater London Authority Act 1999
existing development in the city, as well as
placed responsibility for strategic planning in
new developments along the Cambridge
London on the Mayor. The Act required him to
– Huntingdon corridor and around
produce a Spatial Development Strategy for
Addenbrookes.
London, referred to as the London Plan, which
Peterborough - development is also centred
covers the period until 2016.
around Peterborough, including the Hamptons
4.2.4
development to the south of the city.
Over the next 15 years the population of London
Essex Thames Gateway – new developments
along the Thames in the Barking – Thurrock
corridor as part of the Communities Plan.
is forecast to grow by 810,000, with the working
population growing by 516,000. It is also
forecast that jobs, especially in the ¿nance and
service sectors will rise by 636,000, many being
Essex Haven Gateway – Development
in Central London and East London, including
around Colchester, including the Hythe
the City and the Isle of Dogs.
development to the east of the town.
4.2.5
Rest of Essex – Planned development
In order to plan for this growth (in accordance
across the middle of Essex, especially around
with the Mayor of London’s objectives) the
Chelmsford and Harlow.
London Plan contains ¿ve Sub-Regional
Greater Norfolk – Norwich and surrounding
Strategies, which cover the whole of London.
region, including local towns such as
The strategies identify Opportunity Areas,
Wymondham.
Areas for Intensi¿cation and Areas for
Regeneration.
Suffolk Haven Gateway – development in
4.2.6
and around Ipswich.
The breakdown of population, housing and
Rest of Suffolk – Development along
employment in the ¿ve sub-regions as forecast
the Ipswich – Stowmarket – Bury St
in the London Plan to 2016 are shown in Table
Edmunds corridor.
4.5 (all ¿gures are in thousands):
Table 4.5
Sub-Region
Population
2001
(000s)
66
2016
(000s)
Annual
growth
(000s)
Housing
Employment
Min annual
target
(000s)
2001
(000s)
2016
(000s)
Annual
growth
(000s)
Central
1525
1738
14.2
7.1
1644
1883
15.9
East
1991
2262
18.1
6.9
1087
1336
16.6
West
1421
1560
9.3
3.0
780
866
5.7
North
1042
1199
9.0
3.1
386
412
1.7
South
1329
1380
3.4
2.8
587
623
2.4
London
7308
8117
53.9
23.0
4484
5120
42.4
Q Central London Sub-Region
This clearly illustrates the policy of targeting population
and employment growth in the centre and east of the city.
Table 4.6 details the planned Opportunity Areas
in the sub-region, including the forecast job and
4.2.7
new home projections (note this table covers the
The planned development in the areas of interest to the
Opportunity Areas only and not all areas within
RUS (i.e. those covering the central, eastern and north
the sub-region scheduled for development).
eastern sectors of the city) is brieÀy described below:
Table 4.6
Opportunity Area
Area (ha)
New jobs to 2016
New homes to 2016
Waterloo
39
15,000
500
London Bridge
30
24,000
500
Elephant & Castle
23
4,200
4,200
Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea
78
7,600
1,500
Kings Cross
53
11,400
1,250
Paddington
30
23,200
3,000
Q East London Sub-Region
Areas scheduled for Intensi¿cation in the Central
Sub-Region are largely concentrated in the West
The East London Sub-Region is the largest and
End, especially around the proposed Crossrail
covers the whole of East and South East London
stations. The only location outside the central area
out to the borders with Kent and Essex.
is the redevelopment around the new stadium in the
Table 4.7 details the planned Opportunity Areas in
Arsenal/Holloway area.
the sub-region, including the forecast job and new
home projections:
Table 4.7
Opportunity Area
Area (ha)
New jobs to 2016
Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch
35
16,000
800
Whitechapel/Aldgate
31
14,000
700
Isle of Dogs
100
100,000
3,500
Stratford
124
30,000
4,500
Lower Lea Valley
250
8,500
6,000
Royal Docks
368
11,000
5,500
Barking Reach
210
200
10,000
London Riverside
418
4,000
3,000
72
5,500
1,000
Greenwich Peninsular
104
15,000
7,500
Belvedere/Erith
242
5,000
1,400
Thamesmead
121
1,500
3,000
56
-
5,500
1,812
210,700
52,400
Deptford Creek/Greenwich Riverside
Ilford
TOTAL
New homes to 2016
67
Of particular importance to the RUS are the
d) The Lower Lea Valley is scheduled for
major redevelopment by the London
following:
a) The Bishopsgate, Shoreditch, Whitechapel
Development Agency. This development
will generate both jobs and housing.
and Aldgate developments cover the
eastern spread of the city of¿ces for use by
the ¿nancial business sector.
e) Barking Reach is seen as a major source
of housing in the Thames Gateway.
b) The continued development of the Isle
Q North London Sub-Region
of Dogs is seen as major source of
Table 4.8 details the planned Opportunity
employment in the capital again with the
Areas in the sub-region, including the
majority of jobs being in the ¿nancial
forecast job and new home projections:
sector. Further east, the Royal Docks will
be a similar development but on a smaller
scale.
The Upper Lea Valley comprises a six–mile
corridor running north from Stratford. The
corridor includes Tottenham Hale and a
c) The Stratford City Development has gained
number of old industrial sites which are
planning consent and will be a major retail,
scheduled for redevelopment. The jobs
of¿ce and residential centre.
created will be in the business park, and
the new Middlesex University campus.
Table 4.8
Opportunity Area
Area (ha)
New jobs to 2016
Upper Lea Valley
416
10,000
700
Tottenham Hale
26
5,000
200
107
5,000
5,000
Cricklewood/Brent Cross
4.3 Freight growth issues by
commodity
The freight growth forecasts described below
have been provided by the Freight RUS team
and also, in the case of the maritime container
New homes to 2016
Q Thames Gateway development.
Q Olympic Park/Lower Lea Valley
development.
Q Airport expansion at Stansted.
traf¿c, from the port planning inquiries.
Q Flood defence works.
Aggregates
Q London Underground infrastructure
4.3.1
renewals.
The market will continue to enjoy underlying
4.3.2
growth but with Àuctuations according to the
Aggregate traf¿c will therefore increase on
general fortunes of the building industry and
all routes, especially the West Anglia and
major construction schemes. Within the route
Thameside routes. Additional rail aggregate
potential schemes include;
facilities have been proposed or are being
Q Crossrail.
Q M25 widening.
considered for Bow, Bury St Edmunds, the
Olympic Park, West Thurrock and Whittlesea.
Details of the Olympic Park are still in
development, however, Bow is likely to feature
68
strongly in the plans for aggregate delivery, but
the depot may close temporarily during The
Games themselves. There are also plans for a
new connection between the network and LUL
at Barking, so that materials can be delivered
for the LUL upgrade project.
Intermodal business
4.3.5
This sector is likely to see very signi¿cant
change. Deep sea containerised traf¿c into
the UK is growing by around ¿ve per cent per
year, particularly driven by the far-east. The
4.3.3
¿nite capacity of existing major container ports
Whilst recycled aggregates are expected to
will start to curtail trade within the next few
increase their market share this is from a very
years without expansion schemes.
small base. Primary aggregate tax encourages
use of re-cycled material but it has not
signi¿cantly altered the economic advantage
of bulk primary production and rail movement.
The demand for quarried/dredged material will
remain high and continue to support and expand
the Àows listed. Because operators generally
4.3.6
Port developers have responded to the market
with a series of proposals for signi¿cant port
expansions with rail to the market implications.
Predicted demand from these sites is shown in
Table 4.9.
maximise train payloads, volume increases
The actual numbers assumed in the future
imply that additional trains will need to run.
year tables in Chapter 5 of this document are
shown in Tables 4.10 to 4.12. These are taken
Other bulk raw material production/
consumption
from the Freight RUS for 2014/15 and the port
planning inquiries for 2023. In Table 4.11 the
4.3.4
Base Case scenario assumes no development
There is potential for expansion in non-
of London Gateway Port by 2014/15 and
intermodal traf¿cs via ports, particularly Tilbury,
Sensitivity Test 2 (Sense Test 2) assumes 8
but these proposals are at an early stage of
trains per day by 2014/15 and consequently
development. The Olympic Park construction
fewer additional services from Felixstowe and
may attract steel and other commodities by rail
Bathside Bay.
in addition to aggregates.
Table 4.9: Likely train path demand arising from port expansion.
Site
Potential increase in trains per day each way
Bathside Bay (Harwich)
10 – 15
Felixstowe South (expansion of existing port)
15 – 20
London Gateway Port
19 – 25
Table 4.10: Base Year trains per day each way (Deep sea intermodal only)
NLL & Sfd
GOB if W10
GE
Cross Country
14
-
14
8
Bathside Bay
-
-
-
-
London
Gateway Port
-
-
-
-
14
-
14
8
Felixstowe
TOTAL
69
Base
Case
Felixstowe
Sense Base
Test 2 Case
Sense Base
Test 2 Case
Sense Base
Test 2 Case
Total
Port
Cross
Country
GE
NLL &
Sfd
GOB if
W10
Table 4.11: Forecast trains per day each way in 2014/15.
Unconstrained by capacity (Deep sea intermodal only)1
Sense Base
Test 2 Case
Sense
Test 2
27
22
-
-
27
22
12
11
39
33
Bathside Bay
6
5
-
-
6
5
3
2
9
7
London
Gateway Port
-
2
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
8
33
29
-
6
33
27
15
13
48
48
TOTAL
Source: Freight RUS data
Table 4.12: Forecast trains per day each way in 2023
(Deep sea intermodal only)
NLL & Sfd
GOB if W10
GE
18
-
18
19
37
Bathside Bay
6
-
6
6
12
London
Gateway Port
6
17
6
-
23
30
17
30
25
72
Felixstowe
TOTAL
Cross Country
Port Total
Source: Port planning inquiry data
4.3.7
Felixstowe in line with the 2014/15 Freight
The Freight RUS forecasts contain a regional
RUS forecast. Between 3 and 4 additional
breakdown of likely destinations of the new
trains per day are now running over and above
trains projected. These broadly mirror the
2004/05 volumes.
existing Haven and North Thameside services,
i.e. 25 percent go via the ECML and 75
percent via the WCML.
an important trend within the Intermodal sector
is the growth of “high cube” (9’ 6”) containers
Felixstowe South, Bathside Bay and the
in the world market. It is forecast (source
London Gateway Port have received planning
Freightliner group) that by 2012 these larger
permission to proceed.
containers will comprise around 50 percent of
Since the base year of 2004/05, the Freight
RUS reports that there has already been
signi¿cant growth on the GE route from
70
In addition to demand for new train services
4.3.8
4.3.9
1
4.3.10
all boxes conveyed. Currently, on the majority
of routes these can be moved only on special
low Àoor wagons, which reduce train payload
(because they are limited to 40’ of loading
The Freight RUS also predicts up to 4 additional container trains per day out of Tilbury by 2014/15 over the 2004/05 base of 5. Already
1-2 tpd of these additional services are running in line with forecast. Current services run via the NLL. Most of these additional services
would run over the GOB if W10 gauge clearance was completed, though 1 or 2 could require use of the NLL if they are for east coast
destinations or require electric traction.
space per wagon as against the standard
Q Barking – proposals to develop a site
60’). As the bigger boxes grow in number this
adjacent to HS1 which could receive freight
becomes an increasingly inef¿cient option for
trains composed of Continental-sized
competitive rail operation.
wagons directly from Europe via the new
4.3.11
The solution is to invest in structural clearance
of selected key routes to achieve W10
loading gauge which permits ‘high cubes’ on
standard 60’ wagons. The only W10 route
at present which serves ports in the route is
the GEML via London. Improvements will be
required if the market is not to be restricted.
An alternative route across London is required
(using an upgraded Gospel Oak – Barking
route), and funding for this work through the
TIF was announced in July 2007.
line, which opened in late 2007. Traf¿c
over the link will be dependent on charges
via the tunnel relative to other routes,
however, the overall market is assessed at
around 80 million tonnes per year (source:
Intermodality report for EWS).
Q Stowmarket, Kings Dyke – new rail linked
distribution sites.
These proposals are at an early stage and
none has yet progressed to the point where a
¿rm rail demand exists.
Other trainload freight
4.3.12
To avoid London, the cross country route
4.3.14
from Ipswich to Nuneaton (via Peterborough)
Within this commodity group freight train
is a priority for gauge enhancement. There
operators believe there are prospects for
is also a short term need for an alternative
growth on rail as follows;
W10 route around the GE in view of the level
Q Automotive – increasing movements
of blockades likely to be required for the
construction of the Olympic Park in the run up
to 2012, the West Anglia route being favoured.
These schemes are being developed as
follows;
Q Cross country route to Peterborough
(planned for completion in April 2008)
– funding through HPUK Section 106
commitment.
Q West Anglia temporary clearance for the
through ports.
Q Waste – possibility for additional Àows on
rail as disposal pressures grow.
These prospects cannot be translated into
de¿nite rail demand yet.
Specialist freight business
4.3.15
Nuclear traf¿c from the existing power
stations will decline over the long term as they
works required for The Games – NRDF
approach the decommissioning phase of their
scheme.
lives. However, current government plans for
Q Gauge enhancement of the Peterborough
– Nuneaton route is being taken forward
under the TIF programme announced in
July 2007.
a new generation of nuclear stations is likely
to lead to continued and increasing traf¿c over
the coming years (depending on the sites
selected for development).
General merchandise
4.3.13
Expressions of interest by developers in sites
which might create new general merchandise
rail business are as follows;
71
4.4 Transport proposals and
enhancement aspirations
4.4.1
The TOCs and FOCs, who are principal users
and key stakeholders on the routes covered by
the GA RUS, have the following aspirations:
Q c2c
c2c wishes to continue to operate one of
the best performing routes in the country.
In terms of passenger growth and market
needs they wish to see the following:
improved capacity and performance on
services via Ockendon; more trains calling
railway will be continuing with the
improvement to car parks and have been
involved in the development of new stations,
such as those proposed at Great Blakenham
and to the north east of Chelmsford.
Q First Capital Connect
FCC is planning the operation of longer
trains. These are being delivered as a result
of the GN capacity study carried out for DfT
and this will result in longer trains on the
Cambridge and Peterborough services.
Q CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains
at West Ham for interchange to Docklands;
The routes formally operated by Central
improved service running at weekends;
Trains have recently been re-franchised
and trains lengthened to meet demand.
and the operators are keen to develop
They also wish linespeeds to be improved
the Midlands – Anglia markets, with
between Barking and Upminster.
proposals for the operation of longer
Q ‘one’ railway
‘one’ railway has aspirations to meet
growth on both the WA and GE routes.
Their aspirations on the WA route include:
train lengthening on the Chingford, En¿eld
Town, Hertford East, Stansted Airport
and Cambridge services, as well as
improvements in the Lea Valley to facilitate
both improved access to Stratford and
improved performance and capacity. On
trains to relieve overcrowding on the
services running through to Stansted
Airport and the possible requirement for
longer hours of operation on the route.
The original franchise has been split with
the Stansted Airport – Birmingham service
being operated by CrossCountry and the
Liverpool – Norwich service operated by
East Midlands Trains.
Q Freight operators
the GE route they are keen to see more
Freight operators are keen to ensure that
trains/improved peak capacity through
adequate capacity exists to meet forecast
the operation of more trains on all service
growth (as described in the Freight RUS),
groups, as well as a better service to
especially for aggregate and intermodal
Stratford from main line destinations.
traf¿c, particularly deep sea containers.
‘one’ railway also wishes to see
performance on the routes improved
through the ‘Challenge 90’ initiative (to
achieve a PPM of at least 90 percent),
as well as local enhancements to
infrastructure. These include enhancements
such as improved turnback facilities, as well
as replacement of the poorly performing
sections of the OLE. Reduced overnight
and weekend engineering access is also
being sought on certain routes, in particular
to Stansted, where additional services are
being introduced.
72
In terms of access to the network ‘one’
Intermodal traf¿c from the ports to the
ECML/WCML routes will require W10
gauge clearance, incremental train
lengthening, improved capacity and better
engineering access arrangements. The
freight operators also wish to ensure that
the Rules of the Plan are robust and that
trains can operate without the need for
speed or weight restrictions. The operators
wish to see wider use of the Class 92
locomotives and double heading on freight
services which operate over sections of
these routes (including the Thameside and
GEML routes). Access to the Thameside
Stratford. TfL seeks to operate these as
route for electric traction would be
at least 8-car trains in the peak. They also
enhanced if the Gospel Oak – Barking
wish services to operate over the same
route were electri¿ed.
service hours as the Underground. The
EWS has developed the concept of the
“Big Freight Railway”. The purpose being
to maximise the use of each path on the
network. The key is trains which are longer,
heavier and bigger (both in width and
height). A network is required to allow this
to be delivered.
Freight operators also wish to operate
intermodal traf¿c for at least 6 days per
week and seek assurances that reliable
paths will be available round engineering
work without detriment to forecast capacity.
The operators also have concerns over the
impact of Crossrail and seek assurances
that its impacts have been allowed for in
the plans contained in the RUS (this is
discussed later in the document).
2025 plans are also designed to build on
the capacity/opportunities provided by
Crossrail. TfL is also keen to see freight
traf¿c destined for the capital switched
from road to rail and also to see traf¿c
which transits London diverted away from
the city where possible.
Q Passenger Focus
Passenger Focus is the independent
National Rail consumer watchdog: its
mission is to get the best deal for Britain’s
rail passengers. Passenger Focus is keen
that a) the current need for passengers
to stand for in excess of 20 minutes is
eliminated; and b) that there is suf¿cient
capacity on all routes to meet demand to
2016/17. Passenger Focus stresses that
getting to the station is integral to travelling
Q BAA
In line with the 2003 Air Transport White
by train, with capacity to park cars a key
area to address.
Paper and subsequent Progress Report,
BAA is developing plans for increased
capacity at Stansted Airport. The ¿rst stage
is known as Generation 1 (G1) and seeks
to make better use of the existing runway
(capacity around 35 million passengers
per annum (mppa)). This application has
been considered through a Public Inquiry
and a decision is due in early 2008. The
second stage is known as Generation 2
(G2) and seeks to deliver a second runway
4.4.2
In terms of the wider stakeholders, the
aspirations of the East of England Regional
Assembly, the County Councils and London
Boroughs are brieÀy listed below, their
plans being taken from the Regional Spatial
Strategy/Regional Transport Strategy, Local
Transport Plans and Local Implementation
Plans:
Q East of England Regional Assembly
and capacity increase to around 68 mppa.
In its Regional Transport Strategy the
In line with these aspirations, BAA has
Assembly are seeking to promote the
developed a multi-modal Surface Access
following: the implementation of major
Strategy which was subject to extensive
projects, including Thameslink, Crossrail
consultation during 2007, which inter alia
and access to Stansted; improvements
identi¿ed the need for extra rail capacity on
to the cross country and inter-regional
the WAML.
routes, as well as the key radial lines; and
Q TfL
TfL in preparing its Rail Corridor Plan
(RCP) and 2025 Vision wish to promote a
enhancement of the cross country freight
routes to improve access to the region’s
main ports.
4 tph all day service on all the key radial
routes, as well as increased services via
73
Q Norfolk County Council
Q The London Boroughs
Norfolk seeks improvements to the radial,
The boroughs’ aspirations cover improved
rural and east – west rail routes. It is also
access to the network with extra
keen to see improved market share for rail
interchange stations, as well as improved
freight and development of access to the
station security. They are keen to promote
passenger network through improved car
rail freight but almost all advocate a freight
parking, interchange, DDA and continued
bypass for London.
promotion of the County’s successful
Community Rail Partnerships, as well as
4.5 Regional/Local Funding
potential improvements in service frequency
4.5.1
on the routes linking into Norwich.
There a number of mechanisms for funding
Q Suffolk County Council
Suffolk seeks improved rail freight through
completion of the Felixstowe – Nuneaton
schemes identi¿ed within the RUS, and these
are brieÀy described below:
Q Department for Transport
route, improved services on the Ipswich
The DfT, as procurer and speci¿er of
– Peterborough and East Suffolk lines,
passenger rail franchises, has the ability
together with improved interchange at
to fund major enhancements directly. It
stations such as Ipswich and Lowestoft.
also has other funding mechanisms and
The County also wishes to see new
these include: the TIF for the promotion of
stations provided at Moreton Hall and Great
schemes, which enhance regional/national
Blakenham to serve local developments.
productivity or that relieve congestion,
Q Cambridgeshire County Council
together with the HLOS, in which the DfT
The Council is concentrating on improved
decides what increased outputs it wishes to
access to Cambridge through construction
buy from the rail industry.
of Chesterton station to act as a parkway
Q Network Rail
for access to the city (this project is subject
Network Rail has the Network Rail
to a TIF (congestion) bid). The Council is
Discretionary Fund for relatively minor
also keen to see the cross country freight
schemes that improve capacity/performance
route upgraded to provide relief to the
(This programme is subject to DfT funding
county’s major roads.
and ORR scrutiny of business cases).
Q Essex County Council
Q Transport for London (TfL)
Essex seeks improved access to stations,
While TfL is not generally responsible for
especially DDA, car parks, interchange and
the funding of National Rail services other
station facilities. It is also keen to ensure
than the London Overground network
that capacity on the radial routes expands
(the former Silverlink services which
in line with growth and that new stations
commenced in November 2007), it seeks
are provided north-east of Chelmsford and
to work closely with DfT and TOCs to help
to serve Essex University. Improvements
ensure that they meet the needs of London.
are also sought to the Braintree, Sudbury
The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy
and Clacton branches.
therefore seeks to better integrate National
Q Hertfordshire County Council
Rail’s provision with that of other transport
The County wishes to see improved east
providers and to raise the standards
– west rail links to and from the region,
of National Rail services and facilities
as well as the development of its main
in London. To this end, TfL has funded
interchanges, together with good links to
station access and passenger security
Stansted and Stratford.
programmes and has now assumed
responsibility for the North London Line
74
franchise, which has recently been let to
Q Planning Conditions/Section 106
MTR Laing Rail. In addition it is funding
Agreements
the East London Line Extension scheme
In order to ensure that the transport
and is also promoting the development of
system can cope with the additional trips
the radial suburban routes through its Rail
generated by development, the Planning
Corridor Plans and 2025 Vision.
Authority can impose a planning condition
Q London Boroughs’ Local
Implementation Plans and Borough
Spending Plans
TfL is also responsible for allocating
the government’s annual Transport
Settlement, in respect of London, to
the London Boroughs. This is the main
source of London Borough funding for
capital expenditure on transport. London
Boroughs present an annual bid to TfL for
such funding via their Borough Spending
Plans. These in turn must be in line with
the Borough’s Local Implementation
Plan, a statement of how the borough is
going to implement the Mayor of London’s
Transport Strategy at local level. To date
most borough expenditure related to
National Rail has been related to improving
access to, the physical approach to, and
the local environment of stations.
Q Local authorities’ Local Transport Plans
These programmes are submitted to the
DfT for funding and generally cover smaller
rail schemes, including improved station
facilities and interchange.
on the granting of planning permission.
It is more likely, however, that in the
case of large scale developments, the
Planning Authority negotiates a Section
106 agreement with the proposer whereby
money is made available for improvements
to the transport system. Whilst this will
lead to the funding of additional stations
on the Network (capacity permitting) and
a contribution to improvements such as
those on the West Anglia route (required
to meet the needs of regional growth
and Stansted), a more radical pooling
of developers’ 106 monies may be
required if the there is a gap in funding the
enhancements necessary to meet regional
growth. This may be forthcoming via the
‘Roof Tax’ proposed under the Planning
Bill. This Bill also includes some freedom
for local authorities to set up local road
pricing schemes, which could also fund
public transport improvements.
Q The Transport Plan for the London 2012
Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
In the context of this RUS, the access to
Stratford from the West Anglia, GE outer,
Following the Lyons review of local authority
E lines and c2c routes has an important
funding, it is possible that local authorities
role to play in the Transport Plan for The
may be given wider borrowing/tax raising
Games. Network Rail is working with the
powers to fund larger infrastructure
Olympic Delivery Authority to help deliver
projects. With such strong growth in the
the infrastructure enhancements needed
east of England requiring a step change
to handle the passenger traf¿c generated
in infrastructure, this may be one route for
by the Games. The enhancements will
delivering the required funding.
provide a legacy of improved services to
Stratford and Docklands.
75
4.6 Summary of gaps identi¿ed
4.6.1
The following gaps have been identi¿ed in
this chapter:
1) Strong growth is predicted in the region
through the coming years, with a growing
need for increased commuting to meet the
needs of London.
2) Strong regional growth also leads to a
requirement for improved local services
between regional centres.
3) There is a need to ensure that peak
crowding is dealt with and does not worsen
as demand rises.
4) The growth of Docklands and the
development of East and North East
London leads to a requirement for
improved access to Stratford and
interchange for Docklands.
5) Mayoral objectives to achieve a four trainper-hour “metro-style” frequency on the
suburban radial routes, including extended
service hours to match those of LUL.
6) Strong growth in intermodal traf¿c leads
to a requirement for increased capacity
and enhanced gauge on the cross county
route and the Gospel Oak – Barking
– Willesden line (electri¿cation of the latter
would enhance the routing opportunities for
electrically hauled freight from Thameside).
76
77
5. Forecast of change –
predicted demand increases
5.1 Introduction
less than would actually be expected to happen
5.1.1
as capacity is matched to demand through
In this chapter the demand forecasts for
changes to the timetable over time.
changes in passenger and freight demand
5.2.3
to 2016 and 2021 that were prepared for the
The forecasts also take no account of predicted
RUS Draft for Consultation are re-presented.
improvements in train performance. By the end
Passenger demand forecasts have been made
of CP4 the industry is targeted with increasing
by Atkins Transport Planning for morning peak
PPM to 93 percent for London and South East
passenger Àows into and out of London using
TOCs’ train services. This may drive passenger
the PLANET South AM demand model. The
demand up to ¿ve percent higher across the
RIFF Lite model to estimate changes in
region and may be even higher in some areas
demand on non-London passenger Àows has
– such as on the GE route – where there are
been used. Freight forecasts in the RUS area
speci¿c measures planned (early replacement
draw on speci¿c market information for short
of OLE) to improve performance on the route.
term predictions, the 2014/15 demand forecasts
from the Freight RUS and information from the
Methodology
port planning inquiries for longer term estimates
5.2.4
of inter-modal freight demand.
The passenger demand forecasts are driven by
a number of underlying planning assumptions.
5.2 Passenger demand
The key sources of these data are shown in
London
Table 5.1.
5.2.1
5.2.5
The passenger demand forecasts presented
The base year in the PLANET South AM model
in this chapter are contrived with the purpose
is 2002. The forecasting process was: ¿rst, to
of providing a base against which to compare
predict a base year – in this case 2004/05 – and
proposed service changes in the RUS options
to calibrate that base prediction to observed
and the ¿nal recommended strategy. In
ticket sales, survey and passenger count data;
Chapter 9 the predicted out-turn of demand
and second, to make future year forecasts
that is anticipated if the RUS strategy is
based on the underlying assumptions from the
followed is presented.
base year (which is itself a modelled outcome).
5.2.2
The predictions are made assuming that only
committed service changes occur between the
modelled base year (2004/05) and the forecast
years (2016 and 2021). In particular, the forecasts
assume that the December 2005 timetable
remains in operation throughout the period. The
result being that the changes predicted are much
78
PLANET South AM makes these predictions
for morning peak passenger Àows around
London. The model also predicts passengers’
responses to crowding as a constraint on
demand which results (for demand increases)
in a combination of passengers enduring more
crowded conditions, trip suppression (or use of
other modes), and switching between alternative
heavy rail or London Underground routes.
Table 5.1: Drivers of passenger demand and planning data sources
Demand Driver
Source of Planning Assumption
Population and employment forecasts
Tempro version 4.3 policy data (03/08/2005) for the
South East and trend based data (09/05/2002) for
the rest of the country1
Consumer response elasticities
PDFH v4.1
Fares Growth
RPI+1%
Gross Value Added
Cambridge Econometrics
Fuel Cost
Tempro guidance
Car Availability
Tempro v4.3
Car journey time
PLANET Strategic Highway Model
Stansted Airport Rail Access
Passenger demand forecast overlay provided by
BAA; sensitivity overlay provided by DfT
Service Changes
Do-minimum timetable (December 2005)
Committed Schemes
London Underground PPP schemes
Integrated Kent Franchise
East London Line
Docklands Light Railway extended to Woolwich
Arsenal and Stratford International
North London Lines capacity works at Stratford
Passenger demand forecasts
5.2.6
The estimated rates of change in passenger
demand for each route are shown in Table
5.2 and the base and future levels of demand
for each route are shown in Figure 5.1.
These rates of increase are constrained by
crowding in the do-minimum forecast.2 The
percent, for 2016 and 2021 respectively.3 The
constraint bites hardest on the GE forecast
in the model: the unconstrained do-minimum
forecast is for about twice as large an increase
in peak passenger numbers to occur, i.e. the
model predicts that about half of potential
growth on the GE will be crowded off unless
more capacity is provided.
unconstrained forecasts are much higher: the
weighted averages being 23 percent and 28
1
These data were supplied by Faber Maunsell and are the same as those used for the demand forecasting work that they did for BAA
supporting its consultation paper from February 2007. These data are augmented with data from the Draft East of England Plan and the
London Plan.
2 The do-minimum scenario is a future year (2016 or 2021) scenario with the current network and train service provision plus any committed
changes. These are known changes which are de¿ned for the RUS.
3 The constrained and unconstrained forecasts are both made from the same base level of patronage, which is itself constrained by current
crowding. Constrained demand assumes that no additional capacity is added in future years (other than do-minimum changes) and
unconstrained demand assumes that capacity is added to ensure that crowding is no worse than current levels as demand rises.
79
Table 5.2: Predicted Changes in Passenger Journeys
Route
2016
2021
Thameside
15%
17%
Great Eastern
8%
9%
West Anglia
37%
42%
Weighted Average
17%
19%
Source: Planet South AM outputs, Atkins
Figure 5.1: Base and Future Modelled Levels of Demand
(am peak journeys to London; Do-minimum)
Key
2004
2021
2016
Supressed Journeys by 2021
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Thameside
Great Eastern
West Anglia
Source: PLANET South AM Peak, Atkins
5.2.7
Southbury Loop and Seven Sisters on the
There is considerable variation in the
West Anglia route, due to increasing air
predictions of changes in passenger journeys
passenger demand and regional housing
towards London across routes and between
growth. The increases in passenger numbers
service groups within routes. Especially
at the service group level predicted in the
large proportionate increases are predicted
model are shown in Figure 5.2.
for Stansted Express and services via the
80
Figure 5.2: Base and Future Modelled Demand by Service Group
(am peak journeys to London; Do-minimum)
Key
Modelled Base Demand
Predicted Crowding Off
2016 Passenger Forecast
2021 Passenger Forecast
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
Hertford East
Cambridge
Enfield/Cheshunt
Stansted Express
Chingford
GE Southend
GE Inners
GE Outers
Anglia Inter City
0
Thameside
5000
Source: PLANET South AM outputs, Atkins
5.2.8
5.2.9
The predicted increases in passenger journeys
The predicted daily levels of crowding-off for
are constrained by crowding on trains.
passengers in the morning peak are shown
Atkins analysis shows that demand would be
in Table 5.3 for each of the routes. These are
considerably higher if capacity were increased
PLANET estimates which are determined
in line with demand. Around 10,000 morning
within the model by the estimated passenger
peak trips into London a day are predicted to
demand and load factors in the forecast year.
be crowded off the network by 2021 in the dominimum scenario.
Table 5.3: Estimated Crowding Off of Passengers
AM Peak; Up Direction; Do-minimum
Route
Trips Crowded Off
(Do-minimum; AM Peak; Up Direction)
2016
2021
800
1,500
Great Eastern
3,800
4,500
West Anglia
2,900
4,000
Total
7,500
10,000
Thameside
81
Crowding
travel at different times to avoid the worsened
crowding. Crowding can also be mitigated to
5.2.10
It is not straightforward to say how crowding
might alter passengers’ travel behaviour. It
would be expected that some people would
some extent by changing the calling patterns
of trains. As a simpli¿cation the impact of
uniform increases in train loads for each route
is presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Predicted Crowding on Passenger Services
AM Peak; UP Direction; Do-minimum
Thameside
Great Eastern
West Anglia
Passengers standing in overcrowded conditions
Number of people a day in Up direction
Percentage of total in parentheses
2004 (Actual)
1,600 (6%)
3,400 (6%)
1,500 (6%)
2016 (Forecast)
5,600 (18%)
6,300 (10%)
8,900 (25%)
2021 (Forecast)
5,900 (18%)
6,500 (10%)
10,300 (27%)
9 (20%)
17 (20%)
6 (10%)
2016 (Forecast)
23 (50%)
29 (35%)
33 (52%)
2021 (Forecast)
23 (50%)
30 (36%)
37 (59%)
Trains over PIXC Capacity
Number of trains in Up direction
Percentage of total in parentheses
2004 (Actual)
Source: Network Rail Analysis of PLANET South AM Outputs and passenger count data.
Note: “crowded conditions” are de¿ned as being reached when passenger are standing on trains which have exceeded their standing
allowance for PIXC measurement.
82
5.2.11
would change the time at which they travel. The
Base year (Autumn 2004) and predicted PIXC
impact of this peak spreading is that the results
are shown in Table 5.5 at the service group
in Table 5.4 are conservative: it is expected that
level. Again, it is assumed that passengers
more trains will be over their PIXC capacity than
travel at the same time as they do in the base
are estimated in the analysis for the forecast
year though it is expected that some people
years on all routes in the do-minimum scenario.
Table 5.5: Predicted Percentage PIXC
2004
(Actual)
2016
(Estimate)
2021
(Estimate)
Thameside
2%
7%
8%
Great Eastern Inner
4%
5%
6%
Great Eastern Outer (including
Anglia Inter-City)
3%
7%
7%
-
-
1%
West Anglia Inner
1%
12%
13%
West Anglia Outer (including
Stansted Express)
3%
15%
19%
Great Eastern Southend
Source: Network Rail analysis of 2004/05 peak counts, Department for Transport and PSAM Outputs.
5.2.12
The predicted changes in the levels of
crowding and the number of over-crowded
trains (de¿ned in terms of PIXC capacity)
show that the proportions of passengers
travelling in crowded conditions are very
similar across the three routes in the base
year though a smaller proportion of trains
are over PIXC limits on West Anglia than on
the other routes. This indicates that crowding
affects more passengers on each train on
West Anglia than it does on Great Eastern or
the Thameside route.1
Time Spent Standing
5.2.13
It is not possible to tell how long passengers
have stood for from the PIXC count data.
Examination of the modelled load factors
indicates for how long passengers have to
stand. It is known that some passengers,
typically, have to stand on trains where
average load factors at the terminal or
measuring point breach 70 percent over
three hours. This infers that where average
modelled load factors reach 70 percent along
the route passengers have to stand on some
trains. Estimates of the station at which
standing starts and typical journey times from
those stations to the maximum loading stop
are shown in Table 5.6 for each of the outer
service groups.
4
This comes about because the allowance for standing passengers within PIXC capacity on (some variants of) the Class 317 rolling stock
used on the West Anglia route is a much higher proportion of seated passengers than it is on Great Eastern or Thameside rolling stock.
About a third of services on the GE Outers and all of the Anglia Inter-City services allow no standing within the PIXC capacity.
83
Table 5.6: Estimates of Time Spent Standing
2004
2016
2021
Thameside
Basildon – BenÀeet
(27 - 40 minutes)
Basildon – BenÀeet
(27 - 40 minutes)
Southend
(52 minutes)
GE Outer
Chelmsford
(28 minutes)
Witham
(37 minutes)
Witham
(37 minutes)
GE Southend
Shen¿eld – Billericay
(14 - 23 minutes)
Wickford
(30 minutes)
Wickford
(30 minutes)
Anglia Inter-City
Colchester
(57 minutes)
Ipswich
(76 minutes)
Ipswich
(76 minutes)
West Anglia Outer
including Stansted
Express
Cheshunt/Broxbourne
(8 - 13 minutes)
Harlow/
Bishops Stortford
(21 - 32 minutes)
Bishops Stortford/
Stansted Airport
(32 - 34 minutes)
Source: Network Rail estimates
5.2.14
Actual train load data have been obtained along
the Thameside and WAML routes. These data
(presented in Chapter 3) were provided by c2c
from its train load weighing equipment and
gathered, on West Anglia, during consultation.5
These show that standing starts at BenÀeet on
c2c and at Bishops Stortford on West Anglia.
This suggests that the estimates in Table 5.6 are
conservative, though passenger numbers have
increased sharply since 2004/05 on both routes.
Regional Demand Forecast
5.2.15
PLANET South models services that arrive
and depart London termini between 07:00 and
10:00. The regional demand forecasts have
been modelled using Rail Industry Forecasting
Framework ‘RIFF Lite’ model. This model has
been used to make unconstrained passenger
demand forecasts for non-London Àows in the
GA RUS area. Demand forecasts have been
made for journeys to and journeys from the
¿ve demand zones shown below in Figure 5.3.
5
84
‘one’ railway is not able to provide equivalent data for the GE and WA routes
The non-London demand forecasts are shown
This table forecasts growth levels of around
in Table 5.7. Table 5.7 shows the number
20 percent on rural services, meaning that
of trips recorded in the RIFF Lite model in
peak trains around the regional centres,
2005/06 and the ten year forecast rates of
which currently experience loads of 100 – 150
increase for non-London journeys that start
passengers, will need to accommodate an
and end in each of the zones.
additional 20 – 30 people per train.
Figure 5.3: Regional Demand Forecasting Zones
Key
Zone A - Peterborough to March
Zone D - Anglia (Shorter)
Zone B - West Anglia
Zone E - c2c
Sheringham
Cromer
Zone C - Anglia (Longer)
KINGS LYNN
Great
Yarmouth
NORWICH
Middleton Towers
Lowestoft
Thetford
Diss
Yard
March
Sizewell
ELY
Bury St Edmunds
Felixstowe
CAMBRIDGE
Letchworth
Hertford East
IPSWICH
Harwich
Parkeston Quay
STANSTED
AIRPORT
Sudbury
Manningtree
Braintree
BISHOPS STORTFORD
Harlow Mill
Walton-onthe-Naze
Colchester
Town
Marks
Tey
Harlow Town
Enfield Town
Harwich
Town
COLCHESTER
Clacton
Broxbourne
Witham
Chelmsford
Chingford
Seven
Sisters
Tottenham
Hale
Walthamstow
Central
Shenfield
Southminster
Romford
LONDON
LIVERPOOL STREET
Southend Victoria
Stratford
Barking
Upminister
Pitsea
Shoeburyness
Southend
Central
Basildon
LONDON
FENCHURCH STREET
Thames Haven
Grays
Tilbury Freight
Container Terminal
85
Table 5.7: Non-London Demand Forecasts
(Annual Trips, Greater Anglia RUS Zones Outside London)
non-London Trips from Zone
non-London Trips to Zone
Number of Trips,
million (2005)
Number of Trips,
million (2005)
Forecast Change
(Ten Years)
Forecast Change
(Ten Years)
Zone A
Peterborough
– March
3.3
19.5%
3.1
16.7%
Zone B
West Anglia
5.2
22.9%
5.7
20.5%
Zone C
Anglia (Longer)
3.6
19.5%
3.6
19.0%
Zone D
Anglia (Shorter)
6.0
17.2%
5.1
16.9%
Zone E
c2c
2.9
17.1%
3.5
17.3%
20.9
19.3%
21.0
18.3%
Total
Source: RIFF Lite Demand Forecasts prepared by Network Rail
As with the forecasts of passenger demand
5.2.17
on services to London, these forecasts are
A second (higher) demand forecast for
contrived to estimate a do-minimum scenario.
Stansted Airport rail passengers was provided
With the matching of services to passenger
by the Department for Transport. This forecast
needs and enhancements a higher out-turn
was produced by DfT to reÀect its view at
of passenger use of the railway would be
the time that the mix of air passengers at
anticipated than is shown in the table. Similarly
Stansted Airport will be different from that
to the PLANET forecasts for London, the impact
predicted by BAA; and particularly that there
of improved train performance on passenger
will be more business travel from Stansted
demand is not considered in the forecast.
Airport than BAA predicts.6 This would, in turn,
Demand sensitivities
result in more air passengers travelling to the
airport at peak times by rail. Both demand
Stansted Airport
predictions are shown in Table 5.8. Before
5.2.16
consultation options for West Anglia Outer-
The level of unconstrained rail passenger
Suburban services were assessed under both
demand at Stansted Airport outlined above
scenarios. In assessing the value for money of
has been overlaid into the future year demand
the proposed strategy (in Chapter 9) the more
matrix. In the data reported in this chapter
conservative scenario predicted by BAA has
demand forecasts produced by BAA for its
been used.
February 2007 consultation have been used.
These predictions were made using their
surface access strategy modelling suite.
6
86
Both BAA and DfT have revised their forecasts since these baseline forecasts were made for this RUS.
Table 5.8: Constrained Demand Forecast – Stansted Airport Borders
AM Peak; Up Direction
2016
2021
BAA
2,167
2,663
DfT
2,490
2,856
Difference
323 (15%)
193 (7%)
5.2.18
change in population (relative to the average)
The modelled impact of the higher levels of
for each area linked to stations in the model
demand at Stansted Airport predicted by the
and the trip rate in the catchment area for
Department for Transport in the alternative
each station.
do-minimum forecast is that demand along the
West Anglia route shifts to the services from
Cambridge and – further down the route – to
the Inner services on the WAML (from Hertford
East or Broxbourne). The implication being
that more capacity would be needed on the
route to handle demand and that the value for
money of increasing passenger capacity would
be greater.
Tempro v5.3 population forecasts
5.2.19
Since Atkins completed their demand
forecasting work new Tempro (version 5.3)
forecasts of population have been made
available. Consideration has been given
to how much difference these would have
made to the demand forecasts had they been
available at the time. The change in population
relative to the average in London, the East
and South East of England is a key driver of
passenger demand predictions in the RUS.
For given changes in other key variables – e.g.
central London employment – changes in the
population level drive unconstrained commuter
demand for rail travel in the modelling
5.2.20
The change in population – relative to the
average for London, the South East and
East – for each of the arterial routes into
London is shown in Table 5.9 for the RUS
planning assumptions and the newer ones
in Tempro v5.3. As an example, the table
shows that (if all other variables were equal)
on the Great Eastern route the newer Tempro
forecasts would have resulted in an increase
in passenger demand of six per cent more
than has been predicted in the RUS in 2016,
i.e. less than 0.5 percent difference in the
predicted future passenger volume. In the case
of the Great Eastern and West Anglia routes
our analysis shows that there would be very
little difference in the demand forecasts had the
alternative Tempro v5.3 data been available.
Certainly, for those two routes the differences
would have been, in aggregate on each route,
within the margin of forecasting error. However,
the impact on the Thameside route would be
that the rate of increase in passenger numbers
would be about twice that predicted by the
model in the do-minimum scenario.
framework. The impact is determined by the
87
Table 5.9: Predicted Changes in Population
(Relative to London, South East and East Average)
2016
2021
GA RUS
Tempro v5.3
GA RUS
Tempro v5.3
Thameside
-50%
+1%
-47%
+3%
Great Eastern
-
+6%
+13%
+5%
West Anglia
+69%
+66%
+65%
+61%
Source: Network Rail Analysis
5.2.21
been examined (by location and commodity)
There would also be some differences
and the results are tabulated in the appendix.
because of changes to predicted trip origin
More recent data taken in May/July 2007
on all lines. This particularly affects the West
for the total number of freight services
Anglia route. The more recent planning data
planned/operated is also included in
suggests that there would be greater increases
Appendix E and shows an increase in paths
in population further out from London and less
on the GE and a reduction via the cross
closer in. The impact of these assumptions
country route, partially due to the rise in
being that slightly greater increases in demand
container traf¿c on the GE and partially to
for West Anglia Outers and slightly lower
the fact that in Summer 2004 services were
increases in passenger trips on inner services
diverted cross country during the Ipswich tunnel
would be expected but that in aggregate the
blockade. The summary of base year paths
increase in passenger numbers would be
used, paths planned and growth requirements
similar. The actual increases in the number
are given in Table 5.10 (all ¿gures are paths per
of trips will depend largely on where the
day each way and are based on an analysis of
proposed housing increases are actually
Thursdays as this is generally the busiest day of
located in the East of England and future trip
the week). The future growth ¿gures are shown
rates generated from this new housing. Those
for both 2014/15 based on the ¿gures from
rates will also depend on the housing type and
the Freight RUS (FRUS) and 2023 using the
precise location of it (e.g. proximity to stations,
Freight RUS ¿gures for all commodities (except
etc.) which, in turn, will depend on future
intermodal) proportioned up over a further 9
planning policy.
years. Unlike most commodities, forecasts
5.3 Freight demand
to 2023 and thus the 2023 ¿gures are based
5.3.1
on the planning inquiry numbers discussed in
Chapter 4 concluded that there was scope
Chapter 4. The only other differences between
for growth in intermodal (especially deep sea)
the 2014/15 and 2023 requirements being that
and construction traf¿c. In order to look at
a degree to which some of the freight growth
the options for delivering freight growth, it is
has been assumed to be accommodated on
necessary to assess the current path use and
the cross county route in the 2023 ¿gures. For
future requirements in each route section.
clarity Table 5.10 has been split to show both
exist for intermodal traf¿c from the ports up
5.3.2
Using actual train running data from TRUST
(for 12 months May 2004 to May 2005), the key
route sections in the Greater Anglia RUS have
88
the additional number of freight paths required
(Table 5.10(a)) and the total number of paths
required (average paths used plus additional
paths required) (Table 5.10(b)).
Maximum Paths
Used – 2005
Planned Paths
2005
Manor Park – Ilford
16
25
26
20
14
12
Maryland – Forest Gate Jn
29
39
49
22
18
21
Shen¿eld
17
25
26
20
14
13
Ipswich – Halifax Jn
21
31
27
20
14
11
Stowmarket – Haughley Jn
13
25
14
6
4
16
Whittlesea – Peterborough
(East)
23
41
27
8
6
20
Section
Additional paths
required by 2023
(with some growth
accommodated
on the Cross
Country route)
Average Paths
Used – 2005
Table 5.10(a): Additional Freight path requirements in 2014/15 and 2023
(All ¿gures are paths per day each way)
Additional paths
required by 2014/15
FRUS Base
Case
FRUS
Sensitivity 2
Base Case assumes no development of London Gateway Port by 2014/15
Sensitivity 2 assumes London Gateway Port developed by 2014/15
Maximum Paths
Used – 2005
Planned Paths
2005
16
25
26
36
30
28
29
39
49
51
47
50
Shen¿eld
17
25
26
37
31
30
21
31
27
41
35
32
13
25
14
19
17
29
(East)
23
41
27
31
29
43
Section
Additional paths
required by 2014/15
FRUS Base
Case
FRUS
Sensitivity 2
Additional paths
required by 2023
(with some growth
accommodated
on the Cross
Country route)
Average Paths
Used – 2005
Table 5.10(b): Total Freight path requirements in 2014/15 and 2023
5.3.3
exercise was undertaken by Network Rail’s
Table 5.10 shows that there is a de¿ciency
Strategic Access Planning unit (SAP) to
in currently planned paths mainly due to the
access the number of paths that could
growth in intermodal traf¿c from the ports.
be identi¿ed on the key route sections. In
5.3.4
Due to the predominance of the intermodal
traf¿c from the East Coast ports a timetabling
carrying out this exercise allowance was
made for pathing trains around overnight
engineering possessions on the GEML and
89
the cross country route. On both these routes
single line working is used to gain access for
Q Felixstowe branch partial doubling.
Q Improvements to Ipswich Yard.
maintenance and this restricts the number
of useable paths overnight. This work was
Q Kennett improve headways and open 24 hrs.
subsequently extended by SAP to look at
Q At Nuneaton, provision of a connection
pathing through to South Yorkshire and
from the Àyover to the Down slow.
Nuneaton and it con¿rmed that, provided the
Q Gauge clearance Ipswich – Peterborough
gauging and initial (Phase 1 works) listed
below were undertaken, then the paths listed
– Nuneaton.
in Table 5.11 could be found:
Table 5.11 Additional paths per day identi¿ed in the East Coast Ports Study
Route Section
Additional
Paths Per
Day Identi¿ed
Ipswich – Willesden (via GE/NLL)
10
Willesden – Ipswich (via GE/NLL)
10
Ipswich – Peterborough
14
Peterborough – Ipswich
17
Peterborough – S. Yorkshire
9
S. Yorkshire – Peterborough
9
Peterborough – Nuneaton
5
Nuneaton – Peterborough
5
Willesden – GOB – Thameside
26
Thameside – GOB – Willesden
6
Willesden – Stratford – Thameside
25
Thameside – Stratford – Willesden
26
Comment
10
Eastbound limits
17
Westbound limits but
Kennett intermediate block
signal gives + 3 = 17 paths
each way
9
5
6
25
Westbound limits due to
Gospel Oak Jn conÀicts
Eastbound limits due to
Stratford – Forest Gate
move but it needs to be
noted that this assumes
13 paths from Ipswich
which leaves 12 paths from
Thameside
In order to assess the impact of the above
identi¿ed in Table 5.11 for both 2014/15 (Table
exercise on capacity, Table 5.11 has been
5.12) and 2023 (Table 5.13), again the ¿gures
re-presented showing the intermodal and non-
represent paths per day each way.
intermodal growth compared with the paths
90
Max
Practical
(each way)
Per Day
Sensitivity 2
Gap in Paths Required
in 2014/15
Base
Case
Total Additional Paths
required by 2014/15
Additional Intermodal
Paths required by
2014/15
Additional Paths
required (excluding
Intermodal)
by 2014/15
Section
Extra Paths in East
Coast Ports Timetable
Table 5.12 Additional freight paths required by 2014
1
19
13
14-20
10
4-10
3
19
15
18-22
25
-
Shen¿eld
1
19
13
14-20
10
4-10
1
19
13
14-20
10
4-10
-1
7
5
4-6
17
-
1
7
5
6-8
17
-
Whittlesea – Peterborough (East)
This shows that the Great Eastern cannot
The situation is now re-examined for 2023,
quite meet freight growth in the Freight RUS
showing the impact of diverting growth to the
Sensitivity 2 test up to 2014/15, and in the
cross country route. The results are shown in
Base Case the route is up to 10 paths short.
Table 5.13.
Table 5.13 Additional freight paths required by 2023
Section
Additional
Paths
required
(excluding
Intermodal)
by 2023
Additional
Intermodal
Paths
required by
2023
Total
Additional
Paths
required by
2023
Extra Paths
in East
Coast Ports
Timetable
Gap in
Paths
Required
in 2023
2
10
12
10
2
5
16
21
25
-
Shen¿eld
3
10
13
10
3
1
10
11
10
1
-1
17
16
17
-
(East)
3
17
20
17
3
This table together with table 5.10 shows the
container traf¿c on the cross country route
following:
by 2014/15;
Q Depending on the rate of port development
Q By 2023 due to freight growth being
at Felixstowe/Bathside Bay and London
diverted to the cross country line both
Gateway Port, there is likely to be a need
routes are now tight for capacity; and
to accommodate some of the growth in
91
platform, this would give Àexibility
Q The cross country route has a small de¿cit
between Whittlesea and Peterborough.
that may allow an additional hourly
passenger service in addition to the
5.3.5
extra freight services)
In all the assessments it has been assumed
(based on current trends in new build) that
the freight locomotive Àeet will tend to see
–
Double Syston East – South Jns
–
Double the Up/Down slow line from
an increase in diesel traction (however, it is
Syston – Wigston (also need to look at
understood that electric traction will continue
reducing the headways to 3 mins)
to be essential to meet timings on the WCML
north of Preston). Otherwise it is assumed
–
Long crossovers to give parallel moves
that the growth in freight traf¿c will not see an
to the Glen Parva line across the
increase in electric traction for the foreseeable
Midland Main Line (MML) (also need
future, however, this may be reviewed on
run round for the Burton Line). (These
environmental grounds, but the impact of such
last three items would need to be tied
changes will be beyond the period of the RUS.
in with Leicester resignalling in 2012
The future traction policy and the extent of
– 2015 as noted in the Freight RUS)
further network electri¿cation will, however,
–
Loop east of Nuneaton
–
As traf¿c grows in the longer term
have a bearing on the routing and diversionary
opportunities for freight traf¿c.
further upgrading will be required to
5.3.6
progressively remove other bottlenecks
In order to address the small de¿cit in capacity
on the route
between Whittlesea and Peterborough forecast
to occur by 2023, and to look at pathing
through to the WCML at Nuneaton, SAP
undertook further work, which has indicated
the following:
Q The current timetable does not permit an
hourly passenger service on the Ipswich
– Peterborough route in addition to the
above, mainly due to the irregular timings of
the Class 6 freight services. SAP’s view is
Q If a second phase of infrastructure works is
based on the infrastructure alterations
it is possible to get at least 14 tpd from
proposed above, a timetable could possibly
Ipswich to the WCML each way (as well
be produced, which would provide an hourly
as the 9 East Coast ports’ paths and the
passenger service between Ipswich and
3 Ipswich – Peterborough services). This
Peterborough, as well as standard Class 4
therefore delivers an additional 9 paths to
and 6 freight paths under each of the above
the WCML and the infrastructure required is
scenarios. A further review would need to
likely to be:
assess the impact on long distance services,
–
but may also identify additional freight paths.
Double East Suffolk Jn (to give parallel
moves to/from the GEML and the
Felixstowe/East Suffolk Line direction)
–
Improve the run round at Barham
–
Double Haughley Jn
–
Lengthen the loops at Ely
–
Commission bi-directional working on
Ely West Curve
–
A bi-directional loop at Peterborough (if
remodelling were to include an island
92
that if the existing timetable were revisited
implemented, then (compared with today)
5.3.7
The lack of spare freight paths on the
Felixstowe branch was raised in Chapter 3
along with the comparatively low passenger
use. Work undertaken by SAP has indicated
that only a few additional paths would be
released if the passenger service was reduced
and this is not therefore recommended by the
RUS. The planned doubling on the branch must
take place if forecast freight demand is
to be met.
5.3.8
The above section has identi¿ed the need to
use the GEML/NLL and the cross country routes
in order to accommodate intermodal freight
growth to the WCML. The strategy assumes
that some of the growth will be absorbed by the
GEML but that the bulk of growth will be routed
via the upgraded cross country route (which will
become a strategic freight route). The earlier
discussion on engineering access highlighted
the need for the cross country and GEML routes
to act as diversionary routes for one another, so
that both routes can be maintained in the long
term as traf¿c rises. Throughout all the above
analysis the number of useable paths that can
be found in the timetable has been identi¿ed
and compared with the forecast increase in
demand to determine how much additional
capacity is required and by when. Clearly the
ability of the operators to use these paths will
depend on the resources available and the
no option for trains to reverse before reaching
London. The option of east facing connections
onto the GEML leads to a number of problems:
Q Construction of an east facing connection
onto the GEML at Forest Gate would be
extremely dif¿cult (due to land take and
environmental issues), and would lead to
severe pathing dif¿culties.
Q The GEML has limited spare capacity
for freight.
Q The cross country capacity is required for
Felixstowe traf¿c.
Q Running via Ipswich would add
considerable unproductive mileage
to journeys.
5.3.11
London Gateway Port is planned to generate
around 20tpd each way (over the next 15-20
years) and the results of the SAP work were
included in the Tables 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13.
spread of paths throughout the day, and thus
The works between the ports and
5.3.12
The short to medium term strategy for meeting
intermodal growth is therefore to route the
London Gateway Port traf¿c via the NLL
and Gospel Oak – Barking route. The
Felixstowe/Bathside Bay traf¿c would use
most of the remaining off peak capacity on the
GEML and then run over the NLL to
the WCML. The balance of the traf¿c would
run via the cross county route. In the longer
term, in order to meet growth on the NLL, it
may be necessary to divert more intermodal
traf¿c destined for the WCML to the cross
Peterborough/South Yorkshire will be
country route.
funded as part of the Felixstowe South and
5.3.13
In the Construction Materials market, the
earlier analysis has included the growth
forecast for this traf¿c and has shown the
there are suf¿cient paths to meet this growth.
the need to implement earlier interventions is
dependant on both the rate of growth of the
ports and the ability to use the last few paths
as demand rises. It is thus essential that the
interventions planned through the TIF work are
developed without delay and that the plans are
suf¿ciently Àexible to allow for further growth
to be accommodated as demand rises. The
relationship between freight growth assumptions
and Crossrail is discussed later in the RUS.
5.3.9
Bathside Bay projects under their Section 106
agreements. The remainder of the works in
the ¿rst phase will be funded under the current
TIF allocation. It is anticipated that the second
phase of works described above will be made
The paths from London Gateway Port need
5.3.14
As 40 percent of London aggregate is
delivered by rail and a number of terminals
are wholly rail served, there is little scope for
to be routed across London because the
diversion of any traf¿c away from London to
connections between the Thameside line and
relieve the current paths. Whilst it is assumed
the rest of the network face westwards with
that the number of trains per day to the various
part of a second TIF submission.
5.3.10
93
terminals will change with the construction
intermodal trains. The restriction is caused by a
market (with local peaks such as the Olympic
number of factors, principally terminal capacity,
works), the overall volumes and patterns of
the restricted length of Ipswich Yard and the
feed from the quarries are unlikely to change
ability of Class 66 locomotives to meet
dramatically and thus it is assumed that the
point-to-point timings with longer trains. Any
above additional paths will be found on the
further alteration to Ipswich yard beyond the
existing routes to meet growth.
essential HPUK works would not take place
until the Ipswich area is resignalled in around
5.3.15
In the International sector, it has already
been noted that Channel Tunnel traf¿c will
interchange at Barking, however, overall the
growth in this and other traf¿c is assumed to
be accommodated within the existing paths.
2015. That having been said the operators are
keen to explore the opportunities of incremental
train lengthening where the opportunity
arises in the meantime, and this needs to be
taken into account when signalling and S&C
renewals are planned on these routes.
5.3.16
The ability to meet freight growth from the
Felixstowe and Bathside Bay through the
operation of longer trains has been examined
in the Freight RUS. Whilst the Thameside to
North London Line route allow the operation
of 775m trains (36 wagon plus 2 locomotives),
investigations show that the GEML and cross
5.3.17
The Freight RUS remitted a number of gaps
for the GA RUS to address and these have
been covered by the above analysis (as well
as the proposals developed in the Cross
London RUS). Table 5.14 summarises the
gaps and mitigations.
country routes can only operate 24 wagon
Table 5.14: Freight RUS gaps
94
Gap
Location
Issue
Mitigation
D
Stratford
– Camden Road
Interface with access to/from
the GEML
Loops proposed at Channelsea and
Stratford 10A to regulate freight services.
Former funded by TfL under NLL
upgrade and the latter via the ODA/
Network Rail Out Performance Fund.
E
GEML
Available Class 4 and 6 slots
between off peak passenger
services
GA/CL RUS strategies propose use
of GE off peak freight paths plus
upgraded cross country route in order
to meet freight growth.
E-F
Haughley Jn
– Peterborough
Single Lead at Haughley Jn
Headways at Kennett
ConÀict at Ely
The removal of these restrictions
is being taken forward with NRDF
funding.
G-H
Forest Gate
– Channelsea
ConÀicting moves on the GEML
The GA and CL RUS strategies
propose the use of an upgraded
Gospel Oak – Barking route to take
some of the traf¿c away from Stratford.
This is being pursued via engineering
renewals, TIF and TfL funding.
5.4 Summary of gaps
5.4.1
The analysis carried out in this section has
emphasised the degree to which crowding,
especially on the London commuter services
is forecast to get worse unless additional
capacity is provided. On the freight side
the growth in maritime containers requires
improvement to the cross country route.
95
6. Forecast of change – infrastructure
and train services
6.1 Introduction
6.3 Planned schemes
6.1.1
6.3.1
This chapter looks at the recent improvements
There are a number of committed or funded
to the route and also covers enhancements
schemes affecting the route, most of which
to the route over the next 10 years that are
are connected with recent government
planned to go ahead regardless of the RUS.
announcements or are concentrated in the
It also looks at the renewals programme, so
Stratford area.
that the opportunities for considering any
Q Crossrail
enhancements proposed by the RUS can be
taken into account when planning renewals.
Crossrail will link Maidenhead and
Heathrow in the west with Shen¿eld and
6.2 Recently completed schemes
Abbey Wood in the east. It will include new
6.2.1
stations at key city locations including Bond
Whilst no major enhancement work has been
Street, Farringdon and Canary Wharf. It will
carried out in recent years, signi¿cant gauge
bring an additional one and a half million
clearance works have been undertaken to
people to within 60 minutes of London’s
clear the GEML and the Thameside route to
key business area and is expected to carry
W10, so that 9' 6" containers can be conveyed
200 million passengers a year. The Prime
on standard freight wagons on the main routes
Minister announced a £16billion funding
from the region’s ports to the West Coast Main
package for the project on 5th October
Line.
2007. Crossrail is subject to an Act of
Parliament: a Bill is progressing through
6.2.2
Under the terms of its franchise ‘one’
railway has funded the extension of some
of the platforms on the Braintree branch to
accommodate 12-car trains and the extension
of the bay platform at Cheshunt, so that 8-car
trains can terminate.
Parliament at the time of publication, and
the Government expects it to receive Royal
Assent in summer 2008. Construction
is due to commence in 2010 and the
¿rst trains are expected to run in 2017.
On the GEML the scheme includes
platform extensions for the operation of
6.2.3
10-car trains. The scheme could also
Within the last 10 - 12 years Railtrack/Network
allow additional services from the West
Rail have completed the resignalling of the
Anglia route to run to Liverpool Street via
GEML between Liverpool Street and Marks
Stratford.
Tey; the West Anglia route from London to
On the GE ‘E’ lines, the Track Access
Elsenham and Stansted Airport and the whole
Option, produced as part of the scheme
of the Thameside route.
development, seeks up to 12 tph in the
peak and 8 tph in the off-peak and at
weekends. Whilst the peak service only
replaces some of the existing services,
96
the off-peak service is an increase on the
current situation and it will therefore be
necessary to check the impact on current
and projected freight traf¿c (as described
in this document and the Freight RUS1).
In addition it will be necessary to assess
Q Stratford Stations
Although High Speed 1 (HS1) has now
been completed, Stratford International
Station itself will not open until the South
Eastern domestic service starts operating
in December 2009.
the impact of the peak services on the
additional services described later in
Work has now commenced on the
this RUS.
Stratford City Development (SCD). The
Section 106 provisions negotiated with the
The changes in weekend and evening
service patterns will also need to be
checked against the current maintenance
patterns as described earlier in this
document. Much work is currently in hand
on timetabling, performance modelling
developer include a new northern ticket
hall to the existing Stratford Station, now
more usually called Stratford Regional
Station. Pedestrian routes between both
stations have also been negotiated through
the planning process.
and the assessment of maintenance
requirements, and the RUS will inform this
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is
work. In the case of freight growth this
also developing a scheme working with
may require more capacity to be provided
Network Rail and DfT to deliver a range
sooner on the cross country route to
of capacity enhancements including:
accommodate growth.
reopening of the eastern subway,
Q Thameslink
widening Platforms 6 and 8, a new
westbound central platform, an extension
The scheme will improve north – south
to the mezzanine deck, and improved
connectivity across London between the
accessibility works including additional lifts.
Cambridge/Peterborough and Bedford
routes and lines south of the Thames.
The scheme includes 12-car operation of
services running on the Great Northern
(Kings Cross) route to Cambridge,
which is compatible with the RUS
London Underground has proposals for
capacity enhancement of the existing LUL
Ticket Hall as well as the PPP provisions for
a station refurbishment at Stratford and the
enhancement of the Jubilee Line service.
recommendations. The demand modelling
work undertaken for this RUS has taken the
Thameslink project into consideration and
this includes the shift of passengers onto
the upgraded route from adjacent lines.
1
Published March 2007 and established May 2007
97
Q Docklands Light Railway
Q Colchester – Clacton resignalling
In addition to their new terminating
This project is now underway and resignals
platforms at Stratford and their extension to
the Clacton and Walton branches and
City Airport, the DLR has also commenced
the GEML (between Marks Tey and
work providing a link between Stratford
Colchester). The scheme incorporates
International and Woolwich Arsenal, running
provision for the platform extensions
over the former North London Line between
required by Essex County Council, as
Stratford (Low Level) and Canning Town.
well as including bi-directional signalling
The proposal involves the construction of
between Marks Tey and Colchester.
two new high level terminating platforms
Q Grays 8-car Bay
for the current NLL services adjacent to
Platforms 11 and 12 (planned for 2009).
Q The London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games
As Stratford will be the focus of The
Under the NRDF the bay platform at
Grays is to be extended to eight cars to
permit the operation of longer trains on the
Tilbury Loop.
Q Other NRDF schemes
Games, Network Rail and Transport
for London are working closely with the
Considerable work has recently been
ODA to ensure required infrastructure
undertaken on a range of NRDF projects,
enhancements are in place well in
including re-doubling Haughley Jn,
advance. The schemes currently in
commissioning bi-directional working
development include the following:
on Ely West Curve and implementing
linespeed improvements between Barking
a) Extension of Platforms 11 and 12 at
Stratford to accommodate 8-car trains,
plus an additional crossover and bidirectional signalling. These facilities
and Upminster. The business cases for
these projects look encouraging and
authority has been sought to start their
development through the GRIP process.
will improve the turnround on services
running to/from the West Anglia route,
as well as increasing capacity.
b) Relocation of the ‘one’ railway carriage
Q Cambridge Guided Bus scheme
This scheme is now underway and will see
improved access to the city station from
stabling sidings from Thornton Fields to
St Ives/Huntingdon, the Science Park,
Orient Way.
Addenbrooks Hospital and Trumpington.
Further developments in the Cambridge
c) Extension of Platform 10A to allow 12car trains to call and extension of the
platform track to allow an eastbound
freight loop to be provided.
d) The Olympic Park proposals also
include the construction of a number
area are likely to include the forecourt
re-development and the proposal for a
new station and transport interchange at
Chesterton sidings.
Q New stations to serve proposed
developments
of bridges over the railway to provide
access to the venue.
Network Rail is working with a number
of developers, who are considering the
e) In addition to Stratford Regional and
International stations, West Ham will also
provide a gateway station to the Olympic
Park. A scheme to provide closing up
signals, that will enable more trains to
call there, is under development.
98
provision of new stations to serve their
developments. Whilst none of these
stations is yet committed and many are still
subject to assessment of their impact on
capacity, if and when they are built they will
improve access to the network.
Q HPUK and TIF funded freight upgrades
Q Signalling
The freight analysis contained in Chapters
The main scope for combining renewals
4 and 5 described the upgrade work that
and enhancements is on the rural sections
is contained in the HPUK funded Section
of the route. On the East Suffolk Line work
106 agreement, as well as the work which
will commence shortly on the replacement
is now being developed/funded through
of the RETB system. This will use ERTMS
the TIF. Under the TIF the Gospel Oak
radio based signalling and work is due
– Barking route is to be upgraded as well
to be completed by 2011. Following on
as the gauge improvements and the initial
from the East Suffolk Line the Norwich
capacity works on the Felixstowe –
– Yarmouth/Lowestoft routes are proposed
Nuneaton route. The HPUK work includes
for resignalling with ERTMS by 2013. On
gauge clearance from Ipswich – South
the Ely – Norwich and Ely – Peterborough
Yorkshire and capacity works between
routes modular signalling is proposed,
Ipswich and Felixstowe.
with migration to ERTMS in around 2015.
Q Strategic Freight Network
Resignalling of the Manningtree – Norwich
section of the GEML is also planned from
The Government’s White Paper “Delivering
2015 onwards.
a Sustainable Railway” was published in
July 2007 and it identi¿ed the desirability of
Q Track
a Strategic Freight Network, which would
On the GE and WA routes a number of
enhance the network used by freight trains
S&C and plain line renewals are planned,
and reduce conÀict between freight and
these include Shen¿eld, Colchester and
passenger traf¿c. The High Level Output
Clacton S&C renewals. Owing to a lack of
Speci¿cation for the period 2009-2014,
advanced works on the Crossrail project, it
published as an appendix to the White
has not been possible to incorporate these
Paper, allowed for expenditure of up to £200
within the S&C renewals at Shen¿eld,
million between 2010 and 2014 to facilitate
however, renewals are reviewed regularly
the implementation of this concept. The rail
by the route, with a view to incorporating
industry is working with DfT to develop the
enhancements when sensible. The main
Strategic Freight Network.
opportunity identi¿ed on these routes cover
the potential to raise speeds on the rural
6.4 Renewals
6.4.1
routes in conjunction with track renewals.
Q Electri¿cation
Major renewals offer the ability to consider
synergy with enhancements and align
There is extensive work planned to renew
capability with future requirements (the
the OLE on the GEML between Liverpool
policy regarding gauging and track renewals
St and Chelmsford/Southend, this should
being contained in the Freight RUS). Details
also enable some speed restrictions to be
of renewals over the next 3-5 years are
removed. On the Thameside route the OLE
contained in the Route Plan volume of
is also being replaced on sections of the
Network Rail’s Business Plan, which was
main line.
published in March 2007. The scope for
synergy with RUS enhancements is limited,
but on an asset by asset basis the situation
can be summarised as follows:
99
7. Strategic options
7.1 Summary of gaps
Analysis of the current position and expected
7.1.1
changes has revealed gaps between what the
The purpose of the RUS is to meet the route
railway system delivers and what is required of
utilisation objective quoted in section 1.1.
it. These are summarised in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Identi¿cation of Gaps
100
No.
Nature of Gap
Key Issues
1
Between existing/forecast peak capacity and
train service and/or infrastructure capacity
Need to increase peak capacity across all
routes by train lengthening, frequency and
infrastructure improvements
2
Between existing/forecast rural/inter-urban
train service capacity/frequency and required
capacity/frequency
Need to increase train service capacity/
frequency on rural/inter-urban routes
3
Between existing access to Stratford/
Docklands and that required to meet market
needs
Lack of services that call at Stratford on the
West Anglia and GE outer services and at
West Ham on the Thameside route
4
Between existing service frequencies and the
Mayor of London’s objective of 4 tph all day on
suburban routes
Lack of service frequency on certain routes
5
Between existing freight capacity and forecast
demand (especially for intermodal and
aggregate traf¿c)
Lack of paths to meet growth also identi¿ed as
gaps D-H in the Freight RUS
6
Between existing freight gauge, train length
and route availability and desired gauge and
capability
RA, loading gauge and train length
7
Between current and desired performance
Level crossings, Rules of the Route
compliance, OLE failures, turnrounds on rural
lines, scope for performance improvements
8
Between existing engineering access and
desired access regimes especially on the
Stansted, suburban and cross country routes
Need for extended operating hours and
improved train services at weekends on certain
routes. Clash between engineering access/
isolations and use of berthing
9
Between current power supply and that
required for future services/rolling stock
Limited capacity in existing supply for
passenger and freight services
10
Between current access to the network and
that required to meet future needs
Car parking, DDA, crowding, interchange and
provision of new stations
11
Between current berthing capacity and future
requirements
Berthing capacity required for growth units
7.2 Option de¿nition
7.2.2
7.2.1
Further consultation with stakeholders led to
Each gap was considered using a standard
the consideration of other possibilities and to
‘toolkit’ of possible solutions. The ‘toolkit’
the development and re¿nement of the options
includes a range of interventions, which range
into coherent strategies for each route. When
from the operation of longer trains within the
considering the merits of new options they
current infrastructure and re-timetabling to
were assessed using the same approach as
improve capacity right through to platform
that taken in the consultation document. So, in
extensions and the construction of additional
the case of London-bound service options, for
tracks. Using the ‘toolkit’, interventions were
example, they were appraised using PLANET
developed into options, which were then
and DfT guidance.
reviewed and agreed by the key stakeholders
7.2.3
before being assessed. The options were
Table 7.2 provides a brief description of each
assessed individually and a summary of the
of the options presented in the RUS Draft for
assessments was published in the RUS Draft
Consultation. Later in the chapter a summary
for Consultation.
of each of the options is presented including
details of how each has been developed
since consultation.
Table 7.2: Options
Option 1: Lengthen peak services on the Thameside Main Line
This option tested extending trains to 12-car to accommodate increases in passenger demand. This is
intended to alleviate crowding for passengers and to handle predicted demand growth. This would require
additional rolling stock but no infrastructure (other than minor works).
Option 2: Lengthen peak services on the Tilbury Loop and Ockendon branch
This option tested extending trains to 12-car to accommodate increases in passenger demand. This is
intended to alleviate crowding for passengers and to handle predicted demand growth. In addition to a
requirement for additional rolling stock, platforms on the Tilbury Loop and Ockendon branch would be
extended to accommodate the longer trains.
Option 3: Replace inter-city rolling stock on Anglia Inter-City services
This option tested replacing inter-city sets with more up to date inter-city rolling stock – assumed to be
similar to Class 444 currently used on SWT’s long distance services – on the Anglia Inter-City route. Class
444s operate as 5 x 23m units and are con¿gured as low density seating (2 + 2) units to retain standards
of passenger comfort. This would increase seated capacity on the peak services by just over 1,000 seats.
An alterative would be to deploy IEP (HST 2) sets or similar inter-city standard multiple units. In assessing
the value for money of this option the costs of Class 444 rolling stock have been used.
Option 4: Run two additional GE outer services in the busiest peak hour
This option tested running two additional trains in the busiest peak hour. We assumed that one train started
from Colchester Town and one ran from Chelmsford. This is intended to alleviate crowding for passengers
and to contribute to handling predicted demand growth.
101
Table 7.2: Options (continued)
Option 5: Call all GE outer services at Stratford
This option tested changing calling patterns so that all services on the GEML will stop at Stratford.
This is intended to provide a direct link between Norwich, Ipswich and Stratford and improve connectivity
between the Eastern region and London Docklands/other transport links at Stratford including LUL Jubilee
Line, DLR and HS1. It is expected that the proposal would even-out passenger loadings between GE
Outer services. Platform 10A at Stratford would need to be extended to handle 12-car trains in order to
implement this option.
Option 6: Run additional peak services on the GE from Chadwell Heath
This option tested running nine extra services on the GE inners over the three peak hours. It was assumed
that the additional trains would operate from a new turnback at Chadwell Heath. This is intended to
alleviate crowding for passengers and to handle predicted demand growth.
Option 7: Lengthen peak services on the Chingford route
This option tested operating 9-car trains on the Chingford branch of the West Anglia route. The existing
infrastructure can accommodate 9-car trains on that route (although some work will be required to meet
modern standards). This is intended to alleviate crowding for passengers and to handle predicted demand
growth.
Option 8: Lengthen West Anglia services between Cambridge/Stansted Airport and London to 12 cars
This option tested operating 12-car trains during the peak on West Anglia Outer services, including
those that serve Stansted Airport. This increases seated capacity by about 50 percent during the peak.
This is intended to alleviate crowding for passengers and to contribute to meeting predicted increases in
passenger numbers. Some stations on the route can already handle 12-car trains but currently no services
operate in more than 8-car formation. The option requires platform extensions (or SDO) at a number of
stations.
Option 9: Lengthen Hertford East – London services to 12 cars
This option tested operating 12-car trains during the peak on West Anglia services running to/from Hertford
East and Broxbourne. This is intended to alleviate crowding for passengers and to handle predicted
demand growth. Platform extensions would be needed throughout the route from Tottenham Hale to
Hertford East.
Option 10: Operate 9-car trains from En¿eld Town and Cheshunt
This option tested operating 9-car trains on this route to add around 12 percent capacity to peak services.
This would alleviate crowding and contribute toward handling predicted demand growth on the route.
The infrastructure (except at Stoke Newington) can accommodate 9-car trains (although some work will
be required to meet modern standards). In the appraisal the use of SDO at Stoke Newington has been
assumed because it is expected that the cost of extending the platform there would be very high.
Option 11 – Operate shuttle services between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters
This option tested operating an 8-car shuttle service between Seven Sisters and Cheshunt in the busiest
peak hour. Capacity is available over this route for the two trains an hour if an improved turn-back facility is
provided south of Seven Sisters.
Option 12: Increase capacity on the West Anglia Main Line
This option proposed increasing line capacity on the West Anglia route and an illustrative train service
speci¿cation of eight extra services an hour during the morning peak on the WAML was tested. Two of
these (starting at Stansted Airport) were tested as operating through to Liverpool Street. The other six
would run to and terminate at Stratford. Two each of these are tested to serve Hertford East, Stansted
Airport and Cambridge. In combination with these service changes running longer trains has been tested
on Stansted Airport services and the semi-fast Cambridge services, which would only serve those stations
that can already handle 12-car trains. This was intended to provide suf¿cient capacity to handle predicted
increases in passenger numbers and to provide regular direct rail links between all stations on the WAML
and Stratford/Docklands. Operating these additional services would require signi¿cant capacity increases
between Broxbourne Junction and Coppermill Junction as well as investment in rolling stock.
Option 13: Increase frequency of Ipswich – Peterborough services to hourly.
This option tested operating a regular hourly service between Ipswich and Peterborough throughout
the day.
Option 14: Increase frequency of East Suffolk line services to hourly
This option tested operating a regular hourly service on the East Suffolk Line between Ipswich and
Lowestoft throughout the day. This requires the building of a new passing loop at Beccles and doubling
East Suffolk Jn.
102
Table 7.2: Options (continued)
Option 15: Provide an hourly service between Ipswich and Saxmundham
This option tested operating a regular hourly service between Ipswich and Saxmundham throughout the
day. This requires East Suffolk Jn to be doubled.
Option 16: Increase capacity on rural/inter-urban services to meet peak demand
This option proposes strengthening a number of services to increase peak capacity on services radiating
from the regional centres of Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich.
Option 17: Increase freight gauge and capacity on the Felixstowe – Nuneaton route
This option describes the two phases of work required to meet freight growth to both 2014/15 and 2023 by
enhancement of the cross country route.
Option 18: Improve the Route Availability for freight traf¿c on the Ipswich – Peterborough route
Trains over RA 6 are subject to speed restrictions on the cross country route and this option proposes
works to remove these restrictions.
Option 19: Improve performance through a range of measures
The key stakeholders identi¿ed a number of performance initiatives following a review of the performance
analysis work. These include: investigate closure of the level crossings in the Lea Valley; review the Rules
of the Plan; prevent further catastrophic OLE failures; improve turnarounds on rural services; carry out a
range of performance improvement schemes using NRDF funding, including fully commissioning Ely West
Curve.
Option 20: Improve the ef¿ciency of Engineering Access
The RUS analysis has identi¿ed a number of areas where the impact on the operators of engineering
access could be reduced. These areas include: longer operating hours, reducing the impact on berthing
and depots, improving engineering access on the cross country route, whilst increasing overnight freight
capacity and making more use of single line working where possible to reduce the impact of weekend
engineering works on train services.
Option 21: Improve the power supply to match future requirements
As part of the RUS analysis work, the Electri¿cation & Plant Engineer has assessed the increased
power requirements in order to accommodate the predicted changes in train service and rolling stock
requirements.
Option 22: Improve passenger access to the network
Analysis carried out for the RUS, including the car park study by Passenger Focus, has shown that
improving station facilities would be bene¿cial in a number of areas. This work will be taken forward and
developed in a number of areas by the Route Enhancement Team.
Option 23: Improve berthing capacity
The analysis of berthing capacity has shown that the current facilities are nearly at capacity and additional
berthing will be required where there are signi¿cant changes in rolling stock volumes. This option also
considers the additional rolling stock requirements.
103
7.2.4
Table 7.3 shows which gaps are addressed by
which options. It should be noted that some
gaps may only be partially addressed by
individual options, and conversely that some
options may address more than one gap.
Table 7.3: Gap/Options Matrix
No.
Nature of Gap
Option by which Gap
Addressed
1
Between existing/forecast peak capacity and train
service and/or infrastructure capacity
Options 1 – 12
2
Between existing/forecast rural/inter-urban train service
capacity/frequency and required capacity/frequency
Options 13,14,15,16
3
Between existing access to Stratford/Docklands and
that required to meet market needs
Options 5,12,22
4
Between existing service frequencies and the Mayor of
London’s objective of 4 tph all day on suburban routes
Options 1,2,8,9,10,11,12
5
Between existing freight capacity and forecast demand
(especially for intermodal and aggregate traf¿c)
Options 17
6
Between existing freight gauge, train length and route
availability and desired gauge, length and capability
Options 17,18
7
Between current and desired performance
Option 19
8
Between existing engineering access and desired
access regimes especially on the Stansted, suburban
and cross country routes
Option 20
9
Between current power supply and that required for
future services/rolling stock
Option 21
10
Between current passenger access to the network and
that required to meet future needs
Option 22
11
Between current berthing capacity and future
requirements
Option 23
7.3 Assessment of options
drawn on in the assessment of options, which
7.3.1
are common to both the RCP and the RUS.
Each of the options outlined above were
7.3.2
assessed prior to consultation. Options
In the RUS Draft for Consultation for each
intended to address increased passenger
of options 1 to 15, the costs and bene¿ts
demand and on-train crowding were tested
were quanti¿ed by applying the DfT appraisal
and appraised using industry standard models.
criteria to modelled outputs. A summary
Options for changes to services into London
description of the impacts of the option was
were modelled by Atkins, using PLANET
tabulated including the bene¿ts and costs
South AM. Passenger demand options where
associated with each option if implemented
over-crowding is not a signi¿cant issue were
individually. The RUS strategy (presented in
modelled using MOIRA. Analysis conducted by
Chapter 9) has been developed from this set
Arup (using the Railplan model) for TfL, in the
of options.
development of its Rail Corridor Plans, was
104
7.3.3
available during Control Period 4 (following
Presented below are tables which describe
the publication of DfT’s HLOS and the recent
the concept and the impact of the options that
announcement on the Crossrail project.
were included in the consultation document,
together with a description of how these have
been developed through consultation toward
the coherent strategy. The development of the
options reÀects: a) the results of the original
business case work and the initial Bene¿t Cost
Ratios (BCRs); b) the ability of the options
taken together to meet the passenger demand
forecast; c) more detailed timetable and
performance assessments to determine the
feasibility of operating the proposed services;
d) additional information on costs and bene¿ts;
e) the results of the consultation feedback
from the key and wider stakeholders and f) a
re-assessment of funding that is likely to be
7.3.4
The estimates of the values of costs and
bene¿ts or the bene¿t cost ratios from the
RUS Draft for Consultation are not represented in the tables below because they
are not valid for the assessment of the value
for money of the proposed strategy. In Chapter
9 the assessment of the value for money of
the proposed strategies for each route and
for the RUS area as a whole is presented.
This properly accounts for synergies between
the costs of schemes and avoids the double
counting of bene¿ts from schemes that
contribute to the same objectives.
Assessment of Option 1: Lengthen peak services on the Thameside Main Line
Concept
This option proposes that all main line peak services are strengthened to 12-car formation to meet
passenger demand.
Operational analysis
This option will require adjustments to the working of trains at Fenchurch Street.
Infrastructure required
No major infrastructure will be required as 12-car services already operate on the route, however, additional
platform equipment may be required to assist the dispatch of more 12-car trains. Power requirements have
been checked and no signi¿cant enhancements are required.
Crowding impact
Extending trains across the peak would provide suf¿cient additional capacity to meet predicted increases in
passenger demand in both 2016 and 2021 while broadly maintaining average load factors in the high peak
hour and over the three peak hours.
Freight impact
There would be no impact on freight services from implementing this option.
Progress/recommendation
This option allows capacity to be met as demand rises and requires only minor infrastructure development
on the route. It is recommended that trains are extended to 12-car formation over time to meet passenger
demand.
105
Assessment of Option 2: Lengthen peak services on the Tilbury Loop and
Ockendon branch
Concept
Extend all platforms to 12-car length and run peak trains at a minimum of 8-car formation with 12-car
running in the busiest hour of the peak.
This option will require adjustments to the working of trains at Fenchurch Street.
The platforms on the Tilbury Loop and Ockendon branch would need to be extended to 12-car length and
additional platform equipment may be required to facilitate the dispatch of 12-car trains. No signi¿cant
enhancement of power supplies is required.
Crowding impact
This option provides capacity to meet modelled demand in both 2016 and 2021. By 2016 crowding would
be reduced below base year modelled levels on the Ockendon branch and Tilbury Loop, on average.
Freight impact
This option allows trains to be lengthened to suit the rates of development on the route and offers some
Àexibility in the approach to meeting increased passenger demand. It is recommended that platforms are
extended on the route and that 12-car services are introduced as passenger demand dictates. Autumn
2007 train loadings indicate that trains running from Pitsea to Fenchurch St via Ockendon are the most
crowded and it is therefore recommended that the platforms on this route are lengthened as soon as
practicable.
Assessment of Option 3: Replace inter-city rolling stock on Anglia Inter-City
services
Concept
This option replaces the Norwich inter-city sets with new rolling stock to increase capacity on these
services. The rolling stock is assumed to be of inter-city standard, but by removing the need for a
locomotive and DVT in the formation (and assuming a Class 444 type layout) it is possible to increase
seated capacity by over a thousand seats over the peak period. The option provides a modern
homogenous Àeet, which could be operated in 5-car formation – at times of the day when demand is lower.
This option does not require timetable changes.
This option will require works to permit the new trains to be operated, including gauge and berthing works.
Capital costs associated with this will not be signi¿cant.
Crowding impact
Standing is estimated in the model to be eliminated on Anglia Inter-City services if current calling patterns
are maintained to 2021 or later. The capacity increase at Colchester also helps alleviate crowding on Great
Eastern outer services but average load factors across the inter-city and outer services would be at similar
levels as modelled in the base year.
Freight impact
It is recommended that this is included as part of the strategy.
106
Assessment of Option 4: Run two additional GE Outer services in the high peak
Concept
This option proposes running two additional 12-car trains in the high peak hour, one from Colchester Town
and one from Chelmsford.
Provided Platform 10A at Stratford is lengthened and all outer services stop at Stratford (see Option 5), then
the extra trains can be operated without further modi¿cation to infrastructure on the route. The impact on
performance has been assessed in RailSys. This work estimated that performance would improve in the Up
direction during the morning peak, but that the average delay per train would worsen by 12 seconds in the
Down direction, because of extended journey times (and tighter timetabling) for trains using Platform 10A.
This option will require Platform 10A at Stratford to be lengthened. (The cost of this was not considered
in the original business case assessment). A power supply upgrade will be required at Spring¿eld Feeder
Station to support this option.
Crowding impact
The model results predicted that crowding would be worse than now by 2016 if only two additional trains
were provided. Increasing service frequency by up to 3 trains an hour (as now proposed) together with the
other proposals will enable forecast passenger numbers to be accommodated while reducing average peak
crowding from levels experienced today.
Freight impact
As the extra services would run in the peak hours there would be no impact on freight capacity from
implementing this option and the impact of the ECS moves created by these services on current and future
freight services have been checked.
Operational analysis identi¿ed that nine additional paths would be available on the GEML if all trains called
at Stratford (which requires extension of Platform 10A at Stratford to allow 12-car trains to stop there). It is
therefore recommended that additional services (up to 3 tph – tested in the model as: one Colchester, one
Chelmsford and one Southend) are provided throughout the peak to meet rising passenger demand. It is
recommended that trains would operate at 12-car length at the busiest times of the day and at 8-car length
in the shoulder peak if that is adequate to meet demand on those trains. Lengthening more trains from
Southminster to 12-cars is also recommended. This requires extension of the passing loop at Fambridge.
Assessment of Option 5: Call all GE Outer and Anglia Inter-City services at Stratford
Concept
This option proposes calling all services on the GE Outer and Anglia inter-city services at Stratford. This is
intended to provide a direct link between Norwich, Ipswich and Stratford and improve connectivity between
the East of England and London Docklands. It is also expected that the proposal would even out passenger
loadings between GE Outer services.
Platform 10A at Stratford would have to be extended to handle 12-car trains. The loop is to be extended to
allow freight services to stand clear of the GEML, which will signi¿cantly improve performance.
This option will require Platform 10A and the loop at Stratford to be lengthened.
Crowding impact
By spreading out loadings between trains for passengers who want to disembark at Stratford there would
be some de-crowding bene¿ts, but these are not predicted to be substantial in the model.
107
Assessment of Option 5: Call all GE Outer and Anglia Inter-City services at Stratford
(continued)
Freight impact
The timetabling work tested calling all peak services at Stratford so there would be no impact on freight
from the extra calls proposed. If the service pattern change were implemented all day then there may be
some impact on freight, although it is likely that all down main line services would continue to use Platform
10 in the off-peak. The freight loop will improve freight performance in the off-peak.
It is recommended that all services on Great Eastern call at Stratford. This is required to allow additional
services to operate on the main line.
Assessment of Option 6: Run additional peak services on the GE from Chadwell
Heath
Concept
This option proposes running nine extra trains during the morning peak between Chadwell Heath and
Liverpool Street.
Analysis showed that a turnback facility will be required at Chadwell Heath to allow the pathing of additional
services and that more than two additional trains in the high peak hour would be dif¿cult to path without
major changes to the timetable or incurring performance dis-bene¿ts.
The construction of a loop for assisting in turning back trains at Chadwell Heath was investigated during
consultation.
Crowding impact
Eight extra morning peak trains in 2016 are estimated to maintain passenger conditions at 2004/05 levels in
the model.
Freight impact
As the extra services are peak only there would be no impact on freight services from implementing this
option. The impact of ECS moves on freight paths has been checked.
For timetabling, it has been assumed that services that currently start from Ilford will start at Chadwell
Heath. Performance modelling in RailSys con¿rmed that running the additional services necessitated the
turn-back and that performance would need to be carefully monitored when running this level of service.
Pathing the third extra high peak train may require a more fundamental review of performance or calling
patterns. It is recommended that this be investigated further and added by 2021, if possible. Alternatively,
selective train lengthening to ten cars may be possible once platform lengthening has been undertaken for
the Crossrail project. Power supply reinforcement is required at Spring¿eld Feeder Station.
10-car running and the introduction of high density rolling stock (e.g. Class 378) have also been considered
since consultation.
It is anticipated that the additional services proposed and the introduction of 10-car services as part of
the Crossrail scheme will meet the long term capacity needs of inner suburban commuters on the Great
Eastern route, as well as delivering other bene¿ts across London.
108
Assessment of Option 7: Lengthen peak services on the Chingford route
Concept
This option proposes lengthening trains on the Chingford route to a maximum of 9-cars during the peak.
The current infrastructure allows for 9-car running (although some work is required to meet modern
standards).
This option does not necessitate changes to the timetable. Current practice is to diagram some of the
Chingford trains to operate on other routes on West Anglia so if longer trains were run on the Chingford
branch it would be necessary to either: ensure that the longer rolling stock is diagrammed to routes that it
can operate over; and/or re-timetable and re-diagram the route. It would be necessary to ensure that the
diagramming of the longer trains does not cause operational dif¿culties.
Some infrastructure work is required on the Chingford route to accommodate 9-car trains but no power
supply reinforcement is required.
Crowding impact
Lengthening 8-car trains to 9-cars adds around 12 percent to capacity. On the Chingford route this would
be suf¿cient to maintain current travelling conditions until 2012 (at predicted rates of passenger demand
increase). Some rolling stock on this route provides lower capacity than is typical on inner-suburban
services and some trains run at 4-car length in the peak. It is expected that switching all peak trains to 9-car
running would provide suf¿cient capacity to accommodate predicted increases in demand while maintaining
or improving crowding conditions for passengers.
Freight impact
It is current practise to inter-work the units between inner-suburban service groups on West Anglia to make
ef¿cient use of the rolling stock throughout the day. In light of this, it is recommended that 9-car running
be re-introduced on this route and on the other inner suburban routes on West Anglia. It is recommended
that this should be implemented along with a scheme for replacement of the Class 315 rolling stock on the
route. Consideration should be given to providing Class 378 or similar rolling stock with high passenger
capacity layout, which it is expected will be necessary to accommodate long term increases in passenger
demand on West Anglia Inner-suburban services and improve performance by reducing station dwell times
in the peak.
Assessment of Option 8: Lengthen peak services between Cambridge/Stansted
Airport and London Liverpool Street to 12-car
Concept
This option proposes lengthening all platforms between Cambridge and Cheshunt to accommodate 12car trains, together with the operation of those trains during the peaks. This increases seated capacity by
around 50 percent which is intended to accommodate the 53 percent increase in morning peak journeys to
London that have been predicted for the outer services by 2016.
No changes to the timetable are required.
Some platforms on the West Anglia route can already handle 12-car trains. Platform extensions (or SDO
equipment) would be required at: Cheshunt, Broxbourne, Roydon, Harlow Mill, Sawbridgeworth, Stansted
Airport, Stansted Mount¿tchet, Elsenham, Newport, Great Chesterford and Shelford. A new island platform
will be required at Cambridge to allow these services to operate, if 12-car services are also introduced
between Cambridge and Kings Cross on the Great Northern route.
109
Assessment of Option 8: Lengthen peak services between Cambridge/Stansted
Airport and London Liverpool Street to 12-car (continued)
Crowding impact
12-car operation would provide considerable crowding relief to existing passengers (average load factors
were 150 percent in Autumn 2007 on Cambridge – Liverpool St services) but the demand forecasts indicate
that 12-car operation alone would not provide adequate passenger capacity at outer-suburban stations in
the longer term. The model predicted that average load factors would rise above levels experienced today
early in CP5 without further service enhancements (see Option 12).
Freight impact
It is recommended that 12-car running be introduced as soon as practicable and then to progressively
lengthen trains over the peak. Power supply reinforcement will be required in the Cambridge area, together
with some work on track circuits. It may be necessary to change stopping patterns in order to make the
most of the extra capacity, i.e. providing it where it is most needed.
Platform occupation at Liverpool St and Stansted Airport have been assessed.
The cost estimates have been developed further since consultation. On the basis of this work so far it is
recommended that platforms are lengthened at all stations on the route rather than installing selective door
operation at some.
Assessment of Option 9: Lengthen peak Hertford East – London services to
12-car
Concept
This option proposes lengthening the Hertford East branch platforms and running the peak services as
12-car. This allows passenger capacity to be added to alleviate crowding from current levels on the service
group and to accommodate predicted increases in passenger numbers during the peak.
Only minor timetable changes would be required but services would have to be re-diagrammed because
the Hertford services currently inter-work with those operating to Chingford, Cheshunt (via Southbury) and
En¿eld.
None of the stations on the route between Northumberland Park and Hertford East can currently handle
12-car trains. Platform extensions (or SDO) would be needed at Hertford East, Ware, St Margarets, Rye
House, Broxbourne, Cheshunt, Waltham Cross, En¿eld Lock, Brimsdown, Ponders End, Angel Road and
Northumberland Park.
Crowding impact
Adding 50 percent seated capacity to peak services was tested for the consultation draft of the RUS. The
model predicts that this would accommodate predicted increases in passenger numbers beyond 2021 in
less crowded conditions than experienced today.
Freight impact
110
Assessment of Option 9: Lengthen peak Hertford East – London services to 12car. (continued)
The stand-alone business case for this option (reported in the RUS Draft for Consultation) was very poor.
Additionally, it is current practise to inter-work the units between inner-suburban service groups on West
Anglia to make ef¿cient use of the rolling stock throughout the day. In light of this, it is recommended that
9-car running be re-introduced on this route and on the other inner suburban routes on West Anglia. It is
further recommended that this should be implemented along with a scheme of replacement of the Class
315 rolling stock on the route. Consideration should be given to providing Class 378 or similar rolling stock
with high passenger capacity layout, which would be necessary to accommodate long term increases in
passenger demand on West Anglia inner-suburban services and improve performance by reducing station
dwell times.
Whilst the route was originally capable of 9-car operation, the implementation of modern standards means
that some infrastructure works are required. No power or berthing works are required, but one train will
require re-timing at Liverpool St so that all services can be platformed.
Assessment of Option 10: Operate 9-car trains between En¿eld Town and
London Liverpool Street
Concept
This option proposes running 9-car trains from En¿eld Town and Cheshunt where 8-car trains currently
operate in the high peak and 6-car trains where 4-car trains run now in the shoulder peak. This adds
around 12 percent to passenger capacity in the busiest peak hour and up to 50 percent in the shoulder
peak.
This option does not necessitate timetable changes. 9-car running from Cheshunt via Southbury was not
originally included to avoid the additional cost of extending the bay platform at Cheshunt.
This option will require SDO equipment at Stoke Newington where the cost of extending the platforms
would be very high.
Crowding impact
It is predicted that there will be considerable increases in passenger numbers on this route. Extending
trains to 9-car would provide some crowding relief to passengers but the model predicted that 9-car
running from En¿eld Town would not provide enough capacity via Seven Sisters to maintain current
crowding through CP5.
Freight impact
It is current practice to inter-work the units between inner-suburban service groups on West Anglia to
make ef¿cient use of the rolling stock throughout the day. In light of this, it is recommended that 9-car
running be re-introduced on this route and on the other inner suburban routes on West Anglia, including
services to and from Cheshunt via Southbury to increase capacity via Seven Sisters to Liverpool St. It is
also recommended that a shuttle service between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters is re-introduced to increase
service frequency to meet predicted demand on the route (see Option 11).
It is recommended that these measures should be implemented along with a scheme for replacement of
the Class 315 rolling stock on the route by Class 378 with high passenger capacity layout, which would
be necessary to accommodate long term increases in passenger demand on West Anglia Inner-suburban
services. It would also improve train reliability by reducing station dwell times in the peak.
111
Assessment of Option 11: Run shuttle services between Cheshunt
and Seven Sisters
Concept
This option proposes running two trains an hour between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters in the peak to
provide a shuttle to the LUL interchange. This will provide crowding relief for passengers north of Seven
Sisters, the busiest section of the route. It also provides frequency increases to four trains an hour at
Theobalds Grove and Turkey Street.
Paths for two trains per hour between the bay platform at Cheshunt and Seven Sisters are available in the
morning peak.
Power operation of the crossover at Seven Sisters is required, along with improvements to station capacity.
Crowding impact
This contributes to crowding relief on the route. Average load factors would be reduced by a similar amount
to that achieved by running longer trains from En¿eld Town, but it is expected that the demand for the
shuttle service would be less than that for direct trains to Liverpool St.
Freight impact
It is recommended that shuttle services are introduced to accommodate increasing demand as this
provides crowding relief along a key section of the route.
Assessment of Option 12: Increase capacity on the West Anglia Main Line
Concept
This option proposes increasing line capacity between Broxbourne Junction and Coppermill Junction by
four-tracking the route to provide additional services. An illustrative timetable was originally tested which
comprised running eight additional peak services an hour: four from Stansted Airport; two from Hertford
East; and two from Cambridge. Two Stansted Airport services would run to Liverpool Street and all others
would run to Stratford via Tottenham Hale so providing frequent services between all stations and Stratford/
Docklands. Journey times could also be reduced for West Anglia outer services and service frequency
increased at those stations in the lower Lea Valley where service levels and patronage are currently poor.
To provide adequate capacity from Stansted Airport for airport passengers, Stansted Express trains are
lengthened to 12-car and lengthening the semi-fast trains from Cambridge was also originally included in
the modelling, as well as removing the call at Broxbourne to avoid the cost of extending the platforms.
This option required extensive timetabling and performance modelling, which showed that altering the
stopping patterns between Cheshunt and Liverpool St would not make suf¿cient difference to capacity to
allow additional trains to run. Therefore signi¿cant infrastructure is required to operate the level of train
services proposed in this option. If services run in the off-peak to provide four trains per hour at all inner
stations then protection of the hourly freight path on the WAML would need to be ensured.
This option will require extensive works including four-tracking between Broxbourne Junction and
Coppermill Junction. Some power supply works will also be required.
112
Assessment of Option 12: Increase capacity on the West Anglia Main Line
(continued)
Crowding impact
The model predicted that standing would occur infrequently on outer services north of Tottenham Hale if
trains were lengthened to 12-car from Cambridge and Stansted and service frequency were increased by
eight trains an hour (including six trains an hour serving outer-suburban stations). Over-crowding on inner
services would be eliminated on the West Anglia route north of Tottenham Hale right through CP5.
Freight impact
If a scheme is progressed that involves increasing service frequency all-day on the route then there may
be an impact on freight. However, the increase in infrastructure proposed is signi¿cant and should allow for
both the existing hourly freight path, as well as further freight growth.
It is recommended the four-tracking scheme be developed through CP4 and be delivered in CP5.
Increasing service frequency by six trains an hour (rather than eight) would be adequate to meet demand
on the route in the long term when combined with the other capacity increases that are recommended on
the route (including the operation of 12-car trains from all stations between Cambridge and Cheshunt – as
proposed under Option 8). The scheme has the potential to support the long term development of the M11
corridor and Stansted Airport and so forms a key part of the strategy.
The scheme has possible synergies with Crossrail, in that the release of GE ‘E’ line paths between
Stratford and Liverpool St could allow for the West Anglia 4 tph that would terminate at Stratford under this
proposal to continue to Liverpool St – this would require further works at Stratford. Value for money of the
scheme was tested (without continuation of services to Liverpool St) with Crossrail services operating after
2016 and this showed that the business case was robust.
A timetable has been produced which provides an additional six trains per hour which includes provision
of an hourly freight path in the off peak period. A check on the platforming at Liverpool St station has been
carried out, which revealed that all services could operate with acceptable performance.
The early introduction of a shuttle service between Tottenham Hale and Stratford around 2012 was
examined as part of this scheme. The economic bene¿ts of a 4 tph shuttle were tested using PLANET and
it was found that operating costs would not be offset by economic bene¿ts of the stand-alone service.
Assessment of Option 13: Increase frequency of Ipswich – Peterborough
services to hourly
Concept
This option seeks to improve the cross country service by running the Peterborough – Ipswich services
hourly throughout the day.
It is not possible to create a regular hourly service on this route within the existing timetable. However, if
the cross country timetable was reviewed and service patterns changed it is thought that a more ef¿cient
timetable could be planned, to the bene¿t of all parties and the additional service could be pathed.
If the timetable review were conducted then it is thought that no infrastructure would be necessary,
therefore no capital costs have been assumed in the appraisal. However, the infrastructure identi¿ed under
Option 17 (improve cross country freight capacity) would greatly assist with timetabling a regular hourly
passenger service over the route.
Crowding impact
Careful timetabling of the services may help reduce the limited crowding on the route.
Freight impact
Without a review of the timetable this option would have an impact on existing Class 6 freight services
serving local aggregate depots.
113
Assessment of Option 13: Increase frequency of Ipswich – Peterborough
services to hourly (continued)
This option is feasible only if the timetable over the route is reviewed. The business case at base year
levels of demand is weak. At predicted rates of passenger demand increases it is expected that the
additional services would generate a positive socio-economic case around 2019, though this may be
sooner if passenger demand increases faster than predicted by PDFH. The timetable is now being
developed along with the work for a proposed cross country freight route capacity upgrade and, given the
interest from the Regional Assembly in improved inter-urban services, it is recommended that this option is
development as part of the cross country workstream.
Assessment of Option 14: Increase frequency on the East Suffolk Line to hourly
Concept
This option seeks to improve the East Suffolk Line service by operating an hourly service throughout the
day between Ipswich and Lowestoft.
This option requires a new passing loop at Beccles and is dif¿cult to timetable between Wester¿eld and
East Suffolk Junction. Further development of this option is being undertaken in conjunction with the
ERTMS resignalling project.
For the basic hourly service calling all station between Ipswich and Lowestoft a passing loop is required
at Beccles, and it is also desirable that East Suffolk Junction is doubled in order to reduce some of the
conÀicts in the Ipswich area and to aid freight growth (see Option 17). Further development of the timetable
is now being undertaken in conjunction with the resignalling project. This additional work includes an
assessment of potential upgrades to the level crossings as a result of the proposed service changes.
Crowding impact
This option could help relieve the standing on the route that occurs at peak times if the service was
carefully timetabled.
Freight impact
It is likely that East Suffolk Jn would need to be doubled in order to maintain capacity for current and
predicted freight services.
This option is only feasible if the timetable over the route is reviewed. At predicted rates of passenger
demand increases it is expected that the additional services would generate a positive socio-economic
case around 2012, though this may be sooner if demand increases more quickly than is predicted by
PDFH. This option is now being developed in conjunction with the resignalling scheme and may also attract
third party funding.
114
Assessment of Option 15: Provide an hourly frequency between Ipswich and
Saxmundham
Concept
This option seeks to increase service frequency on this route to provide a regular hourly service throughout
the day to serve an increasing market.
This option is dif¿cult to timetable between Wester¿eld and East Suffolk Junction.
It is desirable that East Suffolk Junction is doubled in order to reduce some of the conÀicts in the Ipswich
area. An assessment of the level crossings would also be required.
Crowding impact
This option’s impact on crowding has not been assessed.
Freight impact
East Suffolk Junction would need to be doubled in order to protect freight capacity and future growth.
The business case at base year levels of demand is weak. It is not recommended that this option is
pursued.
7.3.5
The assessment of the remaining options is set
out below. The tables also advise on how it is
planned/recommended to take these options
forward.
Assessment of Option 16
Description
Increase capacity on rural/inter-urban services to meet peak demand. This option also considers
improvements to east – west links across the region
Issue
Even before the regional growth takes place some services are near or over capacity at peak times when
arriving/departing regional centres. Crowding relief on these trains will also improve rail’s attractiveness
for discretionary travellers.
Both Cambridgeshire and Norfolk County Councils are considering improvements to the services around
Cambridge and Norwich as part of their TIF (congestion) studies. Such improvements would include the
Cambridge – Norwich service, as well as improvements to capacity on trains operating into Norwich and
Cambridge (see below).
Under this option the loadings on the Cambridge – Kings Lynn services have also been considered and
running longer trains at least as far as Ely needs to be implemented. This needs to be progressed in
conjunction with the FCC Great Northern Capacity Study proposals and the other developments being
planned in the Cambridge area.
115
Assessment of Option 16 (continued)
During the consultation the issue of improved links across and beyond the region was also raised. The East
West Rail Link has been raised by a number of consultees. The scheme has been examined in detail by the
East – West Rail Consortium and is covered in the RPA, however, the DfT’s current stance is that the west
end of the route between Oxford and Bletchley/Milton Keynes will be taken forward, but the east end will be
served by an express bus service. Thus the RUS has not re-evaluated this scheme as an option.
However, consultees also raised the issue of improved links between Norwich and Cambridge/
Peterborough. The existing Liverpool – Norwich and more recently introduced Cambridge – Norwich
services have been very successful, however, it was felt by consultees that links could be further improved.
The RUS therefore tested making the services between Norwich and Cambridge half hourly at peak times.
This not only improves the service to Cambridge but also improves links to Peterborough via Ely (especially
if Option 13 is also implemented). Testing the value for money of this service showed suf¿cient bene¿ts to
cover the running costs and additional lease costs of the rolling stock that would be needed. However, they
were inadequate to cover the cost of doubling Ely North Junction, which timetabling of the option revealed
would be needed – therefore the service improvement needs to be developed in the longer term when the
junction comes up for renewal. It is recommended that the service frequency improvement be reconsidered
sooner if road pricing schemes are proposed to be introduced in Norwich or Cambridge and funding is
released for rail schemes in the area.
It is recommended that:
Q TOCs review rolling stock diagramming/allocation with a view to strengthening services locally to reduce
peak crowding.
Q The case for a half hourly peak service between Cambridge and Norwich has also been examined and
appraisal suggests that the socio-economic bene¿ts are greater than the full operational costs of the
service. This option should be taken forward in conjunction with the renewals programme and local
authority congestion schemes.
Q The strengthening of London services which operate north of Cambridge also needs to be progressed.
The need for this will also become more pressing if road pricing is to be introduced.
Description
Increase freight gauge, train length and capacity
This option has also addressed gaps D-H highlighted in the Freight RUS (see Table 7.4). Chapter 5
contains details of these gaps as well as a note on the issue of train lengthening.
Issue
Need to increase gauge, train length and number of paths available to accommodate the growth of
intermodal freight especially from the East Coast ports.
116
Chapter 5 has covered the timetabling work carried out to assess the number of paths available and the
increase in infrastructure required in order to accommodate the freight paths.
This work has so far concluded that:
Q In order to accommodate the freight growth both the GE/NLL/WCML and the Felixstowe – Nuneaton
cross country routes need to be used (with around 8 additional paths routed via London).
Q With the existing infrastructure together with the ¿rst phase of enhancements (i.e. those contained in
the HPUK Section 106 and the current TIF works) around 5 additional paths can be found on the cross
country route to Nuneaton in addition to the 9 paths to/from South Yorkshire.
Q With additional infrastructure proposed in a second phase of enhancement works, it is possible to path
the additional Yorkshire trains as well as 14 additional services to/from Nuneaton.
Q If the existing cross country freight and passenger services were reviewed it may be possible to path
additional freight services.
Q Reducing the passenger service on the Felixstowe branch will not release suf¿cient capacity to meet
freight growth and is not recommended – the planned partial doubling of the branch is required.
The development of this option is to continue with re¿nement of the timetable and infrastructure works.
Further TIF submissions can then be made. Early business case development work shows a bene¿t
cost ratio of around 2.1 for a scheme to increase cross country freight train capacity between Felixstowe
and Nuneaton.
Chapter 5 contains details on train lengthening.
Table 7.4: Freight RUS gaps
Gap
Location
Issue
Mitigations
D
Stratford
– Camden Road
Interface with access to/from the
GEML
Loops proposed at Channelsea
and Stratford 10A to regulate freight
services. The former funded by
TfL under NLL upgrade and the
latter via the ODA/Network Rail Out
Performance Fund.
E
GEML
Available Class 4 and 6 slots
between off-peak passenger
services
GA/CL RUS strategies propose use
of GE off-peak freight paths plus
upgraded cross country route in
order to met freight growth.
E-F
Haughley Jn
– Peterborough
Single Lead at Haughley Jn
Headways at Kennett
ConÀict at Ely
The removal of these restrictions
is being taken forward with NRDF
funding.
G-H
Forest Gate
– Channelsea
ConÀicting moves on the GEML
The GA and CL RUS strategies
propose the use of an upgraded
Gospel Oak – Barking route to
take some of the traf¿c away from
Stratford. This is being pursued via
engineering renewals, TIF and TfL
funding.
117
Description
Improve the Route Availability for freight traf¿c on the Ipswich – Peterborough route
Issue
Class 6 freight trains are subject to speed restrictions on the Ipswich – Peterborough route and the line
needs to be able to carry this traf¿c at speeds of up to 60 mph.
This scheme is being investigated and developed as a potential NRDF project. This work involves the
engineers (principally for track and structures) in examining the causes of the restrictions on heavier
freight vehicles to determine the works required to raise speeds. These works will then be costed and
submitted for NRDF funding and (where possible) will be undertaken with maintenance/renewal works. The
assessments are currently underway and the results are expected in Spring 2008.
Description
Improve performance through a range of measures
Issue
The stakeholders identi¿ed performance issues under 6 headings.
The performance issue and the recommendations/progress with their development are summarised below:
Q Close the crossings in the Lea Valley and replace with bridges and/or subways. The RSSB Level
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
118
Crossing model has been used to assess the replacement of the key crossings on the route. There is
a stand-alone business case for replacing at grade crossings along the Lea Valley. It is recommended
that the level crossings are closed/replaced during Control Period 4 as part of the development work for
four-tracking the route.
Review/Improve Rules of the Plan
The Rules of the Plan have been reviewed and changes are being implemented between Ipswich and
Norwich, Liverpool St and Shen¿eld and on West Anglia.
Replace poorly performing sections of the OLE
Design and development is being worked up for the replacent of the OLE between Liverpool St and
Southend/Chelmsford. Implementation is planned prior to 2012.
Improve turnrounds on the rural routes
The turnrounds on the Ipswich – Cambridge service need to be improved. Speeds could be improved
as a result of track renewals but signalling works are also required. The scheme is being developed
under NRDF.
Remove the restrictions on Ely West Curve
Restrictions were placed on the curve when it was commissioned in the 1990s and the business case is
being developed with a view to using NRDF funding in order to remove both the directional and double
blocking restrictions in the area.
Increase speeds between Barking and Upminster
An increase in speed is being investigated, in order to improve journey times/performance margins.
Work may also be required in conjunction with this to improve the regulation of trains running to/from
the Ockendon branch. This work would be funded through the NRDF.
A number of other schemes have been propsed in the SBP for NRDF funding in CP4.
Description
Improve the ef¿ciency of engineering access
Issue
The review of engineering access referred to earlier in this document has shown that access needs to be
improved in the 5 areas discussed below:
Q Reducing the impact of possessions on the Stansted route has been the subject of and Ef¿cient
Q
Q
Q
Q
Engineering Access cross-industry study.
Passengers want to travel to Stansted later in the evening and earlier in the morning – particularly
on some weekday nights and at weekends. In order to address the issue, the study assessed low
cost options which would maximise industry bene¿ts and concluded that it was possible to change
maintenance and renewals to reduce engineering access time. This recommendation has now been
implemented.
Assess the impact of TfL’s proposed hours of operation on suburban routes
Once TfL have speci¿ed the hours required on the suburban routes it will be necessary for Network
Rail to check these times against its engineering requirements and the service requirements of other
operators (especially freight). This issue will be taken forward through a Rules of the Route Review
under standard industry processes.
Reduce the impact of possessions on berthing and depots
There are a number of areas where alternative power feeding arrangements need to be investigated
for berthing sidings and depots, so that train maintenance and stabling are not affected by engineering
works. This issue is likely to become more prevalent as the demand for rolling stock rises in the future.
This work is to be undertaken by the Electri¿cation & Plant Engineer with funding from the NRDF for
any cost effective schemes.
Improve engineering access on the cross country freight route
Increasing freight traf¿c on the GE and especially the cross country route means that proper
diversionary arrangements are required to permit good engineering access at night and weekends.
The proposals being worked up consider making the GE/NLL/WCML and the cross country routes
diversionary routes for each other. This requires the enhancement works to the cross country route (and
ECML (South)) to be in place as well as a check on the operational feasibility of the option. This work
will be taken forward as part of the TIF funded cross country freight project.
In conjunction with the above, with the increasing need to reduce the impact of engineering works on
the weekend services, the engineering access review process is also examining ways of increasing the
use of single line working, as a means of reducing the number of all line blocks across the network. This
initiative has recently been implemented on parts of the Thameside route.
These schemes are being taken forward as part of a number of initiatives, including the engineering
access, NRDF and cross country freight projects.
Between Liverpool St and Stansted Airport, passenger trains run earlier in the morning and ¿nish later in the
evening on the busiest weekdays and at weekends. This change was implemented on 9 December 2007.
From the earlier comments on the Crossrail project it will be apparent that the impact of Crossrail on
maintenance regimes will need to be assessed.
119
Description
Improve power supply to match future requirements.
Issue
The power supply is known to be operating close to the limit in several areas, requiring a check whether
any enhancements are required in order to meet future needs. A number of EMUs will also operate with
regenerative braking and this includes an EWS proposal to operate Class 92 locomotives in regenerative
mode between the NLL and Ripple Lane (following the recent opening of HS1)
The impact of the additional services proposed in the RUS has now been assessed by the Electri¿cation &
Plant engineer, although a more detailed assessment of the impact of regenerative braking will be required.
The study shows that:
Q On the Thameside route only minor upgrading work is likely to be required.
Q On the GEML an additional supply point will be required in the Chelmsford area, together with some
work at Stowmarket.
Q On the West Anglia route power reinforcement is required in the Cambridge area and around
Northumberland Park.
The cost of this upgrading work is included in our assessment of the value for money of the proposed
strategy (in Chapter 9).
Description
Improve passenger access to the network.
Issue
The analysis carried out as part of the RUS has shown that station facilities need to be improved in a
number of areas in order to attract people to the network.
120
The station issues and the recommendations/progress with their development are summarised below:
Q Car park capacity needs to be improved at a number of locations
The Route Enhancement Manager’s team are discussing car park schemes with the train operators.
Generally these are funded by Network Rail with the cost recovered via the station lease charges. Car
parks are delivered by either Network Rail or the TOC depending on circumstances. Currently planned
car park extensions include: Audley End, Harlow Town, Broxbourne, Billericay, Diss, Stowmarket,
Manningtree, Marks Tey, Witham, BenÀeet, Grays, Ockendon and a number of other locations. The
supressed demand work in the Passenger Focus study will also be used to assist in making the case for
car park expansion schemes.
Q Improve DDA at stations
The DfT’s DDA programme includes the following stations in the GA RUS area: Audley End, Brentwood,
Chadwell Heath, Ipswich and Pitsea.
Q Improve interchange at LUL stations
The demand modelling has identi¿ed the increase in use at stations giving interchange with LUL.
Projects are getting underway to improve facilities at Stratford with development work being undertaken
at Tottenham Hale. However, works are also required at West Ham, Seven Sisters (both being
considered for NRDF funding) and at Walthamstow Central.
Q Improve crowding relief at key stations
The SRA/Railway estates study identi¿ed a number of stations where crowding is or will become
a problem (see Appendix C). Those with interchange have been discussed above, however,
improvements at the London termini will need to be taken forward as part of their master plans. It
is anticipated that improvements at Cambridge will be undertaken as part of the station forecourt
development and those at Chelmsford will be improved under a property/local authority scheme.
Q Provide new stations to improve access to the network
A number of developments are currently at the planning stage and generally under Section 106
agreements, the developers are seeking to provide new stations. Some current proposals are listed
below, however, individual stations have been (or will be) subject to an assessment of their impact on
capacity.
The stations/developments currently include:
Chesterton, north of Cambridge, which is being promoted by the County Council as part of their TIF
(Congestion) bid. The station will provide access to the rail network from north of Cambridge and the
surrounding area, thereby reducing the need to drive through the city to the existing station.
A new station north-east of Chelmsford, which will serve development of this side of the borough. The
proposal will include long loops which will also aid performance.
Southend Airport station, which is being promoted by London Southend Airport. The station features in the
airport’s master plan and has received planning permission. Development work is currently underway.
Great Blakenham station is currently being taken through the planning process and is designed to serve the
Snoasis attraction and its associated development
Moreton Hall (to serve a new development near Bury St Edmunds).
The National Station Improvement Programme is designed to improve 150 of the key stations on the
network with funding of £150million plus third party contributions in Control Period 4. The selection of
stations and scoping work are currently underway.
Network Rail is also developing the Modular Station concept. The programme is designed to deliver better
quality, cheaper and more environmentally friendly station buildings more quickly by using the modular
concept. Station buildings come in several sizes and the programme is currently at the prototype stage.
121
Assessment of Option 23: Increase berthing capability
Issue
The analysis of berthing capacity has shown that it is becoming tight at the majority of locations in the RUS
area. Additional capacity will be required to provide additional and longer train services.
An assessment of additional capacity required has been made and the likely berthing requirements have
been discussed with the key stakeholders and are summarised below:
Q On the Thameside route there is suf¿cient capacity for the additional units at East Ham and
Shoeburyness.
Q On the GE outers there is suf¿cient capacity for the changes on the Norwich services but the carriage
sidings at Parkeston Quay need to be brought back into use to accommodate the stock for the
additional Colchester/Chelmsford services.
Q On the GE inners additional stabling is required at Gidea Park and Ilford and it is proposed to use the
Crossrail plans for additional berthing at these locations.
Q On the WA inners there is suf¿cient capacity at Chingford to accommodate 9-car trains.
Q On the WA outers additional sidings are required at Cambridge or Orient Way (or another West Anglia
location) in order to accommodate the additional rolling stock.
The above sidings will also need to include CET, tanking and staff facilities.
In assessing the value for money of the strategy, the costs of additional berthing have been included.
7.4 Summary
be required between 2014 and 2023. The
7.4.1
upgrading of the Gospel Oak – Barking route
Many of the options tested have now
is also required if the freight growth from
been developed to enable them jointly to
Thameside is to be sustained and to avoid an
meet predicted demand in 2016 and 2021
increasing volume of freight traf¿c crossing the
respectively, and also to reÀect the feedback
GEML between Stratford and Forest Gate.
received in the consultation responses and
7.4.3
brie¿ngs. The effect of packaging options to
The RUS has considered a range of
provide a strategy for each route is developed
options which attempt to address the gaps
further in Chapter 9. The publication of the
identi¿ed. The options range from those
‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’ White Paper
which address capacity though service
also signi¿ed the need to develop a strategy
changes and infrastructure enhancements to
for meeting long term growth. This is explored
those which address gaps around stations
further in Chapter 9.
and performance. Stakeholders’ views on
7.4.2
these gaps and the initial options have been
Regarding the freight market, the analysis
reÀected in the development of the options
has shown that freight needs to use both the
into a strategy.
GEML and the cross country route. The ¿rst
phase of development on the latter route
is required now and the second phase will
122
123
8. Consultation process and overview
8.1 The Draft for Consultation
– London Lines (c2c and Silverlink)
8.1.1
– Freightliner Group
The Greater Anglia RUS Draft for Consultation
– English Welsh and Scottish Railway
was published in April 2007, along with a
press release announcing its publication. The
Q Government and Local Authorities
document outlined a number of gaps between
– Department for Transport
the present capability of the rail routes in East
– Of¿ce of Rail Regulation
Anglia (in terms of capacity and performance),
– Transport for London
and the predicted demand for freight and
– Olympic Delivery Authority
passenger traf¿c in both 2016 and 2021. A set
of options was proposed for bridging those
– City of London
– London Councils
gaps.
– East of England Regional Assembly
8.1.2
The RUS Draft for Consultation was distributed
– East of England Development Agency
to a wide range of stakeholders and a period
– East of England Regional Transport
of twelve weeks was allowed for stakeholders
to respond. The consultation period ended on
13 July 2007.
Forum
– London Borough of Redbridge
– London Borough of En¿eld
– London Borough of Barking and
8.2 Consultation responses
Dagenham
8.2.1
A total of 83 consultation responses were
– London Borough of Havering
received and these are broken down as
– London Borough of Haringey
follows:
– Norfolk County Council
Train operators
4
Government and local authorities
34
Businesses
12
– Suffolk County Council
– Hertfordshire County Council
– Essex County Council
– Nottinghamshire County Council
Other Statutory and
Vountary Sector Organisation
23
– Waveney District Council
– Mid Suffolk District Council
MPs
2
Members of the public
8
8.2.2
Formal responses were received from:
Q Train operators
– ‘one’ railway
– Norwich City Council
– Fenland District Council
– Kings Lynn and West Norfolk District
Council
– Great Yarmouth Borough Council
– Ipswich Borough Council
– East Herts District Council
124
– Colchester Borough Council
Q Businesses
– Epping Forest District Council
– BAA
– Chelmsford Borough Council
– Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd
– St Edmundsbury Borough Council
– Norwich Union
– Borough of Broxbourne Council
– Abermed
– Braintree District Council
– Norfolk Chamber of Commerce
– Black Notley Parish Council
– Scott Wilson
Q Other Statutory and Voluntary Sector
Organisations
– Thames Gateway London Partnership
– Thames Gateway Development
Corporation
– London TravelWatch
– Passenger Focus
– Harlow Renaissance
– Rail Freight Group
– Southend Airport Company Ltd
– Fen Line Users’ Association
– Norwich and Norfolk Financial Industry
Group
– Mid Anglia Rail Passenger Association
– Peterborough – Ely – Norwich Rail Users
– East Suffolk Travellers’ Association
– Witham and Braintree Rail Users’
Association
– Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action
Group
– Friends of the Earth
– WSP Consulting
In addition there were two responses from
MPs and eight from members of the public.
8.2.3
Copies of the various organisations’ responses
can be found on the Network Rail website at
www.networkrail.co.uk.
– Transport 2000
– STEER
– Essex Rail User Group
– Norfolk Rail Alliance
– Stop Stansted Expansion
– Gospel Oak - Barking Line User Group
– Railfuture
– Thurrock Rail Users’ Group
– West Anglia Routes Group
– Chingford Line Users’ Association
– Walton, Frinton, Kirby Cross and Thorpele-Soken RUA
– NLSA
– Thames Gateway Forum
125
8.3 Key themes in the consultation
responses
8.3.1
train operator and DfT, as speci¿er of the
Greater Anglia passenger franchise.
Q On the GEML inner suburban services,
The responses which have been received
opinions were divided over the use
are well considered, and in many cases
of high capacity rolling stock against
comprehensive. As a result, it is dif¿cult
train lengthening. It is anticipated that
to provide an individual précis of each
the capacity needs of inner suburban
submission. Many covered very similar
commuters on GEML will be met by
issues and the key and recurring themes are
Crossrail, which is now funded for delivery
summarised below:
in 2017.
Q Respondents emphatically supported the
Q The options to address rural/inter-urban
four-tracking of the WA route between
service frequency and local crowding
Coppermill and Broxbourne Junctions
were supported, however, the freight
to provide additional line capacity and
operators raised concern over capacity
increase passenger train service frequency
between Ipswich and both Peterborough
to meet predicted increases in passenger
and Lowestoft if passenger services were
numbers.
increased. The additional infrastructure
Q Almost every respondent felt that the
options in the RUS Draft for Consultation
did not go far enough in providing
additional capacity to deal with regional
growth, especially on the GEML. Since
publication of the draft RUS further work
required to facilitate increases in passenger
and freight services has been investigated,
but the Class 6 freight services are being
examined to see if re-timetabling could
yield more capacity on these routes.
Q Many respondents said that they supported
has been carried out on the options, which
the strengthening of local services where
demonstrates that the forecast demand
they are overcrowded but they thought
out to 2021 can be met with the measures
that the RUS should be speci¿c over which
that are recommended. In addition, in order
services to strengthen, and they also felt
to respond to the Government’s 30 year
that the East – West Rail Link should have
plans contained in the recent White Paper,
been included. It has been highlighted
interventions which address long term
where crowding occurs or is likely to occur
growth have been included.
and it is the TOCs’ responsibility to provide
Q Many respondents emphasised the need
for a reliable high quality service between
London and Norwich. They were supportive
of the plans to replace the overhead line
equipment in the London – Chelmsford
corridor, but warned against down-grading
the Norwich service from inter-city trains to
suburban standard. It is emphasised again
that the options for replacement rolling
stock are assumed to be either the DfT’s
Inter-city Express Project (IEP) train or long
distance EMUs. The capacity ¿gures used
in the option evaluation are based on the
Class 444 unit, however, the ¿nal layout
and ambience will be a matter for the
the additional stock where required, which
could be delivered by re-diagramming the
existing units or procuring additional rolling
stock. From the work already carried out
by DfT on the East-West Rail Link project,
the Government supports development
of the route in the south midlands but
not into East Anglia. That being the
case, it is not possible for the RUS to
recommend development of the eastern
section because funding is not available,
nor reasonably likely to become available
during the period of the RUS. The RUS
has however, given further consideration
to the links between Norwich and the west.
Additional peak services between Norwich
126
and Cambridge, which would also link into
the services to Peterborough and beyond,
have been proposed.
Q The freight operators pointed out errors in
the capacity tables (which have now been
corrected) as well as raising concerns over
the potential for clashes between additional
ECS moves and freight services in the
shoulder peaks. Timetabling work, which
takes these moves into account has now
been carried out. The FOCs also raised
the issue of the Crossrail timetable and
compatibility with increased use of the GE
route by freight services. The industry is
working on this issue.
Q Freightliner also pointed out that the
capacity tables assume that all paths
can be used whereas when capacity
limits are being reached it will become
more and more dif¿cult to ¿nd useable
paths. Therefore the tables should be
used as an indication of the likely timing
of interventions and additional capacity
should be phased in to keep pace with
increasing demand. Another concern
was the assumption that it should be
possible to divert services from one route
to another overnight. However, it was not
clear whether this (and the current impact
of overnight single line working) had been
allowed for in the capacity ¿gures. The text
now makes clear that the ¿gures do allow
for engineering work during the night.
Q Consultation responses supported the
plans for improvements to stations and
car parks but expressed concern that
there were no details as to what would
be delivered or how. This has been
addressed by providing more details
on these projects, together with the
programmes/funding arrangements under
which they are being taken forward.
Q Overall there was strong support for all the
options proposed.
127
9. Strategy
9.1 Introduction
b) The railway serves a region, which is
9.1.1
forecast to experience very high levels of
The study of the routes in the Greater Anglia
growth over the next 15 years, particularly
area has shown that despite their diversity,
on the West Anglia/M11 corridor. This is
which ranges from key commuter to rural
driven by a number factors, including the
lines, the routes are very well used by both
housing allocation in the Regional Spatial
passenger and freight traf¿c.
Strategy, increases in central London
employment, the importance of regional
9.1.2
economic centres (especially Cambridge
This RUS has looked at the current and future
and Norwich), the expansion plans for
freight and passenger markets and assessed
Stansted Airport and the development of
the future growth in each. It has then sought
the region’s main ports.
to accommodate this growth effectively
and ef¿ciently, in accordance with the route
c) Peak passenger numbers on the routes
utilisation objective, speci¿ed in Licence
have increased by 30 to 40 percent since
Condition 7. The measures proposed range
privatisation. Growth has been most
upwards from running additional trains within
rapid on the WA route but steady on the
the limits of the existing infrastructure to the
more established GE route. The GE route
provision of additional tracks.
offers good links to Docklands, where net
employment growth has been the greatest
9.1.3
in London over the last few years. Morning
This RUS has also considered the aspirations
peak passenger numbers continue to
of funders, including local authorities and
increase rapidly on all the routes. Many
developers, covering areas such as new and
peak trains are severely over-crowded: the
improved stations.
problem is worst on West Anglia services
9.1.4
from Cambridge and particularly acute on
To align with the White Paper, the strategy also
GE inner suburban services.
looks forward to interventions, which will help
d) Most of the routes are already operating
deliver sustainable transport to support long
at or close to capacity, which makes
term regional growth.
reliable operation on many of the routes
9.2 Key issues addressed
9.2.1
challenging. It also limits the options
for dealing with growth without sizeable
interventions.
In analysing the routes several issues were
identi¿ed:
9.2.2
In order to address these challenges it was
a) The GEML, the Thameside/GE/NLL route
¿rst necessary to examine current and future
and Ipswich – Peterborough are all key
traf¿c levels and the gaps between these and
freight routes and the maritime container
the current capacity of the routes.
and construction traf¿c on them is forecast
to grow strongly.
128
9.2.3
passengers on trains at the busiest point on
The passenger train loadings were examined
each route and estimates of typical morning
to understand where on-train crowding
peak load factors (passengers divided by
occurred and how bad it is. Physical counts of
seats) are shown in Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3:
Table 9.1: Thameside passenger loads (Autumn 2007)
Thameside
08:00 - 08:59
Passengers
07:00 - 09:59
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
Main Line
9,832
121%
18,799
108%
Ockendon branch
2,653
118%
4,669
119%
Tilbury Loop
2,475
126%
5,548
99%
Source: c2c peak counts data 2007, average passenger numbers at the busiest stop.
Table 9.2: GEML passenger loads (Autumn 2007)
GEML
08:00 - 08:59
Passengers
Inner suburban
07:00 - 09:59
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
11,549
140%
26,448
126%
Southend
8,168
113%
13,449
103%
Outer suburban
7,129
105%
14,324
99%
Inter-City
2,053
113%
4,327
101%
Source: GEML peak counts; Autumn 2007.
Table 9.3: West Anglia passenger loads (Autumn 2007)
West Anglia
08:00 - 08:59
Passengers
07:00 - 09:59
Load Factor
Passengers
Load Factor
En¿eld/Cheshunt
3,682
135%
7,334
105%
Hertford
1,799
141%
3,788
112%
Chingford
2,983
117%
5,749
89%
609
112%
1,339
71%
Cambridge
2,804
150%
5,533
124%
Stansted Express
1,934
107%
3,757
75%
Stratford
Source: West Anglia peak count data, Autumn 2007
129
These tables indicate the current average
These growth rates are constrained by
crowding conditions experienced by
crowding in this do-minimum forecast. The
passengers on the different service groups
forecasts would be much higher if passengers
in the RUS area and the number of people
were not crowded off and even higher still
travelling on the routes. This is shown over
if services were improved to meet rising
the three hour peak and in the busiest hour
demand.1 The high rates of growth and the
of the morning (08:00 – 09:00). The most
degree of constraint indicate the scale of the
crowded services are the WA Outers running
capacity challenge the industry faces on these
from Cambridge. On the busiest of these trains
routes.
some passengers are sometimes unable to
board the trains at Broxbourne and the limited
stop service no longer calls at Cheshunt in the
peak. Similar load factors were observed on
the GE inner suburban services which provide
service to more than 25,000 people travelling
9.2.5
The majority of increases in freight traf¿c will
be seen on the GEML and on the Ipswich –
Peterborough routes. Table 9.5 indicates the
forecast growth in train paths on key sections
of these routes by 2014/15 and 2023.
into London a day.
9.2.4
The constrained morning peak growth forecast
on each of the main corridors is shown in
Table 9.4. This is a modelled prediction of what
would happen on the routes if the timetable
that was introduced in December 2005 was
run and nothing was changed.
Table 9.4: Predicted Changes in Passenger Journeys
(AM Peak UP Direction; Do-minimum)
Route
2016
2021
Thameside
15%
17%
Great Eastern
8%
9%
West Anglia
37%
42%
Weighted Average
17%
19%
1 The modelled predictions of out-turn demand if the strategy is implemented are presented later in the chapter for each of the routes.
130
Table 9.5: Additional freight path requirements in 2014/15 and 2023
Section
Average
Maximum Planned
Paths Used Paths Used Paths
2005
2005
2005
Additional
paths required
by 2023 (with
some growth
accommodated
FRUS
Sensitivity 2 on the cross
country route)
Additional paths required
by 2014/15
FRUS Base
Case
Manor Park
– Ilford
16
25
26
20
14
12
Maryland
– Forest Gate
Jn
29
39
49
22
18
21
Shen¿eld
17
25
26
20
14
13
Ipswich
– Halifax Jn
21
31
27
20
14
11
Stowmarket
– Haughley Jn
13
25
14
6
4
16
Whittlesea –
Peterborough
(East)
23
41
27
8
6
20
9.2.6
value for money when their socio-economic
Other issues identi¿ed in the development of
bene¿ts are considered; and which are
the strategy include: on-train crowding into
necessary to meet gaps identi¿ed through
Cambridge and future growth on the rural and
RUS analysis.
inter-urban routes; the need for better train
performance; more balanced engineering
access; the ease of passenger access to the
Q Measures which contribute to the objective
which have a net ¿nancial cost but are the result
of speci¿c requests from railway funders.
network (e.g. many car parks are full on all of
the routes and there is a need for improved
9.3.2
station facilities); and associated issues which
Only the proposal to replace the rolling stock
arise if more capacity is provided, including
used for services between Norwich and
power supply and berthing requirements.
London Liverpool Street has a ¿nancial case
for implementation.
9.3 Recommended strategy
9.3.3
9.3.1
All of the other measures that are
This RUS seeks to attain effective and ef¿cient
recommended offer value for money using
use and development of the railway capacity,
DfT appraisal criteria. There are a number of
commensurate with funding and other constraints.
possible interventions which may be brought
It is important to differentiate between:
forward if additional funding were provided,
Q Measures which contribute to the objective
particularly for the increase in passenger
and which are ¿nancially neutral or bene¿cial.
service frequency between Norwich and
Cambridge and new station schemes which
Q Measures which contribute to the objective;
which have a net ¿nancial cost but are
may be funded by developer contributions.
131
9.3.4
Great Eastern routes are planned to be carried
In the remainder of this chapter the strategy
out. Initial work on the development of the
is presented in a recommended timeframe for
major capacity scheme on the West Anglia
delivery. This is followed by an assessment of
route is also planned. The strategy outlined
the value for money of the proposed strategy.
here is entirely consistent with the Strategic
Strategy in Control Period 3 (to 2009)
Business Plan submission to ORR and is
required to meet the DfT’s HLOS requirements.
9.3.5
The most pressing issue on the routes is
providing capacity for rapidly increasing
numbers of passengers during the peak and
accommodating freight traf¿c. A number of
performance issues have also been raised.
Extra track capacity cannot be delivered in
CP3. However, the development work will
start for all of the measures proposed for
implementation in CP4. Smaller scale works
for delivery in CP3 will concentrate on the
delivery of performance improvements.
9.3.8
On the Thameside route more 12-car services
are proposed to be run on the main line route
during the morning and evening peak periods.
The platforms already accommodate 12-car
trains. On the Tilbury Loop and the Ockendon
branch, extending the platforms to handle
12-car trains is recommended: First, on the
Ockendon branch as crowding is worse now
on trains that serve this route; and then on the
route via Rainham so that longer trains can be
operated as demand dictates and as rolling
9.3.6
stock becomes available.
Performance improvement schemes that are
recommended are:
9.3.9
On the GE route, replacement of the rolling
Q Alterations to signal spacing at West Ham
stock used on services running between
in order to allow more trains to call without
Norwich and Liverpool St with new trains is
affecting performance.
proposed. The introduction of a modern Àeet
Q Extension of the bay platform at Grays to
handle 8-car trains.
of rolling stock suitably con¿gured to carry
passengers on this important inter-city route
is recommended. It is proposed to use rolling
Q Linespeed improvements between Barking
and Upminster and on the rural routes.
Q Bi-directional signalling between Marks Tey
and Colchester.
Q Reviewing the Rules of the Plan and
adjusting them appropriately to improve the
robustness of the timetable.
A number of these items are already in
development.
132
stock that is not hauled by a locomotive with a
DVT unit and it is expected that this can add
around 1,000 seats during the morning peak
while maintaining levels of passenger comfort
and providing enough seats for passengers
who now have to stand. It was established in
the RUS Draft for Consultation that there is a
¿nancial business case for implementing this
element of the strategy.
9.3.10
Strategy in Control Period 4 (2009 – 2014)
It is proposed that up to an additional three
9.3.7
trains an hour on the GEML operating between
During CP4 increasing service frequency on
outer-suburban stations and London Liverpool
the Great Eastern route and train lengthening
Street are introduced. One additional train an
on all three routes into London during the
hour would run from Southend and two on the
morning peak is recommended. This requires
main line to serve Chelmsford and Colchester,
modest changes to infrastructure. Works to
though the decision on where these trains
improve performance on the West Anglia and
start in the morning will be a decision for the
operator and funder. Paths for these trains
route as the M11 corridor and Stansted Airport
can be released by calling all services on
are developed. It is recommended that all
the main line at Stratford. To accomplish this
remaining platforms on the route are extended
it is proposed that Stratford Platform 10A is
to handle 12-car trains (a number of the busier
extended to accommodate 12-car trains so
stations already have 12-car platforms) and
that the train service frequency increase can
a new island platform be built at Cambridge.
be realised without restricting the quantum
This will allow the Àexibility to provide
of trains that operate at full (12-car) length.
services where demand dictates and the
Calling all services at Stratford will also
island platform at Cambridge will allow 12-car
improve connectivity by offering interchange
services to operate on both the West Anglia
with London Underground, London Overground
and Great Northern routes. Additional berthing
and DLR services to all passengers on the GE
capacity and upgrades to power supply are
route. This is expected to even out passenger
recommended to facilitate this. Some track
loadings on trains (those that call at Stratford
circuit works are also necessary.
are more crowded than those that do not) and
alleviate station congestion at Liverpool Street.
The extension of the Fambridge Loop on the
Southminster branch is also proposed to allow
the operation of additional 12-car trains from
Southminster giving the operator the Àexibility
to allocate rolling stock ef¿ciently to meet
demand and ensure that full length trains can
run on this route. The operation of the extra
trains will require power supply upgrades and
additional berthing.
9.3.14
It is proposed that running trains of up to 9car length on all West Anglia inner-suburban
services (i.e. Chingford, En¿eld Town,
Cheshunt via Southbury and Hertford East
services) to accommodate peak demand is
re-introduced. Shorter trains would continue
to serve inner stations off-peak. This will
require some minor works at stations along the
routes to ensure that modern standards are
met though most platforms and the berthing
9.3.11
at Chingford can handle 9-car trains already.
Two extra trains an hour on the GE route from
The use of selective door opening (SDO) at
Chadwell Heath to Liverpool St are proposed
Stoke Newington is recommended where a
as well as starting services that currently run
platform extension would otherwise be needed
from Ilford at Chadwell Heath to better serve
requiring extensive work (estimated to cost
passengers at inner-suburban stations. To
around £20 million). It is recommended that
accomplish this, construction of a turn-back
the minor works are carried out and then that
facility at Chadwell Heath is recommended to
the rolling stock is replaced as it comes up
maintain or improve performance.
for renewal or is cascaded to other routes.
9.3.12
The replacement of the OLE on the GE route
from Liverpool St to Chelmsford and Southend
is proposed to signi¿cantly reduce delays.
A Àeet with SDO capability will be required.
Consideration should also be given to the
internal con¿guration of the rolling stock. High
passenger capacity stock (such as that being
built for operation on the NLL) would help
9.3.13
meet the predicted increases in passenger
It is proposed that 12-car trains are introduced
numbers on the inner-suburban routes over
on West Anglia outer-suburban services
the longer term and improve train performance
operating between Cambridge and Stansted
at peak times.
Airport and London Liverpool Street. The peak
services running from Cambridge are the most
crowded in the Greater Anglia RUS area and
very high rates of growth are predicted on the
133
9.3.15
through the TIF and a Section 106 planning
It is proposed to introduce a shuttle service
agreement with Hutchison Ports UK). Further
operating between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters
gauge and capacity increases are proposed
in peak hours as demand necessitates. The
to provide at least ¿ve additional commercially
building of a power operated turnback at Seven
usable paths a day to the WCML, three on top
Sisters will be required to facilitate this with
of that between Ipswich and Peterborough
acceptable performance. The turnback will also
and nine additional usable paths a day to
serve to improve performance during perturbed
South Yorkshire. This scheme is currently in
running on the Southbury Loop. The shuttle
development and is funded from the TIF.
service will permit the provision of four trains an
hour at all stations on the Southbury Loop.
On the cross country services it is
9.3.16
recommended that peak capacity on local
services is increased by the TOCs in line
the Àeets of passenger trains operated by c2c
with demand, making use of available rolling
and ‘one’ railway. Analysis has shown that
stock. The case for increasing service
additional stabling facilities would be required
frequency to hourly has been examined and
at Harwich Parkeston Quay, Cambridge (or
it is recommended that this is implemented
Orient Way or elsewhere in West Anglia)
between Ipswich and Peterborough in
including CET, tanking and staff facilities.
conjunction with industry funders and a review
A review of the capacity and provision of
of the timetable to ensure that the quantum
light maintenance facilities would also be
of cross country freight paths intended by
appropriate across all routes in the region.
the proposed upgrade are delivered. Moving
9.3.17
The removal of at-grade crossings on the
WAML to improve performance on the route
and as part of the early works for four-tracking
the route is recommended. The removal
and replacement where appropriate of three
level crossings between Tottenham Hale and
Waltham Cross has been evaluated (using
the RSSB model) and found to demonstrate
value for money as a stand-alone road/
rail performance scheme. As a result, it is
recommended that the level crossings are
removed/replaced regardless of whether
funding is committed for the capacity
enhancement proposed in CP5.
9.3.18
It is proposed that freight growth is
accommodated on both the GEML and on the
cross country route. The opportunity to run
more trains via the GEML is limited as many
of the off-peak freight paths (two an hour) are
already used and it is therefore anticipated
that growth will be focussed on the cross
country route. Gauge clearance and works at
Ipswich Yard are already committed (funded
134
9.3.19
the Ipswich – Lowestoft service to hourly has
also been examined but this improvement
requires detailed assessment of level
crossings. This work is in hand, but it is not
possible for frequency enhancements on the
East Suffolk Line to be a recommendation
in this RUS in absence of the study results.
Further improvements to services between
Cambridge and Norwich have been looked at
but additional infrastructure would be required
to enable these services to operate. However,
if road pricing is to be implemented in Norwich
and/or Cambridge additional funding would
be available to provide increased capacity to
serve these cities.
9.3.20
During CP4 further development and
implementation of performance projects,
including the doubling of Haughley Junction,
removing the restrictions on Class 6 freight
trains and the full commissioning of Ely West
Curve is recommended. The development of
further small scale enhancements to improve
train performance to support meeting the
HLOS reliability speci¿cation is also proposed.
9.3.21
that is anticipated as the M11 corridor and
Access to the Network was also highlighted
Stansted Airport are developed.
as a gap in the RUS. A range of measures
is proposed to improve access to the railway
including: providing additional car parking; and
building new stations to serve developments
on the fringes of existing settlements, subject
to additional funding being raised – especially
from developers and train operators.
Strategy in Control Period 5 (2014 – 2019)
9.3.22
On each of the routes into London the
continuation of train lengthening through CP5
9.3.24
the Àeets of passenger trains operated by
c2c and ‘one’ railway. Analysis has shown
that additional stabling facilities would be
required at Gidea Park and Ilford, in line with
the proposals in the Crossrail project, including
CET, tanking and staff facilities. A review of the
capacity and provision of light maintenance
facilities would also be appropriate across all
routes in the region.
to deliver additional capacity to accommodate
9.3.25
increasing passenger demand is
Service frequency improvements to the
recommended. It is anticipated that most train
Norwich – Cambridge service (to half hourly)
lengthening in CP5 will be during the shoulder
has been assessed. The work showed that a
peak hours (as most or all high-peak trains will
half hourly service would not offer value for
be running at full length by then) and so will be
money until Ely North Junction is doubled and
less effective at providing for passenger needs
so it is proposed that the service should be
than the train lengthening proposed for CP4.
considered for implementation when renewal
9.3.23
of the junction is due (during CP5).
On West Anglia the running of up to an
9.3.26
additional six trains an hour at peak times is
Further upgrading work is recommended
proposed. Two of these would run through to
on the cross country route for freight during
London Liverpool Street and four would run
CP5. This work will include improvements
to Stratford as an alternative terminus. It is
at Leicester and will enable at least 14 daily
anticipated that this will serve the proposed
paths to be available between Ipswich and the
Stratford City Development, relieve crowding
WCML.
on services to Liverpool St by providing a link
to the LUL Victoria Line at Tottenham Hale
and enhancing connectivity by providing new
links to the LUL Central and Jubilee Lines
and the DLR at Stratford. It is recommended
that the WAML route via Tottenham Hale is
four-tracked between Coppermill Junction
and Broxbourne Junction to provide adequate
capacity to facilitate the extra services. A
second rail tunnel will need to be built and an
additional platform edge provided to increase
capacity into and out of Stansted Airport so
allowing some extra trains to run between
the airport and Liverpool St. This proposal
9.3.27
Crossrail is due to be operational during CP5.
A key feature of this scheme is the delivery
of 10-car running on GE inner services and
the running of these on new lines through
central London. The RUS supports the outputs
of Crossrail and the rail industry is working
with the scheme’s promoters to ensure that
capacity is preserved for other passenger and
freight services alongside those planned to
use the new infrastructure. A further advantage
of the scheme is the capacity that will be
released between Stratford and Liverpool St.
provides a long term solution to the predicted
increasing passenger demand on this route
135
Strategy after Control Period 5 (from 2019)
9.4 Passenger service proposals
9.3.28
9.4.1
The capacity released on the GE route from
In the RUS Draft for Consultation document
the diversion of inner-suburban services to
the value for money of options was assessed.
Crossrail could be used to continue West
The options have been re¿ned and developed
Anglia services to Liverpool St via Stratford
to formulate the proposed strategy and Atkins
(though bene¿ts from this have not been
Transport Planning have assessed the value
included in the assessment of the business
for money of the key elements of the strategy
case of the strategy). This would require
using DfT appraisal criteria for each of the
moving the lines across at Stratford or the
key corridors in the RUS area. The business
construction of a grade separated junction to
case has been assessed on each of the
link the WA route with the ‘E’ lines. Along with
three key corridors. It was found, on each
the four-tracking (that has been established
corridor independently and as a combined
offers value for money by itself) this could
strategy, that the bene¿ts outweighed the
be used to provide a signi¿cant number of
costs by at least two to one. The full costs of
additional inner-suburban services to
the recommendations have been taken into
operate from West Anglia to Liverpool St.
account including the costs associated with
The construction of the proposed Hall Farm
providing berthing, suf¿cient to accommodate
Curve to link the Chingford route to Stratford
the larger Àeets, and upgrades to the power
would permit the running of Chingford services
supply on each route that is required to
to Liverpool St via Stratford and release
facilitate the service enhancements that are
capacity through Hackney Downs and
recommended.
Bethnal Green.
Summary of strategy by route
9.3.29
9.4.2
On the GE outer services the opportunity to
The proposals for meeting passenger growth
increase capacity at the busiest times of the
on each route have been evaluated and the
day will be limited once the options proposed
business case for each route is presented
in CP4 have been implemented. It is proposed
in the following tables with summaries of the
to investigate alternatives to meet longer term
concept, infrastructure requirements and the
passenger demand growth. One proposal put
impacts of the schemes.
forward during consultation originated in the
London to Ipswich Multi – Modal Study which
9.4.3
suggested four-tracking the line between
The strategy for the Thameside route is
Ipswich and Chelmsford and then building
summarised below:
a new line across to meet the LUL Central
Line. This would in turn need to be enhanced
to allow additional services to run through
to Leytonstone. At Leytonstone the services
could then access Crossrail 2 (once it has
been built) and run on to central London. No
development work has been undertaken for
this proposal as part of this RUS.
9.3.30
As freight growth continues further upgrading
will also be required on the cross country route
to remove further bottlenecks.
136
Assessment of the strategy for the Thameside route
Concept
The recommended strategy for handling the predicted number of passengers on this route during the peak
which has been assessed for value for money using PLANET and DfT appraisal criteria is:
Q Continued train lengthening on the main line route to full length (12-car)
Q Train lengthening on services running via Ockendon to 12-car
Q Train lengthening on services running via the Tilbury Loop to 12-car
This strategy will require changes to the operation of Fenchurch Street.
Platforms will need to be lengthened on the Tilbury Loop and Ockendon branch and platform equipment
may be required to assist in the dispatch of longer trains. It is recommended that the platforms are
lengthened on the branch and loop in CP4 and that 12-car services begin operation before 2012 on these
routes. Minor power works are also required. Signalling alterations are required at West Ham to enable the
number of calls to be increased.
Demand and crowding
Peak passenger numbers are predicted to increase by 1.8 percent a year on average to 2026 with much of the
growth occurring before 2012 (see illustration below). The model predicts that the additional capacity proposed
will be taken up very quickly. In part, this represents some passengers switching from LUL District Line services
when c2c increases capacity on the parallel service. The proposed capacity is adequate to meet predicted
demand through CP4 and CP5 while maintaining average peak load factors. By 2016 crowding is predicted to
be below current levels on trains routed via the Ockendon branch, which is where crowding is currently worst.
The demand forecast is shown in the illustration below along with seated and total capacity.
Thameside: AM Peak Demand and Capacity (2004 - 2026)
Key
Capacity
Seats
Passengers
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Base
2007
2011
2016
2021
2026
Freight impact
There will be no restriction on the operation of freight assuming growth in line with Freight RUS/Port
development projections for freight traf¿c increases on Thameside.
137
Assessment of the strategy for the Thameside route (continued)
Business case
The strategy was modelled in PLANET and outputs were valued following DfT appraisal guidance. The
results are shown in the table:
£ million (2002 PV)
Cost (PV)
Investment Cost
(30)
Operating Cost
(345)
Fuel Duty
(6)
Revenue
130
Total Cost
252
Quanti¿ed Bene¿ts
Rail user bene¿ts
627
Non user bene¿ts
216
Total Quanti¿ed Bene¿ts
843
Quanti¿ed BCR
3.3
Conclusion
This option allows trains to be lengthened to suit the rates of development on the route and offers Àexibility in
approach for meeting predicted passenger demand. Train lengthening on the main line route will bring modest
relief to passengers travelling on 12-car trains that already run full. The strategy meets predicted passenger
growth and has a high value for money business case. The business case would improve further if additional
peak hour services can be substituted for some shoulder peak train lengthening, provided performance can be
maintained (this is thought to be possible given the infrastructure/performance improvements proposed between
Barking and Upminster and at West Ham). These extra trains would also meet the capacity requirements in 2026,
which result from a combination of forecast regional growth and the bene¿ts of capacity provided in earlier years by
the RUS strategies. The bene¿ts of these additional trains have not been included in the RUS modelling.
9.4.4
The strategy for the Great Eastern route is summarised below:
Assessment of strategy for the Great Eastern route
Concept
Q Replace the inter-city sets that operate between Norwich and London with new rolling stock to provide
Q
Q
Q
Q
138
more seats on these services while maintaining inter-city comfort and ambience. This will provide
around an extra thousand seats over the morning peak period each day.
Call all services on the GE outer and Anglia inter-city services at Stratford, providing a direct link between
Norwich, Ipswich and Stratford and improve connectivity between the East of England and London Docklands.
Run three additional 12-car main line trains in the high peak hour. These are assumed (in the business
case analysis) to run from Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend but there is Àexibility to start at
different stations to provide capacity where it is needed and ¿t with other operational requirements. It is
expected that a similar service pattern will run in the shoulder peak (but probably at 8-car length)
Increase service frequency on GE Inner services. During CP4 the running of an extra two trains an
hour is proposed during the morning and evening peaks and further increasing service frequency by
another train an hour in CP5 (though re-timetabling of the service group would be required to achieve
this without severe performance deterioration). Alternatively selective train lengthening to 10 cars may
be possible once platform lengthening has been undertaken for the Crossrail project (see below)
GE Inner services are expected to be lengthened to 10 cars through the Crossrail project, which is
committed for delivery in 2017.
Assessment of strategy for the Great Eastern route (continued)
The analysis undertaken on the strategy has shown that there will be a small deterioration in performance
of outer-suburban services as a result of running the additional trains in the busiest hour of the morning
peak. This will be mitigated to a certain extent by calling all trains at Stratford, which improves AM Peak
performance, in the RailSys model. Increasing service frequency on inner-suburban services is predicted to
cause a slight worsening in performance, but this will be mitigated to a certain extent by the provision of the
proposed new turnback at Chadwell Heath, especially when running is disrupted.
The service enhancements necessitate the extension of Platform 10A at Stratford, the extension of the loop
at Fambridge to allow more 12-car running from Southminster, provision of a turnback at Chadwell Heath,
power supply upgrades and additional berthing.
Demand and crowding
The phased introduction of the proposed service frequency increases through CP4 and CP5 will enable
predicted demand growth to be met while improving average load factors for passengers using services
during peak hours. The introduction of Crossrail services in 2017 will enable demand on the metro services
to be met in the long term. The demand forecast and the modelled capacity changes are illustrated below.
Average increases in peak passenger numbers of around 1.5 percent a year are predicted in the model
over the twenty years but with higher rates of increase (more like those seen over the last two or three
years) until 2012.
Great Eastern: AM Peak Demand and Capacity (2004 - 2026)
Key
Capacity
Seats
Passengers
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Base
2007
2011
2016
2021
2026
Freight impact
The additional peak services and ECS paths in the proposed RUS timetables have been checked against
freight paths and no clashes have been found. The quantum of off-peak freight paths (two an hour) will be
maintained on the GE under the RUS assumptions.
139
Assessment of strategy for the Great Eastern route (continued)
Business case
The strategy was modelled using the PLANET and MOIRA models. Outputs were valued following DfT
appraisal guidance. The results are shown in the table:
Cost (PV)
Investment Cost
(65)
Operating Cost
(828)
Fuel Duty
(16)
Revenue
609
Total Cost
300
Quanti¿ed Bene¿ts
Rail user bene¿ts
1,197
Non user bene¿ts
516
1,713
Quanti¿ed BCR
5.7
Conclusion
The proposals allow passenger capacity to be increased by running more trains and replacing rolling stock
on the Norwich inter-city services. The strategy meets forecast passenger and freight growth, delivers a
good business case and is complementary to Crossrail.
9.4.5
The strategy for the West Anglia route is summarised below:
Assessment of strategy for the West Anglia route
Concept
Q Train lengthening on inner-suburban services to 9-car length in the peak with new high capacity rolling
stock with SDO (to avoid the high cost of remodelling at Stoke Newington).
Q The re-introduction of a shuttle service between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters to increase service
frequency to a minimum of four trains an hour at all stations on the Southbury Loop with a power
operated turnback at Seven Sisters to maintain performance.
Q Train lengthening on outer-suburban services from Cambridge and Stansted Airport to 12-car length
Q Increasing service frequency on the main line route by six trains an hour – two to Liverpool St via
Hackney Downs; four to Stratford.
RailSys modelling indicates that running six additional trains an hour in the peak will result in a small
deterioration in performance north of Broxbourne Junction and south of Coppermill Junction where capacity
increases are not proposed.
This strategy requires some work on the inner stations to meet modern standards for 9-car working. Work
will also be required to extend a number of platforms at outer-suburban stations to handle 12-car trains and
a new island platform is required at Cambridge to facilitate 12-car running on this and the GN route. Power
supply upgrades and additional berthing is needed. Four-tracking of the main line route between Coppermill
Junction and Broxbourne Junction is necessary in CP5.
140
Assessment of strategy for the West Anglia route (continued)
Demand and crowding
Peak passenger numbers are expected to be driven higher by planned increases in the housing stock (and
thus population) on the M11/West Anglia corridor. In the long term peak passenger numbers are expected
to grow by around 2.5 – 3.0 percent a year though this can only be realised if peak capacity is increased
as some trains are now so busy that more passengers cannot board them. The peak demand forecast
and the modelled capacity changes are illustrated below. The introduction of longer trains through CP4
will accommodate the predicted increases in peak passengers while maintaining or improving average
passenger load factors. Additional services in CP5 facilitated by the four-tracking of the Lea Valley route will
enable predicted demand growth to be met over the long term.
West Anglia: AM Peak Demand and Capacity (2004 - 2026)
Key
Capacity
Seats
Passengers
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Base
2007
2011
2016
2021
2026
Freight impact
The train lengthening proposed for CP4 will have no impact on freight. An indicative timetable for the
four-tracking of the route still includes an hourly freight path along the West Anglia route.
141
Assessment of strategy for the West Anglia route (continued)
Business case
The strategy was modelled using the PLANET and MOIRA models. Outputs were valued following DfT
appraisal guidance. Atkins have also evaluated the wider economic bene¿ts of the strategy using the same
methodology as in the Thameslink business case. This is an assessment of the bene¿ts of the increased
connectivity to the economy. The results are shown in the table, which differentiates between the standard
transport appraisal and the BCR including the wider economic bene¿ts:
Cost (PV)
Investment Cost
(1,144)
Operating Cost
(899)
Fuel Duty
(16)
Revenue
1,146
Total Cost
914
Quanti¿ed Bene¿ts
Rail user bene¿ts
1,537
Non user bene¿ts
601
2,137
Quanti¿ed BCR
2.3
Wider Economic Bene¿ts (WEBs)
307
BCR (including WEBs)
2.7
Conclusion
This strategy allows capacity to be increased by a combination of train lengthening in CP4 and increased
service frequency in CP5. The strategy provides enough capacity to accommodate the predicted increase
in peak passengers. The predicted revenues exceed the operating costs of the proposal and there is a high
value for money business case. The proposal is complementary to the Government’s policy of increasing
housing stock along the West Anglia/M11 corridor and the development of Stansted Airport. The proposal
¿ts well with Crossrail because the capacity released on the Great Eastern could be used to allow through
services from West Anglia to London Liverpool Street via Stratford.
142
9.4.6
evaluated as a representation of the RUS
The combined strategy for meeting passenger
strategy for passenger services introduced
growth on the Greater Anglia routes has
in CP4 and CP5 are shown in Table 9.6. The
been evaluated using the PLANET and
second table shows the economic evaluation
MOIRA models and DfT appraisal criteria.
of the strategy as appraised by Atkins using
The measures that Atkins Transport Planning
DfT criteria.
Table 9.6: Measures evaluated in the RUS strategy for passenger services
Modelled to operate in
CP4
CP5
Main line train lengthening
Ockendon branch train lengthening
Tilbury Loop train lengthening
Replace rolling stock on Norwich services
+3 tph on outer-suburban services
+2 tph on inner-suburban services
+3 tph on inner-suburban services
Call all services at Stratford
Hourly Ipswich – Peterborough all day
Outer-suburban train lengthening
Inner-suburban train lengthening
Seven Sisters shuttle
+ 6 tph main line services
Thameside
Great Eastern
West Anglia
143
Value for money of Greater Anglia RUS passenger service proposals
Financial and economic analysis
The combined strategy for all routes has been modelled in PLANET and MOIRA. The outputs were valued
following DfT appraisal guidance. The results are shown in the table:
Cost (PV)
Investment Cost
(1,240)
Operating Cost
(2,073)
Fuel Duty
(33)
Revenue
1,676
Total Cost
(1,669)
Quanti¿ed Bene¿ts
Rail user bene¿ts
3,345
Non user bene¿ts
1,170
4,515
Quanti¿ed BCR
2.7
Wider Economic Bene¿ts (WEBs)
307
BCR (including WEBs)
2.9
Conclusion
This strategy allows capacity to be increased by a combination of new rolling stock (offering higher capacity)
and the operation of more and longer trains. The strategy meets forecast growth, delivers a high value for
money business case and is compatible with and complementary to Crossrail.
Assessment includes the full estimated costs of all proposed schemes to the end of CP5 and makes no
account of potential third party contributions which are anticipated to be substantial, contributing towards the
cost of increasing capacity to Stansted Airport and Stratford for example. Such contributions increase the
BCR using the DfT value for money method for calculating it.
9.5 Freight schemes
Q Considering re-modelling facilities at key
9.5.1
locations, such as Ipswich and Leicester,
The following strategy to meet freight growth is
when they are due for renewal with a view
recommended:
to facilitating the running of longer freight
trains.
Q Upgrading the Ipswich – Ely – Peterborough
– Nuneaton route to allow for the carriage of
high cube containers on standard wagons
– Gospel Oak – Willesden route to cater for
and to increase capacity to accommodate the
predicted increases in freight traf¿c from
forecast growth in freight traf¿c. The GEML
the Thameside route.
will continue to be a key freight route but the
9.5.2
scope for further increases in freight traf¿c on
All of these schemes have been the subject
that route will be increasingly limited.
of business case analysis and all have been
Q Removal of restrictions on heavy freight
144
Q Upgrading the Barking – South Tottenham
evaluated as offering value for money. The
traf¿c on the cross country route should
gauge clearance of the cross country route
be lifted as soon as is practicable. This is
(together with initial capacity works) is now a
being examined along with the track and
committed scheme with funding from the TIF
structures renewal programmes.
and through a Section 106 agreement with
Hutchison Ports (UK). The remaining work
has been appraised and the cases for funding
through the TIF are currently being worked up.
9.5.3
The impact of these measures for freight,
when taken alongside the recommendations of
the Cross London RUS2 and the Freight RUS3,
is shown in Tables 9.7 (for 2014/15) and 9.8
(for 2023).
Table 9.7
Section
Additional
paths required
by 2014/15
(from table
5.12)
Extra paths
in East
Coast Ports
timetable
(with RUS
Phase 1
works)
Gap in paths
required in
2014/15 (from
table 5.12)
Additional
paths required
by 2014/15
(with 4-10
diverted to
cross country
route)
Gap in paths
required in
2014/15
Manor Park
– Ilford
14-20
10
4-10
-
-
Maryland
– Forest Gate
Jn
18-22
25
-
-
-
Shen¿eld
14-20
10
4-10
-
-
Ipswich
– Halifax Jn
14-20
10
4-10
-
-
Stowmarket
– Haughley Jn
4-6
17
-
8-16
-
Whittlesea –
Peterborough
(East)
6-8
17
-
10-18
0-1
2 Published August 2006, established October 2006.
3 Published March 2007, established May 2007.
145
Table 9.8
Section
Additional
paths
required by
2023 (from
table 5.13)
Extra paths
in East
Coast Ports
timetable
(with RUS
Phase 1
works)
Gap in
paths
required in
2023 (from
table 5.13)
Additional
capacity
provided
by RUS
phase 2
works (by
2023)
Additional
paths
required by
2023 (with 3
extra paths
diverted
to cross
country
route)
Gap in
paths
required in
2023
Manor Park
– Ilford
12
10
2
-
-
-
Maryland
– Forest Gate
Jn
21
25
-
-
-
-
Shen¿eld
13
10
3
-
-
-
Ipswich
– Halifax Jn
11
10
1
-
-
-
Stowmarket
– Haughley Jn
16
17
-
9
3
-
Whittlesea –
Peterborough
(East)
20
17
3
9
6
-
9.5.4
Output Speci¿cation in July 2007.
The Crossrail project (section 6.3.1) is expected
The work undertaken for this RUS on
to be operational in 2017. The complex inter-
development of the cross country route will
relationship between Crossrail and other
be taken further in the East Midlands RUS,
services is, at the time of writing, still being
which covers the route west of Peterborough.
evaluated. The rail industry is working with
the scheme’s promoters to ensure that these
9.6 Contingent projects
capacity issues are resolved for other services
9.6.1 Crossrail
alongside the planned Crossrail services; in
particular the quantum of paths for freight
identi¿ed via London in the tables above.
The Crossrail project will have a considerable
impact on the area covered by the RUS.
9.5.5
As planned it will assist in providing additional
The two key factors in the long term freight
passenger capacity on a number of routes
strategy for this area are therefore the
covered by the RUS and has the following
development and increased use of the
synergies with both the RUS and TfL’s
cross country route from the Haven Ports
2025 Vision:
to the Midlands, and of the Gospel Oak
– Barking line for traf¿c from Thameside.
These conclusions are being fed into the
development of national strategies for freight
growth funded from a variety of sources such
as the Transport Innovation Fund, external
funding and the Strategic Freight Network
funding set out in the Government’s High Level
146
9.6.1.1
Q On the West Anglia route, Crossrail could
enable services that terminate at Stratford
to run through to Liverpool St. This would
involve moving the existing tracks across
or building a Àyover to bring the services
over onto the current GE ‘E’ lines, which
will have been diverted into Crossrail.
Q The impact of the West Anglia link would
9.7 Ongoing workstreams
be a way of increasing capacity into
9.7.1
Central London directly whilst serving
There are a number of workstreams that have
Stratford and Docklands at the same time.
been on-going while the RUS was developed.
Q On the Great Eastern, Crossrail will
not only increase suburban capacity by
These will continue and are summarised below:
Q The RUS has identi¿ed a number of areas
operating longer trains in additional to
in which engineering access could be
some residual Liverpool St services, but
improved.
will also give the potential to move some
outer services across on to the former ‘E’
Q Berthing and power supply upgrades are
lines between Stratford and Liverpool St
required. In addition rolling stock and depots
thereby releasing capacity or improving
are being considered nationally within the
performance on this section of the route.
Network RUS (workstream 3). The provision
of a signi¿cant quantity of additional rolling
9.6.1.2
stock across the nation over the next 10
The complex inter-relationships between
years will create a requirement to re-
Crossrail and the future capacity requirements
evaluate the deployment of current rolling
of other operators are still being evaluated at
stock, and the quantity and location of
the time of writing.
stabling and maintenance facilities.
9.6.2 Thameslink
Q The work carried out in the development
9.6.2.1
of this strategy has emphasised the
The Thameslink project, like Crossrail,
importance of (and the need to improve)
seeks to provide improved journey
passenger access to the network.
opportunities across the centre of the capital.
A number of areas were considered
The project is designed to improve the links
including improved car parking.
between the lines leading into London Bridge
Q A number of performance improvement
and those running north to Bedford and
projects have been identi¿ed in the RUS
Peterborough/Cambridge/Kings Lynn. The
and further schemes have also been put
project has completed its passage through
forward in the SBP.
the planning process and is now funded.
9.6.2.2
The project will be completed towards the end
of the RUS period. However, its impact on the
RUS will be more limited as it is only the section
to Cambridge/Kings Lynn, which will have
some impact on services from Cambridge on
the West Anglia corridor, within the RUS. The
current plans by FCC to extend train lengths
on the Cambridge – Kings Cross corridor
reÀect the plans for this corridor contained in
the Thameslink plan. In the assessment of the
value for money in the strategy the demand
models have been updated to include the
proposed Thameslink services.
147
9.8 Alternative growth scenarios
9.8.1
The strategy is robust to higher growth than
predicted in that it would be possible to
lengthen more trains so long as additional
rolling stock were provided. It may be dif¿cult
to bring forward (to CP4) the delivery of the
major capacity enhancement on West Anglia
which would allow train frequency to be
increased. The demand forecasts used in this
RUS represent the growth projections derived
from the housing, population and employment
forecasts contained in the Regional Spatial
Strategy and the London Plan. Stakeholders
generally agree that growth is unlikely to
be lower than the forecast though there are
a number of sensitivities which may drive
rail passenger numbers higher and the rate
of increase over the last couple of years
has been more than twice the average
projected forward (including the impact of the
passenger capacity that is proposed). The
diagrams in the preceding section show the
level of demand forecast in the RUS and the
amount of additional capacity provided by
the interventions recommended in the RUS.
These charts show that the strategy provides
suf¿cient capacity to meet forecast growth and
the estimated average load factors that would
be delivered on the route.
9.8.2
Should demand growth not meet the forecast
then interventions could be delayed but in
some cases – particularly the West Anglia
outers and the Great Eastern inners – current
levels of crowding necessitate additional
passenger capacity already. Indeed, there is
little scope for growth on some service groups
unless additional peak capacity is provided.
Additional track capacity will also be required
to provide additional services to Stansted
Airport to allow suf¿cient trains to run to handle
predicted demand for travel to the airport after
it has been expanded.
148
149
10. Next Steps
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1
10.4 High Level Output
Speci¿cation (HLOS)
This RUS will become established 60 days
10.4.1
after publication unless the Of¿ce of Rail
In July 2007, the Department for Transport
Regulation (ORR) issues a notice of objection
issued its HLOS to de¿ne the outputs it wishes
within this period.
to buy from the rail network during the next
10.1.2
The recommendations of a RUS form an
input to decisions made by industry funders
and suppliers on, for example, franchise
speci¿cations, investment plans and the
Government’s HLOS.
Control Period, i.e. 2009–2014. This HLOS,
and an accompanying Statement of Funds
Available, will be used by ORR to set the
funding requirements of Network Rail over that
period, taking into account other obligations
and funders’ reasonable requirements.
Network Rail have prepared the SBP (in
10.2 Network Rail Route Plans
10.2.1
The Route Plans for Network Rail Strategic
Routes 5 (West Anglia Main Line), 6 (North
London Line and Thameside) and 7 (Great
Eastern Main Line) together include all the
routes covered by this RUS. The Route
Plans were published alongside the Strategic
Business Plan (SBP) in November 2007, and
are updated regularly. They list all signi¿cant
planned investment on the route, including
scheduled renewals as well as committed and
aspirational enhancements. Those published
conjunction with industry stakeholders) to
present the industry’s response to the HLOS.
The recommendations of this RUS, where
they fall within the 2009–2014 period, are
part of the rail industry’s recommendations
incorporated within the SBP for funding via the
Access Charges Review.
10.5 Ongoing access to the network
10.5.1
This RUS will also help to inform the allocation
of capacity on the network through application
of the normal Network Code processes.
last March cite some improvements included
10.5.2
in the RUS; the next edition will incorporate
The Crossrail Bill, which is currently
the RUS conclusions as well as the
progressing through Parliament, contains
recommendations in the SBP (see below).
provisions to disapply the normal Network
Code access allocation process with regard
10.3 Access Charges Review
to Crossrail services. If these powers become
10.3.1
law, are used and result in changes to
The ORR review of Network Rail’s funding
passenger or freight services, then a review of
requirements and access charges for the
the RUS conclusions might be necessary.
period 2009–2014 will conclude in 2008. This
RUS has informed Network Rail’s input to the
review and this is discussed below.
150
10.6 Review
10.6.1
Network Rail is obliged to maintain a RUS
once it is established. This requires a review
using the same principles and methods used
to develop the RUS:
Q when circumstances have changed;
Q when so directed by ORR; or
Q when (for whatever reason) the
conclusions may no longer be valid.
151
11. Appendices
152
Appendix A:
Rural Routes – Loadings on busiest trains
Appendix B:
Berthing summary
Appendix C:
Congested stations and station facilities data
Appendix D:
Delay data
Appendix E:
Freight path analysis by commodity
Appendix F:
GEML capacity utilisation
Appendix G:
Glossary of terms
Appendix A – Rural Routes – Loadings on busiest trains
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
16.40
124
110
Norwich – Attleborough
17.35
116
110
18.40
73
110
07.05
112
110
Wymondham – Norwich
16.12
97
110
Cambridge – Ely
17.12
122
110
Cambridge – Ely
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
Norwich – Cambridge
Cambridge – Norwich
Source: ‘one’ conductor counts Sept 2006
Max. Load
Ipswich – Cambridge
06.13
62
65
Ipswich – Bury St Edmunds
06.52
138
144
Ipswich – Stowmarket
18.16
60
65
Ipswich – Stowmarket
15.43
76
65
C’bridge – Bury St Edmunds
16.43
108
144
Cambridge – Newmarket
17.43
97
144
Cambridge – Newmarket
Cambridge – Ipswich
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
16.02
58
189
18.03
74
189
74
189
Stowmarket – Ipswich
07.52
153
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
07.51
155
189
Reedham – Norwich
08.43
87
144
Brundall – Norwich
17.48
85
144
Reedham – Norwich
08.57
68
144
Norwich – Brundall
15.57
92
144
Norwich – Reedham
16.57
134
144
Norwich – Reedham
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
08.17
113
144
09.17
94
144
16.17
106
189
16.40
77
144
17.36
108
144
18.40
70
189
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
08.25
82
144
Sheringham – Cromer
09.46
79
144
North Walsham – Norwich
07.15
88
144
Cromer – Sheringham
14.45
81
144
Norwich – Wroxham
17.45
103
144
Norwich – Wroxham
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
41
65
Wester¿eld – Ipswich
08.26
46
65
Ipswich – Derby Rd
17.26
58
65
Ipswich – Derby Rd
Lowestoft – Norwich
Norwich – Lowestoft
Gt Yarmouth – Norwich
Norwich – Gt Yarmouth
Sheringham – Norwich
Norwich – Sheringham
Felixstowe – Ipswich
07.51
154
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
06.43
111
187
08.58
93
187
107
187
Ipswich – Wester¿eld
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
07.27
104
122
16.04
147
196
Cambridge – Ely
17.03
210
122
Cambridge – Waterbeach
17.49
129
189
Cambridge – Waterbeach
07.10
168
122
Ely – Cambridge
08.31
141
122
Ely – Cambridge
17.18
162
122
Peterborough – Whittlesea
Max. Load
Capacity
Most Loaded Section
169
196
March – Peterborough
116
196
Wymondham – Norwich
Lowestoft – Ipswich
Ipswich – Lowestoft
17.02
Cambridge – Ely/Peterborough
Peterborough/Ely – Cambridge
Source: Network Rail counts January 2007
Norwich – Peterborough
07.57
Peterborough – Norwich
06.27
Source: Network Rail counts January 2007
155
Rural Routes – Graphs of loadings across the day (Source ‘one’ conducter counts)
Cambridge – Ipswich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
6:43
7:43
8:43
9:43
10:43 11:43 12:43 13:43 14:43 15:43 16:43 17:43 18:43 19:45 20:45 22:43
Ipswich – Cambridge
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:10
156
6:13
6:52
8:16
9:16
10:16 11:16 12:16 13:16 14:16 15:16 16:16 17:16 18:16 19:16 21:16
Cambridge – Norwich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
7:05
8:13
9:12 10:12 11:12 12:12 13:12 14:12 15:12 16:12 17:12 18:05 18:25 19:12 20:20 21:12 21:48 22:56
Norwich – Cambridge
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:53
6:33
7:37
8:40
9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 13:40 14:40 15:40 16:40 17:35 18:40 19:45 20:42 22:10
157
Felixstowe – Ipswich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:34
6:39
7:51
8:56
9:56 10:56 11:56 12:56 13:56 14:56 15:56 16:56 17:56 18:56 19:56 20:56 22:56
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:04
158
6:04
7:13
8:26
9:26 10:26 11:26 12:56 13:26 14:26 15:26 16:26 17:26 18:26 19:26 20:26 22:26
Lowestoft – Ipswich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:31
6:43
8:58
10:58
12:58
14:58
16:58
18:43
20:58
Ipswich – Lowestoft
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
6:48
9:02
11:02
13:02
15:02
17:02
18:13
18:55
20:52
22:15
159
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:35
8:03
10:03
12:03
14:03
16:02
18:03
20:16
11:48
13:47
15:47
17:47
19:49
22:05
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
7:52
160
9:47
Lowestoft – Norwich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:40 6:40 7:40 7:51 8:43 9:43 10:50 11:43 12:50 13:43 14:50 15:43 16:48 17:48 18:48 19:48 20:50 21:43 22:46 23:31
Norwich – Lowestoft
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:45 6:26 6:56 7:54 8:57 9:57 10:57 11:57 12:57 13:57 14:57 15:57 16:57 17:57 18:57 19:57 20:57 21:57 22:40
161
Great Yarmouth – Norwich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
6:00 6:42 7:17 7:45 8:17 9:17 10:17 11:17 12:17 13:17 14:12 15:17 16:17 17:17 17:43 18:14 19:17 20:17 21:17 22:17 23:33
Norwich – Great Yarmouth
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:15 6:36 7:05 7:36 8:36 9:36 10:36 11:36 12:36 13:36 14:36 15:36 16:40 17:05 17:36 18:40 19:36 20:40 21:40 23:00
162
Sheringham – Norwich
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
6:32
7:17
8:25
9:46 10:46 11:46 12:46 13:46 14:46 15:46 16:49 17:48 18:49 19:48 20:49 22:16 23:46
Norwich – Sheringham
Key
Seats
Load
200
150
100
50
0
5:20
5:50
7:15
8:23
9:45 10:45 11:45 12:45 13:45 14:45 15:45 16:45 17:45 18:45 19:45 21:15 22:45
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bishops Stortford
Bishops Stortford
CS
Cambridge CS
Chingford station
Chingford CE
Sdgs
Chingford LE
Sdgs
Clacton CS
Colchester station
Colchester CS
East Ham
Gidea Park CS
Hertford East
Ilford station
Ilford EMUD
Ipswich station
3
39
2
2
18
23
18
9
20
10
8
4
30
5
2
0
Elec
Aldersbrook
Elec
Usage
3-car
Berthing Points
Usage
4-car
Appendix B – Berthing summary
12
156
8
8
72
92
72
36
80
40
32
16
120
20
8
0
Elec
Usage
vehicles
164
Usage
1-car
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
Usage
2-car
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
Usage
3-car
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
Usage
vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
Number of
Sidings
1
19
1
2
12
20
8
4
7
5
5
2
12
3
1
5
Elec
Number of
Sidings
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Unwired
Approx.
Capacity
vehicles
12
160
8
8
96
224
82
36
92
40
40
24
160
32
8
40
Elec
Approx.
Capacity
vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
Unwired
Approx.
Spare
Capacity
vehicles
0
4
0
0
24
132
10
0
12
0
8
8
40
12
0
40
Elec
0
0
0
0
0
-2
3
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
Unwired
Approx.
Spare
Capacity
vehicles
Bay platform
used
Diesels berthed
on wired road
Bay platforms +
sidings
2 platforms used
No diesels
berthed
Includes
passenger loop
Platform 3 used
Unused 5x 8-car
wired roads
165
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Ipswich CS
King’s Lynn CS
Letchworth
Liverpool Street
station
Norwich station
Norwich Crown
Point
Norwich CS
Shen¿eld Down
CS
Shen¿eld Middle
CS
Shoeburyness
Southend Vic CS
Southend Vic
DSS
Thornton Fields
CS
Totals
338
0
3
36
54
2
4
0
18
6
12
6
4
0
1388
0
12
144
216
8
16
0
72
24
48
60
16
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
1
Appendix B – Berthing summary (continued)
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
2
0
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
27
0
6
0
0
5
218
10
3
15
31
2
3
0
9
6
18
10
2
2
19
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
2210
112
28
152
360
20
24
0
84
56
204
80
16
12
125
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
43
6
0
0
0
0
822
112
16
8
144
12
8
0
12
32
156
20
0
12
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
16
6
-6
0
0
-5
Not used
overnight. 2
unwired roads
OOU. Due to
be replaced as
part of Olympics
work
1 road OOU
Loco hauled sets
= 3x4-car EMU
2 wired
platforms used
2 wired
platforms used
Diesels berthed
on wired roads
Appendix C – Congested stations and station facilities data
Station Congestion
Congested stations
166
Station
Issue
Mitigation
Liverpool Street
Circulation around ticket barriers,
interchange with LUL and access to/
egress from the station concourse.
Improve barrier line, access to LUL and
the Bishopsgate entrance.
To be taken forward in the station
Master Plan.
Fenchurch Street
Circulation through and from subway.
Circulation up main stairs, around ticket
windows and barrier line. Circulation on
platforms.
Widen subway and improve access
stairways. Move main stairway back
to improve ticket hall/circulation at
platform level. Move CIS to improve
barrier line circulation. Review seating
layout on platforms.
To be taken forward in the station
Master Plan.
Chelmsford
Congestion on stairs leading up to
platforms (especially Up platform).
Circulation around ticket barrier and
ticket of¿ce.
Provide addition access to Up platform
to relieve circulation on stairs and
through ticket hall/barriers.
Being considered in conjunction with
Essex County Council and a property
development.
Seven Sisters
Congestion on the platforms and the
stairs. Circulation through the subway
and interchange with LUL.
Widen platforms and staircases.
Improve subway/access to LUL.
Likely to be NRDF funded.
Stratford
Congestion in subways and on
platforms.
Re-open eastern subway and de-clutter
platforms.
Improvements being taken forward as
part of 2012 Olympic programme.
Barking
Congestion in the ticket hall.
Potential to improve the gate line.
Cambridge
Congestion in the ticket hall.
Enlarge ticket hall and improve
circulation.
Being considered in conjunction with
the station forecourt development.
Chafford Hundred
Congestion on platforms, stairs, barrier
line during evening peak.
Increase capacity of stairs, gate line
and entrance. Possible NRDF scheme.
Walthamstow Central
Congestion around ticket hall and
access to LUL.
Improve number of ticket machines and
access to LUL.
Colchester North
(Location advised by
Passenger Focus)
Congestion on island platform.
De–clutter platform.
Station improvement scheme being
examined.
Station facilities
Key
A
National hub
A (MS)
National hub (Major Station)
B
Regional hub
C
Important feeder
D
Medium, staffed
E
Small, staffed
F
Small, unstaffed
P
Facility exists in part only
Y
Facility exists
West Anglia station facilities
Station name
Station
Category
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
CIS
Taxi
Y
Y
Y
Y
Angel Road
F
Ashwell & Morden
E
Y
Attleborough
F
Y
Audley End
D
Y
Baldock
E
Y
Bethnal Green
F
Bishops Stortford
C
Brandon
F
Y
Brimsdown
E
Y
Y
Broxbourne
C
Y
Y
Y
Bruce Grove
E
Y
Y
Bury St Edmunds
C
Bush Hill Park
D
Cambridge
B
Cambridge Heath
F
Cheshunt
C
Y
Y
Y
Chingford
C
Y
Y
Y
Clapton
D
Downham Market
E
Dullingham
F
Y
Y
Y
Eccles Road
F
Y
Y
Y
Edmonton Green
C
Elmswell
F
Y
Y
Bus
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
167
West Anglia station facilities (continued)
Station name
168
Station
Category
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
CIS
Taxi
Bus
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Elsenham
E
Y
Ely
D
En¿eld Lock
E
En¿eld Town
C
Foxton
F
Y
Great Chesterford
E
Y
Hackney Downs
C
Y
Harling Road
F
Harlow Mill
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Harlow Town
C
Y
Hertford East
E
Highams Park
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
Kennett
F
Y
Y
Kings Lynn
D
Y
Y
Y
Lakenheath
F
Y
Letchworth
D
Littleport
F
London Fields
F
Manea
F
Y
March
E
Y
Meldreth
E
Melton
F
Newmarket
F
Newport (Essex)
E
Northumberland
Park
E
Y
Ponders End
C
Y
Rectory Road
E
Roydon
E
Royston
D
Rye House
E
Sawbridgeworth
E
Seven Sisters
D
Y
Shelford
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
West Anglia station facilities (continued)
Station name
Station
Category
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
Taxi
Shepreth
F
Shippea Hill
F
Silver Street
D
Y
Southbury
E
Y
Spooner Row
F
St James St
D
St Margarets (Herts)
E
Stamford Hill
E
Stansted Airport
B
Stansted
Mount¿tchet
E
Stoke Newington
E
Y
Theobalds Grove
D
Y
Thetford
E
Y
Y
Thurston
F
Y
Y
Tottenham Hale
D
Turkey Street
E
Y
Y
Y
Waltham Cross
E
Y
Y
Y
Walthamstow Central
C
Y
Ware
D
Y
Waterbeach
F
Y
Y
Watlington
F
Y
Y
White Hart Lane
E
Whittlesea
F
Y
Whittlesford Parkway
E
Y
Wood Street
D
Wymondham
F
CIS
Bus
Y
Y
Y
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
169
Thameside station facilities
Station name
170
Station
Category
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
Barking
B
Basildon
C
BenÀeet
C
Chafford Hundred
E
Chalkwell
C
Dagenham Dock
E
Y
East Tilbury
E
Y
Fenchurch Street
A (MS)
Grays
C
Laindon
C
Leigh-on-Sea
C
Limehouse
E
Ockendon
E
Y
Pitsea
C
Y
PurÀeet
D
Y
Y
Rainham (Greater
London)
C
Y
Shoeburyness
E
Southend Central
D
Southend East
D
Stanford Le Hope
D
Y
Y
Thorpe Bay
D
Y
Y
Tilbury Town
D
Upminster
C
Y
West Ham
(c2c Platforms)
F
Y
West Horndon
E
Westcliff
D
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
CIS
Taxi
Bus
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Great Eastern station facilities
Station name
Station
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Y
Y
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
Taxi
CIS
Bus
Y
Cycle
Acle
F
Alresford
E
Althorne
F
Y
Y
Battlesbridge
F
Y
Y
Y
Beccles
F
Y
Y
Y
Berney Arms
F
Billericay
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Braintree
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Braintree Freeport
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Brampton (Suffolk)
F
Y
Brentwood
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Brundall
F
Y
Y
Brundall Gardens
F
Buckenham
F
Bures
F
Y
Y
Burnham on Crouch
D
Y
Y
Cantley
F
Y
Y
Chadwell Heath
C
Chappel & Wakes
Colne
F
Y
Y
Chelmsford
B
Y
Clacton on Sea
C
Colchester (North)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Colchester Town
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Cressing
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Cromer
F
Y
Y
Darsham
F
Y
Y
Derby Road
F
Diss
C
Dovercourt
E
Emerson Park
F
North Fambridge
F
Felixstowe
F
Forest Gate
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
171
Great Eastern station facilities (continued)
Station name
172
Station
Platforms
Car Park
Information
Transport
Interchange
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
PA
System
CIS
Taxi
Bus
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Frinton-on-Sea
E
Gidea Park
C
Goodmayes
C
Great Bentley
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Great Yarmouth
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Gunton
F
Y
Y
Haddiscoe
F
Halesworth
F
Harold Wood
C
Harwich
International
E
Harwich Town
F
Hat¿eld Peverel
D
Hockley
C
Y
Y
Hoveton &
Wroxham
F
Y
Y
Hythe
F
Y
Ilford
B
Ingatestone
D
Ipswich
B
Kelvedon
C
Kirby Cross
F
Lingwood
F
Y
Liverpool Street
A (MS)
Y
Lowestoft
C
Y
Manningtree
C
Manor Park
C
Marks Tey
D
Maryland
D
Mistley
F
Needham Market
F
North Walsham
F
Norwich
B
Y
Y
Oulton Broad North
F
Y
Y
Y
Oulton Broad South
F
Y
Y
Y
Prittlewell
E
P (up)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Great Eastern station facilities (continued)
Station name
Station
Platforms
Car Park
Disabled
Access
Present
at
station
Y
Y
10%
spare
peak
utilisation
Information
Transport
Interchange
PA
System
CIS
Taxi
Bus
Cycle
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Rayleigh
C
Reedham (Norfolk)
F
Rochford
C
Romford
B
Roughton Road
F
Salhouse
F
Saxmundham
F
Seven Kings
C
Shen¿eld
B
Sheringham
F
Somerleyton
F
Y
Y
Y
Southend Victoria
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Southminster
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Stowmarket
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Stratford
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Sudbury
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Thorpe-le-Soken
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Trimley
F
Y
Y
Walton-on-the-Naze
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Weeley
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
West Runton
F
Y
Wester¿eld
F
Y
White Notley
F
Y
Wickford
C
Y
Y
Wickham Market
F
Y
Y
Y
Witham
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Wivenhoe
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Woodbridge
F
Y
Y
South Woodham
Ferrers
C
Y
Y
Worstead
F
Wrabness
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
173
Appendix D – Delay Data
West Anglia Route Top 10 Delays 2005/06
15101
27615
Key
28618
Track Circuit Failures
16736
External Fatalities and Trespass
Production Responsibility
Broken Rail/Track Faults
Points Failures
32412
Fleet Electric Traction
Traincrew Crew Used
Freight Terminal Operations
15345
Fleet Diesel Traction
35719
External Other
43402
Total Delays 2005/06 469,952 minutes
Thameside Route Top 10 Delays 2005/06
5807
10647
6389
Key
5414
9170
5330
5273
12861
4104
Points Failures
Traincrew Crew Used
External Other
66295
Total Delays 2005/06 194,426 minutes
174
Great Eastern Route Top 10 Delays 2005/06
36760
64757
Key
39405
57912
43390
Points Failures
55815
55182
Traincrew Crew Used
51947
External Other
113932
51214
Total Delays 2005/06 1,169,862 minutes
Secondary Delay
Key
<0.099
0.100-0.199
0.200-0.299
0.300-0.399
0.400-0.499
>0.500
Mins
Strategic
Route
Delay Section
Sub Route Section
Total
trains
per year
Mins/train
1806
5
Middleton Towers Total
Cambridge - Kings Lynn
766
2.358
50016
7
Wester¿eld Jn - Felixstowe
Total
Wester¿eld Jn - Felixstowe
25489
1.962
46797
7
Ipswich - Stowmarket Total
Colchester - Norwich
76171
0.614
22099
5
March - Peterborough Total
Ely - Peterborough
37622
0.587
12184
5
Chippenham - Haughley
Jn Total
Haughley Jn - Cambridge/
Ely
21569
0.565
175
Secondary Delay (continued)
176
Mins
Strategic
Route
Delay Section
Sub Route Section
Total
trains
per year
Mins/train
50492
7
Shen¿eld - Chelmsford Total
Shen¿eld - Colchester
91921
0.549
11462
5
Ely - Trowse Total
Ely - Norwich
21225
0.540
25288
7
Trowse - Norwich Total
47672
0.530
50648
5
Coppermill Jn - Cheshunt
Total
Liverpool Street Broxbourne
101828
0.497
532
6
Thameshaven Branch
Total
Tilbury Loop
1079
0.493
12472
5
Broxbourne - Hertford East
Total
Hertford East Branch
25464
0.490
5164
7
Cromer - Sheringham Total
Whitlingham Jn Sheringham
10736
0.481
7035
7
Wickford - Southminster
Total
Shen¿eld - Southend
Victoria/Southminster
14630
0.481
5910
7
Sudbury Branch Total
Sudbury Branch
12405
0.476
5782
7
Whitlingham Jn - Cromer
Total
Whitlingham Jn Sheringham
12170
0.475
12307
7
Colchester - Clacton Total
Colchester - Clacton/Walton
27035
0.455
6544
7
Braintree Branch Total
Braintree Branch
14528
0.450
28004
7
Colchester - Manningtree
Total
64755
0.432
6162
7
Wester¿eld - Saxmundham
Total
Ipswich - Lowestoft
14494
0.425
14205
5
Ely - Kings Lynn Total
33868
0.419
21955
5
Stansted Airport Branch
Total
Broxbourne - Cambridge
58070
0.378
31360
5
Bishops Stortford Cambridge Total
84255
0.372
17569
6
Barking - Grays Total
Tilbury Loop
47565
0.369
20469
7
Manningtree - Ipswich Total
55670
0.368
7
Liverpool Street - Bethnal
Green Total
Liverpool Street - Shen¿eld
431144
0.346
14465
5
Cambridge - Ely Total
43251
0.334
38223
5
Cheshunt - Bishops
Stortford Total
114937
0.333
5024
7
Harwich International Harwich Town Total
Harwich Branch
15244
0.330
7488
7
Stowmarket - Trowse Total
27069
0.277
21987
7
Marks Tey - Colchester
Total
79836
0.275
21877
7
Witham - Marks Tey Total
79625
0.275
2542
5
Temple Mills - Coppermill
Jn Total
9342
0.272
Mins
Strategic
Route
Delay Section
Sub Route Section
Total
trains
per year
Mins/train
7856
5
En¿eld Town Branch Total
En¿eld Town Branch
30145
0.261
1325
5
Stratford - Temple Mills
Total
5494
0.241
21654
7
Chelmsford - Witham Total
90912
0.238
1443
7
Saxmundham - Oulton
Broad Total
Ipswich - Lowestoft
6563
0.220
48461
7
Ilford - Gidea Park Total
228618
0.212
6144
7
Brundall - Great Yarmouth
Total
Brundall/Reedham JnGreat Yarmouth
29088
0.211
51934
7
Stratford - Forest Gate Total
247001
0.210
9652
5
Chingford Branch Total
Chingford Branch
47580
0.203
2192
5
Soham Branch Total
Ely
10869
0.202
21281
6
Fenchurch Street - Barking
Total
Fenchurch Street Shoeburyness
107477
0.198
6472
5
Ely - March Total
Ely - Peterborough
33960
0.191
3022
7
Walton Branch Total
16127
0.187
39380
7
Gidea Park - Shen¿eld Total
214006
0.184
7190
7
Norwich - Lowestoft Total
Norwich - Lowestoft
41042
0.175
3755
7
Manningtree - Harwich
International Total
Harwich Branch
21513
0.175
1925
6
Forest Gate - Woodgrange
Park Total
Gospel Oak - Barking
11344
0.170
798
6
Coppermill Jn - South
Tottenham Total
4853
0.164
4461
6
Upminster - Grays Total
Ockendon Branch
28216
0.158
5360
6
Grays - Pitsea Total
Tilbury Loop
35690
0.150
31136
7
Bethnal Green - Stratford
Total
229217
0.136
3916
5
Bury Street Jn - Cheshunt
Total
29647
0.132
6794
7
Shen¿eld - Wickford Total
54375
0.125
9570
6
Pitsea - Shoeburyness
Total
77451
0.124
4642
6
Barking - Woodgrange
Park Total
39813
0.117
8596
6
Barking - Upminster Total
83468
0.103
177
Mins
Strategic
Route
Delay Section
Sub Route Section
Total
trains
per year
Mins/train
19453
5
Bethnal Green - Hackney
Downs Total
197143
0.099
22245
7
Forest Gate - Ilford Total
231358
0.096
4267
7
Wickford - Southend
Victoria Total
44387
0.096
4295
5
Cambridge - Royston Total
Shepreth Branch
46490
0.092
4925
6
Upminster - Pitsea Total
55283
0.089
920
5
Cambridge - Chippenham
Jn Total
Ely
10904
0.084
2594
7
Colchester Town Total
33645
0.077
4403
5
Hackney Downs - Bury
Street Jn Total
59760
0.074
6422
5
Clapton-Coppermill Jn
Total
92423
0.069
4196
5
Hackney Downs - Clapton
Total
140078
0.030
Appendix E – Freight path analysis by commodity
Paths per day each way (May 2004 - May 2005)
Cross Country Route
Whittlesea – Peterborough (East)
178
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Aggregate
4
6
Aggregate
1
1
Automotive
0
0
Automotive
0
0
Channel Tunnel
0
0
Channel Tunnel
0
0
Intermodal
7
15
Intermodal
7
16
Infrastructure
2
10
Infrastructure
0
1
Light engines
1
5
Light engines
1
6
Other
9
N/A
Other
4
N/A
Total
23
Total
13
Shen¿eld
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Aggregate
0
1
Aggregate
1
3
Automotive
0
0
Automotive
0
0
Channel Tunnel
0
0
Channel Tunnel
0
0
Intermodal
16
20
Intermodal
14
19
Infrastructure
0
1
Infrastructure
0
3
Light engines
1
2
Light engines
1
3
Other
4
N/A
Other
1
N/A
Total
21
Total
17
Maryland – Forest Gate
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Commodity
Av paths
Max paths
Aggregate
1
3
Aggregate
4
7
Automotive
0
0
Automotive
0
1
Channel Tunnel
0
0
Channel Tunnel
3
4
Intermodal
14
19
Intermodal
19
35
Infrastructure
0
3
Infrastructure
0
3
Light engines
1
3
Light engines
2
5
Other
0
N/A
Other
1
N/A
Total
16
Total
29
Freight Path Use Summary
Trains per day each way (May – July 2007)
Section
Av paths used
Max paths used
Planned paths
Maryland – Forest Gate
35
39
53
Shen¿eld
25
29
33
24
27
32
7
12
15
15
18
34
179
Appendix F – GEML capacity
utilisation
The colour coded lines on the following graphs
show how capacity is used over the GEML:
Q Timetable Usage – Capacity used by the
timetable over the whole route.
Q Route Section Usage – Capacity used by
the timetabled mix of trains over a route
section with a constant number of trains.
Q ROTP Usage – Capacity required to run
the timetabled number of trains at the
minimum planning headway.
Q Infrastructure Limit – Absolute theoretical
minimum capacity consumption if
timetabled trains could run at signalling
headway.
Key
Timetabled Usage
ROTP Usage
Route Section Usage
Infrastructure Limit
GEML Capacity Analysis – Up Main Line, am peak
100%
90%
80%
Capacity Usage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
180
Bethnal Green
Liverpool Street
Ilford
Forest Gate
Stratford
Bow Jn
Gidea Park
Romford
Shenfield
Brentwood
Ingatestone
Chelmsford
Witham
Hatfield Peverel
Kelvedon
Marks Tey
Colchester
Manningtree
Ipswich
Stowmarket
Needham Market
Diss
Norwich
0%
Norwich
Diss
Needham Market
Stowmarket
Ipswich
Manningtree
Colchester
Marks Tey
Kelvedon
Hatfield Peverel
Witham
Chelmsford
Ingatestone
Shenfield
Brentwood
Romford
Gidea Park
Liverpool Street
Bethnal Green
Bow Jn
Stratford
Forest Gate
Ilford
Capacity Usage
Bethnal Green
Liverpool Street
Ilford
Forest Gate
Stratford
Bow Jn
Gidea Park
Romford
Shenfield
Brentwood
Ingatestone
Chelmsford
Witham
Hatfield Peverel
Kelvedon
Marks Tey
Colchester
Manningtree
Ipswich
Stowmarket
Needham Market
Diss
Norwich
Capacity Usage
GEML Capacity Analysis – Up Main Line, off-peak
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GEML Capacity Analysis – Down Main Line, am peak
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
181
182
Norwich
Diss
Needham Market
Stowmarket
Infrastructure Limit
Ipswich
ROTP Usage
Route Section Usage
Manningtree
Timetabled Usage
Colchester
Marks Tey
Kelvedon
Hatfield Peverel
Witham
Chelmsford
Ingatestone
Shenfield
Brentwood
Romford
Gidea Park
Liverpool Street
Bethnal Green
Bow Jn
Stratford
Forest Gate
Ilford
Capacity Usage
Key
GEML Capacity Analysis – Down Main Line, off-peak
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Appendix G – Glossary of terms
Term
Meaning
AC
Alternating Current
Access Charges Review
A review of Network Rail’s funding requirements for the operations,
maintenance and renewal of the rail network undertaken by the ORR. This
establishes the level of track access charges that are paid for a ¿ve year
period, along with the associated output commitments that are expected
at this level of funding
ARS
Automatic Route Setting
AV
Average
BAA
British Airports Authority
BCR
Bene¿t-Cost Ratio
Bi-di Signalling
Bi-directional (a form of signalling that allows trains to run safely in the
opposite direction to the normal Àow of traf¿c on a single track)
CE
Country End
CET
Controlled Emission Toilets
CIS
Customer Information System
CP
Control Period
CS
Carriage Sidings
CUI
Capacity Utilisation Index
DDA
Disability Discrimination Act
DEEP
Draft East of England Plan
DfT
Department for Transport
DLR
Docklands Light Railway
DMU
Diesel Multiple Unit
Down
Where referred to as a direction i.e. Down direction, Down peak, Down
line, Down train, this generally but not always refers to the direction that
leads away from London
DRS
Direct Rail Services
DSS
Down Sidings South
DVT
Driving Vehicle Trailer
E lines
The electric or suburban stopping lines between Liverpool Street and
Shen¿eld
EC
European Commission
ECML
East Coast Main Line
ECS
Empty Coaching Stock
Ef¿cient Engineering Access
A generic term for an initiative aimed at establishing a more ef¿cient
access regime for the delivery of the required maintenance and renewal
of the railway infrastructure, balancing engineering requirements with
passenger and freight demand
EMU
Electric Multiple Unit
EMUD
Electric Multiple Unit Depot
ERTMS
European Rail Traf¿c Management System
EWS
English, Welsh and Scottish Railway
FCC
First Capital Connect
183
184
FOC
Freight Operating Company
FRUS
Freight Route Utilisation Strategy
GA
Greater Anglia
GBRf
GB Railfreight
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GE
Great Eastern
GEML
GLA
Greater London Authority
GN
Great Northern
GOB
The Gospel Oak – Barking Line
GRIP
Guide to Railway Investment Projects
Headway
The minimum interval possible between trains on a particular section of track
ha
Hectares
HGV
Heavy Goods Vehicle
HLOS
High Level Output Speci¿cation
HM
Her Majesty’s
HPUK
Hutchison Ports UK
HS1
High Speed 1
IECC
Integrated Electronic Control Centre
IEP
Inter-city Express Project
IKF
Integrated Kent Franchise
Jn
Junction
Junction margin
The minimum interval possible between trains operating over the same
junction in conÀicting directions
LATS
London Area Travel Survey
LE
London End
LENNON
An industry database recording ticket sales
Loading gauge
Maximum dimensions to which a vehicle can be built or loaded without
being at risk of striking a lineside structure
LUL
London Underground Limited
MML
Midland Main Line
MOIRA
A passenger demand forecasting model
mppa
million passengers per annum
Network Code
The Network Code is a set of rules which is incorporated into, and
therefore forms part of, each bilateral access contract between Network
Rail and holders of rights of access to the track owned and operated by
Network Rail.
NLL
North London Line
NLSA
North London Strategic Alliance
NR
Network Rail
NRDF
Network Rail Development Fund
NSIP
National Station Improvement Programme
ODA
Olympic Delivery Authority
OLE
Overhead Line Equipment
OOU
Out Of Use
ORR
Of¿ce of Rail Regulation
pa
per annum
PA
Public Address
PDFH
Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook. An industry document that
summarises the effects of service quality, fares and external factors on rail
demand
PIXC
Passengers In Excess of Capacity. Passengers In Excess of Capacity
only applies to weekday commuter trains arriving in London between
07:00 and 09:59 and those departing between 16:00 and 18:59. Capacity
is deemed to be the number of standard class seats on the train for
journeys of more than 20 minutes; for journeys of 20 minutes or less, an
allowance for standing room is also made. The allowance for standing
varies with the type of rolling stock but, for modern sliding door stock,
is typically approximately 35 per cent of the number of seats. The PIXC
measure for a Train Operating Company (TOC) as a whole is derived
from the number of passengers travelling in excess of capacity on all
services divided by the total number of people travelling, expressed
as a percentage. PIXC counts are carried out once a year, on a typical
weekday during the autumn. The DfT has set limits on the level of
acceptable PIXC at 4.5 per cent on one peak (morning or afternoon) and
three per cent across both peaks. The DfT monitors the level of PIXC
across peaks (both individually and combined).
PLANET
A demand forecasting model developed by the SRA
Possession
Where part of the infrastructure is closed to services to carry out
maintenance, renewal or enhancement works
PPM
Public Performance Measure
PPP
Public Private Partnership
PSAM
PLANET South AM
PV
Present Value
RA
Route Availability – a system to determine which types of locomotive and
rolling stock may travel over a route, normally governed by the strength of
underline bridges in relation to axle loads and speed
RailSys
A modelling tool used to analyse proposed timetable and infrastructure
con¿gurations
RCP
Rail Corridor Plan
RETB
Radio Electronic Token Block
RIFF
Rail Industry Forecasting Framework
ROTP
Rules of the Plan
RPI
Retail Prices Index
RSSB
Rail Safety & Standards Board
RUA
Rail Users’ Association
RUS
Route Utilisation Strategy
S&C
Switches and Crossings
SAP
Network Rail’s Strategic Access Planning Unit
SBP
Strategic Business Plan
SCD
Stratford City Development
185
186
Sdgs
Sidings
SDO
Selective Door Opening
Seated Load factor
The amount of seats occupied on a train service expressed as a
percentage of total seats available
Section 106 Agreement
A condition attached to a planning consent, which typically requires
the developer to fund associated improvements to infrastructure which
supports the development
SLW
Single Line Working
SRA
Strategic Rail Authority
SRT
Sectional Running Time
STAG
Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidelines
SWT
South West Trains
Tanking
Replenishing water tanks
Tempro
The Trip End Model Presentation Program
TEU
Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit
TfL
The Games
The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
TIF
Transport Innovation Fund
TOC
Train Operating Company
TPC
Train Planning Centre
tpd
trains per day
tph
trains per hour
tpw
trains per week
Train path
A slot in a timetable for running an individual train
TRUST
A computer system which records actual train running times at strategic
locations
TSR
Temporary Speed Restriction
UK
United Kingdom
Up
Where referred to as a direction i.e. Up direction, Up peak, Up line, Up
train, this is generally but not always refers to the direction that leads
towards London
W10
The loading gauge which enables 9’ 6” containers to be conveyed on
conventional wagons
W12
The loading gauge which enables same heigh 9’ 6” [as W10] but wider
[than W10] containers to be conveyed on conventional wagons
WAML
West Anglia Main Line
WEB
Wider Economic Bene¿t
WCML
West Coast Main Line

Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy

Transcription

Similar documents

OUR NEW EXPRESS FREIGHT SERVICE

Italian Train Crash - LiveWell with Optum

Proposed Xpress Route 423 Schedule, Fare, and Route:

BANTRAK Newsletter

Kids Trail - Train World

muttaburrasaurus - Clyde Peeling`s Reptiland

Exit Planning for Freight Brokers

english - Sunpan

c O n TA c T jiM SPEROS

Geoconcept TourSolver: the simple tool for optimized routes!