May 2011
Northern
Route Utilisation Strategy
Tel: 020 3356 9595
www.networkrail.co.uk
RUS144/ May 2011
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way
London N1 9AG
Contents
3
5
14
17
23
37
87
91
124
125
151
153
Foreword
Executive summary
1. Background
2. Scope and planning context
3. Forecast changes in demand
4. Gaps and options
5. Consultation
6. Strategy 7. Next Steps
Appendix A
Appendix B
Glossary
Foreword
It is widely recognised that transport infrastructure plays
a crucial role in economic development. However, with
the current constraints on the nation’s finances, it is more
important than ever that proposed investments in transport
infrastructure can be shown to deliver real benefits for the
economy, people’s quality of life and the environment.
This Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) sets out the
priorities for rail improvements and investments
in the north of England for the next 30 years. We
believe that the options recommended can meet
the increased demand forecast by this RUS for both
passenger and freight markets and will help to
support and grow the economy of the North.
The north of England has an extensive
rail network and more people than
ever rely on rail to commute, to
travel on business and make leisure
journeys within the region and to
other parts of the country.
The RUS identifies options which provide value for
money, and in many cases significant benefits can
be delivered through investment which unlocks
existing capacity from the rail network. So, for
example, we can allow longer trains to run between
Leeds and Sheffield by extending platforms, which
means more commuters can get to work in those
cities by train. Similarly, by addressing bottlenecks
on routes between the major cities of the North, the
Northern Hub can allow for 700 more trains to run
every day.
This study reviewed previous RUSs that covered the
north of England and identified where gaps and
recommendations needed to be reconsidered in
the light of subsequent changes or new passenger
and freight forecasts. Other RUS gaps and
recommendations continue to apply and form part
of this strategy.
The north of England has an extensive rail
network and more people than ever rely on rail to
commute, to travel on business and make leisure
journeys within the region and to other parts of the
country. The rail network in the North also plays
an important role in moving freight between the
various ports and freight terminals in the North and
elsewhere in the country.
There has been significant passenger and freight
growth in the North over the past decade and
passenger numbers are still growing despite the
less certain economic climate. The rail industry has
responded by providing longer trains and more
frequent trains, performance improvement, and
reduced journey times.
This work has continued, with improvements in
the coming years planned for routes to and across
the North. Our enhancements will means faster,
more frequent and more reliable services between
York and London, and quicker journeys between
Sheffield and London. Meanwhile, the North West
electrification programme and improvements in the
Manchester area (including the redevelopment of
Victoria station) will provide a step change in the
service offer from the North East and Yorkshire to
Manchester and Liverpool.
Smaller projects, such as platform extensions and
increased stabling facilities, will allow for longer and
more frequent trains. The extra rolling stock being
provided for this will mean increased commuter
train capacity into several northern cities at minimal
infrastructure cost.
We cannot, however, afford to be complacent. This
RUS predicts increases in peak passenger demand into
the major cities of the North of as much as 52 per cent
by 2024. The planned improvements noted above do
go some way to accommodating this demand, but this
RUS does identify significant new or altered gaps and
recommends measures to address these.
3
Foreword
As in all RUSs, we have developed a range of options
to meet these gaps which were tested to determine
which provided the best value for money. Where the
RUS has identified requirements for interventions
to be made, it seeks to do so by making the most
efficient use of capacity. In many cases this means
further peak time train lengthening, in others a
new shuttle service will suffice. In the longer term,
such ‘quick wins’ may not be available, and we
want to work with stakeholders to look at ways of
encouraging passengers to use trains that currently
run below capacity, including through more
intelligent and flexible ticketing and fares policies.
The RUS highlights the opportunity for a significant
improvement in connectivity across northern England
which would support a major improvement in the
economy of the north. The Northern Hub project, with
the associated improvements to inter- and intraurban
services that it facilitates, seek to address this.
The project builds on the recommendations in the
Manchester Hub Study published in January 2010
and is supplemented by proposed improvements in
the network around Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool.
We were delighted that the Chancellor announced
funding for the first part of the project (primarily the
Ordsall Chord) in the recent Budget, which will allow
us to make an early start on these much needed
improvements – but further investment will be
required to realise the full wider economic benefits
of the plans.
Delivering sufficient capacity for freight where
there is a noticeable growth in demand is crucial to
supporting economic growth in the North.
4
We will further develop options to address freight
growth on certain sections of the East Coast
Main Line alongside the more frequent passenger
services between London, Yorkshire, the North East
and Scotland expected by 2018. The route from
Immingham to the Aire Valley power stations is
another where the growth requires network capacity
to be increased and the RUS suggests how this can
be achieved.
In the longer term, the Government’s plans for High
Speed 2 would significantly improve train capacity
and journey times between the major northern
conurbations and London, and free up capacity
on a number of existing north-south routes to
allow further growth in other passenger markets
and provide more timetable slots for freight. As
such, Network Rail sees High Speed 2 as vital to
the economic development of the North and is
supportive of the Government’s plans.
This RUS was initially published in consultation form
in October 2010. Some issues raised during that
consultation have influenced aspects of the strategy
and the content of the final RUS document. Network
Rail has led the production of this RUS; however it
has been developed with the full input of the rail
industry including passenger and freight operators,
the Department for Transport, Passenger Transport
Executives, the Association of Train Operating
Companies and Passenger Focus. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank industry colleagues who
have worked with us on the RUS.
Paul Plummer
Director, Planning and Development
Executive summary
Introduction
Since June 2005, the Network Licence has required
Network Rail to publish Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs),
which establish the most effective and efficient way to use
the capacity available across the network.
Since then Network Rail has published, and
continues to publish, RUSs that will cover the whole
of its network upon completion of the programme.
The Network Licence also requires Network Rail to
‘maintain’ established RUSs. This has led to the
development of a ‘second generation of RUSs’, of
which this Northern RUS is the first.
Scope and planning context
Apart from the national Freight and Network
RUSs, the first generation of RUSs all considered a
specific geographic scope when identifying gaps
and options. As part of the second generation, the
Northern RUS does not have a strict geographic
scope but broadly covers the north of England.
The area covered by this RUS has already been
considered in a number of geographic RUSs:
those for the North West, East Coast Main Line,
Merseyside, Yorkshire and Humber, and Lancashire
and Cumbria.
The main timeframe for the RUS is the 10 years
from 2014 to 2024 though it does consider a high
level strategy into the 2030s.
The gaps and recommendations of these first
generation RUSs have been reviewed in the light of
funded interventions for Control Period 4 (CP4) and
Control Period 5 (CP5), including the then Secretary
of State for Transport’s announcement in 2009 of the
electrification of a number of routes in the North West
which was then confirmed in 2010. This review has
also considered passenger growth forecasts to 2024,
the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) forecasts for 2019
and 2030, and any RUS recommendations that may
have changed those published in earlier RUSs.
Each first generation gap can be broadly categorised
as follows:
1.gap that will have been addressed by the end of
CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) so is ‘closed’
2.gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the previous RUS recommendation
is still appropriate
3. gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the intervention needs reviewing
due to more recent changes
4.gap that has changed sufficiently that the
previous intervention may not be entirely
appropriate.
Categories 3 and 4 have shaped most of the
Northern RUS gaps and the majority of ‘first
generation’ gaps fall into category 2. There has
been an assessment of the extent of the gap, and
options generated where appropriate. These options
have been appraised to understand which most
appropriately meets the identified gap and offers
the best value for money.
In March 2011, the Government announced the
funding of some of the interventions that comprise
the Northern Hub project (see Gap 9 below). The
infrastructure schemes are Ordsall Chord (a new
section of track that allows Manchester Victoria
to be linked to Manchester Piccadilly), track
layout improvements at Manchester Victoria, and
linespeed improvements between Stalybridge and
Manchester Victoria. This work is anticipated to be
completed around 2016. Though the funding for
this infrastructure is committed (subject to planning
consents being obtained), apart from changes to north
cross-Pennine trains the consequent service patterns
have yet to be decided. Therefore, this RUS has made
an initial assessment of the effect of the Orsdall Chord
and associated projects and this has been reflected in
the findings of this RUS. However, more detailed work,
including the service patterns on affected corridors, is
being carried out as part of the Northern Hub project.
5
Executive summary
This RUS, along with the first generation of RUSs,
is designed to inform the next High Level Output
Specification (HLOS) in 2012 by feeding into the
Initial Industry Plan (IIP)1 for England and Wales,
to be published in September 2011. This informs
funders and the ORR of the possible range of
outputs and costs for the railway in CP5 and the
longer term.
This RUS also looks at the period beyond current
train operator franchises, and therefore aims to
inform the next round of franchising affecting the
north of England.
The Northern RUS process has been overseen and
directed by the Stakeholder Management Group
which comprises representatives from the Train
Operating Companies (TOCs), Freight Operating
Companies (FOCs), the Department for Transport
(DfT), Network Rail, the Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC), Passenger Focus,
the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs), and the
Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), as observers.
Forecast changes in demand
Recent industry studies, including RUSs, have shown
that industry standard models tend to underpredict observed passenger growth in the regional
centres. City-wide car parking supply and cost, and
structural change (the proportion of city centre
workers employed in office-based sectors) have been
cited as potential reasons for this unexplained peak
growth. The forecasts for this RUS have factored
in these to develop a high growth scenario as well
as one for low growth based on the traditional
Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)
method; both have been produced to 2029. The
high growth scenario has been used to identify gaps
and forms the central case for growth at the option
appraisal stage.
The UK was in a recession from the second quarter
of 2008 until the third quarter of 2009 and the
effect on future rail demand is still unclear. However,
the most recent data suggests that in many rail
sectors demand continued to increase during the
recession and demonstrates high growth in the postrecession recovery period.
In 2010, the Government announced an alteration
to the national fares policy, meaning that for three
years TOCs are able to increase train fares by up to
RPI + 3%, as opposed to RPI + 1% as is normally
the case. This will have an effect on demand across
the RUS area and work has been undertaken to
understand what level of impact it will have on
forecast demand. This has resulted in revised
demand forecasts which are presented in Chapter 3.
The following table shows the expected peak growth
in rail demand on all services into the five northern
cities covered in the CP4 HLOS.
Forecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five Northern HLOS cities on all services
Growth – 2014
1
6
Growth – 2019
Growth – 2024
Growth – 2029
Leeds – low
3%
12%
21%
31%
Liverpool – low
1%
13%
24%
37%
Manchester – low
3%
13%
21%
32%
Newcastle – low
8%
15%
22%
29%
Sheffield – low
1%
10%
19%
28%
Leeds – high
16%
37%
48%
62%
Liverpool – high
9%
27%
41%
57%
Manchester – high
17%
39%
52%
66%
Newcastle – high
17%
32%
44%
56%
Sheffield – high
11%
30%
43%
56%
Replaces the Initial Strategic Business Plan (ISBP)
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Despite the recession, growth to 2014 is expected
to be relatively high due to the increase in structural
change. Peak demand on all services into Leeds and
Manchester is forecast to increase by nearly 40 per
cent by 2019 and peak growth into all five HLOS cities
is expected to be between 56 and 66 per cent by
2029 in the high growth scenario.
Freight forecasts are those developed nationally to
2019 and 2030 for the SFN. The changes in freight
tonnages to be moved by rail were mapped across
the network from which a forecast of future demand
for freight train paths per day by line of route was
derived. This is shown in more detail in Chapter 3.
The following table shows the forecast change
in freight demand by commodity to 2030. The
route with the largest number of additional train
paths per day is the Immingham – Scunthorpe –
Knottingley corridor.
Forecast change in freight demand by commodity to 2030
Million tonnes
Billion tonne km
2006
2030
Average
annual
growth
2030
Average
annual
growth
Solid fuels
51
41
-1%
8
5
-2%
Construction
21
32
2%
4
5
1%
Metals and ore
18
19
0%
3
3
0%
Ports non-bulk
12
50
6%
4
17
6%
2
25
11%
1
12
11%
Other
12
12
1%
3
3
1%
Total
116
179
2%
23
45
3%
Domestic non-bulk
Northern RUS gaps and
recommendations
The Northern RUS identified nine gaps from the
process described above. The gaps are listed below,
along with the recommendations made by this or
previous RUSs.
Gap 1 – Peak crowding on routes affected
by electrification of additional routes in the
North West
Recommended options include a peak shuttle
between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington
Central and lengthening of peak services on the
Atherton corridor into Manchester. Analysis of
the issues arising from possible service changes
on the Bolton corridor into Manchester has been
undertaken to inform the development of services
after completion of electrification on this route.
This includes an assessment of whether significant
infrastructure investment would be required, and
an evaluation of the benefits of maintaining direct
links between Windermere and Barrow-in-Furness
and Manchester.
The findings on these corridors will have to be
reviewed by the Northern Hub project as it develops
the timetable that will be implemented after the
Ordsall Chord is constructed.
2006
Gap 2 – Accommodating peak services into the
Manchester Piccadilly station area
The Ordsall Chord announcement will result in a net
reduction in the number of trains running into the
terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly. The
funded infrastructure will also result in a reduction in
the number of capacity consuming crossing moves
currently executed by north cross-Pennine trains,
though without other service alterations it causes a
net increase of one train per hour in each direction
through Platforms 13 and 14.
Therefore it is felt that further interventions beyond
those detailed in the Ordsall Chord announcement
are not necessary specifically to accommodate peak
growth into Manchester Piccadilly to 2024, though
these findings will need to be reviewed if there are
any significant changes to the length or frequency
of the Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) services
from Birmingham and London beyond the Class 390
train lengthening programme that is already funded.
However, the implementation of the full Northern
Hub project will provide additional track capacity at
Manchester Piccadilly via two additional platforms.
An additional platform at Manchester Airport is
recommended to accommodate longer trains to
meet peak growth into Manchester Piccadilly.
7
Executive summary
Gap 3 – Peak and off-peak crowding on the Leeds
– Manchester route taking into account journey
time improvements
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended
the operation of five interurban services per
hour on the route together with some peak hour
train lengthening. However, this RUS shows that
passenger demand on north cross-Pennine services
is expected to increase further. At the consultation
stage, in addition to the interventions above,
this RUS recommended a peak hours semi-fast
service between Huddersfield and Leeds to provide
sufficient peak capacity into Leeds, and lengthening
of existing services into Manchester to provide
sufficient peak capacity.
Upon completion of the Ordsall Chord and
associated projects, DfT requires six trains per hour
between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield
with four fast trains serving Manchester
Victoria and two semi-fast trains operating into
Manchester Piccadilly. The two semi-fast services
would be in place of the fifth cross-Pennine
service and the peak semi-fast services between
Huddersfield and Leeds described above. The
length of these services would need to be assessed
taking into account the use of both Manchester
Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly by trains on
this corridor. The Northern Hub development work
on the service proposition upon completion of the
projects will include this assessment.
Gap 4 – Peak and off-peak crowding between
Sheffield and Manchester
Planned lengthening of the existing Liverpool
to Norwich services in CP4 in line with
recommendations made in the East Midlands RUS
will provide additional capacity on this route. In
addition, lengthening of peak services between
Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport to deal with
growth west of Doncaster is recommended to
provide the necessary capacity on these services.
8
Gap 5 – Peak crowding on the Retford and
Penistone lines and additional calls at Elsecar
The circumstances on these two routes into
Sheffield have changed since the Yorkshire and
Humber RUS was published. Extension of Platform
2 at Huddersfield to accommodate a lengthened
high-peak service into Sheffield to the equivalent
of a three by 23m vehicle train and higher density
stock on one shoulder peak service is expected to
provide sufficient capacity on these routes over the
period of the RUS. Reinstating all stops at Elsecar
station in Penistone line trains is also recommended,
if value for money linespeed improvements
can be identified.
Gap 6 – Insufficient freight capacity on the
Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor
A set of infrastructure interventions including
signalling upgrades and a new turnback facility at
Knottingley is recommended to provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate expected freight growth
to 2030.
Gap 7 – Peak crowding on the Ilkley, Skipton and
Wakefield Westgate corridors into Leeds
The RUS has checked whether the Yorkshire and
Humber RUS recommendations on certain corridors
into Leeds are sufficient to accommodate the new
demand forecasts. Three corridors were identified
whose interventions needed reviewing. Northern
Rail, the incumbent franchisee on these routes, plan
to run an additional service in the high-peak hour on
all three routes from December 2011.
Beyond this, the RUS recommends lengthening of
the busiest services on the Skipton and Ilkley lines to
six-cars to accommodate growth to 2024. Analysis
has shown that the remaining recommendations
made in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS regarding
the Wakefield Westgate corridor are able to
accommodate growth to 2024.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Gap 8 – Accommodating peak services into
Leeds station
Strategy
Several infrastructure interventions are
recommended to provide sufficient track capacity
to accommodate the recommended train
lengthening and additional services into Leeds
station over the period of the RUS.
The strategy takes account of the output of previous
RUSs, the recommendations in this RUS and other
relevant developments. It is split into three sections
covering the time to the end of the current control
period in March 2014, the next two five-year control
periods, and the long term.
Gap 9 – Strategic connectivity across the
north of England
Short-term strategy 2009 – 14 (CP4)
Option two of the Manchester Hub Study is
recommended to meet this gap, along with
the recommendations from other RUSs which
are aimed at improving connectivity on routes
outside the scope of the study. The study
recommendations are being developed further
as the Northern Hub project. As mentioned
previously, three interventions in the Northern
Hub project portfolio have now been funded
for expected implementation around 2016 and
these, along with the remaining interventions,
continue to be progressed. This RUS identifies that
enhancements at Leeds, Liverpool Lime Street
and Sheffield are very likely to be needed to allow
full implementation of the Hub outputs. A copy
of the Manchester Hub Study and more details
on the Northern Hub project can be found on
Network Rail’s website at www.networkrail.co.uk
Consultation
The Northern RUS Draft for Consultation was
published in October 2010 and underwent a 12week consultation period. Four briefing events were
held for the principal wider stakeholders including
local authorities, regional bodies, Community Rail
Partnerships and Rail User Groups.
The consultation prompted 81 responses, which can
be categorised as follows:
l
passenger and freight train operating companies
l
Government, PTEs and local authorities
l
other industry parties
l
businesses
l
user groups and Community Rail Partnerships
l
Members of Parliament
l
members of the public.
Chapter 5 of this RUS summarises the key themes
and how they were incorporated within the final
document. We are grateful to those who responded
and we hope that where possible, within our terms
of reference, we have been able to take responses
into account. All consultation responses are available
on our website.
Background
Although the end of CP4 is the baseline for this RUS,
an overview of the strategy for the period from April
2009 to March 2014 is included here as a lead into
the strategy recommended for future control periods.
The strategy for CP4 consists primarily of measures
to increase capacity on peak passenger services into
Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield
to improve capacity, journey times and/or service
levels from the North West, Yorkshire and the North
East to London, and to provide increased capacity
and capability for freight.
Anticipated dates for delivery of infrastructure
projects funded by Network Rail are set out in
the Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan, which is
updated quarterly, and the annual route based
planning documents (both of which are available at
www.networkrail.co.uk). The summaries below reflect
the current proposals for the use of additional rolling
stock being made available and the infrastructure
interventions to support them. The Delivery Plan is
updated through a change control mechanism which
is yet to be invoked to fully reflect these summaries.
Local services
The most crowded local services will either be
lengthened or supplemented by new shuttle services
as additional rolling stock becomes available. New
peak shuttles are expected to run between Leeds and
Doncaster, Ilkley and Skipton. Platform extensions will
be provided at a number of stations and new turnback
facilities will be built at Horsforth and Stalybridge in
association with renewal projects. Northern Rail is
currently examining whether, upon completion of the
turnbacks, additional shuttle services would provide
capacity more efficiently with the vehicles available in
CP4. New and increased passenger train servicing and
stabling facilities are being provided to accommodate
the additional rolling stock.
Improvements to services in the Tees Valley and
between East Lancashire and Manchester are being
promoted by local authorities. The former is the
Tees Valley Metro Project, which involves an even
interval frequency of two trains per hour between
Darlington and Saltburn and two new stations.
The latter provides for increased services between
Blackburn and Manchester, requiring track capacity
improvements, and a new service from Burnley to
Manchester via Rochdale using a reinstated north to
west curve at Todmorden.
9
Executive summary
Interurban services
Journey times will be reduced between Leeds and
Manchester via Huddersfield, and between Liverpool
and Manchester via Earlestown (the Chat Moss
route). These will be achieved through a mixture
of linespeed improvements and small capacity
enhancement schemes designed to improve
the timetable.
The capability to carry 9’6” deep sea containers on
standard deck height wagons and the transportation
of other intermodal units will be provided through
loading gauge enhancements on a number of
routes, funded by several different mechanisms. The
following routes in the RUS area are expected to see
loading gauge enhancements:
l
eterborough – Lincoln – Gainsborough –
P
Doncaster
l
oncaster – Rotherham – Chesterfield (and
D
onwards to Birmingham) via Beighton
l
oncaster – Newcastle – Berwick (and onwards
D
to Carstairs via Edinburgh)
l
Swinton – Moorthorpe – South Kirkby Jn
l
Darlington – Teesport
l
astlefield Jn (near Deansgate) – West Coast
C
Main Line via Eccles and Lowton Jn.
Long distance services from the RUS area to London
There will be increased service levels between
the RUS area and London King’s Cross to cater
for growth and to reduce journey times on the
medium and longer distance flows serving Yorkshire
and the North East. These are incorporated into
a standard pattern timetable that commenced
on 22 May 2011. The timetable is expected to be
further improved from December 2013 following
the completion of a programme of infrastructure
enhancements on the East Coast Main Line (ECML)
and upgrading of the route between Peterborough
and Doncaster via Spalding and Lincoln (the ‘Joint
Line’) to allow more use by freight trains. These
schemes will improve performance, further reduce
journey times and primarily provide freight capacity
or capability benefits.
As well as the Joint Line, the programme includes
two other schemes in the RUS area. One is the North
Doncaster Chord scheme to provide a shorter route
for Immingham to Aire Valley traffic, which also
removes the conflict between these services and
long distance passenger and freight trains using
the Doncaster to York route. The second is a fourth
running line between Holgate Jn and York station,
and associated signalling enhancements, providing
improved capacity particularly for trains to and from
Leeds and addressing reactionary delay to services
caused by congestion at York.
Services between the North West and London
Euston will benefit from the increase in length of
some nine-car Class 390 trains to 11 cars which will
provide increased capacity on the busiest services.
Trains between Sheffield and London St Pancras will
see journey times improved by up to eight minutes
following a series of infrastructure improvements
along the route. The exact improvements for each
service will depend on its calling patterns and the
interaction with other services in the timetable.
Freight services
Additional freight services, as forecast in the Freight
RUS up to 2014, will be accommodated, with rerouteing where appropriate to take advantage of
new freight routeing opportunities such as those
provided by the recently upgraded Brigg line and the
North Doncaster Chord scheme.
10
Performance improvement
Performance improvement is targeted through a
reduction in reactionary delays, either in conjunction
with other interventions in the CP4 strategy,
renewals or where separate value for money and
affordable projects are achievable.
Electrification
The first phase of electrification of additional routes
in the North West is expected to be completed by
the end of CP4. The programme of electrification is
currently being developed.
Other projects promoted/funded by local
authorities/PTEs
In addition to those in the scope of the Tees Valley
Metro project, several new stations are being
promoted and/or funded by local authorities or
PTEs for opening in CP4. These are Apperley Bridge,
Kirkstall Forge, and Low Moor.
Medium-term strategy 2014 – 24
(CP5 and CP6)
Background
The strategy for the medium-term builds on that
proposed for CP4.
The general approach to deal with forecast growth
in passenger demand, especially in the peak
periods, will be further train lengthening. However,
on some corridors additional shuttle services
will provide a better use of resources and also
improve connectivity.
The strategy aims to improve connectivity
significantly between the cities and major towns of
the North, and also between them and other key
destinations such as Manchester Airport and cities in
other parts of Britain. This is expected to drive a step
change in economic activity for the north of England.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Therefore there will be a continuing need
for additional rolling stock, including electric
units to take advantage of later phases of the
electrification of routes in the North West. In
addition, by this time a number of existing rolling
stock fleets will be reaching life-expiry or becoming
due for a major mid-life overhaul, and the
commencement of replacement and refurbishment
programmes will create opportunities for
improvements in capacity, performance, fuel
efficiency and attractiveness to passengers.
Further growth on LDHS trains to London King’s
Cross and London St Pancras International, and on
cross country LDHS services will be met by a mixture
of longer trains and additional services as a result of
the introduction of a new fleet of LDHS rolling stock.
The strategy aims to improve
connectivity significantly between
the cities and major towns of the
North, and also between them and
other key destinations such as
Manchester Airport and cities
in other parts of Britain.
Freight capacity and capability will be increased
in line with requirements identified through the
SFN process.
Local services
There will be further train lengthening of local
services or the operation of additional peak shuttles,
where these provide better value for money, to meet
peak growth into Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester,
Liverpool and Sheffield as more rolling stock becomes
available. A programme of platform extensions will
be required to allow train lengthening on some lines.
Local services on various routes will be converted
to electric traction following the electrification of
additional lines in the North West and so will be
speeded up.
The improvements in track capacity in the
Manchester area proposed in the Northern Hub
project would allow more commuter and local
services to run throughout the day and for their
journey times to be improved.
Additional track capacity for the longer and
additional services, including those described
under interurban services below, operating into
Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield would be required.
The RUS recommends a number of infrastructure
enhancements in the Leeds area, while for Sheffield
and Liverpool planned signalling renewals provide
the opportunity to enhance the track layout.
Interurban services
The Northern Hub project provides track capacity
and linespeed improvements on a number of
corridors linking neighbouring cities and towns
to Manchester, and in the Manchester area itself,
would allow improvements in frequencies and
journey times of interurban services between
major cities right across the north of England. The
improvements in service frequency would assist with
providing capacity to meet growth as well. There
would be opportunities to improve links between
various northern cities and other key destinations,
including Manchester Airport. In particular, with any
necessary capacity improvements at Leeds, Sheffield
and Liverpool Lime Street, increased frequencies
will be possible between Manchester and Leeds and
beyond, between Manchester and Sheffield and
beyond, and between Liverpool and Manchester.
The Government has already committed funding
to three schemes within the programme which are
aimed at improving journey times and frequencies
between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and beyond.
Improved journey times will also be sought on other
interurban corridors, including between Leeds and
Sheffield via Barnsley (and onwards to the East
Midlands) and where signalling or other renewals
are due to be undertaken, for example on the route
out of Hull.
Long distance high speed services
For LDHS services between the North East, Yorkshire
and London the introduction of Intercity Express
Programme (IEP) rolling stock on the ECML and
aspirations for further Open Access passenger services
are likely to drive another major timetable change on
the ECML in December 2018 that will provide another
increase in capacity, and improved connectivity and
journey times. This will be supported by a further
programme of infrastructure enhancements.
LDHS services between Sheffield and London St
Pancras International, and cross country LDHS
services require further rolling stock to provide
sufficient capacity to meet growth.
Electrification
The remaining works in connection with
electrification of additional routes in the North West
are expected to be completed by the middle of
CP5. A timetable recast on the Bolton and Atherton
corridors will be needed to make best use of rolling
stock following electrification of the Blackpool
– Preston – Bolton – Manchester route, to meet
growth and connectivity requirements.
11
Executive summary
There would then be possible extension of the
electrified network within the RUS area, as identified
in the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy, covering
one or more of the following:
l
idland Main Line from Sheffield to Bedford
M
via Derby
l
Sheffield to Doncaster and/or South Kirkby Jn
l
Manchester – Leeds – Colton Jn/Hull
l
Northallerton – Middlesbrough
l
Windermere Branch
The electrification of further routes within the RUS
area would allow more electric units to be part of
this programme.
Freight services
Long-term context (CP7 and beyond)
Increased capacity for freight services will be needed
on those routes predicted to see a significant
increase in train path requirements in the SFN
forecasts, particularly between Immingham and
the Aire Valley, into the Trafford Park terminals and
on parts of the ECML. The former would require
improved planning headways between Immingham
and Scunthorpe in association with signalling
renewals. The middle one is provided for in the
Northern Hub project while the latter needs to be
addressed through delivery of the enhanced level of
LDHS services on the ECML described above.
The demand forecasts developed for this RUS show
an increase in peak demand to 2029 as high as
62 per cent into Leeds, 57 per cent into Liverpool,
66 per cent into Manchester, 56 per cent into
Newcastle and 56 per cent into Sheffield. All-day
passenger demand by 2029 on the interurban
corridors in Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 is forecast
to increase by 38 per cent to 52 per cent in the
high growth scenario, depending on the corridor.
The delivery of the service improvements made
possible by infrastructure enhancements such as the
Northern Hub, that aim to improve inter-regional
connectivity, would increase these substantially.
These figures would be higher still with further
national or local commitments to interventions
designed to encourage modal shift to rail.
The remaining routes identified by the SFN Steering
Group for further loading gauge enhancement
works are expected to be addressed in the medium
term. The electrification of further routes would help
provide the increased loading gauges on some lines.
Rolling stock
As well as the introduction of new LDHS rolling stock
mentioned above, new regional rolling stock will
12
be required to deal with growth, particularly in the
peaks, and improved connectivity across northern
England described in this strategy. This would be
part of a progressive programme of new build
and/or refurbishment, and cascade as a result of
electrification programmes, to provide the additional
vehicles required and to replace obsolete rolling
stock. Refranchising provides a suitable opportunity
to progress this.
The Government is developing High Speed 2 (HS2),
a new high speed line on the north-south axis
connecting London to the West Midlands and then
separating into two routes, one to Manchester,
and one to the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and
Leeds. It plans to complete HS2 in 2033. HS2 would
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
provide much reduced journey times and increased
frequency of services to London from key locations
in the North and thereby stimulate further economic
growth for the north of England. The ability to
connect from local and regional services directly into
the high speed services to London is likely to create
further growth on local and regional services.
All these point to a potential doubling of local and
regional passenger traffic by the end of the 2030s.
There are 2030 forecasts for freight derived through
the SFN process and these have been used to identify
those routes where the increase in freight path
requirements is most significant. Not surprisingly,
these are generally on the core national arteries
connecting the ports, the Channel Tunnel and
regional distribution centres as the major contributor
to rail freight growth is intermodal traffic.
The RUS provides a high level assessment of what
a doubling of local and regional passenger traffic,
and delivering the freight path requirements for the
SFN 2030 forecasts, could mean for the RUS area.
In order to accommodate a doubling of commuter
journeys on each rail corridor, the short to mediumterm strategy of either train lengthening or additional
services gives the foundation for the longer term.
Continued growth could be addressed largely through
progressive train lengthening both of existing services
and the ‘peak-busting’ additional services described
in the short and medium-term strategies.
The network capacity to allow a doubling of the
other regional passenger markets in the north of
England would be provided by the Northern Hub
project and by increasing the capacity through
Leeds and east thereof, through Sheffield and
north/east thereof, and into Liverpool Lime Street.
The high speed services will use the existing
stations at Manchester Piccadilly (at least until
completion of the HS2 route into Manchester) and
Liverpool Lime Street and may use the existing
stations in Leeds and Sheffield. There will be a need
to examine the capacity issues at these stations
and on the approaches, how significantly longer
trains could be accommodated, and how to provide
connections to other routes. If new stations are
built to accommodate the high speed services,
there will need to be consideration of how these
are connected to the ‘classic’ rail network. Network
is working with HS2 Ltd and the DfT on these
interface issues.
In the longer term, track capacity in the Leeds
station area may again become a major constraint
in dealing with passenger growth within and
into West Yorkshire. How services from HS2 will
be handled in the Leeds station area will have a
big impact on whether this would assist with the
provision of capacity for other services.
Freight growth requires the provision of additional
freight paths on the key freight arteries through the
RUS area, including associated diversionary routes.
Those arteries where increased capacity would be
the most challenging are:
l
Rotherham – Swinton – Moorthorpe – Hare Park Jn
l
Doncaster – Colton Jn.
The first of these corridors will require the fourtracking of significant sections and improvements
to junction layouts but these will have benefits
for other types of freight traffic growth, increased
passenger services, train performance improvement
and moving towards a Seven Day Railway. If
HS2 services were to take many of the passenger
journeys between Yorkshire and the East and West
Midlands off the existing network then the capacity
issues on this corridor might be resolved.
The other corridor requires solutions to future
routeing of passenger and freight traffic through the
Doncaster station area, which could lead to a major
upgrade of the network in this area when signalling
renewals become due. However, with the transfer of
passenger journeys between London and Yorkshire,
the North East and eastern Scotland to HS2,
pressure would be relieved on the Doncaster station
area, and between Doncaster and Colton Jn.
A further significant benefit of HS2 would be the
release of a large amount of capacity on the
existing north-south routes, which would support
a number of market areas such as further growth
in journeys from locations that would not be close
to the high speed route to London, further freight
growth on the existing core intermodal freight
arteries and opportunities for new direct services
between cities and towns in the north of England
and other locations in Great Britain.
In summary, the completion of HS2 will provide
a step change in the capacity and journey times
for trains connecting key city areas in the north of
England with the Midlands and London. The highlevel strategy to deliver the type of growth that
could be expected for local and regional passenger
traffic and forecast freight growth in the longer
term should be a mixture of enhancements to the
existing rail network and making best use of rail
corridors that have capacity freed up by traffic
moving onto HS2. The exact balance between the
two will depend on the routeing of the latter and
how it relates to the existing network and therefore
which current major passenger flows would transfer
to it. This would determine how the capacity of the
existing routes could then be best used to cater for
the remaining passenger flows and freight traffic.
Next steps
The RUS will become established 60 days after
publication unless the Office of Rail Regulation
issues a notice of objection within this period.
13
1. Background
1.1 Introduction to Route Utilisation
Strategies (RUSs)
1.1.1
Following the Rail Review in 2004 and the Railways
Act 2005, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)
modified Network Rail’s network licence in June
2005 to require the establishment and maintenance
of RUSs across the network. Simultaneously, ORR
published guidelines on RUSs and both of these
documents were then updated and reissued on
1 April 2009. A RUS is defined in Condition 1 of the
network licence as, in respect of the network1 or a
part of the network, a strategy which will promote
the route utilisation objective.
1.1.2
The route utilisation objective is defined as:
“the effective and efficient use and development
of the capacity available on the network,
consistent with the funding that is, or is likely to
become, available during the period of the route
utilisation strategy and with the licence holder’s
performance of the duty.”
Extract from Network Licence Condition 1,
April 2009
1.1.3
The ORR guidelines explain how Network Rail
should consider the position of the railway funding
authorities, their statements, key outputs and
any options they should wish to be tested. Such
strategies should address:
“• network capacity and railway
service performance
• train and station capacity including
crowding issues
• the trade-offs between different uses of the
network (e.g. between different types of
passenger and freight services)
• rolling stock issues including deployment,
train capacity and capability, depot and
stabling facilities
• how maintenance and renewals work can
be carried out while minimising disruption
to the network
• opportunities from using new technology
• opportunities to improve safety.”
Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation Strategies,
April 2009
1.1.4
The guidelines also set out principles for RUS
scope, time period and processes to be followed
and assumptions to be made. Network Rail has
developed a RUS manual which consists of a
consultation guide and a technical guide. These
explain the processes used to comply with the
Licence Condition and guidelines. These and
other documents relating to individual RUSs and
the overall RUS programme are available at
www.networkrail.co.uk
1.1.5
The ORR guidelines require options to be appraised.
This is initially undertaken using the Department for
Transport’s (DfT’s) appraisal criteria, though bespoke
analysis will be used where shown to be necessary.
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 benefit,
rather than that of any individual organisation or
affected group.
1Defined in Network Rail’s Licence Condition 1 as 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
14
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
1.1.6
1.2 RUS principles
RUSs occupy a particular place in the planning
activity for the rail industry. They utilise available
input from processes such as the DfT’s Regional
Planning Assessments and, for the period to 2014,
the 2007 High Level Output Specification (HLOS).
The recommendations of a RUS and the evidence of
relationships and dependencies revealed in the work
to produce them form an input to decisions made
by industry funders and suppliers on issues such as
franchise specifications and investment plans. In
particular, RUSs form an essential building block
of the Initial Industry Plans2 (IIPs), which are a
precursor to the 2012 HLOS and Statement of
Funds Available (SOFA) which set out what outputs
the Government want to buy in Control Period 5
(2014 – 19) and define the level of expenditure
available for rail.
RUSs examine the rail network at a specific point
in time and identify where it will not be able to
accommodate forecast demand. This is primarily
in terms of capacity, but RUSs also consider
performance and connectivity. Where the demand
cannot be accommodated (defined as a gap), RUSs
seek to find a solution (defined as an option). The
general principle adopted in RUSs has been to
consider simpler and lower cost interventions before
turning to more complex and expensive solutions.
In the first instance, optimising use of existing
infrastructure is examined and timetabling solutions
are usually sought as preferable to infrastructure
works, subject to there being no unacceptable
performance impact. The various options are then
evaluated using the DfT’s appraisal criteria and
recommendations made.
1.1.7
1.3 RUS governance
Network Rail will take account of the recommendations
from RUSs when carrying out its activities. In particular,
they will be used to help inform the allocation of
capacity on the network through application of the
normal Network Code processes.
The RUS process is designed to be inclusive. Joint
work is encouraged between industry parties, who
share ownership of each RUS through its industry
Stakeholder Management Group (SMG). Detailed
analysis is undertaken in industry Working Groups.
There is also informal consultation outside the rail
industry by means of rail user group workshops and
wider stakeholder group briefings.
2Replaces the Initial Strategic Business Plan (ISBP)
15
1. Background
1.4 Second generation RUSs
1.5 About this document
The Network Licence requires RUSs to be both
established and maintained. Network Rail has
published a number of RUSs which, at least in part,
cover the north of England:
This strategy has been developed based on input
from stakeholders from within and outwith the
rail industry, and comprehensive appraisal and
analysis work.
Freight RUS, established May 2007
l
North West RUS, established July 2007
l
East Coast Main Line RUS, established
April 2008
l
Merseyside RUS, established May 2009
l
Yorkshire and Humber RUS, established
September 2009
Chapter 4 describes the gap identification process,
the strategic gaps considered by the Northern RUS
and the options appraised.
l
Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, established
October 2009
Chapter 5 summarises the consultation responses
received in reply to the draft RUS.
l
Network RUS: Electrification Strategy,
established December 2009.
Chapter 6 summarises the strategy for the north of
England resulting from work done in this RUS and
the established RUSs listed above.
Since the original strategies, a number of significant
infrastructure and service changes to the railways in
the north of England have either occurred or have
been announced as funded. In order to fulfil its
obligations to maintain established RUSs, Network Rail
is therefore publishing a series of second generation
RUSs, of which this Northern RUS is the first.
These strategies will take into account the relevant
recommendations from previous RUSs, identifying
where major changes have occurred (and are likely
to occur during the current control period) and
assessing interventions which may be required
in order to accommodate passenger and freight
demand to 2024. In line with other recently
published RUSs, the strategy will also look further
ahead and consider some of the interventions that
may be required over the next 30 years.
16
Chapter 2 describes the scope of the RUS and the
planning context in which it is written.
l
Chapter 3 details the passenger demand forecasts
and the Strategic Freight Network forecasts which
were used in this RUS.
Chapter 7 describes the next steps in the RUS process.
Inverness
2. Scope and planning context
Aberdeen
Fort
William
2.1 Introduction
already been considered in other RUSs and so has an
established set of recommended interventions. This
RUS reviews those interventions, and relevant ones in
the Freight and Network RUSs, in the light of demand
forecasts over a longer timeframe and what has
happened since these RUSs were published. It only
considers issues where there has been a change
in circumstance since the original recommendations
were made. The RUS also contains a high-level longterm strategy; something that a number of the earlier
RUSs did not have.
Dundee
Perth
This chapter details the scope of the Northern Route
Utilisation Strategy (RUS), its purpose, timeframe,
the planning context in which it is set, and the
linkages to other studies.
Glasgow
2.2 Northern RUS scope
Apart from the Freight and
Network RUSs, the first
Edinburgh
generation of RUSs all had a specific geographic
scope to consider when identifying gaps and options.
As part of the second generation, the Northern RUS
does not have a strict geographic scope to consider
but broadly covers the north of England. This area has
Figure 2.1 shows broadly the railway in the
north of England.
Figure 2.1 – Railway in the north of England
Newcastle
Carlisle
Middlesbrough
Darlington
Barrowin-Furness
York
Blackpool
Leeds
Bradford
Hull
Preston
Doncaster
Manchester
Liverpool
Sheffield
Holyhead
Chester
Crewe
Derby
Nottingham
Shrewsbury
Leicester
Peterborough
Birmingham
Coventry
Worcester
17
2. Scope and planning context
2.3 Northern RUS timeframe
and purpose
2.3.1 Timeframe
Network Rail is funded in five-year control periods.
The baseline for this RUS is the expected position at
the end of Control Period 4 (CP4) which is the period
from April 2009 to March 2014.
The ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’ Government
White Paper was published in July 2007. This
included a High Level Output Specification (HLOS)
for CP4, specifying the safety, capacity and
performance outputs that the Government required
the rail industry to deliver by 2014. Table 2.1 details
the CP4 HLOS peak capacity requirements for urban
centres in the north of England. In January 2008,
the Department for Transport (DfT) also published
a Rolling Stock Plan that indicated the number of
additional vehicles likely to be available for meeting
capacity growth across the network.
Table 2.1 – CP4 HLOS peak capacity requirements for urban centres in the north of England
as published in 2007
Extra
demand to
be met by
2013/14
Maximum
average load
factor at end
CP4
Forecast
demand in
2008/09
Extra
demand to
be met by
2013/14
Maximum
average load
factor at end
CP4
Leeds
23,400
5,100
64%
11,300
2,700
70%
Central Manchester
22,100
4,100
45%
10,700
2,200
49%
Other urban areas
(including Sheffield,
Newcastle and Liverpool
(excluding Merseyrail
network))
27,700
3,600
41%
12,300
2,000
46%
Urban centre
18
Morning high-peak hour
Forecast
demand in
2008/09
Morning peak three hours
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Network Rail’s CP4 Delivery Plan was published in
June 2009 and subsequently updated in March and
June 2010, with further updates generated through a
rail industry change control mechanism. It states how
Network Rail aims to deliver the outputs specified
within the HLOS. The relevant CP4 enhancement
schemes that are currently included in the 2014
baseline for this RUS are contained in Chapter 6.
This RUS also goes beyond current train operator
franchises, and therefore aims to inform the next
round of franchising in the north of England.
The strategy to deliver the 2007 HLOS for CP4 is
reliant upon there being additional rolling stock
available. The strategy outlined in Chapter 6 takes
account of the most recent developments in this area,
recognising that discussion between the DfT and
some operators is still ongoing.
2.4.1 Established first generation RUSs
Those interventions that were previously
recommended by RUSs for CP4 which are not fully
implemented by the end of the control period
become part of the strategy beyond 2014.
Additionally, in 2009 the Government announced
the electrification of a number of routes in the
North West, known as the Lancashire Triangle, to be
completed in phases during CP4 and Control Period 5
(CP5). This programme of electrification comprises
the following routes: Liverpool to Manchester via
Huyton and Earlestown, Huyton to Wigan via St.
Helens Central, Manchester to Preston via Bolton
and Preston to Blackpool North. The electrification
of these routes is considered a committed scheme
following confirmation of funding in 2010 and so is
part of the baseline of this RUS.
More recently, in March 2011, the Government
announced the funding of some of the
interventions that comprise the Northern Hub
project (see section 2.4.5 below). The committed
infrastructure comprises Ordsall Chord (a new
section of track linking Manchester Victoria to
Manchester Piccadilly), track layout improvements
at Manchester Victoria and linespeed improvements
between Stalybridge and Manchester Victoria. This
work is funded for implementation around 2016.
Though this infrastructure is committed (subject
to planning consents being obtained), apart from
changes to north cross-Pennine trains the consequent
service patterns have yet to be decided. Therefore,
this RUS has made an initial assessment of the effect
of the Orsdall Chord and associated projects and
this has been reflected in the findings of this RUS.
However, more detailed work, including the service
patterns on affected corridors, is being carried out as
part of the Northern Hub project.
2.3.2 Purpose of the RUS
This RUS, along with the first generation of RUSs,
is designed to inform the next HLOS in 2012 by
feeding into the Initial Industry Plan (IIP)1 for
England and Wales, which is being published in
September 2011, to inform funders and the ORR
of the possible range of outputs and costs for the
railway in CP5 and the longer term.
1
2.4 Links to other studies
The Northern RUS cannot be considered in isolation
and fits within a wider context of transport planning
and other studies and workstreams.
As mentioned above, the area covered by this RUS
has already been considered in a number of RUSs.
They are:
l
Freight RUS, established May 2007
l
North West RUS, established July 2007
l
East Coast Main Line RUS, established April 2008
l
Merseyside RUS, established May 2009
l
Yorkshire and Humber RUS, established
September 2009
l
Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, established
October 2009
l
Network RUS: Electrification Strategy,
established December 2009
l
Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance
Forecasts, established August 2009.
The recommendations in these RUSs have
been re-examined in the light of subsequent
changes, including:
l
interventions planned in CP4
l
new passenger demand forecasts covering the
period to 2024
l
Strategic Freight Network (SFN) freight growth
forecasts for 2019 and 2030
l
the Government’s announcement of electrification
of some further routes in the North West
l
the tram-train trial being moved from the
Sheffield – Huddersfield route to that between
Rotherham and Tinsley (and onto the local tram
network in Sheffield)
l
subsequent RUSs affecting some previous
recommendations.
More information on these changes and how they
have informed the gap identification process can
be found in Chapter 4. The recommendations
made by the first generation RUSs that are not
affected by the above remain valid and have not
been re-examined by this RUS. They are detailed
in Appendix A.
Replacing the Initial Strategic Business Plan, along with an Initial Industry Plan for Scotland.
19
2. Scope and planning context
2.4.2 Network RUS
The Network RUS is split into four workstreams, two
of which (Scenarios and Long Distance Services, and
the Electrification Strategy) are already established.
Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance
Forecasts
The Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance
Forecasts document considers passenger and
freight long distance demand over 30 years. The
RUS provides four scenarios for demand, based on
alternative economic and environmental futures,
two of which were used in forecasting long distance
flows for the Northern RUS, more details of which
can be found in Chapter 3.
Network RUS: Electrification Strategy
The Network RUS: Electrification Strategy looked at
potential electrification schemes across the network,
focusing on the benefits associated with reducing
the ongoing cost to the country of the railway
and the environmental benefits associated with
electrification. It then identified a core strategy and
a series of further schemes based on these criteria.
The outputs of the Electrification Strategy were
included in the review undertaken to identify the
gaps for this RUS.
Network RUS: Stations
The Network RUS: Stations document looks at the
passenger capacity of stations across the national
network. It provides a prioritised shortlist of stations
that require interventions, as agreed by an industry
working group, and describes a toolkit of solutions
that can be adopted to solve a variety of capacity
constraints at stations. Network RUS: Stations was
published as a Draft for Consultation in May 2011.
Appendix B discusses passenger capacity at stations
across the Northern RUS area.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock and Depots
The Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock and
Depots workstream will produce two documents.
The Passenger Rolling Stock document takes a
whole-industry approach to planning the interaction
between new or refurbished rolling stock and
the infrastructure which it runs over. It considers
the appropriate rolling stock for each key market
sector and where appropriate it considers how the
infrastructure would require investment to enable
appropriate rolling stock to operate. The Network
RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock document was
published as a Draft for Consultation in May 2011.
The Depots document will provide guidelines on
future depot requirements. It will concentrate on
how the choice of depot location can influence
capacity utilisation.
20
Network RUS: Alternative Solutions to Delivering
Passenger Demand More Efficiently
The Network RUS: Alternative Solutions to Delivering
Passenger Demand More Efficiently will present a
number of alternative solutions to carrying future
passenger demand on some parts of the network
more effectively. It will build on existing geographic
RUSs and the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy
and Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock and
will focus on consideration of tram train and light
rail conversion, alternative methods of delivery of
electric traction on lower traffic density lines and
community involvement in operating the railway.
2.4.3 East Coast Main Line 2016
Capacity Review
The East Coast Main Line RUS was established in
April 2008. The industry then undertook a piece of
work in 2010 which examined the likely capacity
requirements of the route in 2016 and looked at the
trade-offs that could be made in different service
scenarios. A report was published for consultation in
August 2010 and the final document was published
in December 2010. The findings of the East Coast
Main Line 2016 Capacity Review are discussed
further in Chapter 6.
2.4.4 West Coast Main Line RUS
The West Coast Main Line RUS is currently in
development and covers the core West Coast
Main Line route from London Euston to Carstairs,
Manchester and Liverpool and affects the north
of England. The West Coast Main Line RUS is
considering connectivity and capacity on the route
and was published as a Draft for Consultation in
December 2010, with the final RUS to be published
in July 2011.
2.4.5 The Northern Hub
In October 2007 the Department for Transport
Minister of State, responding to work by the
Northern Way, asked Network Rail to undertake a
study to develop proposals to enhance the capacity
and functionality of the rail network in and around
Manchester, referred to as the ‘Manchester Hub’.
The Manchester Hub is seen as a major constraint to
developing rail services across the north of England.
The Manchester Hub Study was undertaken in
two phases. Phase one, led by the Northern Way,
identified the economic case for enhancement to
rail services into and passing through Manchester
that would drive economic growth for the north of
England, described as conditional outputs.
Phase two, led by Network Rail, identified value for
money interventions to address the gaps between the
capability of the network in 2014 and the capability
required to deliver the conditional outputs.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
The recommended interventions provide many of
the outputs the Northern Way identified, including
increased inter- and intra-regional connectivity,
improved freight capacity and capability, journey
times and performance. This ongoing project is now
titled the Northern Hub and more information on
both the Manchester Hub Study and the Northern
Hub can be found at www.networkrail.co.uk and is
further discussed in Chapters 4 and 6.
As mentioned in section 2.3.1, some aspects of the
Northern Hub proposals were recently funded for
implementation in 2016. The Northern Hub project
continues to develop the service proposition that
will be in place after 2016 and the other aspects
of the Northern Hub portfolio which remain under
consideration for future funding.
2.4.6 Merseyside Long-Term
Planning Study
The Merseyside RUS, which was established
in May 2009, identified a number of potential
future problems of a magnitude that can only
be addressed through radical changes to the rail
infrastructure and/or pattern of services on the DC2
electrified network in Merseyside. The unique way
in which rail services in Merseyside are franchised
has allowed the industry to work in partnership to
seek solutions that make a major contribution to the
economy of the area, through a Long-Term Planning
Study jointly led by Merseytravel, Merseyrail and
Network Rail. This study commenced in August
2009, and is due to be completed this summer.
In light of this study, the Northern RUS has not
reviewed the parts of the Merseyside RUS that cover
the DC electrified network.
2.4.7 Strategic Freight Network
The SFN is a proposed network of core trunk
and diversionary freight routes, as agreed by an
industry steering group, with sufficient capacity and
appropriate loading gauge to carry the expected
growth of major flows of freight. Subject to
acceptable business cases, the core network would
ultimately be expected to:
l
have sufficient capacity for growth with possibly
a few high capacity lines
l
have limited conflicts between passenger and
freight traffic by using avoiding lines and grade
separation
l
provide for longer trains
l
provide for appropriate axle loads
l
have appropriate loading gauge for the traffic
that needs to use it
l
include defined diversionary routes where
possible for each core route with the objective
of providing the necessary availability whenever
operators wish to use the network.
2
Network Rail leads the SFN work and as part of its
remit developed sets of forecasts for freight traffic in
2019 and 2030 which were used when identifying
the gaps in this RUS.
2.4.8 New Lines Programme
In summer 2008 Network Rail commenced its
New Lines Programme, examining the case for the
development of one or more new lines as an option
to meet the need for increased capacity on routes
radiating from London. The first phase of the New
Lines Programme, which was completed in August
2009, established the business case for a new
high speed line connecting the main conurbations
between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh currently
served by the West Coast Main Line. The second
phase of the study examined the case for a new
line to Leeds and found that there was a case for
such a programme to be taken forward.
2.4.9 HS2 Ltd
In January 2009 the previous Government set up
High Speed 2 Ltd (HS2 Ltd) to develop a detailed
proposal for a line from London to Birmingham
(the ‘day one’ scheme). The proposed strategy for
High Speed Rail was established in a Command
Paper presented to Parliament and published in
March 2010. The Command Paper sets out the
case for a British high speed rail network. The core
strategy comprises a core Y-shaped high speed
rail network between London and Birmingham/
Manchester/Leeds capable of carrying trains at
speeds of up to 250mph. The Command Paper
states that a London to West Midlands route would
be the first stage of the new high speed rail network.
In February 2011 the DfT launched a public
consultation of the detail of the day one scheme
and the overall high speed strategy. The Y-shaped
network remains as the core strategy with the
addition of a link between HS2 and HS1 and a
spur to Heathrow once the Y-shaped network is in
place. HS2 Ltd is currently developing the rest of
the Y-shaped network (to Manchester and Leeds)
to a similar level of detail.
The DC network is that in Merseyside which is electrified at 750V DC over which services are currently operated by Merseyrail.
21
2. Scope and planning context
22
2.4.10 Local Transport Plans
2.4.11 Community Rail Partnerships
Passenger Transport Executives, Integrated
Transport Authorities and local authorities with a
responsibility for public transport produce Local
Transport Plans (LTPs) which cover all modes of
transport. These set out interventions that they fund
themselves, how the transport needs of their areas
are supported by schemes funded by other parties
and their vision for the future. These are normally
formulated in consultation with rail industry
members and rail schemes funded through LTPs
form part of the rail industry planning framework.
Many authorities published their most recent LTPs in
April 2011, though some are still being updated for
publication later this year.
There are several Community Rail Partnerships
(CRPs) in the north of England covering various
lines and services throughout the RUS area.
CRPs are a link between the railway and local
communities. They propose positive development,
bringing together a wide range of interests along
the rail corridor. Some partnerships have enabled
significant increases in the use of rail through
innovative marketing, improved services and
better station facilities. The work of CRPs includes
improving bus links to stations, developing walking
and cycling routes, restoring station buildings,
art and education projects and organising
special events which promote the railway and
its relevance to the community.
3. Forecast changes in demand
3.1 Passenger demand forecasts
3.1.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodology and results
of the Northern Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)
passenger demand forecasting process. The
forecasts run to 2029, using 2014 as a reference
case, and have informed the gap identification
process and subsequent appraisal of options to
address these gaps.
3.1.2 Context of methodology
Recent industry studies, including RUSs, have
demonstrated that industry standard models tend to
under-predict growth in passenger demand in some
of the main regional centres covered by the RUS
area. This is particularly true of demand for season
tickets and therefore, affects the validity of peak
demand forecasts into the five Northern High Level
Output Specification (HLOS)1 cities (Manchester,
Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle). The
challenge is to understand the drivers of rail demand
into these cities and project these drivers into
the future.
The UK was in a recession from the second quarter
of 2008 until the third quarter of 2009 and the
effect on future rail demand is still unclear. However,
the most recent data suggests that in many rail
sectors demand continued to increase during the
recession and demonstrates high growth in the postrecession recovery period. This could be a result of
many factors such as high levels of modal shift from
car to rail as a result of short-term changes in petrol
prices or increased road congestion.
In 2010 the Department for Transport (DfT)
announced a change in policy on regulated fares.
From 2012 to 2014 train operators may choose
to increase the price of their regulated fares by
RPI + 3%. After 2014, regulated fares are expected
to increase by RPI + 1%.
1
A forecast has been produced for every flow on the
network that contributes to demand within the RUS
area. Flows have been categorised into long and
short distance markets and a different forecasting
method has been used for each category. This is
because short distance travel is driven by a different
set of factors to long distance travel. The impact of
committed service improvements on demand has
been estimated and included in the forecasts to the
end of Control Period 4 (CP4).
High and low growth scenarios have been produced.
The high growth scenario – which for short
distance flows represents an improvement from
the traditional Passenger Demand Forecasting
Handbook (PDFH) methodology – has been used to
identify gaps and formed the central case for growth
at the option appraisal stage. The low growth
forecast has been used to show a comparison
between the method taken forward and the
traditional PDFH method.
3.1.3 Short distance methodology
Consultants were commissioned to develop a set
of growth forecasts for short distance flows for
the Northern RUS. This ensured consistency with
the revised demand forecasts for the Northern
HLOS growth study, which seeks to understand the
operator vehicle requirements in the North, which
were produced on behalf of the DfT.
This methodology was used for flows of less than
50 miles. Two sets of forecasts have been produced.
A low forecast, which has been developed using
standard PDFH forecasting drivers and a high
forecast, which includes outputs from the DfT
Northern HLOS growth study. Specifically this
includes additional demand drivers derived from
regression analysis and back-casting to explain the
difference between observed and forecast growth in
the north of England, evident since the early 2000s.
The Department for Transport’s High Level Output Specification, which specifies the rail industry outputs that need to be delivered
within a control period.
23
3. Forecast changes in demand
Drivers of demand
The high and low growth scenarios use the same set
of demand drivers listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 – Drivers of demand
PDFH exogenous demand drivers
Source
fares
standard DfT assumptions taking account of the change
in pricing policy from 2012 to 2014.
Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita
Oxford Economics Forecast Update for Passenger Demand
Forecasting Council (PDFC) Members, December 2009.
employment
Oxford Economics Forecast Update for Passenger Demand
Forecasting Council (PDFC) Members, December 2009.
population
TEMPRO2
car ownership
TEMPRO
fuel cost
standard DfT assumptions
car journey time
standard DfT assumptions
air cost
standard DfT assumptions
air headway
standard DfT assumptions
bus cost
standard DfT assumptions
bus journey time
standard DfT assumptions
bus headway
standard DfT assumptions
London Underground Limited (LUL) cost
standard DfT assumptions
Recent studies of rail growth in the north of
England have identified city-wide car parking cost
and the proportion of employment in office-based
sectors to explain peak growth to (and between)
the urban centres. This is significant for season
ticket journeys where the difference between
PDFH forecasts and recent observed growth is
most pronounced.
Population
Figure 3.1 represents the forecast population
growth rate from 2009 in the five major HLOS cities.
Figure 3.1 – Forecast population growth rate per annum in the five major Northern HLOS cities
Leeds
Liverpool
2.0%
Population growth per annum
Manchester
Newcastle
Sheffield
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
Newcastle
1.5%
Sheffield
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2009
2014
2019
Year
2
24
TEMPRO is the DfT’s demographic forecasting data.
2024
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
GVA per capita
GVA per capita is a measure of economic growth
and is related to demand for business and leisure
trips. Figure 3.2 illustrates the forecast rate of
growth in GVA per capita from 2009. GVA per capita
is expected to decline in 2009, followed by a period
of high growth representing recovery from 2010 to
2018 with steady growth from 2018 onwards.
Figure 3.2 – Forecast rate of GVA per capita growth per annum in the five major
Northern HLOS cities
Leeds
Manchester
Newcastle
Sheffield
GVA per capita growth per annum
Liverpool
3%
Leeds
Liverpool
2%
Manchester
Newcastle
1%
Sheffield
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
-6%
2009
2014
2019
2024
Year
Employment
Employment is related to demand for commuting
trips. Figure 3.3 illustrates the forecast rate of
annual growth in employment from 2009 in the
five major HLOS cities. Employment is expected to
decline from 2009 to 2010/11 with a period of high
growth representing recovery from 2012 to 2018
and steady growth from 2018 onwards.
Figure 3.3 – Forecast rate of growth in employment per annum in the five major
Northern HLOS cities
Leeds
Liverpool
Newcastle
Sheffield
1.5%
Employment growth per annum
Manchester
Leeds
Liverpool
1.0%
Manchester
0.5%
Newcastle
0.0%
Sheffield
-0.5%
-1.0%
-1.5%
-2.0%
-2.5%
-3.0%
-3.5%
2009
2014
2019
2024
Year
25
3. Forecast changes in demand
Structural change
Car parking
Structural change describes a shift in employment
from primary (mining, forestry etc) and secondary
(manufacturing) industry into office based sectors
that tend to locate in the central business districts
of large cities. City centre workers are more likely to
commute by rail because of the natural competitive
advantages of heavy rail in transporting high
numbers of people into central locations.
Car parking data has been obtained for Leeds,
Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield which shows
that there have been large sustained real increases
in car parking costs in recent years, with smoothed
real growth rates of five to six per cent per annum
observed in Manchester and Leeds.
For the season ticket market, regression analysis
suggests that real changes in car parking costs
have a statistically significant relationship with rail
passenger growth, with an elasticity value just over
one. It is likely that this relationship is masking
structural change in the city centres and is acting
as a proxy for wider changes, such as restrictions on
long-stay parking supply and increased density of
office-based employment.
Table 3.2 demonstrates that there has been a shift
towards office-based sectors, with the exception of
Newcastle (derived from Annual Business Inquiry
data). Table 3.3 shows the assumed forecast growth
in structural change. For the high forecasts the
recently observed rates of structural change are
assumed to continue during CP4 in all urban areas,
and then reduce to PDFH (ie. no further structural
change) over Control Period 5 (CP5) and Control
Period 6 (CP6) based upon the above achieved rates
of 2009 structural change and an upper limit that
represents a saturation point.
Table 3.2 – S
tructural change (percentage of city centre workers employed in
office-based employment)
City
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Leeds
64.57%
66.40%
68.23%
68.47%
72.97%
75.67%
75.55%
77.37%
Liverpool
60.46%
61.25%
62.03%
63.35%
67.50%
64.37%
65.17%
65.96%
Manchester
56.06%
58.47%
60.89%
62.75%
63.80%
70.09%
70.55%
72.96%
Newcastle
62.71%
61.78%
60.86%
56.95%
58.82%
58.46%
57.15%
56.22%
Sheffield
65.05%
65.89%
66.73%
67.40%
68.18%
68.87%
70.09%
70.92%
Table 3.3 – Forecast annual percentage increase in structural change
26
City
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Leeds
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Liverpool
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Manchester
1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Newcastle
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Sheffield
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Table 3.4 shows the forecast annual real increase in
car parking costs in the five major HLOS cities of the
North. For the high forecasts it has been predicted
that car parking costs rise at an average RPI + 3% for
CP4 in all urban areas, then decrease to PDFH (ie. no
real increase in costs) over CP5 and CP6, based upon
rates of structural change to 2009. As Table 3.4
shows, the decrease would begin earliest with Leeds,
followed by Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and
Newcastle, reflecting rates of structural change
already achieved.
Table 3.4 – Forecast real car parking cost increases
City
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Leeds
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Liverpool
3.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
Manchester
3.0%
2.6%
2.2%
1.8%
1.5%
1.1%
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Newcastle
3.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
Sheffield
3.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
3.1.4 Impact of fares policy
In 2010, after the Northern RUS Draft for
Consultation was published, the DfT announced a
change in policy on regulated fares. In 2012, 2013
and 2014, train operators may choose to increase
the price of their regulated fares by RPI + 3%
instead of RPI + 1%. If the operator chooses to, this
will change the real price of tickets by 6.1 per cent
over the three-year period. Using standard price
elasticities from PDFH, this gives an expected
reduction in demand of around three to four per
cent compared with the growth forecasts in the
Northern RUS Draft for Consultation. This reduction
will have a small, and in many cases negligible,
impact on the capacity required to meet a gap,
but may change the results of an appraisal. For
completeness, the analysis in this RUS takes account
of this change.
3.1.5 Long distance methodology
The Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance
Forecasts document was used to forecast demand
on flows with a straight line distance of over
50 miles. Chapters 7 and 8 of that document
describe the demand drivers and the methodology
in detail. Figure 3.4 outlines the demand drivers of
the two chosen scenarios.
One (top left) reflects an optimistic high growth
scenario that assumes rail’s competitive position
improves and its market share increases. The other
(bottom right) represents a pessimistic scenario
where rail’s competitive position stays roughly the
same as now and growth is driven by relatively
modest changes in the drivers of the size of the
long distance travel market.
Market share and market size were estimated
separately and the key drivers of passenger demand
were categorised according to whether they impact
upon market size, market share or both.
To estimate the future size of the long distance
market the population of Great Britain was
segmented by geographical area, household
structure and income band. Then, analysis of the
National Travel Survey (NTS) was undertaken to
relate drivers of market size to the propensity to
undertake long distance trips by market segment.
The forecast of rail’s share of the long distance
market has been determined by making
assumptions about the relative attractiveness of rail
compared to other modes in the two scenarios.
Therefore, the demand for long distance rail
journeys is derived from the size of the long distance
travel market and rail’s share in that market.
27
3. Forecast changes in demand
3.1.6 Service improvements in CP4
MOIRA (the industry standard demand modelling
tool) was used to estimate the effect of committed
service improvements in CP4 on demand, including:
l
The East Coast Main Line 2011 timetable
l
Leeds to Liverpool linespeed improvements
l
Northern Rail operational plan2
l
Network Rail’s committed performance
trajectory for CP4.
The impact of committed service improvements at
an aggregate level is relatively small.
Some routes in the study area will be electrified
in CP4 and CP5. Anecdotally, substituting diesel
vehicles for electric results in an increase in
passenger demand. This is generally caused by
reduced journey times from faster acceleration and
a more comfortable environment for passengers.
Not enough information is known about the
improvements in the acceleration characteristics of
the rolling stock over the newly electrified routes or
whether it will translate into improved journey times
and the effect of a more comfortable environment
for passengers is very difficult to quantify. Therefore,
the impact of electrification on passenger demand
has not been taken into account.
Figure 3.4 – D
rivers of long distance demand by scenario
Sustainable agenda
• Relatively high economic growth
• Moderate increase in UK energy prices
• High technological innovation and intervention
• Migration is managed to acceptable levels
• Distance from market becomes a significant
factor in business decisions
• Social equality and opportunities drive
government policy
• Industry regionalises with continued importance
of London.
Global player
Decentralisation
• Modest economic growth
• Significant increase in energy price
• Technological innovation hampered by
lack of international cooperation
• Moderate inward migration
• Improved quality of life
• Limited regionalisation of cities with ties
to London as the major conurbation
Unabated consumption
2
28
The Northern Rail operation plan refers to peak service frequency improvements to provide additional capacity.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
3.1.7 Summary of results
The forecasts by flow can be aggregated in many
different ways. Where appropriate, flows have been
aggregated to produce forecasts at a route and
service level to identify gaps. Similar aggregations
of flows have been used to produce forecasts at the
option appraisal stages of the RUS. The following
tables and graphs give a summary of the forecasts.
The base year for passenger data is the financial
year 2008/09. Table 3.5 shows forecast growth in
peak demand into the five HLOS cities on all services.
Forecasts on local services
Table 3.6 shows expected growth in demand into the
five HLOS cities on local services (services currently
run by Northern Rail have been used as a proxy for
local services).
The effect of the recession is taken as a four to five
per cent decrease in GVA per capita in 2009/10,
very low growth in 2010/11 and slightly higher than
average growth in 2011 to 2014 to reflect recovery,
with corresponding figures for employment over
this period. Therefore, growth in CP5 is highest
as estimated economic growth is strong and the
structural shift drivers that affect the high growth
scenario will have only just begun to reduce. This
reduction ends by around 2024, when annual
growth decreases to that of the low scenario. The
uplift of demand from a PDFH base is highest in the
season ticket market as a result of structural shift.
Therefore, growth will be high in markets where
the proportion of season ticket demand is high
compared to demand for all tickets. Differences
in passenger growth across the RUS area can also
be explained by economic growth, employment
and population growth in the catchment areas of
the five cities.
Table 3.5 – F
orecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five Northern HLOS cities
on all services
Growth – 2014
Growth – 2019
Growth – 2024
Growth – 2029
Leeds – low
3%
12%
21%
31%
Liverpool – low
1%
13%
24%
37%
Manchester – low
3%
13%
21%
32%
Newcastle – low
8%
15%
22%
29%
Sheffield – low
1%
10%
19%
28%
Leeds – high
16%
37%
48%
62%
Liverpool – high
9%
27%
41%
57%
Manchester – high
17%
39%
52%
66%
Newcastle – high
17%
32%
44%
56%
Sheffield – high
11%
30%
43%
56%
29
3. Forecast changes in demand
Table 3.6 – F
orecast increase in all-day passenger demand into the five Northern HLOS
cities on local services
Growth – 2014
Growth – 2019
Growth – 2024
Growth – 2029
Leeds – low
4%
16%
26%
41%
Liverpool – low
4%
16%
26%
41%
Manchester – low
3%
14%
24%
36%
Newcastle – low
4%
13%
22%
32%
Sheffield – low
1%
11%
20%
30%
Leeds – high
13%
31%
44%
60%
Liverpool – high
7%
23%
35%
51%
Manchester – high
10%
26%
39%
52%
Newcastle – high
9%
23%
34%
48%
Sheffield – high
8%
24%
36%
49%
Table 3.7 shows expected peak growth into the five
HLOS city stations on local services. The proportion
of season tickets is higher in the peak, therefore
structural change has a larger effect on growth in
the high scenario. The peak high scenario forecasts
are comparable to forecasts produced in the
Yorkshire and Humber and North West RUSs:
l
morning peak growth into Sheffield was forecast
as 3.9 per cent per annum in the Yorkshire and
Humber RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Sheffield
in this RUS is forecast to be 33 per cent by 2019,
which equates to a CAGR of 2.9 per cent to
2019 in the high scenario. The difference can be
explained by the effect of the recession.
morning peak growth into Leeds was forecast
as 3.7 per cent per annum in the Yorkshire and
Humber RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Leeds
in this RUS is forecast to be 39 per cent to 2019,
which equates to a Compound Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR) of 3.3 per cent to 2019 in the
high scenario.
l
morning peak growth into Manchester was
forecast as 3.4 per cent per annum in the North
West RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Manchester
in this RUS is forecast to be 39 per cent to 2019,
which equates to a CAGR of 3.3 per cent to 2019
in the high scenario.
l
there are no easily comparable forecasts for
Liverpool and Newcastle from previous RUSs.
l
Table 3.7 – F
orecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five Northern HLOS
cities on local services
Growth – 2014
30
Growth – 2019
Growth – 2024
Growth – 2029
Leeds – low
3%
13%
22%
33%
Liverpool – low
3%
14%
24%
38%
Manchester – low
1%
11%
19%
29%
Newcastle – low
3%
11%
19%
28%
Sheffield – low
0%
9%
16%
25%
Leeds – high
17%
39%
51%
65%
Liverpool – high
12%
32%
47%
62%
Manchester – high
16%
39%
51%
65%
Newcastle – high
13%
29%
42%
54%
Sheffield – high
13%
33%
46%
58%
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Interurban forecasts
Figure 3.5 and Table 3.8 show forecast growth in
all-day demand on a selection of interurban
corridors. The corridors are defined as follows:
A
Reading/Penzance to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Newcastle services and also Manchester to Birmingham and
the south services currently run by CrossCountry.
B
Services currently run by East Coast between London King’s Cross, Doncaster, York, Newcastle,
Edinburgh and beyond.
C
Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough, York and Hull to Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street
services currently run by First TransPennine Express.
D
Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport and Norwich to Liverpool services currently run by First TransPennine Express
and East Midlands Trains.
E
Manchester Airport to Blackpool North, Barrow, Windermere and Preston services, currently run by
First TransPennine Express.
F
Manchester Piccadilly, Chester to Llandudno services currently run by Arriva Trains Wales.
G
Manchester Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh services currently run by First TransPennine Express.
The forecasts are generally aggregations of flows
estimated using the long distance methodology.
However, in some instances where the straight line
distance between the origin and destination pair is
less than 50 miles, the short distance methodology
has been used; for example Leeds to Manchester,
Sheffield to Manchester, Liverpool to Manchester
and Sheffield to Leeds.
The difference between the high and low scenarios
is related to the change in market share assumed
in the top left scenario. Therefore, a large
difference between the high and low scenarios
implies a relatively large modal shift to rail in the
high scenario.
Table 3.8 – F
orecast increase in all-day passenger demand on a defined set of
interurban corridors
Growth – 2014
Growth – 2019
Growth – 2024
Growth – 2029
A – low
7%
14%
21%
28%
B – low
8%
15%
21%
28%
C – low
7%
14%
21%
27%
D – low
6%
15%
22%
30%
E – low
7%
16%
24%
33%
F – low
4%
12%
19%
26%
G – low
7%
16%
23%
31%
A – high
13%
24%
35%
46%
B – high
13%
23%
32%
41%
C – high
14%
25%
34%
42%
D – high
12%
24%
35%
46%
E – high
12%
24%
34%
44%
F – high
10%
21%
29%
38%
G – high
14%
27%
40%
52%
31
3. Forecast changes in demand
Figure 3.5 shows the forecast increase in all-day
passenger demand on the set of interurban corridors
defined above. It includes historic growth data for
the period 1999/2000 to 2007/08 for comparison.
Figure 3.5 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand on a defined set of
interurban corridors
A – low
160%
C – low
150%
D – low
E – low
F – low
G – low
A – high
B – high
C – high
D – high
E – high
F – high
G – high
Index of passenger growth
(base = 2008/09)
B – low
A – low
B – low
C – low
140%
D – low
130%
E – low
F – low
120%
G – low
110%
A – high
B – high
100%
C – high
90%
D – high
80%
E – high
F – high
70%
G – high
60%
1999
2004
2009
2014
2019
2024
2029
Year
Figure 3.6 shows expected growth to 2029 in the
high scenario for flows between the five major HLOS
city stations. Leeds to Manchester, Manchester
to Liverpool, Manchester to Sheffield and Leeds
to Sheffield have been assessed using the short
distance flows methodology and the expected
growth is related to the size of the season ticket
market as well as economic growth, employment,
population and other drivers. For the long distance
flows, the expected growth is related to the
estimated gain in rail market share. The difference
between the high and low scenarios tends to
be smaller for flows where the short distance
methodology has been used; this shows that the
forecast passenger growth is relatively high even
when using the standard PDFH methodology.
Figure 3.6 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand between the five Northern HLOS
cities by 2029
Newcastle
High scenario (H) – 38%
Low scenario (L) – 18%
H – 45%
L – 24%
H – 41%
L – 26%
Liverpool
H – 57%
L – 50%
Leeds
H – 48%
L – 22%
H – 57%
L – 47%
Manchester
H – 44%
L – 36%
H – 41%
L – 32%
H – 34%
L – 21%
Sheffield
32
H – 59%
L – 19%
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
3.2 Forecast freight demand
Freight demand forecasts were developed nationally
to 2019 and 2030 for the Strategic Freight Network
(SFN). The forecasts were developed, as reported
in the Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance
Forecast, using the Great Britain Freight Model
(GBFM) to assess the aggregate level of demand.
The GBFM is designed to forecast freight moved
within Great Britain, including freight to and from
the ports and the Channel Tunnel. It covers different
modes such as rail and road and produces a matrix
of all forecast freight flows. This provides a ‘top
down’ view based on economic modelling.
In common with the method adopted in the
Freight RUS, this perspective was complemented
by a ‘bottom up’ view of the markets provided
by a review of the forecasts by the industry. The
forecast change in demand by commodity type is
shown in Table 3.9.
The changes in origin to destination freight demand
were mapped across the network. The forecasts
assume six-day working with an average product
per train weight for each commodity in bulk traffic
and 640m train lengths for intermodal traffic to
understand the market potential. The SFN will
periodically review these forecasts and assumptions
to monitor whether they continue to be appropriate.
The majority of the increase in demand is
forecast to occur in the non-bulk sector. Deep sea
container growth is forecast to continue. The recent
completion of the W10 gauge clearance schemes
between Southampton and the West Coast Main
Line, and the Haven Ports to the West Coast
Main Line via Peterborough will further assist the
competitive nature of rail in this market. Domestic
non-bulk is forecast to grow most rapidly, but this is
from a low base. This will mean a significant increase
in traffic to container handling facilities.
The bulk sector is forecast to grow, albeit at a slower
rate than the non-bulk sector. The demand for
coal traffic from Hunterston to the power stations
in England is forecast to decrease as the amount
of coal imported through Immingham increases.
Therefore, coal traffic to the Drax, Eggborough
and Ferrybridge power stations from the port
of Immingham is forecast to grow. Other bulk
commodities, such as metal, aggregates, scrap and
chemicals are forecast to grow. The future of the
UK energy policy and carbon emission levels will
affect the demand for coal in the medium term.
The forecasts have made assumptions about the use
of alternative fuels such as biomass.
The forecasts were made from a pre-recession base.
However, it is reasonable to assume that following a
period of relatively static growth, freight will return
to, or exceed previously attained levels of traffic.
Figure 3.7 shows the SFN gauge clearance
aspirations. Figure 3.8 shows the forecast daily
freight paths in each direction in 2030.
Table 3.9 – Forecast change in freight demand by commodity to 2030
Million tonnes
Billion tonne km
2006
2030
Average
annual
growth
Solid fuels
51
41
-1%
8
5
-2%
Construction
21
32
2%
4
5
1%
Metals and ore
18
19
0%
3
3
0%
Ports non-bulk
12
50
6%
4
17
6%
2
25
11%
1
12
11%
Other
12
12
1%
3
3
1%
Total
116
179
2%
23
45
3%
Domestic non-bulk
2006
2030
Average
annual
growth
33
3. Forecast changes in demand
Figure 3.7 – SFN aspirations
Thurso
Gauge cleaned to at least W10: either completed,
committed or under development for likely
completion in CP4
Wick
SFN routes which are also core routes from the
Network RUS: Electrification Strategy
Designated in SFN to become W9/W10/W12
Other SFN routes
Inverness
59
60
Kyle of
Lochalsh
Aberdeen
Mallaig
Fort
William
Oban
Dundee
Perth
Stirling
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Berwick upon Tweed
Carstairs
Kilmarnock
Ayr
Newcastle
Stranraer
Sunderland
Carlisle
Hartlepool
Workington
Middlesbrough
Whitehaven
Darlington
Whitby
Windermere
Northallerton
Scarborough
Barrow
Morecambe
Harrogate
Lancaster
York
Skipton
Blackpool
Leeds
Bradford
Blackburn
Huddersfield
Preston
Hull
Wigan
Llandudno
Holyhead
Bangor
Doncaster
Manchester
Liverpool
Sheffield
Warrington
Retford
Chesterfield
Chester
Wrexham
Derby
Nottingham
Skegness
Boston
Stoke on Trent
Pwllheli
Cromer
Grantham
Kings Lynn
Stafford
Shrewsbury
Norwich
Leicester
Wolverhampton
Aberystwyth
Coventry
Lowestoft
Kettering
Rugby
Leamington
Worcester
Hereford
Banbury
Carmarthen
Gloucester
Ely
Huntingdon
Northampton
Cambridge
Bedford
Milton
Keynes
Ipswich
Felixstowe
Colchester
Stevenage
Harwich
Aylesbury
Cheltenham
Swansea
Milford
Haven
Oxford
Swindon
Bath
Westbury
Taunton
LONDON
Southend
Reading
Bristol
Barnstaple
Chelmsford
Didcot
Newport
Cardiff
Basingstoke
Maidstone
Guildford
Redhill
Southampton
Weymouth
Plymouth
Truro
46
Penzance
Gauge cleared to at least W10: planned end CP4
Electrification core and commited routes on SFN
Designated in SFN to become W9/W10/W12
Core and diversionary routes
34
Paignton
Tonbridge
Dover
Hastings
Brighton
Ramsgate
Ashford
Salisbury
Exeter
Gt Yarmouth
Peterborough
Nuneaton
Birmingham
Fishguard Harbour
Lincoln
Newark
Crewe
Blaenau
Ffestiniog
41
Immingham
Eastbourne
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Figure 3.8 – Forecast daily freight paths each direction in 2030
Up to and including 5
Above 5 and up to 20 (inclusive)
Above 20 and up to 40 (inclusive)
Above 40 and up to 80 (inclusive)
Above 80
Inverness
Aberdeen
Fort
William
Dundee
Perth
Stirling
Longannet
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Hunterston
Berwick upon Tweed
Carstairs
Kilmarnock
Ayr
Newcastle
Stranraer
Sunderland
71
Carlisle
Workington
Middlesbrough
Shap
Barrow
Morecambe
Lancaster
York
Leeds
Bradford
Drax
Hull
Preston
Wigan
Immingham
Doncaster
Manchester
Liverpool
Holyhead
Sheffield
Warrington
Chester
Crewe
Boston
Derby
Nottingham
Kings Lynn
Stafford
Shrewsbury
Norwich
Peterborough
Leicester
Wolverhampton
Nuneaton
Birmingham
Coventry
Ely
Rugby
Worcester
Northampton
Cambridge
Ipswich
Milford
Haven
Harwich
Swansea
Didcot
Newport
Swindon
Cardiff
Thames Haven
LONDON
Grain
Reading
Bristol
Merehead
Felixstowe
Colchester
Gloucester
Westbury
Maidstone
Redhill
Tonbridge
Ashford
Channel Tunnel
Salisbury
Southampton
51
Exeter
Hastings
Brighton
Plymouth
Penzance
35
3. Forecast changes in demand
3.3 Alternative growth scenarios
This chapter outlines what the industry considers
to be the most likely growth scenario. Passenger
demand should be regularly monitored to
understand whether the central recommendations
in this RUS are still appropriate.
It is recognised that there may be variations in
demand on individual routes or parts of routes,
according to local circumstances. The demand
forecasts used in this RUS represent the growth
projections derived from the housing, population
and employment forecasts contained in the DfT’s
TEMPRO model, overlaid with information from
Regional Planning Assessments and some bespoke
overlays. It is expected that the recommendations
for the 10-year RUS period are robust against
the short-term uncertainties in the UK economy.
However, as highlighted in the 2007 Government
White Paper, longer-term demand forecasts can
be very uncertain and extremely sensitive to
economic conditions. It will therefore be important
to periodically update the industry’s understanding
of the need for further investment in the light
of growth to that point in time and updated
demand forecasts.
The RUS strategy is expected to cater adequately for
forecast growth in passenger and freight demand
into the next decade. In the event that growth in
demand does not meet the RUS forecasts, then
clearly it would be possible to delay or abandon
interventions where appropriate, provided that
decisions are made in time to avoid major
expenditure commitments. Equally, if growth
continues at recent high levels and exceeds the
forecast over the next decade, then some of the
measures for the longer term may have to be
accelerated. Passenger demand should be regularly
monitored to understand whether the central
recommendations in this RUS are still appropriate.
36
4. Gaps and options
4.1 Introduction
As described in Chapter 2, the Northern Route
Utilisation Strategy (RUS) is a second generation
RUS and therefore the geography it covers has
already been the subject of previous RUSs and has
an established set of recommended interventions.
The Northern RUS strategic gaps have been
identified by reviewing the first generation of
established RUSs that cover the north of England.
Specifically, these are the East Coast Main Line
RUS (between Peterborough and the Scottish
border), Yorkshire and Humber RUS, Lancashire and
Cumbria RUS, Network RUS: Electrification Strategy,
Freight RUS, North West RUS, and Merseyside RUS
where appropriate1.
These have been reviewed in the light of funded
interventions for Control Period 4 (CP4) and Control
Period 5 (CP5), including the then Secretary of
State for Transport’s announcement in 2009 of the
electrification of a number of routes in the North
West that was confirmed in 2010, along with the
passenger growth forecasts to 2024, and the agreed
Strategic Freight Network (SFN) forecasts for 2019
and 2030. Account has also been taken of any RUS
recommendations that change those published in
earlier RUSs.
1
Each first generation gap can be broadly categorised
as follows:
1.a gap that will have been addressed by the end of
CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) and so is ‘closed’
2.a gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the previous RUS recommendation
is still appropriate
3.a gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the intervention needs reviewing
due to more recent changes
4.a gap that has changed sufficiently such
that the previous intervention may not be
entirely appropriate.
Categories 3 and 4 are those that have shaped most
of the Northern RUS gaps and the majority of ‘first
generation’ gaps fall into category 2. Appendix
A details each of the recommendations from
the first generation of RUSs and how they have
been categorised.
Medium-term capacity requirements for the East
Coast Main Line (ECML) from Peterborough to the
Scottish border have not been examined by this RUS
as this route has been considered by the East Coast
Main Line 2016 Capacity Review (see section 2.4.3).
The Northern RUS only reviewed the non-DC lines recommendations in the Merseyside RUS, as those for the DC lines are being taken
forward via the Merseyside Long Term Planning Study (see section 2.4.6). The DC lines are those in Merseyside electrified at 750V DC
with services currently operated by Merseyrail.
37
4. Gaps and options
This process led to the following gaps being
identified for examination by the Northern RUS:
Gap 1 – Peak crowding on routes affected by the
electrification of additional routes in the North West.
Gap 2 – Accommodating peak services into the
Manchester Piccadilly station area.
Gap 3 – Peak and off-peak crowding on the Leeds
– Manchester route taking into account journey
time improvements.
Gap 4 – Peak and off-peak crowding between
Sheffield and Manchester.
Gap 5 – Peak crowding on the Retford and Penistone
lines, and additional calls at Elsecar.
Gap 6 – Insufficient freight capacity on the
Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor.
Gap 7 – Peak crowding on the Ilkley, Skipton and
Wakefield Westgate corridors into Leeds.
Passenger demand data has been collated from
on-train counts provided by several train operators.
The Department for Transport (DfT) policy on
crowding is that passengers should not be required
to stand for longer than 20 minutes at peak
times and should have a reasonable expectation
of a seat at off-peak times. To analyse the gap
between capacity and demand this policy has been
interpreted as follows:
l
passenger loads above seated capacity is
unacceptable for passenger journeys of more
than approximately 20 minutes
l
passenger loads over the total capacity of a train
are always unacceptable.
Gap 10 – Crowding on services into non-HLOS towns
and cities.
The analysis of future demand shows the required
seated and total capacity necessary to meet
this DfT policy in 2024. The current or expected
capacity on a route and the required capacity have
been measured in equivalent vehicle arrivals. An
equivalent vehicle is defined as one with 65 seats
and standing room available for 35 passengers
(total capacity of 100 passengers per equivalent
vehicle).
This chapter details each of these gaps and the
options and recommendations developed to
address them.
When appraising options, the following costs
and benefits to the industry and society are taken
into account:
Gap 8 – Accommodating peak services into
Leeds station.
Gap 9 – Strategic connectivity across the north
of England.
Peak services are those arriving at the following
stations between 07:00 and 09:59 Monday to Friday
and departing between 16:00 and 18:59:
l
Liverpool Lime Street (high level platforms)
l
Leeds
l
Manchester Oxford Road (eastbound in
morning peak and westbound evening peak)
l
Manchester Piccadilly (westbound in morning
peak and eastbound in evening peak)
l
Manchester Victoria
l
Newcastle
l
Sheffield.
The high-peak hour is 08:00 to 08:59 in the
morning peak and 17:00 to 17:59 in the
evening peak.
38
4.2 Crowding analysis and
option appraisal
l
capital costs associated with infrastructure
l
operating costs associated with employment
of drivers and guards to run additional services,
the leasing costs of extra rolling stock, and the
mileage-related costs associated with rolling
stock maintenance, track access and diesel fuel/
electric current for traction
l
rail user benefits which quantify the change in
utility to passengers as a result of an improved
or worsened service
l
crowding benefits which are the rail user benefits
associated with reduced load factors
l
revenue accrued through attracting more
passengers to rail services
l
non-user benefits accrued by the abstraction
of vehicles from the roads reducing
congestion, environmental impacts and road
maintenance costs
l
other government impacts which are the
expected loss in tax duty related to reduced
car miles.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Options that only require operational expenditure
are generally assessed over a 30-year appraisal
period and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of more than
1.5 is required for recommendation.
Options that require infrastructure expenditure
are assessed over an appraisal period pertinent
to the asset life of the infrastructure (usually
60 years) and a BCR of more than two is required
for recommendation.
The DfT released updates to its Transport Analysis
Guidance (WebTAG) in April 2011. Although a
large number of changes are presentational,
two may have a significant impact on appraisal
results. The first is regarding the treatment of
indirect tax in the BCR calculation, and the second
is changes to the growth rates for value of time
and for GDP-related sensitive lorry mile (SLM)
calculations. The change in the treatment of indirect
tax in the BCR calculation is expected to increase
the BCR for schemes. The latter change is likely to
reduce it. The appraisals undertaken for the RUS do
not include these changes as they were introduced
after the completion of the option appraisal process. These impacts will be included in future appraisals
for any options that are taken forward for further
development and implementation.
4.3 Analysis of gaps and
option appraisal
Gap 1: Peak crowding on routes
affected by electrification of
additional routes in the North West
In 2009, the then Secretary of State for Transport
announced the electrification of the routes in the
North West, commonly known as the Lancashire
Triangle, to be completed in phases in CP4 and CP5;
this was confirmed in 2010. This comprises the routes
from Liverpool to Manchester Victoria via Earlestown
(the Chat Moss route), Huyton to Wigan via St. Helens
Central, Manchester to Preston via Bolton, and
Preston to Blackpool. Figure 4.1 shows the routes to
be electrified.
The electrification of these routes will result in a new
allocation of four-car Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)
rolling stock to the area, cascaded as a result of the
Thameslink Programme. This presents an opportunity
to consider demand and capacity on services that
run on the Bolton, Atherton, Chat Moss and Cheshire
Lines Committee (CLC) routes into Manchester
and Liverpool. This analysis considers the optimal
service proposition following the completion of the
electrification schemes. The analysis has focused on
the morning high-peak hour into Manchester Victoria,
Manchester Oxford Road or Liverpool Lime Street,
as appropriate.
39
40
Bootle
Branch Jcn
Not AC electrified
Planned 25 kv AC electrification
Halewood
Hunts Cross
Hunts
Cross
West Jcn
Allerton
West Jcn
Whiston
Huyton Jcn
Prescot
Eccleston Park
Hough
Green
Sankey
Ellsmere Port
Helsby
Frodsham
Runcorn East
Hartford
Hartford Jcns
Mickle
Trafford
Jcn
Chester
Mouldsworth
Delamere
Winsford
Middlewich Salt
Terminal
Brunner Mond LostockWorks
Northwich Jcns
Greenbank
Northwich
Oakleigh
Brunner
Mond
Styal
Crewe
Sydney Bridge Jcn
Sandbach
Macclesfield
Prestbury
Adlington
Stoke-on-Trent
Longport
Cheadle
Hulme
Poynton
Reddish
South
Guide
Bridge
New Mills
South Jcn
Dove Holes
Chapel-en-le-Frith
Furness Vale
Whaley Bridge
Buxton
New Mills
Central
Marple
Strines
Bredbury
GM Waste
Brinnington
Romiley
Rose Hill
Marple
Marple Wharf Jcn
Romiley Jcn
Woodley
Hyde Central
Hyde North
Dinting
Jcns
Broadbottom
Hattersley
Godley
Stalybridge
Mossley
Greenfield
Newton
for Hyde
Flowery
Field
Ashton-under- Lyne
Bredbury
Chinley
Middlewood
New Mills
Newtown
Disley
Woodsmoor
Hazel Grove
Davenport
Edgeley Jcns
Stockport
Heaton Norris Jcn
Heaton Chapel
Bramhall
Congleton
Ashton Moss
North Jcn
Ashburys West Jcn
Ashburys
Gorton
Philips
Park
South
Jcn
Baguley
Fold Jcn
Ashburys
Hyde
Ashburys
East Fairfield
Jcn
Jcn
Belle Vue
Denton Jcn
Ryder Brow
Denton
Reddish North
Levenshulme
Handforth
Kidsgrove
Holmes Chapel
Goostrey
Alderley
Edge
Chelford
Heald
Green
Jcns
Gatley
East
Didsbury
Burnage
Mauldeth
Road
Slade
Lane
Jcn
Ardwick Jcn
Ardwick
'Castlefield
Corridor'
Manchester
Piccadilly
Wilmslow
Manchester
Airport
Brewery Jcn
Philips Park
West Jcn
Manchester
Oxford
Road
Castlefield
Jcn
Heald Green
Mills Hill
Moston
Manchester
Victoria
Miles
Platting
Jcn
Littleborough
Smithy Bridge
Rochdale
Castleton
Corus Track
Products /
East Lancs Railway
Northenden
& GM Waste
Partington
Deansgate
Ordsall
Lane
Jcn
Hope
Street
Navigation
Road
Altrincham
Hale
Ashley
Mobberley
Knutsford
Irlam
Urmston
Humphrey Park
Chassen
Road
Flixton
Trafford Park
'Windsor
Link'
Trafford Park
Weaste
branch
Moorside
Salford
Crescent
Pendleton Terminals
and GM Waste
Windsor
Bridge
Salford
Jcns
Swinton
Central
Kearsley
Clifton
Farnworth
Eccles
Plumley
Lostock Gralam
Cuddington
Acton
Bridge
Warrington
Central
Padgate
Birchwood
Glazebrook
Patricroft
Bolton
Hall i’ Th’ Wood
Bromley Cross
Entwistle
Walkden
Atherton
Hag Fold
Blackburn Yard
Darwen
Moses Gate
Bolton
Lostock
West Jcn
Jcn
BLACKBURN
Blackburn
Bolton
Jcn
Westhoughton
Lostock
Daisy Hill
Earlestown
Parkside Jcn
Newton-leWillows Jcn
Winwick
Jcn
Crow
Nest
Jcn
Hindley
Golborne Jcn
Bamfurlong Jcn
Ince
Wigan
Station Jcn
Wigan
Wallgate
Blackrod
Adlington
Horwich
Parkway
Chorley
Euxton
Jcn
Leyland
Preston
Warrington
Bank Quay
Widnes
Rainhill
St Helens
Junction
Lea Green
Hays
Chemicals
Pilkington
Thatto Heath
Bryn
Wigan
North
Western
Euxton
Balshaw
Lane
Newton-leWillows
Garswood
Salwick
St Helen’s Central
Thatto Heath
Kirkby
Kirkham & Wesham
Huyton
Roby
Broad
Green
Liverpool
South Parkway
West Allerton
Mossley Hill
Edge Hill
East Jcn
Edge
Hill
Wavertree
Technology
Park
Ormskirk
Southport
Poulton-le-Fylde
Current 25 kv AC electrification
Liverpool
Lime Street
Liverpool
Coal Terminal
Seaforth
Blackpool South
Blackpool North
Layton
Glossop
Dinting
Hadfield
4. Gaps and options
Figure 4.1 – Current and planned 25kv AC electrification in the North West
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Demand and capacity on the CLC
and Chat Moss routes into Liverpool
and Manchester
Manchester and beyond, trains from Chester and
North Wales to Manchester Piccadilly, and services
from Preston, Wigan North Western and St. Helens
Central into Liverpool Lime Street.
Figure 4.2 shows the Chat Moss and CLC routes
between Liverpool and Manchester. The Chat
Moss refers to the line of route from Liverpool
Lime Street through Wavertree Technology Park,
Whiston, Earlestown and Eccles, and allows access
to Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road
and Manchester Piccadilly. Services on this route
include trains between Liverpool Lime Street and
The CLC refers to the route from Liverpool Lime
Street through Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes,
Warrington Central and into Manchester Oxford
Road and Manchester Piccadilly. It is not included in
the electrification announcement and so services on
this corridor will continue to be comprised of Diesel
Multiple Unit (DMU) rolling stock.
Figure 4.2 – Routes used by CLC and Chat Moss passenger services
Routes used by CLC and
Chat Moss passenger
services
To Preston/Blackpool
Other routes
Wigan North Western
WCML
Springs Branch Jn
Bryn
Huyton Jn
Huyton
Liverpool
Lime Street
Edge Hill
Eccles
Newton-le-Willows Jn
Trafford Park
Earlestown
Rainhill
Whiston
Roby
Broad Green
Manchester
Piccadilly
Humphrey Park
Urmston
Winwick Jn
Chassen Road
Flixton
Lea Green
Bootle Branch Jn
Liverpool South Parkway
Glazebrook
WCML
Birchwood
Mossley Hill
West Allerton
Allerton West Jn
Hunts
Cross
To Manchester Airport
Buxton/Sheffield
and beyond
Irlam
Wavertree Technology Park
Edge Hill East Jn
Deansgate
Manchester
Oxford Road
Newton-le-Willows
St Helens
Junction
Prescot
Patricroft
Parkside Jn
Thatto Heath
Seaforth
Manchester Victoria
Bamfurlong
Jn
St Helens
Central
Eccleston Park
To Huddersfield
Golborne Jn
Garswood
Padgate
Hough
Green
Hunts Cross
West Jn Halewood
Routes used by CLC and Chat Moss passenger services
Warrington Cental
Sankey
Widnes
Warrington Bank Quay
To Chester and
North Wales
Other routes
The services on these routes into Manchester have
been split into six categories for consideration:
l
services currently run by Arriva Trains Wales
into Manchester Piccadilly on the Chat Moss
route including the following morning high-peak
hour services:
–Llandudno to Manchester Piccadilly
(three-car DMU)
–Chester to Manchester Piccadilly
(three-car DMU)
l
services currently run by Northern Rail on the
Chat Moss route through Manchester Piccadilly
including the following morning high-peak
hour service:
–Liverpool to Manchester Airport (currently a
two-car DMU but assumed to become a fourcar EMU following electrification)
l
services currently run by Northern Rail on
the Chat Moss route via Manchester Victoria
including the following morning high-peak
hour services:
–Liverpool to Manchester Victoria (currently a
two-car DMU but assumed to become a fourcar EMU following electrification)
–Liverpool to Huddersfield (currently a two-car
DMU but assumed to become a four-car
EMU and terminate at Manchester Victoria
following electrification)
l
services currently run by Northern Rail into
Manchester Oxford Road on the CLC route
including the following morning high-peak
hour services:
–Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road
(four-car DMU)
–Warrington Central to Manchester Oxford
Road (two-car DMU)
41
4. Gaps and options
l
services currently run by First TransPennine
Express (TPE) through Manchester Piccadilly
from the CLC route, including the following
morning high-peak hour service:
–Liverpool to Scarborough (six-car DMU)
l
services currently run by East Midlands Trains
(EMT) through Manchester Piccadilly from the
CLC route, including the following morning highpeak hour service:
–Liverpool to Norwich (four-car DMU).
The Government’s announcement of funding for the
Ordsall Chord, capacity works at Manchester Victoria
and linespeed improvements between Manchester
Victoria and Stalybridge will impact on the pattern
of services on the Chat Moss and CLC routes. The
following changes are proposed by DfT:
These changes, came too late to be taken into
account in the following analysis. However, an
evaluation of the impact of the change in services
on the recommendations is included at the end
of this section and the announcement will be
fully integrated through the development of the
Northern Hub project.
Figure 4.3 shows the expected demand and
capacity in 2024 on the CLC and Chat Moss routes
into Manchester in the morning high-peak hour,
taking into account the demand forecasts to 2024.
The graph shows the required seated and standing
capacity on each set of services and demonstrates
that there will be a gap on the following services:
l
services currently run by Arriva Trains Wales
(ATW) into Manchester Piccadilly
the existing services from Liverpool to Leeds
and beyond via the CLC route and Manchester
Piccadilly will operate via the Chat Moss route
and Manchester Victoria
l
services currently run by EMT into
Manchester Piccadilly
l
services currently run by TPE into
Manchester Piccadilly.
l
the above services will be replaced on the CLC
route by interurban trains between Liverpool and
Manchester Piccadilly and beyond
l
a second fast train per hour will operate via the
Chat Moss route from Liverpool to Manchester
Victoria, Leeds and beyond.
Taking into account the Ordsall Chord
announcement, even with the existing TPE highpeak train on the CLC into Manchester Piccadilly
being replaced by an interurban service with similar
capacity, there is still likely to be a capacity gap into
Manchester on this corridor by 2024.
l
Other service changes are expected but the exact
nature of these services is subject to further
development by the Northern Hub project.
A similar assessment of the demand in the morning
peak on the CLC and Chat Moss routes into
Liverpool demonstrates that there will be sufficient
capacity into Liverpool on both routes, following
electrification of the Chat Moss line.
Figure 4.3 – Demand and capacity on the Chat Moss and CLC routes into Manchester
in 2024 by service group in the morning high-peak hour
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
900
800
Total capacity
700
Seated capacity
600
500
400
300
200
42
TPE services
on the CLC
into Piccadilly
Northern services
on the CLC
into Piccadilly
EMT services on the
CLC into Piccadilly
Northern services
on the Chat Moss
into Victoria
Northern services
on the Chat Moss
into Piccadilly
0
ATW services
on the Chat Moss
into Piccadilly
100
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Options considered to meet demand
on the CLC route
The following options have been considered to meet
demand into Manchester on the CLC route:
1.1.an additional shuttle from Liverpool Lime
Street into Manchester Victoria in the morning
high-peak hour on the Chat Moss route to
abstract passengers from Liverpool who would
have travelled on the CLC route
1.2.run two three-car DMU shuttles from
Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford
Road in the morning high-peak hour to
abstract passengers directly from Warrington
1.3.run two three-car DMU shuttles from
Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford
Road in the morning high-peak hour to
abstract passengers directly from Warrington
and remove some intermediate stops from the
interurban services to manage demand
1.4.run one four-car DMU shuttle from Warrington
Central into Manchester Oxford Road in the
morning high-peak hour to abstract passengers
directly from Warrington and remove some
intermediate stops from the interurban services
to manage demand
1.5.run one four-car DMU semi-fast train from
Liverpool Lime Street into Manchester Oxford
Road via Warrington Central in the morning
high-peak hour to abstract passengers from
stations along the entire CLC route and remove
some intermediate stops from the interurban
services to manage demand.
In all cases the appraisals have assumed that a
similar return train would operate in the evening highpeak hour (departing between 17:00 and 17:59).
Assessment of option 1.1 – increased/improved Chat Moss services
Concept
This option is designed to abstract passengers from services that are over capacity on the
CLC route onto new services on the Chat Moss route by running shuttles from Liverpool Lime
Street to Manchester Victoria.
Operational analysis
Paths can be found for the additional services from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester
Victoria and timed to abstract the maximum number of people from the interurban services
on the CLC.
Infrastructure required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
The option attempts to abstract enough passengers from Liverpool Lime Street to manage
loadings on the CLC; however, demand from Liverpool does not contribute to the crowding
problem as much as demand from Warrington Central, Birchwood and Irlam. Therefore,
options considered on the Chat Moss route would not be able to abstract an adequate
number of passengers to meet the gap.
Freight impact
Affects ability to run any freight trains on the Chat Moss route in the high-peak hour.
Financial and
economic analysis
No further analysis undertaken.
Link to other options
None
Conclusion
This option is not recommended as it would not abstract an adequate number of passengers
to meet the gap.
43
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 1.2 – two peak hour shuttles from Warrington Central to
Manchester Oxford Road
Concept
Two additional three-car DMU shuttles from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road
in the morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to
abstract passengers directly from Warrington.
Operational analysis
Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current
timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning
high-peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in the
evening high-peak hour. A second service would require re-timetabling of existing services in
the Manchester area and may not be possible as a result.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
Provides enough overall capacity to meet the gap but inadequately manages passenger loads,
therefore stops need to be taken out of the interurban services to manage crowding.
Freight impact
Minimal.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.2 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
25.0
Revenue
-8.8
Other Government impacts
Total costs
Financial and
economic analysis
1.7
18.1
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
1.5
Crowding benefits
14.3
Non users benefits
3.4
Total quantified benefits
19.2
NPV
1.4
Quantified BCR
1.1
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
44
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value for money.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 1.3 – two high-peak hour shuttles from Warrington Central
to Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing services
Concept
Two additional three-car DMU shuttles from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road
in the morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to
abstract passengers directly from Warrington and remove some intermediate stops from the
interurban services to manage demand.
Operational analysis
Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current
timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning
high-peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in the
evening high-peak hour. A second service would require re-timetabling of existing services in
the Manchester area and may not be possible as a result.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
Provides adequate capacity and manages loadings well enough to meet the capacity gap.
However, the majority of the crowding relief is attributable to the train that would run
between the two high-peak hour interurban services.
Freight impact
Minimal.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.3 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
25.0
Revenue
-11.2
Other Government impacts
Total costs
Financial and
economic analysis
2.1
15.8
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
0.1
Crowding benefits
20.4
Non users benefits
4.4
Total quantified benefits
24.9
NPV
9.1
Quantified BCR
1.6
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value for money.
45
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 1.4 – one high-peak hour shuttle from Warrington Central
to Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing services
Concept
Run one four-car DMU shuttle from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road in the
morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to abstract
passengers directly from Warrington and remove some intermediate stops from the interurban
services to manage demand.
Operational analysis
Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current
timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning
high-peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in
the evening high-peak hour. It requires two calls to be taken out of a stopping service and
these calls would be made by the new service instead.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
This option is significantly cheaper than option 1.3 but does not abstract enough passengers
from the existing services.
Freight impact
Minimal.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.4 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
14.1
Revenue
-6.5
Other Government impacts
1.2
Total costs
8.8
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
-0.8
Crowding benefits
13.0
Non users benefits
2.6
Total quantified benefits
14.8
NPV
5.9
Quantified BCR
1.7
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
46
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value for money.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 1.5 – one high-peak hour semi-fast train from Liverpool Lime Street to
Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing interurban services
Concept
An additional four-car DMU shuttle from Liverpool Lime Street into Manchester Oxford Road in
the morning high-peak hour (and back to Liverpool in the evening high-peak hour) to abstract
passengers from along the entire CLC route and remove some intermediate stops from the
interurban services to manage demand.
Operational analysis
Timetable analysis shows that a train can be run on the existing network in the current
timetable from Liverpool Lime Street into the Oxford Road bay platform in the morning highpeak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Liverpool Lime Street
in the evening high-peak hour. It requires two calls to be taken out of a stopping service and
these calls would be made by the new service instead.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
This option incurs the cost of extra mileage over Option 1.4, but provides the opportunity to
abstract passengers from stations between Liverpool Lime Street and Warrington.
Freight impact
Minimal.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.5 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
15.4
Revenue
-12.3
Other Government impacts
2.3
Total costs
5.4
Benefits (Present Value)
Rail users benefits
0.1
Crowding benefits
21.0
Non users benefits
4.9
Total quantified benefits
26.0
NPV
20.6
Quantified BCR
4.8
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
Option 1.5 is recommended as it is the highest value for money. The interurban high-peak hour
services are currently over capacity, therefore this intervention is required as soon as possible.
The recommended solution for meeting peak
hour growth on the CLC route into Manchester
is to operate an additional semi-fast service
from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford
Road in the morning high-peak hour and from
Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool Lime Street
in the evening high-peak hour.
The change to services as a result of the Ordsall
Chord announcement will slightly reduce the
amount of demand on the CLC route as passengers
travelling from Liverpool to Manchester, Leeds and
other stations served by the north cross-Pennine
route will more likely travel via the Chat Moss route
instead. As analysis of Option 1.1 demonstrates,
abstracting demand onto the Chat Moss route
is not a sufficient solution to the capacity gap
on this corridor. This is because the majority of
passengers causing the capacity issues travel from
stations along the route like Warrington, Birchwood
and Irlam into Manchester. These passengers are
relatively unaffected by the likely service changes.
However, the Northern Hub work will need to
examine whether the additional train can be
operated along with ensuing service changes in the
Manchester area and if not, how the CLC growth can
be accommodated.
47
4. Gaps and options
Analysis of options to meet
capacity on the Chat Moss route
into Manchester
The Llandudno/Chester – Manchester Piccadilly
high-peak hour services are expected to be over
seated capacity from Warrington Bank Quay and
beyond by 2024. These services stop at Earlestown
and Newton-le-Willows on the Chat Moss route,
so better management of loads could be achieved
by removing stops from these services at Earlestown
and inserting stops in the Liverpool to Manchester
Airport service. However, because the Llandudno
and Chester services are expected to be over seated
capacity from as far out as Warrington and beyond,
this would not be sufficient to meet the capacity
gap. Therefore, lengthening of the existing services
has been considered.
Assessment of option 1.6 – lengthening of the high-peak Llandudno/Chester to
Manchester Piccadilly services
Concept
Lengthening the morning and evening high-peak hour services between Llandudno, Chester
and Manchester from three-car to four-car DMUs.
Operational analysis
Platforms are able to accommodate four-car DMU stock.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.6 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
4.0
Revenue
-4.1
Other Government impacts
0.8
Total costs
0.8
Benefits (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Rail users benefits
0.0
Crowding benefits
9.2
Non users benefits
1.6
Total quantified benefits
10.8
NPV
10.1
Quantified BCR
>5
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
The increase in revenue is estimated to be sufficient to cover the operating costs. The total
costs of this option are small when compared with the crowding benefit to passengers and
non-user benefits.
There is a risk of having to run the lengthened service in the off-peak to avoid coupling/
uncoupling and therefore incur the increased mileage related costs; however, the business case
is robust against this possibility.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option has a high value for money case and is recommended and will be required in CP5.
The recommended solution for meeting peak
hour capacity requirements on the Chat Moss
route on services from Chester and Llandudno into
Manchester is to lengthen the existing services
48
from three-car to four-car DMUs. This needs to
be reviewed by the Northern Hub project when
considering the service changes as a result of the
Ordsall Chord development.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Figure 4.4 – Routes used by Bolton and Atherton passenger services
Routes used by Bolton
and Atherton passenger
services
Burn Naze branch
(out of use)
To Carlisle/Glasgow/Barrow
Poulton-le-Fylde
Layton
Other routes
Kirkham Jns
Preston
Lytham
Blackpool
Pleasure Beach
Whalley
Kirkham
& Wesham
Moss Side
Blackpool South
Lostock
Hall
Farrington Curve Jn
St Annes-on-the-Sea
Croston
Southport
Meols
Cop
Burscough
Bridge
Burscough
Junction
Ormskirk
Orrell
Rishton
Accrington
Church &
Oswaldtwistle
Daisyfield Jn
Darwen
Entwistle
Adlington
Bromley Cross
Horwich
Parkway
Hall i’ Th’ Wood
Blackrod
Lostock Jn
Gathurst
Pemberton
Cherry
Tree
Chorley
Parbold
Appley
Bridge
Wigan
Wallgate Jn
Blackburn
Bolton Jn
Leyland
Euxton
Jn
Hoscar
New
Lane
Blackburn
Mill Hill
Pleasington
Bamber
Bridge
Rufford
Bescar
Lane
Langho
Ramsgreave
& Wilpshire
Lostock Hall Jn
Ansdell & Fairhaven
Squires Gate
Clitheroe
Lancaster
Salwick
Blackpool North
Lostock
Wigan Wallgate
Wigan
North
Western
Wigan Station Jn
Crow
Nest
Daisy
Jn
Ince
Upholland
Hindley
Bolton
West Jn
Westhoughton
Bolton
Moses Gate
Farnworth
Kearsley
Windsor Bridge Jns
Hill
Atherton
Hag Fold
Clifton
Salford
Crescent
Walkden
Swinton
Rainford
'Windsor Link'
KIRKBY
Manchester Victoria
Moorside
Salford
Central
Hope Street
Ordsall
Lane Jn
To Rochdale
Castlefield Jn
'Castlefield Corridor'
Deansgate
Manchester Oxford Road
Manchester
Piccadilly
To Manchester Airport/Stockport/Buxton
Demand and capacity on the
Atherton route into Manchester
The Atherton route (see Figure 4.4) runs from
Wigan via Atherton and Salford Crescent into
Manchester and is not included in the funded North
West electrification scheme, so the services on this
route will remain as DMU stock.
Services on the Atherton route into Manchester are
currently run by Northern Rail, with the following
high-peak hour services:
–Southport to Manchester Victoria
(four-car DMU)
–Kirby to Rochdale via Manchester Victoria
(four-car DMU)
–two Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria
services (two-car DMU).
49
4. Gaps and options
Figure 4.5 – Morning high-peak hour demand and capacity in 2024 by line of route and
service on the Atherton and Bolton routes
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
Total capacity
(Atherton line)
Seated capacity
(Atherton line)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Figure 4.5 shows the expected demand and
capacity in 2024 on the Atherton route in the
morning high-peak hour. Services are expected to be
at or over standing capacity between Atherton and
Salford Central which is around 20 minutes.
50
Fast Northern services
on the Bolton line
into Victoria
Slow Northern services
on the Bolton line
into Victoria
TPE services
on the Bolton line
into Piccadilly
Northern services
on the Bolton line
into Piccadilly
Northern services
on the Atherton line
into Victoria
0
Altering calling patterns is not sufficient in the long
term as forecast crowding shows a requirement for
two to three extra vehicles on the route across all
trains, by 2024. Therefore, lengthening of both the
Wigan to Manchester Victoria services to four-car
DMUs is sufficient to meet the capacity gap.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 1.7 – lengthening of the Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria via
Atherton services
Concept
Lengthen the 08:00 and 08:13 Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria services to four-car
equivalent vehicle DMUs. These services are expected to be lengthened to a three-car and a
two-car equivalent vehicle DMUs respectively in CP4.
Operational analysis
Platforms on the Atherton route are long enough to cope with four-car trains.
Infrastructure
required
No infrastructure enhancement would be required.
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 1.7 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
Financial and
economic analysis
0.0
Operating cost
5.2
Revenue
-1.3
Other Government impacts
0.3
Total costs
4.2
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
0.0
Crowding benefits
7.4
Non users benefits
0.5
Total quantified benefits
7.9
NPV
3.7
Quantified BCR
1.9
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
Lengthening is the recommended option to meet the demand and capacity gap on the
Atherton route into Manchester Victoria in the morning and evening peaks, and would be
required in CP5.
51
4. Gaps and options
Demand and capacity on the Bolton
route into Manchester
Significant infrastructure investment would be
required if:
The Bolton route (see Figure 4.4) is the most
complex of those analysed under Gap 1. It has
a mix of interurban and local services and will
have a mix of electric and diesel services once the
route is electrified. Some services on this route
serve Manchester Victoria while others operate to
Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly.
In light of the upcoming refranchising process for
both operators’ services that run over the route, this
RUS aims to demonstrate that sufficient capacity
can be provided in the peak period without the
need for significant changes to the infrastructure
by lengthening services and possibly recasting
some elements of the timetable. The DfT expects
prospective franchisees to identify the most
appropriate service proposition to provide the
required level of capacity and connectivity.
l
any services requiring to stop at Salford Crescent
are lengthened beyond 6x23m vehicles
l
an increase in service frequency to meet
passenger capacity requirements needed track
capacity enhancement on the Bolton corridor.
Specific issues will also be discussed that should be
taken into account during the re-franchising process.
Table 4.1 is an outline of services currently running
on the Bolton corridor and the future rolling stock
type assumed for the analysis of required capacity.
Electrification will allow trains from Blackpool North
and Scotland to run as electric services. In the
morning high-peak hour, one of the Blackpool North
services currently couples at Preston to a train from
Barrow-in-Furness, which is not within the scope of
the electrification scheme.
Table 4.1 – Services on the Bolton corridor by service group in the morning high-peak hour
Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly
Origin station
Destination station
Current
After electrification
Southport
Manchester Airport
four-car DMU
DMU
Blackpool North
Hazel Grove
five-car DMU
EMU
Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Victoria
Origin station
Destination station
Current
After electrification
Wigan Wallgate
Manchester Victoria
two-car DMU
DMU
Clitheroe
Manchester Victoria
two-car DMU
DMU
Clitheroe
Manchester Victoria
three-car DMU
DMU
Blackpool North
Manchester Victoria
five-car DMU
EMU
Interurban services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly
52
Origin station
Destination station
Current
After electrification
Blackpool North/
Barrow-in-Furness
Manchester Airport
six-car DMU that joins
at Preston
Blackpool train will be
EMU and so unable to
join with a service from
Barrow-in-Furness
Blackpool North/
Edinburgh
Manchester Airport
six-car DMU that joins
at Preston
EMU
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Figure 4.5 shows the seated and standing capacity
required in 2024.
Analysis undertaken by the RUS working group
has demonstrated that sufficient capacity can
be provided by the appropriate lengthening of
services on the Bolton corridor in the following
three scenarios without the need for significant
infrastructure:
Scenarios 1 and 3 provide an improved service from
Wigan to Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester
Piccadilly and Manchester Airport. This has the
potential to abstract passengers from other
services on the Bolton corridor. Analysis of demand
demonstrates that the following issues could arise in
these scenarios:
l
a four-car EMU on the Anglo – Scottish service
may not provide sufficient capacity between
Preston, Wigan and Manchester Piccadilly. This
issue would be exacerbated in the PM peak, and
particularly on Friday evenings, for passengers
travelling from Manchester to destinations north
of Lancaster. The West Coast Main Line RUS is
considering Friday and weekend crowding on the
Manchester to Scotland trains.
l
less capacity may be required on any fast
services between Wigan and Manchester
via Bolton.
1.After Chat Moss electrification but before full
Lancashire Triangle electrification around 2017.
Assuming that the train in the standard path
of the Anglo-Scottish service will be diverted
via the WCML route from Preston and onto the
Chat Moss route
2.Post Lancashire triangle electrification to the
end of the RUS period in 2023/24. Assuming
that all the current services remain on the
Bolton corridor
3.Post Lancashire triangle electrification to the end
of the RUS period in 2023/24. Assuming that the
train in the standard path of the Anglo-Scottish
service will be diverted via the WCML route from
Preston and onto the Chat Moss route.
In each of these scenarios, lengthening of services
may result in the need for extending the following
platforms:
l
Blackrod (lengthening from five to six-car)
l
Westhoughton (lengthening from five to six-car)
l
Hindley (lengthening from five to six-car)
l
Meols Cop (lengthening from five to six-car)
l
arbold (lengthening one platform from five to
P
six-car)
l
Appley Bridge (lengthening from four to six-car).
The analysis of scenarios 2 and 3 indicates that
four-car EMU services may not provide enough
capacity in CP5 and eight-cars may be an overprovision, depending on the service specification
adopted, and trigger a larger programme of
platform lengthening than outlined above,
including major works at Salford Crescent.
Six-car formations would be ideal but would
require three-car EMUs to be provided when train
lengthening becomes necessary.
On completion of electrification, the service pattern
on the Bolton corridor needs to provide a desirable
spread of services to the north and south sides of
Manchester. Transport for Greater Manchester,
which has taken over the responsibilities of the
former Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive (GMPTE), has a multi-modal model which
can be used to test different service options to help
identify the optimal spread. GMPTE undertook a
study into the ultimate destination of passengers
travelling from stations between Preston and
Manchester on the Bolton corridor using this model
which indicated that the current level of services
to Manchester Victoria needs to be maintained
but the loss of one train in the high-peak hour to
Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly
could be acceptable provided sufficient capacity was
available on the remaining services.
If the service proposition for the Bolton corridor
to deliver sufficient passenger capacity and the
connectivity to the north and south sides of
Manchester requires an additional high-peak
hour service, analysis indicates that this could be
achievable through a recast of the timetable with
alternate stopping patterns and destinations of
some services. For example, diverting the Southport
to Manchester Airport service to Manchester Victoria
and retiming the Blackpool North to Manchester
Airport service provides an additional path from
Preston on this corridor.
53
4. Gaps and options
Barrow and Windermere services post
electrification
The routes from Barrow-in-Furness to Carnforth and
Windermere to Oxenholme are not planned to be
electrified as part of the North West electrification
project. A direct service from Barrow-in-Furness or
Windermere to Manchester will have to use diesel
traction. The business case for maintaining the
connections between these locations has been
appraised against a base assumption that diesel
shuttle services will operate from Barrow-in-Furness
and Windermere to Preston broadly in their current
timings. Six scenarios have then been appraised.
The first three assume the Barrow-in-Furness
shuttle (as a proxy for the potential mixture of
Barrow-in-Furness and Windermere trains) operates
approximately every two hours through to the
Manchester area. The latter three assume that the
service proposition on the Bolton corridor following
electrification includes an EMU service starting at
Preston, running to the Manchester area that could
be converted to a DMU and extended to Barrow-inFurness approximately every two hours:
1.extension of the Barrow-in-Furness to Preston
diesel shuttles to Manchester Airport
2.extension of the Barrow-in-Furness to Preston
diesel shuttles to Manchester Victoria
3.extension of the Barrow-in-Furness to Preston
diesel shuttles to Hazel Grove
4conversion of an EMU service from Preston to
Manchester Airport into a DMU service and
extending back from Barrow-in-Furness
5.conversion of an EMU service from Preston to
Manchester Victoria into a DMU service and
extending back from Barrow-in-Furness
6.conversion of an EMU service from Preston to
Hazel Grove into a DMU service and extending
back from Barrow-in-Furness.
The benefits of each scenario have been appraised
against the operational costs and summarised in
Table 4.2. The appraisal only takes account of the
connectivity from stations between Preston and
Barrow/Windermere to stations between Preston
and Manchester Victoria/Hazel Grove/Manchester
Airport or Manchester Victoria. The appraisal does
not take account of the benefit from increased
frequency of services at stations between Preston and
Manchester. The analysis suggests that if there were
to be a Preston to Hazel Grove or Manchester Airport
or Manchester Victoria electric service in the postelectrification service proposition then converting it
to diesel traction and extending to Barrow-in-Furness
or Windermere has a high value for money business
case. However, the cost of extending the Barrowin-Furness and Windermere shuttle services beyond
Preston to any Manchester destination (Options 1 to
3) as an additional service on the Bolton corridor is
not justifiable.
Table 4.2 – Business case for scenarios 1 to 6
Option S1
PV £m
Option S2
PV £m
Option S3
PV £m
Option S4
PV £m
Option S5
PV £m
Option S6
PV £m
Operating cost
25.7
24.3
25.6
7.0
5.6
6.8
Revenue
-5.1
-3.6
-4.2
-5.1
-3.6
-4.2
Other Government
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.9
21.7
21.4
22.2
3.0
2.7
3.5
Rail users benefits
13.2
9.8
11.3
13.2
9.8
11.3
Non users benefits
3.5
2.5
2.9
3.5
2.5
2.9
Total quantified benefits
16.7
12.3
14.2
16.7
12.3
14.2
NPV
-5.1
-9.1
-8.0
13.7
9.7
10.7
Quantified BCR
0.8
0.6
0.6
5.6
4.5
4.1
30 year appraisal
Costs (Present Value)
Total costs
Benefits (Present Value)
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
54
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
This analysis suggests that the frequency of
services on the Bolton corridor should not be
driven by the benefits of connecting Barrow and
Windermere to Manchester, but the opportunity
to convert a service to a DMU service and extend
it to Barrow/Windermere should be exploited.
The service development process for the Bolton
corridor will have to consider the points outlined
above and provide the optimal service which
provides enough capacity, is ‘value for money’,
and provides as many linkages that passengers
require as possible.
Gap 2: Accommodating peak growth
into Manchester Piccadilly
Track and platform capacity at
Manchester Piccadilly
In the Northern RUS Draft for Consultation, it
was identified that in the period to 2024, there
would be an increase in the number and length
of services into Manchester Piccadilly, particularly
in the high-peak hour. Therefore, it was necessary
to identify whether Manchester Piccadilly is
capable of accommodating these additional and
longer services in terms of track capacity both
in the terminal platforms and the approaches to
the station.
The analysis undertaken for the draft RUS
considered the recommended lengthening of
services from the North West RUS and Yorkshire and
Humber RUS along with the committed lengthening
of many West Coast Main Line Class 390 services to
11-car units. It also considered the additional north
cross-Pennine services recommended in the Yorkshire
and Humber RUS and in Gap 3 of this RUS.
The work found that the longer and additional
services could be accommodated with some
timetabling alterations.
However, the recent Ordsall Chord announcement
will result in the north cross-Pennine trains, that
currently run into Manchester Piccadilly, running via
Manchester Victoria instead. This will result in a net
reduction in the number of trains running into the
terminal platforms.
There were also some concerns regarding track
capacity at the throat of Manchester Piccadilly and
the effect of the crossing moves that are currently
undertaken by the majority of north cross-Pennine
trains. Again, the Ordsall Chord announcement will
result in the removal of these crossing moves and
therefore relieve the track capacity constraints.
Therefore it is felt that further interventions beyond
those detailed in the Ordsall Chord announcement
are not necessary to accommodate peak growth
into Manchester Piccadilly to 2024, though these
findings need to be reviewed if there are any
significant changes to the length or frequency of
the Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) services from
Birmingham and London beyond the Class 390 train
lengthening programme that is already funded.
However, the implementation of the full Northern
Hub project will provide additional track capacity at
Manchester Piccadilly via two additional platforms.
Track capacity at Manchester Airport
A third platform at Manchester Airport was built
in December 2008 to increase platform capacity,
reduce the frequency of platform sharing and
allow longer turnrounds. Similar to the analysis
undertaken at Manchester Piccadilly for the draft
RUS, an assessment was undertaken of the expected
length of services that use Manchester Airport
between 07:30 and 09:30. It should be noted that
these operate for both connectivity and operational
reasons but their length is determined by the
need to meet passenger demand into Manchester
Piccadilly. The following lengthening scenarios have
been taken into account:
l
s ervices up to eight-car (depending on the
chosen mix of train formations on this route as
described in Gap 1) from the Bolton corridor to
Manchester Airport
l
six-car north cross-Pennine services
l
lengthening of local services in line with the
North West RUS and as identified by this RUS.
All three existing platforms are approximately 200
metres long, sufficient to allow an eight-car train to
be in a platform. However, a second train cannot
share a platform if a train longer than four-cars is
already occupying it.
The impact on platform capacity has been analysed
and demonstrates that the following lengthened
services cannot share a platform:
l
s ix-car north cross-Pennine services; in some
instances these services cannot be replatformed
l
s ix/eight-car Bolton line services; in some
instances these cannot be re-platformed.
Therefore, a fourth platform is required at
Manchester Airport to provide adequate track
capacity for lengthened trains to deal with peak
hour growth into Manchester Piccadilly. This is not
affected by the recent Ordsall Chord announcement.
55
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 2.1 – fourth platform at Manchester Airport
Concept
Lengthening of services on the Bolton and north cross-Pennine corridors will require additional
capacity at Manchester Airport.
Operational analysis
The capital expenditure associated with a fourth platform at the airport has been assessed
against the operational costs and benefits of lengthening services on the north cross-Pennine
corridor and lengthening the existing Southport to Manchester Airport service so that it is
longer than the current four-car formation. A six-car service has been assumed to simplify
the appraisal. The additional benefit of possible lengthening of other existing services on the
Bolton corridor to more than four-car services has not been assessed.
Infrastructure
required
The Northern Hub has identified that the cost of a fourth platform is around £23 million in
2010 prices. Depending on the operational solution, lengthening of some existing platforms
between Southport and Bolton may also be required. The cost of this has been estimated at
£1.5 million in 2010 prices for six-car operation in the appraisal.
Passenger impact
To accommodate longer services to increase capacity and reduce crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
60-year appraisal
Option 2.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
21.1
Operating cost
6.0
Revenue
Other Government impacts
Total costs
Financial and
economic analysis
-12.2
2.3
17.2
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
0.0
Crowding benefits
28.7
Non users benefits
5.1
Total quantified benefits
33.7
NPV
17.5
Quantified BCR
2.0
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
56
Link to other options
Gap 1 Bolton corridor and Gap 3.
Conclusion
This option is recommended in the strategy and would have to be completed prior to
lengthening either the Bolton line services or the north cross-Pennine trains that ‘platform
share’ with other services.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Gap 3: Peak and off-peak crowding
on the Leeds – Manchester route
taking into account journey time
improvements
Subsequent to the Northern RUS Draft for
Consultation being published, the Government
announced the funding of the first three
interventions in the Northern Hub portfolio. This
announcement will significantly change services over
the Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly via Huddersfield
route in the Manchester area. The known changes
are as follows:
The interurban services between Manchester and
Leeds on the north cross-Pennine route (Figure 4.6)
are heavily used and were originally considered in
the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. To deal with all-day
crowding on this route, the Yorkshire and Humber
RUS recommended a fifth all-day cross-Pennine
service between Manchester and Leeds (and
beyond) and lengthening of some existing services
into Leeds in the high-peaks.
The draft Northern RUS analysed capacity and
demand on this corridor in 2024 and found that
the Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommendations
of train lengthening into Leeds and a fifth crossPennine service were still appropriate to help
accommodate growth to 2024. The Northern
RUS then found that this did not solve crowding
into Leeds from Huddersfield and Dewsbury
and therefore recommended a shuttle between
Huddersfield and Leeds in the morning and evening
peaks to operate in the high-peak hour and one
shoulder-peak hour. It also recommended train
lengthening of services into Manchester in the peak.
l
t he two services per hour between Manchester
Airport and destinations east of Leeds via
Manchester Piccadilly will run via Manchester
Piccadilly Platforms 13 and 14, the Ordsall Chord
and Manchester Victoria
l
t he hourly service between Liverpool and
destinations east of Leeds via Manchester
Piccadilly will be diverted via the Chat Moss
route and Manchester Victoria and will not call
at Manchester Piccadilly
l
t he hourly service from Manchester Piccadilly
to destinations east of Leeds to start at
Liverpool Lime Street and run via the Chat Moss
and Manchester Victoria and will not call at
Manchester Piccadilly
l
t wo additional services running between
Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds, resulting in six
north cross-Pennine trains per hour
Figure 4.6 – Route used by Manchester - Leeds interurban service
Routes used by
Manchester – Leeds
interurban services
Other routes
Routes used by Manchester – Leeds
interurban services
Holbeck Jn
Whitehall
Jn
Leeds
Leeds
West Jn
Other routes
To Hull/
York/
North East
Cottingley
Batley
Morley
Dewsbury
Mirfield
Bradley Jn
Deighton
Ravensthorpe
Thornhill
L.N.W. Jn
Heaton
Lodge
Jn
Huddersfield
Slaithwaite
Marsden
Springwood Jn
Greenfield
Mossley
Stalybridge
To Liverpool
Manchester
Piccadilly
Ashburys
West Jn
Ardwick
Ardwick Jn
Gorton Fairfield
Ashburys
Ashburys
East Jn
Guide Bridge
To Manchester
Airport
57
4. Gaps and options
l
f aster journey times between Manchester and
Leeds as the Manchester Victoria route is shorter
than that to Manchester Piccadilly which should
also benefit longer distance journeys on these
services (eg Newcastle to Manchester)
l
f aster journey times between Liverpool and
Manchester and therefore journey times
between Liverpool and Yorkshire should be
considerably reduced.
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 demonstrate what capacity
will have to be provided on the north cross-Pennine
route in 2024. With six interurban trains operating
between Manchester and Leeds, enough capacity
can be provided without having to go beyond six-car
trains, which avoids any platform lengthening issues.
Figure 4.7 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak to Leeds
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Figure 4.8 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak to Manchester
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
58
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Gap 4: Peak and off-peak crowding
between Sheffield and Manchester
Further development work will be undertaken by
the Northern Hub project to identify whether any
further infrastructure changes will be required
to deliver the DfT’s proposed six trains per hour,
beyond those that are already funded. This work
should develop solutions to provide enough
capacity between Manchester and Leeds.
Crowding on the Sheffield to Manchester route
(Figure 4.9) was originally considered in the Yorkshire
and Humber RUS. This resulted in a recommendation
of an additional all-day Manchester Piccadilly
to Sheffield service, an extension of an existing
Manchester Piccadilly to New Mills Central service
with suitable amendments to calling patterns
on Romiley line services. This option improved
connectivity between the two cities.
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommendations
for meeting capacity on the stopping services
into Leeds is still valid to 2024. However, stopping
services into Manchester will be significantly
affected by the Ordsall Chord announcement and so
meeting capacity on them will need to be addressed
through the Northern Hub work.
Figure 4.9 – Routes used by Sheffield – Manchester passenger services
Routes used by Sheffield
– Manchester passenger
services
To Liverpool
Other routes
Manchester Piccadilly
Ashburys
West Jn
Ardwick
Ardwick Jn
Slade
Lane
Jn
To Manchester
Airport
Flowery
Field
Gorton Fairfield
Ashburys
Belle Vue
Ryder Brow
Reddish North
Levenshulme
Ashburys
East
Jn
Guide
Bridge
Hyde
Jn
Hyde North
Denton
Brinnington
Heaton
Chapel
Reddish
South
Hyde Central
Woodley
Bredbury
Heaton Norris Jn
Edgeley Jns
Newton
for Hyde
Denton Jn
Stockport
Romiley Jn
Romiley
Marple Wharf Jn
Davenport
Woodsmoor
Hazel Grove
Marple
Rose Hill Marple
To Doncaster/Cleethorpes
Strines
New Mills Central
Hazel Grove Jns
Chinley
New
Mills
South Jn
Edale
Chinley
Jns
Hope
Bamford
Hathersage
Dore
& Totley
Sheffield
Grindleford
To East Midlands/
East Anglia
Subsequently, the East Midlands RUS recommended
lengthening the Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich
services to four-car length to deal with crowding
between Liverpool and Nottingham. Progressive
lengthening (between Liverpool and Nottingham
only) is expected to be implemented in 2011 and
2012 following agreement on the provision of
additional rolling stock between the DfT and EMT.
Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the strategy
for this corridor in light of these changes.
The following services are considered in the analysis
of demand and capacity:
l
ourly Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services
h
that run as three-car DMUs, apart from the least
busy hours, where they run as two-car DMUs
l
ourly Liverpool – Nottingham – Norwich
h
services that are expected to run as four-car
DMUs from 2012.
Analysis of demand and capacity between Sheffield
and Manchester considered the following:
l
forecast demand to 2024
l
t he planned increase in capacity resulting
from lengthening the existing Liverpool to
Norwich services.
59
4. Gaps and options
Demand and capacity in the
Manchester to Sheffield direction
Figure 4.10 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Sheffield in the morning peak in 2024
l
t he seated and standing capacity of existing
services in each peak hour plus the extra
capacity from lengthening the existing two-car
DMUs to four-car DMUs in line with the planned
train lengthening.
The graph demonstrates that sufficient capacity is
provided in the morning peak into Sheffield by 2024.
Analysis also shows that off peak crowding is not a
problem into Sheffield and that the evening peak
has a similar crowding problem to the morning peak
out of Sheffield in the Manchester direction.
Figure 4.10 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak to Sheffield
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
800
Total capacity
700
Seated capacity
600
500
400
300
200
100
Note: no interurban services arrive into Sheffield between 07:00 and 07:59.
60
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Demand and capacity in the
Sheffield to Manchester direction
Figure 4.11 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Manchester in the morning peak in 2024
l
the seated and standing capacity of existing
services in each peak hour plus the extra
capacity from lengthening the existing two-car
DMUs to four-car DMUs in line with the planned
train lengthening.
The graph demonstrates that insufficient capacity
is provided in the second shoulder peak hour into
Manchester by 2024, one extra equivalent vehicle
arrival in this hour will meet the gap.
Analysis also shows that off-peak crowding is not a
problem into Manchester and that the evening peak
has a similar crowding problem to the morning peak
out of Manchester in the Sheffield direction.
Figure 4.11 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Manchester
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
800
Total capacity
700
Seated capacity
600
500
400
300
200
100
To meet the capacity gap, the following four options
have been appraised:
4.1.lengthening of the busiest Cleethorpes to
Manchester Airport services by one vehicle
4.2.an additional shuttle between Manchester and
Sheffield in the morning and evening peaks
with the capital cost associated with Dore
Jn redoubling
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
4.3.extending the shuttle to the off-peak with the
capital cost associated with Dore Jn redoubling
and Grindleford loops
4.4.extending the all-day shuttle to link with the
Hull to Sheffield service to improve connectivity
benefits with the capital cost associated with
Dore Jn redoubling only.
61
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 4.1 – lengthening Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services
Concept
Lengthen the busiest services between Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport.
Operational analysis
Current Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes services are a mixture of two and three-car DMUs.
Four-car DMUs can be accommodated at all platforms at which these trains normally call. This
appraisal assumes that two unit diagrams (the group of trains that one set of rolling stock
operates in a day) would have an additional vehicle all day to avoid coupling and shunting
between the peaks. This means the mileage-related costs apply to all trains covered by the two
diagrams. A few of the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services currently stop at Habrough
which cannot accommodate four-car DMUs so some platform lengthening may be required at
Habrough station.
Infrastructure
required
Some platform lengthening may be required to allow four-car DMUs to stop at Habrough, the
cost of this has been estimated at £100k and included in the appraisal.
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding on the busiest Cleethorpes to
Manchester Airport services.
Freight impact
None.
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
30-year appraisal
Option 4.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
Financial and
economic analysis
0.1
Operating cost
8.9
Revenue
-8.5
Other Government impacts
1.6
Total costs
2.2
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
0.0
Crowding benefits
16.1
Non users benefits
3.5
Total quantified benefits
19.6
NPV
17.4
Quantified BCR
>5
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
The revenue associated with this scheme is expected to almost cover the operating costs.
Therefore, there may be a purely financial case for lengthening these services in the future.
62
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to meet capacity on the south cross-Pennine route. If actual
demand grows in line with forecast demand then implementation of option 4.1 would be
necessary in CP6.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 4.2 – run a peak shuttle between Manchester and Sheffield
Concept
Extend a Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service from/to Sheffield in
each of the morning and evening peak hours to provide more capacity on services between
Manchester and Sheffield with the added benefits of improved connectivity.
Operational analysis
Extending an existing train avoids having to timetable an additional train into or out of
Manchester Piccadilly in the peak hours. A review of calling patterns on Romiley line services
would be needed to get the best balance between Sheffield to Manchester journey times and
meeting the needs of local users. The existing Marple/New Mills Central service runs as a twocar DMU, which will have to be lengthened to a three-car DMU to provide enough capacity for
existing passengers, and will require two additional units to extend the services. Therefore, this
option requires the following:
• eight sets of train crew
• seven extra DMU vehicles
• extra mileage from Marple/New Mills to Sheffield for 12 services a day.
Infrastructure
required
This option is assumed to require doubling of Dore Jn. The Northern Hub Study estimates the
cost of this scheme as £16 million in 2009 prices at GRIP 1 (initial feasibility estimate).
Passenger impact
Increased capacity, reduced crowding and improved connectivity.
Freight impact
Further limits opportunity for freight trains to operate in the Hope Valley during the peaks.
The following table outlines the standalone appraisal results:
60-year appraisal
Option 4.2 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
Operating cost
54.4
Revenue
-16.4
Other Government impacts
Total costs
Financial and
economic analysis
19.3
3.3
60.6
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
17.7
Crowding benefits
19.4
Non users benefits
6.8
Total quantified benefits
43.9
NPV
-16.7
Quantified BCR
0.7
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
The operating costs of this scheme are very expensive compared with the connectivity
improvements over and above option 4.1. Therefore, this option is not recommended.
63
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 4.3 – run a shuttle all day between Manchester and Sheffield
64
Concept
Extend one Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service per hour to Sheffield all
day. To provide more capacity on services between Manchester and Sheffield with the added
benefits of improved connectivity.
Operational analysis
The incremental operating expenditure compared with option 4.2 is the extra mileage costs
of running the additional service in the off-peak.
Infrastructure
required
This option requires doubling of Dore Jn and passing loops in the Grindleford area, as
identified by the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. The Northern Hub study estimates the cost of
these schemes are £16 million and £25 million respectively in 2009 prices at GRIP 1 (initial
feasibility estimate).
Passenger impact
Reduced crowding and increased connectivity.
Freight impact
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS developed an outline timetable that could accommodate the
extra passenger services and three freight trains every two hours in each direction, as required
to meet freight growth.
Link to other options
An extension of option 4.2.
Conclusion
The improved connectivity and small increase in connectivity benefits are not sufficient to
cover the cost of passing loops at Grindleford or the operating cost of the extended service.
This option is therefore not recommended.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 4.4 – run a shuttle all day between Manchester and Sheffield
as an extension of the Hull to Sheffield service
Concept
Extend one Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service per hour to Sheffield all
day and then combine it with the Sheffield – Hull service. To provide more capacity on services
between Manchester and Sheffield, and between Sheffield and Doncaster, with additional
connectivity benefits compared with option 4.3 .
Operational analysis
There is assumed to be no additional operating expenditure compared with option 4.3.
Infrastructure
required
This option requires doubling of Dore Jn and passing loops at Grindleford. The Northern Hub
project estimates the cost of this scheme at £16 million and £25 million respectively in 2009
prices at GRIP 1. However, the capital cost of passing loops of Grindleford is assumed to be
covered by the Strategic Freight Network Hope Valley train lengthening scheme.
Passenger impact
Reduced crowding and increased connectivity.
Freight impact
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS developed an outline timetable that could accommodate the
extra passenger services and three freight trains every two hours in each direction, as required
to meet freight growth with the above infrastructure schemes. The freight services were timed
as heavier trains than those which operate in the daytime currently.
The following table outlines the standalone appraisal results:
60-year appraisal
Option 4.4 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
19.3
Operating cost
64.6
Revenue
-36.7
Other Government impacts
Total costs
Financial and
economic analysis
7.2
54.4
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
32.6
Crowding benefits
38.9
Non users benefits
14.3
Total quantified benefits
85.8
NPV
31.4
Quantified BCR
1.6
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
The standalone case for extending the services to Hull has a medium value for money case,
assuming that the cost of Grindleford loops is not included. However, the incremental case
of this scheme compared with option 4.1 (which has a high value for money case) has a low
value for money business case.
Link to other options
This is an extension of options 4.3.
Conclusion
The further increase in connectivity benefits is not sufficient to cover the operating cost of
the portion of the service between Marple/New Mills and Sheffield. This option is therefore
not recommended.
65
4. Gaps and options
Gap 5: Peak crowding on the Retford
and Penistone lines, and additional
calls at Elsecar
Therefore, the strategy for this corridor is to lengthen
the busiest services between Manchester Airport and
Cleethorpes, as described in option 4.1, to provide
adequate capacity west of Doncaster to 2024 as
there is a peak capacity gap between Doncaster
and Sheffield too. It is not possible to recommend
additional services.
The Penistone line
The Penistone line (Figure 4.12) currently has one
stopping service every hour between Sheffield and
Huddersfield in each direction, and many platforms
are only long enough to accommodate trains
comprising the equivalent of two 23 metre vehicles.
The Northern Hub project (see Gap 9), would enable
additional services and improved journey times between
Manchester and Sheffield and provides opportunity for
improved connectivity beyond these cities.
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS did not analyse
capacity on the Penistone line because the planned
tram-train trial was expected to provide more capacity
on this route. However, the trial is no longer going
ahead on this route and so further work is required.
During the consultation period, respondents
highlighted that there is a crowding problem for
passengers boarding at Sheffield and Manchester in
the evening peak and travelling to stations in the Hope
Valley as there is only one peak service. Northern Rail
has already been working on this issue and intends
to run an additional service in each direction in the
evening peak between Sheffield and Manchester. This
service is planned to be introduced in the December
2011 timetable, subject to completion of industry
processes and addressing some stakeholder issues.
This would deal with this specific gap.
The following analysis shows demand and capacity
on services into Huddersfield and Sheffield in the
morning peak. These services are currently planned
to be formed of a mix of two and three-car Class
142/144 DMUs, and a two-car Class 150 DMU.
Figure 4.13 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Huddersfield in the morning peak in 2024
l
t he seated and standing capacity of existing
services in each peak hour.
The graph demonstrates that with the current rolling
stock the service into Huddersfield in the first shoulder
peak hour will be slightly over standing capacity by
the end of the RUS period. More capacity would be
provided by replacing the two-car Class142/144 DMU
that currently runs this service with a two-car Class
156 DMU or a train with equivalent capacity.
Figure 4.12 – Routes used by Retford and Penistone line passenger services
Routes used by Retford
and Penistone passenger
services
Other routes
Routes used by Retford and Penistone passenger services
Other routes
Marsden
Greenfield
Mossley
Stalybridge
Huddersfield
Springwood Jn
Lockwood
Berry Brow
Honley
Brockholes
Stocksmoor
Shepley
Denby Dale
Penistone
Silkstone
Common
To Wakefield Kirkgate/Leeds
Gainsborough
Lea Road
Dodworth
Trent
Jns
Barnsley Station Jn
Barnsley
To Doncaster
Clarborough Jn
Wombwell
Retford
Western
Jn
Elsecar
Chapeltown
Meadowhall
Wincobank Jn
Nunnery Main Jn
Sheffield
66
Darnall
Kiveton Bridge
Woodhouse
Worksop
Kiveton Park Shireoaks
Shireoaks Jns
Retford
Saxilby
Lincoln
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Figure 4.13 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Huddersfield on the
Penistone line
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
250
Total capacity
200
Seated capacity
150
100
50
Figure 4.14 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Sheffield in the morning peak in 2024
l
t he seated and standing capacity of existing
services in each peak hour.
The graph shows that there will be insufficient seated
and standing capacity in the high-peak hour and
second shoulder peak hour into Sheffield by 2024.
The service in the second shoulder peak hour is
part of the same diagram as the service in the first
shoulder peak hour into Huddersfield, therefore,
increasing the density of the stock on this diagram
from a two-car Class 142/144 DMU to a two-car Class
156 DMU or equivalent will provide sufficient capacity.
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Lengthening the high peak hour service from a
two-car Class 150 DMU to the equivalent of a
three-car Class 156 DMU would provide sufficient
capacity. However, platform lengths at several
stations between Penistone and Huddersfield,
including the bay platform at Huddersfield used
by these services, will not accommodate three 23
metre vehicles. This will require the lengthening
of Platform 2 at Huddersfield to accommodate a
three 23 metre vehicle train and will require the
additional vehicle to be locked out of use between
Penistone and Huddersfield (as the extra capacity
is only required south of Penistone) to avoid
further platform lengthening. The assessment
of option 5.1 demonstrates the business case for
this scheme.
Figure 4.14 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Sheffield on the
Penistone line
Required total
capacity in 2024
250
200
150
100
50
0
09:00
to
09:59
Seated capacity
300
08:00
to
08:59
Total capacity
07:00
to
07:59
Required seated
capacity in 2024
67
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 5.1 – lengthening the high-peak hour Sheffield service to three
23 metre vehicles
Concept
Lengthen services in the high-peak hour into Sheffield in the morning peak and
associated infrastructure.
Operational analysis
This option will require the procurement of one diesel vehicle, and the additional vehicle
mileage costs associated with running a longer train.
Infrastructure
required
Because of platforming constraints at Huddersfield, bay Platform 2 at Huddersfield would
need to be lengthened eastwards, to accommodate 3x23 metre vehicles and retain signal
sighting. Capital cost estimate for this scheme is approximately £1 million in 2010 prices.
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The opportunity to maximise the benefit of this scheme by running lengthened services in the
off-peak has not been assessed. The following appraisal quantifies the operational costs and
benefits of running the services in the peak only:
30-year appraisal
Option 5.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
1.3
Operating cost
2.4
Revenue
-0.8
Other Government impacts
0.2
Total costs
3.1
Benefits (present value)
Crowding benefits
6.0
Non users benefits
1.3
Total quantified benefits
7.3
NPV
4.1
Quantified BCR
2.3
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
The change in service pattern on the route from Leeds to Manchester as a result of the Ordsall
chord and associated works may allow lengthened services to be replatformed at Huddersfield,
avoiding the need for lengthening the bay platform.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to meet capacity on the Penistone route. If actual demand grows
broadly in line with forecast demand then phased implementation of this option would be
required in CP5.
Another consequence of the tram-train trial no
longer being on the Huddersfield – Sheffield route
is that the expected ability to reinstate the Elsecar
calls in these services is no longer addressed. Due to
the tight turnrounds at Sheffield and the combined
effects of the single line sections north of Barnsley
and the introduction of a revised Leeds – Sheffield –
Barnsley service, train calls at Elsecar were reduced.
The overall journey time of the Penistone line
services needs to be reduced by two minutes in
each direction to allow this service to call at Elsecar.
The better acceleration of tram-train vehicles was
expected to allow this to happen.
68
The East Midlands RUS identified the maximum
infrastructure cost that could support a one-minute
journey time improvement to all services between
Barnsley and Meadowhall with a BCR of two. Given
the nature of this route it is unlikely that more than
one minute of journey time improvement could be
found for trains calling intermediately and so a second
minute would need to be found north of Barnsley on
the Penistone line services to enable the reinstatement
of calls at Elsecar. To achieve a BCR of two, based
on the benefits of all Penistone line trains calling at
Elsecar, a linespeed improvement with a cost of no
more than £1.9 million in 2010 prices would need to
be found. See table below for appraisal of this option.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
The East Midlands RUS recommendation shall be
further developed to include both journey time
improvements between Nottingham, Sheffield and
Leeds via Barnsley and linespeed improvements
for Sheffield – Huddersfield services which would
allow the Elsecar call to be reinstated rather than
reduce overall journey times on these Penistone line
stopping services.
Assessment of option 5.2 – Financial and economic analysis of linespeed improvement to
allow reinstatement of Elsecar calls
60-year appraisal
Option 5.2 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
2.2
Operating cost
0.0
Revenue
-0.8
Other Government impacts
0.2
Total costs
1.5
Benefits (present value)
Rail users benefits
2.7
Crowding benefits
0.0
Non users benefits
0.3
Total quantified benefits
3.0
NPV
1.5
Quantified BCR
2.00
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
Retford line
Unlike all other corridors into Sheffield, the Yorkshire
and Humber RUS did not identify capacity issues on
the Retford line to 2019. Further analysis is required
to see if this is still true to 2024.
Analysis of demand and capacity on the Retford line
(Figure 4.15) into Sheffield on the following services
has been undertaken:
l
6:30 Worksop to Leeds service that arrives into
0
Sheffield between 07:00 and 08:00 and is a
three-car Pacer DMU
l
7:04 Lincoln to Sheffield service that arrives
0
into Sheffield between 08:00 and 09:00 and will
be a four-car Pacer DMU by the end of CP4
l
8:27 Lincoln to Adwick service that arrives
0
into Sheffield between 09:00 and 10:00 and is
a two-car Pacer DMU.
Detailed data for the 07:03 Retford to Leeds service
and the 08:14 Worksop to Adwick service was
not available.
Figure 4.15 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Sheffield in the morning peak in 2024
l
s eated and standing capacity of existing services
in each peak hour.
The graph demonstrates that there is sufficient
capacity on the Retford line to 2024 in the first
shoulder and high-peak hours into Sheffield. There
may be some passenger standing for longer than
20 minutes in the second shoulder peak hour.
Replacement of the two-car Pacer DMU by a two-car
Sprinter DMU in CP6 will provide sufficient capacity
on this corridor.
69
4. Gaps and options
Figure 4.15 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Sheffield on the
Retford line
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
Total capacity
Seated capacity
300
250
200
150
100
50
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Figure 4.16 – Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor
Immingham –
Scunthorpe– Knottingley
corridor
Eggborough Power
Station
Other routes
* Name used in RUS for
proposed junction
Drax Power
Station
Knottingley
West Jn
Knottingley
Knottingley
South Jn
Killingholme
Knottingley
East Jn
Immingham Docks
Grimsby
Docks
ECML
Roxby
Landfill site
Thorne Jn
Hatfield &
Stainforth
North Doncaster
Chord Jn*
Applehurst Jn
Crowle
Thorne
South
Stainforth
Jn
ECML
Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor
Other routes
* Name used in RUS for proposed junction
70
Scunthorpe
Althorpe
Ulceby
BrocklesbyJn
Wrawby Jn
Corus
Scunthorpe
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Gap 6: Insufficient freight capacity
on the Immingham – Scunthorpe –
Knottingley corridor
Analysis of the track capacity available to provide
the paths required for the Strategic Freight Network
(SFN) forecasts for 2019 and 2030 (see section
3.2 in Chapter 3) was undertaken to identify
where the number of freight paths required per
hour is expected to exceed the capacity available.
The ECML was examined by the East Coast Main
Line 2016 Capacity Review (see section 2.4.3) and
the only other line the in RUS area that is unable
to accommodate the forecast number of freight
paths is the Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley
corridor (Figure 4.16).
Table 4.3 shows the demand for paths in 2019 and
2030 on this corridor.
Current freight
paths available
per hour in each
direction
2019 forecast
freight demand
2030 forecast
freight demand
Table 4.3 – Current capacity and SFN forecasts in 2019 and 2030
Immingham to Brocklesby
6
5
7
Brocklesby to Wrawby Jn (two westbound lines)
6
5
7
Wrawby Jn to Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn
4
4
5
Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn to Scunthorpe West Jn
4
4
5
Scunthorpe West Jn to Thorne Jn
4
3
4
Thorne Jn to Hatfield & Stainforth (two lines each way)
5
4
5
Hatfield & Stainforth to Applehurst Jn
4
3
4
Applehurst Jn to North Doncaster Chord Jn
4
3
4
North Doncaster Chord Jn# to Knottingley South Jn
5
3
5
Knottingley South Jn to Knottingley East Jn
2
2
3
Knottingley South Jn to Knottingley West Jn
3
1
1
Knottingley East Jn to Eggborough Whitley Bridge Jn
4
4
4
Knottingley West Jn to Ferrybridge North Jn
2
2
2
Knottingley West Jn to Knottingley East Jn
2
2
1
Eggborough Whitley Bridge Jn to Drax Branch Jn
4
3
4
Ferrybridge North Jn to Milford Jn
2
2
2
#
# Name used for the purposes of this RUS to identify where the Immingham – Knottingley and Doncaster – Knottingley routes join
once the North Doncaster Chord project is completed.
71
4. Gaps and options
This analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient
capacity on all sections to meet the requirements of
the 2019 forecasts if there is no increase in passenger
paths. The work then examined the 2019 freight
paths with the potential half hourly Knottingley –
Leeds passenger service is introduced and found a
capacity pinch point (see Scheme 2 below).
The following sections/locations have insufficient
capacity to meet the 2030 forecasts:
l
Immingham to Brocklesby
l
Wrawby Jn to Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn
l
Knottingley East Jn.
Analysis shows that the following infrastructure
would be required to provide sufficient capacity in
these areas:
60-year appraisal
Costs (present value)
l
cheme 1: enhanced signalling to provide
S
four-minute planning headways between
Humber Road Jn (Immingham) and
Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn
l
cheme 2: a turnback at Knottingley station so
S
empty coaching stock moves associated with the
passenger services that terminate at Knottingley
do not block Knottingley East Jn whilst shunting
(required to deliver the 2019 freight forecasts
and the half-hourly Knottingley – Leeds service).
The case for investment is based on the
environmental benefits of removing lorries from
roads. The following table shows the appraisals
assuming that a lorry carries a load of around 29
tonnes and capital costs are estimated at £23
million and £12 million respectively for the two
schemes in 2010 prices:
Scheme 1 PV £m
Scheme 2 PV £m
Investment cost
24.7
12.9
Total costs
24.7
12.9
Non users benefits
174.1
42.0
Other Government impacts
-17.8
-4.2
156.2
37.7
131.6
24.9
6.3
2.9
Benefits (present value)
Total quantified benefits
NPV
Quantified BCR
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
The case is still robust against an increased
load per lorry of 40 tonnes. Therefore, the
infrastructure detailed above is recommended for
implementation to provide sufficient capacity for
the 2019 and 2030 SFN forecasts.
There are signalling works scheduled in these areas
in CP5 which would therefore be the best time to
undertake Scheme 1, which would give performance
and potential linespeed improvement opportunities
in advance of the need for an increase in capacity.
In addition, Stainforth Jn is at capacity by
2030. The performance impact of the increase in
freight services by 2030 has been assessed during
the consultation period. There is a small increase in
average lateness for passenger services. The increase
72
will only support a small cost for infrastructure
intervention and so the removal of approach
control for westbound freight services approaching
Stainforth Jn bound for the Applehurst Jn route was
modelled as a potential mitigation. Capital costs are
estimated at £0.5m for the scheme in 2010 prices.
The business case for removing the approach control
at Stainforth Jn from improve the performance
of passenger services is not sufficient but there is
a business case based on reducing fuel costs for
freight trains that no longer need to come to a stop
before accelerating to 25mph through the junction.
The assessment of Option 6.1 demonstrates
the case for removing the approach control at
Stainforth Jn.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 6.1 – removing the approach control at Stainforth Jn
Concept
Remove the approach control at Stainforth Jn so coal trains can avoid stopping and re-accelerating
Operational analysis
It is assumed that only half the freight trains for the Applehurst Jn route will benefit as the
others would be held at the junction for the trains from the Doncaster line.
Infrastructure
required
Removal of approach control at Stainforth Jn, estimated to cost £0.5 million.
Passenger impact
None.
Freight impact
Reduced diesel costs from not having to stop trains – estimated to be around £12 per train
for 5,300 trains per annum now to 7,800 trains per annum in 2030.
35-year appraisal
Option 6.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
0.7
Total cost
0.7
Benefits (present value)
Freight operator savings
1.5
Total quantified benefits
1.5
NPV
0.8
Quantified BCR
2.2
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to reduce whole life industry costs.
This scheme is recommended for development on
the back of renewals planned in CP4.
There is expected to be a small worsenment in
the performance of passenger trains between
Wrawby Jn and Thorne Jn due to the increased
quantity of freight trains operating on the line
and speed differentials between freight and
passenger services. This issue was considered,
but as the affect on performance is minimal, the
level of benefits that could be achieved would not
support a separate performance improvement
scheme. However, opportunities to reduce the
speed differentials should be examined when any
renewals or enhancements are undertaken.
The analysis has only covered the network owned
by Network Rail and has not considered the impact
of the growth forecasts on the Associated British
Ports’ railway infrastructure within the port complex
at Immingham.
Gap 7: Peak crowding on the Ilkley,
Skipton and Wakefield Westgate
corridors into Leeds
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended
a series of options to deal with expected crowding
on the Ilkley, Skipton and Wakefield corridors.
However, demand on these routes by 2024 could
exceed that provided by the recommendation in
the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. Also Northern Rail
is planning to run additional services into Leeds
on the Ilkley, Skipton and Wakefield corridors
from December 2011. Therefore, the strategies to
provide peak capacity needs to be checked and
developed to take account of these changes.
Demand and capacity on the
Ilkley line
The changes to the services that Northern Rail intend
to implement in the December 2011 timetable will
mean that four services comprising four-car EMU units
will run into Leeds on the Ilkley line (Figure 4.18) in the
high-peak hour and two services comprising four-car
EMU units in each shoulder peak hour. Demand on this
73
4. Gaps and options
The graph demonstrates that not enough standing
capacity will be provided on this corridor in the
high-peak hour. Four equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Leeds are required to meet the gap between
demand and capacity by 2024. In line with the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS, an option to lengthen
the busiest peak arrivals into Leeds to six-car length
has been developed (option 7.1).
corridor is expected to be very high by 2024, largely
because it is a major commuter corridor, and the
expected growth in the season ticket market into Leeds.
Figure 4.17 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Leeds in the AM peak in 2024
l
s eated and standing capacity of existing services
in each peak hour plus the capacity of an
additional four-car class EMU high-peak hour
shuttle into Leeds.
Figure 4.17 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Ilkley line
Required total
capacity in 2024
3000
Required seated
capacity in 2024
2500
Total capacity
2000
Seated capacity
1500
1000
500
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Figure 4.18 – Routes used by Skipton and Ilkley passenger services
Routes used by
Skipton and Ilkley
passenger services
Other routes
To Carlisle/Lancaster
Skipton
Ilkley
Cononley
Ben Rhydding
Steeton & Silsden
Burley-in-Wharfedale
Keighley
Menston
Crossflatts
Guiseley
Bingley
Saltaire
Esholt Jn
Baildon
Shipley
Shipley Jncs
Dockfield
Jn
Frizinghall
Bradford Forster Square
Apperley Jn
Whitehall
Jns
Leeds
74
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 7.1 – lengthen the busiest Ilkley services to six cars
Concept
Lengthen the two busiest services from Ilkley into Leeds in the AM high-peak hour to provide
sufficient capacity to 2024.
Operational analysis
This option will require four additional EMU vehicles on one service plus the additional vehicle
mileage related to running a lengthened train.
Infrastructure
required
Infrastructure would be required at Leeds station to accommodate lengthened services
alongside capacity interventions on other corridors (see Gap 8).
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The opportunity to maximise the benefit of this scheme by running lengthened services in
the off-peak has not been assessed. The following appraisal quantifies the operational costs
and benefits of running the services in the peak only:
30-year appraisal
Option 7.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
5.7
Revenue
-2.0
Other Government impacts
0.5
Total costs
4.1
Benefits (present value)
Crowding benefits
8.2
Non users benefits
2.6
Total quantified benefits
10.8
NPV
6.7
Quantified BCR
2.6
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to meet capacity on the Ilkley corridor into Leeds. If actual
demand grows broadly in line with forecast demand then phased implementation of this
option would be required in CP6.
75
4. Gaps and options
Demand and capacity on the
Skipton line
The changes to the service provision that Northern
Rail intends to implement the following services
in the morning peak from December 2011 on the
Skipton line (Figure 4.18):
l
between 07:00 and 08:00 into Leeds:
–two four-car EMU services from
Skipton to Leeds
l
between 08:00 and 09:00 into Leeds:
–four four-car EMU services run from Skipton
to Leeds
–one three-car DMU service from Ribblehead
into Leeds
l
between 09:00 and 10:00 into Leeds:
–two four-car EMU services run from
Skipton to Leeds
–one two-car DMU service from
Lancaster to Leeds
Figure 4.19 shows the following:
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Leeds in the AM peak in 2024
l
t he seated and standing capacity of existing
services in each peak hour plus the capacity
of an extra four-car class EMU high-peak hour
shuttle into Leeds and a two-car DMU service
being replaced by a four-car EMU.
This demonstrates that services in the high-peak
hour will be over standing capacity by 2024.
Two equivalent vehicle arrivals into Leeds are
required to meet the gap between demand and
capacity by 2024 in the high-peak hour. In line
with the Yorkshire and Humber RUS, an option to
lengthen the busiest peak arrival into Leeds has
been developed (option 7.2).
Figure 4.19 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Skipton line
Required total
capacity in 2024
Required seated
capacity in 2024
Total capacity
Seated capacity
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
76
09:00
to
09:59
08:00
to
08:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Assessment of option 7.2 – lengthen the busiest Skipton line service to six cars
Concept
Lengthen the busiest service from Skipton into Leeds in the AM high-peak hour to provide
sufficient capacity to 2024.
Operational analysis
This option will require two additional EMU vehicles on one service plus the additional vehicle
mileage related to running a lengthened train.
Infrastructure
required
Infrastructure would be required at Leeds station to accommodate lengthened services
alongside capacity interventions on other corridors (see Gap 8).
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
The opportunity to maximise the benefit of this scheme by running lengthened services in
the off-peak has not been assessed. The following appraisal quantifies the operational costs
and benefits of running the services in the peak only:
30-year appraisal
Option 7.2 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Financial and
economic analysis
Investment cost
0.0
Operating cost
2.8
Revenue
-1.1
Other Government impacts
0.2
Total costs
2.0
Benefits (present value)
Crowding benefits
4.2
Non users benefits
1.4
Total quantified benefits
5.6
NPV
3.6
Quantified BCR
2.8
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to meet capacity on the Skipton corridor into Leeds. If actual
demand grows broadly in line with forecast demand then phased implementation of this
option would be required in CP6.
77
4. Gaps and options
Demand and capacity on the
Wakefield line
–one service from Sheffield to Leeds
(four‑car DMU)
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended
using higher capacity EMUs on the Doncaster to
Leeds trains on the Wakefield Westgate corridor
(Figure 4.20) and an additional Doncaster to Leeds
service in the high-peak hour. From December 2011
an extra four-car EMU will operate in the high-peak
hour but none of the EMUs will be high capacity
Class 333s or similar. In CP4 the two-car DMU that
runs the Sheffield to Leeds will be lengthened to a
four-car DMU. The local services that are assumed to
run are as follows:
l
between 08:00 and 09:00 into Leeds:
–three services from Doncaster to Leeds
(four‑car Class 321 EMU)
–one service from Sheffield to Leeds
(four‑car DMU)
l
between 09:00 and 10:00 into Leeds:
–one service from Doncaster to Leeds
(four-car Class 321 EMU)
–one service from Sheffield to Leeds
(two-car DMU)
l
between 07:00 and 08:00 into Leeds:
–one service from Doncaster to Leeds
(four‑car Class 321 EMU)
Figure 4.20 – Routes used by Wakefield Westgate corridor passenger services
Routes used by Wakefield
Westgate corridor local
passenger service
Other routes
Leeds
Outwood
Wakefield Westgate
Sandal & Agbrigg
Fitzwilliam
South Elmsall
Moorthorpe
Thumscoe
Adwick
Bentley
Goldthorpe
Doncaster
Bolton-on-Dearne
Swinton
Rotherham Central
Meadowhall
Sheffield
Figure 4.21 shows the following for local services:
78
l
s eated and standing capacity requirements into
Leeds in the morning peak in 2024
l
t he seated and standing capacity of services
planned to operate from December 2011 in each
peak hour plus the increased capacity of higher
density EMU stock and additional DMU vehicles
on the Sheffield to Leeds services.
The graph demonstrates that services will be within
seated capacity by 2024. No further options have
been considered.
Strengthening of cross country LDHS services
provides trains of up to eight-car length from
Wakefield into Leeds in the morning peak, which,
along with services from London King’s Cross, would
provide capacity for Wakefield Westgate commuters.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Required seated
capacity in 2024
2000
Total capacity
1800
Seated capacity
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Gap 8: Accommodating peak services
into Leeds station
A number of service improvements are expected
between now and 2024 that will cause capacity
issues at Leeds station in the high-peak hour.
09:00
to
09:59
07:00
to
07:59
0
08:00
to
08:59
Required total
capacity in 2024
Figure 4.21 – Demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Wakefield line
local services
The expected maximum possible length of services
(both existing and additional ones recommended
in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS or proposed
upon connection of the Ordsall Chord) on all
corridors arriving into Leeds in the high-peak hour
is as follows:
Corridor
Assumptions on maximum possible
formations of services arriving into Leeds
in the high-peak hour in 2024
Bradford Forster Square
4x23m EMU
Calder Valley
4x23m DMU
Castleford
4X23m DMU
East of Leeds local services
4x23m DMU
Harrogate
4x20m DMU
Huddersfield/Brighouse local services
4x23m DMU
Ilkley
6x23m EMU
North cross-Pennine
6x23m DMU (4x23m on Hull services)
Skipton
Services from Skipton: 6x23m EMU
Services through Skipton: 4x23m DMU
Wakefield Westgate
4x23m EMU from Doncaster
4x23m DMU from Sheffield
Cross country LDHS: 8x23m DMU
London LDHS: 10x26m IEP vehicles
79
4. Gaps and options
The following extra services have been assumed in
the morning high-peak hour from Northern Rail’s
CP4 operational plans, the DfT announcement on
the Ordsall Chord, and recommendations in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS.
Northern Rail’s CP4 operational plans:
l
one extra Skipton – Leeds (4x23m EMU)
l
one extra Ilkley – Leeds (4x23m EMU)
l
one extra Doncaster – Leeds (4x23m EMU)
DfT proposed service changes as a result of the
Ordsall Chord announcement:
l
l
two extra Horsforth – Leeds (4x20m DMU)
l
two extra Halifax – Leeds (4x23m DMU)
l
one extra Knottingley – Leeds (4x23m DMU)
l
e xtension of one of the Manchester – Leeds
trains to/from Selby or beyond (4x23m DMU).
Analysis of the effect of these service improvements
on track and platform capacity at Leeds station
shows that the following service interventions trigger
the need for the following infrastructure solutions:
two extra Manchester – Leeds (4x23m DMU)
Service change
Lengthening of Ilkley and Skipton services to six-car
Additional Horsforth or Halifax services
Infrastructure requirement
New bay platform on north side of station
Lengthening of Castleford corridor and Sheffield – Barnsley
– Leeds semi fast to four-cars
Extend Platform 17 to eight-car operation or a new fourcar bay Platform 18
Two additional trains per hour between Manchester
and Leeds
Combine Platforms 13 and 14 into a through platform
An amalgamation of the above at Leeds and/or operation
of fifth cross-Pennine east of Leeds
Micklefield turnback facility
The service changes on the Castleford corridor
would require either a lengthened Platform 17
or an additional Platform 18. It was the view of
the rail industry Stakeholder Management Group
(SMG) that a lengthened Platform 17 is more
feasible and therefore this cost has been included
in the appraisal.
In some cases the train lengths used in the
analysis are greater than those proposed so
that some flexibility is available to meet further
growth or to change the balance between the
recommended length of additional services and
Infrastructure required
80
Yorkshire and Humber RUS:
the length of current services. Also this RUS has
identified that the extra Knottingley high peak
hour service (to provide a half hour frequency)
is already running. Consequently, the analysis
has been reviewed taking into account this
and the reduction in train length, identified on
some corridors. This has demonstrated that the
interventions are all still necessary which indicates
that the extra capacity at Leeds will provide for
further growth above that identified in this RUS.
The current cost estimates for these enhancements
are as follows:
Point estimate of capital cost (£m)
Leeds Platform 0
3.5
Leeds Platform 13/14
7.5
Leeds Platform 17 extension
9.5
Micklefield Turnback
24.0
Total
44.5
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
This gives a combined benefit cost ratio of 2.7.
Therefore, the recommendation to deal with
capacity at Leeds is to build the bay Platform 0
on the north side of the station, create a
new through platform by joining the existing
Platforms 13 and 14, extend Platform 17, and build
Micklefield turnback.
The present value of the capital costs, after
optimism bias, financing costs and inflation have
been taken into account, is £48 million in 2002
prices and values.
The capital costs of these enhancements have
been appraised as a package of interventions
against the operational costs and benefits of the
associated service improvements. The costs, benefits
and revenue implications of the service changes
have been collated and compared with the capital
costs of infrastructure at Leeds. This appraisal only
includes the costs and benefits throughout the route
of the identified trigger peak capacity interventions
and the cost of the infrastructure enhancements
at Leeds. It does not include the costs and benefits
of the rest of the (train lengthening) peak capacity
interventions recommended in the Yorkshire and
Humber and Northern RUSs listed previously.
The six lines approaching the west of Leeds station
are named A to F lines. An analysis of performance
during the consultation phase has been completed
to understand the impact of an increase in services
using E and F Lines at the west end of Leeds,
including additional trains using E line instead of
C line in the May 2011 timetable. Performance is
expected to be slightly worse than the May 2011
timetable, however, analysis shows that building a
new line off the Normanton route directly into an
extended Platform 17 would not significantly reduce
this impact on performance and would not support
the large cost of such an enhancement that requires
new viaducts.
However, this analysis was undertaken using the
current timetable as the basis (with the further
addition of the services listed) and it is recognised
that in future timetable structures it may be
different services in the package of interventions
that trigger the requirement for the additional
infrastructure. This is because the current
infrastructure at Leeds cannot accommodate the
amalgamation of all the train lengthening and
additional service interventions.
Yorkshire and
Humber RUS
option code
The phasing of the infrastructure at Leeds will
depend on any infrastructure interventions provided
in CP4, timing of growth, and the availability of
additional rolling stock and how it is deployed.
Service change
Lengthening of Ilkley and Skipton services to
six‑car (60 year appraisal)
Additional Horsforth services
Lengthening of Castleford Corridor to four-car
Additional Huddersfield service#
Fifth cross-Pennine train
#
Infrastructure at Leeds
Total
Costs
(£m)
Revenue
(£m)
Benefits
(£m)
Revised WH1
and AI1
10
5
29
HA1
58
20
72
BP1 & BP4
71
28
83
-
16
13
23
HD2
192
138
311
48
-
-
395
203
519
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
# The costs and benefits against these two items from the Draft for Consultation are taken as a proxy for the costs and
benefits of dealing with crowding along the north cross-Pennine route.
81
4. Gaps and options
The number of services approaching from the north
cross-Pennine corridor at Leeds recommended in
the Northern RUS Draft for Consultation is the same
as that which is proposed upon completion of the
Orsdall Chord and associated works. The Northern
Hub project will be looking to confirm that the same
infrastructure schemes are required in the Leeds
area with the service pattern that is chosen to be
taken forward.
The solution was based on a sample service
proposition that improved connectivity between
cities and key towns across the whole of the north
of England and also between these and other key
destinations within the north (eg. Manchester
Airport) or other areas (eg. the East Midlands).
Because the benefits stretch way beyond the
Manchester area, this scheme has been renamed
the Northern Hub.
Gap 9: Strategic connectivity across
the north of England
Following detailed consideration of alternatives,
Network Rail identified two strategic options to
provide the capability to achieve the Conditional
Outputs: one to allow greater use of Manchester
Piccadilly; the other greater use of Manchester
Victoria. The Manchester Hub work demonstrated
that the Manchester Victoria option offered better
value for money and greater benefits at a lower
capital cost.
The geographical RUSs that covered the north
of England all identified the need for improved
connectivity within the areas they covered. To
varying extents they also looked at improving links
with other areas. In consequence, the Northern RUS
recognises that strategic connectivity across the
north of England is a gap and that extensive work by
the Northern Way had looked at this issue.
The Northern Way work identified a number of
Conditional Outputs, particularly involving improved
inter- and intra-urban connectivity (including faster
journey times) which, if addressed, would contribute
to a major increase in the Gross Value Added (GVA)
of the north of England. Economic growth is one of
the key objectives of the Coalition Government and
it recognises that our railways can contribute to this,
as well as the objective of carbon reduction.
Network Rail’s Manchester Hub Study (see
section 2.4.5) then identified a number of gaps
to be examined with the aim of achieving the
Conditional Outputs in a way that delivers value
for money, taking account of wider economic
benefits. Table 4.4 shows the outputs relating to
connectivity that were specified by the Northern
Way and the corresponding gaps identified in the
Manchester Hub Study.
The study examined these and found a high
value for money case for a solution which would
address many of these gaps and thereby meets
many of the inter and intra-urban connectivity
outputs identified by the Northern Way, along with
other Conditional Outputs, such as performance,
passenger train capacity (which is an extension of
the recommendations covered above), and freight
path provision.
82
The preferred solution (option 2 in the Study)
delivers high value for money and provides the
opportunity for faster, more frequent and more
reliable services, freeing up capacity and providing
for future growth in demand. It will:
l
increase platform capacity in central Manchester
l
r emove conflicts between trains which use up
valuable infrastructure capacity
l
increase passenger capacity on key lines across
Manchester and on major routes across the
north of England.
The preferred option involves:
l
new section of railway west of Manchester city
a
centre at Ordsall, to allow trains to travel from
Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly
and onto Manchester Airport
l
ajor improvements to Manchester Victoria,
m
allowing many more services to use the station
and providing improved facilities for passengers
l
e nhanced track layouts on the north crossPennine line between Leeds and Liverpool,
and on the Hope Valley between Sheffield and
Manchester, to allow fast trains between the
major towns and cities of the north to overtake
slower trains.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
This option provides the capability for significant
improvements to rail services across the north
of England, including interurban, commuter and
freight services.
For interurban services the opportunity is created to:
l
increase the frequency of train services between
major cities in the north
l
improve journey times on the north crossPennine route, reducing journey times
for passengers between the North East/
Yorkshire and Manchester/Liverpool and other
destinations west of Manchester
l
improve journey times from Sheffield/the
East Midlands to Manchester, Manchester
Airport, Liverpool and other destinations west
of Manchester
l
rovide direct journeys from Bradford, Halifax
p
and the Calder Valley, to Manchester Airport and
destinations west of Manchester
l
rovide direct services from Chester to
p
destinations beyond Manchester
l
r educe delays to services across the north
of England.
On key commuter corridors the opportunity is
created to:
l
e nable more commuter and local services to run
throughout the day
l
ake commuter and local services faster
m
than today
l
introduce 15-minute frequency services between
Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road,
Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport,
improving end-to-end journey times by making
Manchester city centre more accessible by rail
l
c onnect north east Manchester into the
wider rail network by running through
Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly.
Therefore the recommended option to meet much
of the gap of ‘strategic connectivity across the north
of England’ is option 2 in the Manchester Hub Study.
Improvements will be seen in all the city regions
across the north from Liverpool, Chester and Preston
to Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, York and as far afield
as Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Hull, Nottingham and
Leicester, as well as Manchester. More information
can be found at www.networkrail.co.uk
Other RUSs have made recommendations to
improve connectivity on those routes outside the
scope of the Northern Hub work, for example
between Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham. These
recommendations, in combination with the
Northern Hub, would enhance strategic connectivity
in the north of England.
Depending on the emerging service improvements
chosen to be implemented following completion
of the option 2 works, there will need to be a
review of the implications on capacity at other key
locations in the north of England including Leeds,
Liverpool and Sheffield. Asset renewals currently
being considered for CP5 at the latter two locations
will provide the opportunity to deal with any such
capacity issues, as well as to address other RUS
recommendations. Providing additional capacity at
Leeds is covered in Gap 8.
For freight operations the project provides the
opportunity to:
l
double capacity into the Trafford Park terminals
l
rovide capacity for traffic to planned new
p
freight terminals.
83
4. Gaps and options
Table 4.4 – C
onnectivity outputs specified by the Northern Way and corresponding
Manchester Hub Study gap
Requirement
Journey times
These are target journey times for the key corridors, from a Manchester
city centre station (either Victoria or Piccadilly) to the principal
adjoining city regions:
l
L eeds 40 minutes
l
B
radford 50 minutes
l
S
heffield 40 minutes
l
C
hester 40 minutes
l
L iverpool 30 minutes
l
P
reston 30 minutes.
Growth centres in Greater Manchester
From each principal rail corridor to each sub-area within the Regional
Centre there should be either a direct rail service or a service that requires
no more than a single interchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink or
Metroshuttle.
From each principal rail corridor to each of the key town centres, there
should be either a direct rail service or a service that requires no more
than a single interchange by rail or Metrolink.
From each principal rail corridor to Salford Quays there should be a service
that requires no more than a single interchange by bus or Metrolink.
Connectivity to deliver economic benefits
All principal corridors to be connected if possible to the same station
in Manchester city centre for easy passenger transfer (or through
cross-Manchester operation), as well as other central area stations
appropriate to the travel market.
The improved connectivity should therefore be used:
• where possible, to promote direct cross-city movements (for which
train service provision and hence franchising costs will also generally
experience cost efficiencies), or
• where this cannot be done, to facilitate convenient passenger
interchange. This is best done at a single Manchester city centre station
to avoid circuitous, time-consuming/counter-intuitive routeing.
Manchester Airport
The requirement is for direct services of at least hourly interval service
frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of
services via Leeds).
Cross-Pennine
Leeds – Manchester: 15-minute interval service (or better)
Gap
The current public times are shown below:
54 minutes
l
60 minutes
l
48 minutes
l
63 minutes
l
47 minutes
l
39 minutes
l
Calder Valley does not link to the Village.
Calder Valley does not give a link
to Stockport.
Calder Valley does not reach the Metrolink
service to Eccles for connection to
Salford Quays.
Calder Valley services do not reach
Manchester Piccadilly, all others do.
Not all corridors connect to the same
single station.
The Calder Valley, Chester and the CLC
have no direct service to Manchester
Airport, and the corridor to the south has
only got one if the local service from Crewe
is counted as sufficient.
Currently four tph a few minutes off an
even interval
Sheffield – Manchester: 20-minute service interval
Currently 30-minute interval
Bradford/Halifax – Manchester: 30-minute service interval
Currently two tph a few minutes
off interval
Liverpool – Manchester: 15-minute service interval
Currently three fast tph but not at
20-minute intervals
84
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Gap 10: Crowding on services into
non-HLOS towns and cities
The only services that required increased capacity
were a small set of services on the Cumbrian Coast
(Figure 4.22). All of these services are run by two
diagrams (the set of trains operated by one DMU in
a day) comprising single-car DMUs. The provision
of two additional diesel vehicles to lengthen these
diagrams is recommended to provide crowding
relief on these services. Assessment of option 10.1
demonstrates the business case for this scheme.
The Northern RUS has concentrated on capacity
issues on services into the five HLOS cities in the
north. Work was undertaken in conjunction with
Northern Rail to look into capacity issues on other
routes in the North including the following:
l
services into Middlesbrough
l
services into Hull
l
services into Preston from Colne
l
services on the Cumbrian Coast.
Northern Rail and the DfT have already agreed to
provide one unit in the short term with an aspiration
for it to be provided longer-term.
Figure 4.22 – Routes used by Cumbrian Coast passenger services
Routes used by Cumbrian
Coast passenger services
Other routes
Carlisle
r
po
t
pa
y
ar
M
a
tri
As
on
t
ig
W
on
st
al
D
Flimby
Workington
Harrington
Parton
Whitehaven
Corkickle
St Bees
Nethertown
Braystones
Sellafield
Windermere
Staveley
Seascale
Burneside
es
G
Fo
x
fie
ld
Drigg
en
r
Ki
d
oa
R
Bootle
y
kb
Kendal
s
-F
-in
re
Ravenglass
n
ur
k
As
Silecroft
a
lv
s
er
U
a
rk
C
&
a
C
s
nt
Ke
nk
Ba
ov
e-
G
r
g
an
-S
er
de
si
n
Ar
le
da
er
lv
Si
m
illo
M
D
n
to
n
lto
rtm
ds
an
el
am
C
ar
nf
or
th
Barrow-in-Furness
se
oo
R
Morecambe
re
Ba
ne
La
Heysham Port
Lancaster
85
4. Gaps and options
Assessment of option 10.1 – lengthen two diagrams by one vehicle on the Cumbrian Coast
Concept
Procure two diesel vehicles to lengthen service between Barrow and Lancaster currently run by
two diagrams.
Operational analysis
This option will require two extra DMU vehicles plus the additional vehicle mileage related to
running lengthened services.
Infrastructure
required
None.
Passenger impact
Increased capacity and reduced crowding.
Freight impact
None.
30-year appraisal
Option 10.1 PV £m
Costs (present value)
Investment cost
Financial and
economic analysis
Operating cost
6.9
Revenue
-3.3
Other Government impacts
0.9
Total costs
4.5
Benefits (present value)
Crowding benefits
Non users benefits
26.7
3.7
Total quantified benefits
30.9
NPV
26.5
Quantified BCR
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices.
86
0.0
Link to other options
None.
Conclusion
This option is recommended to meet capacity on Cumbrian Coast.
>5
5. Consultation
5.1 Draft for Consultation
5.2 Respondents
The Northern Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) Draft
for Consultation was published in October 2010,
along with a press release announcing its publication.
A total of 81 responses were received during the
consultation period and can broadly be categorised
into the following groups:
The document reviewed the recommendations
made in the first generation of RUSs that covered
the north of England and subsequently identified
where those recommendations were no longer
valid due to a change in circumstance or due to
the updated demand forecasting figures. The Draft
for Consultation subsequently identified a number
of gaps based on this methodology and proposed
a set of options to address them. In line with the
Government White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable
Railway’, the Draft for Consultation also looked in
more general terms towards a 30-year horizon.
The Draft for Consultation was distributed to a
wide range of stakeholders, made available on the
Network Rail website and a period of 12 weeks
was given to allow stakeholders to respond. The
consultation period ended on 14 January 2011.
During the consultation period, stakeholders
were invited, either collectively or individually, to
briefing sessions and workshops at which specific
issues were discussed.
l
passenger and freight train operating companies
l
Government, Passenger Transport Executives
(PTEs) and local authorities
l
other industry parties
l
businesses
l
user groups and Community Rail Partnerships
l
Members of Parliament
l
members of the public.
Copies of the responses received can be found on
the Network Rail website at www.networkrail.co.uk
5.3 Summary of key themes
Due to the large geography considered by the
RUS and the wide range of consultation responses
received, it is not possible to report in detail all the
responses received. Therefore, a summary of key
themes is given below.
This chapter summarises the feedback received during
this period and how it has shaped the final strategy.
87
5. Consultation
5.3.1 RUS scope
The fact that the RUS considered the whole of the
north of England was welcomed by the majority of
respondents, many commenting that a study of this
type was necessary to bring together the outputs of
the previous RUSs.
5.3.2 Demand forecasting
There was broad support for the demand forecasting
methodology used, with many stakeholders feeling it
was an improvement on that used in previous RUSs.
Some stakeholders felt that the forecasts should
be revised to take account of the Government’s
announcement in October 2010 that rail fares will
be allowed to rise by RPI + 3% for three years from
2012. This has now been done and is explained in
more detail in Chapter 3.
There were some concerns that demand on some
routes is currently suppressed due to overcrowding,
undesirable service patterns or insufficient car
parking space. It was felt that this had not been fully
assessed when forecasting demand to 2024 and
subsequently some options may not solve crowding
as sufficiently as predicted.
The impact of demand suppression has been
considered in option generation and appraisal in
this RUS.
5.3.3 Identified gaps and options
There was broad support for the gaps identified,
though many wider stakeholders advised of aspired
levels of service that they felt should be considered as
gaps. However, these are beyond what is required to
deliver the necessary peak capacity to 2024, which is
the primary goal of this RUS. Also, many of the issues
raised were considered in one of the previous RUSs
and were therefore included in Appendix A of the
Draft for Consultation. However, feedback indicated
that this was not sufficient to allow stakeholders
to glean what the RUS outputs are for individual
corridors (the North East and Calder Valley line being
two examples received) and therefore this breakdown
of strategy by route has been included in Chapter 6.
The news that additional routes in the north west
of England are to be electrified was welcomed by
the majority of stakeholders. There was also broad
support for the recommended additional services on
the CLC route between Manchester and Liverpool and
the train lengthening on the Wigan, Atherton and
Llandudno services. There was concern from many
stakeholders that after the electrification scheme
is completed, Barrow-in-Furness and Windermere
may no longer be able to have a direct service to
Manchester. As a result this issue has been given
further consideration and is reported in Chapter 4.
88
There was considerable support for the recommended
fourth platform at Manchester Airport station and the
recommendations regarding additional capacity on
the north cross-Pennine corridor.
There was some concern that the recommendations
from the Yorkshire and Humber RUS to increase the
service on the south cross-Pennine corridor could not
be upheld due to the lengthening of the Liverpool
Lime Street – Norwich services. Some stakeholders
also felt that peak hour local services in the Hope
Valley had not been sufficiently addressed in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS and subsequently should
be looked at in this RUS. This is now included under
Gap 4 in Chapter 4.
Many respondents expressed concern that the
recommended options on the Penistone line were
not sufficient to provide the necessary capacity to
2024. This work has been reviewed and updated
in Chapter 4.
There was also support for the proposed
enhancement schemes on the Immingham –
Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor, with some noting
that the renewals due in the area in CP5 would be
the best time to undertake any work.
There was considerable concern expressed by some
stakeholders regarding the recommendations on
the Ilkley and Skipton corridors, with the common
belief being that the option to lengthen the existing
services to six-car formations would not be sufficient
to provide adequate capacity to 2024. This analysis
has now been updated and is explained in detail in
Chapter 4.
There was support for improving the capacity at
Leeds station. The further analysis undertaken
in the consultation period regarding whether an
additional line would be required to mitigate the
performance risk of additional services is reported
in Chapter 4.
Nearly all respondents noted their support for the
Northern Hub as the primary way of improving
connectivity across the north of England. However,
some felt that this alone was not sufficient to solve
this gap completely and other options should
continue to be considered to improve connectivity
beyond the scope of the Northern Hub. This has now
been expanded upon in Chapter 6.
The issue of the appraisal methodology used to
assess the options was also raised by some as
being inadequate due to it not taking account of
wider economic benefits. All appraisal analysis in
RUSs covering England and Wales use Department
for Transport (DfT) appraisal criteria as the DfT is
normally the primary funder of the interventions
recommended in RUSs. This appraisal criteria does
not currently include taking account of any wider
economic benefits created by a scheme when
calculating the Benefit Cost Ratio.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
5.3.4 Emerging strategy
Rolling stock
Dealing with growth
Many stakeholders expressed concern over the
amount of extra rolling stock being made available
for the north of England and also expressed
differing opinions as to how any new or cascaded
rolling stock should be used. Some questioned how
the RUS recommendations could be carried out
without additional rolling stock and requested a
more comprehensive rolling stock strategy for the
North. The issue of rolling stock provision is being
considered within other industry processes and it is
not appropriate for this RUS to attempt to create a
strategy around this issue, though it does highlight
some issues to be considered. See section 6.2.5 in
Chapter 6 for more details on this issue.
Some stakeholders felt the RUS concentrated
too heavily on the cities specified in the High
Level Output Specification (HLOS) and did not
sufficiently consider capacity on those services
that do not originate or terminate in those cities,
As a result of this, a new gap has been created in
Chapter 4 (Gap 10) to consider this issue.
As stated previously, a number of respondents also
commented on aspired additional services on a
variety of routes. However, RUSs usually recommend
train lengthening before additional services as the
best way to provide additional capacity required as
this most often represents better value for money.
Connectivity
As noted above, there was widespread support for
the Northern Hub scheme, with the general feeling
being that it should be implemented as soon as
possible. However, it was also felt that the Northern
Hub alone is not sufficient to provide the aspired
level of connectivity, as some areas of the North are
beyond its scope.
Some respondents felt that the RUS should consider in
more detail the issue of evening and weekend services,
as the current service provision is considered by
stakeholders to be insufficient in some areas. Where
there is a business case to do so, this can be examined
by the incumbent operator and the DfT as these
services would not require additional rolling stock.
Freight
The predominant response regarding freight was
that there are a number of workstreams and strategy
documents including the first generation geographic
RUSs, the freight RUS and the Strategic Freight
Network (SFN), all of which discuss freight strategy in
the north of England in some way. It was requested
that the final RUS pull together all this information
into a summary covering CP4 and beyond. A more
comprehensive freight strategy is now included
in Chapter 6
There was support from the freight community
for the listed gauge enhancements and some
commented that any scheduled renewals should be
taken advantage of to raise linespeeds or remove
speed restrictions where appropriate.
Seven Day Railway
Other
More information was requested on current Seven
Day Railway schemes in the north of England. Some
stakeholders noted the importance of keeping the
railway open to passenger and freight operation
as often as possible, whilst still performing the
required maintenance, renewal and enhancement
of the network.
Many wider stakeholders responded with
aspirations for infrastructure schemes which they
felt would improve the service in their area, such
as reconfiguring station layouts. However, RUSs
only consider infrastructure changes where they
would be required to meet the gaps identified and
even in these cases, due to the associated costs,
infrastructure is generally the last consideration
after possible timetable solutions or train
lengthening.
Electrification
There were various suggestions for further routes
for electrification, with those mentioned most
often being the north cross-Pennine route, the
Midland Main Line and the extension of the North
West electrification scheme to other routes. The
RUS notes the main outputs of the Network RUS:
Electrification Strategy in Chapter 6, but does not
consider these in more detail as they are part of
a programme of electrification which are being
developed separate to this RUS.
Several responses called for the RUS to consider
the reopening or construction of lines such as
between Skipton and Colne or the re-opening
of Woodhead Tunnel. However, the scope of the
RUS dictates that such options should only be
considered where they address a gap that was
identified through the RUS process.
89
5. Consultation
There was concern over the lack of car parking
facilities at many stations and some felt the RUS
should consider this issue further. The section on
access to stations has been expanded in Chapter 6
to include more information on car parking.
Stakeholders in the North East wanted more
information on the East Coast Main Line 2016
Capacity Review and how it interfaces with the
Northern RUS. This is now included in Chapter 6.
A considerable number of wider stakeholders felt
that the RUS had not been ambitious or radical
enough when considering the strategy for rail in the
north of England. There were suggestions that the
RUS should consider a complete timetable recast
across the whole of the North and more additional
services with associated infrastructure.
There was wide support for the new opportunities
that could be provided by tram-train and other light
rail options, especially at Leeds and suggestion that
this should be considered in more detail in the RUS.
However, as the tram-train pilot has yet to start and
the associated costs and benefits of such technology
are still unknown, it is not possible to make a more
thorough assessment than that already stated in
the RUS.
Respondents were positive about the forthcoming
High Speed Two (HS2) network and the
opportunities it would provide. Some stakeholders
felt that the RUS should consider how HS2 affects
the ‘classic network’ in the North and what it
would mean for the level of service on the relevant
routes. However, HS2 Ltd is still undertaking public
consultation and it is not considered appropriate
for the RUS to speculate on the specific outputs
it might provide. The possible high level effects
of HS2 are discussed in the long-term strategy
section of Chapter 6.
There were also a few respondents that commented
on the RUS process as a whole and felt that it was
too focussed on one sector of the transport network.
Some were of the opinion that the industry should
aim for multi-modal studies that better take into
account factors such as housing location and
density, land use planning and aiming to improve
economic growth.
90
5.3.5 Further wider stakeholder
briefings
The Wider Stakeholder Group (WSG), comprising
representatives from the wider industry such as
local authorities, development agencies, rail user
groups and community rail partnerships, has been
kept up-to-date with progress on the Northern RUS
throughout its development through a series of
briefings. The last of these briefings will take place
in July 2011, following publication of the final RUS.
At these briefings the WSG will be updated on the
additional analysis completed during the consultation
period, further work undertaken as a result of
consultation responses and the final strategy.
6. Strategy
6.1 Introduction
The study of the routes covered by the Northern
Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), together with
those in the first generation of RUSs covering the
north of England, has shown that the most acute
issues are accommodating the growth in commuter
journeys and certain interurban flows, and providing
additional capacity for freight traffic. This strategy
therefore primarily seeks to address the question of
growth progressively over time. It is based on the
work undertaken in this RUS and those elements
of the strategies in the previous RUSs covering the
north of England that remain unchanged.
The RUS process has considered the current
and future freight and passenger markets and
assessed the growth in each. It has then sought to
accommodate this growth effectively and efficiently,
in accordance with the route utilisation objective
specified in Network Rail’s Network Licence. The
measures proposed range from lengthening services
to provision of additional infrastructure.
The Northern RUS has reviewed the conclusions of
the previous RUSs covering the north of England in
the light of passenger and freight demand forecasts
beyond the timescales previously examined,
and significant changes in circumstances since
publication of those RUSs. It has taken into account
other aspirations that stakeholders have indicated
they could potentially fund, particularly those of
the Department for Transport (DfT). This process
has identified new or amended gaps which the RUS
has then sought to solve. The recommendations for
gaps and options in the previous RUSs that have
not been addressed already and remain unchanged
by this review still stand. For the gaps addressed by
this RUS, options were developed, tested, sifted and
modified until feasible solutions were identified that
meet value for money criteria and are consistent
with anticipated funding.
To align with the 2007 Government White Paper
‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’, the strategy also
looks forward to interventions which will support
long-term freight and passenger growth.
For Control Period 4 (CP4), which runs from April
2009 to March 2014, there is a process that is
seeking to meet the Government’s High Level
Output Specification (HLOS) requirements through
the Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan and revised
Train Operating Company (TOC) operational plans.
This process aims to deliver peak growth targets for
services into Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle
and Sheffield, subject to the availability of rolling
stock. The infrastructure and train service outputs
of this process at the end of CP4 are the assumed
baseline for the Northern RUS.
6.2 Principles
6.2.1 Dealing with growth
The general principle adopted in RUSs has been to
consider simpler and lower-cost interventions before
turning to more complex and expensive solutions.
Optimising the use of existing infrastructure through
timetabling solutions has always been sought
in preference to infrastructure works, subject to
there being no unacceptable performance impact.
Similarly the progressive lengthening of trains to
the maximum practical size where heavy demand
exists is first considered as it usually makes best use
of track capacity and traincrew resources. Where
infrastructure enhancement is necessary the range
of options is considered in order, from simpler
schemes such as platform extensions, through track
and signalling enhancements, capability works for
longer freight trains including increased loading
gauge for intermodal traffic, to more comprehensive
investment in a particular line of route. In some
cases, the provision of additional services may offer
a solution to peak and inter-peak overcrowding,
provide passengers with a better service, and is
better value for money than the cost of simple train
lengthening, even taking into account infrastructure
capacity improvements.
Looking to the medium term, account has been
taken of the opportunity presented by the
introduction of further new trains to provide
increased capacity per train and to consider the part
that increased use of electric traction might play.
91
6. Strategy
6.2.2 Connectivity
Many stakeholders have an aspiration for improved
connectivity in and between the cities and towns
in the north of England and with cities elsewhere
in the UK and with sea ports and airports. This
would benefit commuting, and business and leisure
travel, and therefore the economy. Improvements
to rail journey times, service frequency and the
availability of direct services would all contribute
to achieving improvements in connectivity for the
north of England.
Improvements to rail connectivity usually require
enhanced infrastructure to improve journey
times and to provide capacity for an increased
number of services and direct connections. Faster
rolling stock and additional vehicles may also be
required, the latter particularly to allow increased
frequencies and to deal with growth that is driven
by the improved connectivity.
The Northern Hub project would provide increased
infrastructure capability in the Manchester area and
on several routes connecting it with other locations
in the north of England. This would allow enhanced
services to operate, which would provide a step
change in connectivity across the north of England.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced funding
for some of the Hub infrastructure in the Budget of
23 March 2011.
6.2.3 Performance
Train service performance has improved considerably
in recent years but the rail industry continues to
identify ways to improve it further.
As with many other parts of the country, issues
affecting performance on the rail network in the
Northern RUS area are complex, given its diversity
of routes and the wide range of services operating
over it, with a number of services originating from
places well outside the RUS area. It is clear that
major factors are the mix of services with varying
speed and stopping patterns and the large number
of complex junctions and crossings, nearly all on
the level, with conflicting train movements. These
factors become critical when trains are running out
of sequence due to an earlier incident.
RUSs focus on reactionary delays which are those
that are caused by trains that have been previously
delayed elsewhere on the network by primary delays,
which are then delayed further after losing their
timetable slot, or cause delays to other trains.
92
Primary delays are those that arise due to a
problem with the infrastructure or the train itself,
eg. points failure, vandalism or shortage of train
crew. There are other industry processes which
focus on reducing these delays and the RUS has
not sought to address them.
The first generation of RUSs covering the north
of England made recommendations as to how
reactionary delay could be reduced, so the
Northern RUS has not specifically studied this issue
further. However, for those interventions examined
by this RUS, consideration of their effect on
reactionary delay has been taken into account and
should be taken into account in the development
of each intervention.
6.2.4 Electrification
This RUS has assumed in the baseline the
electrification of those routes in the North West
initially announced by the Government in 2009
and subsequently confirmed in 2010. These are
the Manchester Victoria to Liverpool Lime Street
line via Earlestown and Huyton (the Chat Moss
route), the route from Manchester Victoria to
Preston and Blackpool North, and the line between
Huyton and Wigan North Western. Looking further
to the future, electrification of any additional
routes are very likely to require enhancement
of the existing power supply infrastructure but
will be dependent on the exact timetable, train
formations and classes of traction that will be used.
A significant factor will be the power consumption
characteristics of any new Long Distance High
Speed (LDHS) electric rolling stock, including that
provided by the Intercity Express Programme (IEP),
and which routes it would be used on.
The strategy for electrification has been established
by the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy.
Following the electrification of additional routes
in the North West, infill electrification between
Leeds and York would bring benefits to the RUS
area in terms of faster local services and improved
diversionary capability for East Coast Main Line
(ECML) services. Electrification of routes, such as
between Manchester and Leeds, the Midland Main
Line, and Sheffield and Leeds/Doncaster, would
provide further opportunities to convert local and
longer distance services to electric operation.
The need for further rolling stock to accommodate
growth and to replace and/or refurbish obsolete
rolling stock during Control Period 5 (CP5) or Control
Period 6 (CP6) and perhaps beyond might offer
particular opportunities on some routes to build a
business case for electrification.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.2.5 Rolling stock
Many of the key recommendations are reliant
upon there being additional rolling stock available.
Consequently, timescales and final capacity
solutions will be dependent on the rolling stock
strategy and subsequent acquisition, cascade and
deployment of rolling stock across the network.
The strategy to deliver the 2007 HLOS for CP4
described in this chapter takes account of the most
recent developments, recognising that discussion
between the DfT and some operators, is still ongoing.
As part of the Initial Industry Plan for CP5, joint
work by the train operators and Network Rail is
currently being undertaken to establish a rolling
stock plan which takes into account the cascade
of rolling stock as a result of the Thameslink
Programme and Crossrail and the introduction of
new electric rolling stock elsewhere. The plan seeks
to provide sufficient rolling stock to deal with growth
and new services on other routes either through
electrification of some further lines or the use of
diesel units released by electrification schemes.
As mentioned in section 6.2.4, a programme of
new build and life extension beyond 2014 will be
necessary to meet further growth and to address
the eventual obsolescence of some of the existing
fleet, and further infrastructure enhancements
beyond those committed will be necessary to make
best use of this new rolling stock. This RUS assumes
that sufficient electric units are made available,
through the cascade resulting from the Thameslink
Programme, to operate all existing services on the
routes announced to be electrified in the North West
where those services will operate entirely on the
electrified network, though some services may be
operated by new trains. As well as the requirement for
electric stock to deal with growth on these services,
particularly in commuter and long distance journeys,
rolling stock would need to be made available to
help meet growth on routes not currently electrified.
The latter could be achieved by the cascade of diesel
trains from those routes around the country that are
being, or are suggested to be, electrified.
There are a number of electric fleets around the
country, including the Merseyrail three-car units,
that will be due for replacement soon and this
procurement of new stock could provide the
opportunity for provision of electric stock for some
of the additional electrified routes, especially when
future growth requires trains to exceed four car
lengths. This issue is being considered in more
detail in the Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock.
Further benefits might be achieved if a new
generation of self-powered trains is introduced with
better acceleration characteristics than the Sprinter
and Pacer fleets, which would minimise journey
time differentials between stopping trains and
faster services on a number of capacity-constrained
corridors and thereby optimise the timetable.
93
6. Strategy
Similarly, an increase in the electrified network in the
RUS area, with an associated increase in the Electrical
Multiple Unit (EMU) fleet, could give an opportunity
to procure rolling stock with characteristics that
optimise between the needs for rapid acceleration/
deceleration, maximum carrying capacity and quick
access/egress to reduce station dwell times. The tramtrain concept, which is to be piloted in South Yorkshire
from 2014, may provide opportunities to deal with
some growth issues in the RUS area. These issues are
being considered by the Network RUS: Passenger
Rolling Stock workstream and the Network RUS:
Alternative Solutions to Efficiently Deliver Passenger
Demand workstream.
For LDHS services operating into the RUS area,
benefits in terms of capacity, fleet flexibility and
destinations served can be expected from the
introduction of new LDHS rolling stock, either directly
or through consequential rolling stock cascade.
The Class 390 train lengthening in CP4 is largely
expected to accommodate growth on LDHS services
operating over the West Coast Main Line (WCML)
and the recent Government announcement of IEP
rolling stock will provide the opportunity to deal with
LDHS growth into London on the ECML.
6.2.6 Depots and stabling
So far as commuter services into the main northern
cities are concerned the strategy is to accommodate
the additional diesel vehicles required during
CP4 by concentrating maintenance of vehicles
at Neville Hill depot at Leeds and Newton Heath
depot in Manchester. In order to do this, provision
of additional servicing and stabling facilities
is necessary at a number of locations around
Yorkshire and the North West. Those currently under
consideration by Network Rail and Northern Rail
are Allerton (Liverpool), Hull Botanic Gardens, and
Skipton (for electric stock). In addition, Allerton
depot could provide a maintenance, stabling and
servicing facility for the electric units for the routes
to be electrified in the North West.
The Class 390 train lengthening programme
provides enhanced facilities at Edge Hill (Liverpool)
and Longsight (Manchester).
The introduction of the IEP rolling stock on the ECML
will include providing the necessary changes to depot
facilities to allow successful implementation.
Further stabling and depot facilities will
be required for the additional diesel and
electric rolling stock required beyond 2014
to accommodate growth on commuter and
interurban services in the RUS area. The exact
locations will depend on the future balance
between electric and diesel rolling stock fleets and
where they are deployed and the mechanism by
which any new rolling stock is procured.
94
6.2.7 Power supply
Traction power supply on existing electrified
routes is critical to service developments such
as the operation of more frequent and longer
trains or newer stock which has a higher power
draw. This includes the Airedale and Wharfedale
corridors and the Doncaster to Leeds route. Power
supply modelling for all routes nationally is being
undertaken as part of the development work for
CP5 and is taking into account the strengthening
of local services in this strategy.
Power supply requirements for the additional
routes in the North West that are to be electrified
are being considered as part of the development
work for that project.
6.2.8 Freight strategy
Freight growth requires a number of capability
improvements, particularly capacity for additional
services, improved loading gauge clearance of the core
arteries (and appropriate diversionary routes) over
which intermodal freight does, or will need to, operate,
and enhancements required to accommodate
increasing the length of freight trains. These issues will
be addressed on some routes in the north of England
in CP4 but further works will be necessary, particularly
in relation to capacity and loading gauge for those
intermodal arteries not addressed, as this traffic will be
the main growth market for rail freight. Additionally,
the forecast continuing growth of rail traffic from
the Port of Immingham will need the capacity
interventions described in Chapter 4 of this RUS.
The Strategic Freight Network (SFN) 2019 and
2030 freight forecasts indicate that the main
demand for increased freight paths is on the
following route sections:
l
Peterborough – Doncaster – York – Newcastle
l
Doncaster – Hare Park Jn – Stourton (Leeds)
l
Immingham – Scunthorpe – Doncaster/
Knottingley area
l
Chesterfield – Barrow Hill – Rotherham –
Moorthorpe/Doncaster
l
Crewe – Manchester Piccadilly – Trafford Park.
The upgrade of the GN/GE Joint Line (Peterborough
– Spalding – Lincoln –Doncaster) and the completion
of the North Doncaster Chord in CP4, and further
ECML upgrade works being examined for CP5, mainly
identified in the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity
Review, would provide the additional track capacity
required for the first two routes above. Improvements
to signalling headways in association with planned
signalling renewals and some layout improvements at
Knottingley would address the capacity requirements
to meet the third route above. The route through
Rotherham would need to be examined if further allday passenger services were to operate. The last line
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
requires the enhancements through the Castlefield
corridor in Manchester included in the Northern Hub
to meet the additional freight train path requirements.
Figure 3.7 in Chapter 3 shows the SFN loading
gauge clearance aspirations. These primarily cover
the core intermodal freight arteries from the ports
at Southampton, in East Anglia, at London Gateway,
on the Humber estuary, at Seaforth (Liverpool),
and in the North East, together with the Channel
Tunnel. These arteries are required to connect these
locations with distribution depots around mainland
Britain. Some of the lines shown on the map are
diversionary routes for the main arteries that will
allow loading gauge sensitive traffic to continue
to run during engineering work on the main routes
or when there is a performance incident. Many of
the lines in the RUS area are expected to have the
required loading gauge by the end of CP4. Works on
a number of routes are still subject to discussions on
funding while others have synergies with proposed
electrification schemes as often the works required
to provide clearances for the overhead wires provide
improved loading gauge clearances.
Where track layout enhancement works are being
considered, opportunities for allowing the operation
of longer freight trains are examined. SFN funding is
being provided to allow an increase in train lengths
for some trains from the Hope Valley via Dore West Jn.
6.2.9 Seven Day Railway
It is recognised that there would be merit in moving
towards operation of fundamentally the same
timetable on a daily basis. This reflects the increasing
demand for passenger services at weekends and
therefore the timetable should mirror more closely
that for Mondays to Fridays. In addition there is a
growing need from freight customers for consistent
daily continuity of supply, in line with what is
generally available from the road transport industry.
Network Rail is leading the Seven Day Railway
initiative, under which the overall vision is to
deliver the working timetable in full, alongside
cyclic maintenance, renewal and enhancement
requirements. This will entail a need to provide more
flexible operational layouts at the time renewals
are carried out, together with changes in working
arrangements. The latter includes introduction of
quicker and simpler procedures for taking and giving
up planned blockages of the line, coupled with
changed ways of working to allow greater ‘adjacent
line open’ or ‘single line working’ train operations,
probably facilitated by installation of bi-directional
signalling when renewals arise.
In many cases, key towns and cities in the RUS area
can be accessed by more than one route, so that
reasonable continuity of service is possible at times
of engineering work or perturbation, albeit with
some journey time extension. A key issue, particularly
for freight, is that comparable capability exists on
diversionary routes, notably in relation to loading
gauge clearance and the ability to operate heavy
axle weight vehicles. It will also be important to
make sure that any infrastructure work or changes in
the maintenance regime do not disproportionately
affect users of local passenger services – which make
up a significant proportion of operations in the RUS
area – in the interest of longer-distance services.
Most of the RUS recommendations relating to
additional services concern the commuter peaks
or the main part of the day, the latter on both
weekdays and weekends. These are times when
there is currently no maintenance access.
A number of routes in the RUS area are used by
high passenger train and freight tonnages and
the increases in services on these will generally
not be sufficient to raise the current maintenance
category for the specification and scheduling of
maintenance inspections and work. However, the
RUS recommendations may result in the need for
additional maintenance access but application of the
Seven Day Railway principles will aim to minimise the
effect of this on passenger and freight flows.
There are a few sections of route for which there is no
reasonable diversionary route and so, when renewals
or other enhancements are proposed on these,
opportunities should be examined to provide a more
flexible track layout, such as bi-directional signalling.
In some cases the lack of a ‘reasonable’ diversionary
route is due to alternative routes not being
electrified and therefore the Seven Day Railway
benefits need to be examined when considering
further routes for electrification, taking into account
any bi-mode capability of rolling stock, such as that
provided with IEP.
A list of Seven Day Railway schemes is published
in the CP4 Railway Plan – Network Availability
Implementation Plan and is updated annually on
the Network Rail website.
6.2.10 Access to stations
Access to the network was highlighted as a gap in
first generation RUSs. Some measures were proposed
to improve access to the railway, such as improved
interchange and Park and Ride facilities at a number
of stations, together with work under the Access
for All initiative for which funding will be available
until 2015. In CP4, Network Rail’s National Stations
Improvement Fund is being used to improve station
facilities at medium sized stations and opportunities
are sought to supplement this fund by contributions
from other stakeholders for those stations targeted.
There will be a continuing need to work with train
operators, the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs),
Transport for Greater Manchester, local authorities
and other stakeholders to maximise access
opportunities both within the Network Rail property
portfolio and beyond it to deliver those interventions
previously identified that are not funded in CP4.
95
6. Strategy
6.2.11 Station passenger capacity
As passenger numbers increase, there are a number
of stations where interventions will be required to
deal with crowding at particular stations, such as
on the platforms or at the station exits. This RUS
has identified a list of stations (Appendix B) where
these problems already exist or are most likely to
occur. This list was considered in the Network RUS:
Stations, which is looking at this issue nationally, and
was published as a Draft for Consultation on 6 May
2011. That RUS looks at a toolkit of interventions to
address capacity issues at stations.
6.2.12 Car parking
Car parking at stations or close by allows rail users
to access the railway, especially where there is
not good public transport access. Where there are
car parking charges, normally paid to the station
operator, there is usually a commercial case to
enlarge the car park when extra capacity is required.
However, many of the stations with car parks are
within PTE areas where the preferred policy is
for free parking to encourage people not to drive
into the city centres. With these car parks, and for
stations in more rural areas, it can be difficult to
get a value for money rail industry business case to
provide additional parking facilities.
In the case of free parking, PTEs and local authorities
set out the strategy in their Local Transport Plans
which can then be subsequently funded through a
range of sources. Local authorities, PTEs and third
parties are encouraged to discuss proposals with the
station operator and Network Rail.
Improving the way that other forms of public
transport serve stations may help avoid the need for
new car parking spaces and, again, discussions with
the rail industry might help develop proposals or
even attract further passengers to rail.
6.2.13 Safety
Continuing improvement to the safety of
passengers, rail staff and members of the public
in close proximity to the rail infrastructure are at
the heart of what the rail industry does. There are
many industry initiatives to further improve safety
including major investments in a number of areas.
The infrastructure projects in this strategy will be
assessed in the light of safety issues as part of their
development and in some cases will include scope that
specifically reduces safety risks. For example, the North
Doncaster Chord scheme currently being developed
includes closure of a level crossing; these being a
significant safety risk to the rail industry. Another is
the Holgate Jn fourth line project which reduces the
junction layout risk at the south end of York station.
96
6.3 Short-term strategy 2009 – 14
(Control Period 4)
6.3.1 Background
Although the end of CP4 is the baseline for this RUS,
an overview of the strategy for CP4 is included here
as a lead-in to the strategy recommended for future
control periods.
In July 2007, the Government published the
HLOS. This set out the improvements in the safety,
reliability and capacity of the railway system which
it wished to secure during CP4, together with some
specified projects.
The strategy for CP4 primarily consists of the
following measures:
l
to increase capacity on peak passenger services
into Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool,
to meet the HLOS improvements to the extent
that sufficient rolling stock is available
l
to improve cross-Pennine passenger services
throughout the day
l
to provide increased capability for freight
l
to increase capacity on LDHS services between
London and the north of England and improve
journey times.
Table 6.1 describes the expected changes in
services and any associated infrastructure works.
The scope, outputs and anticipated dates for
delivery of infrastructure projects funded by
Network Rail through the 2008 Periodic Review are
set out in the Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan, which
is updated quarterly (and which is available at
www.networkrail.co.uk).
Many of the infrastructure interventions in the CP4
Delivery Plan are designed to deliver the changes
to train operators’ operational plans that reflect the
use of the additional stock made available to them
through the DfT’s Rolling Stock Plan and the funding
for the projects is specifically to deliver these changes.
However, the number of additional vehicles
available for services in the north of England is less
than was expected prior to the start of CP4 and
assumed in the CP4 Delivery Plan. The changes to
provide additional capacity into Leeds, Liverpool,
Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield, shown in
the table in section 6.3.2 represent the emerging
proposals for the use of the additional rolling
stock that is being provided and the infrastructure
interventions to support them. The changes to the
CP4 Delivery Plan to reflect this emerging position
have not yet been made. Once the various plans
are finalised the CP4 Delivery Plan will be updated
through its change control process.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
The timetable which started on 22 May 2011 for the
ECML timetable will deliver a standard pattern of
service with increased levels of long distance trains
to and from London King’s Cross which, in turn, will
provide additional capacity for journeys between
the North East, Yorkshire and London and better
connectivity at interchange points. A programme
of infrastructure enhancements between London
and York, due for completion by 2014, will
further improve capacity, journey times and train
performance on the route.
6.3.2 CP4 Train service and
infrastructure changes
The following table details train service changes
and associated infrastructure works that form the
expected strategy for CP4. Confirmation of the
completion date for a few projects in CP4 is subject
to ongoing development work. Listed next to any
specific items that have come from a previous RUS
is the reference1 to the corresponding previous RUS
recommendation in Appendix A.
Table 6.1 – Train service and infrastructure changes in CP4
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
Lengthening of the most crowded local
services as additional stock becomes
available (except on the routes below
where additional services will operate).
Platform extensions on a number of lines to
accommodate longer trains.
New and increased passenger train servicing and
stabling facilities.
Additional peak shuttles, instead
of train lengthening, between:
l
Doncaster and Leeds
l
Ilkley and Leeds
l
Skipton and Leeds
l
New Mills service and
Sheffield and back in the
evening peak (extension of
a Manchester service).
1
YHPC7
Extra services from 22 May 2011
between the RUS area and London
King’s Cross on the ECML to cater for
growth and to reduce journey times on
the medium and longer distance flows
serving Yorkshire and the North East.
dditional platform at London King’s Cross
A
(completed).
Further improvements to the ECML
timetable from December 2013 to
further reduce journey times, improve
performance and increase the number
of available freight paths, particularly
between Peterborough and Doncaster,
to support the 2014 forecast in the
Freight RUS.
A programme of infrastructure works to
improve capacity and performance and reduce
pathing time:
l
Reinstated platform at Finsbury Park and
improvements to track layout between there
and Alexandra Palace
l
Grade separation of Hitchin Cambridge Jn
l
New island platform at Peterborough
l
Upgrade of GN/GE Joint Line (Peterborough
– Spalding – Lincoln – Doncaster) to allow
increased use by freight trains
l
North Doncaster Chord
l
Holgate Jn (York) fourth line.
More direct route for Immingham to
Aire Valley power stations traffic.
RUS reference
Longer services between London Euston
and the North West to cater for growth.
Platform extensions to allow operation of 11-car
Class 390 trains.
Faster journey times between Sheffield
and London St Pancras International.
London – Sheffield Journey Time
Improvement Project.
ECMLAD1
ECMLAD1 and
ECMLFC3
East Midlands RUS
The Appendix A reference is made up of the RUS title, and the gap name and number. ie. YHPC3 is the Yorkshire and Humber RUS,
Peak Crowding gap 3 in Appendix A.
97
6. Strategy
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
RUS reference
Reduction of cross-Pennine journey
times between Leeds and Manchester
via Huddersfield.
A series of small infrastructure improvements and
timetabling initiatives.
YHRC1
Faster services between Liverpool and
Manchester via Earlestown.
Linespeed improvements.
NWRC7
Use of electric traction on services
between Manchester Airport
and Scotland.
Electrification of Castlefield Jn (near Deansgate)
to Lowton Jn (near Newton-le-Willows).
Provision of improved loading
gauge to allow deep sea containers
and swapbodies to be carried on
standard intermodal wagons on key
intermodal arteries.
W10/W12 loading gauge funded by the SFN
Fund of:
l
Doncaster – Birmingham via Beighton and
the Erewash Valley
l
Temple Hirst (north of Doncaster) – Newcastle
(with possible extension into Scotland using
SFN Fund and Seven Day Railway Fund)
l
Swinton – Moorthorpe – South Kirkby Jn.
NEN1
ECMLFC4
W10/W12 loading gauge between Castlefield
Jn and Lowton Jn (to be delivered as part of
electrification scheme).
W9/W10 loading gauge between Peterborough
and Doncaster via Lincoln.
W10/W12 loading gauge improvements between
Darlington and Teesport, funded by Tees Valley
Unlimited.
Possible W10/W12 loading gauge between
Doncaster and Immingham – funding being sought
by the South Humber Gateway Delivery Group.
98
Improvements to services in the
Tees Valley.
A programme of projects promoted by, and
funding being sought by, local authorities.
Improved services between East
Lancashire and Manchester.
Todmorden Curve reinstatement and increased
track capacity between Blackburn and Bolton;
projects promoted by, and funding being sought
by, local authorities.
Performance improvement through
reduction in reactionary delay.
Small projects funded through the CP4
Performance Improvement Fund, or as further
benefits from small schemes funded by the
Network Rail Discretionary Fund, or as a further
output of major infrastructure interventions.
Improved access to trains services.
New stations being promoted and/or funded by
West Yorkshire PTE at:
l
Low Moor
l
Apperley Bridge
l
Kirkstall Forge.
ECMLFC4
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.4 Medium-term strategy 2014 –
2024 (CP5 and CP6)
6.4.1 Background
The medium-term strategy builds on that expected
to be delivered in CP4.
The general approach will be further train
lengthening to meet predicted continuing growth
in demand, though on some corridors additional
shuttle services will provide better use of resources
and also improve connectivity.
The introduction of IEP rolling stock on the ECML
and further aspirations for Open Access passenger
services will provide further capacity and connectivity
between the North East, Yorkshire and London.
There is an opportunity to help drive a step change
in economic activity for the north of England by
improving connectivity between the cities and the
major towns of the north, and also between them
and other key destinations such as Manchester
Airport and cities in other parts of Britain.
There will be a continuing need for additional rolling
stock, including electric units to take advantage of
later phases of the electrification of routes in the
North West. In addition, by this time a number of
existing rolling stock fleets will be reaching life-expiry
or becoming due for a major mid-life overhaul,
and the commencement of replacement and
refurbishment programmes will create opportunities
for improvements in capacity, performance, fuel
efficiency and attractiveness to passengers.
Table 6.2 describes the expected changes in services
and any associated infrastructure works.
6.4.2 CP5 and CP6 train service and
infrastructure changes
Table 6.2 outlines the recommended strategy for
CP5 and CP6. The timing of the interventions that
are not already funded will depend on a number
of factors such as the availability of funding, the
provision of any necessary additional rolling stock
and future passenger growth. Listed next to any
specific items that have come from a previous RUS
is the reference2 to the corresponding previous RUS
recommendation in Appendix A.
Table 6.2 – Train service and infrastructure changes in CP5 and CP6
2
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
Use of electric traction on:
stopping services between
l
Manchester and Liverpool via
Earlestown
l
services between Liverpool, Wigan,
Preston and Blackpool
l
services between Manchester,
Preston and Blackpool.
This will provide capacity and journey
time improvements.
Remaining phases of the North West
electrification project.
Improved journey times from
the North East and Yorkshire to
Manchester and Liverpool through
diversion of north cross-Pennine
services via Manchester Victoria
and, where appropriate, the Chat
Moss route to Liverpool. Increased
frequency of service between Leeds
and Manchester to six trains per hour
with two continuing to Liverpool
(Northern RUS Gap 9). Additional peak
hour capacity on interurban services
via Huddersfield into Leeds and
Manchester.
New link to allow trains to operate between
Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly
(Ordsall Chord), track layout improvements at
Manchester Victoria and linespeed improvements
between Stalybridge and Manchester Victoria
funded in the March 2011 Budget.
RUS reference
NEN1, NEN5, NEN10
Increased passenger train servicing and stabling
facilities and one or more maintenance depot(s)
for the additional electric units.
Other potential supporting interventions as
identified through Northern Hub development work.
Combine terminal Platforms 13 and 14 at Leeds
into a through platform.
The Appendix A reference is made up of the RUS title, and the gap name and number. ie. YHPC3 is the Yorkshire and Humber RUS,
Peak Crowding 3 in Appendix A.
99
6. Strategy
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
Continued lengthening of the most
crowded local services into Leeds
as additional rolling stock becomes
available (except on the routes below
where additional services will operate).
Extension of one of the additional
hourly trains between Manchester and
Leeds via Huddersfield to Selby or Hull,
at least in the peak hours.
Additional peak shuttles, instead of
train lengthening, between:
l
Horsforth and Leeds
l
Halifax and Leeds.
Further platform extensions on a number of lines
to accommodate longer trains.
An additional platform at Leeds (north side –
Northern RUS Gap 8), and Huddersfield,
extend platform 17 (Northern RUS Gap 8)
at Leeds and turnback facility at Micklefield
(Northern RUS Gap 8).
Additional crossover at Bradford Interchange and
some bi-directional signalling in association with
planned signalling renewals.
RUS reference
YHPC5/YHAD1
YHPC4
New and increased passenger train servicing
and stabling.
Continued lengthening of the most
crowded local services into Manchester
as additional rolling stock becomes
available (except on the routes below
where additional services will operate).
Additional peak shuttles, instead of
train lengthening, between:
l
Stalybridge and Manchester
l
Rochdale and Manchester
l
Liverpool and Manchester via
Warrington Central (Northern RUS
Gap 1).
Further platform extensions on a number of lines
to accommodate longer trains.
An additional platform at Manchester Airport
(Northern RUS Gap 2), and Huddersfield
– required also for capacity on Leeds
stopping services.
New turnback facility at Rochdale – if turnback
arrangements provided by Metrolink scheme are
not sufficient.
YHPC15
New and increased passenger train servicing and
stabling facilities.
Further increase in services between
the RUS area and London King’s Cross
from December 2018 to cater for
ongoing growth and provide more
reductions in journey times on the
medium and longer distance flows
serving Yorkshire and the North East
facilitated by IEP.
Additional freight paths from the
London area and East Anglia, to
Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland
as per SFN 2019 and 2030 forecasts.
A programme of infrastructure works to further
improve capacity and performance, reduce
pathing time and provide extra freight paths.
The constituent projects have yet to be confirmed
through timetable development work. However,
the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review
and previous RUSs have indicated that the list
could include:
l
increase in length of three and four
track section between Huntingdon and
Peterborough
l
revised track layout at Peterborough
including some form of grade separation
that at least provides improved access to the
GN/GE Joint Line
l
flyover to replace Newark Flat Crossing
l
small scale improvements to layout at
Doncaster prior to signalling renewals
l
Fast line platforms at Darlington
l
capacity improvements between Ferryhill
South Jn and Newcastle.
East Coast Main Line
2016 Capacity Review
Infrastructure works to allow operation of new
IEP rolling stock.
Lengthening of long distance trains to
meet growth between Sheffield and
London St Pancras International and
on non-London LDHS services.
100
Some platform extensions outside the RUS area.
East Midlands RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
Additional freight services as forecast
in the SFN 2030 forecasts between
Immingham and the Knottingley area
(Northern RUS Gap 6).
Enhancements in association with the planned
signalling renewals in the area, including the
provision of a four-minute planning headway
between Immingham and Scunthorpe.
RUS reference
New passenger turnback facility at Knottingley.
Operation of some longer daytime
aggregates trains from the Hope
Valley via Dore West Jn.
Longer freight train standage in Dore area as
part of wider scheme in association with renewals
and Northern Hub.
Provision of improved loading
gauge to allow deep sea containers
and swapbodies to be carried on
standard intermodal wagons on key
intermodal arteries (SFN loading
gauge aspirations).
W9/W10 loading gauge enhancements, to be
funded by Hutchison Ports UK (completion date
is subject to the timing of port developments at
Felixstowe) of:
l
Peterborough – Doncaster – Selby via the
East Coast Main Line
l
Newark – Lincoln
l
Doncaster – Leeds Stourton via
Wakefield Europort
l
Shaftholme Jn – Knottingley – Featherstone
– Wakefield Kirkgate.
W10/W12 loading gauge enhancements of:
Selby/Thorne Jn – Hull
l
Selby – Hambleton – Sherburn Jn – Colton Jn
l
Moorthorpe – Ferrybridge – Sherburn Jn or
Normanton – Castleford – Sherburn Jn
l
Wakefield Kirkgate – Stalybridge –
Manchester Victoria
l
Stalybridge – Ardwick Jn
l
Northallerton – Stockton – Ferryhill
l
Earlestown – Edge Hill (to be delivered as
part of electrification scheme).
l
A timetable recast on the Bolton
corridor to make best use of rolling
stock following electrification of
the Blackpool – Preston – Bolton –
Manchester route to meet growth and
connectivity requirements (Northern
RUS Gap 1).
Platform extension works as described in
Northern RUS Gap 1.
101
6. Strategy
102
Train service changes
Supporting infrastructure projects
Additional interurban services across
the north of England providing a
step change in connectivity between
the cities and towns in the North
and between these and other key
destinations across Britain. The
increase in service levels would
be accompanied by journey time
improvements which would further
improve connectivity. There would be
opportunity for more commuter and
local services on key corridors within
the Northern Hub area.
Infrastructure Option 2 recommended by the
Manchester Hub Study (published in January
2010). This project is now called The Northern
Hub. It involves a new railway line in Manchester
city centre at Ordsall, major improvements to
Manchester Victoria, two additional through
platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, and improved
track layouts at Manchester Oxford Road and
on the lines connecting Manchester and each
of Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield. The funding of
the first two interventions has been announced
already by the Government, along with journey
time improvement works between Manchester
Victoria and Stalybridge, as described above.
Two off-peak freight paths per hour
into Trafford Park. (Northern RUS
Gap 9).
Revised track layouts are likely to be required at
Liverpool Lime Street and Sheffield (which are
currently outside the Northern Hub project scope)
and there are opportunities to enhance these in
association with planned signalling renewals.
Possible increased use of electric
trains within parts of the RUS area not
covered by the electrification scheme in
the North West as a way of providing
increased capacity to meet growth
on such routes and also allowing the
cascade of diesel stock to meet growth
on other routes and replace rolling stock
that becomes obsolete.
Electrification of others routes in the north of
England which may include:
l
Manchester Victoria – Stalybridge
l
Guide Bridge – Stalybridge – Leeds – Colton
Jn/Hull
l
Midland Main Line from Sheffield to Bedford
via Derby
l
Sheffield – Doncaster/ South Kirkby Jn
(as an extension of a Midland Main Line
electrification scheme) – this requires
revisions to the layout at Sheffield
l
Northallerton – Middlesbrough
l
Oxenholme – Windemere.
RUS reference
NEN3
NEN3
NEN4
NEN8
NEN5
Improved journey times between
Leeds and Sheffield via Barnsley (and
onwards to the East Midlands) and
reinstated Elsecar calls in Huddersfield
to Sheffield line services (Northern RUS
Gap 6).
Linespeed improvements, some of which could
be achieved through an enhancement of the
planned renewals scheme in the Wakefield
Kirkgate – Horbury Jn area.
YHRC10
Improved performance and faster
journeys for freight and passenger
trains between Hull and Gilberdyke.
Could be achieved through an enhancement of
the planned signalling renewals in the area.
YHFC1
Half-hourly service between
Knottingley and Leeds.
Turnback facilities at Knottingley (also required to
meet SFN 2030 forecasts) and Castleford.
YHRC11
Enhanced service serving a new station
at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster
Sheffield (RHADS).
New station provided by airport.
YHRC6
Small layout enhancements at Doncaster (may
also be required for enhanced ECML timetable
in 2018).
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.5 Long-term context
(Control Period 7 and beyond)
The demand forecasts developed for the Northern
RUS show an increase in peak demand to 2029
as high as 62 per cent into Leeds, 57 per cent into
Liverpool, 66 per cent into Manchester, 56 per cent
into Newcastle and 56 per cent into Sheffield. All-day
passenger demand by 2029 on the interurban corridors
in Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 is forecast to increase by 38
per cent to 52 per cent in the high growth scenario,
depending on the corridor. The delivery of the service
improvements made possible by infrastructure
enhancements such as the Northern Hub, that aim
to improve inter-regional connectivity, would increase
these substantially. These figures would be higher
still with further national or local commitments to
interventions designed to encourage modal shift to rail.
The Government is developing High Speed 2 (HS2),
a new high speed line on the north-south axis
connecting London to the West Midlands and then
separating into two routes, one to Manchester,
and one to the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and
Leeds. It plans to complete HS2 in 2033. HS2 would
provide much reduced journey times and increased
frequency of services to London from key locations
in the north and thereby stimulate further economic
growth for the north of England. The ability to
connect from local and regional services directly into
the high speed services to London is likely to create
further growth on local and regional services.
The demand forecasts and High Speed line
interventions point to a potential doubling of local and
regional passenger traffic by the end of the 2030s.
For freight the SFN forecasts for 2030 have been
utilised to identify those routes where the increase
in freight path requirements is most significant. Not
surprisingly, these are generally on the core national
arteries connecting the ports, the Channel Tunnel
and regional distribution centres as the major
growth in rail freight would be intermodal traffic.
This section of the RUS provides a high level
assessment of what a doubling of local and regional
passenger traffic, and delivering the freight path
requirements to deliver the SFN 2030 forecasts,
could mean for the RUS area.
In order to accommodate a doubling of commuter
journeys on each rail corridor, the short to mediumterm strategy of either train lengthening or
additional services gives the foundation for the
longer term. Continued growth could be addressed
largely through progressive train lengthening both
of existing services and the ‘peak-busting’ additional
services described in the short and medium-term
strategies which will require still further platform
extensions on a number of corridors. Where there
are significant constraints to extending platforms,
the use of rolling stock with selective door operation,
or the introduction of further peak-busting services
may provide a more cost effective solution.
Much of the network capacity to allow a doubling of
the other regional passenger markets in the north
of England would be provided by the Northern
Hub project. Increasing the capacity through
Leeds and east thereof, through Sheffield and
north/east thereof, and into Liverpool Lime Street
(which are not within the scope of the current
Northern Hub project) would result in most of the
remaining additional infrastructure being in place to
accommodate a doubling of passenger numbers on
interurban services in the north of England.
More widely, steps might be taken to encourage
staggering of working hours in major urban centres
– perhaps incentivised by fares policy. This could
help to reduce the adverse effect of relatively short
morning and evening peaks in terms of rolling stock
assets fully utilised for only a very short period of
each day. Longer, less intense peaks could certainly
contribute to a reduction in crowding and more
efficient operation of the local passenger transport
network. The development of new ticketing
technology, such as smart cards, to introduce more
flexible and sophisticated pricing in the high-peak
hour and peak shoulders should be accorded a high
priority. This will build on the work already done
at industry level to identify appropriate standards
for the potential national application of future
ticketing solutions and other demand management
techniques. The lead time in developing and proving
such solutions means that while the full benefits
may not be realised in the short to medium term,
some early impact may be made. Several of the
PTEs are actively pursing smart card introduction.
The high speed services will use the existing stations
at Manchester Piccadilly (at least until completion
of the HS2 route into Manchester) and Liverpool
Lime Street and may use the existing stations
in Leeds and Sheffield. There will be a need to
examine the capacity issues at these stations and
on the approaches, how any significantly longer
trains can be accommodated and how to provide
connections to other routes. If new stations are
built to accommodate the high speed services,
there will need to be consideration of how these are
connected to the ‘classic’ rail network.
In the longer term, track capacity in the Leeds
station area may become a major constraint in
dealing with passenger growth within and into West
Yorkshire. How services from HS2 will be handled
in the Leeds station area will have a big impact
on whether this would assist with the provision of
capacity for other services. This RUS has identified a
number of infrastructure interventions to deal with
medium-term growth; however, other options may
provide additional capacity either instead of or in
addition to these interventions. For example, the
operation of more London – Leeds services through
to other destinations would free up some further
through-platform capacity at Leeds prior to the
completion of HS2, subject to paths being available
on the relevant routes.
103
6. Strategy
Subject to a successful operation of tram-train in the
South Yorkshire pilot scheme, another opportunity to
mitigate capacity issues at Leeds station might be
by the deployment of tram-train vehicles on certain
local corridors making use of a connection off the
heavy rail network close to Leeds station to access
new low level platforms alongside the existing
station. This may be examined in development work
on medium-term interventions at Leeds station,
taking into account the results of the pilot scheme.
Similar opportunities may also be identified at
Sheffield and Manchester but operations could
extend onto the existing local tram networks
building on experience gained during the tram-train
pilot scheme between Sheffield and Rotherham
which will use the Supertram network between
Sheffield city centre and Tinsley.
As far as freight growth is concerned, as described
above, accommodating a significant increase in
intermodal growth is necessary. This requires the
provision of additional freight paths on the key
freight arteries through the RUS area, including
associated diversionary routes.
Those arteries where increased capacity would be
the most challenging are:
l
Rotherham – Swinton – Moorthorpe – Hare Park Jn
l
Doncaster – Colton Jn.
The first of these will need four-tracking of
significant sections, which would need to be
considered in relation to eliminating some of the
flat junctions in the Rotherham to Sheffield corridor
as well, but this will have benefits for other types of
freight traffic growth, increased passenger services,
train performance improvement and moving
towards a Seven Day Railway. If HS2 services were
to take many of the passenger journeys between
Yorkshire and the East and West Midlands off the
existing network then the capacity issues on this
corridor might be resolved.
The other corridor requires solutions to future
routeing of passenger and freight traffic through
the Doncaster station area, which could lead to
a major upgrade of the network in this area when
signalling renewals become due. However, with the
transfer of passenger journeys between London and
Yorkshire, the North East and eastern Scotland to
HS2 pressure would be relieved on the Doncaster
station area, and between Doncaster and Colton Jn.
104
A further significant benefit of HS2 would be the
release of a large amount of capacity on the
existing north-south routes, which would support a
number of market areas:
l
f urther growth in journeys between locations
that would not be close to the high speed route
and London
l
f urther freight growth on the existing core
intermodal freight arteries
l
ew or improved opportunities for connectivity
n
between cities and towns in the north of
England and other locations in Great Britain.
An example of the latter could be direct services via
the ECML between West Yorkshire and East Anglia.
In summary, the completion of HS2 will provide a step
change in the capacity and journey times for trains
connecting key city areas in the north of England with
the Midlands and London. The high-level strategy
to deliver the type of growth that could be expected
for local and regional passenger traffic and forecast
freight growth in the longer term should aim to make
use of a mixture of enhancements to the existing rail
network and making best use of rail corridors that
have capacity freed up by traffic moving onto HS2.
The exact balance between the two will depend on
the routeing of the latter and how it relates to the
existing network and therefore which current major
passenger flows would transfer to it. This would
determine how the capacity of the existing routes
would then be best used to cater for the remaining
passenger flows and freight traffic.
6.6 Alternative growth scenarios
Section 6.5 describes what is needed for a general
doubling of both commuter and interurban
passenger markets. It is recognised that there may
be wide variations on individual routes or parts of
routes, according to local circumstances.
In the event of rapid growth it is clear that the
strategy should focus on making the best use of the
existing network in the first instance, and then on
opportunities to develop the network more widely.
Chapter 3 discusses the sensitivity of the strategy to
alternative growth scenarios.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.7 High level strategy by corridor
As mentioned in Chapter 5, many respondents
asked for the high level strategy to be broken
down by corridor so this section gives an overview
of significant changes included in this strategy.
Appendix A summarises all the recommendations
in previous RUSs covering the north of England and
further information on these can be found in the
relevant RUS document; these are all available at
www.networkrail.co.uk
It is worth noting that several corridors have formally
designated Community Rail Partnerships for either
the line or services on that route and these groups
identify strategies for the development of the line or
service. There are also aspirations for open access
passenger services on some routes, which may
provide some of the additional capacity required to
deal with peak growth.
This section sets out where additional capacity
is being provided in CP4 based on the latest TOC
operational plans. If further vehicles are required in
CP5 or CP6 to provide crowding relief, this is set out
in tabular format showing the requirements of the
three morning peak hours. If no table is shown, then
no further capacity is required beyond the position
at the end of CP4.The capacity required is shown
as equivalent vehicles arrivals at the relevant HLOS
city (Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and
Sheffield). These are vehicles that provide:
l
seated capacity for 65 people
l
total capacity of 100 people.
The actual number of additional vehicles required
will depend on the type of rolling stock used and, in
cases where shuttle services are recommended, the
same vehicles may be used for more than one peak
arrival. As described in Chapter 4 the equivalent
vehicles arrivals are those needed to meet growth in
line with the DfT’s crowding guidelines; additional
vehicles would be required to avoid the need for
people having to stand for up to 20 minutes. The
RUS has assessed the equivalent vehicles required
for the morning peak and it is assumed that these
will be deployed in a similar way in the evening peak.
The text below the tables outlines the strategy to
deal with the growth as per the findings of this RUS,
previous RUSs and other strategic interventions.
The work done on those corridors that are affected
by the Ordsall Chord announcement was undertaken
based on the current service pattern. This RUS has
made an initial assessment of the effect of the
Orsdall Chord and associated projects and this has
been reflected in the findings of this RUS. However,
more detailed work, including the service patterns on
affected corridors, is being carried out as part of the
Northern Hub project.
The corridors are covered in alphabetical order
using titles that try to reflect location area that the
corridor serves or other name that appears to be used
widely. Table 6.3 shows the named routes and the
geography they cover, with the corresponding section
number showing where to find them in the chapter.
105
6. Strategy
Table 6.3 – Route and description
106
Route
Description
Section
Airedale
Skipton – Leeds/Bradford Forster Square
6.7.1 Atherton
Wigan Wallgate – Atherton - Manchester
6.7.2
Barnsley
Sheffield - Barnsley – Huddersfield/Leeds
6.7.3
Bolton
Manchester – Bolton – Blackburn/Wigan Wallgate/Preston and beyond
6.7.4
Calder Valley
Manchester Victoria – Rochdale – Hebden Bridge – Halifax –
Bradford Interchange – Leeds and services via Brighouse
6.7.5
Castleford
Leeds – Castleford – Knottingley – Goole
6.7.6
Chat Moss
Liverpool – Huyton – Manchester/Wigan
6.7.7
Chesterfield
Sheffield – Chesterfield
6.7.8
CLC
Manchester Piccadilly – Warrington Central – Liverpool Lime Street
6.7.9
Cumbrian Coast
Barrow – Workington – Whitehaven – Carlisle
6.7.10
Doncaster and
Moorthorpe - Sheffield
Doncaster and Moorthorpe – Sheffield
6.7.11
Doncaster - Wakefield
Westgate - Leeds
Doncaster – Wakefield Westgate – Leeds
6.7.12
ECML
London King’s Cross – Doncaster – York – Newcastle – Edinburgh
6.7.13
East of Leeds
Leeds – York – Scarborough and Leeds – Selby – Hull
6.7.14
East Manchester
Manchester Piccadilly – Hadfield/Marple/New Mills
6.7.15
Harrogate
York – Knaresborough – Harrogate – Leeds
6.7.16
Hope Valley
Manchester – Sheffield
6.7.17
Hull/Scarborough
Hull – Scarborough
6.7.18
North cross-Pennine
Leeds – Huddersfield – Manchester
6.7.19
Retford
Sheffield – Worksop – Retford – Lincoln
6.7.20
Settle and Carlisle
Settle – Carlisle
6.7.21
South Humber
Immingham/Cleethorpes – Scunthorpe – Doncaster
6.7.22
South Manchester
Buxton/Stoke/Crewe/Altrincham – Manchester Piccadilly
6.7.23
Tees Valley
Routes and services in the Middlesbrough area
6.7.24
Tyne Valley
Newcastle – Hexham – Carlisle
6.7.25
Wharfedale
Ilkley – Leeds/Bradford Forster Square
6.7.26
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.7.1 Airedale line (Skipton – Leeds/
Bradford Forster Square)
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds is
driven by the total train capacity. The following table
shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals into Leeds
expected by the end of CP4 and required by the end
of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Airedale line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Local Services
First peak hour
9.3
High-peak hour
21.4
Third peak hour
10.8
In CP4 additional electric stock is being provided for
Leeds services to operate an additional four-car highpeak hour train. Approximately two extra equivalent
vehicles will be required to meet total train capacity
requirements in CP6. With platform extensions and
the future provision of three-car EMUs, the busiest
service could be lengthened to six cars to meet
capacity requirements in CP6. Further growth could
be accommodated by lengthening further four-car
trains to six-car formations if required.
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
2–3
Sufficient capacity will be available on services to and
from Bradford Forster Square, even with the opening
of Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge stations.
6.7.2 Atherton line (Wigan Wallgate –
Atherton – Manchester)
On this corridor, required capacity is driven by
the availability of seated capacity. The following
table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals into
Manchester Victoria expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Atherton line into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Service group
Atherton line services
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
5.9
High-peak hour
13.3
1–2
2–3
Third peak hour
3.4
0–1
0–1
In CP4 some additional stock is being provided for
this route. Ongoing train lengthening is required
over CP5 and CP6. To meet the CP6 capacity
requirements the two most crowded high-peak hour
trains need to be formed of four-car equivalent
vehicle diesel units and several other peak services
need to be three-car equivalent units.
6.7.3 Barnsley line (Sheffield –
Barnsley – Huddersfield/Leeds)
On this corridor, required capacity into Sheffield is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Sheffield expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
107
6. Strategy
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Barnsley line into Sheffield
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
1.7
0–1
0–1
High-peak hour
1.5
0–1
0–1
Third peak hour
2.4
First peak hour
2.1
High-peak hour
2.4
0–1
1
Third peak hour
1.5
0–1
0–1
Service group
Sheffield/Barnsley –
Leeds stopping trains
Penistone line
services
by the end of CP5 and CP6 for fast services into
Leeds (stopping services are covered under the
Castleford corridor see section 6.7.6).
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and required
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Barnsley line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Leeds/Barnsley –
Sheffield fast trains
First peak hour
3.2
High-peak hour
4.3
Third peak hour
4.3
Train lengthening up to two or three-car equivalent
vehicle trains, as appropriate, is required on a
number of the Sheffield – Leeds and vice versa
services. In the case of current two-car Pacer
operated trains, conversion to a Sprinter would
provide a two-car equivalent vehicle train.
During consultation a number of respondents were
concerned that crowding at the Huddersfield end
of the Penistone line had not been addressed. The
analysis has been re-run and still shows that the
busiest trains are the 07:48 arrival and the 17:56
departure, reflecting that many commuters work
in Leeds and interchange at Huddersfield. Capacity
requirements are driven by the total train capacity.
These trains are currently planned to be two-car
Pacer trains so increasing them to a three-car Pacer
or a two-car train of 23m vehicles will provide a 50
per cent increase in capacity, sufficient to meet the
forecasts. Use of similar length trains on the other
peak hour services would provide sufficient capacity
and minimise the number of people having to stand.
As mentioned in section 6.7.6 covering the
Castleford line, the high-peak hour Sheffield –
Barnsley – Leeds stopping service will need to be
lengthened which may require some platform
extensions on this corridor.
108
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
1–2
A number of stakeholders are seeking journey time
improvements between Leeds, Barnsley and Sheffield
(and onwards to Nottingham). Initial feasibility
work on this is nearing completion including
examining the opportunities to improve journey
times that the renewals on the Wakefield Kirkgate
to Horbury Jn section might give. If suitable journey
time improvements can be found to accelerate the
Sheffield – Huddersfield service south of Penistone
by two minutes then, subject to business case, this
could allow reinstatement of the Elsecar call in
these services.
W10 loading gauge clearance of the route is
planned from Hare Park Jn (on the Doncaster to
Leeds line) via Turners Lane Jn (near Wakefield
Kirkgate) and Wakefield Europort to Leeds Stourton
intermodal terminal.
Kirklees Council is leading a study into the doubling
of the frequency between Huddersfield and Barnsley
in order to create modal shift. This work will identify
extra infrastructure needed as the line is largely
single track and cannot accommodate a half hourly
service, and how any shortfall between additional
operating costs and revenues will be funded.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.7.4 Bolton corridor (Manchester –
Bolton – Blackburn/Wigan Wallgate/
Preston and beyond)
The Bolton corridor is one of the most complex
corridors analysed in this RUS. A mix of interurban
and stopping services run on the route into different
locations in Manchester. The service proposition
and type of rolling stock is also likely to significantly
change in the period of the RUS due to the staged
programme of electrification and the completion of
works as part of the Ordsall Chord announcement
and other Northern Hub projects. Therefore, the
following table shows the required total capacity in
equivalent vehicles in CP5 and CP6 by service group,
but does not include a CP4 baseline position as it
is not yet known what services will be operating on
this corridor at the end of CP4 when the Manchester
Airport to Scotland services are expected to start
running via the Chat Moss route and Wigan. The
successive service propositions are being developed
as part of the electrification workstream and the
Northern Hub project.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals required on the Bolton line into Manchester
Total equivalent vehicle
arrivals required of seated
capacity
Service group
Stopping services
into Manchester
Piccadilly
Interurban services
into Manchester
Piccadilly
Stopping services
into Manchester
Victoria
Limited stop services
into Manchester
Victoria
Total equivalent vehicles
required of total train capacity
CP5
CP6
CP5
CP6
First peak hour
6.4
7.0
4.5
4.8
High-peak hour
13.1
14.3
11.3
12.2
Third peak hour
3.8
4.2
3.8
4.2
First peak hour
7.3
8.0
7.1
7.7
High-peak hour
12.9
14.3
12.3
13.5
Third peak hour
5.7
6.3
5.5
6.1
First peak hour
2.3
2.5
1.5
1.6
High-peak hour
7.8
8.4
6.5
7.0
Third peak hour
*
*
*
*
First peak hour
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
High-peak hour
5.9
6.4
5.9
6.4
Third peak hour
4.3
4.7
3.2
3.5
* one stopping service runs into Salford Central at 09:59, that could be counted as a third peak hour train. However, no data is available for this service.
On Manchester to Scotland services, there is
crowding in the evening peak, especially on
Fridays, which means passengers travelling long
distances have difficulty finding a seat out of
Manchester and are forced to stand for a portion
of their journey.
Electrification of the Manchester – Bolton – Preston
– Blackpool corridor is expected to be completed in
2016 and will allow services from Blackpool North
and Scotland to run as electric services. One of the
Blackpool North peak services currently couples at
Preston to a service from Barrow-in-Furness, which
is not within the scope of the electrification scheme.
However, the Manchester – Scotland services are
expected to be converted to electric traction around
2013 when the Manchester – Lowton Jn (near
Newton-le-Willows) electrification is completed, with
services being diverted via this route and Wigan.
Analysis undertaken by the RUS demonstrates that
sufficient capacity can be provided by the appropriate
lengthening of services on the Bolton corridor in the
following three scenarios, without the need for major
infrastructure investment:
1.After Chat Moss electrification but before
electrification of the Bolton and Blackpool lines,
with the service in the assumed path of the
Anglo-Scottish service running via Wigan and the
Chat Moss line.
2.From full electrification to the end of the RUS
period in 2023/24 with all the current services
remaining on the Bolton corridor.
3.From full electrification to the end of the RUS
period in 2023/24, with the service in the
assumed path of the Anglo-Scottish service
diverted via Wigan and the Chat Moss line.
109
6. Strategy
In each of these scenarios, lengthening of
services may result in lengthening the platforms
at some or all of Blackrod, Westhoughton,
Hindley, Meols Cop, Parbold and Appley Bridge,
with the maximum lengthening being able to
accommodate a train of 6x23m vehicles.
It is assumed that all trains that could operate as
electric trains would be four cars long, as the likely
stock to be cascaded as a result of the Thameslink
Programme or any likely new stock, if procured for
the Anglo-Scottish trains, would be of this formation.
However, the provision of four-car EMU stock could
raise issues on some stopping services on the Bolton
corridor. Depending on the service proposition
adopted, analysis shows that four-car stopping
trains may not provide enough capacity in CP5 while
eight cars would over provide and trigger a larger
programme of platform lengthening than outlined
above, including major works at Salford Crescent.
Consequently, a few six-car trains may be ideal if
some three-car EMUs could be made available.
Trains that would continue to be operated by
diesel traction are assumed to be capable of being
lengthened up to a maximum of 6x23m vehicles
to match with the planned lengthening of Salford
Crescent in CP4.
On completion of electrification, the service pattern
on the Bolton corridor needs to provide a desirable
spread of services to the north and south sides
of Manchester and balance out station calls to
best meet passenger requirements and minimise
the need for platform lengthening. Transport for
Greater Manchester, which has taken over the
responsibilities of the former Greater Manchester
PTE, has a multi-modal model which can be used
to test different service options to help identify the
optimal spread. The PTE undertook a study into
the ultimate destination of passengers travelling
from stations between Preston and Manchester
using this model which indicated that the current
level of services to Manchester Victoria needs
to be maintained, but the loss of one train in
the high-peak hour to Manchester Oxford Road
and Manchester Piccadilly could be acceptable,
provided sufficient capacity was available on the
remaining services.
110
If the service proposition for the Bolton corridor
to deliver sufficient passenger capacity and the
connectivity to the north and south sides of
Manchester requires an additional high-peak hour
service, this could be achievable by a recast of the
timetable involving altering stopping patterns and
destinations of some services. For example, diverting
the Southport to Manchester Airport service to
Manchester Victoria and retiming the Blackpool
North to Manchester Airport service provides an
additional path from Preston on this corridor.
The Northern Hub project is examining how the
electrification of this route might alter the service
proposition that was previously tested and will
review whether there are any further effects arising
from the service proposition resulting from the
Ordsall Chord announcement.
Following electrification, services from Barrow-inFurness and Windermere will not be able to couple
with Scotland to Manchester Airport electric services
or electric services from Blackpool as they do
currently since the two lines are not included in the
current electrification project. The RUS has assumed
as a base case: Preston to Barrow-in Furness, and
Oxenholme to Windermere shuttle trains. The RUS
has then demonstrated that there is a value for
money business case to run some through services
if these are provided by converting (if there are
to be any) Manchester Airport or Hazel Grove or
Manchester Victoria to Preston electric services to
diesel traction and then operating them through
to Barrow-in-Furness or Windermere. The future
operation of these services will need to be examined
in more detail by the bidders for the next round of
franchising for services in this area.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.7.5 Calder Valley (Manchester
Victoria – Rochdale – Hebden Bridge
– Halifax – Bradford Interchange –
Leeds and services via Brighouse)
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and required
by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Calder Valley line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Via Bradford
Via Dewsbury*
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
4.3
0–1
0–1
High-peak hour
11.5
0–1
1–2
Third peak hour
8.5
First peak hour
2.1
0–1
0–1
High-peak hour
6.7
2–3
3
Third peak hour
6.1
0–1
*Includes stopping trains from Huddersfield.
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Manchester Victoria expected by the end of CP4
and required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Calder Valley line into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
6.0
0–1
1–2
High-peak hour
15.3
Third peak hour
3.8
Service group
Calder Valley services
With some train lengthening having occurred already,
the operation of a further train from the upper
Calder Valley via Brighouse, and in the light of the
most recent passenger count data, the requirements
for trains running via Bradford are less than stated
in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. Nevertheless
the principle of peak shuttles between Halifax and
Leeds still holds. This avoids running long trains over
a long distance when the capacity is required only
for a short section of their journey. A shuttle of two
equivalent vehicles in each peak hour would suffice
with the train running non-stop in the contra-peak
direction, possibly via the Brighouse route, to get it
back quickly for its next service.
West Yorkshire PTE is interested in operating the
shuttle service all day which would require two
separate sets of rolling stock. Although there is
already a turnback facility at Halifax it would need
to be established whether this would support an
hourly shuttle service. The Yorkshire and Humber RUS
identified the need for some bi-directional signalling
and an extra crossover at Bradford Interchange
for the all day service, which could be delivered in
association with planned signalling renewals.
The services running between the upper Calder Valley
and Leeds via Brighouse provide commuter services
from the intermediate stations on the Dewsbury line,
along with local services from Huddersfield. There is a
need to provide an extra three equivalent vehicles on
these services in the high-peak hour and an extra one
in the first shoulder peak hour by CP6. This means that
two of the three high-peak trains are likely to need to
111
6. Strategy
run as four vehicle trains of 20m (or longer) requiring
some platform extensions and a new platform at
Huddersfield, or a much extended bay platform, as the
longer train would not be able to share Platform 4 with
longer Huddersfield to Manchester local services.
At the Manchester end of the route, lengthening of
services in CP4 means that five additional seated
equivalent vehicles worth of capacity are planned to
arrive in Manchester Victoria in the high-peak hour
and 1.5 in the first shoulder peak hour. However,
future requirements may be reduced by the effects
of the Metrolink extension to Rochdale.
Todmorden Curve which would allow direct services
to operate between Burnley and Manchester, and
are currently pursuing potential sources of funding.
The Northern Hub project aims to improve
connectivity between the Calder Valley and
Manchester and beyond including the potential
opportunity to run trains direct to Manchester Airport
via the Ordsall Chord and west of Manchester. It
also would provide faster services on the route,
particularly aiming to speed up the journey time
from Bradford to Manchester and Liverpool.
Various stakeholders on the route have
commissioned work to examine ways to improve
services on the corridor. The output of this work will
be compared with what the Northern Hub project is
aiming to deliver.
Given the lengthening expected in CP4, further
lengthening in the first peak hour may be preferred
to the Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommendation
for shuttle services. However, shorter more
frequent services with some additional Rochdale
to Manchester shuttles may be preferred to save
operating costs. If the turnback arrangements
provided by the Metrolink scheme at Rochdale are
not sufficient to allow the shuttle services to run
then a new turnback will be required.
6.7.6 Castleford line (Leeds –
Castleford – Knottingley – Goole)
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and required
by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Lancashire County Council and Burnley Borough
Council are promoting the reinstatement of the
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Castleford line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Castleford services
First peak hour
3.2
High-peak hour
10.7
Third peak hour
3.2
The previous Yorkshire and Humber RUS
recommendation was to provide a half hourly peak
service from Knottingley. However, the service is now
already at this level in the high-peak hour and there
is not a capacity gap in the shoulder peak hours.
It is therefore recommended that the existing four
high-peak hour services (including one from Sheffield)
are lengthened which, will require some platform
extensions on the Sheffield – Barnsley – Leeds route
and between Knottingley and Leeds.
This RUS has identified that a new turnback is required
at Knottingley to avoid empty passenger trains shunting
across Knottingley East Jn and conflicting with freight
trains, in the event that more passenger services
operating to/from Knottingley make this movement,
or in order to meet the SFN 2030 freight forecasts for
traffic to Drax and Eggborough power stations.
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS also identified a medium
value for money business case for an all day half hourly
service between Knottingley and Leeds which would
be implemented once a significant amount of the new
112
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
2–3
3–4
housing planned for the corridor starts to be built. This
level of service would require the ability for trains to
reverse on the southbound line at Castleford so as to
maintain paths for freight traffic on the northbound
line. However, the business case assumed that this new
turnback would be provided as part of the peak hour
capacity intervention. Therefore it is recommended
that the half hourly service is re-examined by local
stakeholders, taking into account the affect of the
recession on the housing plans for the corridor, the need
for the scheme to fund the improved turnback facilities at
Castleford and whether it would cause more movements
across Knottingley East Jn as described above.
6.7.7 Chat Moss (Liverpool – Huyton –
Manchester/ Wigan)
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Manchester expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Chat Moss line Manchester
End of CP4
position
Service group
Llandudno / Chester
to Manchester
services
Liverpool to
Manchester Airport
services
Stopping services
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
1–2
2–3
First peak hour
3.0
High-peak hour
6.1
Third peak hour
3.0
First peak hour
2.3
High-peak hour
2.3
0–1
1–2
Third peak hour
2.3
1–2
2
First peak hour
2.3
High-peak hour
4.6
Third peak hour
2.1
On this corridor, required capacity into Liverpool is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
0–1
into Liverpool expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Chat Moss line into Liverpool
End of CP4
position
Service group
Services via
Earlestown
Services via
St Helen’s Central
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
4.6
High-peak hour
10.9
2
3
Third peak hour
8.4
0–1
1–2
First peak hour
6.9
High-peak hour
10.5
0–1
Third peak hour
6.9
0–1
This route is being electrified with completion
expected in 2016, though the eastern section is
targeted for completion around 2013 with the
Manchester Airport to Scotland services then
operating over this line with electric units, joining
the WCML just east of Newton-le-Willows.
The announcement by the Chancellor in the March 2011
Budget of funding for some elements of the Northern
Hub will result in two trains per hour running on this
route between Liverpool, Manchester Victoria, Leeds
and beyond from around 2016. This will provide the
fastest journey time between Liverpool and Manchester
and will improve journey times from Liverpool to
Huddersfield, Leeds and beyond. The Northern Hub
project will be undertaking development work to identify
the changes to services arising from the implementation
of these elements of the Hub infrastructure.
Apart from the services currently operated by Arriva
Trains Wales, all the services on this route could be
operated by four-car electric units on completion of
the North West electrification scheme. The capacity
provided by these trains would be sufficient to meet
growth up to 2024 into both Liverpool and Manchester.
The recommended solution for meeting peak hour
capacity requirements on the Chat Moss route
for services from Chester and Llandudno into
Manchester is to lengthen the busiest services from
three-car to four-car DMUs.
Once the remaining elements of the Northern Hub
have been implemented and layout improvements
at Liverpool Lime Street are undertaken with
the planned signalling renewals, further service
improvements can be implemented on this route
including running four fast services per hour between
Liverpool and Manchester and extra stopping services.
W10/W12 loading gauge clearance between
Earlestown and Olive Mount Jn (for access to the
Seaforth docks line) will be provided within the
scope of the electrification project.
113
6. Strategy
6.7.8 Chesterfield corridor (Sheffield –
Chesterfield)
6.7.9 CLC route (Manchester –
Warrington Central – Liverpool)
The introduction of four-car Class 158 formations
on all daytime East Midlands Trains (EMT) services
on this route in CP4 will deal with the only expected
crowding issues from Chesterfield into Sheffield.
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Manchester expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the CLC line into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Service group
Liverpool to Norwich
services
Liverpool to
Scarborough services
Stopping services
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
2
2–3
First peak hour
2.1
High-peak hour
4.3
Third peak hour
2.1
First peak hour
5.6
High-peak hour
5.6
1
1–2
Third peak hour
2.8
0–1
1
First peak hour
3.4
High-peak hour
5.9
Third peak hour
4.6
The introduction of four-car Class 158 formations
on all daytime EMT services on this route in CP4
will deal with most of the crowding issues on these
trains. However, there is still a high-peak hour
crowding issue on the interurban services. The
recommended solution into Manchester is to operate
an additional semi-fast service from Liverpool Lime
Street to Manchester Oxford Road in the morning
high-peak hour and from Manchester Piccadilly to
Liverpool Lime Street in the evening high-peak hour.
These services would call at the stations served by
the interurban trains and two other stops which
would be removed from a local service on the route
(and thereby speed it up) to allow the shuttle to
operate within the current infrastructure.
The change to services as a result of the Ordsall
Chord announcement could reduce the amount of
demand on the CLC route as passengers travelling
from Liverpool to Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds
and other stations to the east of Manchester choose
to travel via the Chat Moss route instead. However,
abstraction of demand onto the Chat Moss route
may not be a sufficient solution to the capacity
gap on CLC route. This is because the majority of
passengers causing the capacity issues travel from
stations along the route like Warrington, Birchwood
and Irlam into Manchester. However, the ongoing
Northern Hub project work will need to consider
114
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
0–1
whether the extra service can continue to be pathed
with the changes to services on the line between
Manchester Piccadilly and Deansgate as a result of
the Ordsall Chord announcement.
The semi-fast service on the route that becomes
the replacement for the diverted Liverpool –
Manchester – Leeds cross-Pennine service needs
to be formed of six equivalent vehicles into
Manchester to meet the capacity requirements
shown in the table above in the high-peak, and
three into Liverpool in the high-peak hour.
Train lengthening of the stopping services into
Manchester is the solution for meeting growth,
though transferring some stops to the extra peak
trains may avoid the need for this.
6.7.10 Cumbrian Coast (Barrow –
Workington – Whitehaven – Carlisle)
Several services on this route suffer from crowding
problems on some trains throughout the day which
will increase over the RUS period. By replacing the
single Class 153 vehicle by a two-car unit on two
of the diagrams (a diagram is the full set of trains
worked by a unit in a day) these problems would
be resolved. One of these vehicles is expected to be
supplied in CP4.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
6.7.11 Doncaster and Moorthorpe –
Sheffield
The development of the Energy Coast is likely to
drive the need for improved railway infrastructure
and services on this route, particularly to support
construction work. Cumbria County Council is
leading work to investigate what improvements
will be necessary to all types of infrastructure in the
area. Funding for such works, including any railway
projects, is expected to be separate from railway
industry funding. Network Rail and operators are
involved in the Council’s work.
On this corridor, required capacity into Sheffield is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Sheffield expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Doncaster and Moorthorpe corridor into Sheffield
End of CP4
position
Service group
LDHS cross country
trains from Leeds
Doncaster stopping
services
Cleethorpes to
Manchester Airport
services
LDHS cross country
services via
Doncaster
First peak hour
10.4
High-peak hour
4.1
Third peak hour
7.3
First peak hour
3.8
High-peak hour
7.3
Third peak hour
2.1
First peak hour
2.8
High-peak Hour
2.8
Third peak hour
2.8
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
1–2
0–1
1
1
1–2
First peak hour
High-peak hour
3.1
Third peak hour
3.1
The recommended strategy for the Cleethorpes
to Manchester Airport trains is to lengthen the
busiest services to provide adequate capacity west
of Doncaster to deal with forecast crowding on this
corridor and also between Sheffield and Manchester.
The Doncaster line stopping services that are
forecast to be crowded need to be lengthened up to
three-car equivalent vehicle formations.
The increase in capacity required on the LDHS cross
country services needs to be examined as part of the
wider issues of growth on these trains throughout
their journey. Operating longer formations would solve
the crowding problems into Sheffield but would be
an inefficient use of stock if lengthening of the units
working the two trains is not necessary elsewhere. If
the service via Doncaster does not require lengthening
elsewhere on its route then a further vehicle (in addition
to the lengthening above) on the Hull to Sheffield service
that follows it would probably be the best solution.
W10/W12 loading gauge clearance is planned in CP4
from Doncaster and Moorthorpe to Chesterfield via
Rotherham Masborough and Barrow Hill (and onwards
to Water Orton near Birmingham), funded by the SFN.
Track capacity is also quite constrained on this
corridor, exacerbated by six that are not grade
separated junctions between Sheffield and Swinton.
No additional passenger services are currently
anticipated unless a third LDHS cross country service
is required, and the availability of freight paths
appears sufficient to meet the 2019 and 2030 SFN
freight forecasts. However, any opportunities to
improve track layouts on the route in association
with future renewals should be sought. Doubling
of Holmes Jn and the chord to Rotherham Central
are being examined in connection with renewals
planned in the area in CP5. This would improve
performance and reduce one of the constraints for
timetabling trains on this corridor.
A much improved service frequency between
Rotherham Central and Sheffield is expected to
commence in 2014 with the operation of tram-trains
between Parkgate, Rotherham Central, Tinsley and
the Supertram network into Sheffield City. With
the expected three tram-trains per hour on the
route, the above scheme at Holmes Jn would help
protect performance of these, and heavy rail services
operating via Rotherham Central, in particular.
115
6. Strategy
6.7.12 Doncaster – Wakefield
Westgate – Leeds
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds
is driven by the availability of seated capacity.
The following table shows the equivalent vehicle
arrivals into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Wakefield Westgate line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Stopping services
LDHS cross country
services
First peak hour
8.2
High-peak Hour
18.5
Third peak hour
6.3
First peak hour
4.1
High-peak hour
*
Third peak hour
6.2
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
*No cross-country services arrive into Leeds from this corridor in the high-peak hour.
In CP4, additional electric stock is being made
available to allow one extra four-car Doncaster –
Leeds high-peak hour service to operate and the
high-peak hour Sheffield – Moorthorpe – Leeds
service will be lengthened from a two-car DMU to
a four-car DMU. This will provide nearly all of the
capacity required. The Yorkshire and Humber RUS
recommendation of replacing the current Class 321
units on the route by the higher capacity Class 333s
will provide further required capacity in the shoulder
peaks and safeguard against longer-term growth.
Sufficient Class 333s could be released from the
Airedale and Wharfedale routes if three-car electric
units were made available to allow the busiest trains
on those lines to run with six vehicles.
As the LDHS cross country services into Leeds are
expected to be operated by two Class 220 units,
no further capacity is required by the end of the
RUS period.
By the end of CP4, a programme of infrastructure
schemes between London and York will have been
completed. This programme is expected to further
improve journey times (through the reduction of
pathing time in the timetable), improve performance
and provide some additional freight capacity.
6.7.13 ECML (London King’s Cross
– Doncaster – York – Newcastle –
Edinburgh)
The recent announcement by the Secretary of State
regarding the introduction of IEP trains on the ECML
means that there will be rolling stock available to
run more franchised services in the December 2018
timetable. These trains, together with aspirations for
more Open Access passenger services on the route,
and the additional freight path requirements from
the 2019 and 2030 SFN forecasts, cause another
step increase in the track capacity requirements
of the route. Network Rail will shortly be starting
timetable development work to identify how these
various requirements might be delivered and what
infrastructure capability issues arise. This work will
build on the Thameslink Key Output 2 timetabling
work that covers the southern end of the route.
In CP4 the ECML will see some major changes.
These reflect the recommendations in the East
Coast Main Line RUS.
The East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review
examined what the capacity implications could
be for an increase in train paths similar to those
W10 loading gauge clearance is planned between
Doncaster and Hare Park Jn (near Wakefield).
Track capacity is also quite constrained on the
corridor, especially between South Kirkby Jn and
Hare Park Jn. The ECML timetable development
work for the introduction of IEPs and other service
changes describe in the section below will identify
whether any infrastructure solutions are necessary
on this corridor.
116
From 22 May 2011 the LDHS services between
London King’s Cross, Yorkshire, the North East and
Scotland will operate largely on a standard hour
timetable. This has facilitated an increase in LDHS
services that will help meet growth and also speed
up longer distance journeys as the additional trains
have allowed some calls at intermediate stations
south of Doncaster to be taken out of long distance
trains. The standard hour timetable has also allowed
other services that operate along or across the route
to have most anomalies in their otherwise standard
patterns of service to be removed.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
described above for the December 2018 timetable.
It identified that purely in terms of route capacity
there are a number of infrastructure constraints
that would need to be addressed, which ones and
their outputs would be dependent on the actual
service levels and service characteristics. In addition,
previous RUSs have identified a number of locations
that could be constraints on building the timetable
or be a risk to performance. The programme of
infrastructure interventions could include:
l
increase in length of three and four track section
between Huntingdon and Peterborough
l
r evised layout at Peterborough including some
form of grade separation that at least provides
improved access to the GN/GE Joint Line
l
flyover to replace Newark flat crossing
l
s mall scale improvements to the layout at
Doncaster prior to signalling renewals
l
fast line platforms at Darlington
l
c apacity improvements between Ferryhill South
Jn and Newcastle.
Following the establishment of the East Coast Main
Line 2016 Capacity Review, industry stakeholders
started work on developing a holistic timetable for the
ECML, which aims to balance the mix of services on
the route, the outputs required by the end customers,
and the need for additional infrastructure investment.
There are capacity issues into Newcastle from Durham
on the local services driven by the availability of
standing capacity. The following table shows the
equivalent vehicle arrivals into Newcastle expected by
the end of CP4 and required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the ECML from Durham into Newcastle
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
High-peak hour
1.4
1
1
Third peak hour
1.4
Service group
First peak hour
Stopping services
A three-car train of equivalent vehicles on
the stopping service would meet the capacity
requirements on this service.
6.7.14 East of Leeds (Leeds – York –
Scarborough and Leeds – Selby – Hull)
The corridor is used by a mix of interurban trains
which run beyond Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly
and from Hull to Sheffield via Doncaster, LDHS
cross country services, and a number of stopping
services, particularly into Leeds. The section east
of Leeds also needs to support a limited number of
access rights (not currently exercised) for services
between Leeds and London King’s Cross via
Micklefield. There is freight traffic on the corridor
too, most of it being on the section between Hull
and Gascoigne Wood (west of Selby). On most of
the corridor there are capacity problems caused
by the mix of stopping passenger trains, freight
trains, and fast passenger services, and between
Hull and Gilberdyke the absolute block signalling
arrangements constrain capacity too.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals from the east of Leeds
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
2.1
0–1
0–1
High-peak hour
6.8
1–2
2–3
Third peak hour
4.3
0–1
1–2
First peak hour
5.6
High-peak hour
3.8
2
2–3
Third peak hour
3.8
Service group
Stopping services
into Leeds
Hull – Leeds
(– Manchester)
117
6. Strategy
For interurban services into Leeds, the capacity issues
are driven by the availability of seating capacity on
the Hull to Manchester services where an extra two
equivalent vehicle arrivals are required in CP5 and
one more in CP6 in the high-peak hour.
(when there were more than two) replaced by this
train due to track capacity constraints. The long
distance service would have some additional calls
between York and Leeds to provide enough peak
overall capacity for commuters into Leeds.
The capacity issues on the stopping services are
driven by the availability of standing capacity. The
stopping services require an extra two equivalent
vehicle arrivals in CP5 and one more in CP6 in the
high-peak hour. For the first shoulder peak hour an
additional vehicle is required in CP5 and two are
required by CP6 in the second shoulder peak hour.
Both of these potential strategies will use up
the last of the remaining capacity during peak
periods. It is unlikely that any more services can be
accommodated beyond this though there would
be scope for further train lengthening. This is a key
constraint in the RUS area and should be a major
focus of industry planning processes once there is
clarity on the intended service proposition that the
Northern Hub infrastructure schemes would allow.
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS intervention
extended the proposed all day fifth service operating
between Leeds and Manchester to start from
Selby or Hull at least in the peaks, to deal with
peak crowding on the Hull to Manchester trains
east of Leeds. It also recommended providing a
turnback in the Micklefield area to allow some
cross-Leeds services to turn round at Micklefield to
reduce platform occupation at Leeds. These service
extensions could be used to provide the shoulder
peak hour capacity required back into Leeds. The
high-peak hour capacity on the stopping trains could
be provided by lengthening existing services but the
amount of extra rolling stock needed would probably
be minimised by starting two of the services at
Micklefield and forming these from further crossLeeds services running non-stop between Leeds
and Micklefield. If the second interurban train
called at South Milford and Micklefield then journey
opportunities from Selby and South Milford would
largely be maintained and overall Selby and South
Milford would enjoy more limited stop services into
Leeds and beyond. The refranchising of services on
this corridor currently operated by First TransPennine
Express and Northern Rail would give an opportunity
to re-specify the service mix.
There was an alternative option to the above
intervention for dealing with growth into Leeds in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS. This involved operating
a second LDHS cross country service via Leeds, in at
least some hours, with one of the stopping services
Analysis undertaken for the Yorkshire and Humber
RUS suggests electrification of the line would only
provide a small track capacity benefit and that
partial four-tracking between Leeds and Micklefield
would be required.
The north cross-Pennine route is one of those
that the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy
recommended for further development. Two areas
for consideration are how the use of electric rolling
stock on some of the interurban services would
provide a cascade of more Class 185s to operate
faster diesel services on other interurban routes,
and whether electric operation would help improve
the timetabling of the mix of services east of Leeds.
The route from Temple Hirst Jn (on the ECML south
of Selby) to Selby Potter Group sidings is one of the
routes due to be funded for W10 loading gauge
clearance by Hutchison Ports UK. There is currently
no funding identified for W10/W12 gauge clearance
between Hull Docks and Selby or Thorne Jn.
6.7.15 East Manchester (Manchester
Hadfield/Marple/New Mills)
On this corridor, required capacity is driven by the
availability of total train capacity. The following
table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals into
Manchester expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Hadfield/Marple/New Mills lines into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Service group
Marple/Romiley
services
Hadfield/Glossop
services
118
First peak hour
9.7
High-peak hour
14.6
Third peak hour
11.0
First peak hour
7.1
High-peak hour
10.7
Third peak hour
10.7
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
On the Hadfield line conversion of the two high-peak
hour services to four-car operation would solve the
capacity issues. However, this requires rolling stock
that can keep the timings of the Class 323s currently
on the route or possible infrastructure works in the
Dinting area to speed up the services. The latter is
currently being investigated to see whether this would
allow the slower Class 321 type rolling stock to be
used and still allow the timetable on the route to work.
With the March 2011 Budget announcement
on funding of the Ordsall Chord, the number of
interurban services operating on this corridor
between Guide Bridge and Manchester Piccadilly will
reduce. This may provide the opportunity to make
service changes that would alleviate the crowding on
the Hadfield line trains; the Northern Hub project will
be assessing what service alterations could be made
to make best use of the new infrastructure.
Lengthening of current services in CP4 will provide
the equivalent of five extra vehicle arrivals in
Manchester Piccadilly on the Marple/Romiley route
in the high-peak hour and some in the shoulder
peaks. This will provide sufficient capacity to the end
of CP6 and will accommodated further growth in the
longer term.
6.7.16 Harrogate line (York –
Knaresborough – Harrogate – Leeds)
On this corridor, required capacity is driven by the
availability of standing capacity. The following
table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals into
Leeds delivered in CP4 and required by the end of
CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Harrogate line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
3.0
1
1–2
High-peak hour
8.4
4–5
5–6
Third peak hour
6.2
Service group
Harrogate services
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommendation
of peak shuttles between Horsforth and Leeds still
holds. The necessary turnback is being built at
Horsforth in CP4 as part of a signalling renewals
scheme and Northern Rail is looking to resource at
least one shuttle service once it is completed.
West Yorkshire PTE is interested in operating the
shuttle service all day so that a new station at
Horsforth Woodside can be served. It could also
provide the opportunity to speed up the services via
Harrogate by taking out the stops at Headingley and
Burley Park and serving these with the shuttles.
The introduction of bi-mode IEP rolling stock
provides the opportunity to run more trains between
Harrogate and London King’s Cross, either via York
(subject to timetabling constraints on the single
line sections) or via Leeds (subject to timetabling
constraints at the west end of Leeds).
There are potential funders for at least two new
stations between Knaresborough and York together
with aspirations for a half hourly service. The latter
would probably require a new platform at York, near
Platform 11, served by the existing Goods Lines and
some redoubling of the single track sections. Any
new stations would need to accommodate these
route capacity increases.
6.7.17 Hope Valley (Manchester –
Sheffield)
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity.
The following table shows the equivalent vehicle
arrivals into Manchester expected by the end of CP4
and required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Hope Valley line into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Service group
Interurban services
into Manchester
First peak hour
6.2
High-peak hour
7.1
Third peak hour
7.1
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
1
119
6. Strategy
On this corridor, required capacity into Sheffield
is driven by the availability of seated capacity.
The following table shows the equivalent vehicle
arrivals into Sheffield delivered in CP4 and required
by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Hope Valley line into Sheffield
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
High-peak hour
7.1
0–1
1
Third peak hour
6.2
Service group
First peak hour
Interurban services
into Sheffield
The introduction of four-car Class 158 formations
on all daytime EMT services on this route in CP4 will
deal with crowding issues on these trains. However,
there will still be crowding issues, particularly on
some services currently run by First TransPennine
Express. Therefore, the strategy for this corridor is to
lengthen the busiest services between Manchester
Airport and Cleethorpes to provide adequate
capacity west of Doncaster. It is not now possible
to recommend the additional services between
Sheffield and Manchester that featured in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS. This is because the
benefits in the business case are reduced by the
introduction of four-car formations on the EMT
services that address much of the crowding issue.
The Northern Hub project would enable additional
services and improved journey time between
Manchester and Sheffield and also provide
opportunities for improved connectivity beyond
these cities. The additional services may drive the
need for an improved track layout at Sheffield; an
opportunity for dealing with this is in association
with signalling renewals due within the RUS period.
During the consultation period, consultees identified
crowding issues for passengers boarding at Sheffield
and Manchester in the evening peak and travelling
to stations in the Hope Valley, especially as there
is only one peak train in each direction. In order
to meet this particular gap Northern Rail intends
to run an additional train in each direction in the
PM peak between Sheffield and Manchester in the
December 2011 timetable by extending a New Mills
service. This is still subject to industry processes and
there are some stakeholder issues, but assuming
these are resolved this would meet the gap.
6.7.18 Hull – Scarborough
Stakeholders have started some initial
investigations into running the Scarborough
to Hull service hourly rather than the current
approximately 90-minute frequency. This would
require another unit and identification of funding
for any shortfall in the difference between
additional operating costs and revenue.
6.7.19 North cross-Pennine
(Leeds – Huddersfield – Manchester)
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Manchester expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the north cross-Pennine route into Manchester
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
5.6
0–1
1
High-peak hour
12.2
4–5
6
Third peak hour
12.2
Service group
Interurban services
into Manchester
Piccadilly
120
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
On this corridor, required capacity into Leeds is
driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and required
by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Seated equivalent vehicle arrivals on the north cross-Pennine route into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
First peak hour
6.6
1–2
1–2
High-peak hour
20.5
7–8
9 – 10
Third peak hour
15
2–3
4
First peak hour
2.1
0–1
0–1
High-peak hour
6.7
2
3
Third peak hour
6.1
Service group
Interurban services
into Leeds
Stopping services*
* Includes trains from the upper Calder Valley via Brighouse.
The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended
train lengthening into Leeds in the high-peak, and
an all day fifth hourly service operating between
Manchester and Leeds or beyond. The latter would
provide the necessary peak capacity into Manchester
and deal with off-peak crowding between Leeds and
Manchester. It would also allow some intermediate
calls to be taken out of existing services thereby
improving journey times. These interventions could
start to be implemented once the first batch of Class
185s is released by the use of electric traction on the
Manchester Airport to Scotland services.
In the March 2011 Budget the Chancellor announced
funding for the Ordsall Chord, track layout
improvements at Manchester Victoria, and linespeed
improvements between Manchester Victoria and
Stalybridge. These projects facilitate six interurban
trains to run between Leeds and Manchester and
improve journey times. Four fast trains per hour would
operate between Leeds and Manchester Victoria
calling only at Huddersfield. Two would continue
to Manchester Airport via the Ordsall Chord and
two would operate to Liverpool via Earlestown. The
other services would serve some of the intermediate
stations and operate to Manchester Piccadilly.
One of the extra trains would be the fifth interurban
service between Leeds and Manchester described
above. The sixth would provide the required capacity
into Leeds in place of the Huddersfield to Leeds
shuttle recommended in the Draft for Consultation
of this RUS.
In addition, Network Rail and other stakeholders
are looking to fund a major enhancement of the
station facilities at Manchester Victoria in CP4 that
would provide a station environment suitable for it
becoming a major interurban interchange station.
The faster journey times between Leeds and
Manchester will be achieved through a combination
of some trains only calling at Huddersfield, the
diversion of services into Manchester Victoria (which
is closer to Stalybridge than Manchester Piccadilly),
linespeed improvements between Stalybridge and
Manchester Victoria, and some small schemes being
developed in CP4 to reduce timetabling allowances.
These journey time improvements would benefit
cities and towns well beyond the core Manchester
to Leeds section by speeding up any journey that
crosses the Pennines on this route, eg Newcastle to
Manchester, or Liverpool to Leeds.
Stopping trains from Huddersfield and the Calder
Valley via Brighouse into Leeds provide commuter
services from the intermediate stations on the
Dewsbury line. Lengthening trains to a mix of three
and four-car trains of equivalent vehicles in the first
shoulder peak and the high-peak hour is required by
CP5, with some further lengthening in CP6. Some
train lengthening is planned in CP4 together with
associated platform extensions. Ideally further
increases in train length in CP5 would be contained
within the platform lengths provided by the end of
CP4. However, if any Huddersfield trains need to
run with four-car units of 20m vehicles (or longer) a
new platform at Huddersfield is required, or a much
extended bay platform, as the longer train would not
be able to share Platform 4 with longer Huddersfield
to Manchester local services.
For stopping services into Manchester, lengthening
in CP4 will provide the equivalent of four extra
equivalent vehicles arrivals into Manchester in the
peak. This would provide enough capacity to the end
of CP6. However, the diversion of the current north
cross-Pennine services via Manchester Victoria upon
completion of the Ordsall Chord will significantly
alter passenger flows between Stalybridge and
Manchester, and so the Northern Hub development
work needs to identify what the local train service
patterns, and peak hour formations, need to be.
121
6. Strategy
The north cross-Pennine route is one of those
that the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy
recommended for further development. Areas
for consideration include how infrastructure
enhancements between Leeds and Manchester
might be reduced by using high acceleration
electric rolling stock on the stopping services into
Manchester and between Huddersfield and Leeds,
and how the use of electric rolling stock on some of
the interurban services would provide a cascade of
more Class 185s to operate faster diesel services on
other interurban routes.
The electrification of the route would provide much
of the works necessary to provide the W10/W12 SFN
loading gauge clearance aspiration. Any development
of the route needs to take into account that
intermodal train paths would need to be capable of
being operated by a Class 66 hauling 1600 tonnes.
6.7.20 Retford line (Sheffield –
Worksop – Retford – Lincoln)
Lengthening in CP4 will provide an extra 1.5
equivalent vehicles of capacity arriving into Sheffield
in the high-peak hour. This will provide sufficient
capacity on this corridor for the remainder of the
RUS period.
6.7.21 Settle and Carlisle line
The Lancashire and Cumbria RUS identified a value
for money business case for an increased level of
interurban services between Leeds and Carlisle,
assuming no capital costs, but the number of freight
train paths means that capacity is currently not
available for the extra trains.
With the major renewals programme that has been
in progress on the route in recent years, Network
Rail is investigating value for money linespeed
improvements to improve journey times for
passenger and freight services or allow additional
station calls.
6.7.22 South Humber route
(Immingham/Cleethorpes –
Scunthorpe – Doncaster)
This route will see a significant increase in freight
paths to meet the 2019 and 2030 SFN freight
forecasts. There is sufficient capacity on all sections
to meet the requirements of the 2019 forecasts,
unless a half hourly Knottingley – Leeds passenger
service is introduced.
The following sections/locations have insufficient
capacity to meet the 2030 forecasts:
l
Immingham to Brocklesby
l
Wrawby Jn to Scunthorpe West Jn
l
Knottingley East Jn.
Enhanced signalling to provide four-minute planning
headways between Humber Road Jn and Scunthorpe
122
Foreign Ore Jn is required to provide capacity on the
first two; this would be best delivered in association
with signalling renewals planned for CP5. It would
also provide an opportunity to increase passenger
and freight train speeds east of Scunthorpe.
The third would be solved by a turnback facility
at Knottingley so movements associated with
passenger services that terminate there do not block
Knottingley East Jn whilst shunting. This would be
required to meet the 2019 freight forecasts if a half
hourly Knottingley – Leeds service is introduced.
In addition, Stainforth Jn is at capacity by 2030.
The performance impact of the increase in freight
services by 2030 has been assessed during the
consultation period. There is a small increase in
average minutes lateness for passenger services
but mitigating it will only support a low cost
infrastructure scheme and so the removal of
approach control for westbound freight services
approaching the junction for the Skellow route was
modelled as a potential mitigation.
With capital costs estimated at £0.5m for the
scheme in 2010 prices, the business case to improve
the performance of passenger services is not
sufficient. However, there is a business case based
on reducing fuel costs for freight trains that no
longer need to come to a stop before accelerating
to 25mph to cross the junction. This scheme is
recommended for consideration on the back of
switch and crossing renewals planned in CP4.
There is expected to be a small worsening in the
performance of passenger trains between Wrawby
Jn and Thorne Jn due to the increased quantity
of freight trains operating on the line and speed
differentials between freight and passenger services.
This issue was considered; however, as the effect on
performance is minimal, the level of benefits that
could be achieved would not support a performance
improvement scheme. However, any opportunity to
eliminate or reduce the speed differentials should be
examined, especially when renewals are due.
Funding for W10/W12 loading gauge clearance
between Immingham and Doncaster is being sought
by the South Humber Gateway Delivery Group. The
route from Shaftholme Jn to Knottingley is one of
the diversionary routes due to be funded for W10
loading gauge clearance by Hutchison Ports UK.
6.7.23 South Manchester (Buxton/
Stoke/Crewe/Altrincham –
Manchester)
On this corridor, required capacity into Manchester
is driven by the availability of seated capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle arrivals
into Manchester expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the South Manchester route
End of CP4
position
Service group
Cardiff to
Manchester
Piccadilly services
Chester to
Manchester services
via Altrincham
First peak hour
3.0
High-peak hour
3.0
Third peak hour
3.0
First peak hour
1.7
High-peak hour
2.1
Third peak hour
1.7
The development of a new WCML timetable is
likely to alter the pattern of LDHS and Cardiff to
Manchester services and so it is not possible to
recommend a solution to the forecast crowding
problems on the latter service. However, the recast
timetable may solve the problem. The development
work needs to take account of potential
crowding issues at Manchester on the Cardiff to
Manchester services.
On the Mid Cheshire line (Chester to Manchester
services via Altrincham), lengthening of the
high-peak train to a three-car equivalent vehicle
formation would meet the capacity requirements.
Sufficient capacity is available on trains terminating
at Stockport.
6.7.24 Tees Valley (routes and
services in the Middlesbrough area)
Local authorities in the area are seeking funding to
improve existing stations and build new stations in
association with the improvements to the timetable
that are made possible by the standard pattern
ECML timetable at Darlington from 22 May 2011.
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
0–1
1
0–1
1
These improvements to services in the area
are being referred to as the Tees Valley Metro
and the local authorities are hoping to develop
services further.
Tees Valley Unlimited is funding W10/W12 loading
gauge clearance from Darlington to Teesport and
these works are due for completion in CP4.
6.7.25 Tyne Valley (Newcastle –
Hexham – Carlisle)
Lengthening in CP4 will provide an extra 1.5
equivalent vehicles of capacity arriving into
Newcastle in the high-peak hour. This will provide
sufficient capacity to the end of the RUS period.
6.7.26 Wharfedale line (Ilkley –
Leeds/Bradford Forster Square)
On this corridor, required capacity is driven
by the availability of total train capacity. The
following table shows the equivalent vehicle
arrivals into Leeds expected by the end of CP4 and
required by the end of CP5 and CP6.
Equivalent vehicle arrivals on the Wharfedale line into Leeds
End of CP4
position
Service group
Ilkley to Leeds
services
First peak hour
9.3
High-peak hour
18.2
Third peak hour
9.3
In CP4 additional electric stock is being made
available for the Leeds services to allow an
additional four-car high-peak hour train. With
platform extensions and the future provision of
three-car EMUs, the two busiest high peak services
would need to be lengthened to six-cars, with at
Extra needed in
CP5 over CP4
Extra needed in
CP6 over CP4
1–2
4–5
least one of these needed in CP5. A third train
could be lengthened if growth were higher without
affecting platform capacity at Leeds (assuming the
additional platform on the north side is built).
Sufficient capacity is expected to be available on
services to and from Bradford Forster Square.
123
7. Next steps
7.1 Introduction
7.4 Route based planning documents
The Northern Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) will
become established 60 days after publication unless
the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) issues a notice of
objection within this period.
The outputs of this RUS will also inform the route
based planning documents which will be published
in September 2011 as part of the IIP. These route
based documents are updated annually and are
available at www.networkrail.co.uk
7.2 Planning for Control Period 5
The planning cycle for the next control period
(2014 – 2019) is underway. This RUS will form an
input into the Initial Industry Plan (IIP) which is to
be formulated by the rail industry and published
in September 2011. The purpose of the IIP is to
inform funders and the ORR of the possible range
of outputs and costs for the railway in Control
Period 5 (CP5) and the longer term.
7.3 The Northern Hub
As discussed in previous chapters, work on the
Northern Hub project continues beyond the
publication of this RUS. Now the Government has
announced funding for the first three interventions
in the Northern Hub portfolio, the Northern Hub
project will continue to develop the remaining
interventions. The project also continues to consider
what the service specification will be once the
funded interventions are implemented. This work will
build on the findings of this RUS.
124
7.5 Ongoing access to the network
The RUS will also help to inform the allocation of
capacity on the network through application of the
normal Network Code processes.
7.6 Review
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:
l
where circumstances have changed
l
when so directed by ORR
l
when (for whatever reason) the conclusion(s)
may no longer be valid.
Appendices
Appendix A: Status of previous RUS
recommendations
Each first generation gap can be broadly categorised
as follows:
As discussed in previous chapters, the strategic gaps
in the Northern RUS were derived by reviewing the
recommendations of the previous RUSs covering
the north of England. These have been reviewed in
the light of funded interventions for Control Period
4 (CP4) and Control Period 5 (CP5), including the
Secretary of State for Transport’s announcement in
2009 on the electrification of a number of routes in
the North West, along with the passenger growth
forecasts to 2024 and the agreed Strategic Freight
Network (SFN) forecasts for 2019 and 2030. Account
has also been taken of RUS recommendations that
change those published in earlier RUSs.
l
gap that will have been addressed by the end of
CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) so is ‘closed’
l
gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the previous RUS recommendation
is still appropriate
l
gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4
but for which the intervention needs reviewing
due to more recent changes
l
gap that has changed sufficiently that the
previous intervention may not be entirely
appropriate.
Abbreviation
Meaning
AD
All-day crowding
EA
Engineering access
FC
Freight capability
PC
Peak crowding
RC
Regional connectivity
RD
Reactionary delay
EN
Electrification
This appendix summarises each recommendation, the
anticipated progress by the end of CP4 and therefore
whether it was reviewed by the Northern RUS.
125
126
No
1
1
2
3
Ref
AD
EA
EA
EA
Gap 8.6
Gap 8.5
Gap 8.4
Option 3.3
Ref in RUS
First option needs to
be amended to reflect
that it is likely that a
separate scheme may
need to be investigated
through Seven Day
Railway process. Other
recommendations
still hold.
Previous
recommendation holds.
CP4 GE/GN Joint Line
outputs currently under
development.
No change.
Further opportunities to provide increased
diversionary capability should be examined as
part of the GN/GE Joint Line upgrade. When
signalling renewals are due, bi-directional
Signalling over the two track sections to be
considered, as should any necessary powered
crossovers, so that ‘single line working’ can
be introduced easily. The Seven Day Railway
workstream should examine the opportunities
the above offers.
Opportunities to enhance the Newark – Lincoln
line for diversions should be examined. When
signalling renewals are due, Bi-directional
Signalling over the two track sections to be
considered, as should any necessary powered
crossovers, so that ‘single line working’ can
be introduced easily. The Seven Day Railway
workstream should examine the opportunities for
the above.
No change.
Examination of the opportunities and
requirements for using diversionary routes by
the Seven Day Railway workstream, taking into
account possible infill electrification east of
Leeds, the IEP, and the potential gauge clearance
that the Northern W10 project could include
W9 and W10 clearance of some or all of the
diversionary routes. When signalling renewals are
due, bi-di signalling over the two track sections to
be considered, as should any necessary powered
crossovers, so that ‘single line working’ can be
introduced easily.
Capability of Werrington
Jn to Newark (and on to
Doncaster).
Capability of Newark
to Doncaster Decoy
Junctions.
Capability of Marshgate
Jn to Colton Jn.
Previous
recommendation holds.
(other than Northern
W10 is replaced by SFN
gauge strategy).
Remaining part of
recommendation
still holds.
Six tph off-peak
introduced in May
2011 timetable. Further
timetable improvements
following completion of
ECML upgrade schemes.
Increase LDHS (Long Distance High Speed) service
levels to eight tph peak and six tph off-peak.
All-day crowding on
London – East Midlands/
Yorkshire/North East/
Scotland services.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
4
5
6
7
Ref
EA
EA
EA
EA
Gap 8.10
Gap 8.9
Gap 8.8
Gap 8.7
Ref in RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
East Coast Main Line
2016 Capacity Review
identified a potential
need for additional
capacity on this section.
If needed this could
provide an opportunity
for improving
engineering access on
this section.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Examination of the opportunities and
requirements for using the diversionary route
via Sunderland by the Seven Day Railway
workstream, taking into account planned
headway improvements between Hartlepool and
Dawdon and the IEP programme. It should also
confirm the level of benefits that could contribute
to the Leamside reinstatement costs.
No change.
Capability of Ferryhill Jn
to Newcastle.
Capability of Newcastle
to Edinburgh.
Examination by the Seven Day Railway
workstream of enhancing those sections of the
ECML in Scotland without bi-directional signalling
(only Grantshouse to Innerwick is currently bidirectional) against the alternative of developing
the capability of the diversionary route.
Previous
recommendation holds
(other than Northern
W10 is replaced by SFN
gauge strategy).
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds
(other than Northern
W10 is replaced by SFN
gauge strategy).
Examination of the opportunities and
requirements for using the diversionary route via
Stockton by the Seven Day Railway workstream,
taking into account proposals to headways
and linespeeds between Norton Junctions and
Ferryhill Jn, the IEP programme, and that the
potential Northern W10 project and Teesport
projects could include W9 and W10 clearance.
No change.
Examination of the opportunities and
requirements for using diversionary routes by
the Seven Day Railway workstream, taking into
account possible infill electrification east of
Leeds, the IEP, and the potential gauge clearance
that the Northern W10 project could include
W9 and W10 clearance of some or all of the
diversionary routes. When signalling renewals are
due, bi-di signalling over the two track Doncaster
to Leeds route should be considered, as should
any necessary powered crossovers, so that ‘single
line working’ can be introduced easily.
Capability of Marshgate
Jn to Whitehall Jn.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Capability of
Northallerton to
Ferryhill Jn.
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
127
128
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
Ref
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
PC
PC
RC
Option 3.5
Option 7.1
Option 6.8
Option 9.6
Option 9.5
Option 9.4
Option 9.3
Option 9.2
Option 9.1
Ref in RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
No change.
Power supply along the route will be reassessed
over the next few years for the introduction of
IEP trains. This assessment should consider all
other potential electric traction requirements.
To be considered during the development of
renewals and enhancements where it can be
delivered most efficiently.
Train lengthening up to 3x23m vehicles.
Upgrade of electrical
power supplies (to
eliminate restrictions on
the use of Class 92s).
Increased capability for
775m trains.
Peak crowding into
Middlesbrough.
Increase in linespeeds on
ECML.
Further development in conjunction with
improvements to infrastructure capacity and the
IEP.
Train lengthening up to 3x23m vehicles.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Some sections planned
for implementation in
CP4.
A programme of feasibility work has been
developed which will develop gauge clearance
proposals for the routes listed.
The upgrading of certain
route sections to W9,
W10 and W12 gauge.
Peak crowding into
Newcastle.
Gap to be addressed
through SFN process.
GN/GE Joint Line
capacity relief scheme
planned for completion
in CP4.
Provision of two freight paths per hour between
Peterborough and Doncaster.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts. Maximum
40% growth on all
corridors to 2024.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Speed improvements
being considered in
ECML upgrade schemes
where they are only of
marginal cost.
Gap reviewed in light
of new forecasts. Local
train growth 30% and
interurban growth 40%.
Lengthening will provide
an extra 1.5 equivalent
vehicles in the high-peak
hour.
No change.
Gap closed.
Train capacity at end of
CP4 is sufficient.
Yes
No
Current train capacity
sufficient unless Tees Valley
Metro scheme is funded,
in which case the extra
growth it expects to create
will drive the need for
further capacity.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Freight RUS Gap C.
Shaftholme flyover
planned for completion
in CP4.
Gap closed.
Construction of a remodelled junction at
Shaftholme.
No
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Gap closed.
Freight RUS Gap B.
Planned for
reinstatement in CP4.
Reinstatement of Boldon East Curve.
Freight RUS Gap 12.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS
Appendices
No
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Option 5.3
Option 5.2
Option 5.1
Option 4.3
Option 4.2
Option 3.6
Ref in RUS
South and West Yorkshire
services – extension of
Knottingley – Wakefield
Kirkgate services into
Wakefield Westgate.
See Yorkshire and
Humber RUS RC6.
Being considered by West
Yorkshire PTE.
Recommended for further consideration in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS.
South and West Yorkshire
services – introduction
of a new train service to
serve Robin Hood Airport
Doncaster Sheffield.
No change.
Recommended for further consideration in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS.
Elements of options tested could be considered
as part of package of proposals for east
of Edinburgh local services which could be
investigated further by Transport Scotland
through the multi-modal Scottish Transport
Approval Guidance (STAG) methodology.
ECML north service
pattern – Newcastle to
Edinburgh: semi-fast
service.
Ongoing.
No change.
See Yorkshire and
Humber RUS PC8, PC12
and FC4.
See Yorkshire and
Humber RUS RC6.
Previous
recommendation holds –
study commissioned by
Transport Scotland.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
This process is already in
action.
See Yorkshire and
Humber RUS PC8, PC12
and FC4.
Spread largely determined by the development
of future timetables but recommended that
opportunities to optimise the spread should be
considered within the constraints of the service
mix. A number of particular recommendations
made.
ECML north service
pattern – Newcastle to
Edinburgh: improvements
to timetable spread.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Recommended for further consideration in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS.
Preservation of the existing frequency to
destinations already served and let the market
largely decide the ultimate destinations of
further LDHS services subject to normal industry
processes.
Improved services to
various destinations on
and off the ECML.
South and West Yorkshire
services – provide
additional capacity on
the Sheffield/Doncaster
– Wakefield Westgate –
Leeds corridor.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
129
130
No
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Option
10.4
Option 4.1
Option 7.2
Options
6.1, 6.2,
6.3, 6.4,
6.5 and
6.7
Option 6.6
Option 5.4
Option 5.3
Ref in RUS
Recommended for consideration in Network RUS.
Use of stations close to Sunderland as there
is no station car park at Sunderland, and
possible development of Eaglescliffe car park for
increasing park and ride.
Car parking problems
at Sunderland and
Eaglescliffe affecting use
of service to London.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Ongoing.
Spread largely determined by the development
of future timetables but recommended that
opportunities to optimise the spread should be
considered within the constraints of the service
mix. In particular, opportunities should be
examined to reduce the service gaps at Durham.
York to Newcastle:
improvements to
timetable spread.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change to previous
situation.
No change.
No change.
Examine opportunities for linespeed
improvements when renewals become due.
None recommended.
Schemes remitted from
North East Regional
Planning Assessment.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No longer a gap.
Gap closed.
No
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reduction in Tyne Valley
journey times.
Examine opportunities for linespeed
improvements when renewals become due or as
part of Tees Valley Metro project.
Reduction in Tees Valley
journey times.
No change.
Second off-peak
service Sheffield –
London introduced
from December 2009.
Linespeed improvements
on MML and ECML
improvements in CP4.
Recommended for further consideration in the
Yorkshire and Humber RUS.
South and West Yorkshire
services – extension of
Knottingley –Wakefield
Kirkgate to Leeds via
Wakefield Westgate.
South and West Yorkshire
services – improve South
Yorkshire links to London
via ECML or Midland
Main Line (MML).
Improvements on
Knottingley – Leeds.
services recommended
in Yorkshire and Humber
RUS on route via
Castleford instead.
Recommended option
Gap
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
Ref
PC
PC
PC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Linespeed improvements
on the route
being undertaken.
Implementation of peak
hour extensions yet to be
taken forward.
Increase service levels
using peak stock used in
C1 and C2 done as part
of timetable.
No change.
Additional train in peaks to serve Sellafield from
the north.
Extend morning and evening peak Manchester
Victoria – Blackburn services to Clitheroe to
provide a half hourly peak service.
Lengthen both services.
Increase service levels using peak stock used in
C1 and C2 done as part of timetable.
Part of option C3a.
Enhance infrastructure Whitehaven to Carlisle
to give more capacity to allow more frequent
service, remove token block working and increase
loop options with signalling renewals. Review
infrastructure enhancement opportunities when
undertaking other renewals.
Implement additional Sunday service within
existing resources Carlisle – Whitehaven round
trip within current box hours.
Commuter
Demand Whitehaven –
Sellafield.
Peak Crowding
Clitheroe – Blackburn –
Manchester.
Regional Links: Carlisle –
Barrow-in-Furness.
Regional Links: Barrow-inFurness – Lancaster.
Regional Links: Lancaster
– Barrow-in-Furness –
Carlisle.
Regional Links: Sunday
service frequency Carlisle
– Whitehaven.
6.5.2
Option C1
6.5.2
Option C6
6.5.2
Options
C5a to
C5d, C8
and C9
6.5.2
Option C4
6.5.2
Option
C3a
6.5.6
Option
R1b
Action was expected
in CP4 but not yet
progressed.
Gap solved in Dec 2008
timetable.
Gap solved in Dec 2008
timetable.
Peak hour train lengthening in both peaks.
Commuter demand
Barrow-in-Furness –
Sellafield insufficient
capacity in peak.
6.5.2
Option C2
Gap solved by
strengthening in 2008
timetable and further
vehicle being provided on
Cumbrian Coast planned
in CP4.
Recommended option
Gap
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendations hold.
Gap closed.
Gap closed.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
Reviewed in light of new
forecasts.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Additional vehicle required
in CP5.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
131
132
No
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Linespeed improvements – Blackburn – Clitheroe.
Linespeed improvements – Colne Branch.
No change.
Linespeed improvements – east of Burnley
Manchester Road.
Regional Links: journey
times on Roses line.
Regional Links: journey
times Colne branch.
Development work
identified that there
are no value for money
schemes so opportunities
in association with
renewals to be
considered.
Optimise maintenance and renewal practices
around new service requirements.
Regional Links: effects
of maintenance and
renewal works on Settle
and Carlisle line.
6.5.6
Option
R9c
This recommendation
has not yet been
progressed.
Improve linespeed between Carlisle and Skipton
in association with track renewals.
Regional Links: journey
times between Leeds
and Carlisle.
Regional Links: journey
times Blackburn –
Clitheroe.
Development work
currently examining
opportunities
following track renewal
programme.
There is an economic case for the existing service
on the Settle and Carlisle Line to become broadly
two-hourly and tie into connections with the
West Coast Main Line (WCML) 2008 timetable.
There is also a case for operating another three
round trips infilling and extending that pattern
(Option S2). It is recommended that a scheme
is developed based on a minimum passenger
frequency of two-hourly, and supplemented with
additional services targeted to the passenger
market and where space exists in the timetable,
and ideally consistent with the rest of the
pattern. Develop further, subject to the outcome
of the evaluation and the ability to identify
acceptable pathing options for both freight and
passenger services.
Regional Links: Settle and
Carlisle line service levels.
No change.
Dependent on
discussions between
Department for Transport
(DfT) and the incumbent
train operator and
ongoing requirements for
freight paths.
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
6.5.6
Option
R9b
6.5.6
Option
R9a
6.5.4
Option S6
6.5.4
Option S4
6.5.4
Option S2
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
2030 SFN forecasts show
significant reduction in
paths required so option
dependent on any West
Coast Main Line RUS
requirements for capacity
on the route, therefore
in the long term the
recommendation is
only constrained by any
requirement for freight
paths identified in the
West Coast Main Line
RUS.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
6.5.12
Option
MC5
6.5.12
Option
MC4
Work completed in CP4.
Blackburn station: provide a full-length canopy
on Platform 4.
Regional Links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this interchange.
Improvement works to
existing station facilities
now completed via
funding from Lancashire
County Council and
Merseytravel. Other
works pending the
implementation of
option OP3.
Ormskirk station: provide better interchange
facilities, particularly those appropriate if option
OP3 is pursued, ie. a bridge with lifts.
Regional Links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this interchange.
Gap closed.
Previous
recommendation in
relation to works in
association with option
OP3 holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Scheme not been
progressed; no funding
identified.
Carlisle station: provide better interchange
facilities, particularly improved access between
platforms such as escalators or lifts.
Regional links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this key interchange.
6.5.12
Option
MC3
Gap closed.
CP4 scheme closed, no
suitable business case
could be established.
Regional links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this key interchange.
6.5.12
Option
MC1
Preston station: relocation of the prefabricated
platform buildings located near the entrance/exit
at stairwell Platforms 1 and 2.
Option OP1, plus reinstate Burscough Chord
South and operate hourly Southport – Ormskirk,
timed to give a five-minute interchange for
Preston at Burscough Jn.
Regional Links: Southport
– Preston.
6.5.8
Option
OP3
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Option OP1, plus replace Burscough Bridge and
Burscough Jn with a new interchange station
where both lines cross. Existing Southport –
Wigan services to be retimed to give a fiveminute interchange for Preston/Ormskirk at the
new station. Requires the Preston – Ormskirk
service to be speeded up (see above).
Regional Links: Southport
– Preston.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Scheme being
developed for possible
implementation in CP4.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
No change.
Infrastructure improvements to allow an
hourly service.
Regional Links: journey
times Ormskirk – Preston.
6.5.8
Option
OP1
6.5.8
Option
OP2
Recommended option
Gap
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
133
134
No
18
1
2
Ref
RC
RD
RD
6.5.4
Option S5
6.5.2
Options
C5a to
C5d, C8
and C10
Ref in RUS
Anticipated signalling
renewals in CP4 now
deferred.
Freight capacity and
capability is now being
considered by the
SFN workstream in
association with capacity
north of Preston which
is also being considered
by the West Coast Main
Line RUS.
Enhance infrastructure Whitehaven to Carlisle
to give more capacity to allow more frequent
service, remove token block working and increase
loop options with signalling renewals.
Re-double the track between Carlisle South Jn
and London Road Jn.
Train Performance:
Whitehaven – Carlisle.
Performance issues due
to single track between
Carlisle South Jn and
London Road Jn.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendations hold.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Subject to discussions
with Merseytravel.
Burscough Jn: better interchange facilities if the
second platform were to reopen as part of OP3.
This may include a bridge and lift.
Regional links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this interchange if option
OP3 is pursued.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
1
2
1
2
3
4
Ref
FC
FC
RC
RC
RC
RC
6.4.5
6.4.3
6.4.2
6.4.2
6.4.9
6.4.8
Ref in RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
Merseytravel and
Lancashire County
Council currently
undertaking demand
study into a range of
service options.
Merseytravel to conduct a study into reinstating
the Halton Curve.
Additional hourly inter-peak Wigan – Liverpool
semi-fast service.
Connectivity and journey
times between North
Wales and Merseyside.
Connectivity between
Skelmersdale and
Liverpool.
GRIP three study into extending the Liverpool
Central – Kirkby service, to terminate at a new
station in the centre of Skelmersdale. Rainford
will then become an interchange station for
services to and from Wigan Wallgate.
Gap to be reviewed in light
of changes to services
driven by North West area
electrification. Review
being undertaken as part
of Northern Hub project.
No change.
Conduct a more detailed study into extending
the Wrexham – Bidston diesel services to
Birkenhead North for better connectivity to the
Merseyrail Network.
Connectivity and journey
times between North
Wales and Merseyside.
Connectivity and journey
times between Wigan,
St Helens and Liverpool.
Demand study completed
for Merseytravel and
Halton Borough Council,
showing medium value
business case (BCRs 1.5 –
1.9 depending on option
chosen) for new Liverpool
– Runcorn – Chester –
Wrexham service. NR
GRIP stage three study
completed.
Recommended that the route into Canada Docks
is protected from further development until a
better understanding of rail freight growth has
been understood and assessed.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Connectivity between
Canada Docks and the
rail network.
No change.
Rail freight between the Wirral and the Midlands
routed via Bidston – Wrexham. Requires
infrastructure upgrade work which would have
to be delivered for £6 million of public spending.
Aspiration of Peel Ports and Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council.
Connectivity between
Birkenhead Docks and
the Midlands.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – Merseyside RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
See Northern RUS Gaps 1
and 9.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
135
136
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ref
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
B18.2
A23.1
Options
A20.1B
Options
A13.4/
A13.5/
A19.2
Option
A10.1B
Option
A19.1
Option
A20.4
Ref in RUS
Review business case for electrification of Euxton Planned scheme for
Jn to Manchester and Preston to Blackpool North. completion in CP5.
Convert Manchester – Blackpool North and Hazel
Grove – Preston services to electric traction.
Non-electrified routes.
Review business case for electrification of Ditton
Yard to terminal.
Review business case for electrification of parts
of the cross country network including Doncaster
– Sheffield and Moorthorpe – Swinton to allow
Edinburgh – Plymouth, Newcastle – Reading
and Leeds – Moorthorpe – Sheffield services to
convert to electric traction.
Non-electrified routes.
Non-electrified routes.
Review business case for electrification of Guide
Bridge to Leeds, Leeds to Colton Jn and Hull,
Northallerton to Middlesbrough and Temple Hirst
to Selby following Manchester Deansgate to
Liverpool (Edge Hill). Convert Hull to London and
cross-Pennine services to electric traction. Modify
cross-Pennine services so that they run between
Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route,
and so that Scarborough is served by trains from
Preston rather than by north cross-Pennine services.
Non-electrified routes.
Review business case for electrification of
Oxenholme to Windermere following Euxton
Jn to Manchester. Convert Manchester –
Windermere and Oxenholme – Windermere
services to electric traction.
Electrify the Midland Main Line and run London
St Pancras International to Nottingham,
Sheffield, Derby and Corby services with electric
trains, using cascaded diesel trains for other long
distance services.
Non-electrified routes.
Non-electrified routes.
Electrify Manchester (Deansgate and Victoria) to
Liverpool (Edge Hill) via Chat Moss route. Convert
Liverpool to Manchester Airport, Liverpool to
Warrington Bank Quay and Manchester to
Scotland services to electric traction.
Non-electrified routes.
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Planned scheme for
completion in CP5.
Recommended option
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap
Appendix A – Network RUS: Electrification
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Closed.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
8
9
10
Ref
EN
EN
EN
Option
20.5A
B10.6
A9.2
Ref in RUS
Recommended option
Review business case for electrification of
Stockton Cut and Bowesfield Jns to Sunderland
following Northallerton to Middlesbrough.
Convert London to Sunderland service to
electric traction.
Review business case for electrification of Hare
Park Jn to Wakefield Europort.
Electrify Huyton to Wigan following Edge Hill
to Manchester and Preston to Blackpool North.
Convert Liverpool to Wigan and Blackpool North
services to electric traction.
Gap
Non-electrified routes.
Non-electrified routes.
Non-electrified routes.
Appendix A – Network RUS: Electrification
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
Planned scheme for
completion in CP5.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
137
138
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
Ref
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
PC
PC
Gauge clear Ditton – Edge Hill – Earlestown to
W9 and W10.
Bootle branch not W10
loading gauge.
5.3.2
Stockport
Line
Option 6
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Stalybridge – Manchester
Victoria.
Peak capacity on
Stockport local lines.
Enhance layout at Stalybridge when resignalled
to increase speed across junction and to/from the
bay platform, or relocate/add bay on north side
of station (see Stalybridge Option 4). Operate
additional peak shuttles using resulting improved
track capacity.
Freight capacity and
performance on Chat
Moss route.
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 10
5.3.5
Stalybridge
option 1
Improve signalling headways on back of scheme
to close Rainhill signal box.
Freight Capability:
No direct access to
Liverpool Docks.
Olive Mount chord.
Undertake works to allow W9 and W10 on
Stockport – Guide Bridge – Denton – Ardwick.
East Manchester
loading gauge.
Undertake works to remove RA10 restrictions
on Peak Forest – New Mills – Guide Bridge –
Stockport/Manchester Victoria.
Buxton remodelling.
Freight capability (train
length) at Buxton.
East Manchester Route
Availability.
Recommended option
Gap
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 9
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 8
5.3.3
Marple
option 3
5.3.3
Marple
option 2
5.3.13
Stockport
option 5
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
No change.
Enhancement scheme
due for completion in
CP4. Extra vehicles being
provided in CP4 for train
lengthening at least until
scheme is completed. Project complete.
Project complete.
Ditton – Edge Hill –
Bootle complete. Route
to Earlestown due
for completion in CP5
in association with
electrification scheme.
Project complete.
Majority of restrictions
will be removed in CP4.
Schemes not being
progressed in full; no
funding available.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap closed.
Gap closed.
Gap closed.
Gap closed.
Gap largely addressed
but need for
identification of anything
else required.
Gap better solved by
other solutions; being
addressed by freight
capacity scheme.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ref
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
5.3.10
Chat Moss
options
11 and 12
5.3.9
Atherton
Option 1
5.3.8
Bolton
options 8
and 9
5.3.7
Calder
Valley
Option 5
Peak crowding on the
Chat Moss route.
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Alternative is additional peak hour trains.
No change.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Platform extensions
provided to meet CP4
operational plans. Some
train lengthening in CP4.
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Peak crowding on the
Wigan/Southport line.
Gap reviewed in light of
2024 forecasts.
Peak crowding on the
Bolton corridor.
Service proposition
following diversion of
Manchester – Scotland
services to run via Chat
Moss route and Wigan
yet to be decided.
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Peak capacity on the
Rochdale line.
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Option superseded
by Yorkshire and
Humber RUS.
Train lengthening in CP4.
Train lengthening in CP4
on the Marple route.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Option superseded
by Yorkshire and
Humber RUS.
Train lengthening on Huddersfield and
Stalybridge services to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary (up
to a maximum of 3x20m eastbound due to
constraints at Mossley for Huddersfield services).
Peak capacity on
Stalybridge – Manchester
Victoria line.
5.3.5
Stalybridge
Options 2
and 3
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary. Possible
redeployment of four-car trains on Hadfield line.
Peak capacity on local
lines via Ardwick.
5.3.3
Marple
option
4, 5.3.4
Hadfield
line
options 2
and 3
Recommended option
Gap
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
139
140
No
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
Ref
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
RC
RC
RC
Enhance layout at Stalybridge when resignalled
to increase speed across junction and to/from
the bay platform, or relocate/add bay on north
side of station. Improve car parking.
Peak crowding: platform
capacity on Platforms 13
and 14 at Manchester
Piccadilly.
Regional links:
Stalybridge –Manchester.
5.3.2
Stockport
Line
Option 7
5.3.8
Bolton
option 1
5.3.5
Stalybridge
option 4
5.3.5
Stalybridge
option 1
Remove some buildings to improve
passenger circulation.
Track and platform
capacity at Liverpool
Lime Street.
5.3.10
Chat Moss
corridor
Option 4
Introduce additional off-peak service from
Stalybridge, to provide three tph service between
Stalybridge and Manchester Victoria.
Between Manchester and Preston: increase from
one fast, one semi-fast and one slow train per
hour off-peak to two fast and two slow trains per
hour off-peak.
Regional links:
Stalybridge –Manchester.
Regional links: Preston –
Manchester.
Major capacity and linespeed enhancements on
back of signalling renewals, to include additional
platforms and increased parallel moves.
Additional bay platform on north side of station.
Track and platform
capacity at Manchester
Piccadilly.
5.3.2
Stockport
Line
Option 11
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Train lengthening to provide additional peak
capacity to meet expected growth. Includes
platform lengthening where necessary.
Peak crowding on
the Cheshire Lines
Committee route.
Peak crowding on the
Liverpool – Wigan line.
Recommended option
Gap
5.3.14 St
Helens
Option 2
5.3.11 CLC
Option 5
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
Needs to be reviewed
in light of Ordsall Chord
announcement.
Gap closed.
Included in December
2008 timetable.
Other recommendation
still stands.
Gap closed.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
Layout enhancement
scheme planned to be
completed in CP4.
Scheme complete.
No change.
No change.
Some train lengthening
in CP4.
All Liverpool –
Nottingham - Norwich
services running as
four-car Class 158s west
of Nottingham.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
See Northern RUS Gaps 2
and 9.
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
See Northern RUS Gap 1.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 7
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 5
5.3.7
Calder
Valley
options 3
and 4
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 3
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 1
5.3.8
Bolton
option 4
5.3.8
Bolton
option 3
Ref in RUS
No change.
Scheme under
consideration by
Transport for Greater
Manchester and Salford
City Council.
Salford Central additional platforms on
Chat Moss lines.
Regional links: Salford –
Liverpool connectivity via
Chat Moss.
Improve interchange with Metrolink at Eccles.
Extension of Calder
Valley services to Salford
Crescent was not possible
as proposed due to loss
of Regional Funding
Allocation funded option
for Salford Crescent. No
change on alternative
option.
Through trains to Salford Crescent. Extend
Calder Valley trains through Manchester Victoria
to terminate at Salford Crescent, allowing
interchange with Airport services. Alternatively
extend through to Salford Central to get some
connectivity benefits.
Regional links: Calder
Valley.
Regional links:
connectivity with
Metrolink.
Liverpool – Manchester
Line Speed Improvement
scheme funded in CP4.
Chat Moss linespeed. Higher speeds between
Huyton and Patricroft.
Regional links: journey
times Manchester –
Liverpool (via Chat Moss
route).
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap still open.
Gap addressed.
North West Electrification
and service specification
as a result of the Ordsall
chord announcement will
close this gap.
No change.
Liverpool to Manchester additional off-peak
services. Increase from one to two fast trains
per hour between Liverpool Lime Street and
Manchester Piccadilly via Chat Moss in the
off-peak with a similar pattern to the existing
Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester service.
Regional links: Liverpool
–Manchester.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
Some linespeed
improvements have been
delivered with renewals.
Remodel Bolton station layout to improve
journey times and create improved interchange
and car parking when renewals become due.
Manchester – Blackpool linespeed. Higher speed
between Manchester and Euxton Jn and between
Preston and Blackpool North including both
raising the overall linespeed and addressing
permanent speed restrictions.
Regional links: journey
times Manchester –
Preston – Blackpool.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Regional links: Bolton
corridor.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – North West RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Extension of Calder Valley
services right through
to Airport achievable
with Northern Hub
recommendation (see
Gap 9).
See Northern RUS Gaps 1
and 9.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
141
142
No
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Increased frequency between Liverpool Lime
Street and Liverpool South Parkway through a
Cheshire Lines Committee timetable recast, a
dedicated shuttle or recast of London Midlands
services. To be considered after West Coast Main
Line 2008 timetable is implemented.
Regional links: Liverpool
Lime Street – Liverpool
South Parkway.
Progress linespeed improvements in association
with signalling renewals.
Regional links: Buxton
line and south crossPennine journey times.
Regional links: north
cross-Pennine journey
times.
Regional links:
Manchester Airport.
Regional links: Huyton –
Wigan route improved
journey times.
5.3.2
Stockport
corridor
option 14
5.3.5
Stalybridge
corridor
option 4
5.3.13
Styal
option 3
5.3.14 St
Helens
Central
option 3
Examine new services from Manchester Airport
to the south in the West Coast Main Line RUS.
Regional links: Calder
Valley journey times.
5.3.7
Calder
Valley
Option 2
Guide Bridge Jn linespeed improvement on
Stalybridge route.
Up to 60mph between Edgeley and Hazel Grove.
70mph through Castleton and 90mph between
Rochdale and Smithy Bridge.
Regional links:
Manchester Airport.
5.3.13
Styal
option 1
Manchester Airport station third platform.
Cornbrook or White City new station and
interchange.
Regional links:
connectivity with
Metrolink.
5.3.11 CLC
option 2
5.3.11 CLC
option 3
Recommended option
Gap
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
No change.
No change.
Scheme completed.
Scheme being developed.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds,
noting that electrification
should improve journey
times.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
Gap closed.
Liverpool – Scarborough
services now call at
Liverpool South Parkway.
Project complete.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
19
20
21
22
1
2
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RD
RD
5.3.2
Stockport
corridor
options 9,
10 & 12
5.3.8
Bolton
option 10
5.3.10
Chat Moss
corridor
Option 4
5.3.8
Bolton
option 5
Performance of
Castlefield corridor.
Service frequency and/or headway reductions
and/or faster access to Longsight goods line to
be examined after the West Coast Main Line
2008 timetable is implemented.
No change.
Gap still open.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Bolton additional platform. Create a fifth
platform at Bolton by extending the down loop
at Moses Gate. May be an enabler for 5.3.8
Bolton Option 3.
No change.
Performance: Bolton
corridor.
Previous
recommendation holds,
noting that the West
Coast Main Line RUS is
also examining services
into Liverpool Lime
Street.
No change.
Major capacity and linespeed enhancements on
back of signalling renewals, to include additional
platforms and increased parallel moves.
Regional links: track and
platform capacity at
Liverpool Lime Street for
additional services.
Gap closed.
Scheme changed
following the withdrawal
of potential regional
funding. Scheme to
increase current platform
lengths to accommodate
6x23m vehicle trains
and other station
improvements due to be
completed in 2014.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Salford Crescent remodelling/relocation. Create a
new layout at Salford Crescent that creates more
capacity on the network for both through trains
and trains terminating from the Manchester
direction, more capacity on the platforms to
handle passengers, and better station facilities
befitting a station where people interchange
both to connect to and from Manchester Airport
services and to and from services to both sides of
the city centre.
Develop Guide Bridge station as an interchange.
None.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Regional links:
Manchester connectivity
and Manchester Airport
access.
Regional links: access
to rail network east of
Manchester.
Develop Newton-le-Willows as an interchange
with improved station facilities and car parking.
Regional links: station
facilities needing
improvement to facilitate
improved connectivity at
this interchange.
5.3.10
Chat Moss
option 6
5.3.4
Hadfield
corridor
option 1
Recommended option
Gap
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
See Northern RUS Gap 9.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
143
144
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ref
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
Glazebrook eastbound loop to be considered in
light of West Coast Main Line 2008 timetable
implementation and any Cheshire Lines
Committee route recast.
Performance problems
caused by tight
turnarounds at Glossop
and Hadfield.
Performance at
Hunts Cross.
Performance: Warrington
Central – Manchester.
5.3.4
Hadfield
corridor
option 4
5.3.11 CLC
option 6
5.3.13
Styal
option 2
5.3.11 CLC
option 8
5.3.11 CLC
option 7
Hunts Cross remodelling to be considered by the
Merseyside RUS.
Performance problems
caused by crossing moves
at Heaton Norris Jn.
5.3.2
Stockport
corridor
option 12
Westbound loop approaching Trafford Park.
Progress with future renewals.
Styal line timetable recast to redistribute
intermediate calls. Re-examine in light of
implementation of West Coast Main Line
timetable 2008 timetable.
Performance: Warrington
Central – Manchester.
Performance: Styal line.
Linespeed improvements on Dinting/Hadfield/
Glossop triangle.
Higher speed junction to be examined after
the West Coast Main Line 2008 timetable is
implemented.
New platform beside Platform 1 at Manchester
Piccadilly to be examined after the West Coast
Main Line 2008 timetable is implemented.
Performance problems
caused by late running
north and south crossPennine Airport services.
5.3.2
Stockport
corridor
option 11
Recommended option
Gap
Ref in RUS
Appendix A – North West RUS
No
No
Gap closed.
Delivered with
December 2008
timetable changes.
No
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
No
No
No
Yes
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap still open.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
See Northern RUS Gap 9.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
Ref
AD
AD
EA
EA
EA
FC
FC
FC
WF3
Page 77
Page 77
SF2
LD4
HV3
HD2
Ref in RUS
Requirement to be taken into account in any
service increases on this corridor.
Limited freight capacity
between Leeds and
Church Fenton/
Gascoigne Wood.
Freight growth between
Hare Park Jn and
Doncaster/Moorthorpe.
Diversion of some existing freight services via
Shaftholme flyover to free up paths for new
traffic that specifically needs to use the route
but growth in CP5 may require infrastructure
enhancement on the route.
Longer-term growth will require improved track
capacity which should be considered when
signalling renewals are due.
Freight growth between
Gilberdyke and Hessle
Road Jn.
To be considered when resignalling takes place in
Control Period 6 (CP6).
Additional hourly service Manchester –
Leeds/Selby (or Hull subject to strengthened
business case).
Additional hourly semi-fast service between
Manchester and Sheffield (or beyond) probably
integrated with a recast service on Marple and
New Mills routes to avoid the need for extra
paths at Manchester.
To be taken into account in developing options
for infrastructure works – either renewals or
enhancements.
The Seven Day Railway workstream will need
to examine the scope for bi-directional tracks or
other mitigation measures.
All day crowding on
Leeds – Huddersfield –
Manchester services.
All day crowding on
Sheffield – Manchester
services.
Engineering access at
key locations and on
key corridors.
24-hour access required
between Leeds and
Neville Hill depot for
which no diversionary
route exists.
No diversionary route
between Sheffield and
Nunnery Main Line Jn.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
Potential gap depending
on future passenger and
freight services on the
route.
North Doncaster Chord
(Shaftholme flyover)
planned to be completed
in CP4.
No change.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds
though renewals may
now be in CP5.
Gap needs to be
addressed with
enhancement funding
when signalling renewals
take place (probably
in CP5).
Previous
recommendation
still holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
No change.
Some CP4 schemes will
assist delivering the
Seven Day Railway.
No change.
Gap to be reviewed.
Gap to be reviewed.
No change.
All daytime Liverpool
– Norwich services
increased to 4x23m
vehicle operation.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Subject to timetable
development work for
ECML 2018 timetable.
See Northern RUS Gap 4.
See Northern RUS Gap 3.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
145
146
No
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
Ref
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
PC
PC
WH1
HA1
IC2
IC1
Page 92
SD4
HV3
HD4
Ref in RUS
Peak crowding on the
Ilkley line.
Peak crowding on the
Harrogate line.
W9/W10/W12
gauge enhancement
Chesterfield – Treeton Jn
– Rotherham – Doncaster.
Freight growth between
Immingham and
Doncaster/Shaftholme
Jn area.
W9/W10/W12
gauge enhancement
Doncaster/Joan Croft Jn
– Immingham.
W9/W10/W12 gauge
enhancement Lincoln –
Doncaster.
Prioritisation and funding provision to be
determined through SFN process.
W9/W10/W12 gauge
enhancement Calder
Bridge Jn – Huddersfield
– Manchester and
Stourton – Dewsbury –
Thornhill LNW Jn.
Freight growth in the
Hope Valley.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecast.
Turnback at Horsforth
and shortened block
section between
Horsforth and Harrogate
implemented. Some
train lengthening prior to
completion.
Extra high peak hour
four-car EMU service
into Leeds.
Gap to be reviewed in
light of new forecasts.
Gap largely addressed
but increment to W12 to
be considered through
SFN process.
W9 and W10 provided.
W10 to be provided as part of Hutchison Ports
(UK) project and W9 through GN/GE Joint Line
upgrade but prioritisation and funding provision
of increment to W12 to be determined through
SFN process.
Additional maximum 2tph peak shuttles of up
to four-car length between Horsforth and Leeds.
Some calls taken out of Harrogate services at
Headingley and Burley Park to spread loads.
Lengthening of all trains from four to six vehicles.
Gap closed if funding
is found.
Gap to be reviewed.
Funding being sought
by the South Humber
Gateway Delivery Group.
No change.
Double junction at Thorne Jn and fourth track
between Brocklesby and Barnetby.
Improved freight
facilities at Dore funded
by SFN Fund for delivery
in CP5.
Gap closed.
Gap to be addressed
through SFN process.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Prioritisation and funding provision to be
determined through the SFN process.
Planned for completion
in CP4.
No change.
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Prioritisation and funding provision to be
determined through SFN process.
Additional loops in the Hope Valley (also required
for additional hourly off-peak service).
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
See Northern RUS Gap 7.
See section 6.7.16.
See Northern RUS Gap 6.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ref
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
YS1
YS2
BP1
WF2
HD2
HD1
CV1
AI1
Ref in RUS
Lengthening of all trains from four to six vehicles.
Additional four-car train in high-peak hour
between Bradford and Leeds. Use of Bradford
services to serve possible new stations at Kirkstall
Forge and Apperley Bridge.
Additional maximum two tph peak shuttles
between Halifax and Leeds. Business case for all
day operation but requires further infrastructure
enhancement at Bradford which may be needed
for more than one tph in peak hours.
Train lengthening to a maximum of 4x23m
vehicle trains on local services, including new
platform at Huddersfield.
Interurban service enhancements to be a mixture
of train lengthening to six cars and additional
hourly service Manchester – Leeds – Selby (or
Hull).
Additional high peak hour Doncaster–Leeds
service. Class 333 operation on Doncaster
services. Up to 4x23m vehicle operation on
Sheffield – Moorthorpe – Leeds trains.
Half hourly 4x23m vehicle peak trains between
Knottingley and Leeds. Possible all day operation
if proposed housing growth takes place.
Train lengthening to a maximum of 4x23m
vehicle trains on local services, some operating
only between Micklefield and Leeds. For
interurban services a mixture of train lengthening
to six cars and an additional hourly service Hull/
Selby – Leeds – Manchester. Alternative option
to reduce local service to maximum of 3tph and
for the Newcastle - Reading service to operate via
Leeds with at least one call east of Leeds.
Peak crowding on the
Skipton line.
Peak crowding on the
Huddersfield/Brighouse
line.
Peak crowding on the
Huddersfield line into
Leeds and Manchester.
Peak crowding on the
East Leeds line including
York and Selby.
Peak crowding on the
Castleford line.
Peak crowding on the
Wakefield line.
Peak crowding on the
Calder Valley line.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
Extra 4-car EMU shuttle
and lengthening of
Sheffield – Leeds diesel
services.
Half hourly peak trains
already run between
Knottingley and Leeds.
Platform extensions
completed for local
services.
Train lengthening in CP4
with platform extensions
provided.
No change.
Additional capacity
provided since Yorkshire
and Humber RUS
analysis.
Extra high peak hour
four-car EMU service into
Leeds and four-car EMU
vice two-car DMU.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap to be reviewed in
light of new forecast.
Gap to be reviewed in
light of new forecasts.
Gap to be reviewed in
light of new forecasts.
Gap to be reviewed.
Gap largely addressed
but all day operation
and possibly 2tph in
peaks require funding of
additional crossover and
bi-directional signalling in
association with planned
signalling renewals in
CP5.
Gap reviewed in light of
new forecasts.
Gap to be reviewed in
light of new forecast.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See section 6.7.14.
See section 6.7.6.
See Northern RUS Gap 7.
See Northern RUS Gap 3.
See sections 6.7.5 and
6.7.19.
See section 6.7.5.
See Northern RUS Gap 7.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
147
148
No
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
1
2
Ref
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
RC
RC
Page 82
Page 83
DR3
SF3
CV3
HV1
SD1
BP4
LD1
LD2
LD3
Ref in RUS
Additional bay platform(s) on north side of the
station and increased platform capacity on south
side. Operation of some long diesel local services
through to turnback at Micklefield.
Train lengthening up to a maximum of 4x23m
vehicles for Leeds – Sheffield services.
Train lengthening up to 4x23m vehicles on
Doncaster/Leeds – Sheffield services.
Additional three-car semi-fast service between
Manchester and Sheffield each peak hour
probably integrated with a recast service on the
Marple and New Mills routes to avoid the need
for extra paths at Manchester.
Additional maximum two tph peak shuttles of
up to three-car equivalent vehicles between
Rochdale and Manchester.
Capacity scheme to alleviate train lengthening of
local and long distance trains at Sheffield to be
considered when resignalling takes place.
Identify overall infrastructure requirements
for Doncaster station area in order to deliver
increased ECML passenger and freight paths,
improve performance and facilitate other
aspirations. To be developed further once regular
interval timetable is known.
Transfer of some intermediate calls to the fifth
train per hour and a programme of linespeed
and capacity improvements to avoid faster trains
catching up local trains and freight services.
Various options could achieve this depending
on detail of enhanced service operation on the
Leeds – Huddersfield – Manchester corridor
including skip-stop calling pattern east of
Stalybridge.
Track and platform
capacity at Leeds.
Department for Transport
journey time aspiration
of 43 minutes between
Leeds and Manchester.
Greater Manchester
Integrated Transport
Authority (ITA)
aspiration for half
hourly Huddersfield–
Manchester Victoria local
service.
Track and platform
capacity at Doncaster.
Peak crowding from
Calder Valley line into
Manchester.
Track and platform
capacity at Sheffield.
Sheffield–Doncaster/
Moorthorpe line.
Hope Valley line.
Barnsley line.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds
in relation to next step
change in paths on the
ECML.
Service specification as
a result of the Ordsall
chord announcement will
address this gap.
Previous
recommendation
holds but subject to
service proposition
following Ordsall Chord
announcement.
Enhanced interval ECML
timetable introduced on
22 May 2011.
Some linespeed
improvements plus
possibly small scale
capacity improvements.
No change.
Gap to be reviewed in the
light of new forecasts.
Review in light of new
forecasts.
Review in light of new
forecasts.
Gap to be reviewed.
Review in light of service
requirements into Leeds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
All daytime Liverpool
- Norwich services
increased to 4x23m
vehicle operation west of
Nottingham.
Lengthening of peak
services in CP4.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
No
Yes
No
No
See Northern RUS Gap 3.
See section 6.7.5.
See Northern RUS Gap 4.
Yes
Yes
See section 6.7.11.
See section 6.7.3.
See Northern RUS Gap 8.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Appendices
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Ref
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
BP6
WF4
CV3
LN2
LN3
SD3
HV4
HV3
Ref in RUS
Journey times
between Bradford and
Manchester.
Journey time
improvements on the
Wakefield line.
Journey time between
Sheffield and Leeds
via Barnsley.
Rail access to Robin
Hood Airport Doncaster
Sheffield (RHADS).
Increased service levels
at Rotherham Central
from 3 to 5tph.
Investigate further.
Develop further.
Additional hourly semi-fast service between
Manchester and Sheffield (or beyond) probably
integrated with a recast service on Marple and
New Mills routes to avoid the need for extra
paths at Manchester.
Examine opportunities for linespeed
improvements and trade-offs with reduced
performance allowances and/or altered
calling patterns.
Further development of South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport Executive scheme taking
into account affects of rebalancing the numbers
of trains via Rotherham Central and Masborough
and the consequent affects on Aldwarke Jn and
performance.
Station to be built by RHADS to be served initially
by Doncaster – Lincoln service. Regular service
to be considered in relation to future services in
Doncaster area.
Linespeed enhancements.
Service frequency
between Sheffield and
Manchester.
Journey time between
Sheffield and
Manchester.
Recommended option
Gap
No change.
No change.
No change.
Introduction of three
tram-trains per hour
in 2014 will provide
improved connectivity
between Rotherham and
Sheffield city centre.
No change.
All daytime Liverpool
– Norwich services
increased to 4x23m
vehicle operation west
of Nottingham.
Development work
underway and any ‘quick
wins’ delivered in CP4.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Gap to be reviewed.
Previous
recommendation
holds, noting that the
East Midlands RUS
recommended further
development work on
journey times between
Leeds, Barnsley, Sheffield
and Nottingham.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap closed.
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Previous
recommendation holds.
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
See Northern RUS Gap 5.
See Northern RUS Gap 4.
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
149
11
1
2
3
4
5
RC
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
N/A
Page 90
Page 97
Page 96
Page 99
BP3
Ref in RUS
Reactionary delay at
other locations.
Reactionary delays in
Rotherham area.
Reactionary delays
at Leeds.
Reactionary delays
at Sheffield.
All day half hourly Knottingley – Leeds service
once half hourly peak services are introduced.
Improved access
between the three towns
and Leeds.
Increased congestion at
Doncaster with LDHS and
freight service increases.
No
1
1
Ref
FC
PC
New gap
New gap
Ref in RUS
Previous
recommendation
holds but in relation to
introduction of three
tram-trains per hour.
Gap will be addressed
over time as projects
are delivered to meet
other outputs.
No change.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Draft 2019 SFN forecasts
for Shaftholme Jn –
Knottingley.
Retford line peak
crowding.
N/A
Recommended option
Gap
Some CP4 schemes will
reduce reactionary delay.
No change.
Route requires examining
in the light of new
demand forecasts.
Freight forecasts need
accommodating.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
Previous
recommendation in
relation to IEP timetable
requirements still holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Enhanced timetable
introduced on 22 May
2011.
No change.
Previous
recommendation holds.
Gap status for Northern
RUS
No change.
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
To be taken into account in developing options
for infrastructure works – either renewals or
enhancements.
Consider possible train service changes and
infrastructure enhancements in the light of
emerging December 2010 timetable and IEP
requirements.
To be taken into account in developing options
for future layout changes.
To be taken into account in developing options
for future layout changes in association with S&C
and signalling renewals.
To be taken into account in developing
options for allowing more services to call
at Rotherham Central.
Recommended option
Gap
Appendix A – New Gaps
No
Ref
Anticipated progress
by end of CP4 at time
of publication of the
Northern RUS
Yes
Yes
See Northern RUS Gap 5
See Northern RUS Gap 6
Outcome of Northern
RUS
No
No
No
No
No
No
Outcome of Northern
RUS
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
150
Reviewed by
Northern RUS?
Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS
Appendices
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Appendix B: Station passenger
capacity
The Network RUS: Stations document, which was
published as a draft for consultation in May 2011,
considers passenger capacity at stations nationally.
It provides a toolkit of interventions of the best ways
to solve different capacity constraints.
As this is being considered nationally, the Northern
RUS has not looked at specific gaps and options to
deal with passenger capacity at stations. However,
the Northern RUS Stakeholder Management Group
identified the following stations across the north of
England as those which currently have passenger
capacity issues or are most likely to become a problem
in the future. Also listed are any proposed or planned
interventions that have already been identified via
various workstreams to solve the capacity issues.
Station
Issue
Proposed solutions
Ashburys
Narrow outbound platform accessed by narrow
footbridge/steps. This station serves a growing
employment area, with a further education
college, as well as the Sports City complex. On
busy match days the station operator has to
close the station.
A new direct tram link from Manchester City
Centre to the stadium is under construction. This
will reduce the use of the station when there are
events (and hence crowding).
Bradford Forster
Square
Bottleneck expected in egress from platforms on
busy peak trains.
No planned intervention.
Bradford
Interchange
Bottleneck expected at the barriers particularly
on egress from station on busy peak trains.
No planned intervention.
No planned intervention.
Chapeltown
In the morning peak, the number of passengers
waiting on the platform (which is comparatively
narrow) could cause overcrowding problems,
especially as a number of trains do not stop
at Chapeltown.
Dore
Morning peak hour platform crowding. South
Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have
just bought an adjacent site for a 120-space
car park.
Doubling of the single line through Dore station
and provide a second platform with Disability
Discrimination Act compliant access as part of
the Northern Hub project.
Guiseley
Limited footpath and footbridge access to
Leeds/Bradford bound platform at peak times.
No planned intervention.
Restricted platform capacity on island
platform and shared access/egress via stairs
to footbridge.
No planned intervention except a new entrance
from the waiting room directly onto the Leedsbound platform that may reduce congestion
around the stairs, particularly at morning
peak times.
Restricted footway capacity to and from Leedsbound platform.
No planned intervention.
Limited capacity on concourse, stairs and
subway and on Platform 8, the busiest and most
restricted platform.
The station operator is installing lifts to help
with access/Disability Discrimination Act issues.
A new platform may be required in CP5 to
meet passenger growth which would improve
passenger flows.
James Street
Crowding occurs when Wirral Line trains
terminate during periods of perturbation.
No planned intervention.
Kirk Sandall
Express trains pass the island platform which
gets busy during morning peak periods.
No planned intervention.
Crowding at peak times particulary around the
barrier line and concourse.
Leeds station new southern entrance would
improve station facilities and footfall capacity
and reduce passenger access times to the
development area south of the station. This
scheme will help mitigate station congestion
particularly around the station barriers/
concourse entrance.
Halifax
Horsforth
Huddersfield
Leeds
151
Appendices
Station
Issue
Proposed solutions
Liverpool Central
Overcrowding on the Northern Line platforms
particulary on Saturdays.
Network Rail, Merseytravel and Merseyrail are
currently developing possible solutions to the
crowding on Liverpool Central platforms.
Manchester
Deansgate
Narrow westbound platform can become
congested at peak times and late evenings.
No planned intervention.
Manchester
Oxford Road
Platforms 1 and 2/3 are served by a footbridge
with steps. At busy times (especially in the
morning peak) the queue of passengers to
exit via the barrier can stretch back onto
the platforms. This raises issues when other
passengers are pushing in the opposite direction
to reach the platforms and board trains,
especially at the bottom of the stairs where
passengers can be standing/queuing close to
the platform edge.
The works in CP4 to make the station Disability
Discrimination Act compliant with lifts/access
improvements and platform renewals will
provide access improvements. Plans to remodel
the layout and extend Platforms 1–4 are being
examined by the Northern Hub.
Platform 13/14 can become congested due to
the number of trains/people using platform.
Track capacity on the corridor towards
Castlefield Jn is constrained by the reoccupation
of Platform 13 and 14. The Northern Hub
recommended option would create two new
through platforms (15 and 16). This would
spread passenger flows across four platforms
rather than two.
Manchester
Piccadilly
Passengers queuing to buy tickets when
alighting trains can cause congestion/block flow
of passengers leaving and entering platforms
with tickets.
Escalators to Metrolink platforms, taxi rank and
short-term parking can become congested.
Queues from Metroshuttle stops can block the
flow of passengers to/from the station.
152
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive discussed Metroshuttle stops with the
Department for Transport and this is deferred to
refranchising.
No planned intervention.
Meadowhall
Access to and congestion on Platform 2.
Currently access restrictions are put in place
during the Christmas period, at weekends and in
the evening peak.
No planned intervention.
Salford Central
Large stepping distance between the train and
the platform slows boarding/alighting which
leads to increasing station dwell times as more
people use the station.
Salford Crescent
Narrow island platform becomes congested
with combination of interchange and origin/
destination passengers. Northern Rail staff
control access to platform for originating
passengers but cannot control numbers
alighting for interchange and destination.
Planned extension to existing platform in CP4
but will not provide enough extra space to help
with passenger flows.
Saltaire
Restricted platform space for peak passengers
on Leeds/Bradford bound platform.
Potential platform lengthening in CP4.
Sheffield
Crowding currently occurs on the steps into
the main concourse and to Platforms 2-5 in
particular, mainly at peak times.
Station recently redeveloped/refurbished and no
further interventions to the station are planned.
No planned intervention.
Shipley
Spacious platforms, subway ramps and
footbridge at original station but restricted new
Platforms 1 and 2 and footbridge link could
pose a future problem as these also have the
highest footfall.
Wakefield
Westgate
Restricted footbridge access to and from Leedsbound platform and limited concourse space.
No planned intervention.
Glossary
Term
Meaning
ATOC
Association of Train Operating Companies.
BCR
Benefit Cost Ratio.
Bi-directional
signalling
Describes the characteristic which allows trains to be controlled by the signalling system in
both directions over a section of track.
Control Period 4
(CP4)
The 2009 – 2014 period.
Control Period 5
(CP5)
The 2014 – 2019 period.
Control Period 6
(CP6)
The 2019 – 2024 period.
DfT
Department for Transport.
Down
The direction of trains normally when travelling away from London.
ECML
East Coast Main Line.
Engineering access
The period of time agreed where either trains do not run, or operations are amended, to allow
teams to undertake maintenance, renewal and/or enhancement of the network.
FOC
Freight operating company.
GVA
Gross Value Added – A measure of economic productivity.
HLOS
High Level Output Specification.
HS2
Proposed high speed rail link between London and the West Midlands, and potentially beyond.
IIP
Initial Industry Plan.
Infrastructure
This includes signalling, track, structures and telecom assets associated with the rail network.
Infill electrification
The electrification of a section of route between two other electrified sections, thus allowing
through electric trains.
Loading gauge
Loading gauge is the profile for a particular rail route within which all vehicles or loads must
remain to ensure that sufficient clearance is available at all structures.
MOIRA
An industry standard passenger demand forecasting model which uses many of the principles
published in the PDFH (see opposite).
Multiple unit trains
(DMU and EMU)
These are trains composed of self-contained units, coupled together so that they work in
unison under the control of the driver at the front of the leading unit. Each unit is normally
composed of two or more semi-permanently coupled vehicles and a driving compartment
is provided at each end of every unit. There are diesel multiple units (DMUs) and electric
multiple units (EMUs).
NPV
Net Present Value – The whole-life economic benefit and revenue generated by a rail
capability change minus the whole-life cost of this change.
153
Glossary
154
Term
Meaning
Optimism bias
A proportional uplift to scheme cost estimates to allow for historical systematic optimism on
the part of UK scheme promoters.
ORR
Office of Rail Regulation is the regulator for the rail industry in Great Britain.
PDFH
Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (version 5.0) – Industry standard publication
containing detailed research on passenger behaviour and trends.
Planning headway
Is the time interval agreed between trains when planning the timetable over a specific route.
PTE
Passenger Transport Executive.
RPI
The Retail Price Index measure of UK inflation.
S&C
Switches and Crossings, track components which allow trains to change from one line
to another.
SDO
Selective door opening, used where the whole train does not fit into a station platform.
SMG
Stakeholder Management Group.
TOC
Train operating company.
tph
Trains per hour.
Turnback
The track and signalling layout provided to allow trains to stop and return in the
opposite direction.
Up
The direction of trains normally when travelling towards London.
WCML
West Coast Main Line.
Contents
3
4
14
16
22
70
87
91
124
125
151
153
Foreword
Executive summary
1. Background
2. Scope and planning context
3. Forecast changes in demand
4. Gaps and options
5. Consultation
6. Strategy
7. Next Steps
Appendix A
Appendix B
Glossary
May 2011
Northern
Route Utilisation Strategy
Tel: 020 3356 9595
www.networkrail.co.uk
RUS144/ May 2011
Northern Route Utilisation Strategy May 2011
Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way
London N1 9AG