London Councils’ Transport and
Environment Committee
London and South East Route
Utilisation Strategy (RUS)
Report by:
Damian Cleghorn
Date:
17 March 2011
Contact Officer:
Michael Ojo
Telephone:
020 7934 9945
Summary:
Recommendations:
Job title:
Item No: 10
Policy and Project Manager
Email:
[email protected]
On 16 December 2010, Network Rail launched a consultation on an
updated Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for London. The RUS covers rail
routes into and around the capital and the update has been deemed
necessary due to the length of time that has passed since the original
RUSs affecting London were published and the announcements on rail
infrastructure that have been made since then (such as the confirmation of
Crossrail). The RUS now extends to 2031 for the south east England
railway network as a whole and forecasts an increase of over 30 per cent in
the numbers of commuters using national rail services into the capital
during the weekday morning peaks up to 2031. Network Rail expects to
publish the final RUS in summer 2011. This report provides brief details of
the consultation document and sets out a proposed London Councils
response.
Members are recommended to:


Note the contents of the RUS.
Comment and agree on the draft London Councils response to the
consultation which is attached as an annex to this document.
Background to the consultation
1. Following the 2004 Rail Review and the 2005 Railways Act, the Office of Rail Regulation
(ORR) modified Network Rail’s network licence to require them to establish and maintain
Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs) across the national rail network. According to the
network licence, route utilisation on the rail network 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.”
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 1
2. Under the RUS guidelines, Network Rail is required to consider the position of the railway
funding authorities, their statements, key outputs and options that they wish to see tested.
They should also consider network capacity and railway service performance, train and
station capacity (including crowding issues), the trade-offs between different uses of the
network (e.g. passenger or freight), rolling stock issues, how to undertake maintenance
and renewals work with minimal disruption to the network, opportunities from new
technology, and opportunities to improve safety. The RUS guidelines also set out
principles for the scope of the RUS, the relevant time period to be considered, processes
to be followed and assumptions to be made.
3. Since 2005, Network Rail has consulted on and published several RUSs of relevance to
London and south east England. These RUSs are known as “generation one” or “first
generation”. However, given the length of time which has passed since the start of the
RUS programme (2005) and the developments affecting the railway industry which have
occurred over this period, a number of new RUSs (known as “generation two” or “second
generation”) have been published which aim to ensure that the strategy is consistent
across the multiple route corridors into the capital and to bring all the recommendations
affecting London and the south east up to date.
4. The second generation RUSs build upon the content of the first generation by extending
detailed analysis of peak passenger and freight demand to 2031 and indentifying gaps
where supply will not meet demand. Following this activity, Network Rail will be required to
take account of the recommendations from the various RUSs when carrying out its
shorter-term activities and will be expected to use these to inform their decisions over the
allocation of capacity. The ORR will also be required to take account of established RUSs
when exercising its functions such as when considering requests for train paths.
5. Network Rail has stated that it will continue to work on the RUS during and following the
consultation period (which ends on 18 March 2011) and that their work will be steered by
the responses received. Options will be supported by further analysis for the final RUS
and recommendations will be made where value for money cases are identified.
6. The RUS should be distinguished from the High Level Output Specification (HLOS). This
is the mechanism by which the railway industry is provided with clear and timely
information about the strategic outputs that Governments want the railway to deliver for
the public funds they are prepared to make available. London Councils is working closely
with London Rail/TfL to ensure the most favourable outcome for London from the next
HLOS round of funding decisions (known as HLOS-2).
Consultation details
7. The consultation document recognises that many infrastructure projects are now
committed and explains how these could be used to deliver additional peak capacity into
London. It also considers access to Heathrow airport, how to maximise the benefits of
Crossrail, the implications of high speed rail on the London area, the future ChelseaHackney line (Crossrail 2), and the capacity implications of the proposed link from High
Speed 2 to High Speed 1. The document also carries forward a number of
recommendations which were previously made in the first generation RUS such as
recommendations on additional rolling stock, infrastructure enhancements, and proposals
to change timetables.
8. The document also forecasts the anticipated growth in peak passenger demand up to
2031 rather than up to 2019 (as was previously the case), recognises the new policy
towards airport development in south east England, and highlights what the gaps and
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 2
options beyond the existing strategy for the 2031 commuter peaks into London are likely
to be. Those issues which are of strategic significance are as follows:
i) Access to Heathrow airport
9. The difficulty in accessing Heathrow Airport by rail is considered to be a strategic gap. The
following options are considered:
 Incorporating Heathrow Express into Crossrail
 BAA Heathrow Airtrack
 Heathrow Airport western connection
 A new high speed rail station complex serving Heathrow Airport directly
 Increasing connectivity to Old Oak Common from the West Coast Mainline South
ii) Maximising the benefits of Crossrail
10. The RUS maintains that the following extensions are consistent with RUS principles:
 The incorporation of Heathrow Express into Crossrail
 The extension of Crossrail onto West Coast Main Line slow lines (such as to Milton
Keynes)
 The extension of Crossrail to Reading
 The extension of Crossrail to Gravesend
A combination of the first two options would result in 24 trains per hour in the peak from
the west into the Crossrail core coming from further afield.
iii) Implications of high speed rail demand on the London area
11. The strategy for accommodating High Speed 2 local flows between London, the wider
South East and Euston/Old Oak Common should be further developed.
iv) The future Chelsea-Hackney line (Crossrail 2)
12. The RUS restates that the alignment of a new cross-London rail tunnel has been
safeguarded and restates the advantages of this. It also notes that a potential modification
to the safeguarding may be appropriate so as to provide a connection to the high speed
rail network at London Euston.
v) The capacity implications of the proposed link from High Speed 2 to High Speed 1
13. Consideration of the effect of a High Speed 1 to High Speed 2 connection is required.
London Councils response
14. It is proposed that the London Councils response should focus on issues of strategic
significance to London and endorse the comments made by TfL in their response to the
RUS (see annex 2).
Recommendations
15. Members are recommended to:
 Note the contents of the RUS.
 Comment and agree on the draft London Councils response to the consultation which is
attached as an annex to this document.
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 3
Annex 1
Contact:
Direct
line:
Fax:
Email:
Date:
London and South East RUS
RUS Programme Manager
Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way
London N1 9AG
Michael Ojo
020 7934 9945
020 7934 9932
[email protected]
17 March 2011
[email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
London Councils’ response to the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)
Draft for Consultation
London Councils represents all 32 London boroughs, the City of London, the Metropolitan Police
Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. We are committed to fighting for
fair resources for London and getting the best possible deal for London’s 33 Councils. We lobby on
our members’ behalf, develop policy and do all we can to help boroughs improve the services they
offer. We also run a range of services ourselves which are designed to make life better for
Londoners. As such, we welcome the opportunity to comment upon the London and South East
RUS. Our comments are outlined below:
London Councils welcomes the London and South East RUS. As we believe that it is particularly
important for the capacity of local passenger services to be protected and increased, we are pleased
that the draft RUS includes an analysis of peak passenger demand and a forecast of growth in this
until 2031. As such, we endorse the main messages made by TfL in their response to the RUS (see
below), but would particularly like to emphasise a couple of points.
We believe that it is important to pay particular attention to the needs of outer London. There is a
danger that an increased focus on journey times into London from beyond the city’s boundaries
could reduce the level of service provision in outer London by reducing the number of stopping
services. Such attention will be particularly important with regards to the proposal that Thameslink
takes over some inner suburban services. In order to avoid such a scenario from arising, London
Councils suggests that a mechanism be established to ensure ongoing dialogue between London
Councils and the Office of Rail Regulation.
We are also particularly pleased that the RUS pays specific attention to the future role of freight and
agree with the RUS’s assessment that the re-routing of freight not bound for London around London
will free up capacity for passenger services. With this in mind, particular attention is drawn to
paragraph five of TfL’s response to the London and south east RUS (see below). In this context, the
omission of the Redhill freight flyover, which would take the Channel Tunnel freight away from the
West London Line is surprising.
As a final point, we would also like to draw particular attention to paragraph two of the TfL response.
As with the previous paragraph, we endorse the comments made by TfL in their response and
emphasise that although the currently committed schemes are essential (such as Crossrail and the
Thameslink programme), they should not be regarded as the end of the story. Attention should also
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 4
Annex 1
be paid to smaller scale projects and the needs of those passengers (such as those in outer London)
who are not likely to benefit directly from the larger infrastructure projects.
I do hope that you find these comments helpful. Should you have any further questions then please
contact Michael Ojo at London Councils using the details above.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr. Catherine West,
Chair,
Transport and Environment Committee
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 5
Annex 2
Annex 2: TfL’s response to the London & South East RUS
1. Overall we strongly welcome the RUS as a document, and generally support its analysis
and findings. Its sets out the requirement for investment in rail in London over the long
term.
2. The RUS considers capacity gaps in 2031 on the assumption that the uncommitted
recommendations of other published RUSs have been implemented. This is a crucial
point as it demonstrates the need for ongoing investment in capacity in Control Period 5
(HLOS2) and beyond. The currently committed schemes, including Crossrail, the
Thameslink programme, HLOS1 train lengthening schemes, East London Line extensions
and the North London Railway Investment Programme, whilst essential, are not the end of
the story.
3. TfL’s analysis shows that significant future challenges on Greater London’s orbital
network. The investment to date by TfL, government and others has demonstrated the
importance of previously neglected orbital services, and the scale of demand that has
been unlocked shows their strategic importance. For this success story to continue, further
investment is needed in the long-term in the capacities of the North London line, East
London line, West London line, and Gospel Oak to Barking line.
4. The Lea Valley Main Line is the most significant remaining two-track main line railway into
London. If the enormous regeneration potential of the Upper Lea Valley is to be realised,
requiring turn up and go frequencies at inner suburban stations, then investment in
additional tracks is essential.
5. TfL wholly supports the recommended RUS strategy of removing all non-London bound
freight from the capital’s rail network. Freight uses the orbital network, and as TfL’s
analysis shows, the orbital passenger services will become the most crowded in London.
6. The RUS proposes that Crossrail should take over Heathrow Express services, to enable
more long distance high speed services on the Great Western fast lines. TfL is supportive
of this general principle, but our highest priority remains delivering a workable Crossrail
scheme, as defined by Parliament and as expected by its stakeholders. We welcome any
proposal with merit, but nothing must be allowed to jeopardise the Crossrail project. This
principle also applies to the proposed extensions to Crossrail, on which TfL has yet to form
a definitive view.
7. The RUS reinforces the importance of the Thameslink programme to London. However
the specification of the scheme is also of great importance; the scheme outlined in the
RUS, where Thameslink takes over some inner suburban services, provides crucial extra
capacity to north London.
8. TfL supports the call in the RUS for detailed consideration of the impacts on the North
London Line of a link between High Speed 2 and High Speed 1. As TfL’s analysis shows,
the North London Line will become very crowded, and it is important to London that further
capacity is provided; this will have a great bearing on the nature of any link between the
high speed lines.
9. TfL supports the call in the RUS for further development of the strategy for
accommodating the dispersal of passengers from High Speed 2, including the need for
greater connectivity at Old Oak Common, and greater capacity at Euston.
10. Station issues, including capacity, accessibility and the role of strategic interchange, as set
out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, should be given greater prominence.
London and SE RUS Consultation Response
London Councils’ TEC – 17 March 2011
Agenda Item 10, Page 6