Connecting Communities Report

8/8/2019 Connecting Communities Report

1/24

Connecting CommunitiesExpanding Access to the Rail Network

June 2009


2/242

Cover: A Transpennine Express train speeds past a new community being established near Mirfeld in West Yorkshire.Insets (clockwise): Corby, Aller ord Chord (Grantham), Mitcham Eastfelds.


3/24

Connecting Communities

In 2008, rail passenger numbers reached the highest peacetimelevels ever recorded. Despite the current economic climate, it iswidely recognised that one o the main challenges acing therailways in Great Britain over the next ve years is the need todeliver extra capacity and to plan ahead or the longer term.

Much o the current debate about improving the network isocused on major enhancements, such as main line electri cation

and potential high speed lines. This is a welcome vote o con dence in the railways.

This report seeks to complement recent and ongoing studiesinto such options or capacity enhancement by looking at otheropportunities to connect communities which have grown in recentyears but which do not have good access to the rail network.

In particular, this report has ocused on schemes which could bedelivered relatively quickly, through short links to (or new stationson) existing lines, and by making use o reight lines (current orrecently closed) as well as railway land le t by the line closuresand capacity reductions o the 1960s and 70s.

Many past studies have looked at re-opening old railways, but thisone looks rst at the market, not the map. It starts with people,where they live and where they want to travel. The schemesidenti ed in this paper as having a positive business case wouldprovide access directly and indirectly or a million people notcurrently well served by rail.

Identi ying these schemes is just a starting point and urther workis needed to develop the ideas in this paper. We would welcomeyour views and details on how to respond are set out at the endo this document.

Michael RobertsChie Executive

ATOC

June 2009


Foreword


4/24


Todays rail network carries 30% more passengers than it did45 years ago on a network considerably smaller than it wasthen. The industry has put in place a range o measures torespond to this increased demand and is actively pursuing arange o urther capacity enhancements.

In recent years, a number o rail schemes have beenimplemented to serve centres o population which previouslylacked access to the network. Since 1995, 27 new lines and68 stations have been opened, many unded by devolved orlocal government.

But other communities which have grown still lack adequateaccess to the network, either directly or indirectly at nearbystations which o ten su er rom constraints on road accessor car parking capacity. The process or developing relevantschemes to date has also been piecemeal.

Our analysis suggests that in England there are 14 placeswhere there could be a positive business case or a new lineto provide access to communities each with a population o 15,000 or more but which are currently not served by rail.Using the same approach, a number o new station locationswere evaluated and seven had a good business case.The report does not cover Scotland or Wales where strategies

or new rail links have been developed by DevolvedGovernment (see page 5).

In a urther six cases, where the ratio o bene ts to costsis one to one or less, a new line could in principle stillbe justi ed on the basis o economic regeneration oremployment bene ts, in line with the approach currentlyadopted by Devolved Government.

Taken together, all schemes identi ed as having a positivebusiness case would provide direct and indirect rail access

to around a million people.

The lead time or the new line proposals described in thisstudy is relatively short, between two years nine months andsix years, rom the start o detailed scheme development toimplementation.

Making it easier to catch the train

There is a strong case or sa eguarding routes that are likely tobe required in the long term, and or making passive provision(when other works are being carried out on relevant existinglines) or routes likely to be required in the medium term.

Our assessment also highlighted the potential or consideringnew links between some sections o the current networkto provide new services, additional capacity and alternativeroutes to support the Seven Day Railway.

The analysis carried out or this report needs to be ollowedup to con rm whether or not there is a case or taking

orward the schemes identi ed as potentially bene cial.This work should be undertaken during 2008/9 to eed intoother studies in hand on enhancement o the national railin rastructure rom 2014 onwards.


. Executive Summary


5/24


The purpose o this study is to help current and potential railpassengers by identi ying opportunities to: Provide better access to the rail network rom towns that

currently have no direct rail links Provide attractive new services and easier station access that

will encourage more passengers to switch to rail rom othermodes, and to provide the capacity that they will require

Adapt the present network to meet new needs arising romthe changing demographic trends o the last quarter centuryand the population growth projected or the next 25 years.

The study does not include Scotland, which is the responsibilityo Transport Scotland, nor does it include Wales, where WelshAssembly Government has developed a strategy or transportin Wales. It ocuses on major towns or settlements in England,which has no equivalent strategic national authority consideringrail capacity in relation to local or regional needs.


2. Objectives

Extending the accessible network


6/24


In 1948, at the ormation o British Railways, the rail network extendedto 19,598 route miles and 6,685 stations. The Beeching Report o 1963then ushered in a period o signi cant reduction in network capacity:todays network is 9,828 miles with 2,517 stations.

Communities Connected, new Mitcham Eastfelds station

Passenger numbers in 2008 buoyed by growth rates over the last

eight years greater than those seen in the previous 35 years - reachedthe highest peacetime levels ever recorded, so that passenger numbersare 30% higher now than in 1963.

This demand has in turn been driven by actors such as economicand population growth; changes in business structures and workingpractices; new settlement patterns and li estyle choices. The 2007 RailWhite Paper anticipates growth o 22% by 2014, with urther growthexpected in the ollowing ve years as well.

The rail industry has sought to respond to this increased demand andthe resulting capacity crunch. Use o busy routes has been optimisedthrough redesigning timetables and redeploying rolling stock; andsince 1995, 27 new lines (totalling 199 track miles) and 68 stationshave been opened.

Ten new rail projects are under way totalling some 88 route miles,and 65 new station sites have been identi ed by Network Rail orGovernment or possible construction. The commitment to introduce1300 additional coaches and a major programme o networkenhancement by 2014, bring the promise o new capacity. The industryis actively considering options beyond 2014, including potentiallymajor enhancements such as main line electri cation and new highspeed lines.

ATOC and train operators have been working with others in theseinitiatives, or example, through Route Utilisation Studies (RUSs) and

contributing to studies on electri cation and new/high speed lines.ATOC has also advanced ideas or capacity improvement throughits April 2007 report Exploring the Potential, with proposals worth3.25bn in total to tackle 25 pinchpoints on the network.

The interest in major network enhancements is a welcome voteo con dence in the railways. But one dimension which shouldnot be overlooked is the scope or smaller scale schemes to servesigni cant communities which might bene t rom the option touse rail, but which in practice do not have the choice as they are nolonger rail connected.

Many areas no longer served by rail have grown signi cantly overthe last 15 years. Small agglomerations exist or are being ormed,in areas that were previously predominantly rural. Urbanisation hasextended, and the redevelopment o city centre brown eld sites hasreplaced the peripheral developments o the 1970s/80s. Passengers

rom these communities have to travel to existing railheads onthe network, and may experience problems o road congestion inreaching the station, or may be excluded because car park capacityis limited and unable to increase as ast as demand. Those stationswhere pressures on road access or car parking would be relievedby a new rail link are shown in the right hand column o AppendixOne. Government plans or uture new housing and economicregeneration are two o the issues that could be addressed by urther

modest expansion o the rail network over the next decade.


. Context and rationale


7/24

Connecting CommunitiesConnecting Communities

Where new connections have been put in place in recent years, theyhave been broadly success ul. For all new lines built since 1995,demand has exceeded orecast, and many o these were unded bydevolved government, PTEs or local authorities. But developmenthas been piecemeal and there has been no assessment o nationalpriorities, nor has there been a consistent approach to appraisal, ormonitoring o results.

The basis or identi ying demographic changes and changing demandor existing transport networks is through the development o Regional

Spatial Strategies, which orm the ramework or local authorities

policies and implementation plans. These are linked with the railplanning process through the Route Utilisation Strategies. But the linksremain loosely de ned and there is no systematic way o matchingstrategic rail needs and priorities with the application o rail solutionsto transport problems identi ed at regional and local level. Thisdisparity is accentuated by the need to seek endorsement o all newrail schemes (including local ones) as projects o national signi canceunder the 2008 Planning Act.

This study aims to provide a more systematic approach to urtherdevelopment in a national and regional context. We think it isneeded in light o current capacity constraints and the potential or

uture growth in demand, notwithstanding the current economicclimate. At the same time, it provides an opportunity to make useo the legacy o railway land currently unused ollowing the lineclosures and capacity reductions o the 1960s and 70s. This includesroom alongside some existing routes to reinstate an additional track,as well as the solum o ormer rail routes that can be used, at leastin part, to reconnect towns that have grown signi cantly since theclosure o their rail link, and whose development is now constrainedby tra c congestion and poor rail access.

Making use o the solum o ormer railway lines


8/24


The MarketThe initial approach was to look at demographic data by localauthority area to assess the scale o potential demand or railtravel. Nine key actors were listed to allow comparisons betweenparts o the country that have a relatively dense rail network, andthose that are less well served. Key actors considered were: Population growth (ONS orecasts) Percentage o population living in urban areas (ONS) Percentage o work trips by rail Station usage (station entries per person) Car use (vehicle km per person) Tra c intensity (approximation or road congestion) Number o congested road links (D T data) Population per station (thousands) Number o settlements (>15,000 pop) not rail connected.

This analysis helped to set the parameters or the study andgave some indication o the sort o areas that might bene t

rom a greater level o rail service provision. However, it becameapparent at an early stage that urban population was the mostuse ul guide to where the demand or better access might be met

by new rail links.

Our analysis indicated that the most appropriate guide gure orconsidering a rail link was a population o around 15,000, whichhas been used in this study, except where there was some other

actor which increased the level o rail trip generation, such aswhere access to the nearest railhead was known to be di cultbecause o tra c congestion or car parking (Cranleigh). 75communities throughout England, with a population o 15,000or above, which were not directly connected to the national railnetwork, were reviewed. The population gures used are those

or 2001, so the results o the analysis may now be understated.

Forecasting demandAt this initial stage, only high-level demand estimates havebeen made, and we have ollowed standard transport planningpractice and guidance rom the Passenger Demand ForecastingHandbook (PDFH), using a methodology based on trip generationrates. These are based on a comparison o observed existingtravel patterns which link population and employment gures tothe number o trips made by train to or rom comparable stationsto those being examined.

Three methods were used to estimate the appropriate trip rate.By comparing the resulting rates rom each method, a suitablerate could be selected. The three methods were:

1. PDFH recommended values or trip rates (based on previousobservations)

2. Trip Rates rom similar rail served settlements in the area(obtained rom data on station entries (journeys) and population)

3. Travel to work trip rates (% trips by rail) rom census data,both or location o new station and comparable settlementswith existing stations.

Total trips were assessed with varying service requencies, anda growth rate over the li e o the project was included. This then

ormed the basis o a conventional cost bene t appraisal, usingestimated capital costs, and average costs or train operations.External bene ts, including journey time savings and savings inroad accident costs, were included in the analysis.

Whilst these produce high level results su ciently robustto enable some prioritisation to be undertaken, it would benecessary to undertake a more detailed demand orecastingexercise, including undertaking local surveys, when individualschemes are progressed to a urther level o development. Theresults are sensitive to any variation o the inputs, so an accuratede nition o the project and its bene ts are essential be ore naldecisions are made.

. Method


9/24


9


New lines20 o the 75 communities reviewed could not be connected tothe rail network because no practicable route existed, or thecost o reinstatement was very high. In a urther 20 cases, thesettlements were close enough to existing stations to be linkedeasily by bus, cycle or car.

The 35 remaining schemes were evaluated, showing the business casein terms o an indicative bene t to cost ratio (BCR). Evaluation includedthe social costs and bene ts o each scheme as well as earnings rom

ares, comparing them with the cost o operating the service, togetherwith the capital cost o the reinstatement.

The normal pass mark or D T appraisal o rail schemes is 1.5:1,but evaluation was extended to assessing schemes scoringless than 1.5, based on operating costs (opex) and revenueonly, excluding the capital cost o xed works. This mirrors theapproach adopted by Welsh Assembly Government or the EbbwVale line, and being adopted in Scotland or the Borders Railway,where in rastructure costs are justi ed on the basis o economicregeneration or employment, rather than just on the transportbene ts o the scheme.

The results or the 35 schemes are as ollows (see also Appendix 1): Nine had a BCR o 1.5 or more Five more had a BCR in excess o 1 Six had a BCR below 1, but 1.5 or more based on opex alone Eight had a BCR below 1.5 excluding capex Seven did not cover opex, let alone capital costs.

The schemes identi ed in this paper as having a positive businesscase, would together provide direct rail access or three quarterso a million people, and i access through additional railheads isalso included, or around a million.

O the 14 schemes with an indicative BCR o more than one (seeAppendix 2 or an outline description), six are on existing reight orheritage lines, while three are on recently closed reight lines wheremost o the in rastructure remains in place. The other ve would usepart o the ormation o lines closed some years ago.

O the new line proposals with a positive BCR, three would alsolink two separate parts o the rail network: Leicester Burton,Washington (Leamside Line) and Brownhills (Walsall Lich eld line).This would mean that the new line might have other bene ts or

reight, or or diversion during engineering works with value or the

Seven Day Railway.

StationsThe analysis also identi ed seven towns (o 15,000 population ormore) that could be served by new park & ride stations on existinglines. The results are set out below, and refect the capital costso construction, sta ng costs where applicable, and the revenueloss rom the need or longer distance services to make additionalstops. Provision o sta on two shi ts was assumed where longdistance trains call, but on local services, stations were assumed tobe unsta ed. All have a strongly positive business case, and would justi y urther analysis.

New stations: opportunities or regeneration. Ilkeston

. Results o the analysis

Town (pop) Local Authority Between And Capex m BCR Notes

Rushden* (25,300) Northants Bed ord Wellingborough 6 10.2 Irthlingborough station site

Peterlee (29,900) County Durham Sunderland Hartlepool 2 8.8 Easington station site

Kenilworth* (22,200) Warwicks Leamington Spa Coventry 4 1.7 Assumes line doubling

Ilkeston* (32,300) Derbys Nottingham Chester eld 3 4.3 Old station site

Clay Cross/ N Wing eld (21,000) Derbys Nottingham Chester eld 3 1.9 Erewash route

Ossett (21,100) W. Yorks Wake eld Hudders eld 2 9.8 Healey Mills yard

Wantage/Grove (17,900) Oxon Didcot Swindon 4 3.8 Shuttle rom Didcot

[Note: marginal uel and maintenance costs o stopping trains not included]* Station assumed to be sta ed.


10/24


0


Map o Links and Stations with a Positive BCR


11/24


Link linesIn the course o the study, 16 other links connecting arms o thenetwork were considered, shown in Appendix Three. These did notprovide new rail access to towns over 15,000, so have not beenevaluated as part o this study. However, it is apparent that someo them might provide new journey opportunities that are notcurrently possible by rail, as well as diversionary routes, bringingadded resilience to the network. ATOC will be giving urtherconsideration to how the potential bene ts o links like thesemight be identi ed and evaluated.

For example, there is no east west connection between theBirmingham Leicester Peterborough line in the north and theNorth London line in the south. This suggests potential bene tso the Ox ord Bletchley scheme, proposed by the East/WestConsortium o local authorities, which could provide the basis or aninterurban link rom Reading and Ox ord to Milton Keynes, Bed ord,Corby and Peterborough (via a spur at Manton). This would provide

or the substantial housing development and the two eco townsproposed in this corridor. It could also have a role or reight tra c,relieving capacity on other radial routes rom London.

Eco TownsThe Governments proposed eco-towns are shown in AppendixFour, together with their proximity to the rail network. Whilst theconcept has been challenged, the principle o sustainable newsettlements to provide additional homes to match the growth inpopulation and change in household size is recognised. Locatingany signi cant new settlements in places without good links tothe rail network would certainly represent a missed opportunity.O the 15 Eco Towns currently proposed, nine sites are within

ve kilometres o an existing station. One o the six that isurther away is Bordon, where a connecting link is proposed

in this paper, and has a positive business case, while WesternOtmoor would be served by the Ox ord Milton Keynes proposaldescribed above.

Community Railways and Heritage LinesIn addition to lines identi ed as potential new links to thenational network in this study, another workstream driven by theprivate sector is looking at property developments where newlines might provide the rail transport required to support them,but would also bring wider community bene ts as well. Proposalsby Kilbride Group have considered a number o potential newlines including an extension o the Tamar Valley Line to Tavistock,a town o 12,000 population.

This study includes use o heritage railways to link major townssuch as Rawtenstall and Brixham, but does not consider thequestion o running public transport (rather than tourist) serviceson sel contained heritage lines. One example is the Keighley &Worth Valley line in West Yorkshire, where the towns o Oxenhopeand Haworth could be linked to Northerns success ul Aire Valleyservice rom Keighley to Leeds. In general, though, the speed andmethods o operation o heritage railways do not make themsuitable or operation o commuter services, and risk detracting

rom their primary role in terms o tourism development.

On some o the routes proposed, the principles o theGovernments Community Rail Development Strategy could beused both to reduce costs o provision and to increase earningsby embedding the new line within the local community.

. Other potential schemes



12/24


2


Practical considerationsThe team that undertook this analysis has visited all o theroutes described, to establish that each was capable o beingengineered to meet the requirements. This does not mean thatthese are the only routes, or the best routes, only that they arephysically possible.

The next steps would be to discuss the proposals in more detailwith the organisations concerned, particularly local authorities,Network Rail, D T and the owners o the heritage railwaysincluded. Following this, a detailed engineering survey wouldbe required, consideration o routing and station options, and amore detailed analysis o costs and bene ts, be ore proposalscould move to public consultation. Potential sources o undingin addition to ares income, include the private sector (briefydescribed above), Regional Funding Allowance, PTE or localauthority contribution, and Government rail unding in CP5(2014-19) and beyond, and these could be considered urtheronce these initial studies had been completed.

Approvals processFor the reinstated routes (where the track has been removed),a Transport & Works Act Order would be required or, ollowingimplementation o the Planning Act, 2008, rom April 2010onwards, a new process leading to approval by the Secretaryo State or Communities and Local Government. New railwayswill generally need to be designated as projects o nationalsigni cance under this Act, although there is provision orDevelopment Orders to be made or more modest schemes,within an overarching National Policy Statement by theSecretary o State covering the route or the area. Whilst theTWA process was open ended, the new Planning Act process istime limited and should speed up the consideration o new lineproposals providing the case has been thoroughly researchedand properly presented.

For the upgraded reight routes, a Development Order wouldnot be required, but it is likely that planning consent would beneeded or access to new stations and car parks.

Once a decision has been made to proceed with a project,depending on complexity, the planning timescale under the newprocess typically could be:

1. Route planning and optioneering one to two years2. Consultation six to nine months3. Determination o Development Order application three to

teen months4. Mobilisation, construction, testing, commissioning one to

two years. Total 2.75 to six years.

This process is quick compared with that required or other newlines (20 years or HS1, or example) or even or major upgrading(ten years or WCML). Much o the work required would be onsites away rom the existing network and there ore less disruptivein terms o line possessions required or the engineering work.As with the case o Ebbw Vale, the work could be carried out byseparate contractors, to Network Rail standards, and trans erredonce completed.

Corby: now integrated with East Midlands Trains core service

. Delivery and operational issues


13/24


E ect on network per ormanceIn general, the new lines proposed will not have an adverse e ecton the operational per ormance o the existing railway. O the14 schemes with a positive BCR, eight could be provided by anextension or diversion o existing services, with relatively littleimpact on network capacity. The other six would be new serviceswhich would take up additional capacity on the main lines to whichthey are connected. This would require detailed work with NetworkRail to ensure that the new trains could both be accommodatedand provide optimum connections with existing services.

In some cases, their introduction might need to awaitenhancements on the main line or at the terminating point- or, in some cases, creation o additional capacity throughthe construction o a new line. In other cases, the new serviceidenti ed in this study might be linked to other terminatingservices to avoid the layover period and taking up capacity atmain line stations.

Route/site sa eguardingIn the course o undertaking this study, a number o corridorswith promising market potential were examined, but where therewas no physical possibility o restoring a rail route. In many cases,most o the route was undeveloped, but a ew key points wereblocked by buildings or highway structures that now make therail corridor completely unusable.

With the bene t o hindsight, many o the decisions on uturestrategic in rastructure requirements have proved to be wrong.Given the demographic changes o the last 40 years and thoselikely over the next 40, an essential lesson to learn is how best toprotect the solum o ormer railway lines, where they may be o

uture strategic signi cance.

Routes blocked at key points: Daventry

We believe that this should be initiated by the rail industry,using criteria to be agreed with D T Rail and local and regionalauthorities, to avoid sterilising land that would never berequired or railway use again. Sa eguarding would then be bylocal authorities through the Local Development Framework,supplemented by Government guidance or schemes o widerregional or national importance.

In addition to sa eguarding, passive provision or the mostpromising new links could sensibly be made when track andsignalling alterations are carried out on existing routes whichwould be used by the new services. This would allow, orexample, a junction to be laid in at a subsequent date withoutthe need to resignal the whole area. The RUS process should beused to determine where passive provision should be made.



14/24


The 20 schemes shown as having a BCR o 1.5 or better(with or without in rastructure costs) should be reviewed inthe light o the consultation responses to this study, with thecosts and bene ts re ned/updated using NATA, and in thelight o increasing population and employment gures.

This work should be undertaken be ore the end o the currentnancial year, to eed into the other studies in hand on

enhancement o the national rail in rastructure.

Early conclusions will also be help ul, given the long leadtime or new rail projects and the need to link schemes withregional spatial strategies and local plans, as well as withthe rail planning process.

The schemes listed that have a positive BCR should then betaken orward as part o the Route Utilisation Strategy orthe connecting or adjacent routes, including making passiveprovision where appropriate.

A policy on identi ying and sa eguarding the most promisingroutes should be agreed with D T over the next year andimplemented as early as possible to prevent urther losso sites. ATOC should initiate the analysis to con rm the

requirement or passenger routes, working with trainoperators. This work should proceed quickly because o therisk o urther encroachment rom development.

The list o schemes should be reviewed rom time to timein the light o changing demographic trends and thecomparative costs o motoring and rail travel.

Further analysis should be undertaken o the case or new orreinstated link lines to improve the capacity and fexibility o thenetwork as well as to increase urther the access points to it.

A step up or local communities

. Recommendations


15/24


9. AcknowledgementsInput and advice or this study is grate ully acknowledged rom train operating companies, Network Rail, the Department or Transportand a number o local authorities.

New services to meet changing demand


16/24


Appendix OneInitial Outline Evaluation o Links (Ranked by BCR)

Town Location Capex m BCR Excl Capex# Reduces pressure at:

Hythe* Hampshire 3 4.8 - Southampton

Brixham+ Devon Nil 3.0 - Newton Abbot

Bordon Hampshire 50 1.9 - Farnham, Liphook

Fleetwood Lancashire 14 1.8 - Preston

Rawtenstall+ Lancashire 50 1.8 - Manchester, Rochdale, Bury

Aldridge* Walsall 6 1.7 - X City North stns

Brownhills (part ) Walsall 52 1.7 - X City North stnsCranleigh Surrey 63 1.7 - Guild ord

Ringwood Hampshire 70 1.5 5.9 Southampton Apt

Washington (Leamside) Tyne & Wear 86 1.4 N/A Durham, Sunderland

Leicester to Burton* Leics/Derbys 49 1.3 2.9 Leicester, Burton

Skelmersdale Lancashire 31 1.1 2.73 Kirkby, Wigan

Ashington and Blyth* Northumberland 34 1.1 2.4 Newcastle

Wisbech Cambridgeshire 12 1.1 1.8 Peterborough, March

Madeley* Sta ordshire 8 1.0 1.3 Sta ord, Stoke

Stourport-on-Severn Worcestershire 29 0.9 3.2 Kidderminster, Stourbridge Jnc

Ripon N. Yorkshire 100 0.6 4.3 Thirsk, York

Norton Radstock (part*) Bath/NE Som 62 0.6 3.0 Bath Spa

Portishead* N. Somerset 29 Bristol Parkway

Witney Ox ordshire 95 0.5 1.8 Ox ord, Didcot Pkwy

Ann eld Plain via Washington Co Durham 209 0.4 2.2 Durham

Biddulph Sta ordshire 45 0.4 1.5 Stoke on Trent, Congleton, Crewe

Spennymoor Co Durham 45 0.4 1.2 Darlington

Dereham+ Nor olk 30 0.4 0.7 Norwich

Thornbury (part*) S. Glos 17 0.4 0.6 Bristol Parkway

Leek/Stoke Sta ordshire 48 0.3 1.3 Stoke on Trent

Haverhill Cambridgeshire 120 0.3 1.1 Audley End

Guisborough N. Yorkshire 30 0.3 0.8 Middlesbrough, NorthallertonLeek/Maccles eld Sta s/ Cheshire 82 0.2 1.4 Stoke, Maccles eld

Bide ord Devon 80 0.2 1.3 Tiverton Parkway

Daventry Northants 216 0.2 1.2 Northampton

Ripley Derbyshire 49 0.2 0.9 Derby

Anston* S. Yorkshire 20 0.2 0.3 Worksop, Ret ord

Louth Lincolnshire 142 0.1 0.6 Newark

Ann eld Plain via ECML Tyne & Wear 123 0.1 0.5 Chester le Street, Durham

Including road user bene ts* Link would use an existing operational reight railway+ Link would use an existing heritage railway subject to agreement

Link would use an existing mothballed reight railway# Not shown where the BCR (including capex) exceeds 1.5 Indicative BCR requires reassessment; see note at end o Appendix 2


0. Appendices


17/24


18/24


Brownhills: Stations: Pelsall and Brownhills. Population: 46,000 (including Burntwood). Location: between Lich eld and Walsall. Catchment area: a station at Brownhills would also provide a

railhead or Burntwood or journeys to Walsall and Birmingham. Current rail access: via Cross City Line North stations such as

Four Oaks (6.5 miles rom Brownhills). Proposed link: single track line, 10 miles long rom Ryecro t

Junction to Lich eld City, or 4.75 miles just to Brownhills. A

crossing loop at Brownhills would be required i the wholeroute to Lich eld was reopened. Formation: the section between Walsall (Ryecro t Junction)

and Brownhills is the ormation o a ormer railway, whilethe remainder to Lich eld would take over a disused reightroute. Four level crossings required.

Indicative capital cost: Walsall Brownhills: 52m; Brownhills Lich eld: 70m. Electri cation not assumed.

Train service: hourly Walsall to Brownhills or Lich eld service. Notes: being considered or inclusion in the West Midlands

RUS. The restoration o the Walsall Brownhills Lich eld lineor reight is proposed by Centro in its strategic plan, to release

capacity on other routes serving Birmingham. Longer term, theBrownhills route could orm part o an interurban service romBirmingham to Walsall, Brownhills, Lich eld, Burton and Derby.

Cranleigh: Stations: Cranleigh and Bramley. Population: 11,000 (including Bramley). Location: eight miles south o Guild ord. Catchment area: a station at Cranleigh would also serve

a wider rural catchment area to the south between thePortsmouth and Arun Valley lines.

Current rail access: via Guild ord or Godalming stations, atboth o which car parking is extensive, but ully utilised.

Proposed link: single track electri ed line, using the ormationo the ormer Guild ord Horsham line. 7 miles long romPeasmarsh Junction. Two level crossings required.

Formation: mostly converted to cycleway, part o the NationalCycle Network.

Indicative capital cost: 63m. Train service: hal hourly. Waterloo Guild ord stopping service

extended. Option to change to ast service to London at Guild ord. Notes: the National Cycle route would need to be

accommodated alongside the line. Sensitive section throughBramley where the ormer station is landscaped and orms anattractive recreational area.

Fleetwood: Stations: Thornton and Fleetwood. Population: 58,000 (Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood). Location: Fylde coast, just north o Blackpool. Catchment area: major residential area and Fleetwood Port. Possible use by reight i reinstated. Current rail access: via Poulton-le-Fylde (limited parking),

Blackpool North (bus or tram link) or Preston. Proposed link: single track line, 5.5 miles long rom Poulton-

le-Fylde junction.

Formation: available throughout. Track in place as ar as BurnNaze (4.5 miles). Three level crossings on this section. Thiswould be extended a urther mile north to a new station siteat Fleetwood, using the ormation o the ormer railway.

Indicative capital cost: 14m. Train service: hourly Preston - Fleetwood. Notes: the junction at Poulton le Fylde has recently been

renewed. Group already established to consider reopening,including Northern, Network Rail and local authorities.

Hythe:

Station: Hythe. Population: 19,500. Location: South o Southampton Water, bordering the New Forest. Catchment area: Dibden Purlieu, Black eld and Fawley. Current rail access: via erry rom Hythe to Southampton

Town Quay. Via Totton station (seven miles rom Hythe) orSouthampton station (11 miles rom Hythe by road).

Proposed link: using existing single track reight line, nonelectri ed. Seven miles long rom Totton on main Waterloo Weymouth line. 13 level crossings.

Formation: in use as reight line, with crossing loop at Marchwood.

Indicative capital cost: 3m. Train service: hourly. Possibly linked with Chandlers Ford

service to provide direct links rom Hythe to Southampton,Southampton Airport and Romsey.

Notes: the evaluation is based on a diesel service, butelectri cation o the seven miles rom Hythe to Tottonshould also be evaluated, possibly linked with other servicesterminating at Southampton. The need or urther track andsignalling enhancement would depend on the uture reightrequirement which would need to be protected.



19/24


9


Leicester Burton: Stations: Kirby Muxloe, Bagworth, Coalville, Ashby-de-la-

Zouch, Moira, Gresley ( or Swadlincote). Population: 94,000 in the corridor (excluding Leicester and Burton). Location: links the Midland Main Line at Knighton Junction,

just south o Leicester, with the Birmingham Derby line justsouth o Burton on Trent.

Catchment area: in addition to the towns served directly,larger settlements at Ibstock, Whitwick, Measham andWoodville would be served by railhead stations.

Current rail access: Leicester (14 miles rom Coalville, andBurton (six miles rom Swadlincote).

Proposed link: 29 miles rom Knighton Junction, Leicesterto Leicester Junction, Burton. Using existing reight lineupgraded or higher speed and with additional capacityprovided through additional signal sections and an additionalcrossing loop on the single track sections. Just over hal theroute is double track. Seven level crossings.

Formation: intact throughout. Indicative capital cost: 49m. Train service: hourly. Leicester Burton or Derby. Notes: Coalville Leicester is being considered or inclusion in

the East Midlands RUS. The railway runs through the NationalForest, with its centre located near the proposed station at Moira.

Rawtenstall: Stations: Heywood, Bury (Bolton Street), Summerseat,

Ramsbottom, Irwell Vale, Rawtenstall. Population: 95,000 in Heywood Rawtenstall corridor,

excluding Bury. Location: a group o larger towns north and east o Bury,

along the Irwell valley. Catchment area: the line would also provide convenient

access to Manchester rom Bacup (via Rawtenstall) andHaslingden (via Ramsbottom). Current rail access: rom Rawtenstall via Rochdale (10

miles) or rom Ramsbottom via Bury and Metrolink ( ourmiles). From Heywood to Castleton (two miles) or by bus toManchester (eight miles).

Proposed link: single track line, using the route to the civilengineering depot between Castleton South Junction andHeywood, and seeking permission to use the East LancashireRailway (a heritage line) between Heywood and Rawtenstall.14.25 miles long rom Castleton South Junction. Line speedimprovements above 25 mph. Five level crossings.

Formation: all currently used as a railway. Signallingalterations would be needed to use the route rom Heywoodto Castleton South Junction by passenger trains. Discussionswould be required with the East Lancashire Railway toestablish how paths or the commuter service could best beprovided between Heywood and Rawtenstall.

Indicative capital cost: 50m. Train service: hourly. New service rom Manchester Victoria to

Rawtenstall via Heywood. Notes: Bury Interchange is already served by Manchester

Metrolink. Interchange with Metrolink at Bury KnowsleyStreet could be considered.

Ringwood: Station: Ringwood. Population: 25,000 (Ferndown, including Ringwood). Location: 12 miles north east o Bournemouth. Catchment area: a station at Ringwood would serve the

northern part o the Bournemouth/Poole conurbationspread along the A 31, including Ferndown, West Moors andWimborne, as well as the rural area to the north, includingVerwood and Fordingbridge.

Current rail access: via Bournemouth or Christchurch,although tra c congestion is a real constraint, particularly inthe peak. Alternative access to Southampton Airport Parkwayvia the A31/M27/M3.

Proposed link: single track electri ed line, using the ormationo the ormer Brockenhurst Wimborne - Poole line. 10 mileslong rom Lymington Junction (Brockenhurst). Four levelcrossings required.

Formation: intact, but blocked at Ringwood by the A31. Indicative capital cost: 70m. Train service: hourly assumed or evaluation, provided by

a diverted service rom Waterloo. Alternatively the Victoria Southampton service could be extended, with the option tochange to ast Waterloo services at Southampton.

Note: the reinstated line would run through the New ForestNational Park.


20/24


20


Skelmersdale: Station: Skelmersdale (potential or additional station

at Westhead, but not evaluated). Population: 39,000. Location: six miles west o Wigan. Catchment area: Skelmersdale new town. Current rail access: via Kirkby, Upholland or Wigan. Proposed link: single track electri ed line, using the ormation

o the ormer Ormskirk Rain ord Junction line. 3 miles longrom Ormskirk.

Formation: mostly intact, but deviation to north o Westhead required.

Indicative capital cost: 31m. Train service: our trains per hour, extended rom Ormskirk. Notes: station would be on north west corner o town near

the Skelmersdale Ring Road.

Washington (Leamside Line): Station: Washington. Population: 53,400. Location: eight miles south o Newcastle.

Catchment area: large urban area between the East CoastMain Line and Durham Coast line. Washington would alsoserve South Hylton and the west o Sunderland.

Current rail access: via Pelaw (4 miles) or Newcastle (8 miles)stations to the north, and via Chester-le-Street (4 miles) orDurham (11 miles) or journeys to the South.

Proposed link: single track line, with dynamic loop, using theabandoned route o the Leamside line. 20.75 miles long romPelaw to Ferryhill. Five level crossings.

Formation: intact throughout, with much o the track in place,but would require renewal and signalling.

Indicative capital cost: 86m. Train service: hourly. Various options or local and regional

services exist, but or the purpose o evaluation, it wasassumed that the Newcastle Manchester AirportTranspennine service was diverted to serve Washington withthe provision o a car park and bus links as a base or longdistance journeys as well as local trips to Newcastle. Goodinterchange at York or the West Midlands and London.

Notes: i a local service were also provided, other stationsat major settlements such as Usworth, Fencehouses andLeamside should also be evaluated.

Wisbech: Stations: Wisbech Town; possible additional park and ride

station adjacent to A47. Population: 26,500 (50,000 in wider station catchment area). Location: between Peterborough and Kings Lynn, ten miles

north o March. Catchment area: a station at Wisbech would also serve a

wider catchment area o villages and towns such as LongSutton, to the north between the Peterborough Spaldingand the Kings Lynn lines.

Current rail access: via March, ten miles, Downham Market,12 miles, or Peterborough, 20 miles.

Proposed link: single track line, using the ormer reight linewhich remains in situ. 7 miles long rom March WhitemoorJunction. Eight level crossings required.

Formation: intact to reight terminal, about 600m romWisbech town centre. New station site required on ormationo line.

Indicative capital cost: 12m. Train service: hourly Wisbech March Peterborough, new

service proposed. Could be linked with Cross Countrysproposed extension o Birmingham Leicester service toPeterborough.

Notes: signalling alterations required at March to avoidconfict with Network Rails Whitemoor depot.

Portishead Supplementary noteWhilst the BCR calculated on the gures available was only0.6 (1.3 excluding capex) a number o actors mean that thisscheme requires urther analysis with more recent data. Inparticular, the population has risen rom 17,000 at the 2001census to 21,000 today, with a urther 2,000 planned be ore2014. Tra c congestion at Junction 19 o the M5 (the sole route

between Portishead and Bristol) has become chronic. Theseactors are likely to push to BCR over 1.0, which would justi yurther evaluation.


21/24


2

Appendix ThreeOther Potential Link LinesList o link lines considered during the preparation o this report (see paragraph six.) These were scoped to establish physical easibility,but not evaluated. Other link lines may be worth evaluation and the list is not exhaustive.

Line Connecting To Notes

Bishop Stort ord Braintree Colchester

Liv St Cambridge Liv St Norwich Also links with Witham Braintree branch

Burscough Curves Ormskirk Preston Wigan Southport

Chessington S Leatherhead Waterloo Chessington S Waterloo Leatherhead - Horsham

Glazebrook Partington Liverpool Manchester(Chat Moss route)

Liverpool Manchester via Warrington Freight route avoiding Manchester Piccadilly

Lewes Uck eld London Uck eld Brighton Eastbourne

Matlock Buxton Derby Matlock Buxton Manchester

March Spalding Ely Peterborough Peterborough Spalding Felixstowe NE/NW reight route avoiding ECML

Ox ord Bletchley with Manton curve Reading BirminghamChiltern Line

West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Lineand East Coast Main Line

East/West route; Reading to Peterborough

Northampton Bed ord West Coast Main Line Midland Main Line

Rugby - Peterborough West Coast Main Line East Coast Main Line Could connect with Midland Main Line at MarketHarborough

Skipton Colne Leeds Carlisle Colne Burnley Also links Aire Valley and Manchester

Sta ord Wellington West Coast Main Line Wolverhampton ShrewsburyStourbridge Walsall Worcester Birmingham SH Stech ord Bescot Wolverhampton Freight route

Whelley Lines West Coast Main Line Additional capacity through Wigan

Willingdon Chord London Eastbourne Eastbourne Hastings Ash ordInternational

Woodhead Route Manchester Had eld She eld Ret ord



22/24


22

Appendix FourEco Towns and Rail LinksA list o the Governments proposed sites or Eco towns and their proximity to the railway.



23/24

Appendix FiveHow to RespondWe would welcome comments and suggestions on this booklet.Constructive comments will help us re ne our thinking, be o value to train operators in improving access to their train services,and in orm our input to Route Utilisation Studies.

We would like to know in particular, whether you agree that thecomponents o the business case described here are the rightones, or whether additional criteria should apply. Remember that

it will be important to be able to quanti y any other criteria ineconomic terms, so that nancial comparisons can be made toestablish priorities or investment.

We would also welcome responses on the schemes that we havesuggested are worth urther study. We have tried to identi y thosewhich appear to be the most worthwhile with the best businesscase, and to list those that just all short o the rate o returnrequired. However, we would accept that the results are sensitiveto quite small variations in costs or bene ts and we would wantto know i we have missed any opportunities. Please bear in mindthat the criterion or inclusion is that o linking communities notcurrently served by rail where this would provide value or money.This study does not look at other network links where no majornew communities are served, although this could orm the basiso a uture study.

This is not a ormal consultation, but it would be help ul to knowyour views and we are happy to answer questions raised in thereport. Please send us your thoughts by 31st July to:

Russ Cunningham,Head o Rail Planning,Association o Train Operating CompaniesThird Floor,

40, Bernard StreetLondon WC1N 1BY

Or you can e-mail them to:[email protected]


2


24/24

3rd Floor40 Bernard StreetLondon

Connecting Communities Report

Documents