Scotland Route Utilisation Strategy Generation Two; consultation draft. Response by the City of Edinburgh Council

Transcription

1 Scotland Route Utilisation Strategy Generation Two; consultation draft Response by the City of Edinburgh Council The document indicates expected passenger growth of 90% to 115% by 2024 in the Edinburgh area, largely resulting from major committed schemes. It argues that it is not prudent to apply these rates to corridors that are not affected by these schemes. The additional capacity provided by EGIP is expected to suffice to around Whilst the Council would not deny that this is a possible scenario, there is a degree of risk in expecting such significant growth but assuming it can be contained within planned capacity. It does not allow for any spill-over, for example (i.e. given the scale of growth, given that it will be greater on some services and less on others, and given that actual demand will be higher or lower than predicted on some services, there is no buffer of spare capacity to accommodate demand that is higher than predicted). The assessments of future demand are based on sources such as the Transport Model for Scotland and the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (adjusted in the light of past experience comparing predicted with actual growth). Network Rail could perhaps also use projections from local planning and economic development plans. The document notes current significant spread in the Edinburgh peak period, with EGIP providing spare shoulder-peak capacity, and describes incentives to spread peak travel as particularly important. As initiatives to spread peak travel have yet to be tried and tested, it may well be imprudent to depend on them delivering a solution in future. If the projected growth is realised, it will have a significant impact on the transport networks bringing passengers to and from Waverley in particular, and Haymarket. The Council will look to work with the rail industry to address the challenges this will bring. Given the projected need for two new electric depots, (stabling/cleaning, and maintenance) in the next Control Period, the City of Edinburgh Council will wish to be closely involved in the development of these plans. We note that further additional capacity could be created by terminating some trains at Haymarket. The document notes current plans to provide High Speed Anglo-Scottish services from London to Scotland (HS2) and notes that current capacity at Edinburgh is insufficient for such services. The Council has commenced steps to address its role in the relevant planning process, which Network Rail may wish to be aware of. The Council is not clear that the actions recommended in the document have sufficient scale and ambition to deliver the strategic vision set out by the Scottish Government, notably in the Strategic Transport Projects Review. Locally, for example, it might be observed that the level of direct service between Edinburgh and some of Scotland s largest towns will continue to be poor. For example, Paisley, East Kilbride, and Kilmarnock (respectively the 6 th, 7 th, and 8 th largest populations in Scotland) would have no direct service to the capital even over the longest term timescale. 1

2 We suggest a document with a long-term timescale, such as this, might set out some visionary aspirations for the network at the end of this period, which would point to gaps which are not currently listed. For example, developing a strategic service level with at least half-hourly frequencies on all Central Belt services, and hourly or half-hourly on longer distances; this could be allied to a vision with regard to journey times. It would lead to practical conclusions such as a need for a regular quarter-hourly pattern on the Fife circle, and half-hourly service to stations in East Lothian; that, while 2 semi-fast trains/hr Edinburgh-Glasgow Central via Shotts and Carstairs is welcome, potential alternate journey times of 1hr 7min and 1hr 20min are too slow over the long-term, especially as The additional capacity provided by EGIP is expected to be sufficient to around 2030, particularly if increased use can be made of the improved services from Glasgow Central via Shotts and Carstairs. The Council notes that there is no reference to reintroducing passenger services on the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway. Given the position of the Scottish Government on this matter this is not surprising, but it is disappointing. Given the proposed gauge clearance of the ECML to W10 (Freight 3.1) from Doncaster to Carstairs junction, via the ESSR, we support electrification of the ESSR as part of this programme. Other Network Rail documents indicate that there is a good case for electrification. Ultimately, given the capacity constraints in central Edinburgh, we believe that the ESSR will need to be used in some form for future passenger services. As the consultation document indicates that feedback on options to address the gaps identified is particularly welcome, selected options are set out below, together with the Council s feedback. Edinburgh conurbation Gaps The principal gap is peak capacity. This section includes commuter trains from Fife (Linlithgow is in the interurban section). By 2019 even with committed schemes some corridors into central Edinburgh would experience load factors exceeding 100% for more than 10 minutes. Edinburgh 1.1 Fife train lengthening By 2019 load factors on some services will exceed 100%. The option selectively lengthens Fife to Edinburgh trains. Recommended for implementation to increase capacity if higher growth occurs. In implementing the option, ways to minimise the mileage of the additional vehicles need to be considered. Edinburgh 1.2 additional stop in Fife services Loads on high-peak trains are not balanced equally. The option alters stopping patterns between Inverkeithing and Haymarket to help balance loads between peak trains. The RUS recommends the option to manage loads on trains., but needs to ensure that any changes do not disadvantage existing passengers. Edinburgh 1.3 extend Prestonpans service to Drem Some peak arrivals from North Berwick are forecast to have crowding by 2019, while the high peak arrival from Prestonpans has spare capacity. The option extends that service back to Drem to abstract passengers from North Berwick trains. Recommended as a cost effective way to reduce crowding in the short term., but we are not content with the proposed consequence of not running through to Haymarket. 2

3 Edinburgh 1.4 North Berwick as three- or six-car operation Crowding on the four-car services cannot be relieved by train lengthening as platform lengths cannot support seven/eight-car formations. The option investigates possible fleet compositions on the North Berwick line. The option is sensitive to the seating capacity provided, with the best case realised by higher density suburban type rolling stock. The RUS recommends that the rolling stock policy is kept under review to deliver this solution in the long term. CEC comment; we have reservations about the use of high density stock, as this may downgrade the passenger experience. The ideal long-term option is presumably lengthening platforms. Interurban gaps The RUS identified gaps as capacity from Stirling to Edinburgh and Glasgow, peak capacity at Inverness and Aberdeen, and service frequency and journey times between key regional centres and the central belt. Interurban 1.1 third high peak train Stirling to Edinburgh The post EGIP standard timetable includes two tph between Stirling and Edinburgh. The option provides an additional high-peak service. Recommended for implementation. Interurban 1.2 weekend train lengthening Capacity constraints forecast on some weekend services. The option lengthens trains on weekends between Stirling and Edinburgh. Recommended for implementation. Interurban 2.2 train lengthening of Aberdeen services Lengthening crowded services into and out of Aberdeen in the morning and evening peaks. Lengthened trains would have to operate from their origin (Edinburgh or Glasgow) to Aberdeen although the seats would be required for less than 20 minutes per journey. The high operating costs of longer trains to and from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness mean that the option cannot be recommended. Interurban 3.2 recasting Aberdeen to Central Belt as express services Revises service to reduce journey times between Aberdeen and the major centres in Scotland. The specification includes one tph express Aberdeen Dundee Haymarket Edinburgh, one Aberdeen Dundee Perth Glasgow Queen Street and one tph all stations Aberdeen-Dundee on existing infrastructure. Not viable with existing rolling stock as trains passed each hour on the Montrose Usan single line section. Even with the highest speed rolling stock the journey time aspirations identified in the STPR could not be realised. Would require four additional three-car units. Not recommended due to the impact on freight services and passengers at intermediate stations. Interurban 3.3 recasting the Aberdeen to Central belt timetable on improved infrastructure Timetable concept as interurban 3.2 but additional infrastructure Montrose Usan. This is outlined in the STPR and the RUS developed this option in more detail. The option would reduce journey times and remove pathing time for northbound services. Four additional three-car units would be required for the additional Aberdeen to Dundee services. The changes may allow linking the Aberdeen Dundee service to the Dundee Edinburgh services, permitting a direct connection between smaller stations and Edinburgh. Three options were considered to remove the constraint at Montrose Usan: a) double the current single section and viaducts b) build new line of route from Montrose keeping as straight as possible to Boddin c) divert the railway via the old solum through Frockheim Option b) was preferred Based on current passenger numbers this option cannot be recommended due the high cost of construction and operation. The Tier 3 process will consider what further work is required to test this or an alternative option further. CEC comment; As the single track section at Montrose/Usan is clearly a strategic bottleneck with geographically widespread impacts, this is a surprising conclusion. We consider that the benefits of removing this constraint are wider than those associated with current passenger numbers. They could include, for example, allowing greater timetable flexibility at Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Council agrees with the Scottish Government s priority of reducing journey times; Aberdeencentral belt is one of the corridors to which this most clearly applies, and evidently without 3

4 building a new line the STPR s journey time aspirations cannot be met. It is essential that a way to progress it is identified. Interurban 3.4 review of Linespeeds There are locations where linespeeds are not as high as the rolling stock could achieve. A review of speed restrictions identified: a) potential to increase linespeed through Dock Street tunnel north of Dundee b) Perth station could benefit from a revised layout or differential speeds c) Perth-Barnhill could be improved by moving the double to single connection at Barnhill to the straight d) remodelling of Arbroath station could increase the linespeed. Options a) c) could be viable if undertaken at the same time as other works, but are unlikely to have a case as standalone schemes. The recommendation is that opportunities for linespeed upgrades are considered when future works take place. Interurban 3.6 journey times and frequencies Inverness Central Belt Considers the improved journey times between Inverness and the Central Belt following infrastructure changes and identifies further opportunities to reduce journey times. Results of the analysis have been passed to the Tier 3 development project considering the Highland Main Line. Freight gaps Specific freight gaps and options include capacity for freight growth, freight performance and gauge clearance on the ECML. Freight 1.1 doubling Slateford Jn Reduce passenger delays by removing the need for eastbound freight trains to run via the westbound platform at Slateford. Not recommended for implementation because of the poor BCR. The RUS recommends that land adjacent to the junction is protected so that a scheme to redouble the junction could be developed when the infrastructure is renewed., though presumably there will be a better case when passenger services through Slateford increase. Freight 3.1 gauge clearance of the East Coast Main Line north of Newcastle Clears the gauge to W10 from Temple Hirst Jn near Doncaster to Carstairs junction, via the ESSR. This would create a second W10 route to Scotland permitting trains from English east coast ports to access central Scotland. Recommend for implementation based on above conservative business case. Network availability 1.2 overnight service between Edinburgh Glasgow Provides an all night service between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Recommended that the service starts one hour earlier. This option should be further developed in the EGIP timetable. CEC comment; A welcome start. However, we consider research carried out for GECI indicates scope for more extensive overnight service than recommended here. Edinburgh Waverley capacity The introduction of Airdrie to Bathgate, EGIP and Borders services will change service frequencies; coupled with this is the potential High Speed line. The baseline for the 2019 analysis of terminal capacity was the post EGIP timetable; the service level and formations can be accommodated within the 2016 infrastructure. The post EGIP layout can also broadly cope with services lengthened to 2030 formations. This included lengthening services from Birmingham (via ECML and WCML) and Manchester; lengthening of North Berwick, Newcraighall extended to Tweedbank and Glasgow via Shotts services. Accommodating these trains relies on the Birmingham (via ECML) service being extended to Glasgow, freeing platform capacity at Waverley. In 2030, two additional HS2 (London) services per hour and a Birmingham service were considered, plus two additional trains per hour from the Borders and an hourly Birmingham WCML service. The post EGIP layout can accommodate all except the HS2 services, due to their length. There is likely to be a change in pedestrian demand, in the station the impact of which is difficult to model as it is largely determined by the timetable and platform workings. The RUS recommends that where there is a step change in service provision the toolkit approach to station crowding developed in the Network RUS: Stations is applied. 4

5 CEC comment; We are pleased that Waverley appears to be able to accommodate significant future service improvements without requiring further extensive works. Nevertheless, the 2030 scenario (set out as two additional HS2 London services/hr and a Birmingham service, plus two additional Borders trains/hr and an hourly Birmingham WCML service) will, in our view, need to be addressed. We question whether doubling the existing Birmingham WCML service would be useful if there is a HS2 Birmingham service. It is also important to be clear whether the layout can accommodate all except the HS2 services, due to their length depends on an assumption of 2x400m trains/hr. Nevertheless, we note that previous analysis of Waverley station identified scope for further capacity improvement if required. 5