July London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy

Transcription

1 Juy 2011 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy

2 Contents 3 Foreword 5 Executive Summary Background Scope and panning context Consutation Process Overview of train operations, recent demand and performance Morning peak to London committed schemes and other previous strategy Morning peak to London future demand Capacity gaps and options beyond previous strategy Potentia new ines Freight in South East Engand Strategy to Soent and South Hampshire 222 Appendix A 223 Gossary

3 Foreword Passenger numbers continue to rise on neary a routes into London, with strong increases returning foowing the recession. Additiona capacity wi be required, deivered in a manner ever more focused on deivering better vaue for money This Route Utiisation Strategy (RUS) provides a higheve overview and a consistent approach to capacity panning for the next 20 years for a rai routes into London. It is in this part of the country where pubic transport usage is at its highest, the rai network in and around the capita is therefore fundamentay inked to the quaity of ife of arge numbers of peope and to the success of the economy of the country as a whoe. The RUS strategy is based upon adding capacity to meet growing demand, where this can be justified and achieved. London s transport system wi soon incude Thamesink and the centra London Crossrai route, but we now need to ook further ahead On many routes the focus is on impementing previousy pubished strategy, with construction works now we underway at severa ocations in and around the capita. Ongoing committed schemes incude Thamesink, Crossrai and a significant programme of patform engthening, together with the ordering of more than 1,800 new carriages for use in and around the Capita. Beyond this the priority is on commencing work on other eements of existing strategy, incuding deveopment of a new high speed rai network which wi free up commuter capacity into London from key growth areas such as Miton Keynes and Northamptonshire. However, previousy pubished strategy needs updating on certain routes, with additiona interventions now needing consideration to refect the atest forecasts of future passenger numbers. The RUS therefore provides new or updated recommendations for the Great Western, West Angia, Great Eastern and South West main ines, and for the busy orbita rai network around the Capita. Consistent with Sir Roy McNuty s Vaue for Money study our anaysis for new ine-of-route capacity interventions in this RUS has sought to avoid major capita expenditure uness absoutey necessary, and in a cases apart from the South West Main Line, this appears to be achievabe through reativey modest works. However, the main ine route into London Wateroo wi be a onger term chaenge, with possibe soutions outined in this RUS for the onger term. In the meantime the review anticipated from the Department of Transport regarding ticket pricing structures may be one way of distributing oadings more eveny between individua trains across the day on this route and esewhere. 3

4 Foreword London s transport system wi soon incude Thamesink and the centra London Crossrai route, but we now need to ook further ahead Historicay rai journeys have generay ended with a terminus station at the edges of Centra London, rather than continuing across it. However, this wi change with an upgraded Thamesink ine and Crossrai providing a new cross-london network. The RUS outines the atest assumptions regarding possibe Thamesink service patterns and describes industry thinking for potentia future extensions to Crossrai, incuding recommendations for an extension to Reading and an extension to the West Coast Main Line. It provides an eary view on a potentia Crossrai ine 2 for the onger term, providing extra capacity across London on a southwest northeast axis and potentiay connecting into Nationa Rai ines beyond. A preferred freight routeing strategy from the growing intermoda ports is provided. Impementing this wi require further investment, but this woud enabe many freight trains between the key ports in South East Engand and distribution centres in the Midands and North to avoid traveing through the Capita during norma operations. This RUS was pubished as a Draft for Consutation in December 2010, with significant further deveopment now incuded in this fina strategy. Network Rai has ed production, but extensive input has been received from passenger and freight operators, the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Passenger Focus, London TraveWatch and many others. I thank them a for their contribution. The strategy incudes a section on the Soent/South Hampshire area, so as to provide compete nationa coverage from Network Rai s RUS programme. I woud ike to particuary thank those who have expressed an interest in this eement. Pau Pummer Group Strategy Director 4

5 Executive Summary Introduction The Network Licence requires that Network Rai pubish and maintain Route Utiisation Strategies (RUSs), which estabish the most efficient ways to use and, where appropriate, to increase network capacity in order to dea with forecast changes in demand. The London and South East RUS represents the atest such thinking for routes into and around the capita, together with other parts of South East Engand. Network Rai pubished this RUS on its website as a Draft for Consutation in December This was foowed by a 90 day consutation period, during which stakehoder briefings were hed and written responses sought from interested parties to the RUS. The many submissions received during this period have now been pubished on Network Rai s website. The RUS has invoved cose working between Network Rai and its industry stakehoders, but the anaysis it is based upon and specific content is the responsibiity of Network Rai. Since pubication of the Draft for Consutation, Network Rai has undertaken further anaysis and this, together with feedback received during the consutation and other deveopments such as the McNuty Vaue for Money study, has infuenced this fina strategy. The recommendations contained in this RUS are designed as a starting point to inform future infrastructure or train service panning, and where necessary, further anaysis. Whist the strategy is an advisory document, and its recommendations are non-binding on future decision makers, Network Rai beieves the RUS represents a robust future pan for raiway deveopment on this part of the network. Scope and panning context This London and South East RUS buids upon a number of the earier estabished RUSs previousy produced by Network Rai, which covered most of the area within its remit. This RUS extends the strategy as foows: it ooks at a corridors into London at the same time and in a consistent way to 2031, so resuts are now directy comparabe between routes and, in many cases, have a onger timescae it considers current economic conditions which, despite a strong recovery in passenger growth in the ast months, resut in differing demand forecasts from earier RUSs on certain routes and affect affordabiity in the medium term it recognises that many infrastructure projects recommended by previous RUSs for exampe the Crossrai and Thamesink Programmes, extra capacity at critica ocations such as Reading, Gatwick and Hitchin, a major programme of patform engthening and freight gauge and capacity enhancements are now under construction or committed. However, it restates most of the previous recommendations which are not yet committed, since these are sti vaid it incudes the proposed deveopment of a High Speed Rai network from London to the West Midands and beyond as a fundamenta part of its strategy. This wi provide a major increase in north south capacity between key cities, whist freeing up space on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) for improved commuter services to areas such as Miton Keynes, and for a continued shift of freight from road to rai it considers, at a strategic eve, the impacts of rai expansion on the capacity of other eements of the transport system. This particuary has invoved working cosey with Transport for London (TfL) to deveop synergies with schemes which have potentia to aeviate crowding probems on the London Underground system it fis in some previous gaps in geographic RUS coverage, principay affecting the South Hampshire and Soent area. 5

6 Executive Summary RUS baseine committed schemes The baseine for the RUS incudes committed infrastructure schemes (as defined in Network Rai s Contro Period 4 (CP4) Deivery Pan, together with subsequent announcements by Government) and committed service changes (as defined in franchise agreements between the Department for Transport (DfT) and the train operating companies). Construction of many of these schemes has now commenced. Key investments in this category incude the Crossrai, and Thamesink Programmes, Reading remodeing, eectrification of the Great Western Main Line (GWML), the Intercity Express Programme, the Evergreen 3 project on the Chitern Line, a major programme of train and patform engthening in many parts of the capita, conversion of the former Wateroo Internationa termina for use by domestic services and severa freight schemes (for exampe initia eements of the Feixstowe to Nuneaton freight upgrade). For a these projects the RUS anaysis has used the atest position with respect to future timetabes to inform anaysis of the effect on trave patterns and associated train oadings. It is recognised that there is some uncertainty with respect to some eements of committed schemes, principay reating to precise detais of the depoyment of new and cascaded roing stock foowing Thamesink, Crossrai and eectrification schemes. The RUS has made assumptions in this area which wi be kept under review as the position becomes cearer. Other existing strategy In considering its strategy the RUS draws heaviy on the interventions considered by earier estabished RUSs, with those recommendations sti at present remaining uncommitted normay being carried forward into this RUS. Eements of existing capacity strategy carried forward incude additiona roing stock to enabe further train engthening on many routes and, in a few cases, additiona peak trains. Infrastructure schemes in this category incude further patform extensions, enhancements aimed at resoving key operationa constraints and further eectrification of the network. Construction of High Speed 2 (HS2) is aso considered in this category, as the ony reaisticay viabe means of aeviating north south capacity constraints. Comments are provided in this RUS regarding its potentia interaction with the transport system in London. Forecasts of passenger growth The RUS is based upon the foowing weekday peak growth forecasts to 2031 for each route corridor into and around the Capita. It concentrates primariy on the busiest hour of weekday morning peak arrivas into London since, at a strategic eve, if the infrastructure can accommodate morning peak demand then oadings at other times shoud aso be manageabe. The forecasts are based upon ongoing schemes and incrementa interventions from previous RUSs, and existing fares poicy. They are sensitive to any future changes in these issues, since additiona capacity through major schemes (for exampe HS2) or further interventions, incuding those in this RUS, woud stimuate additiona demand in their own right, and changes to fares poicy coud affect demand. 6

7 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 Busiest morning peak hour growth forecasts (committed schemes ony) Route into London Paddington Service group Crossrai GW route Reief ine trains (exc Crossrai) Main ine + other fast trains Passengers on route in busiest morning peak hour Extra 2010 tota 2031 tota Growth passengers n/a 4,100 12,800 8, % 9,000 13,600 4,600 51% Heathrow Express 800 1, % London Maryebone A services 6,100 7,800 1,700 28% London Euston London St Pancras London King s Cross Long Distance 3,700 6,500 2,800 76% Suburban 8,100 12,100 4,000 50% High Speed 1 (domestic) 2,500 5,300 2, % Thamesink MML 9,900 14,700 4,800 49% MML Long Distance 2,300 3,800 1,500 68% Thamesink ECML n/a Great Northern 7,900 13,000 5,100 66% ECML Long Distance 2,000 3,000 1,000 52% Moorgate A services 7,900 8, % London Liverpoo Street West Angia 14,300 18,000 3,700 26% Great Eastern Main Line 16,500 24,600 8,100 49% GE Inners 12,900 Crossrai GE route Crossrai Abbey Wood route n/a 21,000 8,100 63% n/a 11,900 11,900 n/a London Fenchurch Street A services 15,300 17,000 1,700 11% London Bridge London Backfriars London Victoria London Wateroo Charing Cross 26,200 Cannon Street 20,900 Thamesink Kent Thamesink Sussex Terminating (fast trains via East Croydon) n/a n/a in peak 13,300 50,900 3,800 8% 24,400 11,100 83% Terminating (inners) 9,200 11,500 2,300 25% A services via Eephant & Caste 10,400 11,900 1,500 15% Kent routes 10,300 8,700-1,600-16% Fast trains via East Croydon Inner Suburban (via Baham) 14,200 19,500 5,300 37% 9,700 10, % Windsor Lines (a services) 13,600 17,100 3,500 26% Inner Suburban (via Wimbedon) 22,700 25,500 2,800 13% South West Main Line 14,800 18,300 3,500 24% Radia routes totas 288, , ,900 36% Main Orbita routes West London Line 2,700 5,500 2, % East London Line 4,200 9,800 5, % North London Line 2,700 3, % Note: Major uncommitted schemes (e.g. HS2) and interventions from this RUS woud further increase demand. 7

8 Executive Summary 2031 Commuter peaks to London; gaps and options beyond existing strategy The RUS process is buit around the identification of gaps (between future suppy and demand) and then the identification and assessment of options which bridge these gaps. On many routes the RUS considers that the combination of funded schemes and non-committed previous strategy wi be sufficient to accommodate the increasing demand. However on certain ines this RUS has carried out an update to previous work, seeking to recommend additiona options which woud accommodate the atest demand forecasts in the most effective manner and consistent with Sir Roy McNuty s findings. Significant further work has taken pace since the Draft for Consutation and is presented in this RUS. This RUS has carried out an update to previous work, seeking to recommend additiona options which woud accommodate the atest demand forecasts The RUS now identifies schemes which have potentia to provide the necessary eve of capacity, at a strategic eve, on a routes into and around London. In most cases this appears to be achievabe by engthening or running more trains on existing route corridors, with infrastructure enhancements as necessary, for exampe on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML). Esewhere, as outined in the Draft for Consutation, the capacity gap on the GWML via Reading appears resovabe, but this is ony reaisticay possibe by making changes to currenty panned Crossrai and existing Heathrow Express operations, for which an economic appraisa has not at present been undertaken. On a sma number of key corridors more expensive options such as major infrastructure upgrades or new routes appear to be needed if predicted peak demand is to be fuy accommodated. This principay reates to the WCML, the capacity constraints on which (for both commuter and onger distance services) can ony reaisticay be addressed through the construction of High Speed 2 (HS2). However, the South West Main Line (SWML) aso represents a major ong term chaenge, with an extra track from Surbiton inwards providing a potentia eventua soution. The aternative, woud be to utiise pricing poicy and smartcard ticketing technoogy to manage demand at the busiest times, or to pan for standing over onger distances than is currenty considered desirabe. The capacity strategy to 2031 for the main routes in and around the capita is summarised beow. Great Western Main Line capacity The forecast capacity gap in 2031 in the busiest peak hour is some 5,800 peope, even aowing for impementation of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), which ony provides sufficient peak capacity for growth up to The anticipated shortfa is on a combination of outer suburban and ong distance services from Reading and the outer Thames Vaey, with no capacity gap forecast on the inner stopping services (given the panned introduction of Crossrai services to Maidenhead in 2018). In coming to this concusion the impact of committed schemes incuding Reading remodeing, the impact of eectrification, IEP and the infux of other new vehices has been incuded in the anaysis. In identifying a gap of this magnitude the RUS notes, cruciay, that the existing IEP strategy for the GWML does not incude any additiona highpeak trains into London Paddington, though it does provide extra peak capacity through onger trains with more seating. The ack of extra peak services is due to existing capacity constraints associated with London Paddington station and its approaches, and due to the main ines having no spare capacity at present between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Junction (where the ine to Heathrow Airport diverges from the main ine). The expectation foowing the impementation of IEP is therefore that the current 15 main ine timetabe sots in the busiest hour wi be repaced by nine IEP trains on ong distance services, five outer suburban eight-car Eectric Mutipe Units (EMUs) and one retained High Speed Train running from the West of Engand. 8

9 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 The RUS therefore seeks to provide additiona capacity in the peak from Reading and the outer Thames Vaey in response to the gap. The options in the Draft for Consutation attracted significant interest from stakehoders and the updated anaysis of this RUS is now presented in the tabe beow: Peak capacity options for Thames Vaey commuters Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 Option A4 Option A5 Extend services beyond the committed Crossrai terminus of Maidenhead to Reading. Increase peak main ine service via Reading from 15tph to 16tph foowing IEP. Lengthening of Thames Vaey outer suburban EMUs to 12-car. Major infrastructure upgrade between London Paddington and Airport Junction to enabe peak additiona trains. New GWML peak service structure based on: 20tph main ine (9 IEP, 1 HST, 6 outer suburban EMUs from Oxford/Newbury as panned, pus 4 new outer suburban shuttes between Reading or beyond and London Paddington) 16tph reief ines (incuding 10tph to Heathrow Airport). This option is recommended for impementation in This is primariy due to capita cost savings in infrastructure which woud otherwise be required, mainy at Maidenhead. It woud aso provide passenger benefits and improve train performance on the route. Further assessment is required but in the short term a peak 10tph Crossrai stopping service west of Paddington is potentiay sufficient, rising to 12tph in the onger term (by extending trains otherwise panned to terminate in the sidings at Westbourne Park). However, this aone woud do itte to resove the outer Thames Vaey capacity gap, since journey times from Reading via the reief ines woud be significanty onger than on main ine services. This option does not require additiona infrastructure and the RUS assumes that it woud be impemented at some stage foowing IEP before other interventions are required. This woud resut in 6 peak outer suburban 8-car EMUs, in addition to the 10 ong distance services. However this option woud not be sufficient to resove the 2031 gap in isoation. This option woud invove engthening from 8-car to 12-car of EMUs operating peak outer suburban services on the Oxford & Newbury routes to London Paddington. The RUS assumes that this option wi need to be progressivey impemented foowing IEP, with at east 4 of the 6 outer suburban EMUs resuting from Option A2 progressivey engthened to 12-car. However this option woud not be sufficient to resove the 2031 gap in isoation. This option requires two additiona tracks between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Junction and two additiona ong patforms at London Paddington. Such an approach woud be extremey compex and expensive, requiring the use of and outside the current raiway boundary in a heaviy buit-up area. This option has not therefore been considered in detai by the RUS since Option A5 beow provides a simiar eve of capacity and passenger benefits without requiring additiona infrastructure. This option is the ony reaisticay viabe means of fuy responding to the peak capacity gap. It is therefore ikey to be required within the RUS timescae, providing four extra fast trains per peak hour from Reading or beyond to London in the current Heathrow Express paths. The emerging service for Heathrow Airport, deveoped in response to feedback received during the consutation, is for 10 Crossrai trains per hour. The journey, based on a skip-stop pattern in the peaks, woud be onger than on the existing Heathrow Express, but the trains woud be significanty more frequent and woud operate through centra London, rather than just to London Paddington. This package of service changes has potentia to provide major improvements to the GWML. Further deveopment is required, especiay in connection with avoiding any reduction to the rai moda share, and passenger experience, to and from Heathrow Airport. 9

10 Executive Summary The immediate emphasis is on impementation of Crossrai and IEP, with the atter requiring infrastructure work at London Paddington to provide enough patforms of sufficient ength for the new trains. Extending reief ine trains beyond Maidenhead to Reading is aso recommended as a priority for 2018, to avoid incurring arge capita costs associated with new infrastructure for turnback faciities in the Maidenhead area, and aso invoving an aternative scheme at Sough. This woud save capita costs in the order of 31 miion, as ong as a decision is made within the next few months. Beyond this the priority for the GWML wi be provision of additiona capacity from the Reading area to London at peak times. Impementation of Option A2 and Option A3 wi be a priority beyond 2019, enabing the maximum possibe capacity to be provided within the existing structure of services. However these are reativey sma scae and if no further interventions were impemented then arge numbers of standing passengers from Reading woud become a significant probem in the atter years of the RUS timescae. In considering this issue Option A4 woud be extremey expensive and disruptive and is not considered further given that Option A5 appears ikey to be a more cost effective aternative. Impementation of Option A5, which requires more detaied consideration, woud broady address the forecast capacity gap from the Reading area, enabing four extra fast main ine trains in the busiest peak hours into London Paddington in response to Thames Vaey commuter growth. There remains a variety of sub-options with regard to the origin point (potentiay incuding Basingstoke as described under Option F6) and stopping patterns for such services, but the overa concept woud be a 20 trains per hour peak main ine service from Reading inwards (four trains per hour of which woud ca at a combination of Sough, Twyford and Maidenhead, with the remainder running fast). With respect to Heathrow Airport services the emerging position is that providing a 10 trains per hour Crossrai route service from centra London woud provide an overa improvement in connectivity reative to commited schemes ony, and is ikey to become necessary by the mid 2020s to faciitate the additiona peak Thames Vaey services described above. At peak times the airport services woud need to operate on the reief ines with increased journey times from London Paddington station itsef (compared to the current Heathrow Express), but the additiona Crossrai services woud more than doube the panned frequency and avoid passengers needing to choose between Heathrow Express and Crossrai on arriva at Paddington station. This woud therefore invove 16 trains per hour at peak times from the Great Western route into the new centra London tunne, compared to 10 trains per hour under current pans. This woud fuy utiise a reief ine capacity at peak times, so freight operations woud need to be outside the high peak hours. Linked to the above the RUS emphasises the desirabiity of extending Heathrow services westwards to improve connectivity, as described ater. Beyond Termina 5 a potentia spit towards the end of the RUS period coud be four trains per hour to Reading (via Sough) and four trains per hour to Staines. Each of these requires the construction of new sections of raiway and further work on the business case is recommended. In the onger term the RUS notes ongoing deveopment regarding how best to both construct and serve the proposed HS2 station on the GWML at Od Oak Common. This incudes consideration of whether GWML ong distance trains shoud ca, the possibiity of a Crossrai extension via Watford Junction, and oca connections to routes in the area. Network Rai is cosey working with the HS2 Ltd. project team to resove the reevant issues in this area. There is aso proposed to be a high speed rai station at Heathrow Airport at a ater date, as part of the extension of the High Speed Rai network to Manchester and Leeds. Maryebone routes capacity As outined in the West Midands and Chiterns RUS the committed Evergreen 3 project wi provide route-wide service improvements; increasing frequencies, reducing journey times and providing a new London Maryebone to Oxford service. As a resut of demand growth, part of which wi come from the panned service improvements, there is ikey to be a need for further interventions such as train engthening or timetabe changes beyond competion of the Evergreen 3 project. These woud not require infrastructure enhancements so the RUS process has not identified a need to make more specific recommendations at the present time. West Coast Main Line capacity In the absence of the proposed High Speed Rai network, this RUS woud forecast a significant capacity gap in 2031 on the WCML. The key issue affecting the London commuter market woud be a significant shortfa in capacity in the morning peak on outer suburban services into London Euston. Optimisation of service patterns and capacity within the existing constraints on the route wi be necessary over the coming years, but this approach aone wi be insufficient to keep up with growing demand. 10

11 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 Consistent with proposed Government poicy this RUS therefore assumes that construction of a new High Speed Rai network wi go ahead, not ony resoving the peak capacity gap (with which this RUS is mainy concerned) but aso reieving capacity constraints on ong distance services, improving journey times and creating capacity for additiona services on the existing network. Option K1, as described ater, woud provide new journey opportunities between the WCML and both Centra London and Heathrow Airport and, in addition, may hep to address London Underground system capacity at London Euston. Further deveopment is recommended. Midand Main Line capacity On this route the Thamesink Programme wi provide a arge amount of extra capacity, enabing most peak outer suburban services to be engthened from eight-car to 12-car formations. Beyond this the principa future crowding concern to London is forecast to reate to commuters on onger distance trains, with a forecast gap in 2031 of some 1,400 seats in the busiest peak hour. Consistent with the recommendations of the Network RUS: Eectrification Strategy and the East Midands RUS the recommended approach to reduce this gap and provide significant other benefits wi be to repace the existing High Speed Train feet used on the Midand Main Line (MML) with higher capacity IEP trains or simiar, foowing on from High Speed Train repacement on the GWML and East Coast Main Line (ECML). In the onger term there woud be significant transfer of north south demand from the MML to the North East eg of the proposed High Speed Rai network, assuming the construction of new stations to serve the East Midands and Sheffied conurbations. This woud therefore fuy resove the capacity gap on the MML. East Coast Main Line capacity Long distance timetabes have recenty been substantiay improved through the East Coast May 2011 timetabe and, in the onger term, further opportunities wi arise as a resut of the major infrastructure enhancements panned at severa ocations aong the route. The strategy for service improvements outined in the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review is now estabished and optimises use of the ECML in the medium term. However, existing strategy aone resuts in a forecast capacity gap of 1,500 seats in the busiest morning peak hour by 2031 on outer suburban services. Whist this coud be reduced marginay with tactica eve interventions it is most readiy addressabe by High Speed Rai, which woud shift ong distance demand from the ECML to the new route. Passengers traveing to London from Leeds, Newcaste and Scotand woud see additiona capacity and significant journey time reductions via the new ine, which woud in turn, free up capacity at the southern end of the ECML for outer suburban commuters, as we as for freight. The roing stock strategy for the ECML is based on the panned impementation of IEP as a repacement for existing High Speed Trains and aso the Cass 365 EMUs currenty used on fast Cambridge services. However, the existing Cass 91/Mark IV sets wi continue to be used on the majority of East Coast ong distance high speed services for severa years. In the medium term, repacement of these trains woud enabe a significant increase in seating capacity within the existing 11 vehices overa ength, or possiby more if onger trains were introduced at 11

12 Executive Summary the same time. The RUS therefore notes that future repacement of this train feet wi provide the principa opportunity for extra capacity on the key ong distance fows in advance of High Speed Rai. Coser to London the Thamesink Programme wi aeviate suburban capacity constraints and improve connectivity on Great Northern routes by enabing many services to continue through the Thamesink tunnes rather than needing to terminate at London King s Cross. However, very imited additiona peak trains reative to today are ikey to be abe to run through the critica Wewyn viaduct area, so outer suburban additiona capacity from the Cambridge and Peterborough routes wi be mosty restricted to that gained by running as many trains as possibe at 12-car ength, as recommended by the East Coast Main Line RUS. Inner suburban services are anticipated to benefit from frequency increments foowing a combination of the Thamesink Programme and committed infrastructure enhancements in the Finsbury Park to Aexandra Paace area. During the consutation stakehoders have emphasised the need for the frequency increases on the Hertford Loop in particuar, and a four trains per hour off-peak service is anticipated by the RUS on this route. On Moorgate routes in genera the possibe repacement of the Cass 313 feet has potentia to provide some additiona capacity, with an overa service increase to Moorgate towards the ate 2020s impemented through new signaing technoogies. In the shorter term direct Thamesink trains from the Potters Bar corridor to Farringdon/City Thamesink can be expected to aeviate crowding on the Moorgate branch. West Angia capacity Severa eements of the previous strategy for this route have now been reconsidered, given Government spending constraints in the short term and the Lea Vaey four-tracking scheme (recommended by the 2007 Greater Angia RUS) having being heaviy infuenced by previous pans for the major expansion of Stansted Airport. This four-tracking concept remains a stakehoder aspiration for this route, but the fu scheme does not have a vaue for money business case at present. The RUS has therefore investigated whether smaer scae schemes coud deiver as many of the origina aims as possibe, but at ower cost and in a shorter term timescae than woud otherwise be practica. As with the Greater Angia RUS, the capacity strategy for the West Angia main ine is heaviy reiant on progressivey impementing 12-car operations on a services running fast via the Lea Vaey. As a resut the sma number of stations on the Cambridge ine not having patforms engthened in CP4 wi need to be served by onger trains at some stage, possiby with Seective Door Operation. Beyond this running as many peak trains to London Liverpoo Street as practica using existing infrastructure is a priority, and a new option has now been identified which woud divert Hertford East ine services fast via Seven Sisters, enabing two additiona services per hour on the West Angia corridor overa and improvements to many journey times. With respect to inner suburban services, in purey peak capacity terms (and based on existing trave patterns), the priority at present is the Southbury Loop, with eight-car patforms in the London area being much harder to extend than those on the main ine and a peak capacity gap of 1,400 passengers forecast. The previousy proposed new haf houry peak service from Cheshunt to Seven Sisters (for the London Underground Victoria Line) is not compatibe with the Hertford East diversions via Seven Sisters, but additiona stops coud in future be inserted on the atter service in the inner suburban area if demand dictates. Beyond this, higher density roing stock may be appropriate for certain inner suburban workings, or diverting some demand to the Lea Vaey corridor as outined beow. On the assumption that a the above interventions are impemented, future peak capacity is forecast to be broady sufficient for demand to However capacity is ony one of many issues on this route and severa stakehoders have emphasised other significant factors, notaby imited train frequencies at the ower Lea Vaey stations (many of which are in potentia regeneration areas), journey times on main ine trains and an increasing demand for inks to Stratford/Dockands. The RUS anaysis has therefore focused on identifying an economicay viabe strategy to address these issues. The recommendation in the RUS is for impementation of a four trains per hour Lea Vaey to Stratford service. This is potentiay deiverabe in Network Rai s Contro Period 5 (CP5), based upon a imited infrastructure scheme to faciitate turnbacks at Brimsdown. However, with that infrastructure aone some outputs (such as caing patterns) may not be idea, so further deveopment is required. If more extensive works are needed the business case woud sti be strong, but affordabiity constraints wi be more of a factor. A further option beyond the above has been considered for a three/four tracking scheme south of Brimsdown. If required this woud provide further benefits incuding a better timetabe and possiby more additiona trains, but at significanty ower cost than fu four-tracking of the route. It is possibe that eements of this might, at some stage, be required to deiver a robust four trains per hour Stratford service. As with any option for extra tracks on this corridor the destination point for any resuting additiona trains woud need to be Stratford, as the RUS does not consider it operationay viabe to further increase peak service eves on the constrained route via Hackney Downs to London Liverpoo Street. The RUS aso notes the need for power suppy upgrade works for service increments on this corridor. 12

13 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 The option of an additiona new haf houry service from Chingford to Stratford has aso been considered, via a new curve at Ha Farm near Capton. Whist this aso has significant merits the resuting tota six trains per hour service to Stratford (when combined with the above) woud reach the upper imit of capacity avaiabe to West Angia routes in the Stratford area, due to interactions with the capacity strategy for the GEML as outined beow. Improving services from the Lea Vaey is considered to be a higher priority than the Chingford ine, given that the former provides benefits to more peope over a wider area. The RUS is therefore unabe to support a Chingford to Stratford service at this time, since a six trains per hour Lea Vaey to Stratford service might eventuay be justified by demand, though this concusion shoud aso be kept under review. The RUS considers that, foowing the competion of Crossrai, many of the West Angia to Stratford off-peak trains coud potentiay be extended to London Liverpoo Street, utiising the infrastructure changes recommended for resoving the GEML capacity gap as outined ater. However, this woud not be practica during the weekday morning and evening peaks, since the capacity woud be required for the GEML route. The tabe beow updates the options assessed for this route: Options for the West Angia route From Greater Angia RUS Option C1 Option C2a Option C2b Option C3 Option C4 Option C5 Option C6 Lengthening of a peak main ine trains to 12-car. Divert Hertford East trains via Seven Sisters and run additiona trains to Liverpoo Street. 4tph Lea Vaey to Stratford service. 4tph Lea Vaey to Stratford service, with 4tph at a stations. 6tph Lea Vaey to Stratford service. 8tph Lea Vaey to Stratford service. 2tph Chingford route to Stratford service. Extend West Angia to Stratford trains through to London Liverpoo Street. Recommended progressivey as required by peak capacity. Anticipated in a timetabe change in the near future, with Hertford East services rerouted from the Lea Vaey via Tottenham Hae to the Southbury Loop via Seven Sisters route. This wi aow 2tph additiona at peak times on West Angia routes overa and faciitate better journey times on certain main ine journeys. Requires imited additiona infrastructure based upon a new turnback faciity at Brimsdown. However at this stage this has not been shown to be operationay robust and further infrastructure may therefore be required. Recommended for detaied deveopment for potentia impementation in CP5. Requires a mixture of three and four-tracking between Lea Bridge and Brimsdown and turnback infrastructure at Brimsdown. In the absence of Option C2a this woud be recommended, but it is significanty higher capita cost so it shoud be kept under review. Deiverabe with an additiona ength of four-tracking in the ower Lea Vaey, beyond that required for Option C2b. Not recommended as this eve of service to Stratford does not appear to be required by demand and the train service prevents Option C5 beow. However, this concusion shoud be kept under review. Requires the fu four-tracking major upgrade scheme in the Lea Vaey. This invoves major works at Tottenham Hae and at ocations north of Brimsdown, incuding the need to cose severa eve crossings. Not recommended due to insufficient evidence of benefits and 8tph to Stratford being inconsistent with Option D2. Not recommended at present, as it is uncear whether demand from the Lea Vaey coud eventuay warrant a 6tph service to Stratford under Option C3, which woud provide a higher eve of benefits to a wider area but utiise a avaiabe capacity at Stratford. This concusion shoud be kept under review. Operationay viabe off-peak ony, requires impementation of Option D2. 13

14 Executive Summary Finay the RUS notes that the West Angia corridor may be an eventua destination for trains using a potentia variant of the safeguarded Crossrai ine 2 (or Chesea-Hackney ine), as described ater. Connection of the West Angia route to such a tunne through Centra London woud remove the London termina capacity constraint, potentiay enabing far more trians to run. The case for fourtracking of the Lea Vaey shoud be kept under review in this context. Great Eastern Main Line capacity The Draft for Consutation forecast a major capacity chaenge on the GEML, with no viabe options identified at that stage for further increasing peak capacity once a peak trains via both Chemsford and Wickford run at 12-car ength (and with EMUs repacing the current ageing ocomotive-haued trains used for some services). It was emphasised that Crossrai wi address capacity in East London, but not for main ine services. The RUS demand modeing therefore forecast a capacity shortfa of space for 3,000 peope without further schemes, impying high eves of standing on the route in the future. A number of stakehoders from Essex in particuar noted during the consutation that this situation did not appear to be satisfactory, and the rai industry shared such concerns. Foowing detaied further anaysis the RUS has now identified an infrastructure enhancement scheme for the remodeing of the Bow Junction area, enabing the two Tempe Mis ines between Stratford and Bow to be fuy usabe for passenger trains rather than being generay restricted to freight and empty coaching stock as at present. This woud effectivey create six, fuy usabe tracks a the way between Stratford and Liverpoo Street, two of which woud be in the Crossrai tunnes. Such a scheme woud aow use by main ine services of the inner suburban capacity which wi be reeased on the Eectric Lines foowing the diversion of services onto Crossrai. Utiising this additiona infrastructure, a morning peak timetabe has been deveoped which woud eventuay invove 28 trains in the busiest peak hour on the up main ine from Shenfied to Stratford, where trains woud generay ca aternatey in patforms 9 or 10. Each of these patforms woud then have an independent route to London Liverpoo Street, enabing enough trains to be run overa to meet the forecast capacity gap. Further infrastructure enhancements woud aso be required esewhere on the route at the starting points for the additiona trains, principay in the Chemsford area. Some of the additiona empty GEML trains running out from London Liverpoo Street to cear patforms in the morning peak woud need to run via the West Angia route at Stratford in order to avoid exceeding the capacity of the singe avaiabe contra-peak direction patform (10A) at Stratford. Additiona berthing capacity woud be required, and this woud need to be in the Orient Way area for the same reason, ideay on the west side of the raiway to reduce interaction with West Angia to Stratford traffic. It is aso noted that at peak times this option woud utiise the same capacity between Bow Junction and London Liverpoo Street as Option C6 above. Given that the forecast capacity gap on the GEML is significanty arger than that on the West Angia routes, the RUS does not therefore support West Angia to Stratford services running through to London Liverpoo Street except potentiay during the off-peak. Furthermore it is emphasised that six trains per hour (Option C3) appears to represent the absoute upper imit of avaiabe capacity at Stratford from the West Angia route, whist sti enabing Option D2 to be impemented, given that both invove extra trains in the Orient Way area. The tabe beow summarises the options now presented: Options for the Great Eastern Main Line From Greater Angia RUS Option D1 Option D2 Lengthening of a peak main ine trains to 12-car. Repace intercity vehices with new roing stock. Run 28tph at peak times with existing infrastructure. Run 28tph at peak times with enhanced infrastructure. Recommended progressivey as required by peak demand. Recommended to provide additiona capacity as roing stock repacement becomes due. Not recommended as increasing services beyond 24tph is not considered operationay robust. 28tph recommended by 2031 for peak capacity reasons, with 26tph as an interim step in the eary 2020s. Impementation requires remodeing of Bow Junction, additiona turnback infrastructure in the Chemsford area and at Wickford and additiona capacity to stabe roing stock in the Orient Way area (on the Stratford Tottenham Hae route). 14

15 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 Fenchurch Street route capacity Capacity enhancements on the route corridor to London Fenchurch Street are panned, with increasing 12-car operations. The RUS considers that this approach wi provide sufficient additiona peak capacity to match demand on this ine. By the end of the RUS timescae it is anticipated that a peak services on this route wi need to be operating with 12-car formations. Kent route capacity As previousy recommended by the South London and Kent RUSs, additiona capacity in the South East London suburbs wi be required through a programme of train and patform engthening. The carriages to faciitate this are not committed at present, but many of them are anticipated to be provided by the major roing stock cascade that can be expected upon competion of the Thamesink Programme. The patform engthening programme has now commenced, with the main work initiay being on the various routes to Dartford, foowed by the more compex remodeing work at Gravesend, with further work anticipated at ocations such as Rochester and potentiay London Charing Cross in CP5. Whist fu 12-car suburban operations woud provide significant extra capacity where most needed, there remain significant operationa issues to resove, incuding the 11-car ength of patforms 4 6 at London Charing Cross, operationa constraints in that area and around New Cross/Lewisham, patform engths at Woowich Dockyard and power suppy constraints. The RUS advises that further work is needed to resove these issues. A imited peak capacity gap wi aso exist on High Speed 1 (HS1) services between East Kent and London St Pancras Internationa. The Kent RUS recommended an option for engthening and extension further back into Kent of the current Ebbsfeet peak shutte service and this remains the recommended approach. This woud buid on the recent impementation of peak services between Maidstone West and London St Pancras Internationa via Strood. The RUS aso emphasises the importance of the fare pricing structure in Kent, to encourage North Kent coast passengers in particuar to transfer to capacity which is avaiabe on HS1. The potentia extension of the London Underground Bakeroo ine onto the Hayes branch, as described ater, aso remains a potentia ong term means of providing increased capacity into London Charing Cross from other routes. Sussex route capacity Significant additiona capacity is now being provided on Network Rai s Sussex route the Brighton Main Line (BML) and branches, pus the South London suburban area through an extensive train engthening programme and the impementation of the Thamesink Programme. This is in response to recent growth and current crowding probems on these ines. The committed extra capacity incudes train engthening on Brighton to Bedford services (which wi be engthened from eight-car to 12-car and peak trains rerouted to run via London Bridge), the Redhi Line (more 12-car operations), the East Grinstead Line (where patform engthening works to engthen from eight-car to 12-car have now commenced), the Sydenham Line (where engthening is panned from eight-car to 10-car) and a routes via Baham to London Victoria (engthening from eight-car to 10- car). In addition to this a sma number of additiona trains are panned to run upon competion of the Thamesink Programme, though this can ony be to a very imited degree as the major constraint through the East Croydon area wi remain. The Sussex RUS recommended further train engthening which is not currenty committed. This incuded running 10-car trains on the Uckfied Line and running additiona onger trains on the Purey corridor (now anticipated to be combined 10-car Caterham/ Tattenham Corner trains to London Victoria, with 12- car ater). Inserting Capham Junction cas in certain peak Gatwick Express services was aso recommended to provide improved connectivity from Brighton to this area and spread oadings more eveny between peak trains. This RUS re-emphasises the need for these changes, shown beow. Sussex route further recommendations (in addition to current pans) From Sussex RUS Uckfied ine train engthening to 10-car. Caterham/Tattenham Corner ines to Victoria 12 car (services to join at Purey). Ca certain peak Brighton/Gatwick Express services at Capham Junction. Recommended. Recommended (with 10-car as an interim stage). Recommended. 15

16 Executive Summary Assuming that the above strategy is impemented this RUS sti forecasts a peak capacity gap on the BML in 2031 of some 3,000 passengers in the busiest peak hour, principay to London Victoria. There is an existing capacity gap on this route today, with peak standing reguary occurring as far as Haywards Heath. The RUS strategy is therefore heaviy reiant on the new 12-car Thamesink roing stock, which wi be configured internay to maximise on-train capacity. Whist overcrowding on the BML is not forecast to be fuy resoved by this approach, the most heaviy oaded trains wi be aeviated. The RUS has been unabe to identify workabe options to resove the remaining capacity gap in a cost effective way. Ongoing reviews wi be required by operators to optimise service patterns, fare structures and roing stock aocation, to minimise the numbers of standing passengers and the duration of such standing on a train-by-train basis. Significant eves of spare capacity wi exist during shouder peak times, party due to the fixed-formation nature of vehices using Thamesink routes, and effectivey utiising the opportunity this provides is ikey to be a key consideration in the future. In the inner suburban area further train engthening from 10-car to 12-car, as recommended by the South London RUS, coud be required at some stage to aeviate high eves of standing on the Sydenham route and possiby routes via Baham. Demand forecasts on these routes are subject to uncertainty, so these concusions shoud be kept under review. South West Main Line capacity The most significant scheme at present on the South West Main Line (SWML) is 10-car inner suburban operations, a recommendation of the South West Main Line RUS and now fuy committed. As a resut the modeing for this RUS does not indicate a peak capacity gap on inner suburban services in 2031, with the additiona carriages providing sufficient ontrain space. During the consutation period a number of stakehoders expressed views that passenger numbers in the suburban area wi grow faster than suggested by the modeing. Whist this is not the forecast in this RUS it is recognised that further engthening to 12-car under Option F1 woud be needed in such a scenario and it is recommended that no work is undertaken which precudes this. However the current train engthening project ony directy benefits suburban passengers, given that main ine trains are generay aready fu ength and no additiona timetabe sots can be found on the route for extra trains, regardess of capacity at London Wateroo. With respect to onger distance services the RUS therefore notes that a significant peak capacity gap may arise, with a forecast shortfa in capacity for some 7,000 passengers in the busiest peak hour; this figure incudes capacity required on today s aready overcrowded trains, aong with the 3,500 resuting from future growth. The gap coud potentiay be reduced sighty with additiona engthening, for exampe on the Saisbury ine and on semi-fast services from Guidford via Cobham (given that some of the atter run fast from Surbiton at peak times), and these are considered 16

17 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 robust tactica eve interventions but this woud then ony marginay reduce the gap to 6,100 passengers. The RUS has now considered seven options in significanty more detai than was presented in the Draft for Consutation. Option F2 invoves doubedeck trains and work has identified that this is potentiay achievabe at high cost for a sma number of services, but such an approach woud resut in significant operationa compexities and is not capabe of providing sufficient additiona capacity. Option F3 invoves running significanty onger domestic trains than those in operation anywhere ese on the UK network into the former Internationa Patforms at Wateroo. However again this aso invoves major operationa restrictions in where such trains woud originate, it requires compex grade separation works in the Capham Junction area for the SWML to pass over or under the Windsor ines approaches to London Wateroo, and is aso not capabe of providing sufficient additiona capacity to fuy resove the gap. As neither doube-deck trains nor trains onger than 12-car appear to represent a robust way forward the remaining options are therefore additiona services on either the existing or a new route. Option F4 woud therefore invove increased peak service frequency through an additiona four trains per hour from a ocation such as Basingstoke, potentiay requiring additiona infrastructure such as a new fyover at Woking and enhancements between Capham Junction and London Wateroo. However, stakehoders have significant concerns regarding whether the resuting 28 trains in the busiest peak hour over the Surbiton Wateroo section is operationay viabe, so further work woud be needed to determine if such a eve of service coud be robusty deivered by future signaing technoogy. Even if it were achievabe this approach woud sti ony provide just over 50 per cent of the capacity needed to resove the gap, so crowding woud remain broady at current eves. As a resut of the above the RUS has investigated a new Option F5, which woud invove providing a fifth track from Hampton Court Junction (south of Surbiton) inwards. This appears to be broady achievabe within the existing raiway boundary, but detaied engineering design work wi be required to confirm viabiity. The RUS recommends further consideration of such a project towards the atter years of its timescae. In the meantime the and on this corridor and at London Wateroo shoud be protected from any deveopment which precudes this occurring. However, the high cost of this intervention suggests that this route shoud be a priority for investigating the extent to which demand management interventions can be used to mitigate overcrowding before turning to major infrastructure schemes, for exampe through smartcard technoogy to encourage season ticket hoders to work from home once a week. As a further consideration a variant on Option A5 has been deveoped, based on some of the additiona services to London Paddington starting at Basingstoke. This Option F6 may be a sensibe way forward, though it requires infi eectrification. From the above it can be seen that a fu conventiona capacity soution to the SWML gap woud require expensive and significanty disruptive infrastructure upgrades over a wide area. An aternative way to increase capacity on the route woud be to increase the number of tracks from the Surbiton area to centra London from four to six, but this is ony reaisticay achievabe by means of tunneing over a ong distance. Such a tunne woud need to fit into a cross-industry strategy for future underground ines in the capita in genera. The RUS has therefore worked cosey with Transport for London to identify a variant of the currenty safeguarded Crossrai ine 2 route, and this forms Option F7 in this RUS. The SWML concusions are summarised in the tabe which foows: Options for the South West Main Line From SWML RUS Option F1 Run a main ine trains at maximum ength. Impement 12-car inner suburban operations. This invoves engthening a peak fast trains into London Wateroo to the maximum number of carriages readiy achievabe without major infrastructure changes. This means either: 12-car ength (routes with 20m vehices) or 10-car ength (routes with 23m). This approach particuary appies to semi-fast services from Guidford via Cobham and peak services on the Saisbury route. The RUS considers this wi need to be impemented as a priority, though it wi ony partiay resove the gap. Modeing has not indicated that this option wi be required, but this concusion shoud be kept under review. 17

18 Executive Summary Option F2 Option F3 Option F4 Option F5 Option F6 Option F7 Run doube-deck trains on SWML outer services. Run 16-car trains on SWML outer services into London Wateroo Internationa. Run 28tph SWML outer (4tph additiona) with additiona infrastructure at key pinchpoints. Run 32tph or more SWML outer with additiona infrastructure at key pinchpoints and provision of five tracks between Hampton Court Junction and Capham Junction. Run services from Basingstoke into London Paddington via Reading. Free up SWML main ine capacity by running inner services into a variant Crossrai ine 2 route. Detaied anaysis has indicated that ony a imited number of doubedeck trains woud be viabe, even with major infrastructure works for gauge cearance on both the Southampton and Portsmouth routes to London Wateroo. The additiona capacity provided woud therefore be insufficient to resove the gap. This option is therefore not recommended due to high cost and not providing sufficient additiona capacity. Detaied anaysis has indicated that ony a imited number of 16-car trains woud be viabe, even with major infrastructure works in the Capham Junction area for a grade-separated junction from the main SWML tracks into the former London Wateroo Internationa Patforms. The additiona capacity provided woud therefore be insufficient to resove the gap. This option is therefore not recommended due to high cost and not providing sufficient additiona capacity. This option woud invove running additiona trains in the high peak on the main ines into London Wateroo, potentiay with infrastructure enhancements such as the grade separation of Woking Junction and changes between Capham Junction and London Wateroo. However, even with these enhancements the option has not been shown to be operationay viabe on the number of ines currenty avaiabe from Surbiton inwards, so it is highy dependant on future signaing technoogies. In addition, this eve of service woud ony provide just over 50 per cent of the capacity needed to resove the gap, so further interventions woud sti be required to fuy resove the gap. This option further deveops the major infrastructure enhancements from Option F4. In order to fuy resove track capacity from Surbiton inwards it aso incudes an additiona main ine track from around that point to Capham Junction, which is potentiay viabe within the existing raiway corridor. The remodeing of the London Wateroo approaches woud then convert a current Windsor Line track for use by main ine services. This option is therefore recommended for further deveopment, with the and on the route corridor and at London Wateroo station protected from aternative uses which woud render it impractica. This woud be a variant of Option A5 as described earier, with some of the Thames Vaey peak services to London Paddington commencing from Basingstoke, to which additiona eectrification woud be provided. This option provides new journey opportunities and appears to have significant merit in the context of a 20tph peak GWML main ine service, but woud not resove the SWML capacity gap in isoation. This woud require the Crossrai ine 2 route to eventuay be constructed in tunne out to at east the Wimbedon area (with branches towards Kingston and Epsom). As a resut existing SWML stopping services woud utiise the new tunne, running via Centra London rather than to London Wateroo. This woud free up capacity on the existing surface eve raiway for additiona fast trains. Further consideration is recommended as part of the panning process for Crossrai ine 2. 18

19 London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Juy 2011 Windsor Lines capacity The starting point for this RUS incudes reopening of the currenty unused former Internationa Patforms at London Wateroo, to enabe the panned service increase on routes via Putney (the Windsor Lines ) from the current 15 to a future 16 trains in the busiest peak hour. This is the ony train service frequency increment currenty committed. A far arger voume of additiona capacity is currenty panned through the operation of 10- car services, which wi provide 25 per cent extra vehices on many trains. However, the committed CP4 patform engthening programme ony extends as far out as Virginia Water, so the South West Main Line RUS recommendation for fu 10-car operations, invoving further patform engthening to Reading is carried forward into this RUS. As with other routes, additiona roing stock woud be required to enabe a trains on this corridor to be engthened. Once the above are impemented a imited peak capacity gap is forecast on the Windsor Lines by The RUS has therefore considered two variants for running 18 trains in the peak on the Windsor ines as a whoe, both of which woud address the gap. The options have sought to minimise the impact on eve crossing downtimes, by routeing the additiona trains where practica via the Hounsow ine, rather than the congested route via Richmond. The need for two options was infuenced by the potentia construction of a new route between Staines and Heathrow Termina 5, with impementation as part of the BAA Heathrow Airtrack scheme, since this woud have resuted in significant changes to the future train service structure. However, the Transport and Works Act (TWA) Appication for this scheme has been withdrawn, with an aternative proposa now provided under Option J3 ater for accessing the Windsor Lines from Heathrow. Whist the additiona peak trains under Option G1 are operationay viabe without additiona infrastructure there is a degree of interaction with the TfL Piccadiy Line upgrade scheme in the Hounsow area, which, if impemented as panned, coud deay the growth in demand on the Windsor ines as some passengers woud switch modes. Windsor Lines options From SWML RUS Option G1 Option G2 Option G3 Run a trains at maximum ength. Run 18tph at peak times, without an increase in the off-peak. Run 18tph at peak times on the Windsor Lines, incuding two trains an hour to Staines or Heathrow throughout the day. Impement 12-car Windsor Line operations. This requires patforms extensions to 10-car on the Virginia Water to Reading route and is recommended for impementation in CP5. A timetabe has been deveoped which enabes two additiona train paths in the busiest peak hour, both of which are routed via Hounsow. This option is operationay viabe without additiona infrastructure so is recommended for further consideration through the franchise process. A timetabe has been deveoped which woud aso enabe two additiona train paths, but running throughout the day. In the peak the additiona paths woud be via Hounsow as above, but the increment woud be via Richmond in the off-peak. Track remodeing on the approaches to the former London Wateroo Internationa termina woud potentiay have been required to maintain robust performance associated with the increased eve of a-day service. In addition infrastructure enhancements woud have been required at Queenstown Road to run this increased eve of service in the contra-peak direction. Given that the BAA Heathrow Airtrack scheme is not being progressed no further deveopment is anticipated in the near future. Modeing has not indicated that this option wi be required, but this concusion shoud be kept under review. 19

20 Executive Summary Eephant & Caste corridor to Backfriars/ Thamesink capacity Committed capacity increments on this route incude the major impact of the Thamesink Programme. The competion of Key Output 2 of the Thamesink Programme wi enabe additiona trains to operate into the new London Backfriars bay patforms and capacity wi be freed up over Herne Hi Junction by rerouteing Brighton Main Line trains via London Bridge which wi enabe additiona oca services. Consistent with the recommendations of the South London RUS, operationa anaysis indicates that services routed via Herne Hi wi need to operate into the new London Backfriars bay patforms, whist services routed via Catford wi need to operate through the Thamesink core. Given the track and station ayout currenty under construction at London Backfriars, reversing this arrangement is not considered operationay viabe. Foowing the impact of the above the modeing forecasts a capacity gap of some 900 passengers in the busiest peak hour in 2031, primariy inner suburban services on the Herne Hi corridor. The RUS has considered train engthening on this route but this is considered highy compex due to track ayouts at ocations such as Herne Hi and Tuse Hi, where major works woud be required. It is therefore anticipated that the use of higher density roing stock is ikey to be required at some stage for these services. Orbita routes capacity The RUS has identified a significant capacity gap on orbita routes, which are increasingy used by passengers on journeys not requiring trave into Centra London. For exampe on the West London Line (WLL) by 2031 the forecasts suggest a capacity gap of some 3,000 passengers in the busiest peak hour on this route, a figure which does not incude the potentia major impact of the proposed HS2 station at Od Oak Common. Two of the recommendations for orbita routes reate to the WLL. As presented in the Draft for Consutation a particuar probem at present is the 73-minute gap in the morning peak on otherwise houry direct services from the WCML to the WLL. Stakehoders have indicated significant support for this to be increased to haf-houry, at east at peak times (Option I1). This requires a timetabe recast on the WLL to match WCML paths, though this is ikey to be needed anyway due to the genera recast south of London foowing competion of the Thamesink Programme. The RUS therefore recommends detaied consideration, once sufficient dua votage roing stock which is needed to impement this option is cascaded from esewhere foowing the introduction of new-buid Thamesink trains. In advance of this during CP5, the RUS aso recommends patform engthening to aow eight-car Southern services to ca at stations on the WLL (Option I2), which woud provide a significant increment in capacity over the critica Capham Junction/Croydon to Shepherds Bush ink. The RUS aso notes that deveopment pans for the Ear s Court area can be expected to exacerbate existing crowding probems on the WLL in the absence of additiona capacity. Beyond the above other capacity soutions for orbita routes invove London Overground services. NLL trains are aready configured at a high standing density, but are considered for engthening by Option I3, with engthening under Options I4 and I5 aso addressing London Overground capacity on the ELL and Gospe Oak Barking ine respectivey. Stakehoders have suggested additiona trains on orbita routes as an aternative but the RUS considers this unikey to be consistent with the important roe these have with respect to freight. The RUS aso notes that the NLL and WLL routes run very cose to the proposed HS2 station at Od Oak Common, so providing increased capacity and journey opportunities to this area on these routes wi be an important factor. On the South London Line service changes as part of the London Overground extension to Capham Junction are panned, and the RUS considers that the post-thamesink Programme timetabe is ikey to provide the opportunity for a four trains per hour a day service to/from London Victoria at Denmark Hi and Peckham Rye without impacting on journey times for onger distance passengers. Options for orbita routes Option I1 Increase West London Line Watford Junction (or beyond) peak service to 2tph. Option I2 Lengthen Southern WLL services to eight-car. Recommended. Option I3 Lengthen London Overground NLL/WLL services to six-car. Requires timetabe recast on WLL. Recommended for detaied consideration once sufficient dua votage roing stock becomes avaiabe. Recommended for further deveopment. Option I4 Lengthen London Overground ELL services to five-car. Recommended for further deveopment. Option I5 Lengthen London Overground Gospe Oak Barking services to three-car or four-car. Recommended for further deveopment, potentiay inked to eectrification. 20