Executive summary Introduction Since June 2005, the Network Licence has required Network Rai to pubish Route Utiisation Strategies, which estabish the most effective and efficient ways to use the capacity avaiabe across the network. The Network Licence requires that Network Rai maintain estabished RUSs those that have been estabished by the Office of Rai Reguation. This has ed to deveopment of a second generation of RUSs, of which this London and the South East RUS is the third. Scope and panning context This London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy (RUS) buids upon the Generation One RUSs previousy produced by Network Rai between 2005-2010 which cover most of the area within its remit. This Generation Two RUS extends the strategy as foows: it ooks at a corridors into London at the same time and in a consistent way, so resuts are now directy comparabe between routes it considers current economic conditions, which have changed since the time of earier RUSs, impacting on demand forecasts and affordabiity it recognises that many infrastructure projects from previous RUSs for exampe patform engthening, resignaing schemes and the remodeing of capacity constraints (such as at Reading) are now committed. It now considers these projects in more detai to identify how they coud best faciitate the desired additiona peak capacity into the capita foowing recent Government announcements both Crossrai and the Thamesink Programme are now aso fuy committed schemes, providing additiona north-south and east-west capacity and connectivity. The RUS considers whether future deveopment of the Crossrai network in particuar coud assist with growth. In the onger term it aso notes that further new cross-london rai tunnes (such as the Chesea-Hackney ine/crossrai 2) might be a step up for the deveopment of London s rai network it forecasts the growth in peak passenger demand up to 2031 in detai for a routes into the capita, an extension to some Generation One RUSs which ony ooked up to 2019. It identifies the gaps between existing strategy and future demand on a key corridors, and where gaps exist considers how best to bridge them the first of Network Rai s RUSs, the South West Main Line, was deveoped as a prototype and was produced within comparativey short timescaes in order to inform the South Western re-franchising process in 2006. As a resut, it did not address certain parts of the network fuy (eg the South Hampshire and Soent area), so the opportunity has been taken in this RUS to remedy this severa projects affecting freight are now committed, principay invoving capacity enhancement schemes and oading gauge cearance for internationa standard 9 6 containers on conventiona wagons. Aso more is now known about freight trends and anticipated termina deveopments the RUS recognises that the current Government has a different poicy from its predecessor with respect to the treatment of airport deveopment in South East Engand in particuar, with the RUS considering options consistent with this poicy Government poicy now incudes the proposed deveopment of a High Speed Rai network from London to the West Midands and beyond. The RUS therefore now considers that High Speed 2 wi be competed within the RUS timescaes. 4
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 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 and the train operating companies). Key investments in this category incude Crossrai, the Thamesink Programme, Reading remodeing, eectrification to Oxford and Newbury, the Evergreen 3 project on the Chitern Line, a major programme of train and patform engthening in many parts of the capita, a revised timetabe structure on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), initia eements of the Feixstowe to Nuneaton freight upgrade scheme and competion of the London Overground network. For a these schemes we have used the atest position with respect to future timetabes to inform our anaysis of the effect on trave patterns and associated train oadings. It is recognised that there is some uncertainty with respect to certain eements of erstwhie committed schemes, principay reating to precise detais regarding the depoyment of new and cascaded roing stock. 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 Generation One RUSs, with recommendations remaining uncommitted at present in most cases carried forward into this RUS. The Intercity Express Programme (IEP), aong with eectrification of the Great Western Main Line (GWML) to Bristo and Swansea, has been considered in this category, since at the time of writing fu detais of the IEP Programme remain under review. Other eements of Generation One RUS strategy carried forward incude additiona roing stock to enabe further train engthening, infrastructure enhancements aimed at resoving operationa constraints not deivered in CP4 (eg Redhi, the Medway Towns), additiona trains on certain routes (eg from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate) and other proposed timetabe changes (eg stopping some peak Gatwick Express trains at Capham Junction). Construction of High Speed 2 is aso considered in this category, with comments provided in this London and South East RUS regarding its potentia impact on transport inks in London. 5
Executive Summary 2031 Commuter peaks to London: gaps and options beyond existing strategy In terms of the London morning peak period detaied modeing undertaken for the RUS forecasts a growth in demand (when combined across a corridors) at an average annua rate of 1.3 per cent per annum (34 per cent between 2008 and 2031), a rate which is broady in ine with historica growth. There are, however, significant variations between route corridors, inked to future housing provision and other deveopment pans for specific areas. These deveopment pans are in accordance with the London Pan forecasts and simiar poicy with respect to areas outside the capita. On certain ines this RUS has identified the need for new additiona options, seeking to provide sufficient peak capacity into London On many routes the combination of existing schemes and non-committed existing strategy is forecast to be sufficient to accommodate the increasing demand. However on certain ines this RUS has identified the need for new additiona options, seeking to provide sufficient peak capacity into London to accommodate the forecast future demand. The capacity strategy for the main routes in and around the capita is summarised beow. In many cases options shown are currenty at an eary stage of deveopment and detaied further investigation is required before fina pubication of this RUS, infuenced by stakehoder views arising from the consutation. On a sma number of route corridors the emerging picture is that conventiona interventions (eg timetabe changes, train engthening, infrastructure upgrades) become much more compex and costy within the ifetime of this strategy, so more extensive options such as the provision of additiona tracks outside the existing raiway boundary may be needed if the desired capacity is to be provided, and even then there woud be major chaenges to provide robust performance if additiona trains were to run. Wider consideration of any corridors where gaps remain unresoved may be necessary, extending beyond the RUS process into areas such as the pricing structure for peak and shouder peak trains. Great Western Main Line peak capacity The forecast capacity gap in 2031 in the busiest peak hour is some 5,200 seats, even aowing for impementation of the existing Great Western RUS strategy, which ony provides sufficient peak capacity for growth up to 2019. 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 Crossrai network to Maidenhead in 2018). In coming to 6
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 this concusion the impact of committed schemes incuding Reading remodeing and the infux of new vehices has been fuy considered, with the impact of eectrification and the IEP Programme, (which remains a RUS recommendation, even though it is not yet funded), aso having been incuded. In identifying a gap of this magnitude the RUS notes, cruciay, that the existing strategy for the GWML does not incude any additiona high-peak trains into Paddington. This 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. The RUS therefore seeks to provide additiona capacity in the peak from Reading and the outer Thames Vaey in response to the gap. The foowing additiona options are therefore now under consideration, with the current status indicated. New peak capacity options for Thames Vaey commuters Option A1 Extend Crossrai services beyond the committed terminus of Maidenhead to Reading. Further deveopment is recommended, to simpify operations and as a faciitator to Option A6 beow, subject to business case, but this option woud not resove the gap in isoation. Option A2 Increase peak IEP service from 15 tph to 16 tph. Further deveopment is recommended, subject to business case, but extra capacity from this option may require additiona patforms at London Paddington; woud not resove the gap in isoation and may impact on performance. Option A3 Lengthening of peak IEP trains. Further deveopment is recommended, subject to business case, but extra capacity from this option woud not resove the gap in isoation. Option A4 Option A5 Option A6 New 4 tph 12-car high seating capacity Reading/ outer Thames Vaey to London Paddington peak additiona fast services. No changes to other services. New 4 tph 12-car high seating capacity Reading/ outer Thames Vaey to London Paddington peak additiona fast services. London Paddington capacity freed up by extending Heathrow Express through the Crossrai tunnes whist keeping it on the GWML fast ines at a times. New 4 tph 12-car high seating capacity Reading/ outer Thames Vaey to London Paddington peak additiona fast services. London Paddington capacity and main ine paths freed up by extending Heathrow Express through the Crossrai tunnes and running it onto the GWML reief ines at east at peak times. Not operationay viabe without other interventions. Not operationay viabe because signaing headways do not permit additiona fast ine paths. Further deveopment is recommended, subject to business case and optimisation of the option. 7
Executive Summary On this route it is fet that impementation of Option A6 (possiby aso with some of Options A1 A3) woud broady address the gap, enabing four extra fast main ine trains in the busiest peak hours into London Paddington in response to Reading and outer Thames Vaey commuter growth. The RUS recognises that there is a variety of sub-options with regard to origin point and stopping patterns for these additiona trains and further work is therefore now panned to optimise the proposa. However the concept of extending Heathrow Express into Crossrai and running this service on the reief ines (at east at peak times) appears to be necessary to aow the operation of any additiona peak main ine trains without major infrastructure enhancement over a considerabe distance. Further deveopment is required, with impementation not anticipated to be required before 2019. It is aso emphasised that significant further deveopment is required regarding how best to serve the proposed High Speed 2 station at Od Oak Common, an issue which has potentia interactions with the new options isted above. In the more immediate term further work and additiona deveopment of the strategy for the GWML is aso recommended, focusing on: a funding decision regarding the IEP Programme and eectrification the integration of IEP and Crossrai timetabes the strategy for outer-suburban IEP trains (or equivaent), incuding work on optimising caing patterns for Sough, Maidenhead and Twyford, given that these woud utiise significant capacity by either requiring main ine station cas or crossing services between the main and reief ines whether any further infrastructure enhancement (in addition to committed Crossrai-funded interventions) on the section of ine between Westbourne Park and Od Oak Common West/ Acton East is required, as we as at London Paddington to receive onger trains on the suburban side of the station. Maryebone routes peak capacity On the Chiterns corridor 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. Anaysis indicates that increasing numbers of London commuters from the Chiterns, together with additiona demand stimuated by the Evergreen 3 project service improvements, wi resut in further interventions potentiay being required beyond competion of that project. However the specific detais of train service changes which wi be needed are dependant on the overa distribution of passenger oadings foowing impementation of the Evergreen 3 project timetabe and the RUS anaysis has not identified a need to make more specific train-by-train recommendations at the present time. The new Oxford service aso has potentia to aeviate the London Paddington capacity gap to a certain degree, though not to a great enough extent to avoid the above changes being considered on GWML. West Coast Main Line capacity In the absence of the ongoing panning for a new High Speed Rai network this RUS (and the West Coast Main Line RUS Draft for Consutation, pubished December 2010) woud forecast a significant peak and a day capacity gap in 2031 on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The key issue affecting the London commuter market woud be a shortfa in capacity for some 2500 passengers on outer suburban services into London Euston in the busiest morning peak hour, inked to the panned growth of areas such as Miton Keynes. Capacity shortfas woud aso exist on ong distance services a day, potentiay creating difficuties for pricesensitive passengers as more restrictive fare poicies woud be needed to manage demand. There woud aso be imited paths avaiabe for freight growth. Consistent with Government poicy this RUS therefore assumes that construction of a new High Speed Rai network wi go ahead, resoving the above issues for future generations. However current pans invove arge numbers of peope arriving in both the London Euston and Od Oak Common areas and this RUS highights that additiona interventions may be necessary. Midand Main Line peak 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 8-car to 12-car. Beyond this the principa future crowding concern to London is forecast to reate to commuters from towns such as Weingborough and Bedford on onger distance trains, with a forecast gap in 2031 of some 800 seats in the busiest peak hour, based on current commitments. Consistent with the recommendations of the Network RUS: Eectrification Strategy and the East Midands RUS the recommended approach to resove this gap wi be to repace the existing High Speed Train (HST) feet used on the Midand Main Line (MML) with IEP or simiar, foowing on from High Speed Train repacement on the GWML and ECML. Based on our anaysis such an approach woud broady address the gap. 8
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 In the onger term it is aso anticipated that there woud be significant transfer of ong distance demand from the MML to the North East eg of the proposed high speed rai network, assuming the construction of the stations panned to serve the East Midands and Sheffied. High speed rai woud aso reease capacity on the MML for additiona passenger and freight services. East Coast Main Line capacity The Thamesink Programme wi aeviate suburban capacity constraints and improve connectivity on this route by enabing commuter services to continue through the Thamesink tunnes rather than needing to terminate at London King s Cross. However, other than minor retimetabing no additiona trains reative to today wi be abe to run through the critica Wewyn viaduct area, so outer suburban and main ine peak capacity wi be restricted to that gained through running a trains at maximum ength, as previousy expained in the East Coast Main Line RUS. Long distance timetabes wi be improved through the East Coast May 2011 timetabe and, in the onger term, by major infrastructure enhancements at severa ocations aong the route. The modeed strategy for the ECML aso assumes that IEP wi be impemented, though this is currenty anticipated as being a repacement for existing HSTs rather than fuy repacing a Mark IV coaching stock. 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. These services are not directy constrained by capacity over the Wewyn viaduct and hence the train service frequency on both the Hertford Loop and to Wewyn Garden City can be expected to increase once the Finsbury Park to Aexandra Paace section comprises six fuy usabe tracks and additiona capacity overa is provided at London King s Cross through the connection to the Thamesink tunnes. Beyond this the Moorgate branch is restricted to six-car trains by underground station patforms so the usua RUS options of engthening are not avaiabe here. As a resut, the East Coast Main Line RUS recommendation for increasing the overa peak frequency to Moorgate (requiring the instaation of additiona signas on the branch) is re-emphasised as necessary to avoid a capacity gap, though this is currenty anticipated as being some years ater than the increment provided by impementation of the post-thamesink timetabe. As ong as the existing strategy is impemented this RUS does not then forecast a peak period capacity gap on the ECML in 2031. However, given the nationa importance of this route, further options are being considered in response to off-peak growth and stakehoder aspirations for additiona train paths on the route in the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review. The specific options in this category are isted beow. The emerging strategy, consistent with the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review, is to optimise the timetabe and aso in the sighty onger term the roing stock in use on this route. There is insufficient evidence of benefits to enabe options aimed at enhancing the infrastructure on the London approaches (additiona tracks through the Wewyn area and/or instaing ERTMS) to be recommended at present though there is expected to be a wider case for ERTMS on this route as signaing renewas become due. With respect to the onger term there woud be significant transfer of ong distance demand to the proposed high speed rai network, with passengers from Leeds, Newcaste and Scotand in particuar seeing additiona capacity and significant journey time reductions to London. High speed rai woud aso reease capacity on the southern end of the ECML for additiona passenger and freight services. East Coast Main Line capacity options London approaches Option B1 Option B2 Option B3 Option B4 Option B5 Reconfigure existing ECML eectric trains to aow the busiest services to be formed of 10 Mark IV coaches. ECML roing stock repacement (beyond repacing HST sets with IEP trains). Run seven tph ong distance services in aternate off-peak hours on the ECML. Impement advanced signaing (European Rai Traffic Management System (ERTMS)) on ECML to create additiona train paths. Four-tracking throughout the Wewyn North area to create additiona train paths. Potentiay requires further investigation. Potentiay requires further investigation. Further deveopment is recommended, subject to business case and optimisation of the option (see the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review, pubished in December 2010). Unikey to be a soution to capacity issues in isoation. Unikey to be recommended, due to insufficient evidence of benefits. 9
Executive Summary West Angia peak capacity Certain eements of the previous strategy for this route are now being reconsidered, given that the Lea Vaey four-tracking scheme recommended by the Greater Angia RUS was heaviy infuenced by pans for the major expansion of Stansted Airport, a scheme which is not now going ahead. As with the Greater Angia RUS, the strategy for outer suburban capacity is heaviy reiant on impementing 12-car operations on a main ine services. As a resut the sma number of stations not having patforms engthened in CP4 wi sti require to be served by onger trains at a subsequent stage. Once this is compete the principa capacity gap on West Angia wi then be on inner suburban services. It remains a recommendation that the necessary capacity on the Southbury Loop shoud be provided by impementation of a new Cheshunt to Seven Sisters (for the London Underground Victoria Line) peak shutte, given that the critica oadings of Cheshunt and Enfied Town services are approaching Seven Sisters. On the assumption that the above wi a be impemented the forecast peak capacity gap in 2031 woud then be a shortfa of some 800 passengers, soey affecting the Lea Vaey ine. This RUS therefore considers how to provide extra capacity on this corridor, focusing on the need to aeviate the critica oadings which are north of Tottenham Hae (for the London Underground Victoria Line). The options in the tabe beow are currenty being investigated in response to this gap. It can be seen that on the West Angia route further deveopment work is required, to enabe a decision to be taken between the various options avaiabe to increase capacity on the Lea Vaey ine in particuar, focusing mainy on the critica oad point north of Tottenham Hae. South thereof it is emphasised that the destination for any additiona trains appears to be Stratford, given the difficuty in adding extra trains on the constrained route via Hackney Downs. However it is possibe that some of the Stratford trains coud be extended to London Liverpoo Street at some stage after Crossrai has been impemented. In addition the RUS aso recognises that aspirations exist to increase service frequencies on the Chingford corridor and potentiay from Enfied Town. However at present the main Lea Vaey corridor appears to be a higher priority, so frequency increases on other routes shoud not be at the expense of potentia improvements to the main ine. New options for Lea Vaey corridor Option C1 Option C2 Option C3 Option C4 Option C5 Option C6 Option C7 Run additiona trains on the West Angia route utiising existing infrastructure. Four-tracking of the Lea Vaey route and run additiona trains. Additiona infrastructure in the Tottenham Hae to Coppermi Junction area and Tottenham Hae to Stratford service. Additiona infrastructure between Tottenham Hae and Ange Road to extend the Tottenham Hae to Stratford shutte considered in Option E3 to Ange Road. Infrastructure enhancements in the Broxbourne area and run additiona trains. Lengthen Hertford East peak services from eightcar to 12-car. Extend West Angia to Stratford services through to London Liverpoo Street. Additiona two tph Hertford East/Broxbourne to Stratford can run without extra infrastructure (beyond current commitments at Stratford) so ikey to be recommended, subject to business case. Scheme woud enabe an additiona four tph from the Lea Vaey to Stratford, in addition to Option C1 (ie six tph additiona in tota). Recommended for further deveopment to confirm if a business case exists. Enabes an additiona two tph shutte service from Tottenham Hae to Stratford, in addition to Option C1. Potentiay requires further investigation as an option to improve connectivity, but woud not reduce peak crowding into Tottenham Hae. Enabes an additiona two tph from Ange Road to Stratford, in addition to Option C1. Potentiay requires further investigation, but ony provides imited additiona peak capacity to Tottenham Hae from the north. Enabes an additiona two tph from the Lea Vaey to Stratford, in addition to Option C1 (ie four tph additiona in tota). Recommended for further deveopment to confirm if a business case exists. Likey to be required to resove gap in the event that at east one of Options C1 to C5 is not impemented, subject to business case. Further anaysis is required. 10
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 Great Eastern Main Line new peak capacity options Option D1 Option D2 Option D3 Run additiona Great Eastern Main Line outer services, utiising capacity freed up by Crossrai. Impement ERTMS to create additiona train paths. Run an additiona three tph on the Great Eastern Main Line. Not operationay viabe without additiona infrastructure. Unikey to be recommended to resove capacity issues in isoation due to insufficient evidence of benefits. Requires significant infrastructure enhancements. Further anaysis is required. It is anticipated that, subject to a robust business case being found, the deveopment work on the Lea Vaey corridor wi inform Network Rai s Initia Strategic Business Pan for Contro Period 5. Great Eastern Main Line peak capacity The RUS has forecast a major capacity chaenge on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML), with options for increasing peak capacity beyond that previous outined in the Greater Angia RUS strategy appearing at present to be extremey imited. Assuming that the Greater Angia RUS recommendations are impemented in fu, with repacement of intercity roing stock, fu 12-car operations and an extra peak train beyond current pans, modeing sti forecasts a capacity shortfa of some 4,200 peope. The RUS has sought to consider whether additiona trains coud run, perhaps using capacity reeased at London Liverpoo Street by Crossrai under Option D1. Operationa anaysis has identified that significant infrastructure enhancement, focusing on the main constraints at London Liverpoo Street, Stratford, Shenfied and esewhere, wi be required to provide for around three additiona services. Eventua further infrastructure interventions may be required to mitigate the performance risk of operating this eve of service on the main ine. With respect to technoogica soutions, as with the ECML through the Wewyn area, there is insufficient evidence at present to suggest that a new signaing soution such as the ERTMS system under Option D2 woud enabe additiona trains to run on this route. As major interventions appear to be necessary to provide a soution to the forecast gap, further work is required to deveop Option D3 incuding whether a business case exists for high cost schemes of this nature. Aternative soutions such as the pricing structure for the high-peak hour shoud aso be considered. Fenchurch Street routes peak capacity Capacity enhancements on the c2c route corridor to London Fenchurch Street are panned, with increasing 12-car operations. The modeing used by this London and South East RUS forecasts that this approach wi provide sufficient additiona peak capacity to match demand on this ine. Kent route peak capacity As previousy recommended by the South London and Kent RUSs, additiona capacity in this area wi be required through a programme of train and patform engthening. The carriages to faciitate this are not committed at present, but 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 in the south east London suburbs wi commence shorty, with further work anticipated at compex ocations such as Rochester and London Charing Cross in Network Rai s Contro Period 5. Once the engthened trains are in pace and the Thamesink Programme compete (providing additiona trains on certain routes via London Backfriars) the RUS modeing does not forecast a peak capacity gap. The Kent RUS identified options for engthening and extension further back into Kent of certain trains using High Speed 1 and these options remain a recommended approach if demand on these routes dictates. Sussex route peak 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 overcrowding probems on these ines. The committed extra capacity comprises main ine and Redhi corridor services to the Thamesink network (which wi be engthened from eight-car to 12-car and peak trains re-routed to run via London Bridge), 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 (where engthening is panned 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. 11
Executive Summary Sussex route new peak capacity options Option E1 Option E2 Option E3 Option E4 Increase envisaged post-thamesink service eve by running additiona trains to London Bridge. Impement ERTMS on BML to create additiona train paths. Construct new tunne from outer London to create additiona train paths on Brighton Main Line. Construct new BML2 avoiding Gatwick Airport and East Croydon. Not operationay viabe. Unikey to be recommended to resove capacity issues in isoation, due to insufficient evidence of benefits. Potentiay required over the onger term. Not recommended due to high cost, disbenefits created, not soving the probem and not serving the key demand drivers. The Sussex RUS recommended further train engthening which is not currenty committed. This incuded running 10-car trains on the Uckfied Line and running onger trains on the Purey corridor (now anticipated as Caterham and Tattenham trains joining into a 10-car train at Purey, thence running to Victoria). Inserting Capham Junction cas in certain peak Gatwick Express services was aso recommended to provide improved connectivity from Brighton from this area and spread oadings more eveny between peak trains. This London and South East RUS reemphasises the need for these changes. Modeing forecasts that 10-car operations wi provide sufficient capacity on inner suburban services. If the above strategy is impemented this RUS forecasts a peak capacity gap on this corridor in 2031 of some 1,600 outer suburban passengers in the busiest peak hour on the BML, principay to London Bridge. The options shown in the next tabe have therefore been considered in response to this gap. From the above it can be seen that this London and South East RUS has not been abe to recommend any interventions beyond existing strategy, as outined in the Sussex RUS. Whist the capacity gap on the BML is not forecast to be fuy resoved by existing strategy, it is significanty smaer than the unresoved gaps on the GEML or South West Main Line (SWML) in particuar so this London and South East RUS considers that these routes must be regarded as a higher priority for any major infrastructure interventions. Further work wi be required by operators to optimise service patterns 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 and effectivey utiising the opportunity this provides is ikey to be a key consideration in the future. South West Main Line peak capacity The most significant committed scheme at present on the SWML is 10-car inner suburban operations, which incudes the re-use of the currenty disused former internationa patforms at London Wateroo. This scheme was a recommendation of the South West Main Line RUS and is 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 10-car scheme providing sufficient on-train space, though additiona roing stock has been assumed in order to run a such peak trains at fu ength. However the above scheme ony directy benefits suburban passengers, given that main ine trains are generay aready fu ength and no additiona paths can be found esewhere on the route for extra trains, regardess of capacity at Wateroo. With respect to onger distance services the RUS therefore notes that a significant peak capacity gap may arise, with a forecast shortfa of some 7,100 passengers in the busiest peak hour. This coud potentiay be reduced sighty with additiona engthening for exampe on the Saisbury ine and semi-fast services from Guidford via Cobham (given that the atter run fast from Surbiton at peak times) but this woud ony marginay reduce the gap to 6,100 passengers. The RUS has therefore considered new options in response to this forecast gap as shown in the tabe. Two options have been identified as potentiay worth investigating further. Option F3 woud aow for the operation of 16-car trains into London Wateroo from seected mainine destinations, through the provision of a fyover at Capham Junction, aowing London Wateroo Internationa to be used for these services. 12
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 New options for South West Main Line Option F1 Impement 12-car SWML inner suburban operations. Not recommended since the forecast capacity gap is on outer services so this woud not sove the probem. It is emphasised that providing 12-car suburban capabiity at London Wateroo is compex and high cost. Option F2 Run doube-deck trains on SWML outer services. Not recommended due to insufficient evidence that the gap woud be resoved. In addition the high cost of this scheme is such that there is unikey to be a robust business case. Option F3 Run 16-car trains on SWML outer services into London Wateroo Internationa. Potentiay needed in the onger term if other options cannot be identified. However this appears to require a major new grade-separated connection from the SWML in the Capham Junction area into London Wateroo Internationa patforms and woud create significant operationa difficuties with 16-car trains needing to spit/join on route. Option F4 Run four tph additiona SWML outer services. Requires significant infrastructure enhancement. Further anaysis is required. This option woud however invove high cost and woud not provide increased service frequencies. In contrast, Option F4 woud provide for increased service frequency through up to an additiona four trains per hour from Basingstoke or possiby esewhere, but woud require significant infrastructure ateration in the form of major remodeing of London Wateroo station throat, grade separation at Woking and works at Queenstown Road (aso required for Option G2). In addition, further infrastructure interventions may be required esewhere on the route in order to mitigate the performance impacts of the increased service eve. This option wi require further anaysis and deveopment, incuding identification of whether a business case is ikey to exist. Aternativey, soutions such as the pricing structure for the high peak hour shoud be considered. Windsor Lines peak capacity As with the SWML the most significant committed scheme at present on the Windsor Lines (routes via Putney) is the operation of 10-car services. However the committed CP4 patform engthening programme ony extends as far out as Virginia Water, so the recommendation for further 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. Assuming fu 10-car operations and an increase from 15 to 16 trains in the busiest peak hour (as panned once the internationa patforms at London Wateroo are brought back into use) the forecast gap in 2031 is then anticipated to be 700 passengers in this hour. The gap primariy affects the onger distance services on the corridor. The RUS has therefore considered the new options shown in the tabe beow in response to this forecast gap. On this route it is ikey that impementation of Options G1 and G2 woud broady address the gap in the short term. At some stage the origin point for two trains per hour on this route is anticipated to be Heathrow Termina 5, with impementation as part of the BAA Heathrow Airtrack scheme. However it is emphasised that there is ikey to be a strong case for extra trains over the Windsor ine corridor regardess of whether they originate from Heathrow Airport or esewhere. This potentiay impacts on eve crossing downtimes to road vehices on the Richmond ine, though routeing options via Hounsow aso exist. 13
Executive Summary New options for the Windsor Lines Option G1 Run 17 tph at peak times on the Windsor ines Increasing Windsor Line service eves from 15tph to 17tph does not require any additiona infrastructure (other than the anticipated reopening of London Wateroo Internationa). This is ikey to resut in an increase in journey time for some outer Windsor Line services and may have a negative impact on performance without any further mitigation. This is ikey to be recommended, subject to business case. Option G2 Run 18 tph at peak times on the Windsor Lines, with infrastructure enhancements at Queenstown Road Further increasing Windsor Line service eves to 18 tph is beieved to require reopening of Patform 1 at Queenstown Road, with associated track ayout changes. This woud mitigate the performance impact identified above. Further deveopment work is recomended subject to business case. Option G3 Impement 12-car operations on Windsor Lines Potentiay required in a high growth scenario, subject to business case. Option G4 Reconfigure London Wateroo Barnes Junction and run additiona trains This option potentiay requires further investigation at time of the Wateroo area resignaing scheme. Whist 18 trains in the busiest hour woud provide significant extra capacity reative to today it is ikey that the increased frequency and a potentia Heathrow Airport origin point woud enabe additiona passengers to trave, so there might sti be a need for Option G3 ater, possiby with Option G4 in the onger term. Eephant & Caste corridor to Backfriars/ Thamesink peak 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 re-routeing Brighton Main Line trains via London Bridge which wi enabe additiona oca services, incuding a four trains per hour service from Wimbedon to Backfriars via Tooting. 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 woud not be 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 wi be required at some stage to enabe a passengers to board trains. However, it is possibe that this might ead to passengers standing for onger periods than the 20 minutes currenty considered acceptabe so further consideration is required. In the onger term the London Underground Bakeroo Line has potentia to be extended southwards from Eephant & Caste. This approach has potentia to provide extra capacity to the inner south London area. Orbita routes peak capacity The RUS has identified a significant peak capacity gap on the West London Line (WLL) in particuar, a corridor which has experienced very high eves of growth in recent years. By 2031 the forecasts suggest a capacity gap of some 2500 passengers in the busiest peak hour on this route, a figure which does not incude the potentia major impact of the proposed High Speed 2 station at Od Oak Common. The options shown in the tabe beow have been considered in response to the gap in the short term. One particuar probem at present is the 73-minute gap in the morning peak on otherwise houry direct services from the WCML to the WLL. No operationay viabe soution has yet been identified to resove this, but further work is recommended under Option I1, with the eventua aim of a 30-minute frequency. The RUS has aso identified a strong business case for eight-car operation of Southern services on the WLL (Option I2), most ikey utiising roing stock cascaded as a resut of the Thamesink Programme. Further soutions on the WLL woud invove London 14
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 Overground services, but these trains are aready configured at a high standing density so have not been considered at this stage. The RUS notes significant potentia for future demand increases on orbita routes. For exampe in the medium term, deveopment pans for the Ear s Court area can be expected to exacerbate existing crowding probems on the WLL. Further work is required with respect to the ong term on a orbita routes inked to ongoing demand growth. There is aso the possibe need to provide capacity on the West and North London Lines to carry arge numbers of peope on oca journeys to the proposed High Speed 2 station at Od Oak Common. 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. New options for the West London Line Option I1 Increase West London Line Watford Junction (or beyond) peak service to two tph Option I2 Lengthen Southern WLL services to eight-car Recommended Further work recommended to identify an operationay viabe soution. Connectivity gaps and options The RUS notes severa strategic connectivity gaps in the London area. It has ony sought to consider gaps in this category reated to major drivers of demand and recognises that other smaer-scae gaps and options exist at a more oca eve. Access to Heathrow Airport The RUS considers that the difficuty in accessing Heathrow Airport by rai (except from centra London) is a strategic gap. The foowing options are described: Heathrow connectivity options Option A6 Heathrow Express incorporation into Crossrai Recommended for further deveopment, subject to business case, to resove GWML peak capacity issues as described earier. This option woud aso improve connectivity to Heathrow Airport, by increasing the centra London Crossrai to Heathrow Airport frequency and by aowing direct Heathrow Airport trains from both the Abbey Wood and Shenfied eastern branches. Option J1 BAA Heathrow Airtrack Currenty under deveopment through the Transport and Works act process. Option J2 Heathrow Airport Western connection Woud enabe direct services from the west via Sough. Potentiay requires further investigation. Option J3 Option K1 New high speed rai station compex serving Heathrow Airport directy Increasing connectivity to Od Oak Common from WCML South The Government s proposed high speed rai strategy incudes a new station at Heathrow Airport, to be provided when the high speed rai network is extended to incude Manchester and Leeds. See Crossrai option beow. Passengers from WCML South for Heathrow Airport woud have a singe change at Od Oak Common. 15
Executive Summary Maximising the benefits of Crossrai The RUS emphasises the desirabiity of optimising the usage of Crossrai tunnes, focusing on avoiding the need for services to terminate from the east in sidings at Westbourne Park (ater at the proposed High Speed Rai station at Od Oak Common). The foowing extentions appear to be consistent with RUS principes: Crossrai extension options Option A6 Option K1 Heathrow Express incorporated into Crossrai Crossrai extension onto WCML sow ines Recommended for further deveopment, subject to business case, to resove GWML peak capacity issues as described earier. This option woud aso remove the need for many passengers to/from Heathrow Airport to change trains at London Paddington. Recommended for further investigation, subject to business case, for severa reasons: to provide direct trains from this corridor to the West End, City of London and ocations such as Canary Wharf, avoiding the need to change onto the London Underground system at London Euston to free up capacity on the London Underground system, both at Euston station and on the Northern and Victoria ines, for passengers from High Speed 2 to reduce the number of trains and passengers needing to be accommodated at London Euston during High Speed 2 construction works to potentiay make it easier for High Speed 2 to reach London Euston, by removing most if not a trains from one of the pairs of tracks on the existing tunneed approaches to the terminus to enabe fu benefit to be made of the centra London Crossrai tunnes, with 24 tph arriving from key corridors to the west and none needing to start at Od Oak Common/ Westbourne Park to improve access to Heathrow Airport, by providing the WCML corridor with access to Heathrow Airport with a singe change at Od Oak Common Option A1 Crossrai extension to Reading Recommended to simpify operations, subject to business case, and as an enaber to Option A6. Kent RUS option Crossrai extension to Gravesend Safeguarded scheme to improve connectivity to Dartford area, subject to business case. The combination of Options A6 and K1 woud ead to a the peak 24 trains per hour trains from the west into the Crossrai core coming from further afied, rather than 14 trains per hour Crossrai trains starting their journey at London Paddington. Impications of High Speed Rai demand on the London area The RUS advises that further deveopment of the strategy for accommodating High Speed 2 oca fows between London, the wider South East and Euston/Od Oak Common is required. This incudes oca connectivity and capacity to Od Oak Common, capacity as a whoe at London Euston and what, if any, Great Western Main Line trains shoud ca at Od Oak Common. Future Chesea Hackney Line (Crossrai 2) The RUS restates the currenty safeguarded aignment of a new cross-london rai tunne. This woud improve connectivity on a South West to North East axis and aeviate London Underground congestion. The RUS notes that a potentia modification to the safeguarding may be appropriate, so as to provide a connection to the high speed rai network at London Euston. Capacity impications of the proposed ink from High Speed 2 to High Speed 1 The RUS advises that detaied consideration of the effect of a High Speed 1 to High Speed 2 connection is required, focusing on the impact on other eements of this strategy, given that the ony viabe route for such a connection appears to interact significanty with the North London Line. 16
London and South East Route Utiisation Strategy Draft for Consutation December 2010 Other connectivity schemes The existing raiway network has certain gaps in connectivity between routes, with passengers sometimes needing to trave via London to make journeys indirecty. The RUS notes certain potentia opportunities for further deveopment, for exampe the proposed East West Rai ink which woud aso improve freight routeing options as described in the foowing text. Freight in South East Engand The RUS has considered capacity issues associated with the interaction between passenger and freight in south east Engand in detai. The principa capacity issue is the need to accommodate growing intermoda import traffic from the container ports in addition to the passenger growth discussed earier. Most of this traffic is heading for the Midands or north of Engand rather than serving the London area. Given that the London raiway network is heaviy congested the RUS has therefore considered how best for routes avoiding London to be improved such that traffic not serving London directy can have aternative routeing options, whist not incurring cost or journey time increases for freight companies, which reduce their competitiveness. In addition it is emphasised that diversionary routes via the capita wi aso be required. The main on this basis, the RUS recommends the foowing freight outputs as outined beow. Capabiity recommendations are being addressed separatey through the detaied Strategic Freight Network workstream, with options under deveopment consistent with this preferred routeing strategy. Key freight growth area Feixstowe/ Bathside Bay Southampton traffic Essex Thamesside (London Gateway etc) Channe Tunne traffic Kent Thameside (Ise of Grain, Howbury Park, Medway etc) 2010 average traffic 2031 traffic forecast Proposed routeing during norma operations 28 tpd 58 tpd Proposed route for current and future traffic recommended as being the cross-country route via Bury St Edmunds. To achieve this, the cross-country route woud need to be progressivey upgraded beyond current commitments, with services using this route needing to be just as efficient to operators as a London routeing. 20 tpd 51 tpd Proposed route for traffic recommended as being via Oxford. Redoubing of sections of the Leamington Spa Coventry ine coud assist with future growth, but woud not in isoation resove the need for freight traffic from the WCML to Southampton to make fat crossing moves at both Nuneaton and Coventry or to trave via centra Birmingham. The RUS therefore notes that reopening of the East-West Rai corridor is potentiay highy beneficia to freight, enabing traffic for Southampton to eave the WCML at Betchey, though this is subject to paths on the WCML itsef. 8 tpd 50 tpd Proposed route for traffic recommended as being the Gospe Oak Barking route and the WCML. This woud minimise the passenger/freight interactions in the Forest Gate/Stratford area. Eectrification of the Gospe Oak Barking route and the associated Thames route was recommended in the Thameshaven Branch and Rippe Lane Sidings Network RUS: Eectrification. Further consideration is required regarding trains bound for the ECML and aso capacity over the Gospe Oak to Wiesden Junction section. 6 tpd 35 tpd Proposed route for traffic envisaged as remaining via Maidstone East, Catford and the West London Line to the WCML. 9 tpd 24 tpd Various routeings via the London area, dependant on destination. 17
Executive Summary In addition to the above, new domestic intermoda traffic serving the capita coud be achieved, given the deveopment of suitabe new termina sites. South Hampsire and Soent This RUS has provided the equivaent to a first generation RUS for this area, which was not covered in detai by the South West Main Line RUS. The key recommendations are: Brighton to Southampton Centra service to run via Botey instead of via Netey, so as to serve Southampton Airport Parkway, requiring a timetabe recast due to capacity on the singe ine on the Botey route provision of a new service between Portsmouth and Southampton Centra to address the gap of infrequent fast trains between these cities Netey ine recommended to remain as heavy rai (consideration was given by the RUS as to whether a conversion to ight rai might be appropriate) further investigation into sma-scae infrastructure enhancements, in particuar redoubing of the Botey ine and consideration of an additiona Patform 4 at Easteigh provision of four freight paths per hour between Basingstoke and Southampton Centra extension of South West Trains Figure 6 Saisbury to Romsey service, via Southampton Centra and Chander s Ford, back to Saisbury. Consutation process We now seek stakehoder views, particuary on the options described, before finaising this strategy. Detais of how to respond can be found in Chapter 12. 18