CENTRAL RAILWAY PROJECT LIMITED

Report 4 Downloads 223 Views

In 2015 this will amount to over 2090 million vehicle kilometres of traffic a year .... Source: UK Government freight statistics, Roland Berger & Partners Analysis ...... operate an HGV vehicle/km exclusive of any environmental, accident or ...

Central Railway UK TRANSPORT CASE

Central Railway Update June 2003

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW.................................................................................................. 4 2.1. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4

BASIC CONCEPTS ......................................................................................................... 5 LORRY-ON-TRAIN SERVICE..................................................................................... 5 LIMITATION OF LOW CLEARANCES......................................................................... 5 ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ........................................................................................... 5 ROUTE ...................................................................................................................... 6

3. MARKETS FOR CENTRAL RAILWAY SERVICES ................................................. 8 3.1 LORRY-ON-TRAIN SERVICES............................................................................... 8 3.1.1 LOCATION OF PRIMARY MARKETS .......................................................................... 8 3.1.2 PROJECTED GROWTH IN TRAFFIC ............................................................................ 9 3.1.3 CENTRAL RAILWAY’S POTENTIAL MARKET SHARE IN FUTURE TRAFFIC ............... 9 3.1.4 CENTRAL RAILWAY TRAFFIC FORECAST 2015...................................................... 10 3.1.5 OTHER FREIGHT RAILWAY SERVICES .................................................................... 10 3.1.6 OTHER POTENTIAL MARKETS ................................................................................ 11 3.2 PASSENGER SERVICES......................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 CENTRAL RAILWAY TRACK ACCESS ..................................................................... 11 3.2.2 CHILTERN RAILWAYS SERVICES ............................................................................ 11 3.2.3 SCOPE FOR NEW PASSENGER SERVICES ................................................................ 12 4.0 ROUTE OPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 14 4.1 ROUTE SELECTION PRINCIPLES ................................................................................ 14 4.2 USE OF THE GREAT CENTRAL AND CHILTERN RAILWAY CORRIDORS .................. 14 4.3 ROUTE OPTIONS THROUGH AND AROUND LONDON ................................................ 14 4.3.1 EAST OF LONDON ROUTE OPTIONS........................................................................ 14 4.3.3 ROUTE OPTIONS TO THE SOUTHWEST OF LONDON ................................................ 15 4.3.4 ROUTES WEST OF LONDON .................................................................................... 16 4.3.5 ROUTE OPTIONS IN THE MIDLANDS ....................................................................... 18 4.3.6 ROUTE OPTIONS IN GREATER MANCHESTER ......................................................... 18 5. THE ROUTE, SYSTEM, TERMINALS AND TRAFFIC .......................................... 19 5.1 RAILWAY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 19 5.1.1 THE ROUTE ............................................................................................................ 19 5.1.2 STRUCTURE GAUGE ............................................................................................... 19 5.2 THE SYSTEM AND OPERATIONS ................................................................................. 22 5.3 TERMINALS ................................................................................................................. 23 5.4 TERMINAL TRAFFIC ................................................................................................... 25 6.0 GENERAL TRANSPORT EFFECTS OF CENTRAL RAILWAY ......................... 27

2

6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2 6.2.1 6.3 6.4 6.5

ROADS........................................................................................................................ 27 MOTORWAYS ......................................................................................................... 27 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY (CLASS A AND B) ROADS ......................................... 30 VALUE OF HGV DIVERSION TO RAIL ................................................................... 30 RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................ 30 RAILWAYS SERVICES - PASSENGER ....................................................................... 30 RAILWAY SERVICES – FREIGHT....................................................................... 31 COMMERCE - FREIGHT LOGISTICS ................................................................ 31 NETWORK INTEGRATION................................................................................... 32

7.0 OTHER INFORMATION ON TRANSPORT EFFECTS ......................................... 35 7.1

TERMINAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDIES........................................................ 35

8. CENTRAL RAILWAY’S RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS .................................................................................................... 36 8.1 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.2.6 8.2.7 8.2.8 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.4 8.3.5 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 8.5 8.6

SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 36 NATIONAL TRANSPORT PLANS......................................................................... 37 SRA FREIGHT PROGRESS REPORT MAY 2003 ....................................................... 37 SRA STRATEGIC REVIEW OF CENTRAL RAILWAY ................................................ 37 SRA STRATEGIC PLAN MARCH 2001.................................................................... 38 SRA FREIGHT STRATEGY MAY 2001................................................................... 38 DETR WHITE PAPER (JULY 1998) ......................................................................... 39 DETR TRANSPORT 2010: THE 10 YEAR PLAN (JULY 2000) ................................. 39 DETR SUSTAINABLE DISTRIBUTION – A STRATEGY (MARCH 1999) ................... 43 RAILTRACK’S 2000 NETWORK MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (NMS) .................... 44 REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE ................................................................... 45 EAST MIDLANDS .................................................................................................... 46 NORTH WEST ......................................................................................................... 46 SOUTH EAST ........................................................................................................... 46 WEST MIDLANDS ................................................................................................... 46 YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER ..................................................................................... 46 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES .......................................................... 46 EAST MIDLANDS .................................................................................................... 46 NORTH WEST ......................................................................................................... 47 SOUTH EAST ........................................................................................................... 47 WEST MIDLANDS ................................................................................................... 47 YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER ..................................................................................... 47 MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR STUDIES .............................................................. 47 LOCAL PLANS ......................................................................................................... 47

3

CENTRAL RAILWAY DRAFT UK TRANSPORT CASE (May 03 Update)

1.

INTRODUCTION

This report summarises the UK transport implications of the railway project proposed by Central Railway. It covers: • general overview of the project • markets to be served by the services proposed by Central Railway • route options studied • a description of the project in terms of route, terminals, operation and traffic • consistency of the project with national, regional and local transport policies and plans • a general review of how the project is expected to affect other modes of transport. The draft report has been updated to reflect the results of recent work completed since the previous update of May 2002. This includes: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

2.

Revision of traffic forecasts for terminals and train services to reflect operations in 2015 which is the first year of 100% market penetration. This gives a better indication of the impacts of operation than the estimates used previously. The base for traffic estimates is 5,300,000 unitised traffic movements (lorries, trailers and containers) between the UK and Europe in the year 2000. The configuration of the Project has been slightly altered to make it a more independent railway. There will be more segments with 2 additional tracks and this reduces potential future capacity constraints. The distribution of traffic between terminals has been altered slightly due to the elimination of the East Manchester and Toton terminals. Train movements from terminals have been revised to reflect slightly different operating assumptions and load factors and trains lengths have been extended to 1500m. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has completed its more detailed review of the Project and DTLR is shortly to respond to the Company’s request to sponsor a Hybrid Bill. Co-ordination with work on regional economic development strategies and the multimodal studies has continued.

GENERAL OVERVIEW

Central Railway is proposing to establish an independent railway built to a large structure gauge connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leicester, London and Northern France using the Channel Tunnel – in all some 400 miles long. Although the railway will use standard track gauge (1.435m between the inside of the rails), unlike existing UK railways it will be able to carry lorries-ontrains and accommodate all trains currently in use in most of Europe. The project predominantly involves acquiring, upgrading and adding tracks to sections of under-used and dismantled railway, although a small length of new railway will also need to be constructed. The Company will operate its own lorries-on-trains services and will make the railway available to other train operating companies (TOCs) at commercial rates. The railway is designed to interlink with the UK and French motorway systems, with terminals at key motorway junctions. The Company’s main service will be frequent shuttle trains carrying lorry trailers between the UK and French terminals. This service is expected to be more cost effective and reliable than the alternative currently used by road transport firms, which consists of road hauls combined with ferry or Channel Tunnel crossings. Central Railway will take advantage of spare capacity in the Channel Tunnel to provide a service that is consistent with the UK and French Governments’ announced objective of transferring freight traffic from roads to rail through the Channel Tunnel. On opening, after traffic builds up, the railway is projected to remove 6.6 million lorries a year from UK motorways in 2015. In 2015 this will amount to over 2090 million vehicle kilometres of traffic a year removed from the UK highway network and near 1000 million kilometres removed from the French highway network.

4

The volume of traffic across the Channel is currently growing at 7% per year and expected to continue at these rates in the short term. Central Railway’s base business case estimates that future traffic will grow annually at a slightly lower rate of 6.5% until 2010 with growth rates declining to 6.0% from 2010 to 2015, 3.0% from 2015 to 2020 and 1.0% thereafter.

2.1.

Basic Concepts

2.1.1

Lorry-on-Train Service

The railway proposed by Central Railway is conceptually very simple. The Channel Tunnel creates an opportunity to put international lorries on trains, but the Eurotunnel service currently begins in Folkestone and ends in Calais. Lorries must travel large distances on the UK motorway system to reach the terminal at the Southeastern corner of the country. In doing so they cause congestion, increase air pollution and wear out road surfaces more quickly than cars and other light vehicles. Central Railway proposes to extend the reach of the existing lorries-on-trains service (the Shuttle) to the Midlands and North of England by building a large gauge railway from the Channel Tunnel, going around London, continuing north to Sheffield, and then west to Manchester and Merseyside. By providing this railway, a large proportion of the articulated lorries and trailers travelling to and from the Continent will be diverted off the UK motorway system to special terminals where trailers and containers will be loaded on to trains and transported quickly to Northern France. 2.1.2

Limitation of Low Clearances

The main reasons why this is not already happening is that the UK railway system is used mainly to carry passenger services and bridges and tunnels do not have sufficient clearances to handle conventional lorry trailers on a train or standard European passenger trains. While the Channel Tunnel was built to handle larger sized shuttle trains, until the main boat-train line to London was slightly enlarged no Eurostar passenger trains could operate beyond the Folkestone terminal. At the time it was felt that the cost of enlarging tracks north of London to carry Eurostar trains was very high and the additional cost of enlarging them to permit the movement of conventional freight could not be justified in either economic or commercial terms. Freight railway companies currently serve a small international market and track usage and access charges for freight trains are subsidised by the Government – to be competitive, the companies are not able to pay rates which cover the full costs of infrastructure maintenance and system operation. 2.1.3

Additional Capacity

In addition to the problem of the cost of enlarging the track, the capacity to handle even scheduled passenger trains is stretched during peak times in and around London. Because most freight trains are slow and the Government and Railtrack prioritise passenger services, they are normally required to operate outside peak passenger periods. With the exception of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project and the West Coast Main Line, very little new capacity will be added to the UK railway network in the near future. Moreover, the small amount of additional capacity which is planned is reserved for highspeed passenger services and little will available for freight trains. If lorries, and freight, are to be diverted to the railways, a substantial amount of new capacity must be built to handle the volume of traffic. As will be shown in the next section, the potential market for diversion from road to rail is very large. If Central Railway were open today, it could attract over 2.6 million articulated lorry and container journeys per year. This translates into a reduction of 750 million HGV lorry miles on the UK motorway network. In 2015 this figure is projected to be over 2000 million kilometres. To handle this volume of traffic on the railways over 120 trains are required to handle traffic between the UK and France; this is in marked contrast to the current level of international services offered by the two UK rail freight companies. Few existing UK railways could accommodate this additional traffic and it has therefore been assumed that in most cases where Central Railway’s route runs along existing railway corridors, two new tracks will need to be built. The Company will carry out detailed studies to ensure that where existing lines are to be upgraded capacity is sufficient for existing and planned services in addition to its own lorries-on-trains services.

5

2.1.4

Route

Central Railway’s route is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The proposed railway in the UK is 530 kilometres in length, from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool Docks. It includes four terminals strategically located near motorway junctions to maximise the number of lorries diverting from the UK road system. The route makes extensive use of existing railway and road corridors. It restores track along the dismantled Great Central between Ashendon and Leicester and across the Pennines, and uses freight routes in the Chesterfield and Sheffield areas. It bypasses London using the M25 corridor from the M40 to the M23 and then reaches the Channel Tunnel terminal via the Mid-Kent line. A very small part of the route is new greenfield alignment. The route offers potential links with the UK railway network in a variety of ways: at crossing points, existing junctions and by building crossovers where the Central Railway route runs parallel to existing railway lines and by constructing new track junctions, where there is a justification. The proposed terminals for loading and unloading HGV trailers and/or containers are located at: • • • •

the M6/62 junction between Liverpool and Manchester, serving the North West Sheffield serving Yorkshire and Humberside and the Northeast via the M1/M18 Rugby serving the West Midlands by the M1/M6 West of London serving the M25/M3/M4/M40 motorways.

6

Figure 2.1 The Route

7

3.

MARKETS FOR CENTRAL RAILWAY SERVICES

3.1

LORRY-ON-TRAIN SERVICES

3.1.1 Location of Primary Markets The primary market for Central Railway’s service is HGV and container traffic travelling between the UK and France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Ireland via the English Channel. This market is estimated to have been 4.2 million trips in 1997 out of a total of 6.8 million trips between all UK and Continental destinations. The estimate the base year for Central Railway traffic forecasts is 5,300,000 HGV lorry and trailer trips. The split of traffic between countries is shown in Figure 3.1. IN 1997 traffic was composed of 82% roll-on-roll off lorries and trailers and 18% containers. It should be noted that containers travel to and from ports on trailer chassis. Figure 3.1 – International HGV/Container Traffic Country -1997

Total market 6.8 million trips Other Med Germany Italy 232 Denmark 56 35 Spain & Portugal 110 143 Scandinavia 398 Irish Republic 599

France 1596

Chunnel 268 Netherlands 1173

Belgium 1096

= 4.2 million trips Source: UK Government’s Maritime Statistics, UK Transport Statistics

The regional origin/destination split of cross channel traffic is shown in Table 3.1. London is the primary destination and has a 19% share, followed by the Northwest with 14% and the Northeast and West Midlands with 11%. The remaining regions average 7% each. Table 3.1 - Regional share of unitised cross channel traffic REGION London/M25 North West/Merseyside Yorkshire & Humberside West Midlands South West East Midlands Scotland North East Wales South East East Anglia TOTAL

% SHARE 19% 14% 11% 11% 9% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 100%

8

Source: Roland Berger Report

3.1.2

Projected Growth in Traffic

As shown in Figure 3.2, this market has grown at rates equal to or above GDP since 1982, with the current trend being over 7% per year. The main drivers of this growth have been GDP, increases in the share of imports and exports in GDP, increases in the share of EU trade in UK imports and exports and increases in the use of Ro-Ro and containers to ship goods. Given these trends, the market is conservatively projected to grow at an annual rate of 5-7% until 2015, then slow to an annual growth rate of 2-3% through the next two decades. Figure 3.2 – Cross Channel Freight Traffic Growth 2000

Trendline growth = 6.5%

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Source: UK Government freight statistics, Roland Berger & Partners Analysis

source: Roland Berger Report 3.1.3

Central Railway’s Potential Market Share in Future Traffic

When you apply these growth factors to 1997 and 1999 data, the expected cross channel Ro-Ro and container market in 2015 is predicted to be 13.3 million trips. Central Railway expects the service it offers to be very competitive for lorries currently travelling between these regions on motorways and using a cross-Channel ferry or the HGV Shuttle service. By comparing the average trip time and total journey cost of current transport modes with the time and cost of using Central Railway, it is possible to estimate the proportion of each UK regional market for which the new service will be competitive. Table 3.2 presents the Central Railway’s predicted market shares in each UK Region. Table 3.2 -Percentage regional share of total lorry market likely to switch to Central Railway REGION London/M25 North West/Merseyside Yorkshire & Humberside West Midlands South West East Midlands Scotland North East Wales South East East Anglia Average

% SHARE 28% 67% 67% 87% 68% 87% 56% 59% 61% 0% 0% 55%

Source: Roland Berger Report

9

A similar analysis has been performed for European countries and regions. In France Central Railway’s railway service would be competitive on 60% of the cross-Channel journeys. In Germany, because of competing North Sea ports and the greater distance to Central Railway’s continental terminal, only 25% of the cross-Channel traffic would find the service competitive. In the remainder of the EU, CR’s service would be competitive on 54% to 87% of the journeys from each country. [The competitive market increases if Central Railway’s terminals were located further to the South and East of Lille.] 3.1.4

Central Railway Traffic Forecast 2015

The competitive position of Central Railway relative to current modes used suggests a potential overall market penetration of [58%]. However, research has shown that a price incentive is required to induce freight transport services to switch from road to rail. By applying this prices incentive, Central Railway would conservatively attract an average of 50% of this market to its service. Using the 50% diversion estimate of overall market share, it is possible to predict on a regional basis how much traffic will switch within the UK, Scotland and Wales. Table 3.3 presents the predicted 2015 market for units transported between the UK and Europe, and Central Railway’s predicted share of traffic. Table 3.3 - Predicted Central Railway Traffic by Region 2015 REGION London/M25 North West/Merseyside Yorkshire & Humberside West Midlands South West East Midlands Scotland North East Wales South East East Anglia TOTAL

Total Market (k-units/yr) 2,530 1,860 1,460 1,460 1,195 1,065 930 800 800 530 665 13,300

CR Market (k-units/yr) 634 1,116 877 1,141 732 829 467 422 422 0 0 6,640

Source: Roland Berger Report

The main markets for Central Railway’s service are Northern England and Scotland, (43% of total traffic), the Midlands and Wales (36% ) and Southern England (21%). It should be noted that in East Anglia, Essex, Suffolk and Kent, the Eurotunnel HGV shuttle and Felixstowe services remain competitive when compared to Central Railway and therefore do not constitute markets for the new service. 3.1.5

Other Freight Railway Services

Over the past ten years the UK freight railway business has gone through extensive rationalisation. Only two major companies remain in business, EWS and Freightliner. Under EC open-access rules these two companies will have access to Central Railway’s route via track links provided and would pay track charges for using the railway. Central Railway’s route interfaces with freight and passenger lines at several locations. Use of additional capacity provided by the new railway would enable rail freight companies to bypass the West Coast Mainline, travel more quickly in the Midlands between Sheffield and Leicester, bypass the London commuter lines and avoid other congested parts of the railway network when transporting freight between the UK and Continental Europe. As Central Railway does not intend operating in the domestic rail freight market and the two freight companies do not operate lorries-on-trains services, the only area of overlap in service will be the

10

selected continental container and swap-body traffic handled by each company. These operators currently offer 20-25 trains per day through the Tunnel. Last year both operators predicted a three-fold expansion of their services but this depends on being able to offer a service which is more time and cost competitive. To deliver this requires substantial investment in upgrading railway routes, by either Railtrack or the Government. However, these companies could offer the faster, more cost-effective service they need by using Central Railway tracks for selected parts of the journey. 3.1.6

Other Potential Markets

In addition, it is estimated that Irish Sea container/lorry traffic which now uses Holyhead and Fishguard could be re-directed through Liverpool. In 1994, the Ro-Ro traffic between Ireland and the UK amounted to 310,000 units and rose to 440,000 units in 1999, an average annual increase of 7.3%. Up to one third of this traffic might be handled by Central Railway’s service in 2010. In 2015 this would generate additional traffic of about 133,000 additional units per year on Central Railway. 3.1.7

Effect of Route Extensions in Europe

The current project consists of a terminal, or terminals, in Northern Europe in the Lille/Arras area of France. The potential for route extensions to the South towards Paris and to the East to Antwerp and Köln is being investigated with European railway officials. If these service extensions prove to be viable the expected market for Central Railway’s services would increase after 2015.

3.2

PASSENGER SERVICES

3.2.1

Central Railway Track Access

The railway has the potential to carry passenger trains and to connect with passenger lines at numerous locations. While it will be electrified, using overhead power catenary at 25,000 volts AC, both diesel and electrically powered trains will be able to use it, making it compatible with all trains running on the existing network. Indeed, in several instances Central Railway expects to incorporate lines already carrying passenger trains, with freight and passenger train services being mixed; this is the case along the Princes Risborough to Gerrards Cross segment of the Chiltern Line and, depending on the track plans adopted after consultation, in Kent, the Midlands and Northwest. Where this occurs, Central Railway plans to up-grade lines and, where there is sufficient passenger potential to justify new train services, make provision for new passenger stations. TOCs are currently going through a re-franchising process for the subsidised passenger train services in the UK. There are several proposals pending along segments of Central Railway’s proposed route and Central Railway is confident it can accommodate these. The precise details of using of Central Railway for passenger services cannot be fully explored until the specifics of new franchises have been agreed by operators and the Government. The Rail Freight Group indicated recently that the UK railway network lacks diversionary routes, thus when passenger trains are held up, both passenger and freight services are delayed. Where additional capacity is provided by Central Railway’s tracks they can be used to handle rail freight and some passenger traffic that currently lacks diversionary routes. In the future this is likely to be the case for rail segments in the Northwest (WCML) and through Manchester, the Midlands (MML) and in Kent to the Channel Tunnel (Mid-Kent Line). 3.2.2

Chiltern Railways Services

Central Railway’s proposed route runs along a section of the Chiltern Line, from Gerrards Cross to Princes Risborough and Ashendon junction (where the dismantled section of the former Great Central right-of-way starts). M40 Trains, the concessionaire of the new Chiltern Railways franchise, has proposed increasing the frequency of its current services and adding new services which the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and the Rail Regulator must approve.

11

After discussions with the SRA the Company agreed that the best approach would be for Central Railway to build two additional tracks along much of this route segment to avoid affecting future services that M40 Trains may operate. Central Railway has worked out a programme of construction works which avoids significant disruption of passenger service while construction is underway. New stations and track will be built, so that in effect when works are complete, the existing railway will be fully upgraded. 3.2.3

Scope for New Passenger Services

Central Railway commissioned The Railway Consultancy to investigate passenger markets along its route. The study identified opportunities for Inter-City and regional/local services. Of course, any new passenger service would have to recognise the responsibilities of the Rail Regulator, Railtrack, the SRA and others. Inter-City Services Central Railway will provide additional North-South capacity for passengers. It will serve several major urban areas where new routes could be created linking areas more directly. City to city journeys where Central Railway’s route might offer an alternative service are shown below in bold italics:

Manchester to Leicester Liverpool to Sheffield Leicester to Wycombe Sheffield to London (St. Pancras) Manchester to West London

Road 2:17 na 1:49 3:06 3:44

Central Railway 1:50 1:30 1:28 2:48 3:50

Other Rail 2:13 1:50 2:42 2:20 3:30

While services between these cities would generate some traffic, it is difficult to estimate how many passengers would choose the Central Railway route in preference to the existing Inter-City service. The value of running limited stop Inter-City services will depend on access to London Marylebone and/or to schemes such as Crossrail, to which Central Railway could be a valuable and complementary extension. The most attractive approach is likely to a combination of regional and Inter-City service, with trains stopping only at key stations in the urban centres. Regional/Local Services The use of Central Railway’s route by local passenger trains would restore services to areas formerly served by the Great Central and provide new links with the existing railway services. Market potential has already been identified for more services from Liverpool, Manchester Victoria and Guidebridge to Leeds and Sheffield, as Central Railway’s route is more direct than that the existing one via Ashtonunder-Lyne and Stockport. The Peak District National Park Authority has indicated that it would welcome the transfer of park visitors from car to train and Central Railway’s route across the Pennines provides a transport link between urban areas and the Park. Between Sheffield and Leicester the route brings service to the Rother, Soar and Erewash valleys with the potential for stations serving Beighton, Alfreton, East Midlands Airport, and Sandiacre, with additional services where it parallels the Midland Mainline. South of Leicester, stations serving Lutterworth, Daventry, Woodford Halse and Brackley have been suggested and in each case there is potential for local/regional services, if stations and services are provided. Detailed studies of markets for new services will be undertaken in conjunction with Local Authorities, who would have to agree any new service. Along the M25, the route interfaces with the Iver Station on the Western Mainline, offers direct access to Heathrow Terminal 5, interfaces with London commuter lines serving Windsor, Egham, Staines and Virginia Water, as well as the mainline service to Woking and the South West. Further east along the M25, there are interfaces with the Effingham Junction and Leatherhead services, after which Central Railway’s route joins the Kent line to Tonbridge and Ashford.

12

Central Railway has held discussions with Airtrack and BAA and will co-operate in the development of their proposed line from Staines to Terminal 5. These services would take a significant number of cars off the M25 that will be destined for Heathrow.

13

4.0

ROUTE OPTIONS

4.1

Route Selection Principles

While railway lines cannot be built without some effects, these can be minimised. Adding capacity in corridors already containing railway lines or major roads will have less impact than building a new route. It makes economic and environmental sense to re-build and expand existing transport corridors wherever possible rather than build new lines in greenfield areas. Thus when selecting a route between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands and Merseyside, Central Railway intends using existing transport corridors and railway lines wherever possible. Under-used railway lines can be modernised, disused railways reinstated and tracks added to existing routes where capacity is not sufficient. Consideration should also be given to using motorway corridors where HGV traffic is greatest, as this is where diverting lorries to the railway would have the most beneficial effect.

4.2

Use of the Great Central and Chiltern Railway Corridors

Only a few UK railways were built to the large gauge required by Central Railway’s lorry-on-train service. The Chiltern Line and the disused Great Central, which was closed in 1983, are among these. Portions of these two lines constitute key links between London and the Midlands. The combined length of these larger gauge lines is 165km, comprising 120km of the Great Central and 45km of the Chiltern Line between Gerrards Cross and Ashendon. The Great Central corridor is largely undisturbed, with many bridges remaining, while the Chiltern Line has been altered to realign the tracks down the centre of the right-of-way. It can, however, still accommodate four tracks along many segments. These two segments figure in all options proposed for Central Railway’s route, which avoids the mainline Inter-City segments of the UK railway network north of London (except where these lines can be expanded as is the case in the Midlands).

4.3

Route Options Through and Around London

Central Railway has assessed the route options for linking the Channel Tunnel with the Great Central and Chiltern Railway corridors. The results of this work are briefly described in the following subsections. 4.3.1

East of London Route Options

Given the known capacity constraints within the South East’s railway network, route options to bypass London to the East and reach the Midlands are limited and any route to the east of London would require a new Thames crossing. Most existing lines in the South East are operating at full capacity and have little or no space for the two additional tracks which would be required. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) will provide some excess capacity but, given the high-speed nature of this line, the relatively steep (2.5%) track grades under the Thames and the lack of passing sidings, it will not be suitable for frequent freight train operations. In 2001 Central Railway completed a short study of route options and found that a new route from Ashford to the Thames and around London to join the Chiltern corridor would be at least as complex an undertaking as the CTRL project itself. While lines in Kent could be upgraded there is little capacity North of the Thames to handle fast and frequent freight trains. There are only two possible existing railway routes across London - the North London line from Woolwich to Willesden Junction and the parallel Barking Line. Neither of these lines is capable of handling six to eight trains per hour in addition to proposed passenger train services. Moreover, it is not possible to clear the route for Central Railway’s higher and wider structure gauge or to add parallel tracks, due to physical constraints. If a new line were built which followed the east and north segments of the M25 to West London, the impacts would be substantial given the relatively developed nature of the corridor and its considerable length and would be greater than those along the proposed south and west M25 route described below. Finally, there is no market for a Central Railway terminal in North Kent or Essex, as the HGV and RoRo services offered by Felixstowe and the Channel Tunnel are more competitive.

14

Given the difficulty of finding a feasible route and the lack of a market for the Project’s services in this area, further analysis of route and terminal options to the east of London is not justified. 4.3.2

South of London Route Options

Route options which create added capacity through London are also limited, as can be seen from the problems of clearing paths and gaining clearances for Eurostar trains to Waterloo. The only line in Kent with capacity and space for expansion is the old boat train line between Dover and Tonbridge, via Ashford and Paddock Wood. This line has both unused capacity and a right-of-way which could be expanded to carry two additional tracks. From Tonbridge the line continues through south London via Sevenoaks and Bromley, with branches going to London Bridge and Waterloo. While the Tonbridge to Bromley part of this line could be widened to add two new tracks, capacity studies made as part of the Union Railways work associated with the CTRL project showed that capacity constraints in South London are difficult to solve. There is insufficient capacity to handle the high-speed services, which is why the CTRL route crossing the Thames to Stratford was developed and approved. Central Railway is unable to use the existing Eurostar route as there is no space for the two additional tracks it would require. The only other Thames crossing point not reserved for other services goes through the most active station in the railway network, Clapham Junction and is therefore not suitable. Because of these factors, route options through South London were rejected from further consideration. The line from Dover to Tonbridge also continues further west and merges into the Brighton line at Redhill. This two track line carries limited passenger services and could be expanded to handle both Central Railway and future passenger services. Central Railway previously studied and documented the impacts of this option in detail, including the building of two tunnels, one under the North Downs and one under Wandsworth Common and the Thames to West London, to avoid the most sensitive areas and reduce impacts. In addition to this route, a further option via Wimbledon, using the Croydon Tramlink route, was studied. 4.3.3

Route Options to the Southwest of London

Central Railway’s options to go round the Southwest of London include following the M25 and the possible upgrading of existing lines via Dorking, Leatherhead, Guildford and Reading. The company asked engineers and environmental specialists to evaluate the options of using the M25 corridor and railway lines between South Nutfield and Effingham Junction. The study, carried out by Parkman, assessed 12 route options between the M25/M23 Junction and Gerrards Cross. Five routes were found to be unfeasible due to engineering and operational constraints and these were rejected without further evaluation. The remaining seven routes, illustrated in Figure 4.1, are as follows: Route 1 – follows the M25 with a tunnel under the North Downs Route 2 – follows the Nutfield to Effingham Junction railway lines and the M25 Route 6 – follows the railway line to Downes Farm with a tunnel to Leatherhead Route 7 – variation of route 2 option but goes through Dorking Station Route 8 – variation of route 2 then but the M25 by going through Leatherhead station Route 10- uses Chertsey loop rail instead of M25 segment Route 11- uses Staines railway lines instead of M25 segment The study and subsequent transport and environmental analysis showed that the best option is Route 1, the M25 route, when considering: public safety socio-economic effects passenger potential reliability landscape and visual effects environmental resources noise

15

Cost was not a consideration in this analysis. 4.3.4

Routes West of London

A short study was also made of the feasibility of using existing lines beyond Dorking to Guildford, Reading, Oxford and Bicester to Ashendon junction, where the route would pick up the dismantled Great Central railway alignment. It found that the impacts of adding the Central Railway train schedule of over 100 trains each way per day to existing services would be substantial. Also, there is no possible site for a terminal with ready access to the three east-west motorways and the M25. Given that the Guildford, Reading and Oxford passenger stations are adjacent to residential areas, community impacts in terms of increased noise (a matter of already of concern with the Nutfield to Effingham Junction Route 2 option) would be greater. Moreover, the Guildford route is slightly longer than the chosen M25-Chilterns route and, because of existing stopping passenger services in the Guildford to Oxford segments of route, it has restricted capacity to handle Central Railway’s schedule through Guildford, Reading and Oxford. In addition, to get through Reading, tracks linking the Wokingham line to the Southeast to the Oxford line to the north would have to be built along a very active 15km segment of the Great Western Railway. This option was therefore rejected.

16

Figure 4.1 – Southwest Route Options Studied

17

4.3.5

Route Options in the Midlands

Central Railway’s route originally followed the Great Central route through Rugby to reach the M1/M6 terminal site just East of the A5. Owing to new development along the old Great Central line, a route option is now being investigated which leaves the Great Central in the vicinity of the Oxford Canal and crosses the West Coast Main Line near Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), rejoining the M1 corridor near Lilbourne. This route would continue along either the east or west side of the motorway to Ashby Magna and then run to the East of Countesthorpe, joining the Midland Main Line corridor just South of the Wigston Junction. The impact of this route relative to the former option is currently being studied. 4.3.6

Route Options in Greater Manchester

Due to the extensive, and partly under utilised, railway network between Hadfield in the east and the Liverpool docks, there are numerous ways through and/or around central Manchester of connecting these two areas. A study was made of three options, a southern route through Hyde and Stockbridge, Warrington and Newton-le-Willows, a central route via Guidebridge and Manchester Piccadilly to Newton-le-Willows and a northern route via Manchester Victoria. The most practical route, the northern alignment, was selected and was seen as the preferred option by the association of local authorities managing the Greater Manchester PTE. This option involves upgrading existing lines, replacing sections of line which have been removed in the Guidebridge area and re-connecting the route to Victoria Station using the Ashbury freight link. West of Manchester, Central Railway’s route uses the Liverpool and Manchester Line via Salford station to Chat Moss and Newton-le-Willows.

18

5.

THE ROUTE, SYSTEM, TERMINALS AND TRAFFIC

5.1

RAILWAY REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1

The Route

Central Railway’s route is illustrated in Figure 5.1. It is 530 kilometres in length, from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool Docks, with four terminals strategically located near motorway junctions to maximise the diversion of lorries from the UK motorway system. The various characteristics of the route – disused and existing railways – are shown in Table 5.1. Potential links with the rest of the UK railway network can be made at crossing points, at existing junctions or, where the Central Railway route runs parallel to existing railway lines, at crossovers and by constructing new track junctions where this is justified. Table 5.1 – Route characteristics Route Segment EuroTunnel-M23 M23- Gerrards Cross G. Cross-Ashendon Leicester-Leicester Leicester-Sheffield Sheffield-Salford Salford-Liverpool * **

5.1.2

Total km 92 62 43 110 97 72 56

Up-grade existing option*

Expand existing 91 1 43 14 12 19 14

85 20 42

New tunnel 1 14

Reinstate

New route 47(M25)

96

Option**

33

various options are being evaluated to reduce new track requirements an alternative bypassing Rugby to the Midland Main Line junction is being investigated

Structure Gauge

The UK railway structure gauges are the smallest in Europe. One of the problems for all existing UK railway lines is the structure gauge, which is not large enough to carry lorries or full size containers on trains. To do this using flat bed wagons, the vertical clearance has to be 5.83 metres. Central Railway is designed to a higher vertical clearance to allow trains to handle so-called “high cube” double-stacked containers on well wagons. These require a maximum clearance of 6.55 metres, including catenary allowances, between the tracks and any structure above. While container traffic today and in the foreseeable future does not require double stacking, it would be foolish to develop a new freight railway with restricted clearances, as has been done in the past. The height and width requirements for Central Railway’s trains are illustrated in Figure 5.2. The width is slightly greater than the standard UK gauge and this will enable continental trains to use the railway. At existing passenger stations in the Northeast, where Central Railway plans to use existing tracks, there are various options to make sure that the gaps between platforms and passengers trains are maintain to HSE standards.

19

Figure 5.1 – The Route

20

Figure 5.2 – Standard and Central Railway Cross Sections Compared

Typical twin track existing railway

Proposed twin track railway to UIC ‘C’ width clearances Typically greater than two metres

1510

380

1510

1510

Minimum 2000

1645

1645

450

1645

3080

UIC ‘C’ Kinematic Outline Typical Standard BR, KE

UIC ‘C’ Kinematic Outline

Typical Standard BR, KE

1170

3040 400

2500

Rail Level 300 min Top of formation

700

430

1510

3400

5155 - 6627

Path

3740

11809 - 13281

TYPICAL PROPOSED FOUR TRACK CORRIDOR

21

1645

1286

700 Path

18566 - 20038

5.2

The System and Operations

The project comprises a 530km two track railway with four terminals located at strategic motorway junctions, all the systems and controls required to operate safe railway services and a large amount of rolling stock to transport trailers and containers. Where there is market demand, track junctions with the other parts of the UK railway network will be provided. This is easily done where the Central Railway runs alongside existing railway lines. Central Railway plans to operate non-stop freight services from each of the UK terminals to Northern France. Train frequency depends on the markets served by each terminal. Figure 5.3 shows the expected service (trains per day) from each terminal and along the main route segments in 2015. Based upon a 312 day operating year the average frequency of freight trains in 2015 rises from North to South from 2 trains per hour to 8 trains per hour between West London and the Channel Tunnel. Figure 5.3 Proposed Daily Train Services from UK Terminals (2015)

22

The railway will be fully electrified, with overhead power supplied to trains via overhead catenary at 25,000 volts AC. Trains will have two locomotives, with performance characteristics similar to the Eurotunnel locomotives. Each train will consist of between 80-85 wagons (depending on train length), plus two locomotives, and will operate at up to 85mph (135kph) on welded ballasted track. Track grades will not exceed 1% and, wherever possible, track curves will allow for 140 kph speeds [1500m radius]. Train control will be via ERTMS Level 2, cab signalling technology with cabs having signal indication and other safety systems required to operate through the Channel Tunnel. Automatic train protection to reduce collision risks at junctions will be to HMRI approved specifications.

5.3

Terminals

Terminals for loading and unloading trailers and containers are strategically located near motorway junctions to maximise access to and from the UK road system. Terminals are located as shown in Table 5.3, which also shows expected annual traffic (receiving and picking up loaded trailers) in 2015. Table 5.3 – Terminal locations and predicted traffic (loaded units/year) Terminal Location Liverpool M6/Salford Sheffield Rugby West London Northern France

Primary Motorway Access Seaforth Port M6/M62 M1/M18 M1/M6 M25/M40/M4 Na

2015 Traffic* (load + unload) 133,000 1,528,000 1,395,000 1,860,000 1,860,000 6,776,000

* The source of this data is the Central Railway Revenue Case prepared by Roland Berger and Partners, updated in 2002/3. Note: A terminal in Guidebridge serving the Tameside area was originally proposed but because of limited site options and market has been dropped from the project at this time. A terminal at Toton was also dropped as the M1 corridor is adequately served by terminals in Sheffield and Rugby.

The terminals are designed to handle trains and trailers and are configured as shown in Figure 5.4. Trains will arrive at terminals, be switched to a separate track and then shunted to terminal spur tracks via ladder tracks. Trailer loading and storage will take place between track spurs where trains are parked. Spurs include track junctions as each end of the loading area so that locomotives can switch between trains after arrival. Turnaround time for trains (unload and load) is designed to be two hours maximum. The number of tracks required to handle traffic is based on the traffic estimates and daily train frequencies shown in Figure 5.3. Trailers will be loaded on to railway wagons (splined flat wagons) either by driving trailers on and off using special tractors (called tugs) or lifted on and off using reach stackers. Containers, when handled, are loaded by reach stackers. Each terminal has modest but adequate space for storing trailers after arrival.

23

Figure 5.4 – Schematic Terminal Configuration

24

5.4

Terminal Traffic

Lorry traffic using the terminals varies from hour to hour and day to day throughout the year. Seasonal variation is expected to be –9% to +11% from the annual average, and daily variation during the working week by -/+15%. Hourly variation is significant, but is not expected to exceed 7% of total daily traffic. The estimated total traffic for each terminal in 2015 is shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 - Terminal traffic demand estimates – 2015 * Terminal Liverpool** Salford/M6 Sheffield Rugby W London N France * ** ***

One-way demand 67,000 764,000 698,000930,000 930,000 3,320,000

Average weekday * 215 2,450 2,235 2,980 2,980 10,650

Wed peak day Na 2,820 2,570 3,430 3,430 12,250

Peak hour arrivals*** Na 172 156208 208 744

these figures are based on 312 average days year, Saturday and Sunday equalling one weekday traffic from Liverpool Port is all containers 7% of average weekday traffic

The above table shows HGV traffic forecasts for 2015, after Central Railway’s traffic has built up to its full potential after opening in 2011/12 After opening, traffic is predicted to grow by 6.0% per year to 2015 and then 3.05% per year for the next 5 years and 1.0% thereafter. If the design year for the terminals is 2020, this gives a growth factor of 16%, over the figures shown in table 5.4. In 2025 the traffic is projected to have increased by a further 5%. The general sequence of operations for handling arriving HGV loads at each terminal is as follows: - tractor/trailer or container arrival at reception area - account validation and/or payment - stack assignment - load inspection (as required) - trailer parked in assigned space by driver (driver picks up arriving load from stack) - load picked up by tug or reach-stacker - trailer loaded on railway wagon and secured. The sequence for picking up a load is as follows: - tractor/trailer unit arrival at reception - manifest confirmation, stack location determined (often combined with load delivery) driver enters stacks and picks up trailer from assigned location - tractor/trailer return to reception - validation of correct load and departure It is expected that load delivery and pickup will frequently be combined, to reduce the use of tractor units. For design purposes a 75% estimate for combined load delivery and pickup has been used. There will be some empty trailer handling, when UK-France and France-UK trips cannot be balanced. This is estimated at 5% of total traffic. Empty trailers will be processed in the same way as loaded trailers. These factors are combined with the estimates shown in Table 5.4, to estimate expected peak hour (peak day and season) traffic at each terminal in 2015, shown in Table 5.5.

25

Table 5.5 – Average and Worst Case Terminal Traffic Conditions - 2015 Terminal

Average peak hour arrivals

Lane Equivalent (1200pcu/lane) ***

Liverpool Internal* Na M6/Salford 172 0.43 Sheffield 156 0.39 Rugby 208 0.52 West London 208 0.52 North France 744 1.86 * only sea containers are handled ** some tractors arrive without loads to pickup trailers ** * based on 3pcu’s per HGV lorry

Max Peak Hour both directions ** Na 480 440 580 580 2,090

It should be noted that these worst case traffic conditions are for the peak hour and peak day, Wednesday, during the peak season, July to September. In all other periods during the year average conditions are expected to prevail. On the basis of a value of three passenger carrying units (pcu’s) for a loaded articulated lorry, the additional one way lane capacity required to handle the average peak hour traffic is shown in the middle column. Traffic the rest of the day will be 20% lower. The impact on local roads and motorway traffic depends on local traffic conditions and this will be assessed in the Traffic Impact Report for each terminal. The likely traffic impact can be estimated by calculating the lane equivalent needed to handle the peak hour traffic. The two UK locations where additional lane capacity may be required are Sheffield and West London. Traffic in Liverpool is internal to the Port, where containers can be directly loaded on to trains or shunted to rail sidings from the ship or container stacks using trailer chassis. In France, two additional lanes in each direction will be required to handle terminal traffic. Local road impacts can be minimised by the provision of direct links between the terminals and motorway junctions. Central Railway is planning road connections on this basis. It should be noted that in Northern France two terminals are being consider.

26

6.0

GENERAL TRANSPORT EFFECTS OF CENTRAL RAILWAY

6.1

ROADS

6.1.1

Motorways

Central Railway will remove international HGV traffic from UK motorways. While little origindestination information is available to assign current lorry traffic to networks, it is reasonable to assume that local traffic will use the nearest Central Railway terminal, as opposed to driving to or from a terminal further south. The loaded lorry journeys that are predicted to be diverted to Central Railway are shown in Table 6.1 by terminal location and region. Table 6.1 – Traffic Diverted by Region to Terminals (in thousands of trips per year 2015) Region/Terminal London/M25 NW/Mersey Yorks/Humber W Midlands South West E Midlands Scotland North East Wales South East Eastern Ireland TOTAL

West L 743

Rugby

Tinsley

West M

Liverp’l

1145 831 132 860

907 505

128

447

1860

1860

78 88 398

383

1395

1528

Na 133

Note: terminal estimates by region are based upon comparable journey times between terminals and major city employment centres

Table 6.2 – Reduction in motorway mileage by diverting to Central Railway (annual miles in millions) Diverted Traffic Distance Savedmileage Annual Mileage

West L 92

Rugby 180

Tinsley 270

W Man 280

Liver’l (294)

TOTAL

171.1

334.8

376.7

427.8

Na

1310.4

As shown in Table 6.2, Central Railway in 2015 will result in a reduction of approximately 1310 million HGV lorry miles (2097 million kilometres) on UK motorways and roads. Most of this reduction would be from motorways linking the regions with the Channel Tunnel ports - only a small percentage will be from the A/B road system. Some traffic from the East and West Midlands will continue to use Felixstowe to reach the Continent. This could amount to 20% of the market from these two regions, or 80,000 HGV movements. This will account for about 6 million miles, reducing the total saved to about 1304 million miles, or 2090 million HGV lorry kilometres in 2015. In 2020, based on predicted traffic growth of 16%, 2,390 million HGV kilometres will be saved. Table 6.3 shows the year 2000 levels of motorway congestion for the portions of the network where HGV traffic will divert to Central Railway. Conditions have worsened throughout England since then.

27

Table 6.3 – Estimated Motorway Congestion Levels (2000)* Motorway M20 M25 M3** M4** M40 M1 M6 Average

% uncongested 71 28 0 0 72 32 35 39

% congested 23 35 64 33 6 45 34 33

% heavily congested 6 37 36 67 22 23 31 28

Source: DETR Transport 2010 Plan * this is on a time basis. ** this is for the segment west of the M25 linking the M3 & M4 only.

The overall level of congestion on these segments of the motorway was 61% based on data from DETR’s 10 year plan, with a third of the routes where lorries will divert to Central Railway subject to heavy peak period and some off-peak period congestion daily. More detailed analysis of the affects on these portions of the network of HGVs diverting to Central Railway will be made as part of the company’s Environmental Impact Assessment. The cumulative beneficial effects of the mileage removed from the motorways, as estimated in Table 6.2, increases as one moves from the North to the South East. Figure 6.1 shows estimates of the HGV traffic diverted from motorway to Central Railway by major segment. Clearly, the impact on the M25 and M20 is significant, amounting to 7,550 and 10,650 HGV lorry units each way per day in 2015, and 8,680 and 12,250 units in 2020. For the Southeast segments of the motorway network, in 2015 this reduction in lorry traffic will equal to one traffic lane in each direction on the SW quadrant of the M25 (one articulated HGV lorry is roughly equivalent to three cars in motorway capacity terms), and almost 1 ½ lanes on the M26/20. During the peak summer season HGV traffic is predicted to be 20% higher than these figures.

28

Figure 6.1 Estimated Reduction of Motorway Traffic – 2015 * Average Daily Traffic HGV Lorries (one way)

M18

M56 Sheffield (2235)

M6/Salford (2450)

KEY: (2235)

M6

Terminal location and daily traffic

(2450)

(10650) Daily one way HGV traffic reduced

(980)

Rugby (2980) (6195) M1

(1470) M40

(3100)

(3100)

M25 (4570)

M4/M25 (2980)

M4 M3

(7550)

* new May 2003 forecasts

29

(10650) M26/20

6.1.2

Primary and Secondary (Class A and B) Roads

As Central Railway’s service is for international HGV traffic only, lorries will be diverted mainly from motorways. It is expected to have little effect on other UK roads, except where these roads are used to access the terminals. The local effects of HGV traffic near terminals are treated in the Transport Impact studies for each terminal. The one highway corridor where there may be a modest reduction in traffic is between the East Midlands and the East Channel ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. The daily reduction on the A14 and parallel roads between Leicester and Ipswich is expected to be about 150 lorries per day in 2015 and 175 in 2020, but this is small relative to the overall traffic. 6.1.3

Value of HGV Diversion to Rail

The primary transport system effects of switching from road to rail include reduced freight transport operating costs, lower roadway maintenance costs, less congestion (value of time), fewer accidents and damage to structures, lower energy costs and reduced air pollution and noise. The estimates of the transport (economic) benefits of transporting goods by railway versus roads vary widely. Railtrack several years ago used a value of 89 pence/lorry kilometre, which is about the current estimated cost to operate an HGV vehicle/km exclusive of any environmental, accident or roadway maintenance costs . Until recently the SRA used a figure of 45-65p/km to calculate the value of their freight facilities grants. The latest SRA figures use a new factor, “sensitive lorry mile”, to calculate their grants. The values vary from 4p to £1.38 per kilometre depending on facility type and congestion. This latest calculation for SRA transport grants purposes clearly underestimates the economic value of using the railway mode versus an HGV lorry. As noted in 6.1.1 the average level of congestion in the motorways used by HGV lorries that would divert to CR’s service in 2000 was 61%. On the assumption that congestion has not been reduced since this time and using the above information, we believe it is safe to say that today the social costs HGV compared to transport by railway services are at least 50p per HGV kilometre. Using this figure the transport economic benefits of using Central Railway’s service can be estimated. The value (in current £’s) of diverting the HGV traffic to Central Railway is expected to be £1,045 million per year in 2015 rising to £1,210 million in 2020. Obviously these are rough figures, as they ignore the different benefits arising from handling higher value international unitised cargo versus bulk and smaller vehicle freight movements in the UK and the expected higher costs of congestion in the Southeast. In France the diversion of road freight to CR’s railway would eliminate 750 million HGV kilometres in 2015. Using the 50p (€0.70)/km transport economic benefit factor as above, the value of this reduction in HGV mileage is €525 million in 2015 rising to €600 million in 2020. In 2015 the overall transport benefits of diverting HGV traffic to the Central Railway services are at least £1,400 million. If sustainability objectives were given the emphasis here that they are in Europe, the value of reduced CO2 emissions would be greatly increased. The differential between HGV and Railway emissions was estimated in 1990 by “Transnet” to be 170 tonnes per 1 million tonne km; thus the European wide elimination of 2,750 million vehicle kilometres with HGV’s loads averaging 12.5 tonnes would reduce CO2 emissions by just over 5.8 million tonnes. If the German value of £145/ tonne of CO2 is used to estimated transport benefits the value would be just under £850 million per year in 2015.

6.2

RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

6.2.1

Railways Services - Passenger

Most of the railways where Central Railway plans to construct new tracks or modernise existing lines can benefit from the capacity enhancements that this will bring. The railway modernisation programme has been reduced considerably and funds applied to critical track and system maintenance work. Thus it will be important to determine where there are common objectives between Central Railway project works and those that may still be in SRA programme =that would be implemented by Network Rail over the next 10 year period. There are still likely to be works that add value to the

30

existing railway network and are necessary for Central Railway’s project. Central Railway intends to reopen discussions with Network Rail that were initiated several years ago with Railtrack to determine how it can co-operate in implementing these projects. Where Central Railway’s tracks will run alongside tracks owned by Network Rail, Central Railway will negotiate with them to neutralise any loss of revenue from TOC’s choosing to use Central Railway’s line and compensate it and TOCs if services are affected during construction. The corridors where there this might occur are: • • • •

Mid Kent Line – Eurotunnel Terminal to Bletchingley Tunnel Chiltern Line – Gerrards Cross to Ashendon Junction Midland Main Line – various segments between Nuneaton and Chesterfield Manchester Victoria Lines – Hadfield to Guidebridge, Victoria, Newton-le-Willows to the Bootle Branch Junction

Contractors (civil and systems) will work out possession plans and agree details with Network Rail and its maintenance contractors prior to construction. In all cases, they will seek to undertake work so as not to disturb train operations. Some possessions during off-peak periods and at weekends are inevitable. By law, Central Railway must operate a policy of open access, permitting TOC’s to use its lines for passenger services on condition that track charges are paid and safety case requirements are met. Central Railway is likely to have little effect on existing passenger services, although the company has no control over what the SRA or the Rail Regulator may authorise in the future. Central Railway has no plans to operate services which compete with passenger services currently running along the lines parallel to Central Railway, but new operators should be able to use Central Railway’s tracks to offer different services to new destinations. The market for such new services was discussed in Section 3.2. A case in point is the provision of a passenger service between Sheffield and Doncaster via the North Peak District route to either Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly and from there to Liverpool. Similarly, access to the old Great Central route from Leicester to Princes Risborough could generate new opportunities for passenger services. This potential passenger market has already been identified in the M40 Railway group’s proposals for the new Chiltern Railway franchise. Once the Government agrees to support a Hybrid Bill, Central Railway will discuss co-operative actions with Chiltern Railways management.

6.3

RAILWAY SERVICES – FREIGHT

The beneficial effects on existing freight services cannot be assessed without greater knowledge of the shipment patterns and cost structures of current operators. EWS and Freightliner derive most of their revenues from handling bulk products and their main inter-modal services deal with containers from UK ports. Due to clearance limitations, they cannot carry standard lorry trailers on trains. When freight trains are delayed due to mainline passenger train delays or other reasons, Central Railway’s route could be used as a diversionary route. This is possible in the Northwest, the Midlands and in Kent, areas where there are a lack of diversionary route options. Freight operators will be able to use Central Railway’s track to operate some of their trains within the UK or to the Continent, instead of using Railtrack’s network. If they do they can expect to realise some operating cost reductions. Otherwise, the effect on existing freight operations should be negligible as Central Railway is targeting a different market. Some UK to Europe container shipments being handed by EWS and/or Freightliner might be affected if container shipments from Ireland switch to the Merseyside Seaforth Port terminal and Central Railway’s direct service.

6.4

COMMERCE - FREIGHT LOGISTICS

The direct economic impacts of lowering shipment costs between the UK and North France are considerable. The elimination of 1,300 million HGV lorry miles, Channel Tunnel tolls and operating charges for the tractor and driver will have a considerable effect on logistics businesses in the UKContinental transport market. These freight forwarders and distribution companies will be able to cut the transport component of their costs by up to 10% and are therefore expected to switch from road only to road and Central Railway in large numbers, as predicted in Section 3.1

31

It is estimated that they will make an annual savings of £180 million, based on the current estimated cost of £1.40 per HGV lorry mile for a motorway journey and Channel crossing. This figure increases by 3% per year for the first 5 years after Central Railway fully opens, and then 1% per year for the next 10 years. Some of these savings will remain with the shipping companies; the rest will be passed on to manufacturing businesses, which should become more competitive. Currently, freight companies moving freight between the UK and the Continent are split between UK and European firms. The economic effects on UK forwarders are difficult to dis-aggregate due to the lack of data on shippers’ home base and where operations are managed. With lower transport costs, UK businesses will able to sell more products, making their transport requirements grow accordingly. This will mitigate the negative impacts on individual lorry owners and drivers for the loss of crossChannel haulage contracts. The estimated traffic diversion to Central Railway will reduce the HGV lorry (long haul) requirement by 13,000 vehicles in 2015, assuming each lorry travels 100,000 miles annually.

6.5

NETWORK INTEGRATION

In overall terms the need for better railway network integration has changed over the past year. The Strategic Rail Authority is promoting competition for the renewal of passenger service concessions. There has been unexpected growth in passenger traffic and Network Rail’s responsibility to develop new railway lines has been reduced. Thus there is a greater requirement for independent railway system promoters to help integrate the UK railway network. Given the location of CR’s route and the length of the line in the UK, (330 miles or 530 kilometres), the opportunities for integration are numerous. There are at least 21 existing points where links to railway lines can be developed. Figure 6.2 illustrates where CR’s tracks are to be built and the locations of junctions and stations where track connections could be provided. Central Railway expects to operate up to 8 trains per hour in 2015 (train frequency from CR’s strategically located terminals progressively builds up from 2 to 8 trains per hour from the Northwest to the Southeast), while the line’s signalling systems will be designed to handle 12-15 trains per hour. This extra capacity can be used by other operators to develop new services, to bypass congested parts of the network when diversions are required, and to bring Continental gauge trains North and West of London for the first time. A few of the possible options for using the added capacity provided by Central Railway’s route are: • • • • • • •

Expand internal terminal services. Faster freight trains will be able to buy peak period slots thereby reducing delay and bypassing passenger line congestion. Port to port links between Mersey and Hull/Grimsby, East Anglia and Southampton via CR, the MML and GW. Continental extensions of port to port links Birmingham via Nuneaton links to UK and Continental destinations Heathrow Terminal 5 connections to the West via Woking and the Midlands via the Great Central Heathrow to Gatwick Heathrow cargo and baggage shuttle services via a new link to the Brighton line. Extra capacity on the Mid-Kent line for Continental freight services

Passenger service options include: • • • • •

Airtrack from Woking and M40 Trains from the Midlands to Heathrow Trans-Pennines services between Leeds and Sheffield to Manchester and Liverpool. Re-instituting Great Central line services to Daventry and Brackley. Expanding MML services via the Erewash Valley and the use of CR.'s line as a diversionary route Heathrow to Gatwick shuttle services

32

On the Continent train companies are already constructing new lines which will carry lorry-on-train services between France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and Italy. These systems will eventually be linked to the Channel Tunnel by SNCF and Central Railway, which will also have terminals in Northern France. Central Railway is the means of linking this system into the UK railway network so that the economic advantages of better Continental links can be exploited by UK industry and commerce. Finally, when built Central Railway will be the only route in the UK where structure gauge will not be a problem. By clearing the line to handle Continental trains and full size double stack containers, almost any type of cargo and passenger train can be run between UK and Continental destinations. Good track, safe signalling and train control, and new capacity are the essential ingredients for diverting road traffic to the railways.

33

Figure 6.2 – Network Integration Opportunities

Seaforth

Preston

Bolton Leeds/Bradford

MANCHESTER

Terminal Serves NE & York via M1/M18

Liverpool Chester

M Victoria

Doncaster & Hull

WCML

SHEFFIELD Crewe

Terminal Serves NW & Scotland via M6/M62 Terminal Serves E Midlands via M1

CENTRAL RAILWAY

Grimsby

Derby Nottingham

NETWORK INTEGRATION

LEICESTER

Nuneaton & Birmingham

LEGEND

Bicester

new & disused railway

MML

use existing lines add track

Oxford

Terminal Serves SE,SW & London via M3/M4/M25/M40

Reading

tunnel segment

Terminal Serves E/W Midlands & Wales via M1/M6

LONDON 7 Oaks TONBRIDGE

Woking

Maidstone

Canterbury Dover

Guildford Gatwick

T’wells

34

ASHFORD

To France

7.0

OTHER INFORMATION ON TRANSPORT EFFECTS

7.1

TERMINAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDIES

When the location of terminals has been finalised, terminal traffic impact studies will be undertaken. These studies complement the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the project as a whole. The terminal impact studies are site specific and will assess the requirements for accessing the terminals from the road network and define any additional requirements to minimise congestion. Emerging traffic impact study guidelines will be followed in undertaking these studies. They will consider the various components of traffic using the terminals, examine the effects of variations in traffic flows over time (daily, peak hour and annual growth) and assess lane and junction requirements to handle additional traffic diverted from the motorways and A-roads. In order to provide direct access to the terminals from the motorways and thereby minimising the effects on local roads, it is likely that new junctions will be built where terminals are located some distance from existing junctions. The traffic impact studies are designed to establish the effects of terminal operation on national and local roads and also refine the internal circulation requirements so that lorry queues do not back up on to the road network. Traffic surveys to define existing traffic conditions will be required for this and models will be used to predict future traffic conditions and define where additional lanes may be required to service traffic demands. Table 5.5 shows additional lanes required to handle average peak hour traffic in 2015. Where this added load creates unacceptable congestion, additional road width and junction turning movement capacity will be provided. The terminal traffic impact studies will be prepared as separate documents so that the Highways Agency and local highway authorities can assess the effects on their segments of the road network. The reports will be summarised and included in the project’s Environmental Impact report.

35

8.

CENTRAL RAILWAY’S RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

8.1

SUMMARY

Central Railway submitted a request to DTLR to sponsor a Hybrid Bill which would provide, once passed, deemed planning consent for the project. This matter was referred to the SRA which undertook more detailed studies to help the Government determine whether to accept the Company’s request. The Government indicated that it wished to know more about Central Railway’s demand forecast methodology, its impacts on transport policy, and its effect on railway operators and system regulation before making a decision. These matters were considered in greater detail following on from the work undertaken in May 2001 by the SRA’s consultants. The relevant transport and development policies where Central Railway’s effect on the environment, future rail network and freight transport in the UK are summarised below. •

Network Capacity – the railway where it adds two tracks on routes with current railway lines and replaces tracks along disused railway routes adds capacity to the network as a whole. This means that it may be possible to release some capacity on the West Coast and East Coast Mainline that has been reserved for slower freight traffic. It also provides a high capacity route around London from the Southeast to the Midlands following the M25 alignment. Where existing lines are used, new track bed, signalling systems and electrification will permit capacities to be increased and trains to operate at higher speeds. Because of high freight traffic volumes CR’s tracks and related systems will be maintained to a very high standard; this will reduce delays due to poor maintenance for both its own trains and those of other operators using the line



Network Integration – The route in the UK has interfaces with other railway lines at over 20 locations and runs parallel with existing services for a distance of 340 km of its 530 km route in the UK and most of the route to the Lille/Arras terminal in France. Track to track connections can be made at almost any location along these route segments. The lorry-ontrain services will not use all of the line’s capacity during the first 15 years of service. This provides the opportunity for other freight and passenger railways to use our track capacity for their services. The railway will be the only railway line in the UK capable of handling continental rolling stock and all sizes of trains other than Eurotunnel. Central Railway will be a key element in the EU’s attempts to develop a Trans-European Rail Freight Network where Inter-operability is a key term. CR’s systems will be able to work with both UK and UIC standard equipment.



Transport Economic Benefits – The railway will generate substantial transport economic benefits for the Regions, Wales and Scotland by bringing UK industries closer to their European export markets in terms of time, cost and reliability. While the indirect effects on UK industry have not yet been estimated, the direct transport effects have been estimated; up to a £40 savings will be made for every HGV lorry trip diverted to Central Railway’s service amounting to lower transport costs of up to £180 million per year in 2015. The average time savings between the rail and road trip to Northern France from the Regions is expected to be about 3 hours. The time, vehicle operating cost, and air pollution reduction saving will generate £1,040 million in annual transport economic benefits in 2015. With rising congestion and higher HGV operating costs road transport costs will rise faster than growth forecasts, thus future economic benefits of switching to rail from road should grow at a 3-5% rate after opening.



Reduction of Road Traffic – Central Railway is estimated to remove 6.6 million HGV lorries from the UK road network in 2015 amounting to just over 2,000 million vehicle kilometres. The project will enable the Government to expand its objectives for diverting freight from road to rail by 75-100%; from diverting 15-18 billion tonne-km by 2010 to removing 40-43 billion tonne-km by 2015. Most of this traffic is on the Motorway network where lorries take up 3 times as much space as private cars and vans. On the M25 and M20 this is roughly equivalent to 1 lane of capacity each way.

36



Sustainability – the use of rail to transport goods is more efficient and environmentally sound compared to goods travelling by road. The proposed service is inherently sustainable in terms of minimising congestion, improving the efficiency of distribution, maximising the use of existing railway and transport corridors, minimising pollution and greenhouse emissions, reducing noise disturbance and reducing accidents. Using European values for reducing CO2 emissions the annual economic value of diverting HGV traffic from the roads is estimated to at £850 million.



Environmental Impacts – by using existing or disused transport corridors the impacts of the project can be minimised. The biggest effect, noise from train operations, can be mitigated via noise barriers. Property effects are being managed through an extensive property protection scheme which provides for liberal compensation if there are any negative effects. Should the owner wish to move at any time after construction starts the Company will purchase the property at a premium price. All significant impacts of the project will be fully documented in an Environmental Statement which follows EU guidelines. The scope of the ES is being reviewed by the main UK environmental agencies and the Company has signed an agreement with them regarding the structure of an environmental management plan covering the development and operation of the railway.

8.2

NATIONAL TRANSPORT PLANS

8.2.1

SRA Freight Progress Report May 2003

The report provides an update covering the activities discussed in the SRA’s “Freight Strategy” report of May 2001. On the positive side freight traffic tonnage has continued to grow and stood at 19.68 billion tonne kms in 2001/2 with 80% of this being bulk products. Domestic Intermodal grew for two years but has fallen to pre-1998/99 levels and International traffic was down by 55% due to asylum problems at the Channel Tunnel. The percentage of freight tonnage by rail has continued to rise and in 2001/2 stood at 11.68%. Most of the SRA freight programme actions were small scale ones focused on improving the materials supply chain. They estimate that 670 million lorry miles are being avoided yearly (this is based on the assumption that the bulk traffic would have otherwise had to be transported by road transport). The “Freight Facilities Grants” cancelled last year are to be resumed based on a new more restrictive formula and “Track Access Grants” will continue. Freight train track use charges were reduced to reduce the losses within the industry and most capital investment projects in the 2001 Freight Plan are being re-assessed to make assure that they produce ‘value for money’. Gauge enhancement projects for the Felixstowe to Nuneaton and Southampton to West Midlands lines are being re-programmed and other freight strategy projects continue to be studied. During this time the private sector (mainly EWS) has been active procuring new rolling stock valued at £450 million and the SRA’s £20 million in matching schemes have generated and additional £15m in private sector investments. Even with these capital programme deferrals and reduced funding the SRA is still hopeful that it will be able to meet the Government’s 2010 target of increasing rail freight tonnage by 80%. The results of various strategic studies in the Midlands, through Manchester and the North-South Freight Capacity study were still awaited. The report indicated that further investments in freight infrastructure would have to be demand led. A consultation paper in capacity utilisation was issued. It discussed the basis for allocating future network capacity where there are competing demands. 8.2.2

SRA Strategic Review of Central Railway

The SRA’s has conducted two reviews of Central Railway for the Government. Both reviews were undertaken by external consultants. The first review of 2001 was broadly favourable and concluded that there were no fatal flaws in the Project. The SRA’s most recent review of 2002/3 was more detailed and covered a number of matters identified by the Minister of Transport including: • Confirmation of traffic forecasts • Review of capital and operating cost estimates

37

• • •

Assessment of Government funding risks (no public funds are to be used to develop the railway) Railway system impacts during construction and operation Effect on long term railway strategies and plans

Following the second review Ministers asked the Company to discuss a number of issues arising from the review with the SRA, to see it they could be resolved. These related primarily to the impact of the Project on the existing railway network, either during construction of Central Railway or during subsequent operation. The analysis of impacts on passenger train operations focused on several matters: • • • • • • •

CR train operations through Leicester CR train operations through Manchester Victoria and linking lines The effects of running longer 1500m trains Impacts of CR’s wider gauge on local passenger stations Signalling system interactions due to the operation of powerful electric locomotives General impacts on parallel railway operations during construction Impacts on Chiltern Railway operations during construction.

Based on discussions with the SRA and DfT officials, as far as the Company is aware all of these matters have now been satisfactorily addressed to the Department for Transport’s satisfaction. Central Railway is currently awaiting a decision by the Minister of State on the matter of Hybrid Bill sponsorship. 8.2.3

SRA Strategic Plan March 2001

The freight strategy is discussed below. The long term plan includes Central Railway in its list of future rail freight schemes. The policies for rail passenger transport and freight transport in the agenda are generally consistent with those of the 10 Year Plan prepared by the DETR The Company provided detailed information on the Project as part of the SRA’s review. The review report was viewable on their web-site. It confirmed that there are no significant features that would make the project unfeasible. 8.2.4

SRA Freight Strategy May 2001

The Strategic Rail Authority published their Freight Strategy in May 2001. It defined an ambitious programme of investments costing £4 billion in order to realise the objectives of increasing rail freight tonnage by 80% by 2010. While there were to be many procedural reforms and programmes designed to help the industry such as: freight facilities grants for new interchange facilities and innovative services, the main programme relied on infrastructure projects divided into 4 phases as follows: Phase I (2 to 5 years) • Upgrade ECML • Create diversionary routes • Enhance Felixstowe to Nuneaton route • Enhance Southampton to WCML and NW Ports routes • Enhance London orbital lines Phase II (Possible projects within 5 years) • Trans-Pennine upgrade (Mersey to NE Ports) • Enhance Manchester capacity • Enhance WCML north of Crewe • Enhance West Midlands capacity • Enhance London the Channel Tunnel gauge • Further gauge enhancements Phase III (5-10 years) • WCML alternative routes

38



Upgrade more freight lines

Phase IV (after 10 years) • New routes • London bypass • Piggyback programme Central Railway’s proposal, while not named, was indirectly referenced as a possible new North South route and a potential London bypass. NOTE: While the following material is now dated it sets out the evolving polices towards rail freight which culminated in the DETR 10 year plan and the main rail freight objective of an 80% increase in the tonnage transported by rail. It also provides some useful background information of transport trends and railway freight in particular over the past 10-15 years. 8.2.5

DETR White Paper (July 1998)

National planning objectives for rail freight are set out in the Government’s White Paper “New Deal for Transport” July 1998. The paper sets out general objectives for using transport to support economic development, promote sustainability, reduce air pollution and improve the integration of different modes of transport. The document sets the framework for: • • • • • •

reducing road traffic growth responding to the challenge of climate change minimising transport’s demand for land, protected habitats and wildlife variety limiting visual intrusion accounting for environmental effects when making investment and pricing decisions enhancing public awareness of transport and environmental issues.

The document endorses the concept of moving more freight by rail, accepts the targets of the two existing rail freight operators, EWS and Freightliner, and directs the SRA to develop new targets and review the adequacy of Railtrack’s programme (3.32-3.34). It is useful to note that by the late 1980s railways carried less than 14% of national freight tonne-kms and 80% of this was bulk cargo. Since then consolidation has increased and DETR estimates for 1999/2000 show that the railways carried 18.4 billion net tonne-kms, 27% of which was international and domestic inter-modal. The comparable trunk road freight statistic for 1999 is 240 billion tonne km. The White Paper also draws attention to the use of freight grants to help “tip the balance in favour of rail haulage where environmental benefits justify that” (4.36) and identifies “piggyback” style operations and inter-modal freight terminals as concepts needing further investigation and private sector commitment (4.37). In general terms, Central Railway offers a way of implementing these policies through the private sector. The document contains some useful rail versus road statistics for 1988/89. These show that: • • • 8.2.6

accident rate ratios per 100 million train/vehicle km are 1/200 (0.3/60) energy consumption ratios per tonne/km average 1/10 (0.5/5) pollutant emissions from road traffic generate 25-30 times more tonnes of gases than rail

DETR Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan (July 2000)

This DETR report indicates that progress has been made since 1997 in improving rail freight services. Abstracts from the document relevant to Central Railway are as follows:

39

• • • •

Fifty new freight terminals have been built and rail freight traffic has risen by 22%. Without the plan, over the next 10 years road traffic on trunk roads will rise by 29%, congestion by 28% and CO2 emissions will increase by 8%. Economic growth depends on good freight transport, which accounts of 10% of GDP. Without action, rising congestion and increased distribution costs will limit future economic growth and job creation. Air pollutant emissions will be about half present levels by 2010, but traffic congestion will reverse this trend thereafter.

The plan has several main themes, integration being one of them. It draws attention to the new multimodal studies in motorway corridors. [Central Railway is participating in several of these, where the diversion of HGV’s to rail would help to reduce congestion]. The plan mentions two corridors that would be affected by Central Railway: • •

In the M6 corridor, 20-30% of traffic is HGVs. Upgrades and rail freight gauge enhancements of the West Coast Main Line as well as high occupancy dedicated freight lanes are being investigated. In the new M62 corridor, southeast of Manchester, new freight interchanges are being considered.

The document supports the development of Regional Transport Strategies (RTS). These are designed to provide guidance on the role and future development of roads and railways in line with Regional Planning Guidance and national policy. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) also have a keen interest in transport and are providing input for RTSs. The ten year transport investment programme is estimated to total £180 billion, £121 billion of which is capital investment and £59 billion revenue support. The railways investment plan totals £49 billion, £34 billion of which is expected to come from the private sector, mainly from Railtrack and passenger service TOCs which provide train services under franchise, all of which are being re-tendered by the SRA. The DETR wishes to speed up the approval process for major projects and is consulting widely on ways to improve TWA approval procedures without loss of public accountability. With respect to railway freight, the plan states the following: • • • •

Rail freight, while growing 22% over the past three years, has continued to carry between 16-20 billion tonne-kms for the past 20 years. Passenger traffic has increased by 17% and is at a 50 year high. As a consequence, many segments of the railway network are close to maximum capacity. Freight operators’ primary objectives should be to improve operating efficiency and facilities so as to attract new customers. Freight operators will continue to benefit from revenue support for track access charges and to be remunerated by the Government for making infrastructure investments. A £7 billion Rail Modernisation Fund will lever private capital to secure network expansion. The fund’s objective is to help boost traffic by 80% for rail freight. This means a growth of 15 billion tonne-km. Note: In 2013 Central Railway is predicted to divert 15 billion tonne-kms of road freight traffic to its service. This is equal to the Government’s target in 2010.

• •



Capacity will be increased on the Chiltern Line and the freight routes to Felixstowe, and gauge and capacity enhancements will be made on routes to the Channel Tunnel. Bottlenecks in the West Midlands and Manchester will be removed. The details of the plan will be developed by SRA and published in late 2000. (Now revised to Autumn 2001) The plan will include: new freight infrastructure, freight priority routes, removal of bottlenecks, encouragement of market innovation, support of new freight terminals and provide for a new freight grant scheme. Due to recent accidents, a more rigorous culture of safety needs to be developed. The plan provides for the installation of the Train Protection and Warning System throughout the network.

40

The Strategic Road Network is the backbone of the transport system. It carries 34% of all traffic and 67% of freight but comprises only 4% of the total road network (10,500km of 284,000kms). Congestion currently occurs daily on 7% of its length in peak periods, and a further 13% is congested on at least half the days in the year. Forecast growth of 29% will increase congestion further if no action is taken. Parts of the network which are congested and that might be affected positively by Central Railway are indicated in Figure 8.1. They include key segments of the M1, M6, M25 and M20. The document goes on to state, “Most people now accept that we cannot rely on road building as a sustainable long-term solution to the problems of traffic growth and congestion. Simply building more and bigger roads is not the answer: we need a more strategic approach”. This strategic approach requires, among other things, smarter network management. The multi-modal studies will test many new ways of managing demand and capacity on the motorway network. Options to be financed by Government must pass through a new assessment process, New Approach to Appraisal (NATA), to ensure that decisions about public projects are based on a balanced view of the economic, environmental, safety, accessibility and integration implications of plans. The funding requirement for major roads for the next 10 years is estimated at £16 billion, £2.5 billion of which is private capital. With these investments, and assuming that the new public transport and freight traffic forecasts of growth are met, the current level of congestion is predicted to be reduced by 5%. Other selected features of the 10 year plan that have a bearing on Central Railway are as follows: • • • • • •

the Airtrack airport rail link from Staines to Terminal 5 at Heathrow access to jobs and other facilities through new cross-London and orbital rail routes the ‘significant’ accident rate per million train miles operated has steadily declined over the past 20 years to a rate of 0.3. The road accident rate for vehicle kilometre, while much higher, has also declined. increasing the axle weight limit to 44 tonnes for six-axle lorries will save 100 million vehicle kilometres per year (1,000 fewer lorries) and reduce CO2 emissions by 80-100,000 tonnes. the investment in rail freight infrastructure is estimated at £4 billion. The split between public and private funding is not noted, but for railways as a whole, 70% is private sector funded. investments proposed by the multi-modal studies assume that 25% of the cost will be funded by the private sector using design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) methods.

Some useful statistics from Annex 4 of the document are as follows: Local Roads • traffic cars – 216 billion vehicle-km • safety - 32,956 killed or seriously injured ( 4,854 were children) Trunk and Motorways • traffic cars – 105 billion veh-km • traffic lorries – 16 billion veh-km (approximately 240 billion tonne-km) • safety - 5,189 killed or seriously injured ( 306 were children) Railways • traffic 38.3 billion passenger km • freight 18.4 billion tonne-km • trains/day – 18,600 Mode share – freight (total tonne-km) • road – 65 % • rail – 7%

41

• •

Water – 23% Pipelines – 5% Figure 8.1 Congested Segments of UK Motorway Network -2000

M62 M6 KEY M1 Congested Daily

M6

Partly Congested Un-congested

M4 M1

M2 M4 M3

M20

M25 M23

42

Emissions • CO2 – 37 million tonnes (surface transport) Central Railway’s proposed railway is consistent with the 10 year plan. As noted above, it will help the Government reach its goal of diverting 18 billion tonne HGV kilometres from the road network to rail. The associated effects of this diversion result in economic benefits by lowering the costs of transporting goods and reducing air pollution and road accidents caused by HGV traffic. In the Chiltern and M25 corridors, Central Railway will co-operate with railway operators seeking to add services which require new railway infrastructure. The Company is also co-operating with Government Multi-Modal Motorway Corridor studies running parallel to its route. In South East the effect of diverting HGVs from the motorways to Central Railway could reduce the requirement for new lanes by up to one lane each way. The effects of Central Railway on UK motorways are discussed in more detail in Section 7 of this report. 8.2.7

DETR Sustainable Distribution – A Strategy (March 1999)

This document sets out a comprehensive, integrated strategy for the sustainable distribution of goods and services. The strategy deals mainly with road freight, due to the dominance of this mode within the freight transport industry. The Government’s objectives are to: • • • • • • •

improve the efficiency of distribution minimise congestion make better use of transport infrastructure minimise pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions manage development pressures on the landscape – both natural and man-made reduce noise and disturbance from freight movements reduce the number of accidents, injuries and cases of ill health associated with freight movements.

The key actions proposed and which would affect rail freight services are: • • • • • •

revised guidance which will encourage more freight to be carried by rail manage demand to make the best use of roads create a national policy framework for major freight interchanges increase grants to promote greater use of railways to transport freight set up SRA relax axle weight limits for 5-6 axle HGV lorries.

Other matters covered include: • • • • • • • •

agreement by the French Government to establish rail freight corridors linked to the Channel Tunnel and advance the ‘rail freight freeway’ concept between the UK and Hungary as an interim measure before EU legislation is passed to liberalise market access. continued review of the use of road user charges to adjust prices for long-term environmental costs. revision of PPG13 (Planning Policy Guidance) to encourage more freight to be carried by rail by protecting corridors and areas where transfer facilities could be upgraded and/or located. This is also reflected in PPG11 – Regional Planning Guidance. major freight interchange improvements are to be promoted to encourage fuller use of rail; three new terminals have opened: Hams Hall, Daventry and Tilbury. EWS and Freightliner, two major rail freight operators, have invested in new locomotives and wagons to transport freight; they have set ambitious targets for traffic growth. Freightliner has bought pocket wagons (needed to clear low structures) to transport 8’6” high containers. random inspection of HGV vehicles in 1999 indicated that 25% had significant faults and 12% had faults sufficiently serious to justify immediate prohibition. revision of VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) rates to reflect higher bridge and pavement wear and environmental damage with the use of heavier axle limit HGV vehicles. HGV emission standards are being tightened although EurIII requirements will not come into effect until after 2003. Emissions of the two main pollutants, NOx and particulates (PM12), are

43

predicted to be 33% and 50% below 1995 levels by 2005, assuming current fleet renewal patterns. HGV lorry emissions of NOx in 2005 will still be over 155,000 tonnes and 7,000 tonnes of PM12 particles. The document contains the following useful statistical information: • •

Transport costs in the distribution industry vary within the EU from 30-50%, with the UK at 40%. Over the past 10 years, while economic output has risen 20%, HGV traffic on roads has increased by 38%. In 1997, the amount of freight moved by each mode was: Road Water Rail Pipeline

• • • • •

160 billion tonne kilometres 50 18 (5%) 15

UK shipping and ports services have experienced a 55% growth in container traffic, 44% growth in HGV lorry and un-accompanied trailer traffic and 7% increase in bulk traffic. Just-in-time inventory control has reduced stockholding in wholesale and retail businesses from 14 to 10 days. Lorries and vans represent 7% and 9% of total UK traffic (449 billion vehicle km in 1997) and are predicted to grow by 25% and 29% respectively by 2011. Emissions by lorries produce 32% of oxides of nitrogen and 42% of particulate matter (NOx tonnes 887.7 and PM10 40.4 in 1997). Serious accidents caused by HGV’s have declined but are still above 3,000 per year.

Central Railway is a sustainable project and supports all the Government’s primary freight distribution objectives. It does this by inducing a shift of mode from road to rail for a large portion of HGV lorry movements between the UK and the Continent. The elimination of nearly 1000 million vehicle kilometres from UK motorways and trunk roads in 2010 has considerable environmental benefits. These effects are discussed in greater detail in Section 7. 8.2.8

Railtrack’s 2000 Network Management Statement (NMS)

This document while no longer relevant set out Railtrack’s objectives for modernising the freight and passenger network. Note: As Central Railway was not approved and is to be project funded entirely by the private sector, there is no direct reference to it in this document. Notwithstanding, Railtrack’s objectives for rail freight underline the importance of diverting goods traffic from the roads. Selected abstracts from the 2000NMS that set out their rail freight strategy are as follows; • • • • • •

Rail freight generates £1,130 million (before taxes) in social and environmental benefits. Further increases in rail traffic will bring greater benefits still. Positive effects on the environment and congestion will generate 23% and 77% of these benefits. Potential benefits of road to rail diversion in 2010 could increase benefits to £2.1 billion (net of taxes at 40%). The rail industry must attract freight from other modes, especially road, by providing a costeffective alternative. New investment to achieve a shift from road to rail will need Government support. Greater discipline in optimising the use of existing capacity must also play its part. The current market is predominantly bulk, with inter-modal and international representing 22% and 5% of the total market of [44.6 million gross] tonne-kilometres. Other types, which includes wagon-load shipments, constituted 23% of the market. (No breakdown of bulk and unitised shipments is provided). Note the DETR 10 year plan shows 1999 figures of 18.4 billion tonne-km for rail freight.



43% of all freight traffic used the West Coast Mainline, 11% the Midland Mainline. Other routes, including those leading to the Channel Tunnel, carried only 8% of the freight traffic.

44

• • • •

The freight industry is forecast to grow 25-30% over the next 10 years, mainly due to sustainable economic growth (2-3% per year). This means that, under current conditions, there will be an extra 24,000 lorries on the roads. Attracting some of this traffic to rail will require joint action by government and industry to lower unit costs and equalise taxes. Railtrack’s Freight Routeing Strategy is still being developed and focuses on gaining extra paths in key corridors between Scotland and the South East. The target is an additional 72 paths per day for freight on the West Coast Mainline or alternative corridors. Potential gauge and capacity enhancements on Central Railway route corridors include: - Midlands Main Line, Chesterfield to Manton Junction - W10w clearance of a Channel Tunnel to London route (Ashford to Channel Tunnel)



• •

The maximum loading gauge being considered by Railtrack is W11, suitable for trailers up to 3.8m high. No routes currently have this clearance and there currently are no other plans for this high a gauge. There are plans to upgrade 4873 kms of the network to W10, which would allow 3.1m Multifret units to be handled. The cost of W10 and W11 gauge enhancements on the 11892km strategic railway network is £226 and £414 million. These could be in place by 2005, subject to funding. Exploitation of infrastructure to promote new freight facilities has been supported by inter-modal freight terminal access studies at the Parkside (M6/M62) and Argent (M4/M25) sites. Expenditure proposed by region and five year period is as follows: 2000/1 £2.3m 5.8 7.1 3.5 ____ 18.7

Southern England and South Wales Midlands Northern England Scotland Total

2002/6 £22.1m 18.1 21.5 12.3 _____ 74.0

2007/11 £22.4m 52.6 20.3 15.1 _____ 108.4

Note: the costs of optional enhancements suggested by the industry is £125 million. Railtrack’s strategy for passenger service infrastructure investments is obviously more extensive, and capacity enhancements have been proposed at a number of points where Central Railway and Railtrack lines interface. However, the NMS does not mention Central Railway directly. Railtrack proposes to upgrade a number of segments of railway to accommodate greater passenger train traffic, including: • • • • • •

CTRL Ashford to Eurotunnel Kent Line – Redhill to Tonbridge Chiltern Line – Gerrards Cross to Ashendon Junction MML – Leicester to Loughborough and Chesterfield Manchester Central Hub Scheme The Airtrack scheme from Staines to LHR Terminal 5 (if Terminal 5 is approved)

Many Railtrack projects were proposed in the NMS. Central Railway identified a number of them which could be developed as part of its privately funded Project programme.

8.3

REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the English Regions is currently being prepared and in some cases is nearing completion. The RPG sets out a spatial strategy that extends beyond land use issues and should incorporate an integrated transport strategy for the region. This is documented in the Regional Transport Strategy, which forms an integral part of the RPG. Economic Development and

45

Regional Plans are being prepared in each region through the Regional Government Offices and the Regional Assemblies. The regions through which Central Railway passes are: 8.3.1

East Midlands

Central Railway is not specifically identified in the draft RPG, but support is given to “the provision of a new route on the strategic north-south corridor built with a more generous loading gauge than the existing railway network to facilitate rail freight movements to continental Europe”. Central Railway made representation at the examination in public. 8.3.2

North West

Central Railway is not specifically identified in the draft RPG published in July 2000, but support is given to the provision of new, strategically located inter-modal interchanges to serve the North West and also the enhancement of loading gauge on key freight routes. Central Railway has provided comments on the draft RPG. 8.3.3

South East

The Draft RPG was published March 2000 with the final RPG due for publication in December 2000. Policy T6 of the Draft RPG supports: • • • •

Making the best use of all existing infrastructure in support of the fast and efficient movement of goods, while at the same time reducing its environmental impact. The protection of facilities that support the use of rail for the movement of freight. Safeguarding sites for rail freight facilities and permitting development for rail freight operations and associated facilities for modal transfer where these would assist in the development of the strategic freight network. Viable proposals for the development of inter-modal interchange facilities where they support the overall strategy.

Policy T9 indicates that Development Plans should include policies that safeguard delivery of major proposals where they are consistent with the spatial strategy and the regional priorities for investment in transport infrastructure. 8.3.4

West Midlands

The Regional Conference that will review the RPG was launched in February 2000. Publication of the draft RPG is expected at the end of 2001. Central Railway is participating in the RPG review. 8.3.5

Yorkshire and Humber

The draft RPG was examined in public in June/July 2000. Panel recommendations are subject to further public consultation. The latest draft RTS specifically supports Central Railway in its provision of a new, high-quality freight link from Liverpool, via Manchester and Sheffield to the South East and Europe, subject to suitable arrangements for road access to the proposed multi-modal terminal at Tinsley (Sheffield).

8.4

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were formed during 1999 to administer the economic development and regeneration of the English Regions. One driver for economic prosperity is the availability of good freight transport systems. 8.4.1

East Midlands

The economic strategy for the East Midlands supports investment in rail transport, including enhanced links to other regions, a high-speed link to the Channel Tunnel, improving east-west rail routes, eg Trans-Pennine rail services, and investment in the Midland Main Line.

46

8.4.2

North West

The North West Development Agency aims to deliver, in conjunction with others, strategic and integrated transport solutions by supporting investment in piggyback projects and Central Railway, and investing in a new regional inter-modal freight terminal at Parkside. 8.4.3

South East

The South East England Development Agency has amongst its objectives strategic rail improvements, improved gauge of rail freight routes through the region to increase the use of railways for freight transport, and investigation into the need to develop strategically located inter-modal freight exchanges to reduce road traffic and improve efficiency. It recognises that priority infrastructure investments are likely to include those arising from a strategy for movement through and around London. 8.4.4

West Midlands

Advantage West Midlands aims to improve the movement of goods, services and people inside and outside the region. The strategy encourages people and freight to use rail and supports improvement to the rail system at important locations and multi-modal transfers. 8.4.5

Yorkshire and Humber

Yorkshire Forward seeks to improve transport provision and accessibility, particularly between Leeds and Sheffield and along the Trans Pennine corridor.

8.5

MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR STUDIES

The Regional Government Offices, with the support of the Highways Agency, have commissioned multi-modal studies for several motorway corridors. These are designed to determine how future transport requirements will be accommodated. Central Railway is contributing to these studies by providing technical information on its project, the potential for diverting freight traffic off the motorway network and onto its system, and possible passenger train usage of its tracks. It is a member of the advisory groups helping consultants undertake the studies for the M25 (Orbit), the M6 in the Midlands/Northwest - Rugby to Manchester and the M1 in the East Midlands/Yorkshire - Sheffield to Leicester. These studies are based on a two year schedule and may not be presented for formal adoption until 2002 or 2003. Central Railway will divert significant proportions of HGV traffic off the roads in these multi-modal corridors.

8.6

LOCAL PLANS

Central Railway, as a transport project of national importance, has such large-scale benefits and impacts that it is not in local plans, which deal mainly with traffic circulation matters and small-scale improvements. However, all local authorities that may be affected by the project have been consulted. In most cases where the railway runs within existing transport and railway corridors, the project is compatible with local land use plans. In most cases local transport infrastructure will be enhanced, although during construction the short-term effects of traffic disruption will have to be mitigated. Local authorities have removed the transport designation along dismantled railway corridors and in some cases created new cycle and/or pedestrian trails. However, many local plans protect disused railways so that they may remain available for future transport projects; designation as trails is one means of achieving this protection. Several authorities have indicated that the proposed route would have potential impacts on future development. Two separate but linked concerns are the minimisation of blight during the approval period and noise impacts of train operations. The mitigation of potential blight and other adverse impacts are being managed through Central Railway’s Property Protection Scheme (PPS). This scheme protects property owners against any fall in the value of their land and property as a result of the project. If the property is eligible, Central Railway contracts with the owner to purchase the

47

property at its full market value when the project is approved and financed. This effectively acts as an insurance policy, enabling people to buy and sell property in the interim at full market value. The option to buy can be conveyed to a new owner, which facilitates the orderly sale of property which might otherwise not be marketable due to the risk that the project would adversely affect the property. The programme currently covers 1000 dwellings along the route and is considered by the estate agency industry as “best practice” against planning blight. Central Railway’s Environmental Statement will document both noise and other significant impacts on local plans in greater detail. Also, the transport impacts of terminal sites on local traffic conditions will be examined in Traffic Impact Studies being commissioned by Central Railway as part of its impact assessment.

48

Recommend Documents
Item 10 - 15 - Open foundation, Structural concrete, Form work , Reinforcement , ...... Laying of MBC sleepers and Linking of Track with Railways Rails, ...... (a) As some of the rigid fastenings might get loose, tightening of fittings should be done

Date: 2018.04.17 ...... Central Railway as specified in part III of the Works Hand Book issued ...... IS-2720 Part V 1985 determination of liquid and plastic limit.

Railway, Dadar (free from any encumbrance) may be accepted. 8.3. ..... IS 3696 (Part-I) – 1987: Safety Code for Scaffolds& Ladders. c. IS 3696 (Part-II) ...... (b) Tenderer/s shall download Tender document solely for the purpose of bidding for abov

May 4, 2012 - Surface Transportation Board. [Docket No. ... remain in control of CMR after CMR's reincorporation in Minnesota. PGR, which operates certain ...

Jul 24, 2018 - The Divisional Railway Manager (Signal & Telecom)/East Central ... tools & plants , technical personal/man power and association of Railway.

IMo = Price of insulating Materials (refer notes). This price is ...... 4(a)(iii) : Supply without insulator and erection of a single bracket assembly suitable for tramway ...

including spare parts, fuel and consumable stores, and all labour required to ensure efficient methodical ...... Whether registered with CPWD, PWD, ..... Railway will arrange wagons power and machine staff of ensure desired productivity.

multiple location & composite projects, details in respect of individual location to ...... or the Indian Standard Code of practice (ISC). ...... the stability of the construction, the Contractor at his own expense shall grout the cracks with polymer

Oct 27, 2016 - using internet banking or debit/credit cards (service charges apply for .... Constitution (Scheduled Caste/Tribe) (Union Territories) order, 1951 ...

Jul 25, 2018 - existing tube wells in. Tejab Mill Railway Colony. Under. ADEN/HQ/NCR/CNB. Rs. 28,86,790. Rs.57,740/- 3,000/-. 06 Months. 25.07.2018. Nil.