london east-west study74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf…east west axis...
Embed Size (px)
Table of contents
1 Executive summary 11.1 Background 11.2 The current situation 11.3 Forecast growth 11.4 Government policy 11.5 New cross London routes 11.6 Service patterns 21.7 Associated benefits 21.8 Great Western Main Line 21.9 Access to Heathrow 21.10 Freight and orbital passenger services 21.11 Long term proposals 21.12 Delivery management 21.13 Programme 3
2 The key issues 42.1 The passenger market 42.1.1 Peak period congestion 42.1.2 Off-peak travel 52.1.3 Future growth 52.1.4 Regeneration 62.1.5 Town Centres 72.2 Freight 72.3 Heathrow 82.4 Great Western Renaissance 9
3 The long term vision 10
4 The strategic choice 114.1 The central cross London schemes 114.1.1 Infrastructure and alignment 114.1.2 Service patterns 124.1.3 Associated benefits 124.1.4 High level economic assessment 134.1.5 Qualitative assessment 144.1.6 Commentary on the qualitative assessment 144.1.7 Recommendation 154.2 Heathrow and Great Western Main Line 154.2.1 Access to the Heathrow area 154.2.2 Great Western Main line 164.2.3 East West links to Heathrow 16
4.3 Freight and orbital routes 174.3.1 Freight development 174.3.2 Upgrade of the Gospel Oak to
Barking line – Phase 1 184.3.3 Improved links to the West Coast Main line 184.3.4 Upgrade of the Gospel Oak to
Barking line – Phase 2 194.3.5 Link from the Great Eastern 194.3.6 Thames tunnel and associated works 194.3.7 Programme for the freight focused route 204.3.8 Great Western freight flows 204.3.9 Passenger orbital routes 214.4 South-West to North-East cross
London routes 21
5 Funding and delivery 225.1 Overview 225.2 Major passenger schemes 22
6 Obtaining powers for the cross London link 24
7 Operation and franchising of the cross London link 25
8 Programme 26
9 The way ahead 27
10 Route options 28
Three appendices support this report and contain the following information:Appendix 1 – Background informationAppendix 2 – Modelling and assessment – supporting informationAppendix 3 – Supporting tables and diagrams
Government policy is to encourage a switch from carsto sustainable modes including the railway. Thisrequires a high quality public transport network. Railalso has a role to play in serving major developmentsites and assisting regeneration in areas such as theThames Gateway. In producing this report we havetaken into account the Mayor’s objectives as set out inhis Draft Transport Strategy published in lateOctober.
1.5 New cross London routesProposals to reduce congestion based on upgrades ofexisting infrastructure were examined. Theseincluded:• upgrading of the North London and South London
lines;• linking the northern half of the Circle Line to the
National Rail Network;• upgrading of the existing radial routes into
Paddington and Liverpool Street.
None of these options would provide effective reliefof overcrowding in Central London. This can only beachieved by new cross London links.
The sSRA identified three possible major schemesthat would provide significant additional passengercapacity across Central London. These schemes arebased on the safeguarded routes through CentralLondon for the CrossRail and Chelsea-Hackney lines.These routes have been formally safeguarded foralmost ten years and there is increasing pressure torelease parts of both routes for buildingdevelopments.
To varying degrees, these schemes will reducecongestion, assist regeneration and encourage modalshift. They are all economically viable with the mostpromising being a network based on a new tunnelfrom Paddington to East of Liverpool Street. Wepropose that this project is taken forward to theproject definition and design development stageimmediately. However, it should be recognised thatthis is a major construction project and as such is notexpected to deliver benefits for ten to 13 years.
1.1 BackgroundIn December 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister askedthe Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) to carryout a review of the issues relating to rail travel on anEast West axis across London.
This report, prepared in response to that request, setsout the issues such as network capacity, congestion,growth and regeneration. It identifies a programmeconsisting of complementary and incremental projectsthat will create a railway network appropriate toLondon’s status as a World City.
The sSRA has worked with Transport for London,Railtrack and London Underground to clarify theissues, to identify opportunities and to frame asolution.
1.2 The current situationThe current system is near to capacity in terms of theNational Rail Network, the central London terminiand the Underground. This creates a fragile systemwhere the slightest problem can have dramatic knockon effects across the network. To passengers theexperience is unsatisfactory with frequent delays, sub-standard interchange facilities and overcrowded trains,platforms and termini.
1.3 Forecast growthThe sSRA expects the growth in demand forpassenger and freight to continue to increase. Even ifnothing is done to enhance the network, beyond theschemes already committed, we expect peak hourpassenger growth to be around 15% in the next 20years and off-peak travel to double in the sameperiod. If additional schemes are implemented thesefigures will be higher. Freight is planned to increaseby 80% within the next decade but will only do so ifserved by a convenient and cost effective network.
1.4 Government policyWhen forecast growth is compared with theGovernment’s 10 Year Plan target to increase railtravel by 50%, it is clear that the existinginfrastructure, even supplemented by the committedschemes, will not deliver this growth.
1.6 Service patternsThe sSRA has focused on the choice between twoalternative service patterns for trains using theproposed tunnel:• a Regional Express that would cater for middle
distance commuters;• a Regional Metro that would be predominately
geared towards serving Greater London.
We propose that the Regional Metro option shouldbe taken forward as it makes a greater contribution tosocial objectives and is likely to have higher levels ofreliability.
1.7 Associated benefitsIn addition to delivering benefits to passengers on theGreat Eastern and Great Western Main lines, a newPaddington to Liverpool Street route would deliver:• significant improvements in service to the
Dagenham and Tilbury area;• increases in services to the Lea Valley and Hackney;• increased importance for Stratford as a railway hub.
1.8 Great Western Main lineThe Great Western Main line will be required tocarry significant additional traffic in future. Thisincludes:• Metro services from the Paddington to Liverpool
Street line;• increased freight traffic;• increased Inter City traffic as a result of
improvements being proposed to the Great Westernroute;
• increased rail access to Heathrow.
To deal with this traffic we propose that the GreatWestern route should be six tracked, at least toAirport Junction. This should be complemented bythe redevelopment of the train shed at Paddington toallow longer trains to be run on some routes.
1.9 Access to HeathrowWe recommend that the following schemes progressto improve rail links to Heathrow Airport:• a Heathrow to St Pancras service using the
Dudding Hill line and the Midland Main line;• the Airtrack group of services running through the
central area of Heathrow to link destinations to theNorth and South.
1.10 Freight and orbital passenger servicesThe Orbirail initiative is currently being progressed toincrease orbital services around London to meet localneeds. This includes the development of the followingroutes:• the East London line and extensions;• the West London line;• the North London line.
In order to allow the Paddington to Liverpool Streetand the Orbirail initiatives to proceed it is essentialthat proper provision is made for freight. We proposeto develop a freight focused route incorporating thefollowing developments:• the Gospel Oak to Barking line to be upgraded;• the gauge restriction in Hampstead Tunnel and the
capacity issues between Hampstead and Willesdento be resolved;
• appropriate connections to be made to improvefreight routes, possibly including a freight tunnel tothe East of London.
1.11 Long term proposalsA rail link from South-West London to North-EastLondon would complement the Paddington toLiverpool Street scheme. The sSRA and Transport forLondon will carry out a detailed feasibility study ofthe Wimbledon to Hackney route. This willcommence in early 2001.
1.12 Delivery managementThe projects set out in this report combine to form acohesive whole and cannot be managed in isolationdue to their inter-dependencies. For example:• the cross London route requires the completion of
the proposed freight corridor;• Airtrack requires the six tracking of the Great
Western;• six tracking can only be designed when issues about
the cross London route have been resolved;• the Orbirail proposals interact with the freight
corridor and Airtrack;• the phasing, operability and buildability of all the
elements affect each other.
1 Executive summary (continued)
East-West passenger schemes
• Paddington to Liverpool Street Regional Metro
• Six tracking of the Great Western
• Paddington ‘Span 4’
• Airtrack – including Heathrow to St Pancras
• Platform lengthening – Great Western
Freight and orbital schemes
• Upgrade of Gospel Oak to Barking - Phase 1
• Upgrade of Gospel Oak to Barking - Phase 2
• Improve links to West Coast Main line
• Forest Gate flyover
• East Thames Freight tunnel
South/West to North/East London route
• Wimbledon to Hackney
• sSRA and Transport for London to progress to project definition and design developments
• Railtrack to complete feasibility study and proceed to obtain powers
• Railtrack to complete planning application and proceed to development
• sSRA to establish a Project Development Group and progress project programme
• To be taken forward as part of the Train Operating Company refranchising process
• To be taken forward as part of the refranchising process
• Railtrack to proceed immediately
• sSRA to establish a Project Development Group and progress to project definition
• Project Development Group to carry out feasibility study
• Project Development Group to prepare preliminary definition for safeguarding purposes
• Project Development Group to prepare preliminary definition for safeguarding purposes
• Take forward immediately as a joint study between the sSRA and Transport for London
are progressed immediately and that prudentmeasures are taken to minimise the time taken beforethe benefits can be delivered to the travelling public.
The following table provides a summary of theschemes that will contribute to improved rail travelon an East – West axis and outlines the actions werecommend.
For this reason we propose the creation of aProgramme Office by the sSRA and Transport forLondon working together to take these schemesforward. This Office would draw on support fromRailtrack and a programme management company.
1.13 ProgrammeThe scale of the major schemes proposed in thisreport is such that they will take several years to cometo fruition. In order to provide a world class transportsystem that will sustain the economic growth ofLondon we strongly recommend that the proposals
2.1 The passenger market2.1.1 Peak period congestionThe study has quantified the everyday experience ofthe travelling public. The current network isoperating close to its maximum capacity. Many trainsare overcrowded and many stations suffer from highlevels of platform congestion. With the networkworking so close to its theoretical capacity a singleproblem can often have severe knock-on effects thatripple throughout the system.
It is interesting to note that a recent study carried outby the International Stress Management Associationshowed that for Londoners their most stressful dailyactivity is the journey to work. This exceeds the stressof being at work.
Many lines in both the National Rail system and theLondon Underground are overcrowded and the
forecast growth in passenger numbers will increase thelevel of operational risk. The discomfort caused bythis overcrowding is limiting the number of journeysmade to work using the rail network. This in turn isleading to the suppression of demand on some keycorridors. This suppression of demand will, if notchecked, act as a brake on the continued economicgrowth of London.
Peak period congestion on the network has increasedin the last five years. This is mainly due to economicgrowth over this period, but this effect has beenexacerbated by restraint on rail fare increases. Even ifthis policy were to change it is unlikely that theincrease in fares required to constrain demand wouldbe acceptable either to the public or to policy makers.
On examination of individual lines and terministations it is clear that capacity is restricted by pinchpoints on the lines, by the mix of traffic or byterminal capacity. Examples of the line capacitylimiting the ability to increase capacity are the linesinto Waterloo and Cannon Street. Examples of theterminal providing the restriction are at Paddington
and Fenchurch Street.
The location of terminal stations around theperiphery of Central London is far from ideal
as this requires passengers to interchange onto the Underground or other modes to getto their final destination. For example, atPaddington 75% of passengersinterchange on to the Underground.These changes create inconvenience andlengthen journey times. The existingnetwork also discourages journeys acrossCentral London so constrainingemployment opportunities.
Figures provided by Transport for Londonshow that there are significant sections on
each of the Underground lines wherepassenger numbers currently exceed capacity
The impact on passengers of these high levels ofutilisation is:
The key issues2
Underground. Providing simplified passengerinformation, reliable and easy to understandinterchange arrangements and most notably veryfrequent simple services have helped LondonUnderground to address these issues.
On the National Rail Network service patterns forinner suburban services are complicated, particularlySouth of the Thames where many stations haveservices to several central termini making the servicepattern difficult to understand. Trains on most routesare relatively infrequent with more than 15 minutesbetween trains and many stations are unmannedoutside the peak. Off-peak travel has grown despitethese problems but some of the significant socialtrends in terms of work and leisure patterns as well aspolicy initiatives such as road congestion chargingindicate that there are prospects for it to grow at aneven faster rate.
The proposals set out in this report are primarilyaimed at addresssing the problems associated with thepeak hours. However, it should be recognised thatthere will be significant benefits to passengers in theoff-peak period from the increased capacity andservice frequency.
2.1.3 Future growthIn the last few years the trend has been of steadilyrising rail demand. There is uncertainty about thereasons for this. Undoubtedly, consistent economicgrowth, with its implications for both employmentand the availability of ‘leisure money’, havecontributed. But it has occured despite the perceivedweakness of the rail network with regard to reliabilityand overcrowding, and may simply reflect thegrowing unattractiveness of car travel on congestedroads.
It is forecast that there will be continued growth inrail travel. Work carried out in support of this studyhas predicted that, even if we do not enhance thenetwork beyond the schemes already committed,growth in the peak period between 2000 and 2020for National Rail Network travel in the South Eastwill be about 15%. Growth in the off-peak periodlooks likely to be in excess of 100%. Overall growth,
• Overcrowding and discomfort on train journeys;• Poor reliability of train services;• Some stations routinely closed for safety reasons.
Parts of the road system in London are even morecongested than the railways. This presents significantdifficulties for those movements that must take placeby road. This includes local public transportdistribution by bus, local delivery to businesses andmovement of the emergency services. An importantstrand of Government and Mayoral policy is todiscourage the use of private cars in central areas.Measures that are being proposed include roadcharging and workplace parking charges, but thesemeasures are unlikely to be effective unless there is anacceptable alternative to the car. Severe overcrowdingon the rail system reduces its attractiveness as analternative.
A short term solution on some lines is to increase thelength of the trains. This would require platformlengthening at stations. Such proposals form part ofthe franchise replacement process. However, the scopefor this on the main East – West axis is limited.
The longer term solution is to improve access toCentral London and to reduce overcrowding on theUnderground by linking up the termini on oppositesides of the central area to allow through running.
2.1.2 Off-peak travelDuring off-peak periods the challenge is to encouragegreater use of the railway system thereby providingrelief to other parts of the transport network andmaking better use of assets that would otherwise onlybe used in peak period. In the off-peak period there isa much better prospect of achieving modal shift fromcars than in the peak period when many journeys arealready captive to rail because of parking difficulties.
Although off-peak travel has been growingsubstantially over the last few years there aresignificant barriers to its further development. Theseinclude irregular or infrequent train services, a systemthat is difficult to understand and fears about security,particularly at night or at quieter stations. Many ofthese problems are also faced by London
taking account of the balance between peak and off-peak trips, is likely to be of the order of 50%. Thiscompares to the 10 Year Transport Plan target of a50% increase in national rail usage by 2010.
Central London is forecast to continue to be thedestination for two thirds of trips. The maindestination in the peak period being the City (around30% of all journeys to Central London). In the off-peak period the West End districts of Marylebone(including Oxford Street) and Westminster are themost popular destinations (about 45% of all CentralLondon destinations).
Analysis of forecast peak hour journeys across Londonindicates that few travellers from East of the Cityhave destinations beyond Hammersmith and that fewtravellers coming from the West have destinationsbeyond the City of London. The figures alsodemonstrate that the volume of journeys from theEast is significantly greater than that from the West.
These forecasts include the effects of committed railschemes such as Thameslink 2000, the ChannelTunnel Rail Link and the East London line. However,the logic within the forecasting model applies acapacity restraint mechanism deterring rail travelwhen parts of the network are overcrowded, and thishas constrained the forecast growth. Additionalinformation relating to the modelling of futuregrowth can be found in Appendix 2.
The introduction of congestion charging in CentralLondon is forecast to increase the 2020 peak forecastgrowth by a further 5% and off-peak by 10%.
When forecast demand is compared to existingcapacity it is evident that the greatest mismatchoccurs in Central London. Hence the priority for thestudy was to identify schemes that would providesignificant additional capacity in the central area.
It has been suggested that the increase in commuting toCentral London which has hitherto accompanied theexpansion of the London economy will be lesspronounced in future. This is because of the increase inresidential population in the central area and the growthof ‘telecommuting’ where the use of telephone linksallow workers to be based at home. There is some
evidence that these factors are having an impact butthat it is limited.
The increasing number of Inner London residents aremaking many more leisure related journeys withinLondon than would be made by those commutingfrom outside the City. Moreover, most Inner Londonresidents use rail, particularly the Underground forjourneys to work.
The overall effect of telecommuting on journeys towork is difficult to assess. It appears that the majorityof telecommuters still find it necessary to makefrequent journeys into their office, although thesejourneys are often made off-peak. This is one of thefactors leading to growth in off-peak travel. Moreoverthere are a limited number of jobs that are suitablefor full time telecommuting. A much more prevalentmodel appears to be that of workers spending most oftheir time in the conventional work setting, but usingtelecommuting for certain specific tasks. Althoughthis trend will act as a suppressant on demand,particularly on journeys to work, it is unlikely to besignificant in overall demand levels.
2.1.4 RegenerationThe London economy is of vital importance to thatof the nation as a whole but its continued growth isof particular significance to the inhabitants ofLondon and the surrounding areas. Despite generallyincreased prosperity there are substantial pockets ofdeprivation. A key objective of the Mayor of Londonis to regenerate these areas.
Effective transport links are vital in stimulatingregeneration, but the current overcrowding of the railnetwork makes it difficult to envisage new links beingprovided using the current infrastructure.
The key areas where regeneration opportunities existare West London (for example Park Royal), LeaValley, Hackney, Stratford and the Thames Gateway.We have sought to identify schemes that improveaccess and network capacity in these areas.
In developing the strategy we have taken account ofthe major redevelopment sites such as PaddingtonBasin, Kings Cross and Docklands and sought toprovide improved access to these areas where possible.
2 The key issues (continued)
traffic from North and South Thameside, includingThamesport, Dagenham, Tilbury, the proposedcontainer terminal at Shellhaven, and ChannelTunnel traffic. A large proportion of this traffic isbound for the West Coast Main Line via Willesden.All of these services currently use the Great Easternand North London lines or the South Londonnetwork and the West London line.
Freight trains are not normally permitted to run inthe peak periods because of the congested nature ofparts of these routes. This effectively means that fortwo three hour periods of each day there are nosignificant freight movements through London. Theonly exception to this is Channel Tunnel traffic thatis entitled to use certain routes as set out in theChannel Tunnel legislation. This barrier tomovement often leads to trains sitting in the yard atWembley for excessive periods. As freight demandcontinues to grow it will be difficult to handle thetraffic on offer and maintain the peak period ban onmovements. Moreover the delays to delivery timewhich are caused by these bans present particulardifficulties to freight forwarders and inhibit growthin the rail freight market. We also envisage greaterlevels of congestion during the off-peak period aspassenger and freight journeys continue to grow.
A scheme, supported by the sSRA, is currently underpreparation to upgrade the line from Felixstowe toNuneaton, specifically for the purpose of divertingsome of the container traffic from the East coast portsto the North by a more direct route. This will takeaway the majority of the Felixstowe traffic but some,for instance freight bound for the West Country, willstill have to pass through London.
In addition to freight passing through London thereis freight having its origin or destination withinLondon. Generally these flows are quite diffusebetween the various corridors into Central Londonand can be managed during the off-peak period.Many of them consist of aggregate or waste trafficthat is less time sensitive than container or otherlogistic traffic.
2.1.5 Town CentresAlthough consideration of travel within London tendsto focus on the central area, the structure of the city ismuch more complex. London is a collection of closelygrouped towns for example, Croydon, Ealing,Kingston, Staines, Lewisham and Stratford,dominated by the City and Westminster. Many ofthese towns are significant in terms not only ofpopulation but employment and recreationopportunities. Although most of these centres havegood links to the Central London this is by no meansuniversally true. Moreover direct links between thecentres are often poor where they exist at all. We haveendeavoured to take due account of town centredevelopments in this study.
Development of these centres is important in terms ofimproving the quality of life of their residents andreducing the need for long distance travel. It wouldalso allow the development of travel patterns that are‘counter peak’. Improved public transport links play akey role in supporting this development.
Several town centres are rail transport hubs in theirown right and these, together with other centres,form part of a strategy being developed by sSRA,Transport for London and Railtrack for developmentof a network of strategic interchanges.
2.2 FreightRail freight transport is planned to increasedramatically over the coming years. It is planned thatthere will be an 80% growth in net tonne kilometresby 2010. The provision of effective routes andoperating conditions is key to ensuring that freight isattracted away from road transport.
There are freight flows that originate in various partsof London or have their destination there, but thereare also significant flows that use the National RailNetwork to pass through London en route to otherdestinations. Although these flows have only a minordirect impact on the central London termini they doinfluence some of the flows in the outer London area.
The specific major flows passing through London aredeep-sea container traffic from the Haven ports,Felixstowe and Harwich, intermodal and container
The flow of aggregates from the West Country toActon Yard is particularly relevant to the East – Weststudy. Trains on this line are relatively frequent aslong trains are brought into the Yard where they aresplit to leave in two or three portions. Trains enteringActon Yard must move at a slow speed and tend toblock back onto the Great Western Main line causingcongestion and reduction in capacity.
2.3 HeathrowThe continued growth in the economic health ofLondon relies not only on making London a goodplace to work and live, but also on London’s ability tocompete in a global marketplace. This means thatLondon must continue to improve its attractiveness asan international destination and its ability to providea fast and effective transport network to overseasdestinations.
Whilst the London airports of Gatwick, Heathrow,City, Luton and Stansted continue to expand anddevelop it is important that an integrated transportnetwork exists to effectively carry the travelling publicto and from the airports and their major destinations.It is also necessary to cater for the large number ofpeople that work in and around major airports.
Total passenger numbers at Heathrow airport arecurrently about 65 million per annum of whomabout one third are interlining. This means thatapproximately 42 million passengers are arriving at ordeparting from the airport each year. Expressedanother way this means that about 58,000 passengersleave the airport every day needing onwardtransportation. This number is likely to increasesubstantially if consent is given for the constructionof Terminal 5 at Heathrow.
Road traffic congestion in the vicinity of Heathrow isheavy. Further development of the airport, includingTerminal 5, is likely to depend on minimising furtherincreases in road traffic. In order to achieve this thereis general recognition that improvement of rail links,beyond the existing London Underground andHeathrow Express services, represents the bestopportunity to achieve modal shift from the car.
Of the 58,000 passengers flying into the airport eachday about 30,000 are non UK residents and aretherefore prime candidates for the use of publictransport. A significant proportion of these is headingfor London, mainly to the hotel districts inWestminster, Camden and Chelsea. A distinguishingfeature of air travellers is that they tend to have largeamounts of luggage. In order to prevent delays andcrowding on platforms it is desirable to separateairport services from other passenger services.
In addition to air passengers there are a large numberof ‘meeters and greeters’ who use cars to access theairport. Although the nature of this segment of themarket makes it difficult to achieve much marketpenetration by public transport, there is some scopefor those originating in London.
There are about 80,000 people working in airportjobs in the Heathrow area and at least as many againworking in nearby associated business such as hotelsand freight forwarders. This is another importantmarket that public transport, with the exception ofrelatively short bus journeys from nearby centressuch as Hillingdon, has not penetrated. Rail couldmake an important contribution towards the serviceof this market.
The area around Heathrow is becoming an importantbusiness centre in its own right. Many businesses withthe need for extensive overseas travel have relocated inthe area and many of the hotels around Heathrow areused for meetings between executives flying in fromoverseas and their UK based colleagues. This is alsogenerating significant potential business for rail in thearea.
Most of these potential markets have the virtue ofbeing spread throughout the day but with theexception of the air passengers and the ‘meeters andgreeters’ their destinations at Heathrow are scatteredover a wide geographical area.
2 The key issues (continued)
2.4 Great Western RenaissanceThe Great Western Main line has experienced stronggrowth in passenger numbers over the last five years.As a result plans are being prepared by Railtrack forthe Great Western Renaissance. This is a programmeto increase capacity at significant pinch points on theroute.
This programme has started and is expected to becomplete by 2009 at which point the main (fast)lines into Paddington will be totally occupied bymain line expresses plus the four per hour HeathrowExpress trains.
During the study we found that there was a highdegree of agreeement in the long term view of thesSRA, Transport for London, London Undergroundand Railtrack on the principles for new lines inLondon. This long term view is summarised below:• Rail must be a vital part of a London wide,
comprehensive and integrated public transportservice;
• Individual services should operate on dedicatedlines running to similar service patterns to give thehighest possible throughput;
• There should be a clear hierarchy of services thatdistinguishes between, for example, local, regionaland national services. Each level of service shouldhave a unique visual identity;
• Dedicated freight routes are vital if the expectedgrowth in rail freight is to take place;
• Local services should have simplified servicepatterns that should stop at all stations and offer‘turn up and go’ frequencies;
• There should ideally be no more than threebranches at each end of individual services, withgrade separation at the principal junctions;
• High quality interchange with all relevant publictransport modes is required;
• Destinations should be planned to avoid passengersaccumulating on tunnel platforms.
These principles will lead to improved operationalefficiency of the system and provide a more attractiveand effective public transport network for passengers.
The sSRA reviewed all the proposed schemes againstthese principles.
The long term vision3
The strategic choice4
This section sets out our proposals for passengers andfreight. In order to provide adequate capacity for thefuture development of the rail network a number ofprojects need to be taken forward in a co-ordinatedmanner. Whilst we deal with each of these projectsseparately, there is a close relationship between all ofthem that requires a holistic view of theirdevelopment.
4.1 The central cross London schemes4.1.1 Infrastructure and alignmentThe study identified that the existing National Railand Underground networks are operating close tocapacity both in terms of train movements andpassenger flows. On the National Rail Network this isparticularly true of the Great Eastern Main line andthe South West Main line. On the Underground thisis most acute on the Central and Victoria lines. Thecapacity of the system is dictated by various pinchpoints at locations where services converge or at thecentral termini.
There is little opportunity to provide the significantincrease in network capacity required to support theforecast growth in rail travel by upgrading the existingsystem. We examined schemes for upgrading existingroutes by lengthening platforms, increasingfrequencies and adding additional tracks. We also re-examined the proposed Integration Project previouslyproposed by Railtrack to link the Northern half of theCircle Line with the National Rail Network. Whilstsome of these schemes could make a contribution tothe relief of local congestion or could form part of abigger programme, they fail to deliver the additionalcapacity required to significantly reduceovercrowding. Therefore our proposals focus onproviding a new route through the central area thatwould relieve the most severely overcrowded parts ofthe Underground network whilst also addressing theconstraining bottlenecks on the approaches to theNational Rail Network termini.
Our proposals for new cross London tunnels envisage24 trains per hour which provides significantadditional capacity to the system. This is emphasised
when compared to a traditional ten trains per hoursuburban service.
A new route that allows through running of servicesthat currently terminate at the termini on the West tothe services that currently terminate at the termini onthe East would have the following benefits:• It would take passengers closer to their final
destination without the need for interchange;• It would release capacity at the termini allowing
additional trains to be run.
To connect the Central London termini requires atunnel for which there are relatively few feasiblealignments due to the presence of buildingfoundations, existing underground tunnels andobstructions. The best opportunities, in terms offeasibility and speed of implementation, are providedby the two safeguarded routes (CrossRail and Chelsea– Hackney). We identified three possible routes usingthese corridors. These were:• A tunnel from the West (portal at Royal Oak) to
the East (portal at Bow) with intermediate stationsat Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham CourtRoad, Farringdon and Liverpool Street. This wouldallow the Great Western Main and Chiltern lines toconnect to the Great Eastern Main and London,Tilbury and Southend lines. Whilst this alignmenthas similar features to the original CrossRailproposal, the position of the portals and the designof the stations are likely to be different to those ofthe earlier scheme.
• A tunnel that connects Wimbledon (portal atRaynes Park) to Liverpool Street (portal at Bow) viaClapham Junction, Victoria, Bond Street,Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon. Thiswould allow through services from South WestTrains to the Great Eastern and London, Tilburyand Southend lines.
• A tunnel that connects Wimbledon (portal atRaynes Park) to Leyton (portal at Hackney Wick)and to Finsbury Park (portal at Drayton Park) viaClapham Junction, Victoria, Tottenham CourtRoad, Kings Cross and Hackney. This would allowSouth West Trains to connect to the Central lineand routes to the North.
4 The strategic choice (continued)
services. We have specifically located the tunnelportals, for example at Bow rather than at LiverpoolStreet, to permit this.
The combination of Regional Metro and RegionalExpress service patterns with each of the cross Londontunnels gives a total of six options each of which hasbeen assessed at a high level. The definitions of the sixoptions are set out in Appendix 3, table 1.
These were developed in detail because the mechanicsof the modelling used to predict the impacts require aprecise input specification. However, we should stressthat the detailed assumptions about service patternsassociated with each option are no more thanillustrations of concepts and are intended to informthe decision between the tunnel alternatives and theRegional Metro, Regional Express choice. They arenot specific proposals, nor have they been tested foroperational feasibility. The detailed design of servicepatterns would form part of the project definitionstage.
The route for each of the options is shown in figures1 to 6 on pages 28 to 31.
4.1.3 Associated benefitsThe benefits arising from a new link would not beconfined to the services using it. Services diverted ontothe new link will vacate capacity at the terminal stationsallowing services from other lines, which currently usethe same terminus to be increased. We have definedthese as the ‘associated benefits’. The associated benefitsassumed for each of the options are shown in Appendix3, table 2. The cost – benefit assessment of the optionsincludes the associated benefits.
An example of this would be the option of increasingtrain frequencies on the Southend line of the London,Tilbury and Southend system as a result of divertingmost of the Tilbury loop trains through the newcentral area tunnel. This example is replicated on allof the radial lines affected by these proposals.
A particular benefit of the schemes serving LiverpoolStreet with a tunnel portal at Bow is to allow servicesfrom the West Anglia Main line from Stansted andBishops Stortford to run via Stratford. This could be
We have made the following assumptions:• The tunnel diameter would be designed to accept
National Rail Network rolling stock powered by a25kV overhead electrification system;
• The tunnel would be signalled and equipped toreliably handle 24 trains per hour in each directionwith 8 or 12 car trains (18 trains per hour in theoff-peak period);
• The rolling stock would be purpose built to allowfast rates of boarding and alighting;
• Depending on the surface routes connected to thetunnel, the rolling stock might also need to use the750V DC third rail electrification system;
• Tunnel and trains would be fitted with modernprotection systems eg ATP;
• Facilities would be designed to provide operationalresilience (for example, turnbacks at the tunnelportals);
• Station design would meet capacity and emergency evacuation planning standards;
• The stations and the trains would be designed to meet current requirements for disabled access.
4.1.2 Service patternsFor each of the three routes we defined two servicepatterns. A Regional Metro service would serve thearea roughly bounded by the M25 corridor andCentral London. This would have frequent servicesand would stop at every station en route. As far aspossible it would use dedicated track not shared withother operators. This would have the advantage ofcreating a self contained service making it morerobust and reliable.
The alternative is a Regional Express service pattern.This would serve some inner London passengers butwould also serve longer distance passengers usingparts of the National Rail Network shared with otheroperators. This is more attractive from a fundingperspective due to the higher fare revenues.
By diverting inner suburban services into a tunnel theRegional Metro options release terminal capacity formore long distance trains to use the termini.Conversely, the Regional Express options wouldrelease terminal capacity for the inner suburban
Table 1 – Economic assessment (all figures are preliminary)(All costs are in £ millions)
Paddington-Liverpool Street Wimbledon-Liverpool Street Wimbledon – HackneyRegional Metro Regional Express Regional Metro Regional Express Regional Metro Regional Express
Option number (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Capital Cost £2,800 £2,300 £4,400 £4,200 £5,300 £5,300
Present value of
Benefits (50 years) £6,900 £6,800 £8,700 £8,900 £7,100 £8,200
Net Present Value
(50 years) £4,400 £4,500 £5,500 £5,300 £3,500 £4,100
Benefit Cost ratio
(50 years) 3.2 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.1 2.2
50 Year NPV if
increase by 60% £3,200 £3,600 £3,800 £3,800 £1,500 £2,100
50 Year NPV if
there is a delay in
three years £3,800 £4,000 £4,800 £4,600 £3,000 £3,600
Notes:The figures include the capital cost, the rolling stock costs and the operating costs. Capital costs have been discounted at 6% per annum in calculating the NPVs.The benefits include the direct and associated benefits and include time saving for existing users, reduced congestion ontrains, revenues from generated travel, relief of road congestion and in road accidents.The capital costs are high level estimates and as such are likely to have an accuracy of –10% to +60%The Net Present Value is the net economic benefit (ie total benefits less total cost).Option 1 does not include the cost of a tunnel from Old Oak to Neasden that would be required for services toAmersham. We have not included this cost in the calculations in order to allow a like-for-like comparison of the RegionalMetro and the Regional Express options. The cost of the tunnel and the associated works is £600 million. A decision onthe need for this and the actual services will form part of the project definition stage.Additional notes on the assumptions and the models used for the forecasting and high level assessment are contained inAppendix 2.
done without any time penalty and would allowaccess from these areas to Stratford. Moving thesetrains away from the Hackney Downs route, wherecurrently most of them do not stop, would allowmore services to be run on the Chingford line andSouthbury loop, helping to meet one of the Mayor’simportant regeneration objectives in the Lea Valley.
4.1.4 High level economic assessmentAll six options are viable propositions with a positivenet present value and respectable cost/benefits ratios.They each make a contribution, to varying degrees, tothe key objectives of reducing overcrowding,supporting regeneration and enhancing the transportnetwork in London. The high level economicassessment of the options is shown in table 1 above.
4 The strategic choice (continued)
The Paddington to Liverpool Street options:• have the highest proportion of travellers that will
benefit from fewer interchanges;• are likely to generate the least short term disruption
to established passenger travel patterns;• the Regional Metro is best at supporting
regeneration given its penetration of West London; • can be brought into operation more quickly and
with least risk.
The Wimbledon to Liverpool Street options:• do most to reduce Central London interchange;• have the greatest impact on road traffic congestion
relief;• offer a better balance of impacts on passengers once
construction is complete;• would not provide full relief of congestion;• would prevent the subsequent construction
of either of the other two routes.
The Paddington to Liverpool Street options do notgive the greatest benefit but give the best return oncapital expenditure because of the lower capital cost.
The two sensitivity tests show that the overalleconomic benefits of all the options remainsubstantial, even if capital costs are increased ortimescales slip. The relative ranking of schemes doesnot change between options.
4.1.5 Qualitative assessmentThe options were also assessed qualitatively against anumber of criteria. The table 2 above sets out therelative strengths of the options against criteria.Appendix 3 contains the supporting tables.
4.1.6 Commentary on the qualitative assessmentAll the options reduce the generalised rail journeytime and would generate additional rail journeysthrough modal shift from cars and by creating newjourneys.
Table 2 – Summary assessment
Paddington-Liverpool Street Wimbledon-Liverpool Street Wimbledon – HackneyRegional Metro Regional Express Regional Metro Regional Express Regional Metro Regional Express
Option number (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Impact on Rail
Passengers •• •• ••• ••• • •Impact on car use
Objectives • • ••• •• •• ••Impact on
Social Objectives ••• •• •• • •• •Operability ••• •• •• •• •• •Risk ••• ••• •• •• •• ••Timing •• •• • • • •
Key • adequate •• good ••• very good
Note:Impact on rail passengers is based upon reducing journey times, interchanges and overcrowding.
The Wimbledon to Hackney options:• are best at reducing overcrowding on the network;• would generate a significant volume of interchange
at Tottenham Court Road, principally onto theCentral line. This would require the capacity ofboth the Central line and the station to beexamined to ensure they could cope both safely andwith adequate passenger comfort.
The Regional Metros:• are more robust from an operational point of view
as they can be run as contained services;• are also more desirable from the point of view of
long term sustainability, consistency with land useplanning policy and social inclusion objectives;
• are consistent with the Mayor’s Draft TransportStrategy.
The Regional Expresses:• are best at reducing car usage;• would extend the catchment area of Central
London and encourage longer distance commuting;• yield higher fare box revenues because of longer
4.1.7 RecommendationIn the light of the assessment it is ourrecommendation that the Paddington to LiverpoolStreet Regional Metro should progress to the projectdefinition stage and should form the backbone of the20 year programme. The reasons for selecting thisoption are as follows:• provides significant relief to overcrowding in
Central London and on the Great Western andGreat Eastern Main lines;
• provides direct access from the West to the WestEnd and the City;
• provides direct access from the East to the WestEnd;
• assists the regeneration of West London eg ParkRoyal, Wembley and Paddington Basin and theThames Gateway. It also seems likely to do more toreduce social exclusion on both sides of CentralLondon;
• the infrastructure uses a similar alignment to asafeguarded route that should provide a lower level
of risk than the other options;• causes the least disruption to existing travellers;• supports the creation of Hubs at Ealing Broadway
and Stratford;• allows the subsequent construction of a South West
– North East scheme such as options 5 and 6;• the likely programme to the opening of the scheme
will be shorter than the other options given thepreparatory work that has already been undertakenby London Underground.
4.2 Heathrow and Great Western Main Line4.2.1 Access to the Heathrow areaHeathrow Airport is a major determinant of roadtraffic patterns in West London. Reduction of trafficin the area of Heathrow depends on increasing theshare of surface access taken by public transport.Apart from the general desirability of reducing traffic,consent to expand the Airport will depend onachieving modal shift away from the private car.Experience, both in this country and overseas,demonstrates that the rail offer is the most effective inincreasing the shift to public transport. These factorsdictate the need for a substantial improvement in railaccess to Heathrow.
4 The strategic choice (continued)
practical. It should be noted that constructing anadditional two lines on an extremely busy railway willbe a complex task and the details will be subject toextensive study of phasing and ‘buildability’.
Some relief of track capacity could be provided ifThames Trains, the suburban operator, was able tooperate longer trains and if there was some change inthe Passenger Service Requirements (PSR) for thePaddington suburban routes. Thames Trains cannotrun a significant number of longer trains unlesssomething is done to ease the problems caused by theshort platforms at Paddington and other stations.Railtrack has developed a scheme to address theplatforms at Paddington by redeveloping theNorthern span of the train shed. This project willafford significant benefits and is at the outline designstage. We recommend that this scheme should betaken forward by Railtrack as quickly as possible toallow longer trains and optimal service patterns.
4.2.3 East West links to HeathrowThere have been suggestions that it would beappropriate for a new East West link to connect toHeathrow. Whilst this would seem to be at first sighta sensible connection there are issues as to whether across London tunnel link is appropriate for an airportlink and whether such a connection optimises the useof the limited rail facilities at the Airport. There arealso operational issues particularly with a RegionalMetro associated service running through Heathrow.
Most foreign originating travellers arriving atHeathrow heading for London are bound, at leastinitially for the hotel districts of Westminster,Kensington and Camden. Relatively few are headingdirectly for office destinations in the City. A largeproportion of passengers complete their journey bytaxi and require good interchange to this mode.
There are also a significant number of budgettravellers, the so called ‘back-packers’ heading forCentral London. Although this market is not cateredfor by the current, premium fare, Heathrow Express itis a potential market for rail. The ultimate destinationof these passengers appears to be widely dispersed.With the information available it is difficult toidentify exactly where they are heading, but the
A scheme exists for the extension of the existingHeathrow Express line from the central area of theAirport, under the site of the proposed Terminal 5 tojoin up with the South West network in the Stainesarea. It is envisaged that this would be constructed asan adjunct to the Terminal 5 works and would onlyproceed if consent for Terminal 5 is forthcoming.This link, together with the network of services thatwill use it, is known as Airtrack.
A more immediate proposal exists for additionalHeathrow Express services to run from the Airport toSt Pancras. In addition to six tracking of the GreatWestern Main Line this will require electrification ofthe Dudding Hill line and other significant works. StPancras would form part of a ‘Super Hub’ includingKings Cross, possibly linked to Euston by a peoplemover, serving the East Coast Main line, the MidlandMain line and Thameslink. It is expected that the StPancras to Heathrow service would ultimately consistof four trains per hour. When Airtrack is completethese services would form part of the Northern leg ofthe network. We suggest that a frequency of fourtrains per hour is the minimum realistic service levelfor this route.
The sSRA recommends that Airtrack including theHeathrow to St Pancras link is progressed via aProject Development Group.
4.2.2 Great Western Main lineThe introduction of two train per hour Heathrow toSt Pancras service is possible without any major workson the Great Western Main line but provision ofhigher frequency services would require additionaltracks. Other pressures on the Great Western Mainline arise from the aspiration of the Train Operatorsto increase services and from proposed freightincreases. Taken together even excluding the proposalsfor an East West link, these developments will requireadditional tracks to be constructed.
Construction of additional tracks will inevitablyrequire powers and will be a long process. It isrecommended that the feasibility study which hasbeen carried out by Railtrack should be developedfurther such that an application for powers under theTransport and Works Act can be made as soon as is
overall pattern appears to be similar to as for otherpassengers.
The situation for UK originating passengers returning tothe UK is very different. The ultimate destination ofthese passengers is much more diffuse. The mostsignificant concentration is on the Euston/KingsCross/St Pancras complex where passengers can continuetheir onward journey to other parts of the country. Theproposed service from Heathrow to St Pancras will be ofgreat benefit to these passengers and to those heading forhotels in the Camden area. A cross London link is likelyto be of little benefit to them.
The only area of London not well served by theAirtrack proposals or the proposed St Pancras link isthe City of London and the Eastern part of theconurbation. The cross London link would increasethe accessibility to these areas but current demand isrelatively small. It may be better to deal with theseflows by providing effective interchange if possible,cross platform, between East – West services andAirtrack at Hayes and Harlington.
It is not desirable for passengers waiting for trains onunderground station platforms to have to wait formore than the third, or possibly fourth, train beforeboarding. As we expect a minimum of 24 trains perhour to run through the central tunnels this impliesthat each destination must be served by at least sixand more likely eight trains per hour. Six, eight cartrains per hour at Heathrow Central Station wouldprovide capacity in excess of that required for accessto areas served by the line.
It is usual to provide a slightly longer dwell time atairport stations than at a normal wayside station. Thisis because of the number of passengers with luggage,unfamiliarity with the system etc. and we envisagethat 14 trains per hour would be an appropriatetarget. Six trains per hour from the cross London linkplus four to St Pancras and four to Paddington wouldfully use the available capacity leaving no space fordevelopment of the long distance services that aredesired by BAA.
One of the benefits for the Regional Metro option isthe possibility of operating what is in effect a closed
system. This should give a high standard of reliabilityand performance. If Regional Metro trains are runinto Heathrow they will be unable to terminate there.In order to make optimum use of the limited railfacilities at Heathrow, they will need to run throughto form part of the Southern part of the Airtrackservices. This introduces a high risk of importing‘performance pollution’ from the South Westnetwork.
The sSRA therefore suggests that it may not beappropriate for trains from the cross London link tobe routed through Heathrow. A better solution maybe effective cross platform interchange at Hayes andHarlington between Airtrack services and the crossLondon link. A decision on this should form part ofthe project definition stage and should be subject toexternal consultation. Meanwhile the St Pancras linkshould proceed as quickly as possible followed by thefull Airtrack scheme if Terminal 5 goes ahead.
4.3 Freight and orbital routes4.3.1 Freight developmentThere are a number of places on the London railnetwork where freight movements and passenger trainmovements conflict. These include the section of theGreat Eastern line between Forest Gate Junction andStratford, the North London group of lines, the WestLondon line and parts of the South London network.
The Great Eastern deals with traffic from theFelixstowe direction, the majority of which travelstowards London as far as Stratford then turns right,over a flat junction, on to the North London line.Traffic from the Tilbury direction joins the slow(electric) lines of the Great Eastern at Forest GateJunction to travel towards London. This traffic thencrosses all four tracks of the Great Eastern to join theNorth London line at Stratford.
If the proposals for the passenger network set out insection 4.1 are to be realised then it is essential toremove these conflicts on the Great Eastern. Moreoverthe other conflicts mentioned above will causedifficulty for some of the rail development schemescurrently being progressed but which are outside the
4 The strategic choice (continued)
for the current, very low level of traffic with manyrestrictions on weight and speed. Current trafficconsists of two, all stations, passenger trains in eachdirection every hour. This line should be upgraded tofull functionality including improvement to thesignalling. It would then be possible to run somediesel hauled freight trains from Barking and theTilbury Loop to join the North London line atGospel Oak.
The cost of this upgrade would be in the region of£25 million. This project should proceed directly tofeasibility and design.
The relief provided to the Great Eastern would beimmediate but unfortunately not complete. This isbecause the North London line to the West of GospelOak passes through the Hampstead Tunnel. Thistunnel has a restricted gauge (W8) and cannotaccommodate much of the deep-sea container traffic.This would be addressed by the second stage of thestrategy.
4.3.3 Improved links to the West Coast Main lineThere are three possible options for relieving thegauge problem in the Hampstead Tunnel area. Themost obvious is to enlarge the bore of the existingtunnel. This would be difficult because of thedisruption that would be caused to the existingtraffic. In the long term simply to enlarge the tunnelmay present difficulties for the proposed expansion ofpassenger services on the North London line.
An alternative to enlarging the tunnel would be toconstruct an additional bore alongside the existingtunnel. To take full advantage of this would alsorequire extensive works to the section of the NorthLondon line between the Western portal of theHampstead Tunnel and Willesden Junction. Theconstruction cost of the tunnel in this option wouldbe in the region of £130 million. Works to thesection from the tunnel to Willesden would doublethis cost.
A more radical solution would be the construction ofa tunnel from a point close to Gospel Oak to linkwith the West Coast Main line close to its junctionwith the Primrose Hill branch of the North London
scope of this study. These include the South LondonMetro and the initiative for the development of serviceson the East London, North London and West Londonlines. The current practice of preventing all freightmovement in the peak periods will also presentincreasing problems as freight traffic, particularly oftime sensitive goods, grows.
The upgrading of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route issupported by the sSRA and the DETR as set out inthe 10 Year Transport Plan. Development work forthis has already started. It will take a significantamount of traffic off the Great Eastern line. However,there will still be some residual movements on thisroute and flows from the Tilbury area will beunaffected.
In order to deal with the increase in freight flows andremove conflict it is proposed to develop a long termstrategy for a freight focused route to by-pass the‘pinch points’. This strategy is based on anincremental approach with each stage bringingbenefits on its own, but all building towards acomprehensive solution. This freight strategy is madeup of a series of elements that are set out below.
4.3.2 Upgrade of the Gospel Oak to Barking line -Phase 1The Gospel Oak to Barking line (Tottenham andHampstead line) connects directly to the TilburyLoop and hence to Dagenham, Tilbury andShellhaven by way of a flyover at Barking. From thisflyover North to Forest Gate Junction the line iselectrified and carries the existing, fairly heavy, freightflows from the Tilbury Loop heading for Stratfordand the North London line. This traffic leaves theGospel Oak to Barking line near Woodgrange ParkStation to join the Great Eastern at Forest GateJunction.
The Gospel Oak line then passes over the GreatEastern line on viaduct and then through NorthLondon to Gospel Oak. There are limitedconnections with the West Anglia and the GreatNorthern routes and a short length of electrified lineat Tottenham. In general the state of the line betweenWoodgrange Park and Gospel Oak is only adequate
This connection would cost approximately £25million. Although not directly required for the EastWest passenger proposals, it would have the effect ofmoving almost all freight traffic off the NorthLondon line. Gospel Oak to Barking would become amainly freight railway with occasional passengertrains, leaving the remaining lines in the NorthLondon line group to be developed into a mainlypassenger railway with occasional freight trains.
This is a longer term proposal and, although passiveprovision should be made at this stage, a decision onwhether or not to proceed should be deferredpending the development of traffic after the upgradeof the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line is complete.
4.3.6 Thames tunnel and associated worksThe completion of a freight focused route round theNorth East side of London makes a mainly freightlink across the Thames to the East extremelyattractive. If this is to make use of the route describedabove the appropriate location would be close to theproposed Channel Tunnel Rail Link tunnel in theDartford area.
line. This would cost about £150 million, and wouldnegate the need for significant works on the NorthLondon line.
The sSRA recommends that a feasibility study ofthese options be carried out as soon as possible toestablish the costs and benefits and to allow theadoption of a strategic direction for this element ofthe freight focussed route.
4.3.4 Upgrade of the Gospel Oak to Barking line -Phase 2Although Phase 1 of the upgrade of the Gospel Oakto Barking line mentioned above, would allow freighttraffic over the line to be re-instated it would requireall trains to be diesel hauled and capacity would stillbe limited. Once the gauge problem in theHampstead Tunnel area is eased then it would beworthwhile investing in the route by electrificationand resignalling. This would allow all freight from theTilbury and Dagenham area to use this route.Passengers services would be retained at the currentlevel.
It should be emphasised that if the East – Westproposals contained in the passenger section of thisstudy are to be implemented it will be essential toremove all freight joining the Great Eastern from theBarking direction. If these three (4.3.2, 4.3.3 and4.3.4) proposals are implemented they will provide aneffective way of doing this.
The sSRA recommends that Phase 1 of the upgradeof the Gospel Oak to Barking line should makepassive provision for electrification and resignalling ofthe line and therefore a decision on scope of theenhancement is required as soon as possible.
4.3.5 Link from the Great EasternOnce a freight route has been established over theGospel Oak line there would be benefit inconstructing a single line connection from the GreatEastern onto it at Forest Gate Junction. This woulddeal with the remaining flows from the Felixstowedirection and take all the remaining freight trains offthe section of the Great Eastern between Forest Gateand Stratford.
4 The strategic choice (continued)
Although it may be possible to use the CTRL routefor some specialised freight, capacity constraints andgradients would limit this.
A dedicated tunnel route would connect with theNorth Kent lines giving direct access for freight fromthe Hoo Junction, Thamesport area. Re-gauging workand a short new chord in the Maidstone area wouldbe required to pick up Channel Tunnel freight.
Although the freight business would benefit from thisproposal, particularly due to possible easing of freightrestrictions during the peak, the main beneficiarieswould be the passenger operations in South London.Relief would be provided to the West London linewhere the provision of additional orbital passengerservices and new stations, aspired to by Transport forLondon and the Boroughs, is severely limited by theheavy freight occupation.
4.3.7 Programme for the freight focused routeIf the programme set out in the previous sections wascompleted it would lead to the entire Londonnetwork, with the exception of this freight focusedroute, handling only freight traffic that has an originor destination in London. This would release capacityfor several of the London passenger proposalsincluding Orbirail (see below).
A plan showing the main elements of the freightproposals is shown above. The overall programmeproposed is shown on page 26.
4.3.8 Great Western freight flowsThe most significant freight flow not dealt with bythe proposals set out above is that along the GreatWestern Main line. A substantial proportion of this isheavy freight trains carrying aggregate and otherbuilding materials. Most of these trains enter Acton
works will be required. This will include the workdescribed for the freight focussed route and possiblysome additional works. The exact details of this canonly be resolved as part of the re-franchising process.
4.4 South-West to North-East cross LondonroutesWe recommend that a joint feasibility study betweenthe sSRA and Trasnport for London of theWimbledon to Hackney route be taken forward assoon as possible with a view to establishing theoptimal route and service pattern. This will allowconstruction to start as soon as possible after thePaddington to Liverpool Street route. The exactphasing will need to take account of the capacity ofthe tunnelling and railway equipment industries.
This scheme will provide the following benefits thatare in addition to those listed for the East-Westscheme:• provides significant relief of overcrowding on the
South West Trains routes and in particular those into Waterloo;
• supports the development of the ‘Super Hub’ at Kings Cross/St Pancras;
• provides direct access from the South West to the West End;
• supports the regeneration of the Hackney area;• provides relief of overcrowding on the Victoria
The two cross London routes complementThameslink 2000 and together would provide threenew National Rail Network routes across CentralLondon.
Yard where they are split into smaller units fordistribution to their ultimate destination around theSouth East.
Freight on the Great Western will be increased if theLondon International Freight Exchange (LIFE) opensat Colnbrook to the West of Heathrow Airport. It isintended that trains will access this facility along theGreat Western Main line with some trains running into Acton Yard to allow them to turn round beforemoving off to their ultimate destination.
These movements into the Yard present particularproblems because they are made at slow speed,causing significant ‘block-back’ on to the GreatWestern Relief lines. Freight movements are only oneof several problems on the Great Western which takentogether with the East West passenger proposals andAirtrack (see below) will require an increase ininfrastructure capacity on the Great Western Mainline. This would be delivered by increasing from fourto six tracks on parts of the line.
4.3.9 Passenger orbital routesIt is intended to extend the East London line of theLondon Underground to link with the National RailNetwork at Dalston in the North and Peckham Ryein the South. This will allow through running oftrains from the South London lines to the NorthLondon lines.
The sSRA is currently developing a franchise proposalfor an operator to run services over these linestogether with the West London Line, the Gospel Oakto Barking line and the DC lines between Watfordand Euston. This franchise has been given theworking title of Orbirail.
All these lines are potentially of great significance forlocal passengers making, generally, short journeysalong the line. In order to be effective in attractingthis kind of traffic high frequencies are essential.
At present the North London line and the WestLondon line carry a significant amount of freight andthis is forecast to increase. In order to accommodatethe desired passenger services and allow headroom forlong term growth of freight traffic, significant capital
5.2 Major passenger schemesThe proposal for the Paddington to Liverpool Streetroute presents the opportunity to route theinvestment through a performance-based contract. Inthis arrangement the infrastructure will beconstructed by an entity, known as a Special PurposeVehicle (SPV), which as a minimum would beresponsible for the design and build and possibly forthe operation and maintenance of the system, beingpaid only when the project is complete and operatingproperly.
There are a number of potential ways in which thiscould be carried out. This includes options for theSPV to own only the tunnels with Railtrack providingthe railway systems inside an empty bore, through toa situation where the SPV owns the tunnels, therolling stock, and at least some of the route outsidethe tunnels. In the latter, the SPV would operate andmaintain the whole system.
Issues arise as to whether the SPV should be obligedto take revenue risk. This would be difficult for themto do at the very preliminary stage when tenderswould be called. It may be better to confine the SPV’srisk to those areas that it can control effectively.Establishment of the appropriate mechanism for thisshould form part of the project definition phase.
There is a significant difference between the RegionalMetro and the Regional Express options in terms ofthe opportunity for ownership and operation. If theRegional Express option is developed many of thetrains running through the tunnels will spend asignificant part of their running time on Railtrackmetals which they will share with other trafflc acrossseveral franchise boundaries. This would make theoption of developing an SPV option to run andoperate the total system extremely difficult. Optionsfor the Regional Metro make it possible to conceive afully segregated system with the SPV taking fullresponsibility for operation and maintenance of thewhole network. Even with this option it would benecessary for Railtrack to be able to use the Metrolines during maintenance or purtabations. Similarlythe Metro operator would need to use the Railtracksystem when the Metro tracks were being maintained
5.1 OverviewThis report contains recommendations for severalcapital schemes to go ahead. They range from therelatively modest scheme to upgrade the Gospel Oakto Barking line up to the very substantial project toconstruct new networks based on cross Londontunnels. The mechanism for funding of these schemeswill vary but it is anticipated that a substantialproportion will come directly or indirectly from thepublic purse and be routed through the SRA. Mostof the elements to be constructed in the first 10 yearsof the programme are already identified as potentialschemes in Railtrack’s Network ManagementStatement and have been considered in drawing upthe 10 Year Plan. Funding for the major passengerschemes will be required after the period covered bythe 10 Year Plan and the source of this will need to beestablished.
Indicative timescales and costs for the programme areshown on page 26.
Different models of funding will be appropriate forthe different proposals. In some cases, for example theupgrade of the Gospel Oak to Barking line, it may beappropriate for the sSRA to make a grant to Railtrackfor the purpose of carrying out the work. Anotherapproach would be to use the re-franchising processto route the funds. This may be the appropriateapproach for the Great Western six tracking scheme.For the very large schemes, such as new tunnels underLondon, an approach using an investment vehicleestablished specifically for that project, might beappropriate. This last option is discussed in moredetail below.
No attempt has been made in this report to identifythe appropriate funding route for each scheme otherthan the major tunnel proposals. This is best dealtwith as part of the project definition phase for each ofthe schemes.
Funding and delivery 5
Alternatively, the design, construction andmaintenance of the tunnel could be kept within thepublic sector with the train operator paying trackaccess charges.
The stations in the central section will have to beunder the operational control of LondonUnderground Limited. This is because they will shareentrances and other facilities with Undergroundstations meaning that they must comply with theLondon Underground safety case. The safety casespecifies that the whole complex must be under theoperational control of one party.
The sSRA recommends that the optimum structurebe defined during the project definition stage.
Obtaining powers for the cross London link
The usual procedure for obtaining the necessarypowers for the construction of a new railway is via thepromotion of an Order under the Transport andWorks Act 1992 (TWA). The only alternativeapproach under the current legislative framework isthe promotion of a Hybrid Bill.
The TWA process is still relatively new and there isno precedent for the successful promotion of anOrder for a scheme of the size and complexity ofthose proposed for the main passenger options.
The Transport and Works Order process for a projectof this size will dictate that a public inquiry is held.This will be followed by the writing of an Inspector’sreport and period for Ministerial decision making. Itis difficult to make accurate estimates of the length oftime these processes will take. The precedents forschemes that have been the subject of similarprocesses such as highway schemes or other majorinfrastructure developments are not encouraging.
Under the current legislative framework the onlyalternative approach to a TWA Order is thepromotion of a Hybrid Bill. This is a Bill promotedin Parliament jointly by Government and the schemepromoter.
The most recent precedent for this is the promotionof the Channel Tunnel Rail Act 1996. The relativelyfast track promotion achieved with this measure waspossible due to the much more streamlined procedureand the clear commitment of the Government toproceed.
If the Paddington to Liverpool Street scheme wastaken forward by means of a TWA Order thetimescales involved in completing the definition andpreliminary feasibility of a scheme, the preparation ofa draft order, the public inquiry, ministerial decision,tendering and award of contract followed by a fiveyear construction and commissioning period lead to aprogramme of 13 years before opening. However itmust be recognised that there is a significant risk thatthis period could be considerably longer.
The obtaining of the necessary powers by way of aHybrid Bill rather than a TWA Order would offerconsiderable time savings to the overall programme.
The overall time saving could be more than twoyears.
The Paddington to Liverpool Street options aresimilar to the CrossRail proposals that were thesubject of an unsuccessful promotion by LondonUnderground and British Rail of a Private Bill inParliament between 1991 and 1994. Subsequently aTWA Order application was prepared but neversubmitted. Considerable development work hastherefore already been done on these options. Thiswill allow some saving in the time prior to thesubmission of either a TWA application or a HybridBill over the other major infrastructure options. Thishas been taken into account in the programme.
The Hybrid Bill route would offer a number ofsignificant advantages:• Although a Bill will need to be considered
separately by both Houses, and the timescalesubject to the pressures of Parliamentary businessand House timetables, even a slow progressionthrough Parliament would offer major time savings;
• A committee of either House would normally cometo fairly rapid decisions on a Bill, which would onlythen be required to have a third reading debateprior to referral to the other house or for RoyalAssent. This would avoid the two to three yeardelay required in the Public Inquiry route for theproduction of the Inspector’s report and theSecretary of State’s decision;
• It would demonstrate Government commitment tothe project. This will assist in efforts to secureprivate funding commitments to the project, byproviding the private sector with a greater degree ofconfidence in the management of the programmerisks associated with the authorisation process. Thisin turn may allow further compression of thetimescales through the involvement of the privatesector at an earlier stage of the project’sdevelopment.
Set against these potential advantages there are anumber of considerations that must be taken intoaccount in considering the Hybrid Bill procedure:• A Hybrid Bill could be subject to unrelated
political pressures and the timetable and priority ofother legislation;
It will be the quality and quantum of the servicesprovided that will enable modal shift and revenues tobe captured and in general terms the Regional Metrooperations are likely to be more frequent and morereliable than the Regional Express options.
The options that have a simple arrangement of feederroutes are likely to have the most reliable operation asthere is less opportunity for local service disruptionsto have a knock on effect through the system.
Wherever possible there should be a cleardemarcation between the services using the newtunnel and the services using the existing termini.This will prevent passenger confusion resulting fromsplitting a service between stations. For example thePaddington to Liverpool Street Regional Metro willhave all the Great Eastern inner suburban servicesrunning through the new tunnel and departing froma Liverpool Street (low level) station.
Metro timetables assume 8 cars but future commutergrowth may require 10 or 12. This would requireplatform lengthening at some stations. The decisionon the optimum length of trains will form part of theproject definition stage.
Regional Metro rolling stock will be designed for forvery high rates of boarding and alighting. Because ofthis Regional Metro will have shorter dwell times attunnel stations that the Regional Express than the nRegional Express thereby improving punctuality andtrain service capacity.
The sSRA recommends that services linked by thetunnel should have one operator. This will need to betaken into account when franchises in this area arerenegotiated.
7 Operation and franchising of thecross London link
• Parliamentary Committees are unlikely to havesignificant prior knowledge of the subject mattersand are not necessarily as constrained as to whatmatters can and cannot properly be considered aswould an Inspector. Hence the decisions of aCommittee may be less predictable and less boundby precedent than those arising from the Inquiryprocess.
Indicative programmes for the TWA and the HybridBill alternatives are shown in Appendix 3, figures 1and 2.
The sSRA recommends that a Hybrid Bill is used toobtain powers for the main passenger schemes.
The diagram below shows schematically how theconstruction activities for the various schemes fittogether to form a programme of investment todeliver a world class transport network for London.
The magnitude of the works proposed will requiresignificant resources from the construction industry.It is essential that early discussions with supply sideorganisations take place to ensure that adequate plans
are formulated for the projects.
We have shown the construction of the Wimbledonto Hackney scheme starting some three years after thestart of the Paddington to Liverpool Street scheme.This is after the tunnelling on the Paddington toLiverpool Street route has been completed, as this isseen as a major disruptive activity and aslo addressesthe issue of scarce tunnelling resources.
The sSRA has estimated the costs of the proposed schemes as follows:
ProgrammeSchemes outside study scope 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
CTRL 2East London line extensionThameslink 2000East-West Schemes
Platform lengtheningPaddington Platforms (Span 4)Great Western Six TrackingAirtrack (Heathrow to St Pancras)Paddington to Liverpool StreetFreight and orbital schemes
OrbirailUpgrade Gospel Oak to Barking – Phase 1Upgrade Gospel Oak to Barking – Phase 2Link to WCMLForest Gate FlyoverEast Thames Freight TunnelSouth-West to North-East schemes
Wimbledon to Hackney
Note: this diagram shows the expected construction period for each scheme.
High level estimates of the cost of the recommended schemesEast-West schemes Total approximates cost (£ million)
Platform lengthening 50 Paddington ‘Span 4’ 200 Six tracking of the Great Western 550 Airtrack – including Heathrow to St Pancras 350 Paddington to Liverpool Street Regional Metro 2,800 + 600 (Neasden Tunnel) Freight and orbital schemes
Orbirail 400Upgrade of Gospel Oak to Barking - Phase 1 25 Upgrade of Gospel Oak to Barking - Phase 2 110Link to West Coast Main line 160 Forest Gate Flyover 40 East Thames Freight tunnel 215 South-West to North-East schemes
Wimbledon to Hackney 5,300
Note: these figures include the cost of the planning, design, obtaining powers (where appropriate), project management and construction.
The way ahead9
The sSRA recommends the following;• the Paddington to Liverpool Street Regional Metro
scheme progresses to project definition by the sSRAand Transport for London;
• the Paddington to Liverpool Street Regional Metroscheme should obtain powers using a Hybrid Bill inorder to reduce the timescales and to increase itsattractiveness to private investment;
• The development of options to serve HeathrowAirport by rail should be progressed as quickly aspossible. This includes the upgrading of the GreatWestern Main line to six tracks at least from Actonto Airport Junction;
• The redevelopment of Paddington station includingthe lengthening of the present short platformsshould be progressed;
• The Gospel Oak to Barking line should beupgraded as the foundation of a freight focusedroute around London;
• The Orbirail proposal to be taken forward as part ofthe refranchising process;
• The Wimbledon to Hackney scheme is subject to afeasibility study and is taken forward jointly betweenthe sSRA and Transport for London;
• The sSRA and Transport for London team establisha Programme Office to develop, oversee and providea cohesive direction to the implementation of theprogramme. Railtrack and London Undergroundshould support this team and act as delivery agentsfor elements of the programme.
• The sSRA and Transport for London develop thereplacement to Railplan and Planet that willprovide a consistent tool for modelling journeys inthe South East.
Option 1: Paddington to Liverpool Street – Regional Metro
Option 3: Wimbledon to Liverpool Street – Regional Metro
Option 2: Paddington to Liverpool Street – Regional Express
10 Route options (continued)
Option 4: Wimbledon to Liverpool Street – Regional Express
Option 5: Wimbledon to Hackney – Regional Metro
Option 6: Wimbledon to Hackney – Regional Express
All map illustrations are reproduced from the 1993 Ordnance Survey LondonArea 1:65000 map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty'sStationery Office © Crown copyright. Licence Number AL51128A/0001.Transport for London, Integration Department, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL. November 2000
Designed by Benjamin Rowntree Design 0207 437 9567 www.benrown.co.uk
5 5 V I C TO R I A S T R E E T, L O N D O N S W 1 H 0 E U
T E L E P H O N E 0 2 0 7 6 5 4 6 0 0 0
www.sr a .gov.uk