manchester - burnley direct railway service

8/8/2019 Manchester - Burnley Direct Railway Service

1/23


2/23

We support the proposal on page 78 for up to six additional Todmorden and Rochdale Manchester Victoria services, rather than train lengthening on the Manchester Leeds service,requiring a turn-back facility at Todmorden. However, there are still a number of options forturning back this train which remain undecided in the draft.

Earlier this year, Burnley Borough Council commissioned Colin Buchanan to undertake afeasibility study of providing a new direct rail service between Accrington and Manchester. Acopy of the report is attached. This study concluded that the capital cost of the TodmordenCurve proposal would be under 5m and that a Benefit Cost Ratio of between 1.5 and 2.75could be achieved based on a 38 minute journey time, predicted rail growth and constant carjourney times.

This work was reconsidered by Network Rail in the final version of the Lancashire andCumbria RUS. Whilst the cost benefit calculation was revised down slightly, the proposal stilloffered value for money. In the L&C RUS Network Rail concluded that the potential for a

Burnley/Accrington service was dependent on a solution for the HLOS metrics bringing thetrain that terminates in Rochdale through to Todmorden and funding infrastructure to allowthe train to come off the main line along the old Todmorden Curve track bed. Theincremental case for a further extension to Burnley and Accrington would have a mediumvalue for money.

We would, therefore, ask Network Rail consider the Todmorden turn-back option as thepreferred option rather than the Hebden Bridge proposal set out in the document and thatthe location of the turn-back on the Todmorden Curve facilitates the reinstatement of theCurve in control period 4 (2009 2014). In the meantime, Burnley Borough Council isleading on behalf of Pennine Lancashire local authorities on working with Network Rail andother partners to further develop the business case, including understanding the potentialbenefits funding sources rolling stock availability and timetabling requirements asrecommended in the L&C RUS.

We believe that this is the best option, both in terms of securing a direct service fromBurnley/Accrington to Manchester and providing more frequent services betweenTodmorden, Rochdale and Manchester. It is also imperative, given the already severe over-crowding on the route and the regeneration needs of this part of Pennine Lancashire, thatthis enhancement takes place in CP4 and that this is considered in any prioritisation, shouldthe ORR Determination not be sufficient to fund all recommendations in the strategy.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Colin RigbyChair of PLLACE

Enc: Feasibility study Colin Buchanan


3/23

Manchester Direct Railway Scheme

Report

Burnley Borough Council

March 2008


4/23

Manchester Direct Railway SchemeReport

Project No: 143551

March 2008

Newcombe House

45 Notting Hill Gate,

London, W11 3PB

Telephone: 020 7309 7000

Fax: 020 7309 0906

Email : [email protected]

Prepared by: Approved by:

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

AlexB HughC

Status: Final Issue no: 1 Date: 28 March 2008

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by ColinBuchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which itwas originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care anddiligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expresslystated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited hasbeen made


5/23


Report

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 21.1 Background 21.2 This report 2

2 Engineering and operational option review 32.1 FM options 32.2 Issues 3

3 Demand Analysis 63.1 FM assumptions 63.2 CB Analysis 6

4 Conclusions 134.1 Conclusions 134.2 Next steps 13

Appendix A Train Graph (Todmorden Curve Option) 14

Appendix B Assumptions Register 16

Tables

Table 2.1: Todmorden Curve costs 4Table 2.2: Cost ranges 4

Table 3.1: Comparison of switch to rail in Todmorden option 7

Table 3.2: Comparison of switch to rail in Blackburn option 7

Table 3.3: Appraisal results for Todmorden option 8

Table 3.4: Appraisal results for Blackburn option 9

Table 3.5: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with shorter rail journey time10

Table 3.6: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with higher rail demand growth10

Table 3.7: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with lower rail demand growth11


6/23


7/23

2


Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Burnley Borough Council (BBC) have aspirations to see a new direct rail service betweenBurnley and Manchester introduced. With this in mind, they commissioned FaberMaunsell (FM) to conduct a study to find a feasible way of providing this service, and toprovide a cost: benefit analysis of the solutions that they suggested. This FM reportproduced two preferred options that were recommended for further testing. The firstoption called for an hourly service running between Manchester Victoria and Nelson viaBlackburn and Burnley Central, whilst the second option requires the re-instatement ofthe Todmorden Curve for a service to Accrington via Todmorden, Burnley ManchesterRoad and Rose Grove.

1.1.2 Colin Buchanan (CB) were commissioned to take the FM study further forward by testingthe preferred options to confirm their feasibility, or to suggest modifications to make a

direct service more feasible.

1.2 This report

1.2.1 This report is intended to test the conclusions of the earlier report conducted by FaberMaunsell, before coming to conclusions as to the feasibility of providing the directManchester service, and the best method by which such a service can be achieved.

1.2.2 The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 studies engineering and operational issues associated with providing theservice. Where problems are identified, potential solutions are suggested.

Chapter 3 sets out a cost: benefit analysis of the favoured options in order toassess the financial viability of the scheme.

Chapter 4 draws the conclusions of the analysis together and sets out next steps.


8/23


9/23

4


Report

provide this siding, as shown in the train graph in Appendix A. This cuts out a significantinfrastructure cost. In other words, we recommend option FM engineering option TN2rather than TN3 for the engineering of the re-instated Todmorden Curve.

2.2.5 The same is true for the Accrington siding. The Accrington siding is unnecessaryespecially with the crossover that exists just to the west of the station. We disagree withthe FM report that there is a likelihood that trains will have to wait for a period requiring anew siding for other trains to pass at Accrington before the service returns to Manchester.There is enough white space in the timetable for the train to turn round at the crossover atAccrington without there being any significant performance risk, as shown in Appendix A.

2.2.6 We believe that the possession costs have also been over-estimated. The actual work ofre-instating the curve, providing the signals and points, etc. will probably require a singlepossession, with a further evening possession required for tamping.

2.2.7 Taking the above into account, and with an SEU value of 200,000, the revised cost ofthe Todmorden Curve option can be broken down as follows:

Table 2.1: Todmorden Curve costs

Item FM costing (TN2) FM costing(TN3)

CB costing (TN2)

Site clearance andminor earthworks

150,000 150,000 120,000

Preparation offormation, new ballastand track

240,000 320,000 297,000

Motorised turnouts 180,000 300,000 198,000

New and modifiedsignals

2,000,000 2,300,000 1,920,000

Buffer stop - 25,000 -

Possession

compensation costs

690,000 800,000 480,000

Design, contractmanagement,supervision andpreliminaries

690,000 800,000 302,000

Risk - - 151,000

Indirect cost - - 603,000

Rounded total 4,130,000 4,800,000 4,070,0002.2.8 The costs for the Accrington turn-back are completely negated in CBs opinion as there is

already a signalled cross-over in place at the station. There is plenty of time available inthe timetable for a train to arrive at Accrington and turn round to head back to ManchesterVictoria, as shown in the train graph in Appendix A. Therefore the overall cost range forre-instating the Todmorden Curve is as follows:

Table 2.2: Cost ranges

Scheme Total cost

CB estimate (TN2 No Accringtonturnback)

4.07m

FM estimate (TN2 and AN1) 7.55m

FM estimate (TN3 and AN1) 8.22m


10/23

5


Report

Blackburn route analysis

2.2.9 The feasibility of this alternative at least partially is dependent on the re-modelling ofSalford Crescent. There is currently no timescale in place for the re-modelling of Salford

Crescent, although if and when this does take place, there will be more opportunities torun trains from Manchester Victoria towards Burnley via Blackburn. It is beyond the scopeof this report to attempt to cost the re-modelling of Salford Crescent.

2.2.10 It should be noted that Northern Rail have introduced an experimental service on thisroute running once from Colne to Manchester Victoria, calling at Burnley Central at 0632and arriving at Manchester Victoria at 0751, and returning from Manchester Victoria toColne leaving at 1729 and arriving at Burnley Central at 1850. No usage data is availableat present as the service has only recently been introduced. This is a single servicesouthbound in the AM peak and northbound in the PM peak. If it became a regularservice throughout the day, that is when pressure would come on Salford Crescent.

2.2.11 CB agree that the single track for large sections between Bolton and Blackburn isrestrictive, and there will need to be some double tracking in order to attain the level ofservice required. This is scheme BB1 in the FM work. The Blackburn option also requires

option BB2 a trailing crossover at Blackburn. Option NE1 requiring some additionalsignalling on the Colne branch was the final engineering requirement of Option 2c.

2.2.12 Options BB1 and BB2 were costed in a previous FM study specifically looking into theManchester to Bolton and Blackburn route. BB2 was costed at 1m in the previous work,and this is a reasonable estimate. BB1 was costed at 4.416m and required doubletracking, new signalling and new points being installed. This is a substantial piece ofengineering and this allowance is also reasonable.

2.2.13 2m was assumed for Option NE1, the re-signalling allowing two trains onto the Colnebranch at any one time, with one standing at Colne and the other turning round at Nelson.This is excessive, especially considering that no track or points work is required and anSEU costs 200,000 to install. The FM report only called for one extra stop signal to beprovided in each direction, and so the 2m figure is excessive. We consider a total of

864,000 is sufficient for this improvement, including design costs, risk, indirect costs andan optimism factor.


11/23

6


Report

3 Demand Analysis

3.1 FM assumptions

3.1.1 CB have kept to the FM service assumptions for both the Blackburn route and theTodmorden route. This is one train an hour, with the Blackburn service being a stoppingservice towards Nelson, and the Todmorden service operating a semi fast service callingat Todmorden, Burnley Manchester Road, Rose Grove and Accrington. The Blackburnservice requires four additional trains, whilst the Todmorden service requires two.

3.1.2 90mph units are the most suitable for the route to capitalise on the aspiration containedwithin the NR Route Plan for the region for an increase of line speed between Hall RoydJunction and Gannow Junction (Todmorden and Burnley), as well as to benefit the mostfrom fast running between Manchester and Todmorden in that particular direct Burnleyservice option.

3.2 CB Analysis

Estimating rail demand

3.2.2 The first step of our approach was to produce an estimate of the likely switch to rail fromcar and bus when the direct rail scheme is implemented, for journeys between thedistricts of Burnley / Hyndburn / Pendle and central Manchester. To do this, a logit modelwas used.

3.2.3 The logit model takes the form:

( )

==k

kij

ij

ij

ij

ij C

C

T

T

P

exp

exp11

1

3.2.4 Where

1

ijP = the proportion of trips between zones i and j using mode 1

1

ijT = the number of trips by mode 1 between i and j

1

ijC = the cost by mode 1 between i and j

3.2.5 = the factor determining the sensitivity of mode choice to relative cost differences.

3.2.6 Although this uses a complicated-looking formula, the principle behind it is relativelysimple it takes into account the generalised cost of travel by each mode, using theparameter to measure the sensitivity of demand to the changes in costs and hence theshare of trips accounted for by each mode.

3.2.7 It is therefore necessary to calculate generalised costs of travel between each of thethree districts and Manchester, for car, bus and rail, in both the Do Minimum and DoSomething scenario. Our calculations took the following factors into account:


12/23

7


Report

3.2.8 Car:

- In vehicle time- Walk time

- Vehicle operating cost (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.9 Bus:

- In vehicle time- Wait time- Walk time- Boarding penalty- Fare (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.10 Rail:

- In vehicle time- Wait time- Walk time

- Boarding penalty- Interchange penalty- Fare (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.11 More information on the assumptions relating to these can be found in the assumptionsregister in Appendix B. To summarise the in vehicle times from Burnley to Manchester,the car journey is deemed to be 70 minutes, and the bus journey is 99 minutes (as perthe timetable). Rail journey times were dependent on the individual scheme and aresummarised in Appendix B.

3.2.12 The logit model was applied to car and bus demand using census journey to work data.There is uncertainty over the value of, but it was set by selecting a value that gave avery low demand for rail (close to zero) in the Do Minimum. This then enabled anestimate to be made of the likely switch to rail once a direct rail scheme is implemented.

3.2.13 As a comparison, Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 show the switch of demand from car to rail inthe Faber and CB models, for the Todmorden and Blackburn options respectively.

Table 3.1: Comparison of switch to rail in Todmorden option

Origin district CB estimate Faber estimate

Burnley 84 64

Hyndburn 10 44

Pendle 9 32

Total 103 140

Table 3.2: Comparison of switch to rail in Blackburn option

Origin district CB estimate Faber estimate

Burnley 2 71

Hyndburn 2 58

Pendle 1 61

Total 5 190


13/23

8


Report

3.2.14 Clearly there is a significant difference between the Faber and CB estimate for theBlackburn option. This is explained in the results section below.

Calculate benefits and costs3.2.15 Having estimated the peak rail demand that would be generated by the direct rail

scheme, the transport benefits were then quantified and valued. A 60-year appraisalperiod is used, assuming that the scheme opening year is 2010.

3.2.16 To obtain demand for future years, a range of growth rates can be used. Our central caseuses the medium scenario that was applied in the NW Route Utilisation Strategy (NWRUS).

3.2.17 The benefits that were quantified were as follows:

- Time savings;- Vehicle operating cost savings; and- External highway benefits (local air quality, noise etc) arising from the switch

from car.

3.2.18 The costs include:

- Capital cost assumed to be incurred in the opening year;- Operating costs;- Indirect tax loss (due to people switching from car to rail and hence less fuel

being consumed);- Net rail revenue (this is counted as a reduction of costs).

3.2.19 Benefits were valued using parameters from the Department for Transports WebTAGguidance. More detail on the assumptions for the benefits and costs is provided in theassumptions register.

Results

3.2.20 Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 show the results for the Todmorden and Blackburn optionsrespectively. Results are presented as a Present Value over the 60-year appraisal period,discounted to a base year of 2002.

Table 3.3: Appraisal results for Todmorden option

PV m

Benefits

Time savings -6.99

Vehicle operating costs 8.57

External highway benefits 32.33

Total 33.91

Costs

Capital 3.09Operating 23.41

Indirect tax 6.05

Revenue -3.98

Total 28.58

Net Present Value 5.33

Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.19


14/23


15/23

10


Report

Table 3.5: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with shorter rail journey time

PV m

Benefits

Time savings -6.15



Total 82.13

Costs

Capital 3.09

Operating 23.41

Indirect tax 13.07

Revenue -8.60

Total 30.97



3.2.27 Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 show the Todmorden results if a high or low growth scenario is

used as per the NW RUS.

Table 3.6: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with higher rail demandgrowth

PV m

Benefits

Time savings -9.06



Total 44.30

Costs

Capital 3.09

Operating 23.41

Indirect tax 7.70

Revenue -5.12

Total 29.08




16/23

11


Report

Table 3.7: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with lower rail demandgrowth

PV m

Benefits

Time savings -6.18



Total 29.98

Costs

Capital 3.09

Operating 23.41

Indirect tax 5.36

Revenue -3.52

Total 28.34


Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.063.2.28 The sensitivity tests on demand growth are not appropriate for the Blackburn option,

because the switch of demand is too low for a different growth rate to have an effect. Asalready explained, it is the high rail journey time relative to car that underpins this result.

3.2.29 We have therefore tested the reduction in journey time in the Blackburn option, relative tothe current assumption, that would be necessary to achieve a BCR of i) 1.0 and ii) 1.5.

3.2.30 Our model indicates that a BCR of 1.0 would be achieved if the in-vehicle journey timewas 36% lower than currently assumed (this means the in-vehicle time would need to be51 minutes from Burnley). To achieve a BCR of 1.5, the in-vehicle time would need to bereduced by 41% (equivalent to 48 minutes from Burnley).

3.2.31 A separate test can be undertaken to find the level of switch from car to rail that would benecessary in order to achieve a particular BCR. In the case of the Blackburn option, aBCR of 1.0 would be achieved with a total peak demand shift of just under 280 (a 25%switch from car). To achieve a BCR of 1.5, a mode switch of nearly 450 passengerswould be required (a 40% mode switch).

3.2.32 For the Todmorden assumption we have made our own estimate of the capital costs, buthave maintained the Faber assumptions on operating costs. Another set of sensitivitytests can therefore be undertaken to show the level of operating costs necessary toachieve a BCR of i) 1.5 or ii) 2.0, if all other assumptions are kept fixed.

3.2.33 The results indicate that a BCR of 1.5 could be achieved if operating costs were reducedfrom 1.2m a year to just over 900k. The operating costs would need to be almosthalved, to just over 600k a year, to reach a BCR of 2.0.

Agglomeration

3.2.34 The project brief specified that the study should look into any potential agglomerationbenefits arising from a direct service to Manchester. It is our opinion that the scheme istoo small for there to be any measurable agglomeration benefits.


17/23

12


Report

Conclusions

3.2.35 Our results indicate that the Blackburn option has a poor value for money, with a lowBCR. This is because the time savings in the Do Something option are not high enough

to make rail an attractive option relative to car.

3.2.36 The Todmorden option has a BCR greater than 1.0 under a range of different scenarios.It is feasible that the scheme could offer a high value for money if further rail time savingswere achieved, or with higher demand growth / lower costs. The results indicate that theTodmorden option should be pursued.

3.2.37 It should also be noted that the results assume that highway generalised journey timesremain the same in the future. However, if either i) highway congestion levels increasesignificantly in the future or ii) congestion charging for road trips into Manchester isintroduced, then the shift to rail and resulting benefits would be likely to be much higher.


18/23

13


Report

4 Conclusions

4.1 Conclusions

4.1.1 The main conclusion of this study is that under certain circumstances it is feasible tointroduce a direct rail service to Manchester Victoria from Burnley at a cost less than thatattained in the initial FM report. The greatest benefits would arise from the optioninvolving the re-instatement of the Todmorden Curve, as the greatest journey timebenefits would occur here. The Blackburn option is restricted by the pressure on SalfordCrescent. The infrastructure costs to increase the capacity of the Bolton to Blackburn linedo not create sufficient benefits particularly in terms of journey time.

4.1.2 It has been shown clearly that there is room in the timetable for a semi-fast service to runbetween Manchester Victoria and Accrington via Todmorden and Burnley without anymore significant engineering works other than the re-instatement of a single trackTodmorden Curve. We have also showed that FM over-stated some of the engineering

costs in their previous study. The total engineering cost of less than 5m for this schemealong with the BCR of 2.65 assuming the fastest possible journey time of 37 minutes fromBurnley to Manchester have meant that it could be viable and sources of funding shouldnow be looked into.

4.1.3 The Blackburn route had serious negatives in terms of journey time. There are significantinfrastructure costs, and more trains are needed for this option thus increasing operatingcosts as well. Therefore, the BCR produced was negligible. As Northern Rail havecommenced a test service from Colne to Manchester Victoria via Blackburn, it would beinteresting to see the results when they become available, along with their thoughts as tothe viability of introducing an all day service on the route. However, our opinion is that theTodmorden Curve option gives significantly greater benefits at a significantly lower cost.

4.2 Next steps

4.2.1 The overall infrastructure cost of the Todmorden Curve option is less than 5m, making iteligible to receive funding under the Network Rail Discretionary Fund (NRDF). The NRDFscheme has 200m available for projects worth less than 5m between 2005/6 and2008/9. Discussions should take place with NR as to the possibility of gaining this fundingfor the re-instatement of the Todmorden Curve.

4.2.2 The other important issue alongside that of infrastructure costs is that of obtaining fundingto cover the operating costs of providing a service. The level of support for the directservice should be gauged amongst local stakeholders along with the potential for anyfinancial support for the operation of the scheme.

4.2.3 The journey time benefits of the Todmorden Curve scheme assuming a 38 minutejourney resulted in a very high BCR. On this basis, further discussions should be heldwith NR in order to have the scheme included in the Lancashire and Cumbria Route

Utilisation Study.


19/23


Report

Appendix A Train Graph (Todmorden Curve

Option)


20/23


Report

0 20 40 60 80

Manchester

Victoria

Todmorden

Burnley Central

Burnley

Manchester Road

Rose Grove

Accrington

Blackburn


21/23


Report

Appendix B Assumptions Register

Table A 1: Assumptions

Assumption Value Source

Opening year 2010 Same as Faber assumption

Discount rate 3.5% a year until 2039, 3.0%thereafter

WebTAG

Value of time 5.72 an hour in 2002, withgrowth rates applied for future

years

WebTAG (base values, journeypurpose splits and growth rates)

Vehicle operating costs Fuel: 75.4 pence per litre in2002, changing in future years

Non-fuel: 3.8 pence perkilometre

WebTAG (base values andfuture changes)

Car occupancy 1.45 in 2002, reducing over time WebTAG (base values andfuture changes)

Demand growth rate Central scenario based on NWRUS growth rate of around

2% a year, reducing to 0.35% ayear and constant from 2029

Network Rail

Average journey distance toManchester by car (kilometres)

Burnley: 45Hyndburn: 37

Pendle: 52

www.transportdirect.info

Annualisation factor 1012 Annualisation factor is applied toan AM peak, so annualise by

253 (number of weekdays in ayear), multiply by 2 to account

for PM peak and multiply by 2 toaccount for demand during rest

of the day and weekends

Real fare growth 1% a year CB assumption

External highway benefit per carkilometre removed

15.5 pence in opening year,rising to 51.5 pence in final year

of appraisal

WebTAG

Generalised cost inputs for car,bus and rail

See separate tables below Combination of journey timesfrom transportdirect.info,

Value of in the logit model 0.115 Value selected so that DoMinimum has very low rail

demand

Capital costs of Todmordenoption

4.07m CB cost workings

Operating costs of Todmordenoption

1.22m a year Same as Faber assumption

Capital costs of Blackburnoption

6.25m CB cost workings

Operating costs of Blackburnoption

2.03m a year Same as Faber assumption


22/23


Report

Generalised cost assumptions

Figure A 1: GC assumptions for Todmorden option

Burnley Hyndburn Pendle Burnley Hyndburn Pendle

Car:

In vehicle time 70 65 75 70 65 75

Walk time 1 1 1 1 1 1

Boarding penalty 0 0 0 0 0 0

VOC () 4.5 3.9 5.0 4.5 3.9 5.0

VOC (mins) 47.3 40.5 52.8 47.3 40.5 52.8

Total generalised cost (mins) 118.3 106.5 128.8 118.3 106.5 128.8

Bus:

In vehicle time 99 81 119 99 81 119

Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5

Walk time 5 5 5 5 5 5


Fare () 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70

Fare (mins) 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3Total generalised cost (mins) 147.3 129.3 167.3 147.3 129.3 167.3

Rail:

In vehicle time 76 74 93 47 55 61

Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5

Walk time 10 10 10 10 10 10


Interchange penalty 16 16 16 0 0 16

Fare () 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95

Fare (mins) 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4

Total generalised cost (mins) 174.4 172.4 191.4 129.4 137.4 159.4

Do Minimum Do Something


23/23

manchester - burnley direct railway service

Documents