How can growth and partners aspirations be accommodated in ...

How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades?Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020

02

Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020

03

04

08

07

12

16

22

27

01: Foreword

02: Executive Summary

03: Continuous Modular Strategic Planning

04: Leicester Area Strategic Context

05: Delivering Additional Future Services

06: Leicester Area Capacity

07: Accommodating Future Services

08: Recommendations and Next Steps

Contents

Photo credits: Front cover - lower left: Jeff ChapmanFront cover - lower right: Jamie Squibbs

03

Leicester Area Strategic AdviceJuly 2020

The Leicester Area Strategic Advice forms part of the railway industry’s Long-Term Planning Process covering the medium-term and long-term planning horizon. Investment in the railway is an aid to long-term sustainable growth for the Leicester area, supporting economic, social and environmental objectives. Network Rail has worked collaboratively with rail industry stakeholders and partners to develop long-term plans for a safe, reliable and efficient railway to support economic growth across Britain.

This study has considered the impact of increased demand for passenger services in the medium and long term, starting from a baseline of today’s railway, and taking account of the known changes expected through current franchises. In addition to passenger capacity, the Leicester area caters for growth in freight requirements along each rail corridor, including facilitating freight growth on the Midland Main Line and for the Felixstowe to West Midlands freight route.

The report was produced collaboratively with inputs from key, interested organisations and considers the impact of planned major programmes such as High Speed 2 (HS2), and the strategies and aspirations of bodies such as Leicester City Council, the Department of Transport (DfT), Midlands Connect and the Train and Freight Operating Companies.

The recommendations from this report support Network Rail’s focus of putting passengers first by aiming to increase the number of direct services from Leicester Station, supporting freight growth and improving performance and satisfaction with the rail network. The recommendations were developed into high-level interventions and estimates developed with an order of magnitude cost given. These estimates were approved as part of Network Rail’s Regional and National Cost Planning Assurance processes.

01 Foreword

Figure 1: Leicester Station

04


Leicester is a key city in the East Midlands and is situated on major traffic flows from all points of the compass. It is located on the busy Midland Main Line (MML), which connects the line’s southern terminus at London St Pancras with Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, along with a number of other towns and cities along the route. Leicester is also an important station on the CrossCountry network, between Birmingham to the west and Cambridge to the east. It is situated on major freight corridors linking Felixstowe to the West Midlands and northern England, and aggregate traffic to and from Leicestershire and more northerly quarries.

The Leicester Area Strategic Advice sets out to address the follow strategic question:

How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades?

This strategic advice provides a set of recommendations to make sure that the rail network meets the demands of users for the 2030s and beyond.

02 Executive Summary

It has been produced collaboratively using the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning (CMSP) process, which considers the needs of the network in a holistic manner, with stakeholders from across the rail industry working with Network Rail to provide inputs. The recommendations made here are evidence-based, produced using industry-recognised demand forecasts and analysis methodologies. Because of this, CMSP is a vehicle through which funders, including the Department for Transport (DfT) and Midlands Connect (MC), can make informed investment decisions and understand the complex interdependencies between train service and infrastructure proposals.

Three passenger train service scenarios with incremental increases in the number of trains were agreed with the Working Group during the CMSP process for the 2030s and beyond, and were based on stakeholder aspirations to improve growth and connectivity for Leicester. The three train service scenarios addressed in this strategic advice are:

Figure 2: Train service scenarios explored

Present Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Baseline Based on the current services and additional franchise commitments

Freight(1fpph and in each direction)

Nuneaton – Leicester – Trent JunctionsNuneaton – Leicester – Melton MowbrayTrent Junctions – Melton MowbrayBardon Hill – Kettering

HS2 Link 1tph Leicester to Nottingham1tph Leicester to Derby

Pan Midlands Corridors and HS2

Midlands Rail Hub 2tph Birmingham to Leicester

Midlands to the North 2tph Bedford to Leeds or Northampton to Nottingham

Total Sum of both directions 22 26 30 34

1tph Coventry to Nottingham1tph Coventry to Derby

05


The analysis undertaken found that there were significant benefits to passengers by introducing Scenario 3, which included the most additional services. The most significant improvements were to Leeds from Leicester and stations south of Leicester on the Midland Main Line, where the new services reduced journey times by over an hour.

To implement these additional services, a number of interventions have been identified and are shown in the table below. The table shows the interventions that are required to meet capacity requirements of running the additional services and interventions that are further recommended to support improved train performance in the area.

2.01 RecommendationsThis strategic advice makes five recommendations that should be progressed, with the view that interventions will be aligned to the government-funded Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline (RNEP).

The five key recommendations to support future services and stakeholder aspirations in the area:

Recommendation 1: Four tracking between Wigston North Junction and Leicester Station is progressed to Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) immediately with a view to delivering benefits as soon as practicable.

Recommendation 2: The other recommended interventions listed in Figure 3 are progressed to SOBC, with a deliverability assessment undertaken to encourage staging delivery of all the recommended interventions in parallel to enable synergies and reduce cost.

Figure 3: Recommended interventions for each train service scenario

Constraint Intervention Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Excessive capacity utilisation at Wigston North Junction

Four tracks from Wigston North Junction to Leicester, including Knighton Tunnel.

CapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance


Addition of a loop capable of accommodating a 775m freight train at Wigston North Junction to simplify operation of freight traffic coming to and from Bardon Hill Quarry (on the Burton Line).

PerformanceCapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance

Excessive capacity utilisation through Leicester Station

Additional switches and crossings (points) required between Platform 4 and the Up and Down Slow line north of Leicester Station.


CapacityPerformance


Link Platform 1 to the Goods Line between Leicester North Junction and Humberstone Road Junction, and upgrading the line to passenger status.


CapacityPerformance

Excessive platform utilisation at Leicester Station

Construct an additional platform at Leicester Station. Performance Performance Capacity

Performance

Recommendation 3: If electrification proposals are progressed to the north of Market Harborough, electrification of Wigston South Junction to Syston North Junction should be based on the layout recommended by this strategic advice.

Recommendation 4: Detailed pedestrian capacity modelling for Leicester Station is undertaken at SOBC stage, unless passenger usage of the station is still reduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommendation 5: Recommendations in the safety baseline are explored to reduce passenger incidents at Leicester Station.

These recommendations will alleviate capacity constraints identified on the network and are intended to protect train performance, which is closely tied to passenger satisfaction. Progression of interventions in parallel allows a holistic strategic plan to be taken forward for the Leicester area. On a congested railway, there are no shortage of competing demands for capacity, and it is not expected that progression of options would prove abortive, especially because further emerging aspirations would also benefit from these recommendations.

Furthermore, it is recommended that interventions in the study area take account of other projects to avoid abortive or corrective work being undertaken and to maximise the benefits for passenger and freight customers. Interventions recommended in this strategic advice should be progressed whilst pursuing efficiencies with parallel aspirations such as the

06


Leicester Station Masterplan promoted by Leicester City Council and electrification proposals which may arise following finalisation of the industry’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy or future upgrading or electrification of the Midland Main Line.

As the study findings are taken forward, it will be important to test the proposed scheme to ensure that the infrastructure created is flexible enough to accommodate a range of scenarios wider than the those used for this study. Since fixing the scenarios for this report the following emerging proposals are being investigated that will place additional demands on the study area infrastructure:

• The reopening of the Leicester-Burton freight line, the Ivanhoe Line, to passenger traffic.

• East Midlands to East of England study, by Midlands Connect, which examined the case for the extension of the Birmingham-Leicester service to Cambridge.

• The East Midlands 3 Cities study, by Midlands Connect, which examined the case the for additional services between Leicester and Nottingham.

• Aspirations by freight companies for more services from the East Anglia ports to the Midlands. Peak forecasts indicate that by 2043, up to seven freight paths per hour (sum of both directions) may be required through Leicester Station compared to the four included in the passenger peak hour modelled in this report for the 2030s. Future stages of development will assess in detail freight growth across the twenty-four hour period.

2.02 Covid-19The majority of the forecasts and analysis upon which the recommendations of this report are based took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of publication, the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on rail demand are not known. The rail industry continually reviews and updates strategic advice, and Network Rail will work with funders to make sure the rail network continues to support society and the economy in the long-term.

Figure 4: Leicester Station from Swain St Bridge looking south (photo credit: Peter Leigh)

07


03 Continuous Modular Strategic PlanningContinuous Modular Strategic Planning (CMSP) is the industry process through which Network Rail leads production of strategic advice. CMSP provides a rolling programme of recommendations, answering specific strategic questions defined by the rail industry and providing funders with impartial, evidenced-based recommendations for the long-term future of the railway. In doing so, it puts the priorities of passengers and freight-users first by identifying opportunities for rail investment to stimulate economic growth as part of the wider transport system. As a collaborative approach to strategic planning, service specifiers, train operators and local and sub-national transport bodies work with Network Rail to develop these investment recommendations.

As the railway becomes increasingly busy, making the best use of train, track and station capacity is a key challenge. It is important to understand how service patterns, journey times and train performance impact on the capacity and capability of the rail network. The CMSP process is led by Network Rail’s Strategic Planning teams to balance these factors.

Furthermore, in an environment in which land-use and transport powers are increasingly devolved to local and regional decision-makers, CMSP recommendations are rooted in the whole-system impacts of planned major investments, including HS2 Phase 2b. Stakeholders such as Midlands Connect, the Department for Transport, Leicester City Council and Train and Freight Operating organisations work closely with Network Rail throughout the CMSP process.

All strategic advice is supported by a governance structure, including the Working Group, whose members contribute local knowledge and evidence throughout the process.

In line with this approach for the CMSP process, this strategic advice sets out to address the following strategic question:

How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades?

The purpose of this report is to provide potential funders with strategic advice for the development of Leicester area by developing a strategy for long-term planning for the future of the network that will provide an opportunity to support the East Midlands economy with a high-quality rail network.

Figure 6: Leicester Station looking north

Journey TimeBoth absolute andcombinations of

journey times a�ectnetwork capacity and

performance

CapacityGreater use of thenetwork typically puts pressure onperformance and

can impact journey times

PerformancePunctuality andreliability can improveby running fewer services with more space betweenthem

Figure 5: Relationship between journey time, capacity and performance

08


04 Leicester Area Strategic ContextAs a vital component of the economy and society of the Midlands, the railway plays a key role in connecting Leicester and serves as a link to the local, regional and national network. Leicester is served by trains from all points of the compass, with over 250 passenger and freight trains passing through the area each day on average.

This strategic advice will focus on the geographic area from Kilby Bridge Junction and Glen Parva Junction to the south to Syston North and Syston East Junctions to the north.

The stretch of line south of Leicester Station is a constrained section of track as trains from Nuneaton meet trains from Kettering at Wigston North Junction, to go through Knighton Junction and Tunnel. This means that trains from Kettering on the Midland Main line have to cross trains heading towards Nuneaton.

North of Leicester Station, the Midland Main Line towards Sheffield is three and four tracks, with a chord to Syston East Junction and onwards towards Melton Mowbray.

4.01 Existing Train Services

4.01.01 Passenger

The rail network plays a key role in driving economic growth across the country connecting millions of people to jobs and delivering goods to markets. The study area is situated on the Midland Main Line (MML) which connects the principal stations of London St Pancras at the line’s southern terminus to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, along with a number of other towns and cities

Figure 7: The study area

Figure 8: EMR Class 170 (photo credit: EMR)

09


along the route. Leicester is also a key station on the CrossCountry network, between Birmingham to the west and Cambridge to the east. 4.01.02 Freight

Rail freight supports domestic and global industry whilst removing traffic volume from the roads, reducing congestion and pollution, and facilitating decarbonisation. Leicester is situated on major freight corridors linking intermodal freight from Felixstowe to the West Midlands. The East Midlands network also includes the Leicestershire aggregate quarries such as Mountsorrel, Bardon Hill and New Cliffe Hill that supply construction demand across the country, highlighting the importance of aggregates traffic through the study area. Demand for concrete production generates significant freight volume of marine dredged sands and gravels from key rail linked wharves at Ipswich and Dagenham.

4.02 Future Train Services

4.02.01 Changes to passenger services

As operators continue to improve services across the country, changes to Midland Main Line services, operated by East Midlands Railway, are planned for the coming years. The Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme enables more seats on faster, quieter trains linking Leicester with London and other key MML destinations. Many other aspirational proposals exist for additional services in the Leicester area, including the potential to restore the line between Northampton and Market Harborough, supported by organisations such as England’s Economic Heartland. These additional services will place additional stress on the infrastructure in the study area as they are not currently included in the baseline timetable.

Figure 9: Mountsorrel Quarry

Figure 10: Freight train passing through Leicester Station (photo credit: Peter Leigh)

4.02.02 Midlands Connect

Midlands Connect develops transport improvements across the Midlands. These improvements aim to transform regional and UK gateways, bringing the Midlands closer together and accelerating cost-effective improvements to unlock east to west connectivity that will enable the Midland’s economies to work more effectively together. From their strategy, Midlands Connect progress individual projects through a pipeline which includes planning, delivery and review. Network Rail has worked closely with Midlands Connect to understand the requirements of delivering their aspirations in the Leicester area.

10


4.02.05 East Midlands Hub

The East Midlands Hub station at Toton forms part of HS2 Phase 2b. Midlands Connect’s aspiration is to connect the Hub to major centres in the region, including Leicester. In early 2020, the government published the Oakervee Review, which recommended progression of the planned HS2 Phase 2b ‘Y-network.’ The Department for Transport’s Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and North is currently assessing the optimal configuration to maximise the benefits of planned investment and is supported by the National Investment Commission and Infrastructure Projects Authority. 4.02.06 Ivanhoe Line and Restoring Your Railways

Although not part of this study, Network Rail is aware of the aspiration for the reopening of the railway between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent (the Ivanhoe Line) for passenger services. The proposal has been awarded funding as part of the first phase of the government’s ‘Restoring Your Railways’ Ideas Fund initiative in the time since analysis for this strategic advice commenced.

4.02.03 Midlands Engine Rail

Midlands Engine Rail (MER) is Midlands Connect’s overarching plan to transform the region’s rail network. This is made up of several projects spanning the East Midlands and West Midlands, and is proposed to create capacity for 736 additional passenger services on the network each day. MER includes connectivity to the East Midlands Hub at Toton (see below), including proposed services linking Bedford with Yorkshire via Leicester and the planned HS2 network. In addition, direct trains linking Coventry with Leicester are proposed as part of the MER strategy.4.02.04 Midlands Rail Hub

As a key component of MER, Midlands Rail Hub (MRH) is Midlands Connect’s flagship project to upgrade the rail network. This is for a programme of new and upgraded infrastructure works, which is planned to be implemented in phases. The purpose of the Midlands Rail Hub project is to strengthen rail links between the East and West Midlands and beyond, including additional services between Leicester and Birmingham.

Figure 11: Midlands Connect rail aspirations through Leicester

11


Figure 12: Leicester Station Masterplan proposal

The proposal would see re-established passenger services from Burton-on-Trent to Leicester with an aspiration hourly service, doubling to half-hourly at peak times. Further capacity analysis would be required to assess the feasibility of additional trains into Leicester beyond those tested by this strategic advice.

4.03 Leicester Station MasterplanIn November 2019, Leicester City Council submitted a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) to the DfT for the Transforming Cities Fund to upgrade Leicester Station. The SOBC was supported by East Midlands Railway and Network Rail as the participating stakeholders in developing a Leicester Station Masterplan. The purpose of the Masterplan was to make the station a gateway to the city and to support the regeneration of the area local around the station.

The planned scope included refurbishing the historic Porte Cochere as a destination zone and renovations to the station building. The passenger experience would be improved by upgrading the ticket hall, widening the gate-line, and replacement of the platform footbridge with a wider covered bridge. Station access would be improved by a new multi-storey car park, with accessible and a new taxi drop off to the west of the site next to a refurbished rear entrance.

As development of rail enhancements mature, there may be opportunities for synergies, cost savings and a creating better experience for passengers if all projects can be aligned.

12


05 Delivering Additional Future Services

5.01 Future Passenger GrowthRail’s competitive journey times and frequency of services across the network enable businesses to connect and unlock the benefits of agglomeration whilst also increasing labour market catchments. A high-quality railway network encourages modal shift, reducing road congestion, carbon emissions and improves air quality. Planning the strategic direction of the railway, with the challenges and opportunities this entails over the medium to long term, is therefore vital to delivering a versatile and growing economy.

To determine the long-term strategic plan for the railway in the Leicester area, an assessment of future rail growth on the corridors connecting Leicester to other key destinations was undertaken through a stakeholder consultation process. These new links can be seen in Figure 13 and form the basis of three Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) scenarios. The ITSS scenarios were reflective of a comprehensive assessment of stakeholder aspirations for the East Midlands corridors, encompassing services through Leicester Station into the 2030s and beyond, which were modelled in line with industry agreed standards.

The analysis focuses on the morning peak passenger hour of 08.00 to 08.591, to estimate the greatest capacity constraints on the rail network and at Leicester Station.

1 It is acknowledged that additional freight runs at other times of the day

Figure 13: Summary of additional services (not all services shown)

The three scenarios provide an incremental uplift in services when compared with the baseline of current and committed changes. They are as follows:

Figure 14: ITSS scenarios explored

Present Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Baseline Based on the current services and additional franchise commitments

HS2 Link 1tph Leicester to Nottingham1tph Leicester to Derby

Pan Midlands Corridors and HS2

Midlands Rail Hub 2tph Birmingham to Leicester

Midlands to the North 2tph Bedford to Leeds or Northampton to Nottingham

Total Sum of both directions 14 18 22 26

1tph Coventry to Nottingham1tph Coventry to Derby

13


Figure 15: EMR Class 222 approaching Leicester Station (photo credit: Ben Knowles)

Although the ITSS scenarios for the CMSP were agreed by the industry and fixed for the purposes of the study, the development of train service proposals is a dynamic process. Since fixing these scenarios, the following additional aspirations are being investigated:

• The reopening of the Leicester-Burton freight line, the Ivanhoe Line, to passenger traffic.

• East Midlands to East of England study, by Midlands Connect, which examined the case for the extension of the Birmingham-Leicester service to Cambridge.

• The East Midlands 3 Cities study, by Midlands Connect, which examined the case the for additional services between Leicester and Nottingham.

An important point about the proposed interventions recommended for progression here is that the capacity created should be flexible enough to accommodate services from a range of origins and destinations beyond the study area. As the study findings are taken forward, it will be important to test the proposed scheme to ensure that the infrastructure created is flexible enough to accommodate a range of scenarios wider than the ITSS scenarios used for this study and emerging proposals such as those outlined above.

14


5.02 Future Freight GrowthFreight is an important user of the lines in the study area. The two major freight flows are intermodal traffic from the port at Felixstowe, through Ely, to central and northern Britain, and aggregate traffic from quarries in Leicestershire and further north to construction sites in southern England. The following four freight paths in each direction have been included in all scenarios to meet freight growth aspirations in the study area as agreed at the working groups.

This represents a reasonable number of paths for freight trains during the peak passenger hour. However, the number of daily freight paths available would be higher over a 24-hour period as fewer passenger trains run during the passenger off-peak, especially overnight, allowing additional freight paths.

There are aspirations by freight companies for more services from the East Anglia ports to the Midlands. Peak forecasts indicate that by 2043, up to seven freight paths per hour (sum of both directions) may be required through Leicester Station compared to the four included in the passenger peak hour modelled in this report for the 2030s. For this reason, interventions recommended in this report will be assessed against any updates evidence at SOBC stage, as with any rail enhancement. Future stages of development will also identify the peak freight hour and make sure any interventions planned can support this freight growth.

Figure 16: Freight paths included in the ITSS

Through Leicester Station Avoids Leicester Station

Nuneaton – Trent Junctions

Nuneaton – Melton Mowbray

Trent Junctions – Melton Mowbray

Bardon Hill – Kettering

Total (sum of both directions) 4 4

Figure 17: Freightliner Class 66 with aggregate wagons at Buxton Sidings

15


5.03 National Rail Passenger SurveyThe National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS) provides a network-wide picture of satisfaction with the railway. The latest survey for Leicester Station (at the time of writing) was undertaken in Autumn 2019 and surveyed more than 24,000 passengers nationally, providing a valuable insight for the medium to long term strategic plan of the network. The overall journey satisfaction for rail passengers at Leicester was recorded as 78%, with the key drivers of satisfaction being identified as punctuality, train cleanliness, frequency, length of journey and crowding.

An optimised and attractive service frequency proposition is important, as well as ensuring that existing journey times are not affected by more trains on the network. Delivering a high-quality journey, both in terms of train cleanliness and providing enough passenger capacity to reduce crowding, also needs to be factored into how additional demand growth can be accommodated on the railway in the Leicester area. The inclusion of the drivers of passenger satisfaction in the strategic planning process allows Network Rail to put passengers first, identifying opportunities to deliver both economic growth and improve satisfaction with the rail network.

5.04 Integration with National Priorities

5.04.01 Demand changes from HS2

For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the HS2 Phase 2b infrastructure and train service patterns are implemented as planned as of Summer 2020. While HS2 trains will not directly serve Leicester, it will have a significant impact on the numbers of passengers who pass through Leicester as many passengers on flows such as London to Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham are expected to switch from Midland Main Line services to HS2. Rail connectivity between Leicester and the planned East Midlands Hub at Toton is considered across all scenarios.5.04.02 Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy

Network Rail is working with the industry and partners to develop a Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy. If electrification proposals are progressed to the north of Market Harborough, electrification of Wigston South to Syston North should be based on the layout recommended by this strategic advice. Synergies between interventions in these reports and/or passive provision for later electrification should be encouraged.

5.04.03 Restoring Your Railways

Although not part of this study, Network Rail is aware of the study for the reopening of Leicester to Burton-on-Trent (the Ivanhoe Line) and the proposal has been awarded funding as part of the first phase of the ‘Restoring Your Railways’ initiative during this CMSP. It is likely that a reopened Ivanhoe Line will only add further congestion to the south of Leicester Station or be unable to serve Leicester Station. Figure 18: EMR Class 222 approaching Leicester Station from the south (Photo credit: Pete Hackney)

Figure 19: CrossCountry Class 170 near Leicester North Junction (Photo credit: Joseph Porter)

16


06 Leicester Area Capacity

6.01 Passenger CapacityEconomic analysis of the tested scenarios has established that that the service aspirations provide enough seating capacity to meet demand forecast for the coming decades across all trains and all three ITSS scenarios. Figure 20 shows the anticipated growth forecast for Leicester, with passenger numbers in the early 2030s being 20% higher than in Spring 2020. This growth is then abstracted by the opening of HS2 Phase 2b, as can be seen in the sharp decline. Passenger growth then continues to increase from this point.

It should be noted that this growth forecast is based on pre-COVID-19 passenger growth, with the long-term impacts of it currently unclear, and also assumes HS2 Phase 2b infrastructure and services patterns are implemented as planned as of Summer 2020.

The highest load factors in the morning peak were on the local service to and from Lincoln and Nottingham, with between 70% and 100% of seats occupied arriving at Leicester in the morning peak as tested, assuming a three-car Class 170 type rolling-stock. Figure 21 shows Scenario 1 which has the highest load factors on this flow. Scenarios 2 and 3’s additional services reduce these load factors to between 70% and 80%.

Figure 20: Projected growth at Leicester Station

Figure 21: Loadings arriving at Leicester during AM Peak.

Departing services follow a similar pattern, with between 70% and 90% of seats occupied, and with potential for standing passengers as it approaches Nottingham.

17


Figure 22: Loadings on arrival into Leicester Express/Inter Urban

Forecast loadings on express and other (non-local) services into Leicester in the AM high peak are less than 70% for all route sections for all ITSSs, both into and out of Leicester, as shown in Figure 22. The forecast passenger loads were at their lowest on the north-south corridors. This reflects maintaining relatively high Midland Main Line capacity provision in the ITSSs with the assumed ten-car rolling-stock.

This is in part driven by the anticipated abstraction of many passengers travelling between London and Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield to travel via HS2. For the East-West corridors there is sufficient capacity available arriving at Leicester in the morning peak in Scenario 1 from both the Birmingham and Melton Mowbray directions.

Figure 23: Looking north from Leicester Station (Photo credit: Peter Leigh)

18


Figure 24: Change in GJT from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3

The table below shows the generalised journey time benefit of running the additional services in Scenario 3 over those in Scenario 1, with the number showing the perceived time saving by passengers. The table clearly shows the benefit of running two additional services between Bedford and Leeds which use the HS2 route for part of their journey. This delivers some large generalised journey time reductions for flows from Midland Main Line stations south of Leicester to Leeds, and, to a lesser extent, Sheffield. There are also several other large GJT reductions from these stations to other Midland Main Line stations.

The number of passengers benefiting from GJT improvements will vary hugely from flow to flow. Weighting improvements in GJT by the number of passengers gives a better indication of the improvements which are delivering most passenger benefit. This is shown in the ‘Total change in GJTC’ column of the following table, which shows the top twenty beneficiaries of improved journey times by calculated reductions in GJTC.

6.02 Improvements in connectivity The main output of the proposed ITSS Scenario 2 and 3 are improved passenger connectivity due to the additional services. Improved connectivity translates into providing train services which have a faster journey time, are of a higher frequency and relatively few (or no) interchanges. Improving connectivity benefits passengers travelling for leisure, business and employment purposes.

Connectivity can be measured by Generalised Journey Time (GJT). This is a composite measure which reflects journey time, frequency and interchange. The additional train services within the ITSS scenarios deliver significant GJT improvements to a number of markets. Some of the key benefits include:

• The additional Leicester services to and from Birmingham produce reductions in GJT of 10 to 15 minutes from Birmingham, Birmingham International, Nuneaton and Coventry.

• Extending services to Coventry significantly improves connectivity between Coventry and Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham and Derby.

• The Bedford to Leeds service produces significant GJT reductions, improving connectivity from many Midland Main Line locations south of Leicester. In some cases, reductions are over 100 minutes due to the removal of multiple interchanges that would otherwise be incurred.

19


Figure 25: The twenty largest improvements in passenger GJTC minutes from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3

Origin Destination Total change in GJTC

Base GJT New GJT GJT change % change

1 Leicester Birmingham BR 9,308,379 78 64 14 18.1%

2 Leicester Leeds 7,191,467 156 70 86 55.3%

3 Leicester Coventry 3,193,307 112 73 39 34.8%

4 Market Harborough Leicester 2,376,038 41 30 11 26.1%

5 Leicester Bedford Midland 2,175,293 138 69 69 50.2%

6 Leeds Bedford Midland 2,031,170 284 115 169 59.5%

7 Leicester Kettering 1,623,119 50 40 10 20.5%

8 Nuneaton Leicester 1,497,227 48 36 13 26.2%

9 Sheffield Bedford Midland 1,449,436 239 158 81 33.7%

10 Loughborough Leicester 1,425,622 28 25 4 12.6%

11 Birmingham BR Bedford Midland 1,344,605 212 147 66 30.9%

12 Wellingborough Leicester 1,333,671 69 52 16 23.9%

13 Wellingborough Leeds 1,102,040 230 103 127 55.1%

14 Manchester BR Leicester 1,060,895 202 184 17 8.6%

15 Leeds Kettering 934,397 199 94 105 52.9%

16 Market Harborough Leeds 872,185 186 85 101 54.4%

17 Loughborough Coventry 791,161 146 83 62 42.8%

18 Wellingborough Sheffield 780,281 184 142 42 22.7%

19 Nottingham Coventry 738,617 152 120 32 20.8%

20 Leicester Edinburgh 764,590 423 350 73 17.2%

6.03 Economic BenefitsThis strategic advice considers the holistic impacts of multiple aspirations agreed with the Working Group, and provides overall recommendations to deliver freight and passenger demand through aspirations for new services. Separately, industry partners have produced Strategic Outline Business Cases (SOBCs) for some of these aspirations in isolation.

As part of this strategic advice, Network Rail has assessed the potential economic benefits associated with these service aspirations, building on the SOBC completed. Figure 26 below shows the indicative economic values of the services considered.

The benefits for the Leeds-Bedford service was taken directly from the relevant Midlands Connect SOBC, albeit this assumed 1tph compared to the 2tph tested in this strategic advice. In the case of the Birmingham to Leicester and Coventry to Nottingham services, modelling adjustments were applied to the numbers from the SOBCs to make them more consistent with the CMSP assumptions. It should be noted that these figures do not constitute a full socio-economic appraisal and are indicative, based on high-level analysis.

Figure 26: Benefits and operating costs from SOBCs and other existing analysis. All figures are assumed to be in 2010 prices and based on a 60-year period.

Service Operating Costs Benefits (Present Value)

Revenue (Present Value)

Wider Economic Benefits

Economic Benefit Economic Benefit (with WEIs)

Leicester Birmingham (2tph)

£84m £140m £101m £47m £157m £204m

Coventry Nottingham (2tph)

£99m £105m £51m £83m £56m £139m

Bedford Leeds (1tph)

£510m £851m £446m £428m £787m £1,215m

20


6.04 Leicester Station Pedestrian Capacity AnalysisStation pedestrian capacity analysis was undertaken at a high-level to make sure that the additional services proposed in the scenarios could be safely accommodated at Leicester Station and without risking delays to train services and inconvenience to passengers from potential overcrowding. The analysis undertaken shows the utilisation of platforms and interactions between platforms that share the same island, based on this report’s recommended infrastructure, existing platform plans, with assumed routings for new services.

It was intended to undertake detailed modelling of passenger flows as part of this analysis, but the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions placed on travel would have caused passenger count data to be flawed. Previous analysis has been undertaken by Leicester City Council as part of the Leicester Station Masterplan, which identified crowding at ticket barriers and recommended increasing the number of barriers from three to twelve, and relocating them to the booking hall, and increasing the width of the footbridge at the northern side of the station. This report recommends that detailed pedestrian capacity modelling is undertaken at SOBC stage if passenger numbers are more representative of peak station use.

In scenario 1, shown in Figure 27, the Leicester to Nottingham and Birmingham to Stansted services arrive at platform 1 and platform 2 simultaneously, and again in the last quarter of the hour with the Birmingham to Leicester service on P1, and the St Pancras to Nottingham service on P2. Both of these instances include the busiest train on one of the platforms. At these times, the most stress is placed on the access/egress points on the platforms.

Scenario 2 increases the number of passenger services by four. This includes introducing Midlands Rail Hub and Midlands Engine Rail services. These additional services increase the potential pedestrian flow challenge with potential simultaneous alighting identified on Platforms 3 and 4 with north and southbound MML services, shown in Figure 28. Scenario 2 also identifies potential issues at this island platform, with about 80% of the total demand assumed to use this island platform, and the six busiest trains calling here.

Scenario 3 introduces additional MML services linking Bedford to the north. Capacity analysis undertaken as part of this strategic advice recommends that this will require an addition of platform options either a Platform 0 or a Platform5.

Figure 29 shows that around the top of the hour, three services on P2 conflict with two services on P1.

Figure 27: Scenario 1(CS2f) hourly platform occupancy (Platforms 1 and 2)

Figure 28: Scenario 2(CS2g) hourly platform occupancy (Platforms 3 and 4)

Figure 29: Scenario 3(CS2h) hourly platform occupancy (Platforms 1 and 2)

21


These are services between Coventry and Derby (and reverse), Bedford and Leeds, St Pancras and Sheffield (and reverse MML service). The number of conflicts at this time is likely to lead to heavy utilisation of the stairs. As demonstrated by the hatching, both of the busiest trains on P2 arrive at this time, providing heavy footfall.

Using the assumption that Platforms 0 or 5 have the same or similar vertical circulation provision as the other platforms at the station and based on the assumed 2050 demand in the peak 5-minute period, the vertical circulation provision for either platform options 0 or 5 should be sufficient against Network Rail Station Capacity Planning Guidance, with the main stairway providing adequate capacity. In assessing station pedestrian capacity, it must be considered that the times when passengers alight from busy trains can create pedestrian flow

problems on platforms, stairways and the gateline. Not only can this impact train performance, but it can also impact on passenger safety. It is important that detailed pedestrian flow modelling is carried out when practical as part of further development, however analysis undertaken for the Leicester Station Masterplan has already highlighted overcrowding at gatelines.

6.05 Safety BaselineThe safety of passengers, the public and the workforce is paramount to Network Rail and the rail industry. In order to identify opportunities to improve safety as part of subsequent stages of development of options for the Leicester area, a safety baseline has been produced, which investigated incidents in the study area with the aim to identify risks. Figure 30 shows the incidents that were recorded around Leicester Station:

Figure 30: Safety Baseline key findings

Leicester Station (5-year data)

Slips, Trips and Falls Suicide Attempts Trespass & Vandalism

Staff Accidents Staff Assaults TOTAL

90 19 32 2 47 190

Nearly half of the incidents were slips, trips and falls. Station staff believe these are due to passengers rushing for trains on crowded platforms and stairs. The recommendations for reducing these incidents are to improve station wayfinding, increased number of ticket barriers, and to build an additional platform to reduce peak time crowding.

There have been 19 suspected suicide attempts and 32 reports of trespass and vandalism, which make up a further quarter of all incidents. Station staff are trained to identify these risks. An increase in quantum of trains may increase the number of incidents, which could be mitigated by increased staffing and an additional platform to alleviate crowding, so staff have better lines of sight.

Figure 31: CrossCountry Class 170 near Syston Junction (Photo credit: Chris Sansome)

22


7.01 Assessing Network CapacityCapacity analysis was undertaken to examine the effects of the three scenarios on rail capacity. At this stage of development, an appropriate high-level methodology has been applied, which mathematically assesses the utilisation of the railway, junctions and platforms to provide evidence of whether freight and passenger services may be run safely in compliance with industry planning rules.

A hypothetical utilisation rate above 100% is impossible to accommodate on this infrastructure, and as utilisation approaches 100% the probability of constructing a compliant timetable reduces significantly. Furthermore, high utilisation can increase the risk of train delays as there is less available rail capacity for services to recover during times of perturbation. As section 5.03 notes, the National Rail Passenger Survey highlights the correlation between train performance and passenger satisfaction, and Network Rail therefore plans for a railway which supports strong train performance.

Calculations of capacity were undertaken based on the baseline infrastructure and Train Planning Rules. All three scenarios included freight and passenger services and were tested to understand the implications of additional trains operating through the Leicester corridor.

The analysis focused on morning peak (08:00 – 08:59) arrivals into Leicester Station. This was used as it is the busiest sustained period of demand, although it is acknowledged that there may be crowding on services outside these times and that this hour is not the peak for freight services. Passenger capacity is aggregated and averaged across all services on the corridors to indicate areas where sufficient capacity is not provided; this enables the development of potential capacity solutions for the medium to long term on a corridor level, rather than focussing on the existing issues on a service-by service basis.

Scenario 1, with the fewest additional services, would results in a capacity utilisation at Wigston North Junction of 90% in the Down direction (towards Leicester) due to the large number of conflicting moves. This is in excess of the desired level to run a reliable, punctual network and is likely to create timetabling difficulties. As Scenario 2 and 3 led to a utilisation of over

Figure 32: Wigston North Junction

07 Accommodating Future Services

100%, interventions are recommended across all scenarios at this junction.

The capacity analysis found that north of Leicester Station currently planned services through to the 2030s could be accommodated with existing infrastructure, primarily due to the low number of trains using the chord towards Syston East Junction.

23


Figure 33: Knighton Tunnel

7.02 Proposed Interventions

7.02.01 Four tracks from Wigston North Junction to Leicester, including Knighton Tunnel

Figure 34 shows the conflicting moves that occur for trains in the Up direction heading to Glen Parva Junction (blue), as they cross the path of services in the Down direction from Kilby Bridge Junction (orange). The numbers show the increasing quantum of trains in each scenario, with Scenario 3 (CS2h) have 8 trains per hour cross the Down line.

Utilisation at Wigston North Junction is impacted further by the margin needed at Knighton Junction for the Up move of freight from Bardon Hill Quarry towards Kilby Bridge Jn, leading to utilisation in excess of recommended levels for all scenarios, and in excess of 100% for Scenario 2 and 3.

The proposed intervention for all ITSS scenarios is to reinstate the four tracks section of line between Leicester Station and Wigston North Junction. This would allow segregation of traffic flows towards Glen Parva Junction on Up and Down Nuneaton lines, and Kilby Bridge Junction on Up and Down Kettering lines, as can be seen in Figure 35.

Knighton Tunnel has a second bore that is currently unused, except for access. Further investigation needs to be completed whether it will be more cost effective to re-use, re-bore or demolish it, especially in light of providing potential passive provision for any future electrification.

This report encourages identifying potential cost synergies if this four tracking is done alongside the proposed additional platform at Leicester Station as the track and signals may need to be realigned towards and through Leicester Station.

Figure 34: Details of conflicting move - Down from Kilby Bridge Jn (orange) and Up towards Glen Parva Jn (blue) at Wigston North Jn.

Figure 35: Proposed four tracking of Wigston North Jn track diagram, with Down Nuneaton (DN), Up Nuneaton (UN), Down Kettering (DK) and Up Kettering (UK) labelled

Note: CS2f, CS2g, CS2h refer to Scenario 1, 2, 3 respectively

24


7.02.02 Leicester Station

It was found that there is insufficient capacity at Leicester Station to accommodate Scenario 3 services. An additional platform is therefore recommended at Leicester Station for this scenario, and would be beneficial to network performance, allowing further additional passenger services, improved station pedestrian flow and safety across all three scenarios.

The capacity analysis identified that a new platform, Platform 0, could be added to the west of Platform 1, or a new platform, Platform 5, could be added to the east of Platform 4. Providing the track alignments are implemented as recommended, both P0 and P5 options are deemed to be acceptable interventions at this early stage of development.

However, the Platform 5 intervention option could only be considered if there were no restrictions on the length of the new platforms, as a short Platform 5 would not accommodate potential 10-car MML trains. Platform 5 is also likely to impact on the Up and Down Slow Loop lines and accompanying sidings. Consideration will be given to any further development of Platform 0 of the interface with the Leicester Station Masterplan.

The table in Figure 36 below lists identified advantages and disadvantages of both options at this stage. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken as part of further development to establish the preferred option.

The two diagrams on the following page show indicatively how the two platform interventions could be implemented, with the red lines showing the additional track to allow the separation of the Nuneaton and Kettering running lines. No interventions have been identified as required to deliver the defined service specification between Leicester and Syston. As development of options continues, detailed analysis of the deliverability of benefits will continue based on the most up to date available passenger and freight forecasting and assumptions, as with any rail enhancements scheme.

Figure 36: Comparison of Platform 0 and Platform 5 advantages and disadvantages

Platform 0 Platform 5

Benefits Issues Benefits Issues

Reduced cost compared to the Platform 5 option.

Signalling to P1 track needs to be assessed to determine viability.

Platform 5 option has already been assessed as viable on the previous studies.

Increased cost compared to the Platform 0 option.

Avoids crossover moves in the south station throat.

Could impact on Leicester Station Masterplan development.

Does not impact on station buildings. All West Midlands turn back services will need to cross over south of Leicester.

Carriage sidings are unaffected allowing continuation of Cross Country and Engineering train plant stabling.

Loss of surface-level car parking to accommodate new alignment.

Longer platform length is possible. Carriage sidings will need to be removed, necessitating a new stabling/cleaning road.

Opportunity to provide a 775m freight recessing loop on the slow lines which is useful for freight recessing and crew change.

The platform length constraints for Platforms 0 and 1 need to be established, and likely to be more constrained than P5 option.

Potential for passive provision of Platform 6.

Unable to create the 775m recessing loop for freight in the station area.

Likely to be used for local services so can be a shorter platform.

Requires more extensive foot bridge works with associated increase in platform disruption.

Timetabling requires 240m length platform.

25


25

Figure 37: Platform 0 proposal

Figure 38: Platform 5 proposal

26


7.03 Options to Deliver Future ServicesOrder of magnitude cost ranges were produced and validated by Network Rail for all developed options, though, as with any early- stage development work, these cost ranges should be considered indicative and subject to more detailed costing as recommendations are progressed. The costs have been categorised utilising a Low, Medium, High and Very High approach using the following ranges:

Figure 39: Indicative Order of Magnitude Estimate Range

Low Medium High Very High

<£5m £5m - £50m £50m - £250m >£250m

To implement the additional services, a number of interventions have been identified and are shown in the table below. The table shows the interventions that are required to meet capacity requirements of running the additional services and interventions that are recommended to improve train performance in the area.

Figure 40: Recommended interventions for each scenario

Constraint Intervention Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Indicative OOM Cost


Four tracks from Wigston North Junction to Leicester, including Knighton Tunnel.

CapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance

High


Addition of a loop capable of accommodating a 775m freight train at Wigston North Junction to simplify operation of freight traffic coming to and from Bardon Hill Quarry (on the Burton Line).

Performance CapacityPerformance

CapacityPerformance

Medium


Additional switches and crossings (points) required between Platform 4 and the Up and Down Slow line north of Leicester Station


CapacityPerformance

Medium


Link Platform 1 to the Goods Line between Leicester North Junction and Humberstone Road Junction, and upgrading the line to passenger status.


CapacityPerformance

High

Excessive platform utilisation at Leicester Station

Construct an additional platform at Leicester Station, either Platform 0 to the west or Platform 5 to the East

Performance Performance CapacityPerformance

P0: MediumORP5: High

27


8.01 RecommendationsThe study has identified Recommendation 1 as a key, ‘no regrets’ intervention and four further interventions that are recommended for progression in parallel to enable future passenger and freight demand growth, support stakeholder aspirations and promote a high-performing railway, connecting the Leicester area to people and markets across the country.

Recommendation 1: Four tracking between Wigston North Junction and Leicester Station is progressed to SOBC immediately with a view to delivering benefits as soon as practicable.

Recommendation 2: The other recommended interventions listed in Figure 40 are progressed to SOBC, with a deliverability assessment undertaken to encourage staging delivery of all the recommended interventions in parallel to enable synergies and reduce cost.

Recommendation 3: If electrification proposals are progressed to the north of Market Harborough, electrification of electrification of Wigston South Junction to Syston North Junction should be based on the layout recommended by this strategic advice.

Recommendation 4: Detailed pedestrian capacity modelling for Leicester Station is undertaken at SOBC stage, unless passenger usage of the station is still reduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

08 Recommendations and Next Steps

Recommendation 5: Recommendations in the safety baseline are explored to reduce passenger incidents at Leicester Station.

These recommendations will alleviate capacity constants identified on the network and are intended to protect train performance, which is closely tied to passenger satisfaction. Progression of interventions in parallel allows a holistic strategic plan to be taken forward for the Leicester area. On a congested railway, there are no shortage of competing demands for capacity, and it is not expected that progression of options would prove abortive, especially because further known aspirations, such as the Ivanhoe Line proposals or the reopening of the railway between Market Harborough to Northampton would also benefit from these recommendations.

Furthermore, it is recommended that interventions in the study area take account of other projects to avoid abortive or corrective work being undertaken, and to maximise the benefits for passenger and freight customers. Interventions recommended in this strategic advice should be progressed, as far as possible with schemes like the Leicester Station Masterplan and any electrification proposals which may arise following finalisation of the industry’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy or future upgrading or electrification of the Midland Main Line.

Figure 41: DB Cargo at Syston North Junction (photo credit: DB Cargo UK | Jamie Squibbs)

28


8.02 Next Steps for the IndustryThis strategic advice has identified several potential enhancements to deliver forecast rail growth for the longer-term. The options presented are recommended for potential funders to be considered for development and ultimately delivery. Network Rail is open for business and welcomes working with funders and interested parties to progress these recommendations.

If central government funding is sought, the development of the schemes should align to the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) process, established to create a rolling programme of enhancements. The decision points for investment in the railway are supported by the government’s Five Case Model for business cases, ensuring value for money throughout the lifecycle. Figure 42 illustrates the stages of the RNEP process and identifies where the key decisions for enhancement schemes take place.

Figure 42: RNEP Pipeline Process

The first stage of the process, a Decision to Initiate, is the establishment of the case for intervention from this report and an agreement to produce a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC). This would form the next stage in progressing recommendations, entering the potential interventions into the pipeline. Should the next stage, a ‘Decision to Develop’ be agreed, further development through the pipeline and business case cycle would be undertaken. Only when a ‘Decision to Deliver’ has been agreed would the enhancement be considered committed.

The recommendations from this study have been produced collaboratively with industry stakeholders to deliver a collective view on what is required to deliver future train services to support socio-economic benefits for the 2030s and beyond. Network Rail will continue to work with funders to refine credible options that meet the needs of passengers and freight users; that drive social and economic benefits; and that fit with the long-term needs of a reliable railway system.

Decision to Initiate

Stage 1

Determine

Stage 2

Develop

Stage 3

Design

Stage 4

Deliver

Stage 5

Deploy

Decision to Develop

Decision to Design

Decision to Deliver

Acceptance

Figure 43: GBRf Class 66 and CrossCountry Class 170 near Syston Junction (Photo credit: Jeff Champman)

Network Rail

1 Eversholt Street

London NW1 2DN

How can growth and partners aspirations be accommodated in ...

Documents

Transcript of How can growth and partners aspirations be accommodated in ...