appendices july 2016 network rail · appendices july 2016 network rail – scotland route ......

Appendices Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 89July 2016

Appendix 1 - Long Term Planning Process 90

Appendix 2 - Scotland Market Study 95

Appendix 3 - Freight Market Study Conditional Outputs 153

Appendix 4 - Long Distance Market Study Conditional Outputs

155

Appendix 5 - Cross-Boundary Analysis 158

Appendix 6 - 2043 Option Identification and Development 159

Appendix 7 - Appraisals - CP6/CP7 Choices for Funders 199

Appendix 8 - Glossary 206

Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 90July 2016Appendix 01

The Long Term Planning Process Background to the development of the Long Term Planning Process

In June 2005 the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)1 modified Network Rail’s network licence to require the establishment and maintenance of Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs), for the use and development of the network consistent with the funding that is, or is likely to become, available.

This modification to the Network Rail network licence followed the rail review in 2004 and the Railways Act 2005.

The RUS programme, led by Network Rail on behalf of the industry, started in late 2004 and culminated with the publication of the establishment of the West Coast Main Line RUS in August 2011. As the network licence requires the maintenance of RUSs, the completion of the initial programme of geographic RUSs gave the opportunity to review how best to discharge this requirement in the future.

The review took into account:

• changes in administrations in England, Wales, and Scotland, together with very significant changes in planning policy

• long term strategic investments in the rail network, examples include the development of a high speed line between London and Birmingham and beyond to Leeds and Manchester (HS2)

• decisions to install electrification on significant route mileage of the rail network

• changes to signalling technology through deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and progression of the Network Rail Operating Strategy

• a need to inform maintenance and renewal strategies for the rail network

• changes to funders’ objectives in the light of the significantly tighter fiscal environment, including a clear policy shift towards revenue generation and making best use of the existing railway

1 The Office of Rail Regulation changed its’ name from 1st April 2015 to the Office of Rail and Road

• the conclusions from the ‘Rail Value for Money’ report by Sir Roy McNulty in May 2011.

The need was clear for the industry to consider network-wide long term infrastructure development, rather than ‘as now plus isolated enhancements’, to the rail network. Network Rail and the industry worked together to develop a revised methodology to the RUS process to take the changes set out above into account, to continue to develop the long term strategic direction of the rail network.

This successor programme, the ‘Long Term Planning Process’ (LTPP) was endorsed by the ORR in April 2012.

The LTPP will consider such changes and is designed to enable the industry to take account, and advantage, of long term strategic investment being made in Great Britain’s rail network. The planning horizon for the LTPP is over a 30-year context. This clearly involves uncertainties, however, the approach is intended to adapt to potential structural changes in the economy, and the approach to social and environmental responsibility, so that the rail industry can respond to change over the long-term life of the assets used to operate the rail network.

Due to the uncertainties of a 30-year horizon, the LTPP will be iterative; future planning cycles will enable an updated view to take into account the changing context and requirements of the industry and economy. An objective of the LTPP is to understand the longer-term context whilst creating a prioritised view of requirements for the next Control Periods (2019- 2029), in order to present a clear strategy for funding as part of the industry process. This commences with the submission of the Industry Advice later in 2016. Future iterations of the LTPP will evolve, identifying requirements for future Control Periods as part of this on-going process.


LTPP Governance Arrangements

The Long Term Planning Process is designed to be as inclusive as possible with contributions encouraged both from the rail industry and wider stakeholders. Overall governance responsibility for the process lies with the Rail Industry Planning Group (RIPG) whose membership comprises:

• Transport Scotland

• Freight Operators

• Network Rail

• Office of Rail and Road

• Transport Focus

• Passenger Transport Executive Group

• Rail Delivery Group

• Rail Freight Group

• Railway Industry Association

• Rail Freight Operators Association

• Rolling Stock Leasing Companies

• Department for Transport

• London Travel Watch

• Transport for London

• Welsh Government.

RIPG meets once every two months and provides strategic direction and endorsement of the constituent publications of the LTPP process.

The LTPP consists of a number of different elements, which, when taken together, seek to define the future capability of the rail network. These elements: - Market Studies, Route Studies, Cross-Boundary Analysis and the Network RUS are considered in more detail.

Market Studies

In October 2013, Network Rail published four Market Studies: Long Distance passenger, London & South East passenger, Regional Urban passenger and Freight. All four have been established by the ORR and are available on the Network Rail website.

The three passenger Market Studies have clear connections to the three ‘sectors’ in which passenger train services are often divided. It is important to emphasise that each Market Study considers a particular market, rather than a particular set of train services.

The passenger Market Studies have three key outputs:

• identification of the long term strategic goals which define the successful provision of rail services to each of the three market sectors. These are based on the aspirations of current and likely future industry funders

• Demand forecasts for the sector, over a 10 and 30-year planning horizon. Scenarios are used to reflect key uncertainties, where appropriate

• “conditional outputs” for the sector. The conditional outputs are aspirational levels of service (in terms of, for example, frequency journey time and/or passenger capacity on key flows in the sector). The conditional outputs reflect stakeholder views of how rail can support delivery of their strategic goals, and opportunities created by planned investments, as well as reflecting current service levels and forecast future demand. The aim of the Market Studies is to provide demand forecasts, and conditional outputs, that are consistent across the Route Studies.

For freight the conditional outputs are intended to meet the forecast level of freight set out in the Freight Market Study in 2023/24 and 2043. The Freight Market Study produced demand forecasts over a 10 and 30 year planning horizon, with preferred routeing of services and the implied requirements in terms of network capacity and capability. Scenarios were used to reflect key uncertainties in particular markets.

Conditional outputs should be viewed as aspirations for the future rather than recommended investment decisions.


It is also important to state that the conditional outputs shown are dependent on affordability, fundability, and a value for money business case for current and potential future rail industry funders being made for any interventions that this, and subsequent Route Studies, in the LTPP may consider as a way to deliver them. Equally the conditional outputs will need to be technologically, operationally and physically deliverable.

Route Studies

There is generally one Route Study for each of Network Rail’s devolved routes. The full Route Study programme setting out current timescales for each of the forthcoming Route Studies can be found on the Network Rail website .

The Scotland Route Study has undertaken a Market Study for passenger demand wholly within Scotland and incorporates relevant outputs from the Long Distance Market Study and Freight Market Study.

A Route Study develops and assesses choices for the long term use and development of the network. Its starting point is to determine whether the conditional outputs from the relevant Market Studies can be accommodated on the existing network, with committed enhancements. It then develops train service options, corresponding to different uses of the network, (and hence to different trade-offs between stakeholders strategic goals. Only then will consideration be given to choices involving infrastructure investment. These choices were assessed against funders’ decision making criteria. This includes quantitative assessment as in the previous RUS process.

It will also, where appropriate, include a wider assessment against factors such as strategic fit, wider economic impacts and affordability. ‘Choices for Funders’ identified within this and other route studies, are intended to inform the development of proposals to consider within rail industry funding discussions for Control Period 6/7. Equally, other potential rail industry funders, for instance Local Authorities, may wish to consider the information this Route Study contains, when taking forward their own plans and proposals which may impact upon the rail network.

Route Study Governance Arrangements

A three tier structure for rail industry and wider stakeholder dialogue has been established to oversee and help produce this Scotland Route Study.

First, a Route Study Board, chaired by Network Rail with senior level representation from passenger and freight train operating companies, Rail Delivery Group, Transport Scotland and the Office of Rail and Road provides a high level review and a forum to resolve any significant issues which the Working Group wish to remit to the board for decision.

Second, a Working Group, chaired by Network Rail had a mandate to discuss the study on behalf of the rail industry with other stakeholders and a review of the ongoing work to develop them. The Working Group is where stakeholders met to determine how the conditional outputs from the Market Studies could be accommodated, including identification of service specifications and options with the aim of developing choices to funders for Control Period 6/7 and for 2043 through publication of the Route Study.

The Working Group comprises representatives from the current Train Operating Companies (both passenger and freight) who operate on the route, Rail Delivery Group, Transport Scotland, Network Rail, and the Office of Rail and Road as an observer.

Thirdly, a Regional Working Group convened and chaired by Network Rail, provided location specific oversight as well as an opportunity to collaborate in the production of the Route Study with wider stakeholders. The Regional Working Group membership comprised Regional Transport Partnerships and some Local Authorities.

Network Rail managed the development of the work through an internal ‘Technical Working Group’ to deliver the information necessary to support the deliberations of the Working Group. Where industry input has been required, this has been augmented by attendance or discussions with rail industry stakeholders.


Cross-Boundary Analysis

Services that run across more than one Route Study area are considered in a separate “cross-boundary” workstream. This workstream led by a cross-boundary working group has developed and assessed options for cross-boundary services (passenger and freight) to deliver the connectivity conditional outputs articulated in the Market Studies. The output from the cross-boundary analysis is a cross-boundary indicative train service specification which provides a set of common assumptions that Route Studies should adopt regarding cross-boundary services.

Network RUSs

In addition Network Rail facilitates the production of Network RUSs. These strategies look at network-wide issues and look to future capacity and technology related issues for the railway. Current studies being undertaken under the auspices of the Network RUS include:-

Network RUS: Electrification: An Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy was established in 2009 and had a number of the electrification schemes proposed within that have been funded for delivery. In the future, Network Rail aims to issue a new Electrifictation Study to consider future options for electrfication in the longer term following the completion of publiciy committed schemes. The study will look at the case for further opportunities to develop the electrified network in Control Period 6/7 and beyond.

Network RUS: Freight: The Freight RUS was established in 2007 and a number of its recommendations to develop the Strategic Freight Network have been implemented. The Network RUS: Freight is looking at the future capability requirements of the network to accommodate freight growth and will consider:

• longer and heavier trains

• efficient operating characteristics and freight network

• performance

• 7-day and 24-hour capability – including diversionary routes and resilience

• loading gauge

• strategic rail freight interchanges and terminals

• axle load

• freight train journey time and maximum speed.

When considering capacity the Network RUS: Freight will primarily focus on capacity for cross-boundary freight flows. Where different commodities on a corridor have specific requirements this will be identified. It will bring together Route Study strategies on major cross-boundary freight programmes, for example:

• Anglo Scottish traffic

• Felixstowe to Nuneaton

• Southampton to the West Coast Main Line

• Northern Ports and Trans Pennine Freight Study

• South West and Wales to the Midlands.

Route specific capacity issues are being considered by the individual Route Studies.

Network RUS: Interoperability: the Department for Transport (DfT) has requested Network Rail to lead a cross-industry review of Interoperability on the UK rail network. The outcome of this review is expected to be the publication of the Network RUS: Interoperability in 2016. The aim is to establish this RUS in sufficient time to inform the Initial Industry Advice in late 2016. The content of the RUS will complement the Scotland and other Route Studies.

The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 and associated Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) apply to the entire UK rail network with the exception of the exclusions defined on the DfT web-site1.

Network Rail, along with other Infrastructure Managers in the UK, is legally obliged to comply with the Interoperability Regulations when the nature of the works being undertaken so requires.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exclusions-from-the-railways-interoperability-regulations-2011

Scotland’s Route Study Governance Arrangements

Route Study Board

Route Study Working Group

Regional Working Group Route Study TechnicalWorking Group

Cross-Boundary Working Group

Wider Stakeholders

Figure 1.1 - shows the governance arrangements.


European and UK legislation defining objectives for Interoperability and the Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T) will be taken into account in the development of this Route Study. Network Rail and the wider rail industry have sound practical experience in applying the respective regulations and associated TSIs. The experience has been used to good effect to:

• demonstrate legal compliance with the requirements and provide feedback to government and the European Railway Agency on practical issues of application

• leveraging the benefits associated with the Interoperability principles

• developing plans to assess the full potential of an interoperable network, including connectivity with continental Europe.

There are a number of established Network RUSs that are considered as part of the development of this Route Study, these include:

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock: This strategy explores the potential for greater efficiency in the purchase of new rolling stock to replace the existing fleet and accommodate growth in demand. The RUS identified the potential for significant economies of scale through procuring a smaller, standardised range of stock types targeted at specific market sectors.

Network RUS: Stations: This strategy provides guidance about potential interventions to relieve congestion at stations.

Network RUS: Alternative Solutions: This strategy describes the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to consider the operation of alternative forms of public transport than conventional diesel or electric heavy rail. This includes the use of tram trains, the conversion of sections of the network for use by trams, the use of battery powered vehicles, hybrid light vehicles, personal rapid transit (such as the pods which serve business car parks from Terminal 5 at Heathrow), bus rapid transit and guided bus. It also considers the circumstances in which discontinuous electrification and ‘coasting’ could reduce the cost of electrification schemes, and when the designation of a route or service to ‘community rail status’ could increase patronage on the railway in a cost effective manner.

Further information on the Long Term Planning Process, can be found on Network Rail’s website.


Scotland Market StudyModelling Documentation - Background

Background to Scotland Market Study and Definition of Markets

The Long Term Planning Process (LTPP), described in Appendix 1, is the rail industry’s planning cycle, of which the Scotland Route Study is an important element. The Route Study programme is the successor to the programme of Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs) that informed the enhancement programme up to and including Control Period 5 (CP5).

In regulatory terms, the Route Studies contribute to satisfying Network Rail’s obligation under the Network Management and Planning terms of its Network Licence to:

”plan the means by which it will […] over the short, medium and long term […] meet reasonably foreseeable future demand for railway services”.

The key difference between the LTPP and the RUS programmes is that the LTPP covers a far longer (30 year) timeframe than the RUSs.

The reason for this extended forecasting window is that an incremental approach to infrastructure planning is unlikely to deliver the network that long term passenger growth may require in an efficient way given the strong growth that has been experienced since the mid-1990s. The LTPP takes the view that taking a longer, 30-year window - which is consistent with infrastructure asset lives - is the appropriate way to plan investment in railway infrastructure.

The initial outputs of the LTPP so far have been four Market Studies covering the key market served by the GB rail network, together with the Route Studies. The Market Studies published to date are as follows:

• Regional Urban Market Study

• Long Distance Market Study

• London and South East Market Study

• Freight Market Study

The Scotland Route Study draws upon evidence from the Long Distance and Freight Market Studies.

Domestic demand in Scotland was not covered by the Market Study

programme. As a result of this, a Scotland Market Study has been produced to provide the demand forecasting evidence to support the Scotland Route Study. The passenger markets considered are:

• Morning Peak Commuter

• Interurban

• Rural.

This document describes the methodology employed to produce demand forecasts for these markets, including:

• assumptions made

• sources of data

• processes used to validate the forecasts.

Scotland Market Study Demand Forecasting Outputs

The purpose of the Route Study programme is to provide options to funders in order to inform and influence the content of both the Industry Advice and the High Level Output Specifications (HLOSs) issued by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland.

The remit for the Scotland Market Study is to develop demand forecasts for the final year of CP6 (2023/24) and for twenty years beyond this (2043). The remit agreed by the Working Group was as follows:

• Establish an estimate of actual rail demand for 2014

• Develop baseline forecasts for 2012 and 2018, reflecting current rail investment plans for CP5 committed obligations for the new ScotRail franchise and Transport Scotland’s road investment plans

• Produce scenario-based forecasts for 2023/24 and 2043 drawing on the framework and evidence developed for the Regional Urban Market Study.

The forecasts were developed to (a) set capacity-related Conditional Outputs where network capability is unlikely to meet the requirements of the market and (b) inform the appraisal of schemes developed to meet these Conditional Outputs.


Morning Peak Commuter Markets

The market where train capacity is likely to be most constrained is the Morning Peak Commuter market. This section sets out the approach to forecasting demand in the Morning Peak Commuter market.

For the purposes of the Route Study, the Morning Peak Commuter markets are defined as existing in and around cities where there are significant commuting flows. The Working Group agreed that for the purposes of the Scotland Market Study the Morning Peak Commuter market should be defined as consisting of:

• Glasgow

• Edinburgh

• Aberdeen.

Using Figure 2.1 as an example, commuter demand tends to be more concentrated in the morning peak than in the evening peak, the morning peak is therefore where any capacity constraint is likely to initially apply. It is for this reason that demand in the morning peak has been modelled.

One output of the Morning Peak Commuter market element of the Scotland Route Study is the identification of current and future capacity constraints on the key routes into city centres. It therefore needs to know which services are likely to become capacity constrained and which year the crowding constraint is likely to first apply.

Interurban Markets

For the purposes of the Route Study, Interurban markets are defined as the demand for travel between the seven cities in Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth, Dundee and Stirling). The key journey purposes in this market are business and leisure travel, but commuting will also be important. The routes covered will be as follows reference Figure 2.2:

• Glasgow-Aberdeen via Stirling, Perth and Dundee

• Glasgow-Inverness via Stirling and Perth

• Edinburgh-Inverness via Perth

• Edinburgh-Aberdeen via Dundee

• Aberdeen-Inverness

The scope of the Morning Peak Commuter market demand study means that there is a potential overlap with the Interurban market. It is important to note, however, that the purpose of the Morning Peak Commuter market demand forecast is to identify routes where capacity is constrained in the morning peak because of commuting demand.

With the Interurban market, demand is less peaked and the factors that are likely to influence investment are broader in scope than they are in the Morning Peak Commuter market. So, while on-train capacity is an issue in the Interuban market, other factors such as journey times and opportunities to travel may be equally important.

Some corridors serve both the Interurban and Morning Peak Commuter markets. Where this is the case, both demand forecasts will be applied based on the balance of 2014 revenue.

Rural markets

The markets where capacity is most likely to be most constrained in terms of infrastructure capacity are the Morning Peak Commuter and the Interurban markets. However, although demand in Rural markets tends to be significantly lower than in other markets, it can also be subject to significant variation depending on the time of day, week or season that the service is operating.

Localised demand can also be significant – for instance schools traffic or localised employment – while capacity is often constrained by asset capability.

In terms of journey purpose, leisure travel is the primary driver of rail use but commuting will also be important in some markets. Extended journey times on many rural routes mean that rail often cannot compete with road on journey times and car ownership tends to be higher in rural markets than it is in urban markets. These factors point towards a bespoke approach being suitable for rural Figure 2.1 – Profile of demand throughout the day at Glasgow Central

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pass

enge

rs

Weekday Passengers Saturday Passengers Sunday Passengers


routes than for Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban Markets.

For the purposes of the Route Study, rural markets are defined as the following routes:

• Glasgow to Oban/Fort William/Mallaig

• Glasgow to Stranraer

• Glasgow to Carlisle via Dumfries

• Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh/Wick/Thurso.

It was originally intended to treat the Borders Railway between Edinburgh and Tweedbank as a Rural Market, but this has instead been considered as part of the Morning Peak Commuter Market in order to reflect the passenger numbers experienced to date. Inverness Aberdeen

Perth Dundee

Glasgow Edinburgh

Figure 2.2 – Diagram of the Interurban network in Scotland


Establishing a picture of actual demand in 2014 As with the other Route Studies carried out throughout CP5, the most recent demand year at the date the study commenced (2014) has been used as the point at which base demand is estimated.

In order to estimate base year demand, three potential approaches were identified each with advantages and disadvantages:

• MOIRA1 demand forecasts for 2014 (based on 2014 LENNON 2ticket sales data)

• Ticket gateline count data

• On-train count data.

MOIRA demand forecasts

MOIRA is the industry demand forecasting model, the base data of which is derived from the LENNON ticket sales database. LENNON records nearly all tickets sold on the rail network in Great Britain with the exception of certain operator-specific tickets and some types of promotional fares . Given these are low in volume, the LENNON database can be treated as being a valid representation of origins and destinations across the network, albeit at an extremely aggregate level.

The advantage of using MOIRA is that it has universal coverage by route and by train. It is also based on actual ticket sales so it should be accurate at a population level.

The disadvantages of using MOIRA are as follows:

• MOIRA is not a primary data source. It is itself a model based on LENNON ticket sales. As such, it is subject to modelling error

• The size of the London and South East commuter market (where, for reasons of crowding, demand is pushed into the shoulder peak) arguably distorts the results that MOIRA predicts for services outside the South East. Demand in Scotland tends to be ‘peakier’ than MOIRA predicts

1 MOIRA is an industry demand forecasting tool which applies LENNON base data to individual train services.2 LENNON is the rail industry ticket sales database, which reflects most journeys that are made on the GB rail network.

• MOIRA does not reflect demand resulting from some types of operator-specific ticket sales, principally the multi-journey Flexi Pass sold on the Edinburgh-Glasgow via Falkirk High route.

Ticket gateline count data

Transport Scotland has funded the installation of ticket gatelines at most of the key stations on the network in Scotland, primarily for revenue protection purposes. As it stands, approximately 80 per cent of journeys within Scotland have a gatelined station at one end of the journey, and this is likely to be far higher in the urban markets.

The ticket gatelines capture a breadth of travel data including the journey origin, destination, time at gateline and ticket type (peak, off-peak, season). They do not assign any of these journeys to individual trains.

Nearly all stations defined as city centre stations in and around Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have had gatelines installed. The exceptions to this are High Street, Partick and South Gyle. Edinburgh Waverley is partially gated: the long distance platforms are not gated, but most platforms served by ‘domestic’ traffic are. Table 2.1 lists the gated stations within each of the city centres.

Gateline data has four principal limitations as far as estimating base demand is concerned. They are:

• Gatelines will only record limited origin data on ‘other’ ticket types (e.g. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) Zone Cards) and, with regard to season tickets, there may be some instances (particularly in Glasgow), where origin stations being located close to one another may mean that a season ticket at one station may well be used frequently on other services.

• Gatelines will not pick up origins where the destination is not a city centre station (e.g. South Gyle to the west of Edinburgh).

• In addition, gateline data does not pick up failures with the ticket or with the gateline equipment. However, these failures are not thought to be correlated with the journey taken, and can potentially be either stripped out completely or repaired using the data that does exist.

Table 2.1 – Gated stations in key urban areas

City Gatelined City Centre Stations

Glasgow Glasgow Central (High Level and Low Level)

Glasgow Queen Street (High Level and Low Level)

Argyle Street

Charing Cross

Edinburgh Waverley

Haymarket

Aberdeen Aberdeen


• At Edinburgh Waverley the ‘long distance’ platforms are not gated but are staffed. This is problematic as suburban services also use these platforms during peak periods and long distance services are an important source of passenger capacity during peak periods.

On-Train count data

On-train count data provides exactly the right type of data for this study. On-train counts record passenger loadings on specific trains at specific points on their journey. ScotRail carries out on-train passenger counts using the following two methodologies:

• Automatic counts, which are carried out on the Class 380 trains. The only route where these trains are diagrammed 100 per cent of the time is the Edinburgh-North Berwick service and may also be useful for many (but not all) Ayrshire Coast services

• Manual on-train counts, which are carried out on an annual or biannual basis. These counts are relevant for all services.

However, across most of the network on-train counts are only carried out periodically (once or twice a year), so they cannot be considered to be statistically robust. Some automatic train counts are carried out, recording loads on every train, but the coverage of these counts is poor at present.

Approach followed

The coverage and quality of both the on-train count data and the gateline were adjudged to be of insufficient quality to form the basis of base demand for all corridors. Therefore, the decision was made to use MOIRA/LENNON as the primary source of data for estimating baseline (2014) demand.

Where the quality of on-train counts and gateline data was deemed to be good, these data sources have been used to validate MOIRA/LENNON results, particularly in profiling the peak– an area where MOIRA is known to have limitations – and to capture the full range of tickets issued on the Scottish network. This has enabled the 2014 baseline to be validated by ScotRail.

Adjustments to baseline demand

The consultation process identified two areas for improving the base data. The first area was that rail journeys undertaken on multi-modal Zonecard tickets promoted by (SPT) are not included in the LENNON database. An exercise was therefore undertaken based on assigning the total number of rail journeys to corridors using SPT travel diaries.

The second area of improvement relates to the Edinburgh-Glasgow via Falkirk route, where MOIRA differed significantly from the count data. LENNON does not include the ScotRail Flexipass ticket that is a popular product on that route. Because the count data was strong on this particular route, it was preferred to the MOIRA estimate on this corridor.


Modelling demand growth High level modelling approach

After considering a number of potential alternatives, the Working Group supported the development of a specific model to examine the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban Markets in Scotland and to use the ScotRail demand forecast as the basis of the Rural Market forecast.

The decision to construct bespoke models to estimate demand in the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets reflected:

• Consistency of approach across Market Studies: The aim of the Market Studies has been to present evidence on demand as consistently as possible across the network independent of the identity of the primary funder

• Transparency - As the Market Study is part of an industry process, the modelling that informs it has to be transparent in terms of the assumptions made so that it has credibility within the industry. All models require careful interpretation, and transparency of what assumptions have and have not been made is important in enabling this

• Flexibility – The 30-year time frame of the Market Study means that the forecasting approach is scenario based. The modelling had to be flexible enough to allow for carrying out a large number of scenario runs

• Using the best data available to reflect a rail-specific demand forecasting requirement. This has utilised the wealth of information contained within TMfS1/CSTM2 whilst deviating from it in certain areas where it was necessary to do so (e.g. city centre parking).

The modelling framework adopted follows a market size/market share approach developed for the Regional Urban Market Study (RUMS). The key features of this approach are as follows:

1 TMfS is a multimodal transport model covering most of Scotland2 CSTM is a multimodal transport model covering the Central Belt of Scotland

• Market size model – This estimates the size of the total market for travel in Scotland based on the key drivers for growth that were identified in the Regional Urban Market Study(RUMS). For the Morning Peak Commuter market, the RUMS identified city centre employment growth as being the principal driver of the overall demand for travel into city centres in the morning peak. In the Interurban market, the evidence in the Long Distance Market Study (LDMS) identified population growth as being the principal driver of overall demand for travel. Total market size is estimated for each origin-destination pair (although in the Morning Peak Commuter model, only city centre destinations are selected).

• Market share model – The market share model estimates rail market share for each origin and destination pair based on the relative ‘attractiveness’ of rail relative to other modes. Generalised cost is used as a proxy for the perceived ‘attractiveness’ of each mode. Market shares are estimated using a hierarchical logit approach

Due to the size of the TMfS/CSTM data sets approximately 0.5 million lines of data in TMfS and 1.1 million lines of data in CSTM), the model could not be constructed in Excel. It was instead constructed in Access 2010.

Key Assumptions

The main data source for the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban models is TMfS and CSTM respectively. Cost and demand ‘skims’ were supplied by Transport Scotland’s consultants (Jacobs) for 2012 and 2018.

Forecasts were completed for 2012 and 2018 based on this data, with scenarios being applied thereafter.

The data received from Jacobs reflected a number of infrastructure and policy assumptions.


The infrastructure assumptions are as follows:

Assumed Infrastructure

Committed Road schemes are:

• M8 completion

• A9 Upgrade

• A90 Balmeddie to Tipperty Dualling

• Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR)

• Queensferry Crossing (Forth Replacement Crossing)

• M74 Raith Interchange

• Inveramsey Bridge Improvement.

Committed Rail schemes are:

• Borders Rail – completed 2015

• Aberdeen to Inverness Phase 1

• Highland Main Line Phase 2

• EGIP (Key outputs 1, 2, 3 and 4)

• Glasgow to Paisley service improvements.

Rail Fare Assumptions

The rail policy assumptions relate to fares, as per the ScotRail franchise agreement. They are:

• Peak fares: increase in line with inflation as measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI)

• Off-peak fares: increase in line with inflation, minus one per cent (RPI-1 per cent).

Bus Fare and Journey Time Assumptions

Bus fare and journey times are as per TMfS/CSTM for 2012 and 2018.

Assumed Car Use Costs

Generalised Journey Times (GJTs), Car distances, and rail/bus fares were provided by Transport Scotland/Jacobs from CSTM and TMfS. Rail and bus GJTs and fares were estimated by Jacobs. Rail and bus GJTs included in-vehicle time and access/interchange times.

All other explicit assumptions are derived from the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) Technical Database Economy Spreadsheet (http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag/)

These consist of:

• Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC)

• Fuel-related car costs: Average Vehicle Fuel / Energy Cost Formulae Parameter Values (p, 2010 prices): Work/Non-Work (Excluding VAT)

• Non-Fuel car costs: Forecast Non-Fuel Resource Vehicle Operating Costs (2010 prices)

• Values of time (Perceived cost values, £ per hour (2010 prices)). As per TMfS, car driver values of time are assumed.

Parking Cost Assumptions

Parking costs are derived from TMfS for 2012, but separate assumptions have been developed for 2018. The reason for this is that TMfS assumes no real-term increase in parking costs, which doesn’t reflect the limited evidence we have available. The following assumptions have been made with respect to parking:

• In-work parking costs are assumed to be zero, reflecting an assumption that employees can claim costs back and will therefore not perceive the full cost of parking

• Parking costs are applied in defined city centre zones. The mapping set out in TMfS is out of date, but it is understood that the zones assumed to be parking zones approximately match the parking zones defined in TMfS.

• Parking costs are assumed for non-work commute and non-work other trips. In the Morning Peak Commuter model the TMfS assumption that 15 per cent of trips do not result in a car being


parked (i.e. the purpose of the journey is to drop someone off) and that another 40 per cent of trips result in private, non-residential parking at zero cost is followed. Parking costs are therefore spread over all trips at the rate of 45 per cent.

• In the Interurban model (which uses inter-peak data), it is assumed that short stay parking is used. It is assumed (following TMfS) that 80 per cent of trips will incur parking charges and so the cost of parking is applied at this rate.

• TMfS assumes no real term growth in the cost of parking, however the model does not include this assumption because it does not reflect the evidence (from City Parking detailed 10 per cent increases in parking costs in FY2013/14). It is recognised that the evidence base for parking is poor, and highly reliant on anecdotal evidence. To reflect this, a real terms growth rate in the cost of parking of 3 per cent per annum has been applied between 2012 and 2018, with different growth rates applied thereafter depending on which scenario is assumed. This divergence from TMfS reflects:

– The requirement on local councils to reduce vehicle emissions in line with European Law. It is understood that much of the policy response to this is likely to focus on buses and Heavy Goods Vehicles. However, it is understood that a reduction in overall traffic levels is likely to be pursued in Glasgow

– The increasing importance of parking charges as a source of revenue for local councils. It may be that charges are capped to marginal cost of providing parking, but where free parking is currently provided (e.g. at stations) it is understood that many councils are looking at charging at previously uncharged locations

– Increased competition for development land in city centre locations will inevitably increase the return on capital required from private car parks. No explicit assumption is made for parking search time. Parking search time is included in the assumptions made for GJT.

Population and Employment Assumptions

Population and employment forecasts are derived from TELMoS3 up to 2018, with the 2018 data being interpolated from 2017 and 2022 data.

No assumptions have been made to attempt to disaggregate forecast employment into different employment types (which may have different propensities to travel by rail). However, scenario employment growth rates are based on employment types that are associated with city centre employment activities.

Market size model

The market size model sums the total demand for travel for 2012 and 2018. Post-2018 demand is estimated by applying growth to the 2018 total demand based on the key drivers identified for each market under consideration, following RUMS and the LDMS. The factors are:

• City centre employment growth as the driver of the Morning Peak Commuter Market

• Population growth as the driver of the Interurban market.

These assumptions are based on the findings of the Regional Urban Market Study and the Long Distance Market Study which found that modelling for other potential demand drivers (demographics and car ownership) did not materially affect the forecasts given the additional complexity they introduce into the modelling.

Total transport demand estimates were taken from TMfS/CSTM forecasts for 2012 and 2018 and growth factors for both variables were contained in the scenarios developed for 2023 and 2043.

Total demand is estimated at a zone-to-zone level of granularity.

Market Share model

Overview

3 TELMoS (Transport and Economic Land-use Model of Scotland), provides independant demographic planning and economic forecasts which form the basis for future travel demands. It underpins many of the assumptions on which both CSTM and TMfS are based.Figure 2.3 – Market Share model structure

Decision Level 1

Decision Level 2

Car PT

RailBus


The market share element of the model considers two decisions on the part of transport users. The first (Level 1) decision is the decision between car and public transport (PT). The second (Level 2) decision is, for PT users, between rail and bus.

Rail market share is estimated by multiplying level 1 market share (car versus PT) by the level 2 market share (rail versus bus). PT costs in the level 1 market share model were estimated based on implied market shares from the level 1 decision.

The model structure is displayed in Figure 2.6.

Functional Form

The functional form of the market share model is as follows:

Where:

• MSi is the market share of mode i

• GCi is the generalised cost of a journey by mode i consisting of:

– In vehicle time / access time

– Interchange time

– Ticket price/marginal cost of motoring

• α is the degree of responsiveness to differences in generalised cost (known as the Mode Share Parameter or MSP). As Figure 2.4 illustrates, the value of the Mode Share Parameter is important for determining rail market share: a higher α value suggests that the market is more responsive to cost variances than a lower α value.

The model is calibrated by adjusting the Level 1 and Level 2 MSPs.

Total Rail Demand Forecast

Total rail demand is estimated by multiplying the modelled estimate of rail market share by the modelled estimate of total transport demand for each forecast year.

For the Interurban market, all station origin-destination (O-D) pairs were utilised for the forecast; for the Morning Peak Commuter market, the dataset was filters so that only those O-D pairs where the destination zone was in a defined city centre zone were considered.

City centre zones were defined as follows:

• For Aberdeen and Edinburgh, a 2km cordon was drawn around the main stations (Aberdeen, Waverley and Haymarket) and major rail-served development areas outside these cordons (Dyce/South Gyle/Edinburgh Park/Edinburgh Gateway) were also included

• For Glasgow, where there are more stations in and around the city centre core, a cordon was drawn linking those stations where current (2014) demand on trains is at its peak. For instance, loads on North Electric services accessing Glasgow Queen Street Low Level from the west tend to be at their peak loading at Partick or Charing Cross.

Assigning demand to corridors

The model forecasts demand for station pairs. It does not assign demand to corridors. Assigning demand to corridors is essential as it is only then that demand can be compared to on-train capacity.

Assignment of zones to stations is carried out on the basis of geographical proximity.

This part of the process was spreadsheet-based and utilised the data tables prepared for developing the connectivity-based conditional outputs.

Figure 2.4 – Deriving Forecast Rail Demand

Total MarketSize

Rail MarketShare

Forecast RailDemand

X

MSi = e

∑e

-αGCi

-αGCij

ii

ii


Once a station O-D pair has been assigned to a corridor, a corridor growth factor was then applied to a MOIRA download for May 2014 in the Capacity Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (adjusted from the 2012-based growth rates), to which rolling stock capacities had been applied. This enabled the identification of which corridors are likely to become capacity constrained in different time bands.

Limitations of the Market Share / Market Size Approach

The approach to modelling that was ratified by the Working Group represents a significant step forward for forecasting rail demand in Scotland. The models for the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets are able to forecast demand on a corridor-by-corridor basis – something which has not been feasible before.

It needs to be recognised, though, that the approach selected has limitations of its own. These can be categorised as follows:

Limitations of scope

The models have been developed to be as parsimonious as possible (i.e. to explain as much variation as possible with the minimum number of explanatory variables). This is generally good modelling practice, but it increases the risk of omitting variables that could explain some variation in demand. Potential omitted variables include car ownership, demographics and destination choice.

In each of the markets that it covers, the model focuses on either the origin (in the case of the Interurban market) or the destination (in the case of the Morning Peak Commuter markets) but not both. For instance (using the Morning Peak Commuter model for Aberdeen), the model will grow the number of trips according to employment growth at the destination. What it won’t do is capture any changes in the distribution of population at the origin: the distribution of trip originations is held constant.

The model does not include data for tram or subway use. The model was constructed to allow for these modes, but the dataset for them was not complete so they were ‘switched off’ in the model. Future versions of the model could include these if the database is amended.

Weak assumptions/data

The model takes account of parking charges in city centres. Both

TMfS and CSTM include an allowance for parking costs in city centre zones, but both TMfS/CSTM assume that the supply of parking is infinitely elastic – i.e. that parking costs remain the same in real terms in future years. This assumption has been amended in our modelling because the evidence strongly suggests that this may not be realistic. The evidence base on parking, however, is recognised to be weak.

The use of a single driver to grow overall market size simplifies the reasons people travel where and when they do – i.e. accessing employment not the only source of commuting (studying, access to services etc).

TMfS/CSTM zoning issues: TMfS and CSTM are both built up from trip matrices between origin and destination zones. The size and shape of these zones, together with the nodes that sit within them, can have an impact on the model results and require careful interpretation. This is particularly the case where the zones are large (e.g. around Aberdeen and Inverness). Cost data is estimated from the node, and this can lead to demand being assigned that does not reflect the reality of where people live.

Modelling limitations

• The model uses two mode share parameters. The Rail vs Bus Mode Share Parameter is -0.6 and the car vs Public Transport parameter has been set to -0.25 following the calibration exercise. This implies (a) that people are more sensitive to cost variability in rail vs bus decision than they are when deciding whether the drive or use public transport and (b) that their sensitivity to cost is independent of their journey purpose. Both of these are simplifying assumptions, but both could be easily amended given how the model is structured

• The model includes all journey purposes in its estimate of total market size. This could be amended to filter out non-applicable journey purposes

• It is important to note that the models intentionally make no allowance for crowding. The reason for this is that the purpose of the Route Study is to start with an unconstrained vision of conditional outputs (including demand) which have further assumptions applied (including crowding) at the appraisal stageFigure 2.5 – Sample output from Capacity Analysis Spreadsheet Tool

67%

129%

219%

116%

166%

114%125%

105%92%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth to Glasgow

Passenger Growth vs Available Seats

Long Interurban into Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


• This assignment of origin and destination zones is potentially problematic (a) when zones are large and (b) when there is a high concentration of stations

• The Interurban forecasts are based on single leg journeys. In principle, the decision to travel will factor in the return leg. This could be factored in to the analysis by adding costs for the two journey legs together and then applying the market share decisions to the costs.

Model Calibration

The purpose of the model is to estimate the growth in rail demand given changes in the explanatory variables identified in the Regional Urban Market Study.

Because of this, although the growth factors produced are applied to actual data (LENNON or on-train counts), the overall rail demand forecasts cannot be calibrated to these. The reasons are that:

• The mode choice decision does not factor in qualitative aspects

• The mode choice decision does not factor in mode choice inertia (i.e. habit).

For this reason, the model has been calibrated against TMfS/CSTM which make broadly similar assumptions (although TMfS/CSTM are considerably more complex models). These have been compared to ScotRail forecasts and to MOIRA as a sense check.

Having compared the model forecast with forecast rail demand from CSTM/TMfS, an exercise was carried out to explain the differences between the model forecast and the rail forecast in TMfS/CSTM

The principal differences related to

• The mode share parameter values

• The extent to which certain parts of the market are captive to public transport

• The extent to which people change their choice of destination on the basis of the transport offer.

Mode share parameterThe MSP is the key element to LOGIT modelling. The MSP amplifies user responses to difference in overall (generalised) costs. A high MSP (approaching -1) implies highly responsive markets; a low MSP (approaching zero) implies highly unresponsive markets. In general, MSPs for choices between PT modes are higher than MSPs for choices between PT and car.

In principle, different MSPs can be applied for different times of day and different journey purposes. They are also likely to be higher where costs explain a high level of demand variability.

TMfS/CSTM has a suite of MSPs, but for reasons of simplicity two values have been used in our models – one for PT versus Car and one for Rail versus Bus.

PT Captive MarketIn practice, mode choice is not only driven by marginal transport costs. Investment in a car is a major cost for households and car ownership is likely to vary significantly depending on parking availability, household income, residential density and other factors. All these factors mean that PT demand from some zones is likely to be far higher than would be implied by cost alone.

TMfS/CSTM attempts to capture this by taking a certain proportion of journeys out of the car vs PT mode choice model. This process is not done within the model, and this explains some of the difference between them.

Destination ChoiceFor some journey purposes (for instance commuting) journey destinations are fixed in the short run. For other journey purposes, however, this is not necessarily the case, and changes in journey times may lead to different destinations being selected if it takes longer to get to their preferred destination. This has not been modelled.

Overall ResultsThe overall calibration process suggested that model forecast approximately 10 per cent more rail demand in both 2012 and 2018 than TMfS/CSTM. This is acceptable because the purpose of the calibration exercise was to achieve consistency of outcome rather than to estimate actual flows.


Interpreting forecasts Caveats on modelling

The models described here are designed to estimate rates of growth in demand at a corridor level and at given time intervals. The Morning Peak Commuter model reflects conditions in a peak hour between 07:00 and 10:00; the Interurban model reflects conditions in an average hour between 10:00 and 16:00.

Models such as these are potentially open to misinterpretation, and great care must be taken to ensure that this does not occur.

The growth rates derived from these models are suitable for appraisal purposes, but because the forecasts are scenario based, care should be taken to ensure that an appropriate scenario is applied and that a range of scenarios is considered.

The modelling permits a consistent comparison between potential rail schemes that reflect market conditions at a high level. However, reference should still be made to scenarios as some assumptions are market-specific.

What should be made clear is that the models are not suitable for revenue forecasts or to estimate crowding.

They lack the flexibility to model the impact of additional services, and are sensitive to issues relating to TMfS/CSTM zone sizes.

These factors should be reflected when discussing model outputs.

How do the forecasts inform project appraisals?

Scheme appraisals have been carried out using a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Model, developed by Network Rail. The baseline demand data for the DCF model is derived from MOIRA – either using MOIRA Arc data or – where specific services are being added – MOIRA Timetable Manager.

Future demand in the appraisals will use the outputs of this model. Where a corridor has been modelled in both the Morning Peak Commuter and the Interurban models, growth will be weighted according to 2014 ticket splits (with Morning Peak Commuter being assigned to Full and Season tickets and Interurban demand to Reduced tickets.).

Rural Market Forecasts

Approach used to model Rural Market

The Working Group agreed that demand in Rural markets should be estimated using the forecast supporting the ScotRail franchise as this only runs to 2027, trend growth has been applied to this to reflect background growth.

Why does the approach used to forecast growth in Rural Markets differ from that used to forecast growth in Commuter and Interurban Markets?

Rural markets tend to have high levels of tourist-related traffic and low levels of business travel. Demand is often extremely variable depending on the season. For this reason, the modelling framework used to estimate demand in the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets is not appropriate.

TMfS zones in rural areas are large, and this could potentially distort demand as populations in rural areas are by definition dispersed.

The ScotRail demand model is more likely to pick up qualitative aspects which other modelling is unable to do.

Key Assumptions

The Rural market model follows the ScotRail bid model, including the fares assumption for off-peak journeys of RPI-1 per cent1.

The ScotRail model is predicated on the operator filling seats in the off-peak. Applying a growth trend post-2027 assumes that this fares policy continues.

1 The Retail Price Index (RPI) is an index that is used to reflect the change in price over time of a representative basket of goods. The Scottish Government’s policy for the current ScotRail franchise is to apply RPI minus 1% to all off-peak fares issued by the francise.


Scotland Market Study – Scenario DevelopmentBackground

Introduction and Background

As discussed earlier in this section, the purpose of the Scotland Route Study is to provide funders with investment choices for both the medium (2019-2029) and the long term (2043). The purpose of demand forecasting is to inform these choices so that they take account of uncertain future demand and thus reduce (but not eliminate) planning risks. The nature of these risks can be categorised on the upside as crowded trains and on the downside as underused (or “stranded”) assets.

The world in 2043 is likely to be very different to the world today, in ways that cannot be fully anticipated. Forecasting over this timeframe is therefore inherently problematic, which is why a scenario-based approach has been adopted for the forecasts. These scenarios draw on (a) the scenarios developed for the RUMS (b) the modelling assumptions used in Transport Scotland’s models and STAG1 and (c) include relevant evidence collected from stakeholders.

The aim of the scenarios is not to predict the future; it is to develop future visions of the markets that are consistent with (a) the current state of Scotland (i.e. “where are we?”) and (b) while being consistent with a set of broad economic and social outcomes (i.e. “where we are going?”) by developing a credible (albeit stylised) social and economic narrative (i.e. “how will we get there?”).

One key aspect to the scenarios is that they are developed expressly to reflect extreme positions and that no “central case” scenario has been developed. The reason for this is for the scenarios to work well, no one scenario should be viewed as being any more likely than the others.

How the scenarios (and the forecasts that they underpin) are interpreted is a key challenge of this approach. The forecasts produced as a result of this exercise have been used to inform the Capacity-related Conditional Outputs and to inform the appraisal of schemes produced by the Technical Working Group and throughout CP6.

1 STAG is Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance

It is worth noting that although the highest growth scenario has been used to inform the Capacity-related Conditional Outputs, the scheme appraisals will take account of the full range of the scenarios developed.


Overall Modelling Framework Overall Framework

Although there are a large number of factors that could potentially influence the market for rail travel, the modelling approach has been to narrow these demand drivers down to eight key assumptions.

These assumptions are:

• Values of Time for rail and car users

• Population and employment growth

• Road-based generalised journey times

• Rail-based generalised journey times

• Car fuel costs

• Car non-fuel costs

• Rail fares

• The cost of parking in city centres.

This section describes how these scenario assumptions have been derived by analysing the key economic linkages that drive them, and presenting a set of assumptions that are broadly logically consistent with the overall premise of each scenario.

The overall framework consists of:

• Wider economic factors

• Government and political factors

• Population geography and demographic factors.

Wider Economic Factors

A simple way to categorise economic drivers of demand is to separate them into so-called supply-side factors and demand-side factors. In practice, it is difficult to define a clear delineation between the two sides of the market, as impacts on the demand-side of the market for transport (e.g. congestion) clearly affect (supply-side) costs (i.e. the time it takes to get to work). In the model the supply side generally relates to the market share model whilst the demand side relates to the market size model.

Market Share Factors

The supply side of the model relates to the costs facing users of transport. These costs include the financial costs of motoring (fuel costs, non-fuel costs) the financial cost of travelling by rail or bus (fare costs) and the perceived costs of travel time, expressed as a financial value of time. All of these factors will be affected by overall levels of demand in the economy.

Values of time are related to the demand side of the model: in the long run, economic growth as expressed in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is taken to be a function of increased productivity. In turn, productivity can be expressed as an increase in the value of time (as increased productivity increases the opportunity cost of non-productive time).

Clearly, the underlying value of time will vary across the economy, with productivity increasing more in some locations, occupations and industries than in others.

Factors which might lead to increased productivity are:

• A more capital-intensive economy

• A higher skilled workforce

• Reduced costs of production (including transport costs).

Evidence to date suggests that rail markets tend to support the output of relatively high productivity occupations, so rail users tend to have a higher value of time than users of other modes of surface transport. However, rail passengers’ on-train travel time tends to be more productive (in terms of work) than other modes which partially offsets these higher values of time.

The scenarios therefore reflect (a) the sensitivity of costs to the overall level of economic activity, (b) how productivity at a macro level is likely to grow, (c) the extent to which rail user and non-rail user productivities are likely to converge or diverge and (d) the extent to which travel time can be used productively on rail and other modes.

Market Size Factors

All other things remaining equal, higher rates of economic growth will tend to be associated with higher levels of consumption and


aggregate demand. Because transport is a so-called ‘derived’ demand, an increase in aggregate demand will increase the size of the overall transport market. As discussed, it will also feed back into the supply side of the market as parking costs, congestion, fuel and non-fuel costs.

The extent to which overall transport demand is likely to respond to an increase in aggregate demand is likely to depend in part on how income is distributed across society, with more even income distributions tending to be associated with consumption (and therefore transport demand) being more responsive to an increase in income.

The scenarios therefore need to consider a range of possible growth-related factors including (a) what the global economic environment is likely to be, (b) how open the economy is likely to be (in terms of capital, trade and labour), (c) what the income distribution is likely to be, and (d) what the monetary and exchange rate policy environment is likely to be.

Government and Political Factors

Governments play an active role in influencing transport markets, so political factors can be an important driver of rail demand. Government influence is brought to bear through a combination of taxation, subsidy and regulation. The overall approach to the taxation and subsidy of transport activities is assumed to be a combination of (a) the desire to influence the balance of between different transport modes in a way that is consistent with meeting the economic, environmental and social objectives related to government transport policies, and (b) the requirement to manage public funds in order to meet the government’s overall position on public finances related to its fiscal policy.

Motoring Costs

Motoring costs are a combination of road-related infrastructure costs, car-related fuel and non-fuel costs and congestion-related costs, only some of which are currently borne by motorists. Vehicle use is taxed, and taxation is generally levied either at a flat rate (vehicle excise duty) or in ways that reflect usage (fuel duty). Apart from in London, no attempt is currently made to tax congestion externalities.

The scenarios reflect potential differences in both the overall level of motoring taxation and the balance between marginal and flat rate motoring taxes (including charging reflecting the societal costs of congestion).

While taxes are important from the point of view of meeting economic and fiscal objectives, other non-economic measures can be applied to ensure that environmental objectives are met, including low emission zones and statutory limits on car emissions.

Government can also influence the overall perceived cost of motoring by investing to increase the capacity of the road network or to reduce end-to-end journey times, both of which will feed through to reduced perceived generalised journey times for motorists.

The scenarios reflect the extent to which governments are likely to tighten environmental regulations as well as the circumstances in which governments are likely to prioritise investment in roads.

Rail User Costs

Governmental influence on rail markets generally takes the form of altering incentives to travel by rail – primarily by altering subsidies, either by varying the level of capital investment in rail to increase capacity or reduce journey times (for example, by funding the construction of new infrastructure or new trains) or by varying rail operating subsidies by subsidising ticketing. Where the balance lies between operating subsidy and fares is an important driver of rail demand and a key policy option for governments aiming to balance their broader transport and fiscal objectives.

The scenarios reflect how different constraints and different objectives are likely to affect both the overall level of subsidy and the balance of government funding between operating subsidy and capital funding.

Land use planning policies

Land use policies in Scotland are currently set by the Scottish Government, and are implemented by Local Authorities. Over time, changes to land use planning policy can significantly influence the demand for rail, particularly policies relating to the balance of development between urban and out-of-town developments.


Policies favouring city centre development will increase the employment capacity of city centre locations, and therefore – assuming that overall employment increases, also assumes an increase in the market for rail.

Development policies relating to parking can also have a marked impact on the costs of commuting by car. Planning policy that restricts (or encourages) on-street parking is therefore important. Likewise, as off-street parking sites are progressively infilled by developments, the total number of off-street parking sites in city centres is likely to reduce, increasing both the price of off-street parking and the parking search times.

The scenarios therefore consider the range of policy stances on land use policy, as well as market conditions that are likely to restrict access to car users (i.e. parking).

Population Geography and Demographic factors

Where people live is a key driver of (a) their need to travel and (b) the mode choice options that they have, while population density around stations is also an important driver of the demand for rail travel.

Historically, post-war residential patterns have tended towards reduced density developments (as people moved out of cities to the suburbs). However, reduced household sizes, urban regeneration and other economic and social factors have the potential to reverse this long term trend. The scenarios reflect a range of outcomes for the population geography of key towns and cities, both in terms of government policy and the overall economic and social conditions.

Technological Change

The ability and willingness of society to accept and adapt to technological change will influence the extent to which motoring becomes less environmentally intrusive and public transport becomes competitive for an increased number of journeys.

For instance, improved automobile engineering and electric cars are likely to reduce the operating costs of motoring. Likewise, both in-car guidance systems and road pricing could reduce congestion in urban areas, but both of these are likely to be subject to public acceptability issues.

With public transport, smart ticketing has the potential to improve integrated public transport. However, a potential obstruction to integrated public transport is that planning and regulation of public transport modes tend to exist in isolation of one another.

The scenarios consider how technological change is likely to influence the overall demand for travel as well as mode choice decisions, as well as considering how improved integration of planning and regulation could drive increased public transport market shares.

Figure 2.6 illustrates how the issues in this section flow down into the scenario assumptions.


Figure 2.6 – Overall scenario modelling structure

High Skill /Low Skill

JobsEnvironmentLevel of

InvestmentFinancialPosition

DemographicsEqualityOpen /Closed

Economy

Congestion-Related

Costs

FuelCosts

Non-FuelCosts

CapitalSpending Tax Policy Fares PolicyLand Value

OverallTransportDemand

IncreasedValue of

Time

GovernmentPolicy

AggregateDemand

GDPGrowth

IncreaseProductivity

Value ofTime

Scenario

Value ofTime

Scenario

Value ofTime

Scenario

Value ofTime

Scenario

Non-GTCosts

Scenario

Car FuelScenario

CarNon-FuelScenario

RailFares

Scenario


Structure of ScenariosDeveloping a Central Case

The central case is based on the TELMoS modelling assumptions for population and employment up to 2018, with growth factors applied beyond that are based on four scenarios.

The first two forecast years (2012 and 2018) are a central case forecast based on population, employment and transport cost assumptions drawn from a variety of sources including TELMoS, TMfS, CSTM and STAG. The forecasts for 2023/24 and 2043 incorporate scenario-based assumptions.

Four core scenarios have been prepared. These are based on economic factors and social/political factors

• Prospering in Global Stability (PGS)

– Strong, global. A strong economy on the global stage which prospers from its integration with the rest of the world

– Active, technologically enabled. Great Britain society and Governments actively seek to reduce social inequality and carbon emissions, with technology limiting the requirement for this to be achieved through taxation.

• Struggling in Global Turmoil (SGT)

– Mid-ranking, global. A mid ranking economy on the global stage which suffers from its integration and trading position with other national economies

– Active, technologically limited. Great Britain society and Governments actively seek to reduce social inequality and carbon emissions, although limited assistance from technology requires taxation to achieve this.

• Prospering in Isolation (PI)

– Strong, insular. A strong economy on the global stage which prospers from its self-sufficient nature

– Passive, technologically enabled. Great Britain society and Governments are passive in their approach to social inequality and carbon emissions, although technological advancements allow some problems to be addressed.

• Struggling in Isolation (SI)

– Mid-ranking, insular. A mid ranking economy on the global

stage which suffers from an absence of trade with other countries

– Passive, technologically limited. Great Britain society and governments are passive in their approach to social inequality and carbon emissions, and technology offers little solution to these problems.

Developing a Central Case

The starting point for applying the scenarios is to develop a ‘central case’ around which the scenarios can be overlaid. For the market size variables, the starting assumptions will reflect the Scottish Government’s stated long term objectives for Gross Domestic Product, employment and population growth. For the market share variables, the starting assumptions will be based on STAG wherever possible.


Scenario Descriptions Prospering in Global Stability (PGS)

In this scenario, Scotland’s economy remains open with regard to trade and the movement of capital and labour, with the economy benefitting from a largely benign and stable regional and global environment. Investment in physical and human capital improves overall productivity, with high productivity employment continuing being located in city centre locations.

Government policy is geared to addressing environmental and distributional issues, which has fed through to a transport policy where cars are increasingly electrically powered, congestion charged for and taxation increasingly being levied at the margin rather than through flat-rate taxes.

Because of the increased focus on city centres as engines of growth, rail is increasingly seen by governments as a worthwhile social and economic investment – both in terms of capital investment and operating subsidy – as part of an integrated transport system.

Struggling in Global Turmoil (SGT)

In this scenario increased barriers to trade and an unstable global economy result in low rates of economic growth. Underemployment and employment insecurity combined with low levels of investment lead to employment being concentrated in low productivity activities. Although employment is increasingly concentrated in towns and cities, the uneven distribution of income means that income growth for most people remains low. Restrictions on migration combined with higher rates of growth elsewhere lead to reduced in-migration over time. This in turn leads to an increasingly aged population while social networks become more concentrated over time.

Low rates of economic growth lead to historically low levels of car ownership, but pressure on public finances leads to both high rates of tax on motoring and low levels of subsidy for public transport. While road taxes continue to be levied at a flat rate, with no attempt to reduce congestion through charging or technological means, low levels of capital investment and reduced levels of revenue support for train operators lead to rail being relatively expensive mode. Increasingly productive usage of travel time leads to the differential between rail and road values of time decreasing.

Prospering in Isolation (PI)

In this scenario, increased barriers to trade combined with independent monetary policy have the effect of reducing the impact of shocks on the UK economy. Employment levels are high thanks to flexible labour markets, but the benefits of high employment do not feed through to those on lower incomes because of an uneven income distribution.

Planning policy does not favour city centre developments, so employment growth is spread over city centre and out of town locations. Lack of investment in electric car infrastructure means that cars are still reliant on hydrocarbon fuels. Dispersed patterns of employment mean that congestion impacts are somewhat ameliorated, despite the higher car ownership incentivised by low marginal taxation rates on car travel.

Rail travel continues to be competitive on interurban routes where travel time used productively and rail products well matched to consumers’ needs.

Struggling in Isolation (SI)

In this scenario, low levels of employment and productivity reduce aggregate demand and therefore the demand for travel. Because of this, in-migration is low leading to an increasingly ageing population and concentrated social networks.

Poor economic performance mean that concerns about environmental pollution and global warming are relatively low political priorities, while the power of the motoring lobby combined dispersed patterns of employment lead to low rates of taxation on cars. Because of this and because of the low level of rail subsidies implied by the poor state of the public finances, rail is a relatively expensive mode of travel that does not meet the needs of commuters well.

Lack of investment in office development within city centres restricts employment capacity and both on-street and off-street parking is relatively plentiful.


Local variations on scenarios A problem with national level scenarios is that they fail to recognise real constraints that will be more challenging to overcome in some locations than in others. This is a particular challenge for market size-related factors (employment and population), but also applies to market share factors such as parking costs and road congestion.

In Scotland, the principal source of variation is the difference in performance between the west of Scotland, which can be categorised as still adjusting to the consequences of de-industrialisation over the last fifty years, and cities such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh which have tended to perform well above the UK average in economic terms.

The population and employment scenarios therefore needed to take account of these differences to be credible.

The approach taken was, firstly, to try to understand the nature of these differences – essentially consider the question of “where are we now?”, how they manifested themselves across a number of indicators (including sectoral employment, labour participation rates, educational attainment, migration trends)

The second part of the exercise was answer the question of “where do we want to get to?”. This was done by interpreting the scenarios and the high level scenario model described earlier, with a view to establishing an outcome consistent with the overall theme of the scenarios.

The final part was the question of “how do we get there?” or narrative. A considerable amount of effort was dedicated to ensuring that the narrative developed was credible and defendable.

Employment Scenarios

The scenarios for city centre employment were developed using Experian employment data between 1997 and 2014, and the Experian forecast for 2015 to 2018.

The employment data is broken down by occupation with employment activities selected on the basis of how likely they were to occur within the city centre (for example, office-based employment types).

Growth rates for each employment were then applied on a consistent basis across each city centre (Glasgow, Aberdeen,

Edinburgh). Where a city was assumed to enjoy a comparative advantage in an industry (for instance energy in Aberdeen and finance in Edinburgh), the growth rates were tweaked to reflect this. The overall impact of this approach was to provide a coherent narrative based on each city’s economic structure on which the overall growth rate was plotted for each scenario.

Population Scenarios

The population scenarios are used to develop a forecast of market size in the Interurban markets. The scenarios are based on National Records of Scotland data and forecasts from 1981 up to 2018. Scenarios have been developed for:

• Births

• Deaths

• International migration to Scotland

• Migration from other parts of the UK to/from Scotland.

The scenarios were applied at a Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) level, with the same methodology being applied as in the city centre employment scenarios.

Market Share Scenarios

Unlike the market size scenarios (where differential growth rates are applied for city centre employment and for residential population) the presumption with the market share scenarios is that they should be applied on a uniform basis throughout the model. The exceptions to this principle is the scenarios for parking costs and Generalised Journey Time (GJT) growth (congestion), which are applied at a city centre and RTP level respectively.

The growth scenarios applied for market share factors are:

• Fuel price

• GJT (congestion)

• Train fares

• Non-fuel price

• Parking costs.

Where are we now?

Where do we want to get to?

How do we get there?

Historic analysis

Scenarios

Narrative

Figure 2.7 – Scenario development


Figure 2.8 – Example of employment growth scenario in Glasgow to 2043 (PGS scenario)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Empl

oym

ent (

thou

sand

s)

Year

Extrac�on & Mining

U�li�es

Construc�on of Buildings

Civil Engineering

Specialised Construc�on Ac�vi�es

Retail

Land Transport, Storage & Post

Accommoda�on & Food Services

Recrea�on

Media Ac�vi�es

Telecoms

Compu�ng & Informa�on Services

Finance

Insurance & Pensions

Real Estate

Professional Services

Other Private Services

Public Administra�on & Defence

Educa�on

Health


Scotland Market Study - Demand Analysis

Producing choices for funders based on the future challenges for the railway is the key output of the Scotland Route Study. The demand forecasts produced as part of the Scotland Market Study enable the prediction, firstly of which parts of the network are likely to become capacity constrained in future years and, secondly, to predict where the social return on investments is likely to be the greatest. These predictions are based on changes in where people are likely to live, where people are likely to work and on how attractive rail is likely to be to travellers compared to other modes of transport.

This section provides a summary of the key findings from the Scotland Market Study and provides a commentary on these findings. The forecasts draw on, and build upon, the approach used to develop forecasts for the Regional Urban Market Study (RUMS). They complement the forecasting outputs of the Long Distance Market Study (LDMS) and the Freight Market Study (FMS), which also feed into the Scotland Route Study.

The findings of the Scotland Market Study are presented in the form of demand forecasts for rail corridors, set against the assumed capacity on these corridors at the end of Control Period 5 (2018/19).

The demand forecasts produced as part of the Scotland Market Study will inform:

• Capacity-related Conditional Outputs

• The economic appraisal of options to meet both the capacity-related and connectivity-related conditional outputs.

The Scotland Market Study considers three broad market areas. These markets are:

• Morning Peak Commuter

• Interurban

• Rural.

For the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets, modelled growth is a result of a combination of market size factors (i.e. growth in population or employment) and market share factors (how attractive rail is relative to other transport modes).

For rural markets, the forecasts for the recent ScotRail refranchising were used, with post-franchise growth applied on the basis of rolling this trend forward over the remaining forecast years.

The forecasts highlight the variability in conditions both between the different rail markets in Scotland, but also significant differences between corridors within each rail market.

In the Morning Peak Commuter markets, the forecasts in the stronger growth scenarios are for growth to be strongest in those markets where the rail offer has – or is likely to – significantly improve relative to the road offer. Growth in Glasgow in the higher

growth scenarios (though lower than in Aberdeen and Edinburgh) is likely to represent a key challenge for the railway, given the current volume of passengers already travelling into the city and the current level of service provision.

In Interurban and Rural markets, there is again a great deal of variability between different corridors. Whilst in many cases high levels of growth are unlikely to lead to capacity problems, they may support measures to improve connectivity.

The purpose of scenario-based planning is to inform funder’s decision making, and the forecasts illustrate how different scenario assumptions can influence the type of schemes that are likely to have strong business cases.

The forecasts presented here are derived from the most wide-ranging and robust demand forecasting exercise that Network Rail has carried out to date in Scotland. It should be noted that the forecasts could not have been developed in the way they have been without the collaborative approach taken by Transport Scotland, particularly in making cost and demand data from both the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS) and Central Scotland Transport Model (CSTM) available to Network Rail.


Demand Analysis: Headline Results Edinburgh Morning Peak Commuter Markets

ScenarioGrowth factor

2012-23

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2012-23

Growth factor

2012-43

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2023-43

Prospering in Global Stability 51% 3.8% 115% 1.8%

Prospering in Isolation 49% 3.7% 135% 2.3%

Struggling in Global Turmoil 40% 3.1% 52% 0.4%

Struggling in Isolation 32% 2.6% 12% -0.8%

Glasgow Morning Peak Commuter Markets


2012-23

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2012-23

Growth factor

2012-43

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2023-43




Struggling in Isolation 15% 1.2% -4% -0.9%

Interurban Markets Rural MarketsAberdeen Morning Peak Commuter Markets


2012-23

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2012-23

Growth factor

2012-43

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2023-43



Struggling in Global Turmoil 24% 1.9% 21% -0.1%



2012-23

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2012-23

Growth factor

2012-43

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2023-43






2012-23

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2012-23

Growth factor

2012-43

Compound Annual

Growth Rate 2023-43




Struggling in Isolation 61% 4.4% 72% 0.3%


Introduction The objective of the forecasts was to estimate the number of domestic passenger trips (i.e. rail trips beginning and ending in Scotland) for the forecast years to inform the development of Capacity-related Conditional Outputs and scheme appraisals.

The results described in this document therefore complement the forecasts contained within the LDMS and the FMS, both of which were established in 2013. Summaries of the LDMS and FMS Conditional Outputs (as they affect Scotland) are contained in Appendix 3 and 4.

Format of demand forecasts

The demand forecasts are presented at a corridor level. They use 2013/14 demand as estimated in MOIRA (modified to take account of known limitations of MOIRA/LENNON), with modelled growth rates applied for all four scenarios. The forecast demand is then compared to the seating capacity that is expected to be provided at the end of the current Control Period.

Baseline demand

Baseline demand has been estimated using 2013/14 MOIRA data. Each service has been assigned to a corridor so that demand from the model can be applied at a route level. Morning Peak commuter demand has been analysed for the whole of the morning peak (07:00 -10:00), and for the high peak (08:00-09:00), while Interurban demand has been forecast for an interpeak hour (between 10:00 and 16:00).

It is known that MOIRA tends to understate demand peaks in cities outside London. Count data has been used to assess the extent of this problem. 2014 demand was then compared to 2014 rolling stock to gauge the ‘current’ demand position.

Baseline capacity

The capacity forecasts consist of:

• Train frequencies: These are based on the 2013/14 timetable in MOIRA, suitably adjusted where appropriate to take account of new services

• Rolling stock characteristics: These are based on the end of Control Period 5 Train Service Specification which was agreed with the Route Study Working Group. It should be noted that capacity is defined as seating capacity rather than basing it on a percentage of total seating plus standing capacity. This assumption reflects the ScotRail performance regime and is broadly consisted with the assumptions used in other Route Studies (where a certain percentage of total theoretical standing plus seating capacity has been used).

Interpretation of forecasts

The forecasts presented here reflect Network Rail’s view of future demand under a certain set of circumstances. They are not a vision of what Network Rail thinks will happen; they are a vision of what could happen if any one scenario occurred.

In addition, like any model, the modelling presented is a simplification of reality based on a relatively small number of assumptions. Details of the key limitations of the modelling approach are detailed at the end of this section.

The results must therefore be seen as being illustrative, and require careful interpretation as part of the process of developing options to meet the Conditional Outputs.


Morning Peak Commuting MarketsGlasgow

Methodology Used

The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being the primary driver of growth in the morning peak commuter markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop employment growth scenarios for Glasgow and to develop car, rail and bus cost growth factors for the Glasgow market for 2023/24 and 2043.

Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived from CSTM morning peak dataset for Glasgow.

The Glasgow/Edinburgh model has been calibrated to CSTM rail demand for 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against historical rail demand.

Key findings - Glasgow

Glasgow is a mature commuter market with a well-developed rail network. As such, rail already has a relatively high market share on many of the routes into the city centre because most major residential areas already benefit from relatively high frequency services and competitive journey times by rail. Unlike in Control Period 4, where Airdrie-Bathgate significantly expanded the reach of the Glasgow commuter network, no significant network extensions are due to be delivered during Control Period 5.

The principal enhancement to the network in and around Glasgow – is the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP) – developed to reduce end-to-end journey times and to increase capacity per train.

Because of this relative stability in the rail ‘offer’ comparable to other transport modes (and bearing in mind that the improvements to the M8 will increase competitiveness of car on some rail corridors to the east of the city), growth in the morning peak up to 2023/24 is likely to be driven more by growth in city centre employment than by an increase in rail’s market share.

Thereafter, it is the combination of road congestion and employment growth that drives growth in the highest growth scenario, Prospering in Global Stability (PGS).

Glasgow city centre is by far the biggest city centre in Scotland, and a significant proportion has redevelopment potential. It is this

potential for urban regeneration, combined the PGS view of a future where governments explicitly promote regional growth in order to balance economic, equity and environmental outcomes at a national level, that is driving both the city centre employment and congestion scenarios in the PGS scenario

On the basis of the PGS scenario, the headline forecasts for commuter rail demand into Glasgow in the morning peak are for demand to grow by 39 per cent between 2012 and 2023/24 and by 128 per cent between 2012 and 2043.

By contrast, Glasgow’s economy is more dependent on relatively low skilled service sector jobs in retail services, so employment is more vulnerable than in those cities – such as Edinburgh – to unfavourable economic circumstances. This is despite the city centre employment base being marginally more diverse than Edinburgh’s. In addition, because post-2023/24 road congestion is assumed to be less of a problem in the low employment growth scenarios, the overall volume of rail demand is estimated to fall 4 per cent by 2043 in the lowest growth (Struggling in Isolation) scenario.


Results by Corridor- GlasgowGlasgow Queen Street

The locations where peak demand is experienced are predominantly Glasgow Queen Street and neighbouring city centre stations on corridors into Glasgow Queen Street. The analysis compares demand for 2023/24 and 2043 against the train capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors.

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth (See Figure 2.9) in all four scenarios up to 2023/24. Further analysis suggests that peak loading is in the Greater Glasgow area (Croy/Lenzie/Bishopbriggs). When Highland Main Line Phase 2 is taken into account, amending the timetable would accommodate forecast demand. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018.

67%

129%

219%

116%

166%

114%125%

105%92%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth to Glasgow

Passenger Growth vs Available Seats

Long Interurban into Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

52%

44%84%

69%143%

116%

76%

64%

108%

90%

75%

61%

81%

66%

71%

58%

62%

51%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Dunblane/Stirling /Alloa to Glasgow Edinburgh to Glasgow (via Falkirk)

%%%

Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats

Short Interurban into Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)Figure 2.9 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station

Figure 2.10 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043

Prospering in Global Stability

Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043

Prospering in IsolationScenario

PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043

Struggling in Global Turmoil

Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043

Struggling in IsolationScenario

SI

Available Seats 2018

Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Glasgow Queen Street continued

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from Cumbernauld in all four scenarios up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.12). Trains are most crowded into Glasgow Queen Street and this route should be viewed as part of the wider Strathclyde commuter network. Therefore proposed train lengthening on Glasgow Low Level routes could alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 – Choices for Funders page 73).

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData



37% 23%23%

40%69%

68%

21%

37%53%

52%

20%

35%40%

38%

19%

34%

30%29%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Anniesland to Glasgow Falkirk Grahamston to Glasgow

%% %%

%%

%%

%%

%%


Suburban to Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

72%

69%

73%

126%

96%

91%

216%

160%

150%

116%

88%83%

165%

122%

115%

112%

86%

87%

122%

92%

95%

106%

81%78%

92%

67%68%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Cumbernauld to Glasgow Edinburgh /Airdrie to Glasgow (via Bathgate)

Helensburgh/ Milngavie/ Balloch/ Dalmuir

to Glasgow

11%

11%

1%%

8

11%

8%

7%

Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats

Low Levels through Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Glasgow Central

The locations where peak demand is experienced are predominantly Glasgow Central and neighbouring city centre stations. The analysis compares forecast demand 2023/24 and 2043 against the seating capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors.

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from Ayr, Largs, Ardrossan, Gourock and Wemyss Bay up to 2023/24 across all scenarios (see Figure 2.13). Further analysis suggests that while trains may be overcrowded in the peak hour this is not true over the whole morning peak. Therefore options have been proposed for lengthening some trains and amending the timetable/stopping patterns (see Chapter 5, page 74).

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from East Kilbride in three scenarios up to 2023/24. Enhancement options have been proposed to accommodate forecast demand (see Chapter 5, page 75).

Figure 2.14 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Central Station

52%

86%

73%

113%120%

180%

66%

104%

92%

139%

64%

100%

69%

104%

61%

95%

52%

78%

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Barrhead /Kilmarnock to Glasgow East Kilbride to Glasgow

1

%

1 %

%


Kilmarnock / East Kilbride to Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

75%

85%

50%

113%

129%

64%

192%

219%

100%

103%

119%

58%

149%

169%

77%

100%

114%

56%

110%

125%

56%

95%

108%

54%

84%

95%43%

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Ayr/Largs /Ardrossan to Glasgow Gourock /Wemyss Bay to Glasgow Paisley Canal to Glasgow

11

1

%

%%

%

1%%

11

%


Ayrshire/Inverclyde Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Glasgow Central Continued

The highest growth scenario forecasts that demand may exceed seating capacity between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts by 2023/24 (see Figure 2.15). Passenger numbers are greatest toward central Glasgow and should be taking in the wider context of services from Lanark and Edinburgh via Carstairs which use the same route into Glasgow Central. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and stopping patterns.

49%

75% 72%

100%118%

165%

66%

92% 92%

128%

64%

89%

67%

94%

61%

84%

52%

72%

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Edinburgh to Glasgow (via Carstairs) Edinburgh to Glasgow (via Shotts)

%%

%%


Edinburgh to Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


62%

50%

90%

65%

148%

104%

82%

59%

114%

80%

79%

58%

85%

60%

75%

55%

64%

46%

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Lanark to Glasgow Neilston/ Newton/ Cathcart Circle to Glasgow

%

%%

5 %%


Lanark/Cathcart to Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Glasgow Central continued

The highest growth scenario forecasts that demand may exceed seating capacity on all routes into Glasgow Central Low Level station with trains being most crowded in the city centre (see Figure 2.17). These routes are part of the wider Strathclyde commuter network as discussed on page 121. Proposed train lengthening on Glasgow Low Level routes could alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 – Choices for Funders page 73).

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


81%

79%

72%

113%

105%

107%

187%

173%

178%

103%

95%

98%

144%

132%

137%

100%

88%

95%107%

95%

101%94%

87%

90% 81% 75%

77%

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Larkhall/ Motherwell to Glasgow

Milngavie/ Dalmuir to Glasgow

Motherwell /Whi�et/ Cumbernauld to

Glasgow

%%

%%

1

8

%%

%9


Low Levels through Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Morning Peak Commuting MarketsEdinburgh

Methodology Used

The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being the primary driver of growth in the Morning Peak Commuter Markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop employment growth scenarios for Edinburgh and to develop car, rail and bus cost growth factors for the Edinburgh market for 2023/24 and 2043.

Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived from CSTM morning peak dataset for Edinburgh.

The Glasgow/Edinburgh model has been calibrated to CSTM rail demand for 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against historical rail demand.

Key findings – Edinburgh

The rail commuter market into Edinburgh is less mature than the equivalent market in Glasgow: The inner suburban market in Edinburgh is dominated by bus and the commuter rail market is much more focussed on connecting outer suburbs with the city centre and with major employment centres to the west of Edinburgh.

The Airdrie-Bathgate project significantly increased service frequencies into Edinburgh from West Lothian and beyond during Control Period 4, whilst the opening of the Borders Railway during Control Period 5 has opened up a commuter market to the south of the city.

There is a shortage of development land in central Edinburgh, with most potential sites (located around Haymarket) already having been developed. The Edinburgh Park and Gyle areas are rail served and are significant employment zones, but these are now mature developments and have limited capacity to accommodate significant future employment growth.

It is the treatment of the potential for rail accessible employment sites to be redeveloped to provide higher intensity employment capacity uses that drives significant differences in the two high employment growth forecasts.

Under the PGS scenario, environmental constraints prevent significant redevelopment of rail accessible sites whereas in the

Prospering in Isolation (PI) scenario there is assumed to be more flexibility in this area post-2023/24.

This employment growth rate in Edinburgh is assumed to increase by 1.6% per annum between 2018 and 2023/24, and by 1.5% per annum between 2023/24 and 2043 in the highest growth (PI) scenario assumes that there will be some market-led redevelopment response to demand in Edinburgh.

However, the main source of rail demand growth in Edinburgh is market share-led: once market share factors (rail capacity, low road network capacity and limited parking space in the city centre) are added in, this translates into demand growth of 3.7% per annum up to 2023/24 and 2.3% per annum between 2023/24 and 2043.

Edinburgh has a diverse employment market that has been developed around high value professional and financial services. To some extent this makes the market for rail less vulnerable in the low growth scenarios.

Even in the lowest growth scenario (Struggling in Isolation), 12% more trips are forecast in 2043 than in 2012.

It should be noted that no one scenario is considered to be more likely than any other.


Results by Corridor- EdinburghEdinburgh Waverley

The locations where peak demand is experienced are predominantly Edinburgh Waverley and neighbouring city centre stations. The analysis compares demand 2023/24 and 2043 against the train capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors

69%63%

88%86%

127%

123%

86%84%

138%

135%

82%80%

91%88%77%

76%67%65%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Aberdeen/ Dundee to Edinburgh Inverness /Perth to Edinburgh

%%

%%

%%

Passenger Growth vs Available SeatsPassenger Growth vs Available Seats

Long Distance to Edinburgh in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

61%50%76%

61%

106%

88%

75%60%

117%

96%

71%56%76%

62%

67%53%

56%46%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Bathgate) Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Falkirk)

%%%


Glasgow to Edinburgh Fast in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)Figure 2.18 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station

Figure 2.19 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 127July 2016

Edinburgh Waverley continued

Demand is forecast to approach seating capacity from the Fife Circle up to 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.21). Proposed lengthening trains on this service to provide more seats could alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 – Choices for Funders page 62). This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018.

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData



41% 44%

55%56%

83%

85%

54%55%

90%

90%

51%52%

59%59%48%

50%43%43%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Carstairs) Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Sho�s)

%%%

%

%%%


Glasgow to Edinburgh Slow in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

44%

77%

53%

97%

77%

136%

52%

95%

84%

149%

50%

90%

54%

98%

47%

85%

40%

72%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Dunblane/S�rling /Alloa to Edinburgh Fife Circle to Edinburgh

%


Edinburgh Local North in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Edinburgh Waverley continued

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity North Berwick/Dunbar up to 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.22). Further analysis suggests this crowding is anticipated in the Edinburgh area and does not exceed the ScotRail franchise commitment of passengers standing for not more than 10 minutes. A number of choices are available to help meet forecast demand and these are discussed in Chapter 5, page 57.

Demand is forecast to approach seating capacity from the Borders route by 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.22). Proposed lengthening trains on this service to provide more seats could alleviate crowding. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018.

It should be noted that 2014 data is between Edinburgh Waverley and Newcraighall only.

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


71%

69%

97%

112%

156%

165%

95%

110%

167%

181%

91%

104%

111%

116%

87%

99%

82%

86%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Borders to Edinburgh North Berwick /Dunbar to Edinburgh

Edinburgh Local South in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)



Morning Peak Commuting MarketsAberdeen

Methodology Used

The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being the primary driver of growth in the Morning Peak Commuter Markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop employment growth scenarios for Aberdeen and to develop car, rail and bus cost growth factors for the Aberdeen market for 2023/24 and 2043.

Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived from TMfS morning peak dataset for Aberdeen.

The Aberdeen model has been calibrated to TMfS rail demand for 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against historical rail demand.

Key findings – Aberdeen

Aberdeen has some similarities to Edinburgh. Both cities have a well-developed, rail connected employment zone outside the city centre (in Aberdeen’s case, Dyce). However, the market for rail into Aberdeen has unique characteristics within commuter markets in Scotland.

This means that the forecast is subject to more volatility (and therefore more risk) than either the Glasgow and Edinburgh forecasts for the morning peak. The fact that the city only has one rail corridor, and that to the south of the city the railway line follows the coast, means that rail is peripheral for many commuter trips from the west and the north east. The size of the TMfS zones (relative to CSTM) means that the model is highly aggregated compared to the CSTM-based models for Edinburgh and Glasgow. Therefore relatively small changes to assumptions can have comparatively significant impacts on forecast demand.

This is complicated by the volume of infrastructure investment due for delivery by 2018/19: Road connectivity into Aberdeen is due to be improved by Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road (AWPR), while improvements to both the A90 and A96 are also likely to be negative checks on rail demand.

Aberdeen has a number of non-rail connected out of town employment centres, such as Altens, Cove and Westhill. The AWPR will service some of these directly, reducing the likelihood of people

choosing rail into the city centre.

However, the rail offer from the north west of the city is due to improve during Control Period 5. The AWPR and A96 improvements are unlikely to substantially improve journey times into the city centre and to Dyce/Aberdeen Airport for those commuting from Inverurie, a corridor which has experienced significant rail growth in recent years (MOIRA estimates recent growth regularly exceeding 10 per cent per annum since 2010).

In terms of the employment forecast, Aberdeen has the least diverse economy of the three cities considered with a heavy dependence on the energy sector. This is reflected with a high growth rate (3.3% per annum between 2018 and 2023/24; 2.7% per annum between 2023/24 and 2043) in the highest growth scenario (PGS). However, in the lowest growth scenario (Struggling in Isolation) employment growth is -0.7% per annum between 2018 and 2023/24 and -0.9% between 2023/24 and 2043.

It is worth noting, therefore that despite these results, the overall demand forecasts are surprisingly robust to assumptions made about employment growth: although rail demand reduces post-2023/24 in the two lower growth scenarios, demand grows significantly between 2012 and 2043 in the top three scenarios, and this increased demand is as much a function of market share as of market size.


Results by Corridor- Aberdeen

The locations where peak demand is experienced are predominantly Aberdeen and neighbouring city centre stations. The analysis compares demand 2023/24 and 2043 against the train capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors.

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

63% 49%

89% 69%

238%

180%

85%66%

180%

139%

71% 56%

78% 64%70%

54%65%

54%

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

From the North From the South

Into Aberdeen in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)


Figure 2.23 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Aberdeen


Interurban Markets Methodology Used

In the Interurban model, population change is the principal driver of the size of the overall travel market. Scenarios have been used to derive assumptions for both population and travel costs factors post-2018.

Rail, road and bus costs – together with overall travel demand – for 2012 and 2018 are based on the TMfS inter-peak data. The model is calibrated to TMfS rail demand for 2012 and 2018.

Forecasts from the model have been produced for corridors into the following destinations:

• Glasgow

• Edinburgh

• Aberdeen

• Inverness.

Stirling, Perth and Dundee are located within these corridors and are factored into these forecasts, although they are located in the middle of longer corridors.

Key Findings

Interurban demand has been forecast using inter-peak data from TMfS, and reflects Transport Scotland’s policy (as expressed in the ScotRail franchise agreement) to apply an RPI-1% growth to off-peak ticket prices over the course of the current ScotRail franchise.

The scenarios make different assumptions on the extent to which public policy continues to incentivise modal shift from road to rail. In the high growth scenarios, this is despite a significant investment in roads up to 2018/19 (Queensferry Crossing, M8 upgrade and A90/A96/AWPR), and city centre-to-city centre journey times by road are anticipated to increase over time as a result of road congestion in some regions.

Short stay parking costs are assumed to increase in real terms, although not at the same rate as all day parking.

A key assumption the model makes with regard to market share is that rail users are able to use their travel time productively. In rail

appraisal this tends to reduce the value of journey time reductions delivered by rail schemes. However, in purely demand terms it amplifies the impact of increasing road journey times relative to rail.

The market size element of the Interurban model is driven by population growth. TELMoS forecasts were used up to 2018, with scenario growth being applied at a regional level for 2023/24 and 2043 forecast years. A key requirement was to ensure that population growth was consistent in each scenario with the employment scenarios that informed the Morning Peak forecasts.

It is for this reason that the forecast growth rates used in the Draft for Consultation have been reduced, resulting in growth being pushed back from 2023/24 to 2043.

In the highest growth PGS scenario, the assumptions take account of the Scottish Government’s stated objective to grow the population of Scotland, but does not take account of the distributional impact of any such increase (i.e. the likelihood that, if this growth is to be achieved, there may be a bias towards urban areas). This slightly offsets the overall impact of the population growth assumption. On this basis, the overall Interurban forecast in the PGS scenario is for the demand to grow at a rate of 3.7% between 2012 and 2023/24 and 3.5% by 2043.


Interurban ResultsIn Interurban markets, connectivity rather than capacity is the key issue. For this reason, the analysis focusses on growth rates in each corridor as this will influence the case for improving connectivity on the key interurban corridors.

Results are summarised at a corridor level for both 2023/24 and 2043.

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Glasgow and Aberdeen/Dundee in both directions up to 2023/24 across two scenarios (see Figure 2.25). Further analysis reveals that this is predominantly in the Glasgow area and that options for amending stopping patterns and timetable changes on these services should be considered. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018.

47%31%

96%41%

206%

60%

89%38%

169%

51%87%

38%

127%

45%86%38%

101%40%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Edinburgh to Aberdeen Dundee/Aberdeen to Edinburgh

Edinburgh - Aberdeen Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)


48% 43%

98%

112%

212%204%

91%

109%

169%

183%

89%98%

131%

144%

88%97%

104%

122%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Glasgow to Aberdeen Dundee/Aberdeen to Glasgow

%%

11

%

11

%%


Glasgow - Aberdeen Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)Figure 2.24 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Aberdeen- Edinburgh (10:00 – 16:00)

Figure 2.25 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Aberdeen-Glasgow (10:00 – 16:00)

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Interurban Results continued

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Inverness and Aberdeen in both directions up to 2023/24 across two scenarios (see Figure 2.26). Options have been proposed to enhance the corridor to accommodate this demand (see Chapter 5, page 82)

Demand is also forecast to exceed seating capacity from Edinburgh to Inverness (see Figure 2.26). This is predominantly in the Edinburgh and Fife areas. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and stopping patterns. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

54%64%

139%

157%

325%

512%

129%

88%

245%

249%127%

85%

179%

160%

126%

83%

142%

116%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Inverness to Aberdeen Aberdeen to Inverness

%%

%

11


Inverness - Aberdeen Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

37% 44%42%

120%60%

329%

39%

102%53%

279%

39%

97%46%

200%

38%94%

166%

40%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Inverness to Edinburgh Edinburgh to Inverness


Inverness - Edinburgh Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)Figure 2.26 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Inverness - Aberdeen (10:00 – 16:00)

Figure 2.27 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Inverness – Edinburgh (10:00 – 16:00)



Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Glasgow and Inverness up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.28). This crowding occurs around the Glasgow area. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and stopping patterns. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018. Please note that available seats do not reflect the 2 hourly service between the cities which will be in place by April 2019.

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Falkirk up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.29). Seating capacity is based on running 4-car trains, lengthening some of these trains to 6 or 8-cars (as at peak times) would provide sufficient capacity.

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

30%

38%73%

109%

142%

310%

71%

94%

122%

258%

63%

91%

92%

178%

62%

88%

148%

77%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Inverness to Glasgow Glasgow to Inverness

Inverness - Glasgow Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

%

%

%


39% 40%

82%

112%115%

194%

77%

110%105%

171%

76%

100%94%

141%

75%

99%85%

123%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk

%

%

1

%%


Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

Figure 2.28 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Inverness - Glasgow Central (10:00 – 16:00)

Figure 2.29 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk route (10:00 – 16:00)



Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

21% 19%28%

32%37%

58%

26%31%33%

47%

26% 28%30%36%

26% 28%28% 31%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Bathgate Edinburgh to Glasgow via Bathgate

Edinburgh - Glasgow via Bathgate Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

2


23% 35%32%

35%45%

54%

31%34%40%

46%

30% 32%37%39%

30% 31%33%35%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Sho�s Edinburgh to Glasgow via Sho�s

Edinburgh - Glasgow via Shotts Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)


Figure 2.30 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Bathgate (10:00 – 16:00)

Figure 2.31 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Shotts (10:00 – 16:00)



Demand is also forecast to exceed seating capacity from Edinburgh to Glasgow (see Figure 2.32). This is predominantly in the Glasgow area at Motherwell and Glasgow Central. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and stopping patterns of other trains serving these stations.

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData

40%

24%

57%

107%

86%

190%

54%

105%74%

154%

53%96%66%

125%

52%96%

58%

112%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Edinburgh to Glasgow via Carstairs

Edinburgh - Glasgow via Carstairs Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

%

%%

%


Figure 2.32 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Carstairs (10:00 – 16:00)


Rural Markets Methodology Used

Rural Market forecasts were based on the passenger forecast outputs from Abellio’s successful bid for the ScotRail franchise. The markets considered were:

• West Highland & Oban

• Kyle & the Far North

• Glasgow & South West (G&SW)

• Stranraer.

The model reflects Transport Scotland’s policy that ScotRail should seek to fill spare capacity on rural routes throughout the period of the franchise. Unlike the Morning Peak Commuter and the Interurban models (which were choice models), the model is elasticity-based up to 2026/27 with allowances made for

population growth.

Gross Domestic Product growth and ‘soft’ factors. Post-franchise growth is trend-based.

Applying post-franchise growth trend to a franchise forecast which is largely policy-led risks overstating the growth that is likely to occur in practice. The G&SW corridor exhibits a mixture of characteristics with some “commuter” flows (e.g. Auchinleck) and some “interurban” (e.g. Dumfries/Glasgow).

As figure 2.33 below illustrates, demand on some rural routes is seasonal in nature, with the West Highland Line between Glasgow and Fort William/Mallaig/Oban being significant in this regard.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

perc

enta

ge o

f pas

seng

ers

Glasgow - Fort William / Mallaig / Oban Glasgow - Stranraer

Glasgow - Carlisle via Dumfries Inverness - Wick / Thurso / Kyle

Figure 2.33 Seasonal passenger journeys on Rural lines - trend 2004/05 to 2014/15


Rural MarketsPassenger demand forecasts for rural routes are based on annual forecast figures from ScotRail. As passenger numbers on these routes can vary seasonally, passengers numbers compared to the number of seats available by the end of Control Period 5 have been shown month by month.

As the ScotRail forecast figures have been used to 2026/27 the passenger growth to 2023/24 is the same for all four scenarios. The scenarios are used to forecast passenger growth after 2026/27 and therefore the 2043 forecasts show variation across the scenarios.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000


Passenger Growth vs Available Seats on Kyle and Far North lines 2023-2043

Figure 2.34 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on Far North Lines

Kyle/Far North:

Passenger numbers on these corridors are seasonal with tourism increasing demand during the summer.

In 2014, 31 per cent of available seats were used in January and 51 per cent in August.

By 2023/24 it is forecast to increase from between 51 per cent in January to 83 per cent in August across all scenarios.

By 2043 it is forecast to increase from between 82 per cent in January to 133 per cent in August in the highest growth scenario.

Conditional Outputs RCO1, RCO2 and RCO3 propose additional services on these lines by 2043 and Choices for Funders have been suggested to facilitate enhanced services (see Chapter 5, page 83)

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Key Findings

Glasgow and South Western Route to Dumfries and Carlisle

Historic passenger numbers on this corridor do not show a seasonal tourism pattern such as seen on other rural routes. This may reflect that the route serves a number of different markets.

In 2014, between 49 and 63 per cent of available seats were used, with the peak in December and lowest in February.

By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 67 per cent and 86 per cent across all scenarios.

By 2043 demand is forecast to increase from between 103 per cent in January to 133 per cent in the highest growth scenario.

Conditional Outputs RCO9, RCO10 and GCO10 propose additional services on this route by 2043 with particular emphasis on serving commuting and leisure markets towards Glasgow and towards Dumfries/Carlisle.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000


Passenger Growth vs Available Seats on G&SW 2023-2043

Figure 2.35 Annual passenger growth vs available seats Glasgow and South West Lines

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Key Findings

Stranraer Line

Historic passenger numbers on this corridor do not show a seasonal pattern.

In 2014, between 10 per cent and 12 per cent of available seats were used.

By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 13 per cent and 16 per cent across all scenarios.

By 2043 demand is forecast to increase from between 19 per and 23 per cent in the highest growth scenario.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000


Passenger Growth vs Available Seats on Stranraer Line

Figure 2.36 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on Stranraer Line

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Key Findings

West Highland/Oban:

Passenger numbers on these routes are the most seasonal of any rural lines with tourism increasing numbers during the summer.

In 2014, between 17 per cent of available seats were used in January and 46 per cent in August.

By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 30 per cent in January and to 79 per cent in August across all scenarios.

By 2043 demand forecast to increase from between 48 per cent in January to 127 per cent in August in the highest growth scenario.

Conditional Outputs RCO7 and RCO8 propose additional services on these lines by 2043 to improved passenger connectivity on these routes, this would also meet forecast growth in passenger demand.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000


Passenger Growth vs Available Seats on West Highland lines 2023-2043

Figure 2.37 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on West Highland Lines

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

PGS

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


PI

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


Scenario

SGT

Passengers 2023-24

Passengers 2043


SI


Passengers 2014

BaselineData


Conclusions The models developed to support the Scotland Market Study are relatively simple, and require careful interpretation.

The key message from the modelling is that the strongest growth in rail demand is likely to be in those rail markets where the rail offer has – or is due to improve substantially. Aberdeen, and to a lesser extent Edinburgh, are both forecast to experience strong growth in rail demand, and most of this growth is forecast to be a result of changes in the rail offer relative to other modes: either positive impacts (improvements to rail services) or negative impacts (increased road congestion).

Growth in Glasgow is forecast to be lower, and to be mainly employment driven. However, the existing size of the market for rail into Glasgow is more than double the size of the combined domestic demand into Edinburgh and Aberdeen. This means that the overall increase in the number of passengers forecast to be carried is significantly larger than the changes in passenger volumes forecast for both Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

In the Interurban market, strong growth is likely to improve the business case for frequency or journey time improvements, particularly when this is combined with strong growth in the morning peak.

It should be noted that the strong growth forecast for both the Interurban and Rural markets is in part policy-led with the objective of filling existing capacity.


Further work The modelling undertaken to support the Scotland Market Study is more extensive and detailed than that undertaken previously for both the 2007 Route Utilisation Strategy and the 2011 Generation 2 Route Utilisation Strategy. In part this is because the Long Term Planning Process has increased the size of the forecasting window to 30 years, but it is also due to the willingness of Transport Scotland to share model data and made a more ambitious and detailed forecasting approach to be feasible.

The models have been developed specifically for infrastructure planning and – like all models – have limitations in the way that they work which should be reflected in their interpretation. This section sets out the known limitations, assesses the materiality of each of these limitations and sets out a plan for addressing them (should that be deemed necessary).

• The modelling is designed to inform strategic choices and is therefore at a relatively high level. For this reason it does not include certain variables that are known to influence rail demand (which are included in TMfS and CSTM), including destination choice and car ownership caps. When the model was being calibrated this did not have a material effect, although these are areas that could be considered as part of further modelling developments.

• The TMfS and CSTM rail and bus data was disaggregated by Transport Scotland’s consultants from a combined Public Transport mode market share. This was the first time this exercise had been carried out and is important, as the purpose of the exercise was to forecast rail demand.

• In order to assign zonal demand to stations, they have been assigned on the basis of geographical proximity. This works well in most cases, but may not be able to take into account specific local demand and station choice decisions. Where this is material it could be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the Route Study.

• MOIRA demand profiles are based on a GB-wide dataset. It has been noted that demand profiles in MOIRA appear to be biased towards London and South East patterns of demand where on-train crowding forces demand into the shoulders of the peak and leads to a ‘flatter’ peak. This is because rail demand in the

UK is highest in and around London. Outside of the south east, the capacity constraint currently applies on fewer trains, so demand profiles tend to be ‘peakier’ (this is true for Scottish cities, possibly with the exception of Edinburgh). MOIRA therefore appears to understate peak hour demand (and therefore the capacity-related conditional outputs) but doesn’t affect growth. This is because as demand increases, it should be expected that the additional demand will be concentrated on the shoulders of the peak rather than on the high peak.

• Interurban forecasts are based on individual journey legs rather than a combined journey. This is the reason why, for example, demand on services from Aberdeen to Edinburgh is forecast to be higher than demand on services from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. The extent to which this is likely to affect the results of the analysis is not clear, but is unlikely to materially change the inferences drawn.


Complete list of Conditional Outputs identified in the Scotland Market StudyCapacity Conditional Outputs

Table 2.2 Scotland passenger capacity conditional outputs for 2023 and 2043

Reference Conditional Output

2043

CCO1To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2043

CCO2To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2043

CCO3To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Aberdeen during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2043

CCO4 To provide sufficient capacity over the day for passengers travelling on rural services in Scotland in 2043

CCO5To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling on the interurban services between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness in 2043

2023/24

CCO6To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24

CCO7To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24

CCO8To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Aberdeen during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24

CCO9 To provide sufficient capacity over the day for passengers travelling on rural services in Scotland in 2023/24

CCO10To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling on the interurban services between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness in 2023/24


Edinburgh Conurbation Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.3 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for the Edinburgh Conurbation area

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

ECO1 Edinburgh Waverley - Tweedbank3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour Reduce journey time

ECO2 Edinburgh Waverley - Berwick-upon-Tweed/Newcastle 1 opportunity to travel per hour

ECO3 Edinburgh Waverley - North Berwick2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ECO4 Edinburgh Waverley - Dunbar2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ECO5Edinburgh Waverley - Falkirk GrahamstonEdinburgh Waverley - Dunblane

2 to 4 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ECO6 Edinburgh Waverley - Fife Circle 4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hour

ECO7 Edinburgh Waverley - Livingston South 1 to 3 opportunities to travel per hour

ECO8 Edinburgh Waverley - Bathgate 2 opportunities to travel per hour


Interurban Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.4 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for interurban routes


GCO29 Stirling - Carlisle via Coatbridge 1 opportunity to travel per hour

ICO1 Glasgow Queen Street - Aberdeen1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO2 Dundee - Aberdeen 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

ICO3 Glasgow - Perth/ Dundee/ Glasgow - Arbroath 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

ICO4 Glasgow Queen Street - Inverness1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO5 Perth - Inverness 1 or 2 opportunities to travel every 2 hour

ICO6 Edinburgh Waverley - Aberdeen1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO7 Edinburgh Waverley - Dundee 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

ICO8 Edinburgh Waverley - Inverness1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO9 Edinburgh Waverley - Perth 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

ICO10 Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh Waverley (via Falkirk High)4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO11 Glasgow Central - Edinburgh Waverley (via Shotts)2 or 3 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO12 Glasgow Central - Edinburgh Waverley (via Carstairs)1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

ICO13 Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh Waverley (via Bathgate)4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

RCO4 Inverness - Aberdeen1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

RCO5 Inverness - Elgin1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time

RCO6 Inverurie - Aberdeen3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hourReduce journey time


Rural Connectivity Conditional OutputsTable 2.5 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Rural routes


RCO1 Inverness - Wick/Thurso 1 opportunity to travel every other hour

RCO2 Inverness - Invergordon 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour

RCO3 Inverness - Kyle 1 opportunity to travel every 3 hours

RCO7 Glasgow Queen Street - Oban 1 opportunity to travel every 2 to 3 hours

RCO8 Glasgow Queen Street- Mallaig 1 opportunity to travel every 2 to 3 hours

RCO9 Kilmarnock - Dumfries 1 opportunity to travel per hour

RCO10 Dumfries - Carlisle 2 opportunities to travel per hour

RCO11 Ayr - Girvan 1 opportunity to travel per hour

RCO12 Girvan - Stranraer 1 opportunity to travel every other hour


Glasgow Conurbation Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.6 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Glasgow Conurbation area


GCO1 Glasgow Queen Street – Larbert / Stirling / Alloa 2 to 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO2 Glasgow Queen Street - Anniesland (North Glasgow Circle) 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO3 Glasgow Queen Street - Falkirk Grahamston 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO4 Glasgow Central – Ayr / Kilwinning / Ardrossan HarbourUp to 6 opportunities to travel per hourJourney time reduction

GCO5 Glasgow Central - Largs 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO6 Glasgow Central - Gourock Retain existing service frequency

GCO7 Glasgow Central - Wemyss Bay Retain existing service frequency

GCO8 Glasgow Central - Paisley Canal Retain existing service frequency

GCO9 Glasgow Central - Barrhead Retain existing service frequency

GCO10 Glasgow Central – Kilmarnock / Ayr / New Cumnock / Carlisle 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO11 Glasgow Central - East Kilbride 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO12 Glasgow Central - Neilston 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO13 Glasgow Central - Newton 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO14 Glasgow Central - Glasgow Central (Cathcart Circle) Retain existing service frequency

GCO15 Glasgow Central - LanarkRetain existing service frequencyJourney time reduction


Table 2.6 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Glasgow Conurbation area (continued)


GCO16 Glasgow Central - Milngavie Retain existing service frequency

GCO17 Glasgow Queen Street - Milngavie Retain existing service frequency

GCO18 Glasgow Central - Helensburgh Retain existing service frequency

GCO19 Glasgow Queen Street - Balloch Retain existing service frequency

GCO20 Glasgow Queen Street - Dalmuir Retain existing service frequency

GCO21 Glasgow Queen Street - Dalmuir via Yoker / Dumbarton Central Retain existing service frequency

GCO22 Glasgow Central - Dalmuir via Singer Retain existing service frequency

GCO23 Glasgow Central - Airdrie / Bathgate Retain existing service frequency

GCO24 Glasgow Queen Street - Cumbernauld Retain existing service frequency

GCO25 Glasgow Central - Cumbernauld 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO26 Glasgow Central - Whifflet / Wishaw Retain existing service frequency

GCO27Glasgow Central – Glasgow Central (via Motherwell / Carmyle / Newton)

Retain existing service frequency

GCO28 Glasgow Central - Larkhall Retain existing service frequency

GCO30 Glasgow Central - Shotts 1 opportunity to travel per hour


2043 Indicative Train Service Specification Analysing the Connectivity Conditional Outputs

The Connectivity Conditional Outputs which have been developed are represented in the 2043 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) . This is one way in which the Connectivity Conditional Outputs could be delivered and it is the method with which the current network is tested.

In the west of Scotland, the service frequency of the suburban commuter market is relatively high already; therefore the Connectivity Conditional Outputs do not provide a step change in connectivity. However, even a small increase on a number of corridors into Glasgow Central can have a significant impact on the capacity of the terminal station.

In contrast, the 2043 ITSS proposes a step change in connectivity on the Interurban market in Scotland East.


Scotland (East) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS

Scotland (East) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS

KeyCross BoundaryInterurbanGlasgow ConurbanEdinburgh ConurbanRuralNon Hourly ServiceClass 4 and Class 6 refers tofreight tra�c

GLENROTHES WITH THORNTON

IRKCALDY

INVERKEIT

STON

FALKIRHIGH

GLASGOWQUEEN STREET

BATHGATE

STIRLING

DUNDEE

ABERDEEN

EDW

PE

Cowlairs Jns

Sighthill Jns

Bellgrove Jn

NewbridgeJn

GreenhillUpper Jn

Grange

OUTHRMINALS

gannetStation

Charles

WinchburghJnNess

n

Dalmeny Jn

FORTH BRIDGE

HaymarketJns

Craiglockhart JnCarmondean Jn

MillerhillYard

Millerhill Jns

GorgieJn

RosythDockyard

Thornton Jns

Hilton Jn

Perth South Jn

Dundee Central Jny Bridge

Linkswood (St Fort)

Craiginches Yard

DB Schenker

Methil

arl's Seat Disposal Point

SlatefordJn

erhallch Jn

PortobelloJns

MonktonhallJn

LeithDocks

allch

CGreenhill Lower Jn

Larbert J

CARSTAIRS

GLASGOW CENTRAL

rie WestJn

Bishopbriggs

Lenzie

Croy

Livingston North

Curriehill

Wester Hailes

Kingsknowe

SlatefordUphall

HaymarketBrunstane

Newcraighall

Rosyth

Larber

Bridge of Allan

Dunblane

Gleneagles

wrie

Broughty Ferryyy

BalmossieMo

Barry

Golf

Carnoustie

Arbroath

Montrose

StonehavenPortlethen

Leuchars

Cupar

Springfield

ybank

kinch

orn

North Queensferry

Linlithgow

Dalmeny

South Gyle

EdinburghPark

Dingwall Jn

Rose StreetJn

Welsh's BridgeJn

Alves Jn

Georgemas Jn

Waterloo Quay Goods (Croxton & Garry)

Kittybrewster Jn

Roseisle-UnitedDistillers

Lairg BP Oil

Harbour

WICK

THURSO

Aviemore

DINGWALL

KYLE OF LOCHALSH

INVERNESS

Muir of OrdDuirinish

Plockton

DuncraigStromeferry Attadale

Strathcarron

Achnashellach

Achnasheen

Achanalt

Lochluichart

Garve

Beauly

Alness

Invergordon

Fearn

Culra

Inve

Lairg

Rogart

Golspie

Dunrobin Castle

Brora

Helmsdale

Kildonan

Kinbrace

ForsinardAltnabreac

Scotscalder

GeorgemasJunction

Dunke& Birn

Pitlochry

Blair Atholl

Newt

Kingussie

Nairn Forres Elgin

Dyce

Inverurie

H tl

Keith

Carrbridge

Caldercruix

Blackridge Armadale

DRUMGELLOCH

Laurencekirk

Conon Bridge Dalcross

Kintore

Edinburgay

awfair

kbank

rangebridge

Stowashiels

dbank

Musselburgh Wallyford

Prestonpans

Lon

em

Dunbar

BerwickDunbar RailTerminal

BerwickkkUpon Tweed

(East Linton)

(Winchburgh)

(Reston)

Appendix 2 December 2015 Scotland Market Study - Scotland Route Study Drafy for Consultastion 129

onnm

DalDalwhwhhihinniinniee

1 x Class 4ass 6 or Cl

lHuntl

Insch

lyy1 x Class 4or Class 6or C

eldnamm

RTTHH Ta

Innverrggoow

BB

1 x

Clas

s 4

or C

lass

6

COWOWW

CarCarC den

Dunfe Queen M

townJn

Dunferermlimlim neneTown

WWWDEDENDENENNNDE BEABEABEAB TTTTHHH

Loococchhhgggeh lly

ermlmlilineneeneargaretet

1 x Class 4 or Class 6ss 6

G

Grange

LongPower SALLLLAL OAO

CarmuiJns

Jn

rt

CamamHAM

RKH

PolmontnttJn

emouthJn

GEMOHT TE

BBo'NJn

PolPolP mmomononm t

FAFAFALALLFAF KKIKIIRRRKK GGRAH

emouthhh

GRGRANGFRFREIEIF GH

mmmeloelooele nn

1 x Class 4 andnd

1 x Class 6

DINBUBUURRRWAVER

PPPowdBBBraanc

NNiddr

PoPoowwwddeerhaBBraancRGHRGHRGH

RLEEY

1 x

Clas

s 6

npans

ngnnidddrdd yy

DDreDDre

NNNoNoorrtthh B

1 x

Clas

s 4

1Cl

4an

d 1

x Cl

ass

6an

g

Sha

EEsk

eewwwtttooonngGGGGoooreeb

GGGaala

Tweed

N

Class 4 1 x

CClass 6or C

Kirknewton

Midcalder Jn

x Class 4

4 x CClass 6

and 1 x C

ainn

rshin

TTain

A dArdg

Culra

gay

ainn1 x Class 41 Cl 4 or Class 6or C

THING

ndnd

ensferry

KI

Kingho

AbebeeA

Dalgety

g

BururB ntislaann

eeerdordordou

BBayyyay

x Class 4

1 x Class 6

or Clas

orhorYYaarardd

RedfordJn

Clunlun bybriybridgdgeJn

dendEa

S

Lady

Mark

ankankankban JnJn

WWWWeWesWestesttfiefieldSScScotottishCCoal

DBSBSSrrntntontonononnYYaYaYardardrdd

1 x Clasass

4

or CClass

6

ionifiefiethhthy LiLinkkss

Streett1 x Class 4

ass 6or Cl

RCO1RCRCO1O1RRRRRCO1

GCO1

GCO1

GCO1

GGGGCO1

GCO1

GCO1

GCO11

GCO1

GCO1

GCO1

GCO3

WWGCO3

GCO3

GCO3

GCO3uirsuirs 3GCO3GCO3GCO3

GCO3

GCO3

GCO3

GCO3

GCO33333333333333333

CO29

ererCO

29

rtrtGCO

29GC

O29

GCO23GCOGCOO2O233O2O2O2O2GCO23GCO23GCO23


Scotland (West) Route Study Map 2043 ITSSScotland (West) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS

December 2015 Scotland Market Study - Scotland Route Study Drafy for Consultastion 130

GOUROCK

GREENOCK CENTRAL

CATHCART

EAST KILBRIDE

WEMYSS BAY

LARGS

TROON

PRESTWICK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AYR

GIRVANSTRANRAER

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR

KILWINNING

BALLOCH

MILNGAVIE

CUMBERNAULD

DRUMGELLOCH

PARTICK

SPRINGBURN

DUMBARTON CENTRAL

GLASGOW CENTRAL

PAISLEYCANAL

BARRHEAD

PAISLEY GILMOUR STREET

HAMILTONCENTRAL

MOTHERWELL

SHOTTS

LANARK

DUMFRIES ANNAN

CARSTAIRSKILMARNOCK

NEILSTON

HELENSBURGH CENTRAL

AIRDRIE

LARKHALL

GLASGOW QUEENSTREET

NEWTON

Dalreoch Jn

Deanside Terminal

Hyndland East Jn

Hyndland North Jn

Sighthill Jns

osh Jn

Greenhill Lower Jn Carmuirs Jns

EDINBURGH WAVERLEY

Greenhill Jn

Gartshe

SunnysideJn

Gunnie Yard

Lang

MOSSEND YARDS

MOSSEND EUROTERMINAL

Coa

Whifflet North Jnhh

Whifflet South Jn

Gretna JnMaxwelltown Eastriggs MOD Yard

Ma

Garnque

COATBRIDGE FREIGHTLINER

TERMINAL

FinniestonJns

Rutherglen Jns

Shields ss Jns

Terminus Jns

Muirhouse Jns

Hyndland West Jn

Clydebank Dock Jn

Clydebank Jn

Wemyss Bay Jn

Princes Pier Clyde Port Authority

Dalmuir Riverside

BellgroveJn

HighStreet Jn

BridgeStreet

Eglington Street Jn

Hunterston Jn

RocheProductsHUNTERSTON

LOW LEVELCLYDEPORT

HUNTERSTON HIGH LEVEL COAL TERMINAL

Jns

BusbyJn

Wallneuk Jn

ContainerbaseJn

Cardonald Jn

ning Jn

Barassie Jn

Meadowhead Caledonian Paper

Newton Jn

Annbank Jn

Dalrymple Jn

Falkland Jn

Chalmerston Disposal Point

Harbour Jn

Ayr Harbour

DB Schenker FALKLAND YARD

Prestwick BP Oil Terminal

Stranraer Town

Kilmarnock Jn

Riccarton BP Oil

Mauchline Jn Bank Jn

GreenburnJn

KNOCKSHINNOCH DISPOSAL POINT

GREENBURN COALTERMINALKilloch Washery

Cathcart Jns

UddingstonJn

Midcalder Jn

HolytownJn

Lesmahagow Jn

HaughheadJn

Sh

JnSHIELDMUIR ROYAL MAIL

TERMINAL

Law JnGariongill Jn

LanarkJn Carstairs

JnsRAVENSTRUTHERCOAL

Watson Head HJ Banks Coal

Wishaw Central Jn

Newton West JnNewton Kirkhill Jn

EG Steele Wagon Repairs

Westerton Jn

CowlairsJns

Knightswood North Jn

ATH Mining

MossendJns

Byrehill Jn

DubbsJn

Charing Cross

Craigendoran

Cardross

Yoker

Clydebank

WhinhillDrumfrochar

Stevenston

Garscadden

Scotstounhill

Jordanhill

Hawkhead

Crookston

MossparkCorkerhill

KingsPark Croftfoot Burnside Kirkhill

HamiltonWest

Chatelherault

Merryton

Blantyre Airbles

Coatbridge Central

Cambuslang

Bellshill

Shieldmuir

Wishaw

Carluke

UddingstonHolytown Carfin

Hartwood

Fauldhouse

BreichAddiewell

West CalderLivingston South

Cleland

High Street

Maxwell Park

Muirend

Pollokshields West

Kennishead

Priesthill& Darnley

Pollokshaws West

Nitshill

DunlopStewartonKilmaurs

Patterton

Whitecraigs

Williamwood

Thornliebank

Auchinleck New Cumnock

Kirkconnel

Giffnock

Dumbreck

Alexandria

Fort Matilda

Greenock West

Cartsdyke

Bogston

Port Glasgow

Branchton

IBMInverkip

West Kilbride

Irvine

Barassie

Prestwick Town

Newton-on-Ayr

Barrhill

Maybole

Ardrossan Town

Ardrossan South Beach

Saltcoats

JohnstoneMilliken Park

HowwoodLochwinnoch

Glengarnock

Dalry

Fairlie

Woodhall

Langbank

BishoptonPaisley St James Hillington

WestHillington East

Cardonald

Shawlands

CrossmyloofQueens Park

CrosshillMount Florida

Pollokshaws East

Langside

ClarkstonBusby

Thorntonhall

Hairmyres

Sanquhar

Gretna Green

Hillfoot

Bearsden

Westerton

Maryhill

Kelvindale

Summerston

Gilshochill

Possilpark& Parkhouse

Ashfield

Barnhill AlexandraParadeDukeStreet

Stepps

Gartcosh

Greenfaulds

CoatbridgeSunnyside

Coatdyke

Anniesland

Exhibition Centre

AnderstonArgyle Street Bridgeton

Dalmarnock

Carmyle

Mount Vernon

Bellgrove Carntyne

Shettleston

Garrowhill

Easterhouse

Blairhill

Baillieston

Bargeddie

Kirkwood

Rutherglen

Hyndland

Renton

Dalreoch Dumbarton EastBowling

DalmuirSinger

Drumry

DrumchapelKilpatrick

Pollokshields East

Whifflet

ort William Jn

Crianlarich Jn

Craigendoran Jn

Glen Douglas MOD

Lochaber British Alcan

Arjo Wiggins

MALLAIG

CRIANLARICH

Helensburgh Upper

FORTWILLIAM

OBANConnel

Ferry

Taynuilt

Falls of Cruachan

Loch Awe

Dalmally

Tyndrum Lower

MorarArisaig

Beasdale Lochailort

Glenfinnan Locheilside

Loch EilOutward Bound

Corpach

Banavie

Spean Bridge

Roy Bridge

TullochCorrourRannochBridge of OrchyUpper Tyndrum

ArdluiArrochar & Tarbet

Garelochhead

Robroyston

KeyCross BoundaryInterurbanGlasgow ConurbanEdinburgh ConurbanRuralNon Hourly ServiceClass 4 and Class 6 refers tofreight tra�c

Appendix 2

SHOTTartwoo

FaFa

BreiichhcAddiiewewelell

West Calder

and

TTTSTSTod

aululdhdhd o 1 x Class 4

or Class 6

MOSSENDEU

y wnJnJn

wn CarfinCClela

Ha

Breic

CClClela

n

JJns

Holytow

5 x Class 4 and 1 x Class 6

gloan Jn

atbrididgge Je JJe nnn


AIRtatatbbrbridididgege

nnyside

errieeeen NoNo thrth JJn

GEER

NAL

use

GuYY

CCoCoaaSun


ERNAULD

ss 4 andClass 6

Greenfa

CUMBE

aulddldss

1 x Class 4 and

1 x Class 6s

est

nC

GaGartco

GGaarttco

1 x

Clas

s 6

ck

EIGT

on

Garrrowowhhill

EEaaste

FRE

on EEaa

1 x Class 6

BBB

ENNNE DDDARDDDSSR

W

W

kwood

WhW ifflet

BeBelllllshs illl

L

Mount

BaB

Bargeddie

aililliiliesestoKirk

1 x Class 6

NewtoEast J

Uddd

armmrmylylelVernonn

MOTH

N

Udding

Les

NewtotonnHamiltonon JnJnnJ

HamiltonW t

Blantyyrere

onJn

iingnggn ststs ononn

1 x Class 6

HAC

Wagon Repairs

axwweeelltotowwnGGoooodds

JJnnJ

DU

1 x

Clas

s 4

or C

lass

6

nWiWishha

ieldmmuuirir

Wishawhielddmuimuiim rrr

NororththJn

e d uuaw CeCe tntr lal JJshaw


gegegeg tototonnn

lgrove Carntyne GG

StrreeetArgyyle Strereetet BBrBrBrididid

1 x Class 6

Northh JnJnJ

l

ston P&

Gillsshohocchill

1 x

Clas

s 6

L

H

Drumc

ry

c aappel WeW

Be

chaapel

1 x

Clas

s 6

CH

NN CENTRA

lexandRent

n East

i k

n Douglas MOD

A

D

n

DDDaDallmmuirPPaPark Jn

Dalmuir Riverside

ch

DaDDapalm

Kilpatr

DUMMBBBARARA TOTOTOONNNDuDummbbararrtoton

BoBoowwlingKil t

1 x Class

6

C

Fo

o Wiiggginns

RT

anaaviviee

Corppacach

1 x

Clas

s 6

WINNINGning Jn

owhheaddonian Paper

hill

B i

MMeaM ddoCaled

ee

2 x Class 6

ARGS

unterston Jn

RoProHUNUNTTEE

HIGH LH LLEVEVECOAL TTERERRE

West Kilbrid

airliee

KILWKilwin

Byreston

Saltc

D

Wn

e

Irvivinncoatss

nn

RMRMR AL

DuubD bsJnnJde

1 x Class 6

SLEY Y GIGIIG LL R SSTSTTRREE

Langgbank

shshs opopo tonStSt JJama es

ETW

JohnJJJJilliken

HoHowwwww oodLochhwiwiw nnnnoocch

Glengarnockk

R SSTTTRREE

MH

1 x Class 4

or Class 6

WWWeesstt Jn

rscadden

Sc nhhnhilli l

oorrdddaanh

iininggtgton st

H

PAISLECANA

k Jn

gtoonnt

HiHiHilllllliiiEaEas

1 x Class 4 or Class 6

gleRuthergJ e

RuR

Da

toJJ

n

gt

Jn

ingeeStre

Larkfield Jokshieieldlds

ee

L kfi ld Jddss

t JJ1 x Class 6

CH

lochrro

rchyrurumm

CRIANLARIC

drummowerr

RanBBrididUUpppp

ANLARIC

nnoddgege oof f Orpeep rr TyTyynddndrr

1 x Class 6

rrggllee

l

8 tpd

8 tpd

6 tpd

0.5 tph


Background to the development of the Freight Market Study

The Freight Market Study looked at the overall freight market in Great Britain and has produced demand forecasts for freight over a 10, 20 and 30 year planning horizon, which will enable the freight market to be considered in the same planning timescales, and at the same level of detail, as the passenger market. The study includes preferred routeing of services and the implied requirements in terms of network capacity and capability. Scenarios are used to reflect market uncertainties.

The Freight Market Study was published as a Draft for Consultation in April 2013 with the final document published in October 2013.

The story of rail freight since privatisation is one of success. Since the mid-1990s, rail freight, measured in terms of tonne kilometres, has increased at about 2.5 per cent per annum. Rail freight has also performed well following the recent recession, with both tonnes and tonne kilometres increasing between 2009 and 2012. Recent years have seen a continuation of structural change in the

rail freight market which first became evident just over a decade ago. Great Britain’s manufacturing industry is in long term decline – in common with many other Western nations – and Great Britain has become an economy which imports a wide range of goods.

This has affected rail freight in two ways over the last decade:

• traditional bulk markets for rail, such as domestically based coal and steel production, have diminished substantially

• the import of goods through major ports, particularly involving freight from the Far East, has increased greatly, and the handling of these goods has been dominated by growth in the trend towards containerisation.

The net effect of these changes in production, consumption and logistics has been that containerised (that is, deep sea intermodal) freight, mainly consisting of consumer goods, has become the single largest commodity conveyed on rail. Domestic flows of consumer goods to and from major terminals like Daventry have contributed to the predominance of intermodal rail freight.

For rail to make this structural change it had to convert itself from a mode dominated by the bulk haul of relatively low value goods to a market increasingly influenced by fast moving consumer goods (FMCG). In order to penetrate the FMCG market, rail has had to seek lower margin business in strong competition with road hauliers. This has required step changes to productivity and service standards – which rail has negotiated successfully, gaining market share against road.

The Freight Market Study provide forecasts for 2023, 2033 and 2043 for all sectors, including Intermodal, Electricity Supply Industry, Biomass, Construction materials, Metals, Petroleum, Chemicals, Industrial minerals, Automotive, Iron ore, Non-power station coal and Domestic Waste.

Overall forecast freight growth is for an increase in total tonne kilometres of 2.9 per cent annual growth to 2043. In terms of total tonnes lifted, the forecast is for 2.0 per cent annual growth to 2043, compared with the recent trend of broadly stable tonnage. The growth rate in terms of tonnes is lower than that for tonne kilometres as a result of changes in the composition of traffic, such as the reduction in coal flows and the increase in longer distance intermodal flows.

Further information on the Freight Market Study can be found on the Network Rail website.

Freight Market Study


2043 Conditional Outputs

Building on the outputs from the Freight Market Study, established in 2013, and working in conjunction with the freight industry, the following 2043 Conditional Outputs, shown as paths per hour, were developed (in addition to one class one service per hour were developed on the West Coast Main Line).

Freight Conditional Output Scenarios

Due to some uncertainty within the Freight Market, scenarios were developed for the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the East Coast Main Line (ECML).

Scenario 1

Base case: 20% Felixstowe traffic routes on ECML instead of WCML

Scenario: All Felixstowe and Midland Main Line traffic routes on ECML instead of WCML

Scenario 2

Base case: 4 x class 4 + 1 x class 6 on WCML and 1 x class 4 or 6 on Glasgow & South Western (G&SW)

Scenario: 3 x class 4 on WCML and 1 x class 4 + 1 x class 6 on G&SW (1 via Ayr and 1 via Mauchline)

Scenario 3

Base case: all services between Law Junction and Mossend are via Holytown

Scenario: mix of services via Motherwell and via Holytown between Law Junction and Mossend.

HunterstonCoal Terminal

GrangemouthFreight Terminal

Key

Passenger RoutesFreight Only

Figures reflect trains per hour

Class 4Class 6

HAMILTONCENTRAL

LANARK

CARSTAIRS

LARKHALL

NEWTON

Mossend Yard

Coatbridge FLT

LongannetPower Station

New CumnockCoal Terminal

GreenburnCoal Terminal

KillochCoal Terminal

ChalmerstonCoal Terminal

AIRDRIE

Falkland Yard

CockenziePower Station

LNE Route

LNW Route

WHIFFLET

COATBRIDGE CENTRAL

Glen Douglas MOD

DeansideTerminal

RiccartonOil Terminal

Ayr Harbour

Lairg OilTerminal

Waterloo Terminal

Craiginches Yard

Needlefield Yard

RosythDockyard

ShieldmuirRoyal Mail

RavenstrutherCoalTerminal

B.AlcanSiding

CorpachSidings

Raiths Farm

TWEEDBANK

Powderhall

Leith Docks

PrestwickInternational

Airport

FALKIRK HIGH

DUMFRIES

CATHCART

KILWINNING

CUMBERNAULD

AVIEMORE

Dalry Roche

Irvine CPP

CRIANLARICH

DUMBARTON

DINGWALL

KIRKCALDY

DUNFERMLINE

PAISLEYCANAL

WEMYSS BAY

GOUROCK

PAISLEY

FORT WILLIAM

MALLAIG

OBAN

HELENSBURGHCENTRAL

BALLOCH

ANNIESLAND

MILNGAVIE

SPRINGBURN

GLASGOWQUEEN STREET

GLASGOWCENTRAL

CROY

STIRLING

INVERKEITHING

EDINBURGHWAVERLEY

BERWICK UPON TWEED

NORTHBERWICK

KYLE OF LOCHALSH

INVERNESS

THURSO

WICK

DUNDEE

ABERDEEN

GLENROTHES WITHTHORNTON

PERTH

MOTHERWELL

EAST KILBRIDEKILMARNOCK

AYR

STRANRAER

NEILSTON

LARGS

ARDROSSANHARBOUR

BATHGATE

SHOTTS

GILMOUR ST ForthBridge

0/1

0/1

0/1

1or1

4/1(1)(2)

0/1

1/1

1/1

1or1

0/1

1or1(2)

1or1

1or1

1or1

1or1

1or1 1or1

1or1

1or1

1or1

1or1

1or1(1)

1/1

1or1

0/0(3)

4/1(

3)

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/10/

2

0/1

0/1

0/1

5/1

2043 FREIGHT DEMAND FORCAST

1/10/1

0/1

Figure 3.1 – Scotland Freight Conditional Outputs for 2043


Long Distance Market Study Background to the development of the Long Distance Market Study

The majority of long distance travel is typically made for the purposes of business on behalf of an employer, and leisure. Although long distance commuting is increasingly popular it still accounts for a small proportion of the total number of long distance journeys. Long distance services have therefore, over time, been tailored to suit the needs of business and leisure passengers, and for the purposes of the study the long distance passenger market sector was defined as a combination of distance and journey purpose:

• the market for rail travel over distances of greater than 50 miles, excluding journeys which are predominately for commuting purposes and are made entirely within one of the other Market Study areas

• the market for rail travel between large towns and cities of at least 30 miles apart, again excluding journeys made entirely within one of the City Regions considered in the other Market Study areas.

This definition was intended to attach a geographic construction to the types of travel by journey purpose which comprise the majority of the long distance sector, namely business travel and leisure travel. It is recognised that this is a simplification of the role performed currently by rail services particularly where long distance services also facilitate commuting.

The Long Distance Market Study was published as a Draft for Consultation in March 2013 with the final document published in October 2013.

Since 1994 passenger demand in the long distance sector has grown robustly at an average rate of over three per cent per year. This growth was strongest in the years immediately preceding the recession when passenger kilometres travelled by rail grew by 25 per cent between 2004/05 and 2007/08. Since then, demand has continued to grow, albeit at a lower rate, before returning to a higher rate of growth in 2010/11 with a six per cent increase in demand.

A three stage approach was used to develop the long term demand projections:

• a review of the factors which influence the demand for travel by rail

• development of four alternative futures for Great Britain’s economy and social and environmental planning, to examine how the factors which influence the demand for travel by rail could change

• production of a projected range of future passenger demand based on these four scenarios.

A set of conditional outputs for the long distance passenger market were developed as a statement of the long term aspirations for the level of service provided and are required to inform future investment decisions. They should be viewed as aspirations for the future rather than recommended investment decisions. It is also important to state that the conditional outputs shown are conditional on both affordability, fundability, and a value for money business case being made for any interventions that subsequent Route Studies in the Long Term Planning Process may consider as a way to deliver them. Equally the conditional outputs will need to be deliverable both technologically, operationally and physically.

Find further information on the Long Distance Market Study on the Network Rail website.


Long Distance Market Study 2043 Conditional Outputs Table 4.1 Long Distance Passenger Connectivity Conditional Outputs for 2043

Reference Origin to destination (flow) End to end journey speed (mph) Opportunities to travel (per hour)

LDCO1 Edinburgh to London 160 3 or 4

LDCO2 Glasgow to London 160 3 or 4

LDCO3 Edinburgh to Birmingham 100 2 or 3

LDCO4 Edinburgh to Leeds 100 2 or 3

LDCO5 Edinburgh to Liverpool 100 2 or 3

LDCO6 Edinburgh to Manchester 100 2 or 3

LDCO7 Edinburgh to Newcastle 100 2 or 3

LDCO8 Glasgow to Birmingham 100 2 or 3

LDCO9 Glasgow to Leeds 100 2 or 3

LDCO10 Glasgow to Liverpool 100 2 or 3

LDCO11 Glasgow to Manchester 100 2 or 3

LDCO12 Glasgow to Newcastle 80 1 or 2

LDCO13 Aberdeen to Newcastle 80 1 or 2


Table 4.2 Long Distance Capacity Conditional Outputs for 2043

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Accommodate number of daily passenger journeys

LDCO14 Edinburgh to London 12400

LDCO15 Glasgow to London 6700

LDCO16 Edinburgh to Birmingham 800

LDCO17 Edinburgh to Leeds 900

LDCO18 Edinburgh to Liverpool 400

LDCO19 Edinburgh to Manchester 1600

LDCO20 Edinburgh to Newcastle 2400

LDCO21 Glasgow to Birmingham 700

LDCO22 Glasgow to Leeds 500

LDCO23 Glasgow to Liverpool 400

LDCO24 Glasgow to Manchester 1200

LDCO25 Glasgow to Newcastle 1000

LDCO26 Edinburgh to Nottingham 100

LDCO27 Edinburgh to Sheffield 300


Cross-Boundary Analysis This section outlines the approach that has been taken when considering passenger and freight services which cross the boundary of the Scotland Route Study area and describes the process for identifying cross-boundary services which can meet the conditional outputs.

The Route Study boundaries broadly follow those of the Network Rail devolved Routes. Due to this division of rail network geography, it is necessary to co-ordinate the treatment of passenger and freight trains which traverse Route Study boundaries, hence the cross-boundary process. The Scotland Route Study area has boundaries with other Route Study areas at Berwick-upon-Tweed and Gretna Junction. These are shown in the map in Chapter 2 figure 1.1.

The cross-boundary process

The cross-boundary process has been developed by the Route Study Working Group. The Cross-Boundary Working Group developed an Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) for passenger services which cross any route study boundary. This specification is an interpretation of how the connectivity conditional outputs could be delivered. The conditional outputs could be expressed in a number of ways, and the Cross-Boundary ITSS sought to minimise the number of train movements over any given corridor by linking conditional outputs together, and where possible, by enabling a number of them to be delivered by the same train service. The Cross-Boundary ITSS does not seek to consider every passenger service that crosses a route study boundary – rather it looks at changes to the baseline service pattern where change may be required to deliver the conditional outputs. The services contained in the Cross-Boundary ITSS have been incorporated into the Scotland Route Study ITSS detailed in Appendix 2.

For freight services, information for the Scotland Route Study has been derived from the Freight Market Study, including the preferred routeing of these services. However, freight services operate to a different timetable according to the needs of their customers and are often irregular, or operate on specific days of the week. To cater for this variation, the Cross-Boundary Working Group reviewed the exact disaggregated number of freight services, and produced a consistent figure that allows the analysis of forecast freight flows

alongside passenger. The information has then been rounded within the relevant route study area to the nearest whole number, but remains the precise figure at the route study boundary. This ensures that Route Studies, that are adjacent to the Scotland Route Study area, do not incrementally round up, and result in over provision of paths for freight services.

The Cross-Boundary Working Group continues to meet to receive and approve proposals from the Route Studies to amend the cross-boundary specification (for either passenger or freight trains), and to advise on resolving capacity issues affecting more than one Route Study. The Route Studies do not all run in parallel, so the cross-boundary process is a continuous one throughout the Long Term Planning Process programme.

Cross-boundary services in 2043

The Scotland ITSS includes broad groups of services serving a number of different markets, as set out below.

• services from the North East of England, some of which are extended through from Edinburgh to serve locations to Glasgow or Aberdeen

• Regional service on the East Coast Main Line linking stations between Edinburgh and Berwick/Newcastle

• regional services between Dumfries and Carlisle, some of which are extended through to Kilmarnock

• regional service between Stirling/Carstairs and Carlisle

• High Speed 2 connecting Edinburgh/Glasgow and London

• services connecting Edinburgh/Glasgow and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham

• Freight services on the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line to Central Scotland and further north.


Scotland Route Study – 2043 Option identification and development

Route Section Ref No.

Intervention title / description Driver

Option Rating 1(High)

– 5 (Low)

Commentary – rational for intervention, anticipated benefits,

relationship with other enhancement options

Route Study ConclusionsCP5

Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

1.7 - Edinburgh Waverley Station (West throat) to Haymarket Station

1.7.1

Bi-directional signalling (all lines) between Haymarket Central Junction (inclusive) and Waverley Station.

Regulation 3

Improves operational flexibility – may enable rationalisation of Switches and Crossings (S&C) / avoid the need for further interventions in the Haymarket area.

Waverley Masterplan developments (Options 1.6.1 - 1.6.11) and interventions on Fife routes (options 5.2.5a/b/c) likely to deliver better network outcomes.

£-££

1.7.26 track railway between Edinburgh Waverley & Haymarket Station.

Capacity 5To be considered if developing Haymarket for terminating services is not to be progressed.

Only likely to progress as an HS2 requirement e.g. boring new tunnel(s) through to Waverley.

££££

1.7.3New Platform 5 turnback platform at Haymarket Station.

Capacity 3

Could reduce South Lines traffic running in to Waverley, creating capacity for HS2 and / or additional West Coast Main Line (WCML) services / Airdrie to Bathgate (A2B) / Edinburgh to Glasgow (E&G) routes.

Preferable to 6-tracking through to Waverley, but constrained site and passenger access issues at Haymarket are likely to limit scope & benefits.

£

1.7.4Additional passenger access at Haymarket platform ends (East).

Station Capacity

3

Eases passenger movement around the station (aligns well with Haymarket Platform 5 option, were that to progress).

Progress - worth considering / reassessing if passenger numbers increase in line with or faster than forecast.

£-££

1.7.5

Assess Haymarket depot future, after Millerhill depot opens - potential area for additional Haymarket platforms.

Capacity 3

Could reduce North Lines traffic running in to Waverley, creating capacity on South Lines for HS2 / additional services on WCML / A2B / E&G.

Likely to add to the cost and difficulty of stabling an expanding ScotRail fleet elsewhere in the Edinburgh area.

££

3.1 - Haymarket West Junction to Newbridge Junction

3.1.1

Relocate Edinburgh Park platforms on loops, with non-stop fast lines in the centre.

Regulation 4

Improve regulation of fast vs. slow services through Edinburgh Park - timetable benefits between Haymarket and Newbridge Junction.

Penalty of extended journey times (c. 3-4mins) for stopping services is likely to prove prohibitive.

£££-££££

3.1.2

Reinstate Saughton Junction (to permit A2B / E&G services to cross earlier to / from the North Lines).

Regulation 3Earlier and faster South-North line moves than offered currently at Haymarket West Junction.

Improves flexibility and capacity approaching Haymarket West Junction, for existing traffic flows, but not required if Almond and Winchburgh Junctions are Grade Separated (option 3.1.4).

£

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m





– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

3.1 - Haymarket West Junction to Newbridge Junction

3.1.3

4 track the section of route between Newbridge Junction and Haymarket East Junction, including Edinburgh Park Station.

Regulation 4Larger scale intervention to option 3.1.2 (see above).

A more comprehensive solution than 3.1.2, but much more expensive with a significant interface with Edinburgh Tram.

££££

3.1.4

Grade separate Winchburgh Junction and build new Almond Junction (also grade separated) - electrify route from Haymarket Station to Winchburgh Junction via the new Almond Junction.

Regulation 1

Reduces capacity pressure through Newbridge Junction, streamlines the flow of trains through the Haymarket area to reduce crossing moves, creates opportunities for E&G services to call at Edinburgh Gateway Station; creates a W12 E&G freight route (avoids Winchburgh Tunnel) and timetable improvement options.

Progress - offers a substantial improvement in network flexibility and capacity, and minimises the extent of other infrastructure works approaching and in Edinburgh Waverley.

£114-286m

3.2 - Newbridge Junction to Polmont Junction

3.2.1W12 gauge clearance on E&G.

Diversion-ary

Capacity4

Expensive E&G option - alternatively this would be achieved if Almond Junction and Winchburgh Grade Separation are taken forward (plus electrification).

An expensive E&G option - better achieved if Almond Junction and Winchburgh Grade Separation are taken forward (option 3.1.4).

£-£££

3.2.2Grade separate Winchburgh Junction - duplicate of option 3.1.4.

Regulation 1

Improves timetable through Newbridge Junction and in the Haymarket West - Haymarket Station area (in combination with Almond Junction - option 3.1.4).

Incorporated within scope of option 3.1.4.

See option 3.1.4

3.2.3

Install turnback signal at Linlithgow Station (to permit an Edinburgh to Linlithgow shuttle service to operate).

Improved Disruption Manage-

ment

2

Beneficial in the event of planned or unplanned disruption to services between Polmont Junction and Linlithgow Station.

Progress - consider undertaking in advance of future major works between Linlithgow and Polmont stations e.g. option 3.2.4.

£

3.2.4

Move and remodel Polmont Station to 4 platforms at Polmont Junction (Kilwinning format).

Capacity 3

Separates Dunblane stopping services and through E&G services for timetable and potential journey time improvements.

Reassess if the E&G timetable evolves to 6 trains per hour and /or additional services run between Falkirk Grahamston and Edinburgh Waverley.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.1 - Haymarket West to Dunfermline Town

5.1.1Rationalise Haymarket West Junction to a single ladder.

Rationali-sation

3Requires reinstatement of Saughton Jn - see option 3.1.2.

Not viable as a standalone project i.e. without option 3.1.2.

£

5.1.2

Undertake electrification design for the Fife Line in the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport.

Con-structabil-

ity2

Consider risks relating to low flying aircraft and emergency landing procedures - for Haymarket - Dalmeny - Winchburgh Junction electrification - part of option 3.1.4.

Progress - initial engagement with the Airport was undertaken for EGIP, and GRIP Stage 4 designs produced for key structures.

£

5.1.3

Remodel Dalmeny Station - move on to existing loops, and relocate the loop entry connections closer to the Forth Bridge.

Regulation 4Creates a turnback facility and an opportunity for faster through services to overtake trains stopping at Dalmeny.

Penalty of extended journey times (c. 3-4mins) for stopping services is likely to prove prohibitive.

£-££

5.1.4aImprove linespeeds over the Forth Bridge.

Journey Times

5

To minimise costs and level of disruption undertake prior to electrification - potential benefits for timetabling and freight.

Not possible due to cantilevered design without significant changes to the structure.

£-££

5.1.4bAchieve electrification clearances across the Forth Bridge.

Journey Times

2

Undertake several years prior to electrification to de-risk the OLE programme critical path - potential freight gauge benefit.

Progress - timing will be determined by traffic levels and timescales for Fife electrification.

££-£££

5.1.5

Review speed constraints between Forth Bridge and Inverkeithing Jn - including the benefits of ERTMS.

Journey Times

4Make any infrastructure interventions prior to electrification. Possible link with option 5.2.5a/b/c and 5.2.6.

Limited benefits anticipated for existing timetable, but this aligns with the Dunfermline bypass and related schemes.

£

5.1.6aClear North Queensferry Tunnel for electrification.

Con-structabil-

ity2

To minimise costs and level of disruption undertake prior to electrification - potential for freight gauge improvement.

Progress - make any infrastructure interventions prior to electrification - assumes slabtrack solution.

£

5.1.6bClear Inverkeithing Tunnels for electrification.

Con-structabil-

ity2

To minimise costs and level of disruption undertake prior to electrification - potential for freight gauge improvement.

Progress - make any infrastructure interventions prior to electrification - assumes slabtrack solution.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.1 - Haymarket West to Dunfermline Town

5.1.7

Create separate Inverkeithing Station platforms on the Fife lines and Cowdenbeath lines.

Regulation 3Separates Inverkeithing stopping services vs fast through services running either side of the Fife Circle.

Limited benefits if options 5.2.5a/b/c and related schemes progress, as the timetable would be less constrained as a result.

£-££

5.1.8Addition of a new bay platform at Dunfermline Town.

Regulation 4

Turnback option if service levels require it - alongside platform, to utilise the existing Charlestown Junction crossover.

Re-assess business case if options 5.2.5a/b/c etc. do not proceed, and additional Fife services are proposed.

£

5.1.9Closure of Halbeath level crossing.

Journey Times

3Beneficial if Fife service frequencies increase, possible linespeed benefit and tie in with option 5.2.3.

Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to improve Level Crossing safety at this location.

£8-18m

5.1.104-track South Gyle to Edinburgh Gateway with platforms on loops.

Regulation 4

Creates opportunities for faster through services to overtake trains stopping at South Gyle and Edinburgh Gateway stations, thereby improving Fife timetable and journey times.

Not required if options 3.1.4 and 5.2.5a/b/c progress.

££££

5.2 - Inverkeithing to Dundee (via Dalgety Bay)

5.2.1Extend Dalgety Bay Up Passenger Loop.

Regulation 3

For freight regulation, including engineering haulage trains - lengthen to match future facilities towards Aberdeen. Undertake prior to Fife electrification.

2 routes already exist between Inverkeithing and Thornton North Junction - business case for this and other freight loops to be assessed for diesel-hauled vs. electrified traffic to determine what interventions are optimal between the Central Belt of Scotland and Aberdeen.

£

5.2.2a

Strengthen Burntisland Viaduct (for Linespeed Improvements).

Journey Times

3Undertake prior to Fife electrification. Combine with scope of weatherproofing works.

Business case is poor if options 5.2.5a/b/c etc. proceed. Fewer limited stop services would use this route to Dundee and Perth.

£

5.2.2b

Burntisland flood resilience - taking into account likely future weather conditions.

Journey Times

4Undertake prior to Fife electrification. Incorporate option 5.2.2a scope within this design.

Long-term view required, similar to option 5.2.14 (Dock St Tunnel), to confirm scope and timing of works.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.2 - Inverkeithing

to Dundee (via Dalgety

Bay)

5.2.3

Bypass current Fife coastal route - new fast route between Inverkeithing and Glenrothes - costed as electrified, 140mph and maximum 4% gradients.

Journey Times

4

Addresses longer term projected increase in sea-levels, improves Fife timetable and journey times for limited stop services to Perth and Dundee.

Options 5.2.5b, 5.2.5c and 5.2.6 are likely to have a better business case.

££££-£££££

5.2.4Clear Kinghorn Tunnel for electrification (potential slabtrack).

Con-structabil-

ity2

Undertake prior to electrification - potential freight gauging and line speed benefits.

Progress - assess potential linespeed and gauging benefits to evaluate standalone business case.

£

5.2.5a

Cowdenbeath area track realignment - removes slow reverse curves at Cowdenbeath.

Journey Times

3

Inland side of Fife Circle becomes mainline to Dundee / Aberdeen / Perth - timetable and journey time improvements if undertaken with options 5.2.5b/c and 5.2.6.

Progress - see option 5.2.5c conclusions.

£-££

5.2.5b

Clunybridge track realignment - removes slow curves near Thornton Yard.

Journey Times

3 Aligns well with 5.2.5a, 5.2.5c and 5.2.6.Progress - see option 5.2.5c conclusions.

£-££

5.2.5c

Dunfermline bypass creates new fast line along M90 corridor between Inverkeithing and Hill of Beath - avoids slow curves through Dunfermline.

Journey Times

1

Addresses longer term projected increase in sea-levels, improves Fife timetable and journey times for limited stop services to Perth and Dundee. May ease Haymarket Waverley corridor capacity pressure and makes electrification of the Fife Circle less disruptive.

Progress - when combined with option 3.1.4 (Winchburgh + Almond Junctions), this transforms Scottish rail network capabilities for many Central Belt routes and stations, as well as journey time improvements.

££-£££

5.2.6

Re-model Thornton North Junction as a higher speed double junction.

Regulation 3

Aligns with options 5.2.5 a/b/c for faster journey times to / from Perth and Dundee. Undertake prior to Fife electrification.

Progress if Cowdenbeath side of the Fife Circle becomes the faster route i.e. options 5.2.5a/b/c + 5/2/6.

£

5.2.7Markinch Viaduct Linespeed Improvements - slabtrack type solution.

Journey Times

3

Aligns with options 5.2.3 or 5.2.5 a/b/c + 5.2.6 for faster journey times to / from Perth and Dundee. Undertake prior to Fife electrification.

Determine scope, costs and business case in relation to Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Inverness to Edinburgh journey time benefits.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.2.8Remove one crossover around Markinch station.

Rationalisa-tion

4Removal of duplicate S&C - undertake as part of normal renewals programme / prior to Fife electrification.

Assess as part of Scotland crossover strategy reviews.

£3-7m Possible

CP7 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

5.2.9

Remodel Ladybank Station - extend platforms to the south / relocate crossover on the Fife lines to the North of the platforms.

Regulation 4

Allows Up direction trains from Perth to call at Ladybank Up platform, rather than occupying the Down platform. Undertake prior to electrification.

Option 5.2.16 provides a better regulating facility. Concerns raised regarding the underpass to the south of existing platforms + interface with Heatherinch User Worked Crossing (UWC).

£

5.2.10Closure of level crossings between Heatherinch and Seggiehill.

Journey Times

3Potential linespeed increases / journey time improvements and safety benefits.


£7-16m Possible

CP7 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

5.2.11Increase length of Down Fife Loop at Ladybank.

Regulation 3

Improves freight pathing, and creates a facility to manage slow running passenger services and engineering trains etc. - lengthen as part of freight looping strategy between Central Belt and Aberdeen. Undertake prior to Fife electrification.

Progress - business case for this and other loops to be assessed for diesel-hauled vs. electrified traffic to determine what interventions are optimal between the Central Belt of Scotland and Aberdeen.

£

5.2.12a

Increase linespeeds over the Tay Bridge.

Capacity 4Journey time improvements and increase in capacity - undertake prior to Fife electrification.

Consider increasing option 5.2.12b scope to optimise outputs / business case.

£££-££££

5.2.12b

Remove high girder section restrictions on the Tay Bridge to enable 2-way diesel-hauled traffic flows.

Capacity 2

Significant renewals + strengthening works - best undertaken prior to electrification. Doubling of Tay viaduct (Perth) to be considered in advance to provide diversionary capacity for Dundee / Aberdeen services to / from Edinburgh (option 6.5.1).

Progress - assess structural works required, costs and likely disruptive impact, to determine timing and whether option 6.5.1 is required.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.2 - Inverkeithing to Dundee (via Dalgety Bay)

5.2.13Remodel Dundee station throat and signalling for faster approach speeds.

Journey Times

3Larger S&C units could improve journey times and / or generate timetable benefits.

Almost all trains stop at Dundee - reconsider when the S&C is due for renewal, or prior to electrification (whichever comes first).

£-££

5.2.14

Clear Dock Street Tunnel for electrification (track lower - noting sea level issues + drainage).

Con-structabil-

ity2

Take into account rising sea levels - forecast is for 0.5-0.9m increase by the year 2100. Invert beneath Dock St track already affected by high tides. Undertake prior to Dundee - Aberdeen electrification.

Progress - solution may involve creating a mass concrete waterproof trough through the low lying section of railway at Dundee.

£-££

5.2.15

Electrification of Fife routes - Haymarket West Junction to Dundee (see option 5.3.3 re. Ladybank to Hilton Junction route).

Journey Times

2

Further phase of rolling programme of Scotland electrification - rolling stock utilisation, journey time and timetable benefits.

Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting that electrification clearance works and other enhancement projects typically need to be undertaken during the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed.

££££

5.2.16

Ladybank station relocation - separate platforms for Dundee and Perth lines – 4 platforms option.

Regulation 3Separates Perth stopping services from fast through services to / from Dundee (and vice versa).

Reconsider if options 5.2.5a/b/c etc. are not progressed and timetable benefits justify reconfiguration of the station.

£

5.3 - Ladybank to Hilton

5.3.1 Extend Anniesmuir loop. Regulation 3

Pathing and timetable pathing improvements - lengthen to match future facilities towards Inverness - undertake prior to Fife electrification.

Project has complex interfaces including level crossings, an underbridge and land availability. Also need to assess future benefits if freight using the route were to be electrically hauled. Option 5.3.2 and / or a Down loop to the South of Perth Station are likely to have better business cases.

£

5.3.2

Double track straight sections of Ladybank Single, including line speed improvements - potentially a 10km dynamic loop.

Regulation 1Potential to minimise constraints for the Edinburgh - Perth / Inverness timetable, and improve journey times.

Progress - assess potential linespeed and timetable benefits to evaluate business case.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.3 - Ladybank to Hilton

5.3.3Electrification of Hilton - Ladybank.

Journey Time

2

Further phase of rolling programme of Scotland electrification - rolling stock utilisation, journey time and timetable benefits.


££-£££

1.1 - Berwick-upon Tweed to Drem

1.1.1Extend Down Passenger Loop at Grantshouse.

Regulation 4

Improved regulation of ECML freight. Not required if Grantshouse dynamic loops / crawler lanes proceed (option 1.1.2).

Not progressed - maximum loop length limited to ~600m if loop entry and exit S&C are to be located on straight track, and adjacent culvert and A1 overbridge avoided. Insufficient length for 775m freight trains.

£

1.1.23-track on uphill gradients South of Grantshouse.

Regulation 1

Potential to enable ECML freight paths while the route caters for more long-distance and local passenger services. Timetable assessment indicates inter-dependencies with options 1.5.1, 1.5.3 and 1.5.6, and signalling headways approaching Waverley, which could reduce scope of this option by creating capacity elsewhere on the ECML.

Progress - assess costs, given likely interfaces with rocky terrain, multiple overbridges, underbridges, cuttings and embankments. Business case to include scenario of running electric-hauled freight.

£89-£221

million

1.1.3

Create an Up loop at Reston - equivalent to the Grantshouse Down facility (see option 1.1.1).

Regulation 4Complimentary to option 1.1.1 - but not required if Grantshouse dynamic loops / crawler lanes proceed (option 1.1.2).

Not progressed - only reconsider if option 1.1.2 business case is unattractive.

£

1.2 - Drem to Monktonhall Junction and to/from Millerhill Yard

1.2.1aRelocate Drem Up platform on the loop.

Capacity 1

North Berwick services stopping at Drem would no longer do so on the main lines - potential ECML capacity increase / opportunity for timetable improvements.

Timetabling work indicates limited benefits from this option, and better capacity / timetabling outcome if this scope is incorporated in to option 1.2.3.

£

1.2.1bRelocate Drem Up and Down platforms on loops.

Capacity 3

See option 1.2.1a above. Also this would permit Dunbar to Edinburgh services to stop at Drem and non-stop trains to overtake them

Not progressed - Down platform trains would likely incur a 3-4 minute increase in journey times while waiting for through trains to pass.

£-££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

1.2 - Drem to Monktonhall Junction and to/from Millerhill Yard

1.2.2Relocate Prestonpans Station (platforms off main lines, on loops).

Regulation 3

Local services stopping Prestonpans would no longer do so on the main lines. Option 1.2.3 may offer a more comprehensive solution.

Not progressed - likely to increase journey times for stopping services on the ECML by c. 3-4mins, if used to enable long-distance services to pass trains stopped in the loops.

£-££

1.2.3

4-track between Wallyford and Drem, locating these stations off the ECML main lines.

Capacity 1

Services calling at Wallyford and Drem would no longer stop on the main lines - potential ECML capacity increase and opportunity for timetable improvements. Also would provide improved freight pathing on ECML to / from Millerhill and the WCML.

Progress - assess timetable / capacity benefits when combined with option 1.1.2 (Grantshouse crawler loops). Potential extension towards Prestonpans using the old solum through Dolphinstone area, but this would need to take the A199 interface into account.

£69-199m

1.2.4Junction improvements at Monktonhall (move S&C on to straight).

Capacity 4Incremental capability and performance benefits that align well with option 1.2.5.

The S&C was renewed in CP3. Limited straight track available, potentially limited benefit to be gained here as junction assets still likely to be on shallow curve.

£

1.2.5Upgrade Signalling and Track through the Millerhill Yard route.

Diversion-ary

Capacity2

Capacity benefits for freight, Millerhill Empty Coaching Stock moves (to / from the ECML), and diverted ECML passenger services. Undertake prior to Calton North Tunnel redoubling - option 1.5.1.

Progress - existing route capacity is limited due to single line section and lack of signalling / motorised S&C. Upgrading this route will improve diversionary capacity for ECML traffic running via the Edinburgh Suburban Line (option 1.8.1) to Haymarket / Waverley during Waverley East end enhancements (options 1.5.1 and 1.5.3).

£17-41m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

1.3 - Monktonhall Junction to Craigentinny Junction and Niddrie South Junction

1.3.1

Upgrade / re-model Portobello Junction single connection layout between the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and Borders / Edinburgh Suburban lines.

Capacity 1

Addresses increasing pressure on ECML capacity while improving the resilience of the Borders timetable and opportunity to run ECS to / from Millerhill Depot. Links with options 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 to upgrade and electrify the Edinburgh Suburban Line.

Progress - undertake capability analysis of Portobello Junction capacity for normal service levels and for diverted WCML traffic. Develop design and assess business case for delivery in late CP5 or early CP6.

£20-50m

1.3.2

Create a freight route between Musselburgh and Niddrie West Junction on the Edinburgh Suburban line - avoiding Millerhill area.

Diversion-ary

Capacity2

Creates an alternative route to the Edinburgh Suburban line for ECML freight and diverted ECML passenger traffic. Aligns with options 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 to upgrade and electrify the Edinburgh Suburban Line.

Reassess if option 1.2.5 (Millerhill Yard through route) business case is poor. N.B. some historic structures remain / though the A6095 underbridge has been removed recently.

£-££

1.3.3Re-model Niddrie South Junction as a double junction.

Regulation 3

Increase capacity to handle more traffic - ECML freight running to / from WCML via Edinburgh Suburban Lines, Millerhill ECS, NSC haulage and High Output Track Renewals plant depot traffic, and diverted ECML traffic.

Assessed as part of Portobello Junction re-modelling – land and structural considerations will add significantly more cost than anticipated – no longer good value to progress.

£

1.3.4Re-model Niddrie West Junction for 40mph (currently 15mph).

Regulation 3

Ties in with upgrade of Edinburgh Suburban Line including electrification - options 1.8.1, 1.8.2 and 1.3.1 - to handle WCML diverted passenger traffic. Undertake prior to Edinburgh Suburban Line electrification.

Progress - assess benefits for diverted WCML traffic running via the Edinburgh Suburban Line. Strong link with option 1.3.1 business case.

£6-14m

1.8 - Edinburgh Suburban Line (including the Craiglockhart Loop), and Borders Railway

1.8.1Electrify and re-signal the Edinburgh Suburban Line.

Diversion-ary

Capacity1

For WCML and ECML passenger traffic diversions to Waverley, plus benefits for ECS moves back to Millerhill (avoiding Portobello) and providing a route for ECML-WCML electrified freight. Links with options 1.3.1, 1.3.4 and 1.8.2 minimises disruption to customers when works are undertaken at Waverley (re-modelling and platform works e.g. option1.5.1).

Progress - strategically important for ECML - WCML electrified freight and therefore beneficial to Anglo Scottish timetables and increasing freight capacity on the network.

£34-84m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

1.8 - Edinburgh Suburban Line (including the Craiglockhart Loop), and Borders Railway

1.8.2

Remodel Slateford Junction for higher speed connection on / off WCML.

Regulation 2

Lower cost and less disruptive if undertaken prior to electrification (option 1.8.1). Enables Edinburgh Suburban line freight to join the WCML at a higher speed ahead of the climb up Cobbinshaw to Midcalder Junction - generates WCML capacity and timetable benefits.

Progress - will also benefit diversionary timetable for WCML passenger services running to Edinburgh Waverley via the Suburban Lines.

£12-30m

1.8.3Additional loops and related infrastructure interventions

Capacity 4To enable more trains to run between Tweedbank and Edinburgh Waverley

Review business case, when required to meet forecast demand, noting that train lengthening may provide sufficient capacity through to 2043

££-£££

1.5 - Craigentinny Junction to Edinburgh Waverley Station

1.5.1

Calton North Tunnel double tracking + phase 1 East throat re-modelling.

Capacity 2

Increase capacity approaching Edinburgh Waverley ahead of anticipated growth in ECML long distance and local services. Consider in conjunction with options 1.1.2, 1.5.4, 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.

Progress - timetable assessment required and consideration of Waverley East throat / other capacity interventions between Criagentinny and Waverley. Track lower required to facilitate doubling through the Tunnel.

£113-283m

1.5.2

Bi-directional signalling on the ECML Down Line between Craigentinny & Abbeyhill Junction.

Regulation 3Could benefit docking in Waverley / reduce platform works required / assist ECS movements.

Consider with option 1.5.1 scope, as it could be a lower cost partial solution.

£

1.5.3

Revised layout on approaches to Waverley East - additional connection between south platforms and Calton North Tunnel.

Capacity 2

Contributes to increase in Edinburgh Waverley capacity / flexibility – together with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.4, 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.

Optimise option 1.5.1 to incorporate elements of this scope where necessary.

£

1.5.4

Re-bore Calton South Tunnel to increase the gauge for double tracking.

Capacity 3

Increase capacity approaching Edinburgh Waverley - supports future growth in ECML long distance and local services.

Consider when this might be beneficial if option 1.5.1 goes ahead. Track lower and substantial civils works required to strengthen tunnel prior to Tunnel doubling.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

1.5 - Craigentinny Jn to Edinburgh Waverley

1.5.5

Install bi-directional signalling between Craigentinny Junction and Waverley - all lines.

Regulation 3

Increase capacity approaching Edinburgh Waverley to enable future growth forecast for ECML long distance and local services.

Assess business case if option 1.5.1 goes ahead, to quantify benefits and determine the strategic necessity for this enhancement.

££-£££

1.5.63-4 track Powderhall Junction to Portobello Junction.

Regulation 2

Increases capacity approaching Waverley - supports future growth in ECML long distance and local services. Aligns with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.

Progress - improves timetable and performance for ECML traffic flows, and capacity for ECS moves to / from Craigentinny and Millerhill.

£££-££££

1.5.7Create Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) turnback facility at Abbeyhill.

Capacity 2

Enables Empty Coaching Stock to vacate Edinburgh Waverley, improving platform availability / reducing station dwell times.

Progress - minimises ECML capacity used for ECS moves between Millerhill / Craigentinny and Edinburgh Waverley. Review in relation to Edinburgh Suburban enhancements and ECML strategy to determine business case.

£16-38m

1.6 - Edinburgh Waverley Station

1.6.1Extend Edinburgh Waverley platforms 5 & 6 to 266m.

Diversion-ary

Capacity2

Enables 11-car Cl390 (Pendolino) rolling stock to use these platforms - increases capacity / flexibility, particularly for diverted WCML services routed to Waverley East platforms.

This option is being assessed as part of CP5 works for the introduction of IEP (Inter City Express) services. Operating procedures solution likely, rather than platform lengthening.

CP5 works

1.6.2

Extend Edinburgh Waverley platform 10 to 266m (noting access / ped-flow issues).

Capacity 2Benefits docking options in perturbed working scenarios for 10-car IEP and 11-car Cl390's.

Operating procedures solution likely, rather than platform lengthening.

£3-7m

1.6.3

Extend Edinburgh Waverley platforms 1 & 20 (noting access / ped-flow issues).

Capacity 2

Improves capacity and flexibility for managing longer through trains at Waverley, reduces potential for additional platform works elsewhere in the station.

Progress as part of Edinburgh Waverley masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand.

£4-9m

1.6.4Extend Edinburgh Waverley platform 3 to create 2 bay platforms.

Capacity 4

Increases Waverley East bay platform capacity - if required for a higher number of terminating services. Options 1.6.6, 1.6.8 and / or 1.6.9 are alternatives to provide capacity for a higher number of through Waverley services.


£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


1.6.5

Extend Edinburgh Waverley platforms 14 to 17 to create longer bay platforms.

Capacity 2Increases Waverley West bay platform capacity - for 8-car EMU's (c.192m in length).


£

1.6.6Make Edinburgh Waverley Platforms 6 & 12 through platforms.

Capacity 3

Increases Waverley capacity for through services on the South Lines - aligns with option 1.6.9. Alternatives include option 1.6.8 for additional North Lines through capacity, and option 1.6.4 for additional Waverley East bay capacity if more trains require to terminate at that side of the Station.

Consider as alternative to option 1.6.8 if more through services are planned to run via the South lines at Waverley.

£

1.6.7

Extend Edinburgh Waverley Platform 18 to 220m and shorten Platform 19 (to enable parallel moves to/from Line Z).

Capacity 4Improves platform 18 capacity and enables parallel moves in / out of platforms 19 & 20.

Disbenefits of shortening platform 19 likely to exceed benefits of a longer platform 18 and more flexible layout.

£

1.6.8

Make Edinburgh Waverley Platform 18 a through platform - including demolition of North ramp.

Capacity 2

Improves capacity and flexibility for managing longer through trains at Waverley, reduces potential for additional platform works elsewhere in the station.


££-£££

1.6.9

Make Edinburgh Waverley Platforms 5 & 13 through platforms - demolish South ramp.

Capacity 4

Increases Waverley capacity for through services on the South Lines - aligns with option 1.6.6. Alternatives include option 1.6.8 for additional North Lines through capacity, and option 1.6.4 for additional Waverley East bay capacity if more trains require to terminate at that end of the Station.

Likely to involve significant structural modifications and the removal of the South ramp - consider in conjunction with option 1.6.6 if more through services are planned to run via the South lines at Waverley.

££-£££

1.6.10New Edinburgh Waverley platform at New St Car Park on new loop.

Capacity 3 Additional Waverley station capacity.Likely that only a short platform could be added, Review option if Edinburgh Signalling Centre is relocated.

£-££



Route Section Ref No. Intervention title / description Driver


– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


1.6.11

New passenger overhead walkways and escalators throughout Edinburgh Waverley.

Passenger Access /

Platforms 2

Waverley station will become increasing congested due to growth in passenger numbers. Relocation of retail and operational facilities and revised passenger access will improve customer experience / station safety.


£££-££££

2.10 - Glasgow Central and approaches (to Bridge Street Junction)

2.10.1

Extend Glasgow Central platforms 12 & 13 over Argyle St for 8-car EMU usage.

Capacity 2

Retains existing station footprint, but impact on Glasgow Central Low Level / Argyle St stations is likely to be significant - take into account as part of the Glasgow Central masterplan process.

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand. Interface with Low Level station and likely to be significant / expensive.

£51-115m

2.10.2a

Demolish car park for new Glasgow Central platforms West (16 & 17 High Level) - 4 or 6-car EMU capacity.

Capacity 1Creates additional station capacity without significant disruption to ongoing operations.

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand. Option 2.10.5 could be a viable alternative.

£22-52m

2.10.2b

Demolish car park for new platforms Glasgow Central West (16 & 17 High Level) – 8-car option.

Capacity 2

Creates additional station capacity without significant disruption to ongoing operations. See related options 2.11.1 and 2.11.2.

May be reconsidered if 8-car EMU formations become the norm in future at Glasgow Central.

££-£££

2.10.3

New Glasgow Central platforms 1 & 2 East vs. new Glasgow terminal station

Capacity 2

Creates additional station capacity for HS2 without significant disruption to ongoing operations. The increase in the number of lines approaching Central Station may allow rationalisation of the approach S&C and higher linespeeds - see option 2.10.6.

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand, and with HS2 to provide suitable platform capacity.

£££££

2.10.4Infill Glasgow Central platforms 4 & 5; extend platforms 3 & 6.

Capacity 2

Creates longer platforms 3&6 and more circulating space for passengers, after additional platforms and / or lengthening works have been carried out (to compensate for loss of shorter platforms 4&5).

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.10 - Glasgow Central and approaches (to Bridge Street Junction)

2.10.5

Extend Glasgow Central platforms 6 to 9 (towards Bridge St and in to concourse).

Capacity 2Creates additional station capacity - ideally for 8-car EMU rolling stock.

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet forecast demand. Platforms were previously longer in this part of the station.

£29-71m

2.10.6

Simplify throat layout on approaches to Glasgow Central and raise linespeeds.

Regulation 2Rationalise throat S&C and raise linespeeds for improved journey times. Relates to options 2.10.1 to 2.10.5.

Progress as part of Glasgow Central masterplan. The timing and scope of these works will depend on what platform modifications are undertaken, as that will determine the space available for layout changes.

£££-££££

2.9 - Bridge Street Junction to Rutherglen Central Junction

2.9.1

ERTMS implementation on WCML between Cambuslang and Rutherglen Central Junction.

Regulation 2

To realise full Rutherglen East Junction re-modelling benefits of higher linespeeds through all crossovers - potential timetable and journey time benefits.

Progress - provision for this outcome has been included in the CP5 PARR / Rutherglen signalling renewals & remodelling project.

£

2.9.2

Implement bi-directional working between Rutherglen Central Junction and Glasgow Central Station.

Regulation 3

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) is unlikely to be implemented on the approaches to major terminal stations or in the vicinity of depot / stabling facilities as the cost of replicating existing signalling equipment capabilities will be very high. The main ERTMS benefit would be bi-directional signalling - this approach offers a route to delivering an equivalent outcome earlier.

Consider only if other interventions don’t improve traffic regulation on the lines approaching Central Station e.g. options 2.10.3 and 2.10.6.

££-£££

2.9.3

Increased line speeds between Rutherglen Central Junction & Larkfield Junction, and Rutherglen Junction to Eglinton Street Tunnels.

Journey Times

2Journey time improvements for WCML long distance and local (fast) ScotRail services.

Progress - implement ERTMS on WCML as far as Polmadie if possible, and upgrade track componentry for 95mph running to support higher linespeeds / journey time improvements.

£-££

2.9.5Grade separate Larkfield Junction.

Regulation 4

Separates freight moves between the Clydesdale Lines - Rutherglen &Carmyle Line, with passenger trains running on the WCML Fast + Slow Lines.

Reconsider if new freight traffic utilises what were previously hourly paths for Hunterston - Longannet coal trains.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.9 - Bridge Street Junction to Rutherglen Central Junction

2.9.6Replacement of Eglinton St Tunnels to enable higher linespeeds.

Journey Times

3

Potential timetable and journey time benefits, if linespeeds can be increased from 30mph to 40-50mph. Good synergy with options 2.10.3 and 2.10.6 (High Speed platforms and re-modelling of Glasgow Central throat / approaches).

Reconsider if options 2.10.3 and / or 2.10.6 are progressed.

££-£££

2.6 - Rutherglen Central Junction to Uddingston Junction

2.6.1

Remodelling of Cambuslang and Uddingston Stations (platforms off main lines).

Capacity 4Beneficial for HS2 and WCML timetabling - aligns with option 2.9.4.

Likely to increase journey times for local WCML stopping services by c. 4-8mins, if used to enable long-distance services to pass trains stopped in the loops.

££-£££

2.6.2Grade separation of Uddingston Junction.

Capacity 3

WCML capacity improvement - to enable more long distance and local services to run via this location. Duplicate of option 2.5.3.

See option 2.5.3See

option 2.5.3

2.6.3Newton - Carmyle Line grade separation.

Capacity 3

WCML capacity improvement - to increase capability for more long distance and local services, and minimise platform works at Glasgow Central High level by re-routing some local services on to the Argyle Lines.

This depends on the strategy for Glasgow Central High Level / platform capacity / accommodation of High Speed services - options 2.10.3 and 2.10.6.

£££-££££

2.8 - Uddingston Junction to Midcalder Junction

2.8.1Grade separate Holytown Junction.

Capacity 3

Beneficial for Freight and timetabling of Shotts services and local WCML services - aligns with options 2.9.4, 2.6.2 and 2.8.2.

Depends on traffic split evenly between WCML and Holytown routes vs. majority run via one route or the other. Reassess in light of HS2 requirements.

££-£££

2.8.2Grade separate Midcalder Junction - duplicate of option 2.1.3.

Regulation 3

Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and may help WCML / HS2 timetable to work by improving capacity and regulation on the Cobbinshaw Line to Edinburgh.

Timetable analysis of ECML and WCML routes in Scotland will be required to inform the business case. This junction was re-doubled during CP4 and the nearby Kirknewton Level Crossing was also upgraded to improve capacity and train regulation at this location.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.8 - Uddingston Junction to Midcalder Junction

2.8.3

Loops and station remodelling between Uddingston and Midcalder Junctions.

Journey Times

4

Timetable and journey time improvements as a result of better traffic regulation on the Shotts Line - links to option 2.6.2, 2.8.1 and 2.8.2.

Costs are likely to be significant and could result in longer journey times for stopping services (unless this section of route is 4-tracked with station platforms off the main lines).

££-£££

2.5 - Uddingston Junction to Law Junction

2.5.1

Run long distance WCML passenger services via Holytown Junction - upgrade Wishaw - Holytown - Uddingston route to improve journey times.

Regulation 3

Assumes WCML freight runs via Motherwell to / from Mossend, and some 4-tracking with stations on loops between Law Junction and Uddingston to deliver a better timetable for WCML long distance and HS2 services.

Not progressed - will be informed by timetable analysis assessment of scenarios where traffic splits evenly between WCML and Holytown routes vs. the majority of services running via one route or the other.

£££££

2.5.2Close Logans Road Level Crossing.

Capacity 4

Forecast increase in passenger and freight traffic could extend barrier down times - depends on routing via WCML vs Holytown.


£45-76m

2.5.3Grade separate Uddingston Junction.

Capacity 3

WCML capacity improvement - to increase capability for more long distance and local services, and de-risk the timetable.

Progress - will be informed by timetable analysis assessment of scenarios where traffic splits evenly between WCML and Holytown routes vs. the majority of services running via one route or the other. Test whether Law Junction grade separation would be more beneficial - option 2.4.2.

£££-££££

2.5.4Garriongill area linespeed improvements.

Journey Times

4Faster WCML journey times - links to options 2.4.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 and 2.8.1.

Not progressed - realignment could be prohibitively costly, due to embankments and old mine workings. May not be required if options 2.5.1, 2.4.1 or 2.2.2 go ahead.

££££-£££££

2.4 - Law Junction to Carstairs Junctions

2.4.14 Track between Carstairs & Law Junctions.

Capacity 4

Faster WCML journey times and better timetable due to segregation of WCML long distance services from local stopping trains and freight - links to options 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 and 2.8.1.

Costs are likely to be significant - consider incorporating elements of this capacity improvement as part of option 2.4.2.

££££-£££££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.4 - Law Junction to Carstairs Junctions

2.4.2Grade separate Law Junction.

Capacity 2Capacity and timetable / performance improvements for all WCML operators.

Progress - Law Junction is a key constraint for combined WCML passenger and freight traffic currently, and future growth will make this more restrictive over time unless addressed.

££-£££

2.4.3Close Cleghorn Level Crossing.

Journey Times

3Enables higher linespeeds between Carstairs and Law Junction. Aligns with option 2.2.1.


£6-14m

2.4.4Remodel Carluke Station (platforms off main lines).

Capacity 3

Timetable and journey time improvements as a result of better traffic regulation between Law Junction and Carstairs - links to option 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.2.1.

Expensive, and unless 4-tracking to move platforms off the main lines, journey times for stopping services likely to be extended by c 3-4minutes.

£-£££

2.3 - Carstairs Junctions to Kingmoor (excl.)

2.3.1Remodel Lockerbie Station (platforms off main lines).

Capacity 3

Beneficial for long distance passenger services (including HS2) and freight timetabling (if loops long enough for combined usage).

Stopping services likely to extend journey times by 3-4 minutes, and freight routing strategy required to confirm loop requirements.

££-£££

2.3.34-track for 30 miles over Beattock Summit + passing loops.

Capacity 2

Beneficial for all WCML Operators and G&SW timetables - separates G&SW and WCML services, and improves freight regulation / pathing with WCML passenger services. Aligns with options 2.3.2 and 2.2.2.

Progress - uphill climbs for freight traffic are an issue currently for WCML pathing and timetable. Assess as part of options to enable future HS2 timetable and forecast freight traffic growth.

£££££

2.2 - Carstairs Junctions

2.2.1Carstairs Renewal & Remodelling.

Regulation 1

Beneficial for all WCML operators in the medium term, with higher linespeeds on all routes plus freight regulating facilities on the WCML.

Progress - provides more flexibility and capacity, without significant additional land being required. Timescales align with planned track and signalling renewals on the WCML in the Carstairs area.

£77-193m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.1 - Haymarket to Carstairs

2.1.1

Add flank platforms either side of the WCML approaching Haymarket Central Junction - with direct links for passengers to create an interchange with the existing Haymarket Station.

Capacity 4

Reduces WCML interface with Haymarket South Lines traffic, thereby improving available capacity approaching Waverley - relates to options 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 (Haymarket to Waverley 6-tracking, and bi-directional signalling), but also options 3.1.4 and 5.2.5c.

Options to lengthen trains (rather than run more services to meet forecast demand), Dunfermline bypass (fast Fife Line) and adding grade separated junctions at Winchburgh and Almond are expected to improve WCML / Haymarket capacity without requiring this intervention.

££££-£££££

2.1.2Crawler lane between Slateford Junction and Cobbinshaw Summit.

Capacity 3

Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and may help the future WCML timetable by improving capacity and regulation on the Cobbinshaw Line to Edinburgh.

Edinburgh Suburban Line electrification and Slateford Junction remodelling are expected to improve pathing for electrified freight and the WCML timetable for all operators without requiring this intervention. Options 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 may deliver similar capacity benefits between Slateford and Carstairs more cost effectively.

££££-£££££

2.1.3Grade separate Midcalder Junction.

Capacity 3

Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and may help the future WCML timetable by improving capacity and regulation on the Cobbinshaw Line to Edinburgh.

Timetable analysis study of ECML and WCML routes in Scotland will be required to inform the business case. Option 1.8.2 may deliver similar capacity benefits between Slateford and Carstairs at a lower cost.

££-£££

2.1.4

Add platform 5 at Haymarket Station (with connection to/from Cobbinshaw Line).

Capacity 3

Could reduce South Lines traffic running in to Waverley, creating capacity for additional services on WCML / A2B / E&G. Duplicate of option 1.7.3.

Preferable to 6-tracking through to Waverley, but constrained site and passenger access issues likely to limit scope & benefits.

£

2.1.5New 25kV OLE feeder station in the Curriehill area

Capacity 1Required to support more electric traffic on the network and across newly electrified routes.

Network resilience will fall below acceptable levels and OLE network will not be adequately future proofed if additional power capacity is not provided in CP6

£16-30m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.7 - Newton to Greenhill Lower Junction

2.7.1

Double track through Barncluith Tunnel (previously singled for electrification).

Regulation 4Timetable and performance improvement through Motherwell and for Glasgow North Electric services.

Reassess if the service frequency on the Hamilton Circle route is to increase.

£-££

2.7.2Remove unused assets at Lesmahagow Junction.

Regulation 5Simplifies any future re-modelling projects e.g. 2.7.3.

Address as advance works for option 2.7.3.

£


2.7.3Remodel Lesmahagow Junction off curves / on to straighter track.

Regulation 4

Higher linespeeds through S&C - timetable and performance improvement through Motherwell and for Glasgow North Electric services - links to options 2.5.3 and 2.4.2 (at Law and Uddingston Junctions).

Reassess if long distance passenger traffic increases through Motherwell, and this location becomes more of a constraint - depends also on options noted and HS2 routing.

££-£££

2.7.4Lengthen Braidhurst loops to 775m for freight regulation.

Regulation 3

Potential synergy with enabling freight train capacity to Mossend and other freight destinations in Scotland - see related options - 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.1 and 2.7.10.

Progress - assess as part of increasing Anglo Scottish freight capacity.

£

2.7.5Electrify Gartsherrie South Junction loop.

Regulation 3Assess with respect to volumes of electrified freight running to / from Grangemouth & likelihood of usage.

Progress - infill electrification that should help traffic regulation, particularly when running diverted WCML or Queen St passenger services on this route.

£3-7m Possible

CP7 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

2.7.6

Assess feasibility of bringing third platform at Coatbridge Central into service.

Regulation 5Turnback option for Motherwell services.

Does not align with the 2043 ITSS - no additional passenger services forecast for Coatbridge.

£

2.7.7

Line speed improvements in the Coatbridge area - consider bridge strengthening and S&C issues.

Journey Times

4Potential journey time and timetable benefits, including for diverted WCML traffic.

Limited benefits anticipated for normal traffic on this route (stopping passenger services).

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


2.7.8Install new crossover for better access to Coatbridge terminal.

Regulation 5Beneficial for Coatbridge Terminal access from the North.

No clear requirement for this capability in the 2043 ITSS.

£

2.7.9Close Greenfoot Level Crossing (if extending Garnqueen Loop).

Capacity 3Aligns with option 2.7.10 - longer freight loops in this area.

Closure aligns with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to improve Level Crossing safety at this location.

£8-20m

2.7.10

Extend loop North of Garnqueen North Junction for 775m freight traffic.

Capacity 3

Potential synergy with enabling freight train capacity to Mossend and other freight destinations in Scotland - see related options - 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.1 and 2.7.4.

Progress - assess as part of increasing Anglo-Scottish freight capacity. Consider funding from ring-fenced funds, rather than as part of the main determination.

£5-12m Possible

CP7 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

2.7.11

Raise line speeds to 75mph between Cumbernauld to Greenhill Upper Junction.

Journey Times

3

Potential journey time and timetable benefits, including for diverted WCML traffic - links with CP5 EGIP electrification and options 3.7.13 and 6.2.2.

Incorporate within Greenhill Junction grade separation to optimise the overall business case.

£

2.7.12Relocate current crossover to South of Cumbernauld Station.

Regulation 4Improves flexibility for turning Cumbernauld terminating services.

No clear requirement in 2043 ITSS, and trains turning back at Cumbernauld would use Platform 2 vs trains from Falkirk Grahamston would use Platform 1, which could confuse passengers.

£

2.7.13

W10/12 clearance - Mossend - Grangemouth + Cl350 & Cl390 clearance via Falkirk Grahamston to Haymarket East Junction.

Freight Gauge &

Diversion-ary

Capacity

2

Improved freight gauge for electrified Anglo Scottish freight to Grangemouth + diversionary route for long distance WCML passenger services to Edinburgh Waverley.

Assume this capability is already delivered by the end of CP5, as a ring-fenced funds project. If not, consider funding from CP6 ring-fenced funds, rather than as part of the determination.

CP5 works






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.12 - Glasgow Central to Barrhead

2.12.1

East Kilbride Line Electrification (from Busby Junction) + additional double track

Capacity 2

Electrification of the route + 2 platforms at East Kilbride - helps minimise Glasgow Central platform occupancy issues. Faster trains and more homogeneous train fleet also of benefit re. timetables and performance.

Progress - as part of the rolling programme of electrification – timetable assessment confirms this to be beneficial re. Glasgow Central platform capacity and rolling stock utilisation.

£61-148m

2.12.2Lengthen Barrhead bay platform.

Capacity 3

Beneficial for longer trains, whether electric or diesel multiple units (EMU or DMU) on this route. Undertake before electrification works on this route.

Progress - assumes higher forecast demand will be addressed through increasing train lengths.

£5-12m

2.12 - Glasgow Central to Barrhead

2.12.3a

Barrhead Line Electrification (from Muirhouse Junction to Busby Junction).

Capacity 4Faster trains and more homogeneous train fleet also of benefit re. timetables and performance.

Duplicated scope – see options 2.12.1 and 2.12.3b

£63-150m

2.12.3b

Electrification to Barrhead from Busby Junction (assumes East Kilbride Line already electrified).

Capacity 3Faster trains and more homogeneous train fleet also of benefit re. timetables and performance.

Progress - provided further electrification of Glasgow Central commuter routes

£22-54m

2.12.4

Double track South of Barrhead to Kilmarnock, or improve signalling headways.

Capacity 4

Capacity and timetable improvements to facilitate more frequent services, diversionary route capacity to Ayr (via Barassie), and WCML diverted passenger services.

Timetable assessment indicates double track not required, as additional signal sections would deliver sufficient capacity and timetable benefits.

£10-25m

2.11 - Bridge Street Junction to Kilwinning

2.11.13-track Ayrshire Lines (Tank Road) on approach to Bridge Street Junction.

Regulation 2

For improved regulation of traffic i.e. earlier de-confliction of Paisley Canal / Ayrshire services. Creates additional capacity for growth in Ayrshire passenger services forecast by 2043. See related options - 2.11.2 and 2.10.2b.

Progress - improves streaming of Ayrshire traffic through Glasgow Central approaches to platforms, with minimal crossing moves - reduces performance risks / maximises available capacity.

£

2.11.2

3-track Ayrshire Lines between Shields Junction and Bridge Street Junction.

Regulation 3

Further regulation improvement - to improve flexibility and capacity for services running to / from Glasgow Central.

Reconsider if option 2.11.1 doesn’t deliver sufficient capacity.

£-££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

2.11 - Bridge Street Junction to Kilwinning

2.11.4

Assess possibility of increasing wrong road line speed to 50mph vs. expand single line working capabilities on this section of route.

Regulation 5

Improved flexibility / performance during planned and unplanned disruption working between Johnstone and Kilwinning.

SLW not used frequently currently / ERTMS should deliver bi-directional signalling in future as standard.

£

2.11.5Remove Up Goods Loop North of Glengarnock Station.

Regulation 5

Brownhill and Arkleston loops are likely to be sufficient for future Ayrshire freight traffic i.e. assuming coal train paths are not retained for other freight traffic in the future.

Consider as part of option 2.11.6. Otherwise consider rationalisation of assets when they are due for renewal.

£-££

2.11.6Relocate Glengarnock Station on loops.

Regulation 4 Allows passing moves at Glengarnock.Likely to extend stopping service journey times by c. 3-4mins.

£-££

2.11.7Extend Brownhill Loops to 775m.

Regulation 5Enables longer freight trains to run in Ayrshire in the future.

Loops already exceed 775m length. £

2.11.8

4-track between Dalry and Glengarnock with platforms off the main lines.

Capacity 3

Enables better timetabling of stopping and freight service vs. fast Ayrshire passenger services to / from Glasgow Central. Addresses 2.11.6 journey time increase issue, as 2 stops on a 4 track section is less likely to extend stopping service journey times.

2043 ITSS doesn’t support an intervention on this scale in Ayrshire.

£££-££££

2.11.9

Implement bi-directional signalling between Shields Junction and Glasgow Central.

Regulation 3

Improves traffic regulation / capacity through this busy section of route approaching Glasgow Central without additional track infrastructure.

Similar to bi-directional signalling options around Edinburgh Waverley - options 2.11.1 and 2.11.2 appear better value to improve network flexibility.

£-££

3.4 - Queen Street Station (High level) to Cowlairs West Junction

3.4.1

Build an E&G flyover at Cowlairs West Junction, for services between Springburn and Ashfield, replacing the existing flat junction layout.

Regulation 5

Removes Anniesland services from Queen St High Level station, improving platform availability for longer distance services. Aligns with option 4.5.4 and 2043 ITSS indications for service changes.

Capacity of Queen St station and approaches expected to be adequate for 2043 if train lengthening is selected, rather than more frequent services to meet forecast demand.

££-£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

3.4 - Queen Street Station (High level) to Cowlairs West Junction

3.4.2

Connect the Eastfield and Cowlairs Passenger loops via a flat junction over the Springburn Lines.

Regulation 2

Assists with ECS moves and other traffic regulation approaching Queen St Tunnel and station - potential synergy with 3.4.3.

Progress - assess capacity benefits re. ECS moves between the morning and evening peaks, if more runs-offs result from longer / more frequent trains.

£

3.4.33-track between Queen St Tunnel and Cowlairs West Jn.

Regulation 3

Likely to improve regulation in / out of Queen St HL, particularly re. Anniesland and West Highland Line services - aligns well with option 3.4.2

Assess on a standalone basis and in conjunction with Eastfield Loop extension.

£-££

3.4.4Build platform 8 at Queen Street Station.

Capacity 4Increase in terminal station platform capacity - for additional services (if required).

Train lengthening and changing stopping patterns address forecast growth, and this option would shorten platform 7.

£

3.4.5Relocate Queen St throat S&C nearer the tunnel.

Regulation 5Timetable and performance benefits as a result of a longer run out between the platform ends and the throat S&C.

The position of the tunnel S&C and throat layout has been optimised through EGIP for speeds / switch size and whole life costs.

£

3.4.6Increase number of 8-car platforms at Queen St High Level Station.

Capacity 4

Maximises the number of 8-car trains using Queen St - beneficial for rolling stock utilisation and Central Belt network capacity.

Platform lengths at the end of CP5 and station layout optimised through EGIP. Further lengthening is likely to be very disruptive and expensive, and would reduce concourse space.

£

3.3 - Cowlairs West Junction to Greenhill Upper Junction

3.3.1aGrade separate Greenhill Upper Junction.

Regulation 1

Relieves timetable constraints for Aberdeen and Inverness to Queen St services vs. E&G services, due to the reduction in crossing moves over the E&G. See also option 3.3.1b

Progress – timetable analysis indicates this will increase capacity for Larbert-Stirling-Perth services by 20%, and supports a 6tph E&G timetable and improved journey times.

£50m-126m

3.3.1b

Grade separate Greenhill Upper Junction, including a new chord between the Edinburgh to Glasgow Line and Cumbernauld Line (Scottish Central Route).

Regulation 2

Relieves timetable constraints for Aberdeen and Inverness to Queen St services vs. E&G services, due to the reduction in crossing moves over the E&G. Expanded version of option 3.3.1a.

Consider vs. 3.3.1a business case as this option could be preferred in a scenario where levels of freight traffic to Grangemouth and frequency of passenger services on these routes is increased.

£££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

3.3 - Cowlairs West Junction to Greenhill Upper Junction

3.3.2

Install a crossover to the East of Gartshore Loops, to create a turnback facility in the Up Loop.

Regulation 3

Provides freight turnback option for Grangemouth traffic if route to Mossend / Coatbridge / WCML is blocked. Enables rationalisation of Greenhill Upper Junction. Aligns well with option 3.1.4 for freight diversions.

Progress -, consider funding from CP7 ring-fenced funds, rather than as part of the determination.

Possible CP7 Ring

fenced fund

3.3.3Upgrade Cadder Yard capabilities / flexibility.

Regulation 4

Possible alternative freight turnback facility for Grangemouth traffic, and the yard could be used as a Maintenance or High Output depot.

Assess business case vs. other Grangemouth related turnback options, including option 3.3.2.

£

3.3.4

Flyover E&G lines at Cowlairs West Jn, for services between Springburn and Ashfield.

Regulation 5

Removes Anniesland services from Queen St High Level station, improving platform availability for longer distance services.

Duplicate of option 3.4.1.See

option 3.4.1

6.2 - Greenhill Upper Junction to Polmont Junction (via Carmuirs)

6.2.1Increase linespeeds between Polmont and Carmuirs West Junction.

Journey Time

3 Potential journey time improvements.Progress - undertake 3rd Way analysis / identify opportunities to deliver with track renewals if appropriate.

£2-5m Possible

CP6 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

6.2.2

Increase linespeeds between Greenhill Upper Junction and Carmuirs East Junction.

Journey Time

3

Journey time and timetabling benefits for Glasgow Queen Street services to Perth and Dundee - synergies with options 3.3.1 a/b.

Assume undertaken during CP5 following planned 2016/17 works at Carmuirs West Junction and nearby underbridge renewal - helps maximise benefits from Greenhill Junction grade separation. If not, consider funding from CP6 ring-fenced funds, rather than as part of the determination.

CP5 works

6.2.3Install a freight loop to the East of Falkirk Grahamston station.

Freight Regulation

4

Creates a freight turnback facility close to the Grangemouth Branch. An alternative option to others being considered to the West of Falkirk Grahamston i.e. 3.3.1b, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.

Assess vs. other freight turnback options if routes to Mossend / Coatbridge / WCML are unavailable. N.B. waybeam bridge to be factored in to cost and deliverability assessments.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

6.4 - Stirling to Perth

6.4.1

Larbert Jcn to Hilton Jcn - removal of redundant sidings / S&C / signalling equipment.

Rationali-sation

3

Potential linespeed improvements / lower future maintenance and renewal costs - aligns well with options 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.13 - need to be optimised collectively.

Assess scope / benefits case for each location and optimise re. signalling upgrade / linespeed improvement opportunities (elements of option 6.4.2).

£

6.4.2Raise linespeeds between Dunblane and Auchterarder to 100mph.

Journey Time

3Journey time improvements - aligns with options 6.4.1 and 6.4.4.

Assess attainable linespeeds and alignment with options 6.4.4, 6.4.14 and 6.4.18 to optimise.

£££

6.4.3

Run Edinburgh to Inverness trains via Larbert, (if the Perth to Inverness route is electrified before Dundee to Aberdeen).

Journey Time

4

Highland Mainline timetable and journey time improvements. Aligns with options 6.4.18 and 6.6.23 - electrification of the route between Dunblane and Inverness.

Reduces Fife connectivity to / from Perth / Edinburgh / Inverness, and increases Central Belt traffic flows, particularly on the E&G and routes through to Stirling. Likely to cause timetable and performance issues between Winchburgh Junction and Stirling.

£££-££££

6.4.4Improve signalling headways between Dunblane and Perth.

Regulation 3

Removes timetable constraints caused by 7-8min signalling headways on this section of route - these determine the timing of train arrivals at Greenhill Upper Junction through to Queen Street station. Aligns with options 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.13.

Timetable analysis has identified that improving Greenloaning – Kinbuck area signal headways will increase capacity on this section and ease operating constraints south of Stirling. This route requires modernisation prior to being electrified, including the removal of manual signal boxes at Auchterarder, Blackford and Greenloaning,

£83-196m

6.4.5Stirling Station - convert bay platforms 4 & 5 into through platforms.

Capacity 3

South-facing Stirling bay platforms are short and not signalled for passenger service use. This remodelling could permit longer distance services to overtake stopping or terminating services at Stirling. Aligns with Perth remodelling / enabling freight paths to Aberdeen and Inverness - options 6.4.6 and 6.4.16.

Timetable assessment indicates that freight loops would be better located between Stirling and Perth. North-bound freight crossing moves at Stirling would use significant capacity / conflict with Dunblane / Perth passenger timetables.

£





– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.4.6

Install a double junction layout on the main lines at North end of Stirling Station.

Capacity 3

Improved regulation of freight and through services overtaking stopping / terminating services at Stirling. Aligns with options 6.4.5 and 6.4.16.

Timetable assessment indicates that freight loops would be better located between Stirling and Perth.

£

6.4.7

New bay platform on South side of Stirling Station (266m Platform 1).

Capacity 3Depends on demand for long distance services starting from Stirling.

Reassess if plans emerge for long distance services to start from Stirling vs. available station platform capacity.

£

6.4.8

Improve Stirling Station flexibility, so Alloa passenger services all stop at platform 6 (rather than Glasgow services using platform 9 as currently).

Passenger Access

3

Shorter walking route / easier access to /from Alloa trains for passengers. Requires additional track S&C and signalling equipment for through trains to run via the Up Line while stopping services call at Platform 6.

Reassess if this is not undertaken or if DDA to platform 9 is not installed during CP5, taking into account reduced freight traffic due to Longannet power station closure.

£

6.4.9Close Cornton Level Crossings.

Journey Time

2

Potential journey time and performance benefits, and an Improvement in the road / rail interface at this location - barrier downtime likely to increase in response to more frequent train services. Reduces risk of road vehicle incursion / trespass at these locations.

Assume delivered during CP5 in conjunction with Stirling Council and their local development plans - and to align with electrification of this route by December 2018.

CP5 works

6.4.10a

Relocate Dunblane crossover to the South of Dunblane Station.

Regulation 3

Trains terminating at Dunblane today do so at platform 3. To return to Edinburgh or Glasgow trains make a complex set of moves across the main lines to Platform 1, which take c.10mins per train. This enhancement permits them to pick up passengers from Platform 3 and depart to Glasgow or Edinburgh using the relocated crossover to access the Up line directly.

Reassess if there is any planned increase in train frequency between Stirling - Perth lines, or the number of trains turning back at Dunblane increases.

£





– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.4.10b

Re-model Dunblane station track layout to permit trains terminating at Platform 3 to access Platform 1 (from the North) without changing ends on the main lines.

Regulation 4

Trains terminating at Dunblane do so at platform 3. To return to Edinburgh or Glasgow trains exit the Down Siding on to the Down line, change ends and cross to Platform 1 on the Up line - moves taking c.10mins per train.

Reassess with option 6.4.10a if there is any planned increase in train frequency between Stirling - Perth lines, or the number of trains turning back at Dunblane increases.

£

6.4.11aRemove Greenloaning sidings.

Rationali-sation

3

Potential linespeed improvement and asset rationalisation (lower maintenance and renewals costs). Options 6.4.5, 6.4.6 and 6.4.16 may synergise with this one, or make it unattractive.

Reassess options when key assets are due for renewal at this location (if option 6.4.11b is not progressed).

CP6 ring fenced funds

scheme

6.4.11b

Extend Greenloaning sidings to create a 640m Dn freight loop / install at a more suitable location.

Freight Regulation

3

Potential improvement in freight capacity - options 6.4.5, 6.4.6 and 6.4.16 may offer synergies, or make it unnecessary - more likely if freight haulage switches to electric traction.

Progress – Greenloaning looplocation is unsuitable due to adverse gradient and space to extend. Timetable assessment indicates an Up loop is required to enable hourly freight paths on this route – further analysis required to identify suitable location and install prior to Dunblane to Perth electrification (option 6.4.18).

£6-14m

6.4.12

Remove crossover at Auchterarder / replace with facing crossover South of Gleneagles station.

Rationali-sation

2

Performance improvement and whole life cost benefits. The current functionality is duplicated c. 5 miles away at Blackford. The Gleneagles option would improve the management of services during disruption. This aligns with options 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.4.

Progress - assess crossover strategy between Stirling and Perth / business case to optimise - in conjunction with asset rationalisation options on this route.

£4-9m Possible CP6 ring fenced funds

scheme

6.4.13Assess LCs between Stirling & Perth for closure.

Journey Time

3

Potential linespeed improvements - option aligns well with 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.4 which need to be optimised as a programme of works.

Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to improve Level Crossing safety at this location. If closures are supported assess benefits at a corridor level for LC closures + signalling headways / linespeed improvements.

£25-59m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.4.14a

Review one train working on Earn Viaduct - Signalling only.

Regulation 2

More efficient to undertake prior to electrification. Aligns with linespeed increase aspirations and signalling headway improvements - options 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.13.

Progress - assess in conjunction with related options to determine business case in preparation for ERTMS. Also determine if this constraint applies to EMU rolling stock.

£1-3mPossible CP6 ring fenced funds

scheme

6.4.14b

Review one train working on Earn Viaduct - Bridge Strengthening.

Regulation 3


Not preferred - assess business case for bridge strengthening options. Determine if this constraint applies to non-EMU rolling stock. Likely to be best addressed at time of viaduct renewal.

£-££

6.4.14c

Review one train working on Earn Viaduct - New viaduct and flood mitigation.

Regulation 4


Not progressed - as above - likely to be best addressed at time of viaduct renewal.

££-£££

6.4.15

Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel for electrification and freight gauge (slabtrack solution + W12 gauge clearance).

Journey Time

2Electrification and freight W12 clearance - may offer high linespeeds, tying in with option 6.4.17.

Progress - determine whether slabtrack solution (costed) is required - may be optimal to progress in conjunction with Perth stabling works and associated layout changes.

£49-121m

6.4.16

Down line Freight loop (for 640m trains) between Perth and Stirling.

Regulation 2

Freight pathing enablement / timetable improvements. CP5 Perth depot development rules out the Dundee Lines site just South at Perth Station.

Timetable assessment indicates a Down loop is required to enable hourly freight paths on this route – further analysis required to identify suitable location and install prior to Dunblane to Perth electrification (option 6.4.18)..

£10-23m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.4.17

Perth Station re-modelling - close platforms 3&4 to improve passenger access; create new Platform 8 as an Inverness through line, and an Inverness Up loop for freight / charter trains; optimise station approaches for higher linespeeds and re-signal prior to electrification.

Regulation 1

One-off opportunity to modernise the station and its approaches before the existing layout is re-signalled for electrification, after which future enhancements will be more difficult and expensive to undertake. Benefits for passenger access / interchange between trains, journey times, traffic regulation and timetables.

Progress - given synergies with CP5 stabling works, journey time aspirations and cost efficiencies prior to electrification.

£96-228m

6.4.18Dunblane to Perth electrification.

Journey Time

2Potential journey time benefits, improved timetable and rolling stock utilisation efficiencies.


£150-375m

6.5 - Perth to Dundee

6.5.1

Double the Tay Viaduct (North of Perth) to address the single line constraint and speed restriction - currently 30mph for passenger trains.

Regulation 4

Removes a single line section for Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen St services. This is most likely to become a timetable constraint if the Tay Bridge (Dundee) ever requires major life extension / strengthening works, and Dundee to Edinburgh trains have to run via Perth.

Only likely to be viable when significant works are required on existing structure, or if it becomes a significant capacity constraint in the future.

££-£££

6.5.2Extend double tracking between Perth Station and Tay Viaduct.

Regulation 4

Reduces the single track section North of Perth Station, but benefits are not regarded as significant unless the Tay Viaduct is doubled.

Consider in conjunction with option 6.5.1 to optimise business case for Perth Station re-modelling.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

6.5 - Perth to Dundee

6.5.3Review level crossings between Perth & Dundee for closure.

Journey Time

3

Linespeed and journey time improvements, also safety and maintenance benefits. Aligns with option 6.5.4.

Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to improve Level Crossing safety at this location. If closures are supported assess benefits at a corridor level for LC closures + signalling headways / linespeed improvements.

£10-25m

6.5.4Review for LSI between Barnhill & Invergowrie.

Journey Time

3Linespeed and journey time improvements - aligns with option 6.5.3.

Assess opportunities linked to Scotland Route future level crossing closures or upgrades, and track renewals on this section of route.

£

6.5.5

Service Change - Review stabling options for the Royal Scotsman charter train at Dundee Station.

Capacity 4

Platform capacity at Dundee likely to become an issue if long distance and interurban service levels increase as forecast. May align with freight capacity improvements e.g. option 5.4.1. at Camperdown.

Not progressed - assess timetable / pathing options and other capacity schemes to determine the need for additional interventions of this type.

£

6.5.6Perth to Dundee electrification.

Journey Time

2Potential journey time benefits, improved timetable and rolling stock utilisation efficiencies.


£69-171m

5.4 - Dundee to Montrose

5.4.1

Create an Up Freight loop at Camperdown (North of Dundee); remove existing crossovers and extend bi-directional working between new loop and Dock Street Tunnel.

Freight Regulation

2Freight capacity increase / pathing, and potential timetable benefits for passenger services.

Progress - assess for a future electrified freight environment i.e. one that requires minimum looping facilities on routes between Aberdeen and Central Scotland. Timetable development work is ongoing.

£-££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.4 - Dundee to Montrose

5.4.2Close Broughty Ferry level crossing

Journey Time

3Linespeed and journey time improvements, also safety and maintenance benefits.


£5-13m Possible

CP6 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

5.4.3Double tracking between Usan Junction and Montrose Station.

Journey Time

2

Depending on solution selected, single section removed from timetabling process, possibly leave existing single line for freight regulation.

Progress – continue with timetable analysis to confirm the benefits of the various enhancement options on this section of route. This may remove a timetable constraint for passenger and freight traffic between Aberdeen and destinations in the Central Belt of Scotland.

£152-£366m

5.4.4

Looping strategy for freight paths / engineering haulage trains between Dundee & Aberdeen.

Freight Regulation

2

Freight capacity increase / pathing, and potential timetable benefits for passenger / freight and engineering haulage traffic.

Progress - assess for a future electrified freight environment i.e. one that requires minimum looping facilities - will this satisfy engineering haulage needs? Take Camperdown and Usan-Montrose into consideration.

££-£££

5.4.5Dundee to Aberdeen electrification.

Journey Time

2

Potential journey time and timetable benefits plus rolling stock utilisation efficiencies. Links with options 5.4.4, 6.4.18 and 6.5.6.


££££

5.5 - Montrose to Inverurie

5.5.1

Relocate Craiginches Yard, but create a south facing crossover from Dn yard.

Freight Capacity

4

Capacity and timetable benefits - eliminates freight moves towards Aberdeen from Craiginches Yard and change of ends, before trains can run towards Dundee.

Assume delivered in CP5.CP5 work






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

5.5 - Montrose to Inverurie

5.5.2

Add new through route & Platform 8 at Aberdeen Station (including move of the existing wash road and facilities).

Regulation 3

Additional platform and through lines capacity. Aligns well with 5.5.4 re-doubling Aberdeen to Ferryhill - if service levels require this.

Assess re. future rolling stock changes and forecast service frequencies to determine if / when the business case for this option is positive.

£

5.5.3Relocation of HST Depot (on to old Deeside Line or to Ferryhill).

Regulation 3

Releases capacity at Aberdeen station - enabling step for option 5.5.2. Best done in conjunction with electrification when there will also be a change of rolling stock.

Reassess if option 5.5.2 proceeds. £

5.5.4Track lower, slabtrack and re-double Aberdeen to Kittybrewster.

Regulation 4

Capacity and timetable improvements for additional Aberdeen local services. Undertake prior to electrification between Aberdeen and Inverurie - option 5.5.4.

Assess if forecast demand for Aberdeen local services (running North) would justify these interventions by 2043. Doubling the track may restrict freight gauge for traffic between Aberdeen and Elgin.

££-£££

5.5.5Aberdeen to Inverurie electrification.

Journey Time

4May offer rolling stock utilisation / journey time improvements.

Business case unclear at this time, as an extension of Dundee to Aberdeen electrification.

££-£££

6.6 - Perth to Dingwall

6.6.1

Remodel Stanley Junction - shorten double track to relocate S&C on straight section.

Journey Time

1

Enables a linespeed increase / potential journey time improvement - opens up further linespeed improvement opportunities between Stanley Junction and Perth.

May be progressed as part of CP5 Highland Mainline phase 2 - assess timetable benefits from higher linespeeds vs. dis-benefits of shortening the double track section.

£3-7m Possible

CP6 ring-

fenced funds

scheme

6.6.2a

Double track Stanley Junction to Dunkeld - option to follow existing route.

Journey Time

5Capacity and timetable improvements - undertake prior to electrification - option 6.6.23.

Not progressed - assess vs. option 6.6.2b, noting this is a longer lower speed route which will be disruptive to double track.

££££

6.6.2b

Double track Stanley Junction to Dunkeld - option to follow shortened route.

Journey Time

4

Capacity and timetable improvements - existing track could be retained as freight regulating / diversionary facility - undertake prior to electrification - option 6.6.23.

Assess timetable and capacity benefits for business case - retaining existing route would mean additional future electrification costs.

££££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.6.4

Create a dynamic loop south of Inchmagranachan level crossing / Pitlochry Station.

Regulation 3Capacity and timetable improvements - undertake prior to electrification - option 6.6.23.

Assess capacity and timetable benefits to determine business case, noting that land will be required, and the project is likely to bear the majority of costs for flood defence measures on this section as a result.

£££-££££

6.6.5

100mph double tracking from Spey Viaduct to Kincraig loop (noting waybeams and flooding issues at Kingussie - earthworks + new Tay Viaduct at Dalguise)

Journey Time

3

Capacity and timetable improvements - undertake prior to electrification - option 6.6.23. Consider in combination with options 6.6.6, 6.6.22 and 6.6.8.

Assess capacity and timetable benefits to determine business case - in principle this could be a useful loop as it incorporates Newtonmore and Kingussie stations.

£££-££££

6.6.6

Extend Aviemore loop & upgrade signalling for simultaneous acceptance into platforms from both directions.

Regulation 2

Timetable improvements and more operational flexibility during perturbed working. Aligns with options 6.6.22 and 6.6.8.

Progress – being developed by Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project, for CP5 delivery.

CP5 HML

Phase 2 works

6.6.7

Install a motorised higher speed crossover to the North of Blair Atholl Station.

Journey Time

2

Improves regulation / passing moves at Blair Atholl - Down direction through trains wouldn’t need to slow to run via the current S&C (adjoining Tilt Viaduct).

Progress - assess capacity and timetable benefits to determine business case.

£6-14m Possible

CP6 ring-

fenced fund

scheme

6.6.8

Carrbridge Station Enhancements - Including signal remodelling, line speed improvements, and double tracking to the North.

Regulation 2

Journey time and timetable improvements (as a result of capacity increase). Aligns with options 6.6.6 and 6.6.22.

Not identified as beneficial for Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project. Re-assess journey time and timetable benefits in relation to other HML options to determine business case.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.6.9a

Increase length of Slochd freight loop (to 640m).

Regulation 4

Improves freight regulation, and therefore (potentially) freight capacity and the HML timetable for passenger services.

Assess benefits in combination with other options to determine business case - also consider value if this route is electrified.

£

6.6.9b

Increase length of Tomatin freight loop (to 640m).

Regulation 4

Improves freight regulation, and therefore (potentially) freight capacity and the HML timetable for passenger services.

Assess benefits in combination with other options to determine business case - also consider value if this route is electrified.

£

6.6.10Double track the section between Moy loop and Culloden.

Regulation 3Capacity and timetable improvements - undertake prior to electrification - option 6.6.23.

Consider in combination with options 6.6.9a and 6.6.9b. - or as alternative options.

£££

6.6.11Close Raigmore level crossing.

Capacity 3Linespeed and journey time improvements, also safety and maintenance benefits.

Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to improve Level Crossing safety at this location. Note potential interface with planned A96 enhancements.

£30-70m

6.6.12

Relocate / reconfigure refuelling facilities at Inverness Station for HST / IEP needs.

Regulation 2Will ease station operations as more frequent longer trains will use the station and require refuelling.

Will be resolved during CP5 prior to 5+2 HST introduction.

IEP CP5 funded works

6.6.13

Platform Lengthening / remodelling of Inverness Station - lengthen platform 7 (or remove platform 7 and lengthen platform 6 - such that platforms 5&6 only serve Dingwall services.

Regulation 3Increase station platform capacity and flexibility to handle more / longer trains.

Progress - requires an Inverness Station masterplan to assess and combine options for the most appropriate outcome.

£

6.6.14Optimise stabling capabilities Inverness Station.

Capacity 2

Longer HST sets (vs. current CL170/158 units) likely to need revised stabling facilities / routes between the station and stabling - aligns with Perth stabling (option 6.4.17).

Requires an Inverness station masterplan to assess and combine options for most appropriate outcome.

£-££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.6.15

Remove ground frame restriction between Platform 5 and routes to Perth / Aberdeen.

Regulation 3

Improves station layout flexibility, enabling Dingwall rolling stock and trains on HML or A2I to interchange more easily.

Progress - assess rolling stock utilisation benefits, station operational resilience.

£2-4m Possible CP6 ring fenced fund

scheme

6.6.16

Install crossover between Platform 6 & 7 exit roads to improve operational flexibility for trains running to / from Dingwall.

Regulation 3Need an Inverness station masterplan to assess and combine options for most appropriate outcome.

Require an Inverness station masterplan to assess and combine options for most appropriate outcome.

£

6.6.17Upgrade the lines North of Inverness for RA8 freight.

Freight Capacity

4Freight capacity and shift of traffic from road to rail.

Further development of scope and costs of works required to inform the business case.

££-£££

6.6.18Selective closure of Level Crossings between Inverness and Dingwall.

Journey Time

2Linespeed and journey time improvements, also safety and maintenance benefits.


£3-8m

6.6.19Install conventional signalling between Inverness and Dingwall.

Timetable 3Capacity, timetable and performance improvements.

Timetable assessment indicates conventional signalling and a passing facility between Inverness and Dingwall would significantly improve capacity and performance on this section of route.

£10-25m

6.6.20

Install ERTMS between Inverness and Dingwall.

Timetable 3Capacity, timetable and performance improvements.

Conventional signalling appears to have a better business case than ERTMS for CP6 – see option 6.6.19 above.

££-£££

6.6.21

Install additional infrastructure between Inverness and Invergordon Stations.

Capacity 4Capacity, timetable and performance improvements.

Timetable assessment indicates that installing double-track to the North of Dingwall and South of Invergordon would enable more frequent and reliable Inverness to Invergordon services.

£20-50m






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range


6.6.22

Extend Kingussie loop & upgrade signalling for simultaneous acceptance into platforms from both directions.

Regulation 2

Timetable improvements and more operational flexibility during perturbed working. Aligns with options 6.6.6 and 6.6.8.

Not identified as beneficial for Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project. Re-assess capacity and timetable benefits in relation to other HML options to determine business case.

£

6.6.23

Perth to Inverness electrification.

Journey Time

3

Potential journey time and timetable benefits plus rolling stock utilisation efficiencies. Options 6.6.1 to 6.6.15 all relate to this enhancement and business cases should take the possible electrification of the route into account.

Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting that electrification clearance works and other enhancement projects typically need to be undertaken during the 3-5 years (possibly longer in this case) prior to OLE wiring being installed.

££££

4.2 - Queen St Low Level

4.2.1Install mid-platform signalling at Queen St Low Level Station.

Capacity 4

Increase in platform occupancy and service capacity - best undertaken prior to A2B service increase to 6tph - see option 4.1.1.

Forecast demand growth likely to lead to more 6-car formation trains on the North Electrics i.e. diminishing benefits before 2043.

£

4.3 - Hyndland

4.3.1

Create a turnback facility at Hyndland (similar to the previous EGIP GRIP 4 option).

Regulation 3

Need to assess vs other options for Exhibition Centre and Finnieston etc. to determine optimal strategy - noting potential synergy with 4.3.2.

Assess vs other turnback options at Exhibition Centre (2.6.2) and Charing Cross etc. to determine optimal strategy - noting potential synergy with / or alternative of option 4.3.2.

£

4.3.2

Assess possible 4 tracking Hyndland East to former Partickhill station.

Regulation 3

Minimises the 2-track section between Partick and Hyndland - may be advantageous ahead of 6tph on A2B (option 4.1.1). More likely to proceed if Glasgow Central Low Level is remodelled with flank platforms (option 4.6.1 or 4.6.4) to reduce re-modelling of the High Level station

Progress - consider metro style signalling for high frequency through the remaining 2-track section - which could require a lower linespeed through Partick station area to increase overall capacity.

££-£££

4.4 - Hyndland to Westerton

4.4.1Westerton Jn / Milngavie Branch double tracking.

Capacity 4Capacity increase if Milngavie trains were to increase to 4 trains per hour.

Train lengthening a more appropriate response to forecast demand growth, as this would have minimal capacity impact.

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

4.5 - Anniesland - North Glasgow Circle via Queen St LL

4.5.1Redouble Bellgrove Junction.

Capacity 2

Capacity increase and performance improvement for Airdrie to Bathgate and Springburn / Cumbernauld services. Duplicate of 4.1.7 - renewal of the junction likely in CP7.

Progress - assess business case if undertaken when S&C renewal is due - may need to create a new interlocking area - could offer turnback capability vs. Shettleston in the medium to long-term.

Dupli-cate of option 4.1.7

4.5.2a

Remodel Bellgrove station - Up platform relocated off the main Argyle Line.

Capacity 3

Removes Bellgrove stops on the Up Airdrie Line, allowing Bathgate trains to pass - for improved regulation / journey times and capacity at this location.

Assess business case vs option 4.5.1. £

4.5.2b

Remodel Bellgrove station - Up and Down platforms relocated off the main Argyle Lines.

Capacity 4

Removes Bellgrove stops on the Up Airdrie Line, allowing trains to Partick to pass - for improved regulation and capacity at this location.

Higher cost option with potential journey time increase for stopping services / no plans for express services not calling at Bellgrove station.

£

4.5 - Anniesland - North Glasgow Circle via Queen St LL

4.5.3

Extend Bellgrove Down platform loop to connect with the City Union Line - includes doubling High St Junction.

Capacity 4

Removal of some local services from Glasgow Central (High Level), to increase capacity there for longer / long distance services without major expansion of the station footprint. Other options include 4.6.1 or 4.6.4 combined with 2.6.3.

Business case will depend on masterplan for Glasgow Central (High Level)

£-££

4.5.4

Glasgow North Suburban Line electrification - Cowlairs to Anniesland and Westerton.

Capacity 2

Improves consistency of rolling stock performance on the Queen St Tunnel incline i.e. timetable, performance and rolling stock utilisation benefits, plus an electrified diversionary route to Queen St Low Level station.

Progress - as part of Scotland rolling programme of electrification.

£34-86m

4.6 - Glasgow Central LL

4.6.1

Add flank platforms at Glasgow Central Low Level station i.e. create a 2-track 4 platform layout.

Passenger Access /

Circulation5

Upgrades passenger access / egress capacity to handle more Argyle Line services, by enabling passenger to exit from one side of the train e.g. on to the central platform, while new passengers enter from the other side i.e a flank platform.

Flank platform widths would be non-compliant with standards, so compare viability / business case v. option 4.6.4.

£££-££££






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

4.6 - Glasgow Central LL

4.6.2Build a 3rd platform / turnback at Exhibition Centre station.

Regulation 4

Creates a turnback facility for additional Argyle Line services without increasing the number of trains per hour running through the Partick-Hyndland 2-track section of the route.

Assess if option 4.6.4 is developed, to minimise total intervention costs e.g. option 4.3.2.

£

4.6.4

Reconfigure Low Level platforms - replace centre platform with 2 wide platforms at the sides.

Passenger Access /

Circulation3

Improves pedestrian flow / mitigates congestion issues - wider concourse walkways, better staircases, escalators and lifts to wider platforms.

Needs to be assessed vs. Glasgow Central High level masterplan. Very disruptive to implement within tight underground city centre location - site is constrained by location underneath Argyle Street and Central High Level station.. Increases capacity of station to accommodate more frequent trains in the medium term but does not enable longer trains to operate.

£££-££££

4.1 - Newbridge Junction to Bellgrove Junction

4.1.1

Bathgate station centre road turnback - with a station loop round platform 2 and additional crossover at the West end.

Capacity 2

Enables a flexible commuter train service tailored to distinct Edinburgh and Glasgow market demand. Moderates number of trains through Queen Street Low Level station.

Progress - terminating services at Bathgate station from East & West on a stop-start basis to permit skip stop services to pass. Best done prior to introducing additional services - high growth projected for this route

£-££

4.1.3

Rebuild intermediate stations on loops to facilitate overtaking and non-stop services with faster end to end journey times.

Regulation 3

Loops must extend through a minimum of 2 stations, ideally 3 to provide robust overtaking window for non-stop services. Potential synergy with 4.1.2a/b.

Assess against forecast growth across all lines between Edinburgh and Glasgow. May require capacity enhancements in Edinburgh and Glasgow areas to accommodate additional services.

££-£££

4.1.4

Improve loading gauge capability and track between Airdrie and Shettleston for larger freight container traffic.

Diversion-ary

Capacity3

Enables tall international shipping containers (to W10 gauge) to use route from ECML via Bathgate to Mossend

Might have been beneficial in CP5 for Motherwell commissionings in 2017 and 2018, but would be superseded if Winchburgh Jcn and Almond Jcn go ahead (providing a W12 electrified diversionary route for ECML and WCML freight traffic).

£






– 5 (Low)




Funded Works

Not Progressed

CP6 (2019-

24)

CP7 (2024-

29)

CP8 (2029-

34)

CP9 (2034-

39)

CP10 (2039-

44)

Est. cost

range

4.1 - Newbridge Junction to Bellgrove Junction

4.1.5

Signalling upgrade between Newbridge Junction and Bellgrove Junction.

Capacity 3Improves management of trains along route to allow more trains to run closer together.

Assess business case in conjunction with option 4.1.3 - this may be a better value solution to increasing capacity on this route.

£-££

4.1.6

Increase Shettleston loop to 705m (110 SLU's - Standard Length units), and motorise the ground frame.

Diversion-ary

Capacity4

Provides turnback facility to enable freight trains from ECML via Bathgate to reach Mossend if WCML is closed.

Might have been beneficial in CP5 for Motherwell commissionings in 2017 and 2018, but would be superseded if Winchburgh Jcn and Almond Jcn go ahead (providing a W12 electrified diversionary route for ECML and WCML freight traffic) to / from Mossend and Coatbridge terminals.

£

4.1.7

Doubling Bellgrove Junction for additional train paths and timetable resilience on North Electric Mainline.

Capacity 2

Capacity increase and performance improvement for Airdrie to Bathgate and Springburn / Cumbernauld services. Duplicates option 4.5.1 - renewal of the junction likely in CP7.

Progress - assess business case if undertaken when S&C renewal is due - may need to create a new interlocking area - could offer turnback capability vs. Shettleston in the medium to long-term.

£-££



Appraisal results The choices identified for Control Period 6 and 7 (CP6 and CP7) have been analysed from a financial and socio-economic perspective.

From a financial perspective, the choices will be categorised into those that:

• worsen the rail industry’s net operating position (in other words, the additional operating costs exceed the value of revenue generated)

• choices which improve the industry’s net operating position. For these schemes, the Route Study also indicates the extent to which this improvement is able to cover the capital cost of the initial investment.

The choices will be appraised from a wider ‘socio-economic’ perspective, which compares the value of benefits to users and non-users to the net financial cost to funders. The appraisals will be conducted in line with funders’ guidelines, in particular STAG; Scotland Transport Appraisal Guidance. Further details of appraisals including assumptions will be provided to the Office of Rail and Road.

The purpose of the appraisals is to illustrate the relative value-for-money of accommodating the Conditional Outputs defined in the Market Studies (including the Scotland Market Study). It is important to state that the appraisal results are only one indicator of the potential value-for-money. The analysis carried out only reflects the transport-related impacts of a scheme. In some cases funders may also be interested in pursuing significant improvements in connectivity to enable the change in Scotland’s economic geography. Where this is the case, a wider ranging view of the economic case for investment is required, and the ‘first order’ transport-related impacts presented can only be viewed as an important – though not the only relevant – indicator of value-for-money.

Further appraisals will be undertaken once additional timetable and technical development work has been complete, or when choices for the remainder of the corridor, for example on the East Coast Main Line are published in London North East Route Study documents.


Fife to Edinburgh Waverley train lengthening (Lengthen three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak)

Option Train lengthen Fife services into Edinburgh Waverley

Conditional Output Contributes towards CCO6 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24

Purpose The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Fife services operating into Edinburgh Waverley.

Description All services in the morning peak to be six-car.

Infrastructure requirement Minimal infrastructure work required as platforms already suitable for six-car trains.

Operational requirement Six additional cars to lengthen services.

Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes.

Freight impact No impact on freight

Relates to other options None

Rail industry financial categorisation

Scheme increases operating subsidies

Note

Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

30 year appraisal £m (2010 PV)

Costs (Present Value)

Investment Cost 0.00

Operating Cost 19.15

Revenue -3.15

Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.01

Total costs 15.99

Benefits (Present Value)

Rail user benefits 12.36

Non user benefits 1.18

Current TOCs revenue 0.00

Current TOCs/ NR opex -3.14

Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -0.91

Total Quantified Benefits 9.49

NPV -6.51

Quantified BCR 0.59


Carstairs Area Enhancement

Option This option rationalises and remodels the junction, providing higher linespeeds for long distance passenger services and improves freight regulation and network performance.

Conditional Output Contributes towards IC012, LDC01, LDC02, LDC03, LDC04, LDC05, LDC06, LDC08, LDC09, LDC010, LDC011, LDC 012, LDC014, LDC015, LDC016, LDC018, LDC019, LDC021, LDC022, LDC023, LDC024, LDC025 and 4 class 4 and 1 class 6 freight paths per hour

Timeframe Asset condition is driving the like-for-like renewal of the junction in CP6.

Purpose Enhancing this junction will improve performance and freight regulation, reduce journey times and whole life costs.

DescriptionIt will require the renewal of all track, signalling and overhead line assets in the Carstairs Junction area. Works will involve substantial re-alignment of the track, larger junctions for higher speeds, new drainage, and temporary running lines to minimise overall levels of disruption to customers.

Infrastructure requirement As above.

Operational requirement N/A

Passenger impact Reduced journey times and improved punctuality

Freight impact Improved freight regulation




Note





Operating Cost -4.14

Revenue -58.51


Total costs 55.44





Current TOCs/ NR opex 0.00



NPV 4.29

Quantified BCR 1.08


Balloch to Airdrie via Glasgow Queen Street train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak)

Option Train lengthen Balloch services to Airdrie via Glasgow Queen Street

Conditional Output Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24


Purpose The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Balloch services operating to Airdrie.



Operational requirement Nine additional cars to lengthen services.






Note






Revenue -4.33


Total costs 16.71








NPV 11.02

Quantified BCR 1.66


Motherwell to Milngavie via Glasgow Central train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak)

Option Train lengthen Motherwell to Milngavie services via Glasgow Central



Purpose The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on services operating between Motherwell and Mingavie.



Operational requirement Six additional cars to lengthen services.






Note






Revenue -5.19


Total costs 7.44








NPV 13.42

Quantified BCR 2.80


Gourock to Glasgow Central train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak)

Option Train lengthen Gourock services into Glasgow Central

Conditional Output Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow Central during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24


Purpose The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on services operating into Glasgow Central.



Operational requirement 11 additional cars to lengthen services.






Note






Revenue -6.53


Total costs 18.28








NPV 1.77

Quantified BCR 1.10


Ayrshire to Glasgow Central (Lengthen some seven-car trains to eight-car trains in the morning peak)

Option Train lengthen Ayr services into Glasgow Central



Purpose The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. All scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Ayrshire services operating into Glasgow.

Description All services in the morning peak to be eight-car.

Infrastructure requirement Minimal infrastructure work required as selective door opening to be utilised.

Operational requirement Seven additional cars to lengthen services.






Note






Revenue -9.61


Total costs 8.60








NPV 16.65

Quantified BCR 2.94


Scotland Route Study - Glossary

Term Meaning

Airdrie-Bathgate (A2B) New railway line completed in 2010 which reinstates the former Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway and provides an additional direct railway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh

Anglo Scottish The train services between Scotland and England

Argyle Line Section of line between Rutherglen and Partick via Glasgow Central low level

AWPR Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

Baseline The baseline is formed of the present railway infrastructure and committed enhancements from the Scottish Government’s CP5 High Level Output Specification

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio, a measure of the value for money presented by an option

Bi-directional Bi-directional signalling is the provision of signalling that allows one or more tracks on a multiple track railway to be operated in either direction, whether for planned or unplanned use

Borders Railway New railway line between Newcraighall and Tweedbank

Chord Line Short track connection between existing railway lines to allow a new direction of travel at junction

Class 4 A classification of freight train timetabled to operate at up to 75mph

Class 6 A classification of freight train timetabled to operate at up to 60mph, typically heavier than a Class 4 train due to the goods carried

Climbing / passing loops Track infrastructure to allow fast services to pass slower services

Committed Enhancement Infrastructure investment schemes which have been identified for funding from the Scottish Government’s High Level Output Specification

Conditional Output A proposed future service specification, conditional on value for money and affordability

Connectivity Opportunity to travel between two locations and associated journey time

Control Period 4 (CP4) Network Rail is funded in five yearly periods. Control Period 4 is the funding period from April 2009 to March 2014


Term Meaning

Control Period 5 (CP5) Network Rail is funded in five year periods. Control Period 5 is the funding period from April 2014 to March 2019



Cross Boundary Analysis Considers train service specifications and assumptions across Network Rail Route boundaries to enable consistent assumptions for each of the Route Studies

CSTM Central Scotland Transport Model

Digital Railway The Digital Railway is a rail industry-wide programme designed to benefit Britain’s economy by accelerating the use of modern technology in several key rail areas.

Diversionary An alternative route for train services during times of planned or unplanned disruption

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

Down line In most of Scotland, with the exception of the West and East Coast Main Lines (where the Down line direction is away from London), the Down line direction is away from the major station

Dwell time The time a train is stationary at a station

Dynamic Loop A passing place on a single line long enough for trains to pass without stopping

E&G Edinburgh to Glasgow line via Falkirk High

ECML East Coast Main Line

ECS Empty Coaching Stock

Edinburgh Suburban Line The Edinburgh Suburban Line is a predominately diesel line that runs from Haymarket West Junction to Monktonhall Junction via Gorgie Junction

EGIP Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme

EMU Electric Multiple Unit


Term Meaning

Enabling Early planned works to allow for a more efficient delivery of final scope

Engineering Access The time on the rail network when no trains operate when maintenance/renewals and enhancement works are undertaken

ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System. A system for managing train movements using ETCS (European Train Control System) to signal trains and GSMR (Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway: an international wireless communications standard for railway communication and applications) to communicate with trains

ETCS European Train Control System. A new signalling control and train protection system

Fife Circle The route runs from Thornton Junction via Cowdenbeath to Inverkeithing and via Kirkcaldy to Inverkeithing, south to Forth Bridge and splits at Dalmeny to Haymarket West Junction and to Winchburgh Junction

Flat Junction An at grade (level) track junction

FOC Freight Operating Company

G&SW Glasgow and South Western Line (Glasgow to Carlisle via Dumfries)

Gauge The ability of the infrastructure to move a railway vehicle and its load on a particular part of the network

Generalised Cost The sum of the monetary and non-monetary (time) costs of a journey. This enables costs for different transport modes to be compared on an objective basis

Generalised Journey Time A measure of the attractiveness of a rail service which takes into account the train journey time, frequency of service and whether the journey requires an interchange

Grade Separated Junction A track junction where the diverging, or converging, connections are height separated to avoid any conflicts with other train movements

GRIP “Governance for Railway Investment Projects”, a Network Rail standard for project managing changes to the infrastructure

Headway The minimum safe interval between trains on a particular section of track

Highland Main Line Route between Perth and Inverness

HLOS High Level Output Specification, the Scottish Government’s statement of what it wishes to buy from the industry over a five year period

HS2 Proposed High Speed link between London, Birmingham, and beyond to Manchester and Leeds


Term Meaning

HS2 Phase 1 First phase of High Speed 2 to provide a high speed line from London to Birmingham

HS2 Phase 2 Extension of High Speed 2 Phase 1 network, it includes a high speed line from Birmingham to Manchester and from Birmingham to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds

Immunisation Works required to ensure that railway infrastructure assets are not compromised by electrical interference from overhead power systems

Infrastructure This includes signalling, track, structures, geotechnical and telecom assets associated with the rail network

Initial Industry Advice The rail industry's advice for funding for the next Control Period

Intermodal trains Freight trains which convey traffic which could be moved by road, rail or sea (e.g. container traffic)

Interurban Train services between the seven cities of Scotland in the interpeak period between 1000 and 1600

Intervention Planned works to deliver the desired infrastructure or operational improvement to the railway

IP Infrastructure Projects

IPEMU Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit

2043 ITSS The 2043 Indicative Train Service Specification reflects one possible way in which the Conditional Outputs from the Market Studies could be met within Scotland, and it is used to test the current network to determine if it can accommodate these outputs

LENNON Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Over Night. The Rail Industry's ticket sales database

Linespeed The maximum permitted speed of any train over a section of track

Load factor The amount of seats occupied on a train service expressed as a percentage of total seats available

LTPP Long Term Planning Process, the programme of Market and Route Studies which together define the capacity and capability required of the Great Britain railway network over a 30-year time horizon.

MOIRA Rail industry demand forecasting software

MPH Miles Per Hour


Term Meaning

North Electrics A route that runs from Drumgelloch/Rutherglen in the east and traverses north Glasgow to Helensburgh Central in the west with spurs to Balloch, Milngavie and Springburn.

NPV The Net Present Value of an investment’s future net benefits minus the cost to Government.

OLE Overhead Line Equipment

Operating Licence Conditions under which Network Rail must operate, set by Government

Opportunities to travel This is the number of occasions a passenger can travel between two specified locations, including where a passenger is required to change trains.

ORR Office of Rail and Road, the safety and economic regulator for the rail industry in Great Britain.

Path The infrastructure capacity required for the passage of a train between two places in a certain period of time

PGS Prospering in Global Stability

PI Prospering in Isolation

Qualitative Quality, or characteristic, based measurement technique

Quantitative Data, or information, based measurement technique

RAM Route Asset Management

Regulation The pathing of trains required to achieve a given timetable, such as a non-stopping service passing a stopping service

Remodel The reconfiguration of railway infrastructure assets to deliver the enhanced outputs, such as alterations to a track junction to increase the permitted speed

Resilient The ability of the railway network to cope with unplanned disruption including faults, severe adverse weather, and acts of vandalism

RETB Radio Electronic Token Block

Route A railway line between two places


Term Meaning

Route Availability The system which determines which types of locomotive and rolling stock can travel over any particular route. The main criteria for establishing RA usually concerns the strength of underline bridges in relation to axle loads and speed

Route Clearance A series of works to increase the gauge of a railway line

Route Study An evidence base for the rail industry and its funders to inform investment choices over the next 10 years, as well as proposals to meet forecast growth through to 2043.

RUS Route Utilisation Strategy, a report which considers the future development of the railway in a particular area (geographic RUS), or one aspect of its development in depth (Network RUS). Geographic RUSs are being superseded by Market Studies and Route Studies in the Long Term Planning Process.

S&C Switches and crossings

SB Signal Box

SBP Strategic Business Plan

Scotland Market Study A review of the rail market for passenger flows wholly within Scotland

ScotRail Rail franchise for passenger services within Scotland (and to Carlisle)

Service frequency The periodicity of a train service in a particular timetable configuration

Service pattern The train service calling points in a particular timetable configuration

SGT Struggling in Global Turmoil

SI Struggling in Isolation

Skip-stopping A limited stop train service pattern

Socio-economic Appraisal “Socio-economic” costs and benefits are those which are not monetised, e.g. improved journey times for existing passengers

SoFA Statement of Funds Available

Stabling An infrastructure facility to allow the storage and/or servicing of trains


Term Meaning

STAG Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance

TEE The Transport Economic Efficiency analysis provides guidance on how to assess the contribution which a transport option may have on economic welfare through consideration of the resultant transport costs and benefits

TELMoS Transport and Economic Land-use Model of Scotland

Throat A series of multiple converging/diverging track connections such as on the approach to major stations

TMfS Transport Model for Scotland

TOC Train Operating Company

TPD Trains per Day

TPH Trains per Hour

Transport Scotland The national transport agency of Scotland, accountable to Scottish Ministers

Turnaround times The time required for train service to terminate and commence as a new service

Turnback A bay platform that provides the functionality for terminating services to turn round ready to depart from the platform

Up line In most of Scotland, with the exception of the West and East Coast Main Lines (where the Up line direction is towards London), the Up line direction is towards the major station

W10 The loading gauge which enables 9’ 6” containers to be conveyed on conventional wagons.

W12 Allows a 9’6 high container to be carried on a standard container wagon, including refrigerated containers up to 2,600mm wide. This is the recommended height for renewed structures

WCML West Coast Main Line

West Highland Line Rural line that runs from Craigendoran Junction to Fort William and Mallaig with a branch to Oban from Crianlarich

WTT Working Timetable

appendices july 2016 network rail · appendices july 2016 network rail – scotland route ......

Documents