OK. I'll take the bait:
The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 defines congested infrastructure as: "an element of railway infrastructure for which demand for infrastructure capacity cannot be fully satisfied during certain periods, even after coordination of the different requests for capacity"
The fact that they've taken two years and still failed to find a timetable for the ECML which satisfies the aspirations of all stakeholders is convincing proof that the demand for infrastructure capacity on the ECML cannot be satisfied during certain periods. So the ECML is
by legal definition congested infrastructure.
Looking at whether it should be declared as such:
Section 26-(1) of the Regulations states that "[Where] it is not possible for the infrastructure manager to satisfy requests for infrastructure capacity adequately, the infrastructure manager
must declare that element of the railway infrastructure on which such requests cannot be satisfied to be congested."
After years of trying to develop a timetable, they obviously can't adequately satisfy requests for capacity. So section 26-(1)
requires them to declare the ECML to be congested. There is no provision in Section 26-(1) to use excuses such as "there's no budget to fix the problem" to avoid this action.
The only permitted reason to delay is if they have not yet coordinated "requests for capacity and consultation with the applicants in accordance with regulation 23(4)." [Section 23-(4) states "
In the event of conflict between different requests for infrastructure capacity, the infrastructure manager must attempt, in consultation with the appropriate applicants, and through coordination of the requests, to ensure the best possible matching of all requirements and, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, may propose alternative infrastructure capacity from that requested in order to resolve the conflict." Sections 23-(5, 6, 7) specify what information must be provided to meet section (4), and specifies a time limit measured in days for the resolution of disputes. I can only assume this has been done, but as far as I can see the associated reports and documentation are not public.]
Certainly, the analysis is already there. Posts #240 by
@Verulamius and #252 by
@swt_passenger refer to previous work that showed that the timetable was not achievable without specific infrastructure interventions, which the DfT refused to fund. So we know the timetable is not achievable. What more analysis do you need?
