East Midlands draft Route Study published

[snowball]

What the thread title says.

Press release:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...future-of-rail-in-the-East-Midlands-2258.aspx

Have your say on the future of rail in the East Midlands



Network Rail has published a draft report which examines the options for long term improvements to railway in the East Midlands.

The report, “East Midlands Route Study”, is a draft for consultation as part of the rail industry’s long term planning process.

Rail passenger usage in the East Midlands has increased by 40% over the past ten years and freight has grown at a rate of 2.5% since the mid-1990s. This pattern is forecast to continue with passenger numbers set to increase by up to 40% by 2023 and as much as 114% by 2043.

Route managing director for Network Rail, Phil Verster, said: “This is already an exciting time for the railway in the East Midlands. By the end of 2020 electrically powered trains will be running on the Midland Main Line Route between Sheffield and St Pancras International; more trains will be able to operate between Kettering and Corby; and we will have unlocked a significant bottle neck at Derby, improving services for passengers.

“This study looks beyond 2020 to identify potential investments which will help us to deliver even better services for passengers and maximise the way we use our network to support the economy of the east midlands.”

The study has been developed by Network Rail in partnership with industry partners in accordance with the long term planning process which is specified by Department for Transport. It identifies a value for money case for the further lengthening of trains by 2023 on the services between:

• Birmingham – Leicester – Stansted Airport/Cambridge

• Norwich – Nottingham – Sheffield – Liverpool

• Southampton/Reading to Newcastle via Derby

• Plymouth to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Derby

A number of infrastructure enhancements have also been identified as priorities for 2023 to provide for forecast growth in demand. These are:

• Wigston Junction to Syston Junction; upgrade to four tracks and separation of the Midland Main Line and the line to Nuneaton at Wigston Junction through either a flyover or fly under

• two additional platforms at Leicester station

• new facilities to allow more trains to operate at Bedford

• signalling improvements between Syston Junction and Peterborough to allow more services to run

Network Rail is also developing the case for the extension of the East West Rail link from the Bedford area to Cambridge.

Options for extension to the electrification currently being constructed will be published over the next few months.

The improvements identified in the study provide options for funders and are not committed schemes. Potential funders include national government, Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities.

The link in the press release doesn't work for me but this one does:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/east-midlands-route-study/

 

[edwin_m]

As with the last few, a good selection of ideas here but don't run away with the idea that anything like all of it is going to happen!

Can anyone tell exactly was is intended by the fast line from East Midlands Parkway to Stenson Junction? Seems to be an idea to speed up Nottingham-Birmingham, which I suggested unsuccessfully in the last version, but doesn't HS2 supersede that requirement anyway?

Many of these projects are about access to HS2 at Toton, tending to confirm my view that decent connecting train services need a lot of work. Probably NR or HS2 should have published this part separately, along with any equivalent work for a Breaston or even East Midlands Parkway site for the Hub, as a contribution to the decision process between these sites.

 

[Kettledrum]

I thought the document makes for disappointing reading - particularly the analysis that shows many of the schemes for train lengthening apparently have poor VFM business cases and increase the subsidy required to be paid to the operator. And this is even the case when no platform lengthening is required ???????

I'm especially puzzled why apparently a good business case does not exist for lengthening:

- the 3 coach trains between Nottingham and Birmingham, and
- the 1 coach trains between Derby and Crewe

The reason why I am so puzzled is that I travel on full trains on these routes with trains full to overflowing, so how can a business case for lengthening them not exist?

 

[WatcherZero]

Presumably as its forecasting by 2023 70-85% capacity utilisation which isnt a severe issue though they are forecasting over 100% by 2043. They are also predicting 40-50% reduction in long distance passengers in the region due to hs2 which means some intercity services are going to have a lot more seats available for shorter distance journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As to the report itself looks pretty simple, long term local growth expected but capacity should be able to handle it in the short term, growth on London commuter expected to be fast initially but to peter out and be overtaken by local growth in the long term. Plan to build lots of bay platforms to accommodate shuttle services to HS2 hub.

 

[BR Blue]

I'm especially puzzled why apparently a good business case does not exist for lengthening:

- the 3 coach trains between Nottingham and Birmingham, and
- the 1 coach trains between Derby and Crewe

The reason why I am so puzzled is that I travel on full trains on these routes with trains full to overflowing, so how can a business case for lengthening them not exist?

How many 1 coach trains will there be after 2020? The class 153`s don`t offer value for money in terms of making them PRM TSI compliant. I think some rail services will be lengthened by default.

 

[Mugby]

A case for further lengthening of trains by 2023?

Oh well, only another eight years of overcrowding to endure!

 

[Searle]

I thought the document makes for disappointing reading - particularly the analysis that shows many of the schemes for train lengthening apparently have poor VFM business cases and increase the subsidy required to be paid to the operator. And this is even the case when no platform lengthening is required ???????

I'm especially puzzled why apparently a good business case does not exist for lengthening:

- the 3 coach trains between Nottingham and Birmingham, and
- the 1 coach trains between Derby and Crewe

The reason why I am so puzzled is that I travel on full trains on these routes with trains full to overflowing, so how can a business case for lengthening them not exist?

Similar with peak time trains around Lincoln; even just one extra coach would make a lot of them 100% more comfortable.

 

[northwichcat]

Presumably as its forecasting by 2023 70-85% capacity utilisation which isnt a severe issue though they are forecasting over 100% by 2043. They are also predicting 40-50% reduction in long distance passengers in the region due to hs2 which means some intercity services are going to have a lot more seats available for shorter distance journeys.

I can see a Daily Mail journalist using this quote out-of-context

To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling on the East Midlands section of interurban services including Birmingham – Leicester – Stansted Airport, Nottingham – Cardiff and Norwich to Liverpool services in 2043

With a headline along the lines of "Rail overcrowding not to be fixed for another 30 years"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A case for further lengthening of trains by 2023?

Oh well, only another eight years of overcrowding to endure!

Liverpool-Nottingham was supposed to directly benefit as a result of EMUs being introduced on North TPE. Hence, one reason why DfT proposed moving Liverpool-Nottingham to TPE - so it can be operated by 185s in 6 car formation. However, North TPE electrification by December 2018 now looks unlikely.

There seems to be hint in there that Liverpool-Norwich may become Liverpool-Ipswich.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm especially puzzled why apparently a good business case does not exist for lengthening:

- the 3 coach trains between Nottingham and Birmingham, and
- the 1 coach trains between Derby and Crewe

The reason why I am so puzzled is that I travel on full trains on these routes with trains full to overflowing, so how can a business case for lengthening them not exist?

Derby – Stoke-on-Trent – Crewe services
This service is currently hourly and is operated mostly by one vehicle
diesel multiple units with a few two vehicle units. The heaviest
loadings are between Derby and Stoke-on-Trent in the peak periods.

Forecast loadings for 2023 suggest that a number of the onevehicle
services would need lengthening to two vehicles to meet
crowding standards (option EM028.1). Although this option would
not require any platform lengthening, analysis has shown it to
represent poor value for money.

...

Manchester Airport currently requires at least one interchange
from Leicester, Nottingham or Derby. A direct Derby to
Manchester Airport service via Crewe is included in the 2043
strategy.

To me it sounds like they think the Airport extension is needed before they can justify longer trains.