Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sheffield and Leeds City Regions:
Post-HS2 Timetable Option Study
Technical Report
Report
July 2013
Prepared for: Prepared by:
SYPTE and Metro
Steer Davies Gleave
West Riding House
67 Albion Street
Leeds LS1 5AA
+44 (0)113 389 6400
www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Technical Report
Contents
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... I
Key Messages .......................................................................................... i
Introduction .......................................................................................... ii
Strategic Context and Guiding Principles ....................................................... iii
Demand Growth to 2032 ........................................................................... iv
Impact of HS2 ....................................................................................... vii
Developing a Post-HS2 Timetable .............................................................. viii
Distribution of the Economic Benefits........................................................... ix
Conclusions ............................................................................................ x
Next Steps ............................................................................................ xi
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
Study Context ......................................................................................... 1
Study Area ............................................................................................. 1
Study Approach ....................................................................................... 3
Caveats ................................................................................................ 5
Report Structure ..................................................................................... 5
2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............................................. 7
Introduction ........................................................................................... 7
Rail Strategies Covering the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions .............................. 7
Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process .................................................. 14
Assumed Enhancements in the Optimistic 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Timetable .............. 16
‘Guiding Principles’ Underpinning Development of Post-HS2 Scenarios ................. 17
3 ESTABLISHING THE 2032 ‘WITHOUT HS2’ DEMAND ........................................ 19
Introduction ......................................................................................... 19
Underlying Passenger Demand Growth ......................................................... 19
Optimistic 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Timetable Demand .......................................... 25
Total Demand Growth ............................................................................. 25
Freight Demand Growth .......................................................................... 26
4 IMPACT OF HS2 .................................................................................... 27
The HS2 Route and Service Pattern ............................................................. 27
Approach to Assessing the Released Capacity Opportunities .............................. 29
5 OPTIONS FOR A POST-HS2 TIMETABLE ....................................................... 33
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................... 33
East Coast Main Line – south of Doncaster ..................................................... 34
East Coast Main Line - north of York ........................................................... 37
Midland Main Line .................................................................................. 39
Cross Country ....................................................................................... 40
Feeder Services..................................................................................... 43
6 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 45
Introduction ......................................................................................... 45
Calculating Economic Impact .................................................................... 45
Results Overview ................................................................................... 48
7 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................ 53
Conclusions .......................................................................................... 53
Next Steps ........................................................................................... 53
FIGURES
Figure 1 Total Demand Growth ....................................................... v
Figure 2 Study Area .................................................................... vi
Figure 1.1 Study Area ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3.1 GVA Per Capita Growth ................................................... 22
Figure 3.2 Employment Growth ....................................................... 22
Figure 3.3 Population Growth ......................................................... 23
Figure 3.4 Households With No Car Growth ......................................... 23
Figure 3.5 Fuel Cost Growth ........................................................... 24
Figure 3.6 Underlying Demand Growth Forecasts .................................. 25
Figure 3.7 Total Demand Growth ..................................................... 26
Figure 4.1 HS2 Phase 2 Service Pattern .............................................. 28
Figure 5.1 ECML South – Conservative Option ...................................... 34
Figure 5.2 ECML South – Optimistic Option A ....................................... 36
Figure 5.3 ECML South – Optimistic Option B ....................................... 36
Figure 5.4 ECML North – Conservative Option ...................................... 38
Figure 5.5 ECML North – Optimistic Option ......................................... 39
Figure 5.6 Midland Main Line – Conservative and Optimistic Base Timetable 40
Figure 5.7 Cross Country – Conservative Option .................................... 41
Figure 5.8 Cross Country – Optimistic Option ....................................... 43
Technical Report
Contents
Figure 6.1 Benefit by Flow (Excluding Freight) ..................................... 50
Figure 6.2 Benefit by Regional and Sub Regional Centre (Excluding Freight). 51
Figure A.1 Freight Corridors ........................................................... 66
TABLES
Table 1.1 Option Terminology .......................................................... 4
Table 3.1 RIFF-Lite Model Inputs ..................................................... 20
Table 4.1 Summary of Eastern Leg + Manchester HS2 Frequency .............. 27
Table 4.2 Abstraction from the Existing Network to HS2 ........................ 30
Table 6.1 Economic Benefit Appraisal Assumptions .............................. 47
Table 6.2 Economic Benefits .......................................................... 48
Table B.1 Freight Flows Internal to Yorkshire and Humberside ................ 69
Table B.2 Freight flows From Yorkshire and Humberside ........................ 70
Table B.3 Freight flows To Yorkshire and Humberside ........................... 71
Table B.4 Freight flows Through Yorkshire and Humberside .................... 72
Table B.5 Summary of Forecast Path Requirements (Northern RUS) .......... 73
APPENDICES
A OPTIMISTIC 2032 ‘WITHOUT HS2’ TIMETABLE ASSUMPTIONS
B FREIGHT MARKET ASSESSMENT
Technical Report
i
Executive Summary
Key Messages
The Government is planning to build a national high speed rail network, known as High
Speed 2 (HS2). This will significantly reduce rail journey times from London and Birmingham
to Leeds, Sheffield and York and also provide an opportunity to modify service provision on
the existing rail network.
To support development of the business case, HS2 Ltd has made initial assumptions as to
how services on the existing network could be modified following the introduction of HS2.
These include reducing some service frequencies and re-routeing some services in ways that
may worsen connectivity to and from locations in the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions (SCR
and LCR). This study has considered an alternative approach to modifying services on the
existing network that has the potential to:
I Generate economic benefits of between £300m and £800m (2010 present value); and
I Provide benefits that are distributed across the SCR and LCR areas.
These benefits relate solely to enhanced passenger and freight connectivity on the existing
network following the introduction of HS2. They are additional to the direct benefits
generated by HS2 itself. The benefits could be secured largely through refining how services
on the existing network operate and making use of available capacity. They could therefore
be realised with minimal additional operating and capital cost.
The study has identified indicative timetable scenarios and used these to value an envelope
of potential benefits. There is scope to refine and develop these scenarios to allow overall
benefits to be maximised and the distribution of benefits for SCR and LCR to be improved.
Further development will need to reflect stakeholder aspirations and the on-going
development of the existing rail network and HS2. Investment in the existing network
beyond 2019 should be targeted to ensure the infrastructure required to realise the wider
opportunities that HS2 brings is in place in advance of 2032.
As currently proposed, HS2 infrastructure in Yorkshire will be lightly used compared to the
capacity that will be available on the high speed network. Existing parallel routes will be
operating at or close to capacity. Consideration should be given to making better use of the
HS2 infrastructure.
The study suggests there are worthwhile economic benefits to be gained as a result of
providing enhanced passenger and freight services on the existing network post-HS2. Given
this opportunity the following actions for stakeholders are suggested:
I Respond positively to the consultation on the wider HS2 propositions;
I Engage with HS2 Ltd/Network Rail to consider alternative options for use of the existing
network to those currently included by HS2 Ltd in the economic case;
I In due course, undertake further work to refine the post-HS2 timetable options as more
detail on the development of the existing and HS2 networks becomes available; and
I Make the case for an “existing network investment funding pot – post-HS2” for 2019 and
beyond, geared at ensuring maximum benefits can be derived from the existing network.
Technical Report
ii
Introduction
1. The Government is planning to build a national high speed rail network. This will
significantly reduce rail journey times from London and Birmingham to Leeds,
Sheffield and York. It will also significantly increase passenger capacity for these
intercity flows. It will have a dramatic impact on rail travel. The direct benefits
of significantly quicker journey times are self-evident for point-to-point flows
from York, Leeds and Sheffield (Meadowhall) to London and Birmingham. What is
less clear at present are the opportunities that the introduction of High Speed 2
(HS2) might offer to improve services on the existing network.
2. This study considers the opportunities to enhance services on the existing rail
network following the introduction of HS2, and makes an initial valuation of the
potential economic benefits. The study covers:
I The potential impact of HS2 on demand for services on the existing network;
I How service provision on the existing network might be refined in order to
serve the residual markets following the start of HS2 services; and
I An initial estimate of the potential economic benefits such refinements might
generate.
3. A range of possible economic benefits have been identified reflecting
Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios. Assuming there is no development of the
rail network between now and 2032, the analysis suggests that economic benefits
of £300m could be secured by revising the service pattern on the existing
network.
4. However, this could increase to £800m should government policy favour on-going
investment in rail network capability up to 2032. The additional benefit is created
as a result of greater underlying rail demand generated by the enhanced 2032
timetable, more opportunities to enhance the service pattern post-HS2 including
providing new direct journey opportunities, and the opportunity to accommodate
additional freight traffic.
5. While the volume of this potential benefit equates to a small proportion of the
total benefit of HS2, £63.6bn1 for the full network and £40bn2 for the Leeds and
Manchester legs, it does reflect a much larger volume of benefit for the regions
specifically. Further it is likely that a significant proportion of the benefits could
be delivered with relatively small levels of additional infrastructure and operating
costs being incurred.
6. The remainder of this Study Overview provides a summary of the work programme
that has been followed to identify the post-HS2 service options and the potential
economic benefits that these may generate. It is structured as follows:
I Summarises the strategic context and guiding principles;
I Comments on how rail demand is projected to grow between now and 2032;
I Presents an overview of an initial assessment of demand that HS2 might
abstract from the existing rail network;
1 Updated Economic Case for HS2, HS2 Ltd, August 2012 – Table 1, row 6 -
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/Updated%20economic%20case%20for%20HS2.pdf 2 Updated Economic Case for HS2, HS2 Ltd, August 2012 – Table 1, row 6 less Table 2, row 6
Technical Report
iii
I Summarises options for a post-HS2 timetable;
I Provides a summary of how benefits are distributed through the Sheffield and
Leeds City Regions; and
I Presents the key conclusions and next steps.
Strategic Context and Guiding Principles
7. There are a variety of plans and strategies that will influence the development of
rail network capability and rail service outputs between now and 2032, the
proposed opening date for Phase 2 of HS2, and also provide direction as to how
the rail network ought to be developed beyond 2032. These include:
I Network Rail’s Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs)
I The Northern Hub strategy
I The Department for Transport’s High Level Output Statement and in response
Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan;
I Plans for electrification, including the Electric Spine, Midland Main Line and
Trans Pennine routes;
I The Yorkshire Rail Network Study;
I West Yorkshire RailPlan 7 and the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy;
I The draft Long Term Rail Strategy for the North of England; and
I Emerging conclusions from Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process,
including specifically at this point in time, the Long Distance Market Study.
8. The strategic context is important to this study for two reasons. It helps define
what the service provision and network capability might be in 2032, against which
we can consider the benefits of a refined post-HS2 timetable. It also helps define
the guiding principles that underpin our assumptions of how the post-HS2
timetable might be developed.
Timetable Development to 2032
9. The strategies and plans identified above set out a wide range of planned and
aspirational service enhancements that may be delivered between now and 2032.
These include enhancements that are committed such as the Northern Hub and
aspirations that still require significant development, such as those set out in the
draft Long Term Rail Strategy for the North.
10. The extent to which these are delivered will have a direct impact on the nature
of the residual rail market post-HS2 and the network capability for residual
passenger and freight services. Reflecting the range of possible enhancements
between now and 2032, two scenarios for the ‘without HS2’ existing rail network
in 2032 have been modelled. These scenarios, developed in consultation with
industry partners, reflect the extremities of likely development in the rail
network over the next 20 years. The two 2032 ‘without HS2’ scenarios that have
been modelled are as follows:
Technical Report
iv
I The Conservative Scenario - based on the current (December 2012) timetable.
It is acknowledged that some infrastructure enhancement and additional
rolling stock is committed. However, the resulting service enhancements will
be determined as part of the franchising process and are not currently
confirmed; and
I The Optimistic Scenario – based on planned enhancements and other
aspirations as set out in the informing strategies, plans and industry views. It
considers an optimistic view of likely infrastructure and service
enhancements, including specifically three additional hourly services
throughout the day on the East Coast Main Line to London and an additional
hourly York – Leeds - Birmingham cross country service.
11. It is likely that infrastructure and service enhancement between now and 2032
will lie somewhere between these two scenarios, hence our analysis provides an
‘envelope of opportunity’. The eventual 2032 ‘without HS2’ scenario will need to
be reviewed and defined as the existing network and HS2 proposition is developed
over the coming years.
Guiding Principles
12. The review of the existing strategies and plans provides a clear and consistent
view on rail development affecting the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. It
identifies that there are material economic benefits to be gained by enhancing
connectivity to, from and within the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. If benefits
are to be maximised it is therefore essential that any refinement of passenger
services on the existing network serve to enhance this connectivity. Conversely,
there is also a clear guiding principle that the options developed for a post-HS2
timetable on the existing network should not result in an overall worsening in
connectivity compared to the current timetable. It is essential that changes in
passenger use of the network must not preclude freight growth where this is
forecast.
Demand Growth to 2032
13. To support the valuation of potential economic benefits it is necessary to forecast
the level of demand on the existing network by 2032. There are two distinct
elements that make up demand growth to 2032:
I Underlying demand growth - driven by factors external to the rail industry
such as economic, population and employment growth. These assumptions are
included in both the Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios; and
I Induced demand growth – additional rail demand generated as a result of
enhancements to rail services. This only applies in the Optimistic Scenario.
14. The underlying demand growth forecasting has been undertaken using the RIFF-
Lite (Rail Industry Forecasting Framework) model. The additional induced demand
in the Optimistic Scenario has been estimated using MOIRA, the rail industry’s
standard tool for forecasting the impact of timetable changes. Both models adopt
the methodology and parameters set out in the Passenger Demand Forecasting
Handbook (PDFH).
Technical Report
v
15. To illustrate where benefits arising from each option timetable accrue a set of
clusters has been defined to represent the main regional centres within the study
area, those regional centres outside of the study area and sub-regional centres
that lie within the study area. The locations falling within each of these
categories are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
16. Figure 1 provides a summary of the total demand growth forecast for journeys to
and from the Regional and Sub-Regional Centres between 2012 and 2032 in the
Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios. The underlying demand growth is notably
higher at locations in the north of England than elsewhere. This is because the
input data at these locations includes the impact of increasing city centre car
park charges and employment structure change as identified in the Northern RUS.
This reflects recent trends in the growth in demand for rail travel across the north
of England.
17. There is also greater demand growth as a result of timetable enhancements in the
Leeds City Region. This is due to the much larger rail market and network in this
area and the greater level of development of this network that is likely to be
necessary to accommodate underlying demand growth over the coming years.
FIGURE 1 TOTAL DEMAND GROWTH
18. Significant growth in some rail freight markets, particularly intermodal container
traffic, is expected. Demand for container paths between Yorkshire and the South
East could increase by 50% by 2032.
Technical Report
vi
FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA
Technical Report
vii
Impact of HS2
19. The study has undertaken analysis to understand the impact of HS2 on demand on
the existing rail network. This analysis uses MOIRA to compare the Conservative
and Optimistic Scenarios with and without the HS2 service specification, as set
out in HS2 Ltd’s document “Updated Economic Case for HS2 (August 2012):
Explanation of the Service Patterns”. This allows analysis of the demand using HS2
services and the existing rail network on a flow by flow basis.
20. The modelling shows that the flows where HS2 will abstract most demand is, as
expected, those directly served by HS2 (i.e. from York, Leeds and Sheffield to
London and Birmingham) and from the Regional and Sub-Regional Centres that
already use these hub stations as an interchange point for journeys to London and
Birmingham, e.g. Bradford and Barnsley.
21. An important finding, however, is that there will remain a large residual market
on the existing network for inter and intra-regional flows between locations not
directly served by HS2. The analysis suggests that journeys from Leeds to
Sheffield city centre, Wakefield to York/Sheffield and Chesterfield to
Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield will be relatively unaffected by the introduction of
HS2. There will also remain a market for longer distance inter-regional flows such
as Leeds to Peterborough and Sheffield to Leicester.
22. Consideration has been given to options to refine services to, from or within the
Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. This suggests that the opportunity to remove
services, and therefore release capacity on the existing network, would appear
quite limited. The extent to which the existing rail network no longer needs to
provide services is limited to services between Leeds, York, Sheffield and
London/Birmingham. This, however, is challenging because in most cases services
on these routes also provide connectivity from other Centres in the City Regions.
For example:
I All services from Leeds to London stop at Wakefield and most also call at
Doncaster;
I Some services from York to London also serve Doncaster;
I Cross Country services from York and the North East to and beyond
Birmingham also serve Chesterfield and Wakefield or Doncaster.
23. The analytical work suggests that HS2 will not be the preferred route for those
travelling from Wakefield, Doncaster and Chesterfield to Birmingham and London.
This is because the additional time taken to access and interchange at a High
Speed station is likely to offset the journey time saving compared to the direct
services that are available in the 2032 ‘without HS2’ timetable. However, it is
acknowledged that rail heading may distort this conclusion and that a proportion
of passengers who currently use stations such as Wakefield to access London-
bound trains may well switch to a HS2 station. For this analysis, no fare
differential between classic line and HS2 services is assumed.
24. The conclusion from this part of the study is that opportunities to maximise the
benefits from the existing rail network needs to focus on refining services on the
existing network, rather than through wholesale removal of service patterns and
replacement with different services.
Technical Report
viii
Developing a Post-HS2 Timetable
25. We have adopted the overarching principle that overall connectivity should not be
materially worsened as a result of changes to the existing rail network following
the introduction of HS2.
26. In following the principle that existing network services should not be withdrawn
if this leads to poorer connectivity, it might be observed that the current services
from London to Wakefield and Chesterfield ought to be retained but need not
serve Leeds and Sheffield respectively. Similarly the Cross Country services should
be retained, but would not need to provide today’s connectivity from Leeds and
York to Birmingham. This, however, poses a particular challenge in that these
services also provide connections from Leeds, Sheffield and York to important
intermediate destinations such as Wakefield and Doncaster, and locations outside
the Regions, such as Peterborough, Stevenage, Derby, Tamworth and Darlington.
27. This analysis indicates that the opportunity and scope to remove services from the
existing network is limited. Instead it is likely that the timetable on the existing
rail network would need to be refined through smaller incremental amendments
to specific services rather than wholesale removal and replacement of services.
28. Reflecting these considerations, ‘post-HS2’ timetable options for the existing
network have been developed for both the Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios.
The key features of these timetable options are summarised below.
29. Currently a primary role of the East Coast Main Line is to provide fast connectivity
to London from Edinburgh, Newcastle, York and Leeds. Post 2032 such services
would not need to be provided in the same way as they would pre-HS2, since
these flows would be catered for by services that use HS2 in full or in part. For
the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed in the Conservative and
Optimistic Scenarios that these fast London paths could be used to:
I Provide a direct hourly fast Bradford to London service;
I Maintain connectivity between Leeds and intermediate stations to London;
I Retain a half hourly Wakefield Westgate - London services with journey times
faster than today;
I Provide more frequent and quicker journeys from Doncaster to London than
today; and
I Enhance connectivity from Retford and Doncaster to intermediate stations on
the East Coast Main Line including direct services to Newcastle and Edinburgh.
30. The higher capacity on the existing network assumed in the Optimistic Scenario
would enable additional opportunities for the East Coast Main Line. This
additional capacity could be used to provide a combination of direct services from
the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions (and the North East/Scotland) to East Anglia.
It would also offer additional capacity for additional freight services. Two
Optimistic Scenarios are assumed, summarised as follows:
I Option A – An hourly Edinburgh to Cambridge and Leeds to Cambridge service
together with thee freight paths per day between the South East and West
Yorkshire; and
Technical Report
ix
I Option B – An hourly Edinburgh to Cambridge service together with six freight
paths per day between the South East and West Yorkshire.
31. There are more limited opportunities to refine timetables on the Midland Main
Line and Cross Country routes. This is simply because HS2 will abstract a lower
proportion of overall demand on these two routes. The timetable option includes
additional stops in Cross Country services:
I At Rotherham in services via Leeds – to provide enhanced inter-regional
connectivity including fast services to Leeds; and
I At Meadowhall in services via Doncaster - to provide enhanced inter-regional
connectivity from the park and ride site at Meadowhall.
32. In the Optimistic timetable scenario it is assumed that there is an additional Cross
Country type service via Leeds that would provide Rotherham with a half hourly
fast service to Leeds and other regional and sub-regional centres on the route.
33. The timetable options identified are used purely to underpin the modelling work.
They are designed to allow a reasonable estimation of the likely economic
benefits of a post-HS2 timetable option. The test timetable does not represent
any firm commitment to change services in a specific manner. Significant
timetable development will need to be undertaken before a firm post-HS2
timetable could be ascertained, which is outside the scope of this study.
Distribution of the Economic Benefits
34. An important conclusion from this study is that there is potential for the benefits
of a refined post-2032 timetable to be distributed across the City Regions and not
focussed solely on the major regional centres that directly benefit from HS2. The
following points summarise the key observations from the analysis that has been
undertaken:
I Wakefield benefits in the Conservative Scenario from quicker journeys to
London, while retaining the current two train per hour frequency. In the
Optimistic Scenario 2032 pre-HS2 timetable it is assumed that there would be
three trains per hour from Wakefield to London. In the assumed post-HS2
timetable this reduces to two trains per hour to London, which results in a
disbenefit when compared to the 2032 pre-HS2 optimistic timetable, even
though in the case of Wakefield, the service offer for journeys to London in
the Optimistic timetable is an improvement on the current service provision.
I Bradford, Doncaster and Retford benefit as a result of quicker connections to
London via the existing network. In the case of Bradford this is a result of an
hourly direct service to London. Doncaster and Retford also benefit from
improved direct connectivity to the North East and Scotland.
I York benefits from improved connectivity to intermediate locations on the
East Coast Main Line in the Conservative Scenario. The benefits are enhanced
in the Optimistic Scenario as this also includes direct connectivity to East
Anglia.
I Rotherham benefits as a result of the direct fast services to Leeds and longer
distance connectivity to the North East and South West, as well as a more
frequent heavy rail connection to Meadowhall and Sheffield.
Technical Report
x
I Leeds sees a disbenefit because of slower services to intermediate locations
on the East Coast Main Line. However in Optimistic Option A this is
outweighed by the benefit of a direct service to East Anglia. While there are
disbenefit at Leeds as a result of service changes on the existing network
these, will be relatively minor compared to the benefits of High Speed 2
itself.
I London sees a large disbenefit in the Optimistic Scenarios as these include
paths from Yorkshire and the North East being used for passenger services to
East Anglia and/or freight rather than passenger services to London. However
the disbenefit on flows to and from London is offset by the benefit at
intermediate stations on the East Coast Main Line, and is small in context of
the wider benefits of HS2.
I Other centres in the City Regions will see marginal impacts as a result of
changes on the existing network. Outside the City Regions, Newcastle and
Edinburgh benefit as a result of enhanced connections to intermediate
stations on the East Coast Main Line, and in the case of the Optimistic
Scenarios, to East Anglia too.
35. What is clear from the analysis is that the volume and location of economic
benefits will be sensitive to development of the existing rail network over the
coming years and the assumed use of the network following the introduction of
HS2 services. Development of the existing network will need to be undertaken in
cognisance with the development of HS2 and the post-HS2 timetable proposition
for the existing network will need to be carefully developed to maximise the
potential benefits to as many locations as possible.
Conclusions
36. The analysis suggests that significant economic benefits could be generated by
refining timetables on the existing rail network following the introduction of HS2.
These timetable refinements could bring important local benefits to the Sheffield
and Leeds City Regions and, because the timetable scenarios primarily revise
likely pre-HS2 services patterns, could be achieved at relatively low cost. Further
efficiencies and cost savings may also be possible, for example alternative train
configurations or fuel costs.
37. In general, the locations that benefit are the Regional and Sub-Regional Centres,
including Bradford, York, Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham and Retford. In the
case of Wakefield, there are potential benefits compared to the current service,
but the analysis reaffirms the importance of maintaining direct connections to
London. This is because Wakefield sees a net economic disbenefit in the modelled
scenario where services on the East Coast Main Line operate to East Anglia rather
than London.
38. HS2 is a high capacity railway and there may be opportunity for classic services to
make use of the HS2 infrastructure to improve connectivity and generate
economic benefit
39. High level analysis that has demonstrated the scope for released capacity
afforded by the introduction of HS2 to be used to refine existing service patterns
and define new services to create economic benefit.
Technical Report
xi
Next Steps
40. The study suggests that there are worthwhile economic benefits to be realised
from refining the services on the existing network to, from and within the
Sheffield and Leeds City Regions following the introduction of HS2. It is
recommended that the City Regions and other interested stakeholders work to
realise these benefits by:
I Respond positively to the forthcoming consultation on the wider HS2
propositions for the Phase 2 route to Yorkshire;
I Engage with HS2 Ltd/Network Rail to consider alternative options for use of
the existing network to those currently included by HS2 Ltd in the economic
case for HS2, since an alternative option may generate a greater level of
benefits for the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions;
I In due course, undertake further work to refine the post-HS2 timetable
options as more detail on the development of the existing and HS2 networks
becomes available; and
I Stakeholders should make the case for development of a “existing network
investment pot post-HS2” for 2019 and beyond, geared at ensuring maximum
benefits can be derived from the existing network post-HS2.
Technical Report
1
1 Introduction
Study Context
1.1 The government is planning to build a national high speed rail network. This will
significantly reduce rail journey times from London and Birmingham to Leeds,
Sheffield and York. It will also significantly increase passenger capacity for these
intercity flows. It will have a dramatic impact on rail travel. The direct benefits of
significantly quicker journey times are self-evident for point-to-point flows from
York, Leeds and Sheffield (Meadowhall) to London and Birmingham. What is less
clear at present are the opportunities that the introduction of High Speed 2 (HS2)
might offer to improve services on the existing network.
1.2 HS2 Ltd has made initial assumptions as to how services on the existing network
could be modified following the introduction of HS2, to support development of
the business case. These include reducing some service frequencies and re-
routeing some services in ways that may worsen connectivity to and from locations
in the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions (SCR and LCR).
1.3 This study considers alternative opportunities to enhance services on the existing
rail network following the introduction of HS2, and makes an initial valuation of
the potential economic benefits. The study covers:
I The potential impact of HS2 on demand for services on the existing network;
I How service provision on the existing network might be refined in order to
serve the residual markets following the start of HS2 services; and
I An initial estimate of the potential economic benefits such refinements might
generate.
Study Area
1.4 The study is focused on the rail services to, from and within the Sheffield and
Leeds City Regions. To facilitate the analysis and presentation of the economic
benefits stations within the City Regions (and some key locations outside the City
Regions) have been split into three groups. These are:
I The Regional Centres – which consist of the major rail centres within and
outside the City Regions and include: Leeds, Bradford, York, Sheffield,
Nottingham, Derby, Birmingham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and London;
I The Sub Regional Centres – which consist of other important rail centres
within the City Region and include: Doncaster, Huddersfield, Wakefield,
Chesterfield, Harrogate, Halifax, Barnsley, Rotherham and Retford; and
I Local Stations - which have been split into number of specific routes as
summarised in the map overleaf.
1.5 Figure 1.1 overleaf illustrates the regional, sub-regional and local stations for
which specific outputs have been considered as part of the study.
Technical Report
2
FIGURE 1.1 STUDY AREA
Technical Report
3
Study Approach
1.6 The following paragraphs present an overview of the approach that has been
adopted for this study; more detail is provided in the subsequent chapters of this
report. To provide a clear audit trail and evidence base to underpin the study a
staged approach was adopted:
I Stage 1 – Establishing the strategic context and ‘base case’ scenario;
I Stage 2 – Identifying the impact of HS2;
I Stage 3 – Developing timetable options; and
I Stage 4 – Assessing the economic benefits.
1.7 Each stage is summarised in more detail below.
Stage 1 – Establishing the Strategic Context and ‘Base Case’ Scenario
1.8 The strategic context is important to this study for two reasons. It helps define
what a ‘reasonable to assume’ service provision and network capability might be in
2032. This forms the base case scenario against which we can consider the benefits
of a refined post-HS2 timetable. It also helps define the guiding principles that
underpin our assumptions of how the post-HS2 timetable might be developed. This
is covered in Chapter 2.
1.9 At this stage the projected demand growth between now and 2032 has been
established using standard industry demand forecasting tools and assumptions. This
is set out in Chapter 3.
Stage 2 – Identifying the Impact of HS2
1.10 At this stage analysis was undertaken to compare the identified pre-HS2 timetable
scenarios with a scenario that includes HS2 services. The analysis allows
identification of those flows where demand might be abstracted to HS2, and
therefore where there is an opportunity to consider ways to refine services on the
residual network. This stage is detailed in Chapter 4.
Stage 3 – Developing Timetable Options
1.11 Service options have been developed to represent opportunities to refine services
on the existing network following the introduction of HS2. The options draw on the
evidence identified during Stages 1 and 2. These options are set out in Chapter 5.
1.12 There is a wide variety of committed, planned and aspirational enhancements to
the rail network. The extent to which these are delivered will have a direct impact
on the nature of the residual rail market post-HS2 and the network capability for
residual passenger and freight services. Reflecting the range of possible
enhancements between now and 2032 two scenarios for the ‘without HS2’ existing
rail network in 2032 have been modelled. These scenarios, developed in
consultation with industry partners, reflect the extremities of likely development
in the rail network over the next 20 years. The two scenarios that have been
modelled are as follows:
Technical Report
4
I The Conservative Scenario - based on the current (December 2012) timetable.
It is acknowledged that some infrastructure enhancement and additional
rolling stock is committed. However, the resulting service enhancements will
be determined as part of the franchising process and are not currently
confirmed; and
I The Optimistic Scenario – based on planned enhancements and other
aspirations as set out in the informing strategies, plans and industry views. It
considers an optimistic view of likely infrastructure and service
enhancements, including specifically three additional hourly services
throughout the day on the East Coast Main Line to London and an additional
hourly York – Leeds - Birmingham cross country service.
1.13 Post-HS2 timetable options for the existing network have been developed for both
the Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios. The higher capacity on the existing
network assumed in the Optimistic Scenario would enable additional opportunities.
Two post-HS2 Optimistic Scenarios are assumed, which represent different options
for passenger and freight services.
1.14 For clarity the following table confirms the timetable scenarios that have been
considered as part of the study. The economic benefits identified are the
incremental benefits of moving from the ‘2032 with HS2’ to the ‘post-HS2 option’
scenarios. The benefits captured are those from changes to services on the existing
network and not those from HS2 itself.
TABLE 1.1 OPTION TERMINOLOGY
Scenario Annual Demand Existing Network Timetable HS2 Timetable
Base Case 2012 May 2012 n/a
Conservative Scenario
2032 Without HS2 2032 Forecast May 2012 n/a
2032 With HS2 2032 Forecast May 2012 HS2 Services
Post-HS2 Option 2032 Forecast May 2012 timetable plus
released capacity timetable
option
HS2 Services
Optimistic Scenario
2032 Without HS2 2032 Forecast Optimistic 2032 timetable
scenario
n/a
2032 With HS2 2032 Forecast Optimistic 2032 timetable
scenario
HS2 Services
Post-HS2 Options 2032 Forecast Optimistic 2032 timetable
plus released capacity
timetable options A and B
HS2 Services
Stage 4 – Assessing the Economic Benefits
1.15 This stage values the economic benefits of each identified timetable scenario. The
valuation of the economic benefits is set out in Chapter 6.
Technical Report
5
Caveats
1.16 It should be recognised that, with around 20 years until the opening of HS2
Phase 2, there is considerable uncertainty over how service provision and
infrastructure will evolve. This report is based on a reasonable assessment of the
potential future service provision and infrastructure enhancements and this point
in time.
1.17 The timetable options identified are used purely to underpin the modelling work.
They are designed to allow a reasonable estimation of the likely economic benefits
of a post-HS2 timetable option. The options do not represent any firm commitment
to change service in specific manner. Significant timetable development will need
to be undertaken before a firm post-HS2 timetable could be ascertained, which is
outside the scope of this study.
Report Structure
1.18 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
I Chapter 2 - Strategic Context / Guiding Principles: Provides the strategic
context underpinning the timetable development assumptions informing the
2032 ‘without HS2’ timetable and used to define the guiding principles that
informs future timetable development;
I Chapter 3 - Establishing the 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Demand: Describes the
process of forecasting 2032 ‘without HS2’ demand, including underlying
demand growth and impact of timetable enhancement delivered by 2032;
I Chapter 4 - Impact of HS2: - Gives details of HS2 timetable proposals and the
HS2 impact on demand on the existing network;
I Chapter 5 - Developing a Post-HS2 Timetable: Sets out the process for
developing post-HS2 passenger timetable and freight opportunities.
I Chapter 6 - Economic Benefits of Post-HS2 Timetable Development:
provides a description of the valuation of the economic benefits of a post-HS2
timetable; and
I Chapter 7 – Conclusions and Next Steps.
Technical Report
7
2 Strategic Context and Guiding Principles
Introduction
2.1 There are a variety of strategies and plans that set out the desired direction of
development of the rail network in the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. These
cover periods ranging from the remainder of this control period (2014) to longer
term plans including to 2029 and beyond.
2.2 This chapter sets out the pertinent strategies and plans to the development of the
rail network in the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions and, moreover, to the
opportunity that HS2 might afford in developing rail services on the existing
network. Such plans and strategies are important in the context of this study for
two reasons:
I They provide insight into how the existing rail network may develop between
now and 2032, which informs the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’ Scenario; and
I They give guidance as to what the priorities might be in the post-HS2
timetable options.
2.3 In presenting the strategic context this chapter:
I Sets out the plans and strategies that are important to the Sheffield and
Leeds City Regions;
I Summarises the principles underpinning development of the rail network
between now and 2032, as modelled in the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable scenario; and
I Confirms the principles that guided the development of options for a post-HS2
timetable scenario.
Rail Strategies Covering the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions
2.4 Below is set out the studies, plans and strategies that will influence the
development of rail network capability and rail service outputs between now and
2032, and will also influence longer term development of the network beyond.
Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs)
2.5 There are four Network Rail geographic RUSs of relevance to this study dating from
2008 onwards: East Coast, Yorkshire and Humberside, East Midlands and two
versions of a Northern RUS. There are also two nationwide RUSs that are of
interest, for Electrification and Freight. These strategies are managed and
published by Network Rail with support from the wider rail industry.
2.6 The RUS process follows a standard approach of reviewing general developments
and commitments in the study area, identifying gaps between demand and rail
service provision and network capability, considering options to address these gaps
and then working forward through business case development to make
recommendations.
2.7 In the identified RUS reports the following themes emerge:
Technical Report
8
I Insufficient route capacity on the East Coast Main Line, especially to the
south of Peterborough, on the two track section between Doncaster and
Peterborough and north of York towards Newcastle. Pathing slower freight
and faster passenger services is a major constraint;
I Proposals to improve services towards London on both the East Coast Main
Line (through additional infrastructure to enhance capacity) and the Midland
Main Line (through electrification);
I Recommendations and suggestions on improvements to a wide range of non–
London longer distance services (Yorkshire to Thames Valley and South Coast);
I Regional and local train service crowding on the routes leading into the major
cities, but especially into Leeds and Sheffield;
I The need to identify a strategy to electrify the most advantageous routes,
alongside the geographic RUS process; and
I The delivery of a Strategic Freight Network which protects and develops the
coal supply routes and the capability and capacity of longer haul container
and intermodal routes.
2.8 The RUS programme has now effectively been superseded by the Long Term
Planning Process market led studies based on long distance and regional needs,
summarised later. However, the underlying RUS work remains both valid and
important in shaping strategic decisions with many of the RUS recommendations
being reflected in the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for Control Period 5.
Northern Hub
2.9 Alongside the RUS process Network Rail, working closely with Local Authorities and
wider stakeholders across the north of England, has developed the Northern Hub
strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to unlock the key capacity constraints in,
and on radial routes from, central Manchester that restrict the development of
inter-regional rail services more widely across the north of England. The strategy
identified a strong case for investing in additional capacity schemes and line speed
improvements. These specifically include:
I In central Manchester: Ordsall Chord linking Manchester Victoria, Oxford Road
and Piccadilly stations allowing trains via Manchester Victoria to serve
Manchester Airport and enhanced capacity on the Castlefield Corridor to allow
more frequent services to Manchester Airport;
I Caldervale Line: Line speed improvements to allow quicker services between
Bradford and Manchester. Ordsall Chord also allows direct services to
Manchester Airport;
I Huddersfield Line: Electrification to provide additional capacity and quicker
services as well as faster journeys to Liverpool via Manchester Victoria; and
I Hope Valley Line: Line speed improvements and additional capacity to allow
two additional longer distance services.
Technical Report
9
High Level Output Statement and Strategic Business Plan
2.10 Many of the recommendations of the Route Utilisation Strategies and the full
Northern Hub Strategy have been adopted by the rail industry and are planned for
delivery in Control Period 5 (2014-2019). This includes options include in the High
Level Output Statement (HLOS) for Control Period 5 and in response included in
Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan.
Electrification
2.11 The HLOS makes provision for the electrification of the Midland Main Line north of
Bedford to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham in Control Period 5 (or in the early
years of Control Period 6). The work is contingent on the completion of route re-
signalling and to take place either following major station remodelling (as in
Nottingham in 2013), or in parallel with these works to reduce disruption and
reduce costs.
2.12 A very significant investment in the future has been the agreement by the DfT to
proceed with a major programme of electrification for the North Trans Pennine
route from Manchester to York via Huddersfield and Leeds, and an extension to
Selby and the East Coast Main Line. It is planned for completion by 2019 and will
give a major capacity and service boost to a wide range of service groups across
Northern England.
2.13 Recommendations on options for further electrification are being considered by
Network Rail. It is considered likely that this will include extensions from Sheffield
to Doncaster via Rotherham and Mexborough, and Sheffield to Leeds via
Moorthorpe, along with the route south of Derby towards Birmingham via Burton on
Trent. At a future date there are options for extending the Leeds to Selby scheme
(approved for CP5) to Hull, giving more connectivity for inter-urban operations.
There is also strong stakeholder support for electrification to Middlesbrough.
2.14 The primary outputs from electrification are higher train speeds and quicker
acceleration resulting in reduced journey times and better use of track capacity as
well as significant cost savings.
Re-signalling and Route Control
2.15 Network Rail are developing a national signalling and control strategy for delivery
from 2014 onwards which will remove a significant number of older electronic and
manual signal boxes from service and concentrate 80% of national rail operations
on 14 Route Operational Control locations by 2030. In the study area, operations
will be concentrated on the two new locations at Derby (East Midlands – replacing
as a minimum Leicester, Trent and Derby signal centres) and York which will
control much of the East Coast main line, Sheffield and Leeds. Other lines not
classified as trunk routes will be encompassed within these new centres,
potentially going through a transition period. The development of modular
signalling will reduce costs on lighter trafficked lines. New signalling facilities will
be compliant with the gradual national fitment of ERTMS (European Rail Traffic
Management System) for installation in a future rollout as compatible rolling stock
is built or retro-fitted.
Technical Report
10
2.16 The outputs of the new generation of signalling control is driven by general
efficiency of rail operations (for example giving control staff total oversight of
train operations on a discrete area), centralised control for information and train
running information and service supervision. During the design and planning of new
facilities, many options and opportunities are available for the industry to improve
route capacity through the removal of obsolete infrastructure and replacement
with new capacity (for example signal spacing and section headways) - more
attuned to the 21st Century railway and emerging traffic needs.
Rolling Stock and Train Management System (ERTMS)
2.17 The industry has developed a cross member Rolling Stock Strategy (February 2013)
which sets out a vision for the future fleet size, and a broad platform to enable
operators and manufacturers to consider the requirements in planning a strategy
to deal with growth and passenger requirements (this excludes non-franchised and
freight operators). The key message is that by the 2030s much of the present
rolling stock fleet will have been extensively refurbished and re-engineered and
there will have been considerable augmentation by the building of new electric
trains for all operating types including trains for the High Speed route operations.
The national use of diesel traction will be much reduced, with 80% of traffic
handled by electric trains by the 2030s.
2.18 IEP trains will be delivered during Control Period 5 replacing the current long
distance diesel fleet on East Coast Main Line services. The formation of these
trains, in five and ten car sets, will allow more flexibility in serving locations away
from the core East Coast route. The necessary infrastructure to support IEP roll
out, particularly power supply equipment, will be provided during Control
Period 5.
2.19 A complex area is the phasing in of ERTMS on a regional basis with suitably fitted
rolling stock – a national plan which will spread over several decades is being
prepared at the moment. All trains for operation on high speed lines will be a
priority for fitment as operation without the facility will not be allowed.
Capacity enhancements in Control Period 5
2.20 DfT and the rail industry have identified a series of infrastructure improvements
and enhancements in the region as an aid to managing passenger and freight
growth in the period 2014 to 2019 as identified in the illustrative HLOS solutions.
These include new platform capacity at Leeds at the west end, the provision of
additional terminating facilities for local services at Horsforth and Micklefield
(giving more efficient operation of peak hour services) and a series of suburban
platform extensions across the area.
Technical Report
11
Yorkshire Rail Network Study
2.21 The longer term objective of the Yorkshire Rail Network Study3 was to set the
foundation for an assessment of the medium term investment needs for rail routes
in Yorkshire in order to support the identification of schemes for delivery beyond
2019. Specifically, the Yorkshire Rail Network Study establishes an evidence base
that allows targeted proposals to enhance the rail network to be developed with
the goal of maximising economic returns.
2.22 The primary purpose of the study was to develop a “Conditional Output
Statement”. With the goal of supporting economic growth in the Leeds and
Sheffield City Regions, the Conditional Outputs codify what the rail industry should
strive to deliver. The Conditional Outputs have been developed considering the
established evidence base complemented by bespoke analysis of the potential
economic benefits of enhancing current train capacity and facilitating more
frequent services with lower journey times. They are described as “conditional”
because realisation of each output will be subject to an affordable and value for
money solution being identified and delivered by the rail industry.
2.23 Four of the Conditional Outputs identified by the Yorkshire Rail Network Study are
of specific importance for the purpose of developing the optimistic 2032 ‘without
HS2’ timetable. These are the Conditional Outputs for connectivity, capacity,
freight and north-south links as summarise below:
I Connectivity - Rail journey times should be quicker than off peak car
journeys and there should be a minimum frequency of two trains per hour all
day operating on a clock face timetable with additional peak services as
required to meet demand. Specific targets were identified for connectivity
between the major regional centres as follows:
Leeds – Manchester: 40 minutes, six trains per hour;
Sheffield – Manchester: 40 minutes, four trains per hour;
Leeds – Sheffield: 35 minutes, two trains per hour (and two semi-fast trains
which provide a viable alternative to the fast trains);
Bradford – Manchester: 50 minutes, two trains per hour;
Bradford – Leeds: 15 minutes, six trains per hour, from a single station;
and
Leeds – York: 20 minutes, six trains per hour;
I Capacity - Sufficient capacity, by providing longer or more frequent trains, to
accommodate forecast demand growth to 2027;
I Freight - Sufficient network capacity and capability to maintain the region’s
electricity generating capacity and deliver forecast growth in rail freight,
particularly inter-modal container traffic; and
I North-South Links - Service improvements should not preclude HS2
implementation or vice versa. Local rail services should maximise the
distribution of HS2 benefits around the region.
3 http://www.wymetro.com/news/projects/projectdetails/YRNS
Technical Report
12
West Yorkshire RailPlan 7
2.24 RailPlan 7 seeks to build on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) 2011-26 and the
Yorkshire Rail Network Study by setting out Metro’s approach to deliver sustainable
economic growth by improving the rail network in West Yorkshire. It sets the
overall vision for rail in West Yorkshire:
“For West Yorkshire to have the best railway in the country by 2026 - A rail
network that connects people and places in a way that supports the economy, the
environment and quality of life while delivering the best service reliability and
customer satisfaction in the country.”
2.25 To deliver this vision and support the LTP3 and wider rail objectives, Metro has
developed four Rail Objectives that RailPlan should help to deliver for West
Yorkshire. These are:
I To double annual rail patronage;
I To improve passenger satisfaction scores;
I To develop a rail network that secures better value for money for passengers
and tax payers; and
I To exploit the benefits of high speed rail when it arrives in West Yorkshire in
the 2030s.
2.26 Through gap analysis, RailPlan considers where the current and planned capability
of the rail network might prevent the RailPlan objectives being achieved. The
strategy then identifies what will need to be addressed to deliver the rail vision
and achieve the rail objectives. The evidence, gap analysis and strategy is set out
in seven categories. Those that are pertinent to developing the optimistic 2032
‘without HS2’ timetable are as summarised as follows:
I Connectivity - Provide improved connectivity through quicker and more
frequent services between the key economic centres within West Yorkshire
and across the North of England. The Connectivity outputs are consistent with
those set by the Yorkshire Rail Network Study.
I Demand and Crowding - Provide sufficient capacity to meet continuing
passenger growth; and
I Freight - Ensure sufficient network capacity and capability to enable forecast
freight growth in West Yorkshire.
Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy
2.27 The Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy is based on the achievement of the
following four goals:
I To support economic growth;
I To enhance social inclusion and health;
I To reduce emissions; and
I To maximise safety.
2.28 The transport strategy goes on to identify 26 policy areas in order to achieve the
goals. The policy that is of particular relevance to this work is:
“To improve rail services and access to stations, focusing on interventions that
can be delivered in the short term.”
Technical Report
13
2.29 The strategy sets out the Local Enterprise Partnership will work with Network Rail
to improve rail services to London and to neighbouring City Regions: Manchester,
Leeds and Nottingham. Improvements that are strongly supported include:
I Journey time and capacity improvements on the Hope Valley line to
Manchester;
I Electrification and journey time improvements on the Midland Main Line
(MML) between Sheffield and Barnsley, and from both of these to London and
Leeds;
I Journey time and capacity improvements to the East Coast Main Line (ECML),
including links to the south (London) and the north (York, Newcastle and
Scotland); and
I Journey time and capacity improvements for Swinton Junction and Holmes
Chord.
Draft Long Term Rail Strategy for the North of England
2.30 The draft Long Term Rail Strategy (LTRS) has been developed jointly by local
transport authorities across the north of England to help provide a consistent
strategy for developing the rail network. There are three over-arching objectives
that drive the Strategy for the North’s rail services:
I Supporting sustainable economic growth;
I Enhancing service quality, improving the appeal of rail and, by encouraging
more rail use, reducing environmental impacts and carbon emissions; and
I Improving efficiency, reducing the cost per passenger carried.
2.31 The draft LTRS builds on previous work: the City Region transport/rail strategies,
DfT’s DaSTS programme and Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process. Having
formulated a Vision together as the North’s transport authorities a review was
undertaken to identify the strategic gaps between the ambitions of the Vision and
the reality that is likely to be delivered by current rail industry plans. In response
to the gaps a series of outputs have been identified that the rail industry and local
authorities need to work together to deliver in order to realise the Vision and
overarching objectives identified above.
2.32 As a Vision the draft LTRS identifies that across the North rail use is growing – and
more strongly than on other transport modes. The Vision wants to see this
continue and rail market share to double over the next fifteen or so years,
extending its reach and relevance across the north. The central proposition is that
attention is turned to creating a European-style connected network. The focus is
on broadening the appeal of rail to address a wider set of markets. Additional rail
usage means more revenue and better value from committed and future
investments. The strategy goes on to identify that sustainable economic growth
will be supported by improving connectivity:
I Between the cities of the North;
I By expanding commuter networks;
I Connecting areas of economic disadvantage with areas of economic
opportunity;
I Provide capacity to accommodate the expected growth in freight by rail;
Technical Report
14
I Addressing the differing needs of the North’s evolving and rebalanced
economy; and
I Providing direct and efficient links to London, the other major centres of the
UK, the international airports and ports.
2.33 This will be achieved through a focus on an easy-to-use network, integrated across
the modes, with a connecting timetable of local and express city to city services
and a transformed fares system. The strategy identifies a number of high level
outputs that are of interest in developing an optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable. The pertinent outputs are summarised as follows:
I Service Connectivity Between Centres4 - in vehicle rail journey time for
services between these centres that are quicker than the off peak car journey
time and a minimum frequency of two trains per hour. Where possible direct
connections should be available to at least the five key centres, and where
interchange is necessary the connection time should be minimised;
I Commuter Journeys - A minimum peak period frequency in urban areas of
two trains per hour is required with a minimum hourly frequency for
commuter routes in more rural areas. The timetable must allow morning
arrivals in the key urban centres earlier than 07:00 and evening departures
later than 20:00;
I To International Gateways - An hourly direct service from each major
town/city to Manchester Airport. At a minimum each should have access to
Manchester Airport requiring a single interchange;
I Access to London and other UK Centres - Wherever possible there should be
provision of direct services from each centre to London in some hours. And
there should be a half hourly journey opportunity requiring a single
interchange; and
I Capacity – Sufficient capacity needs to be provided to facilitate growth in
passenger and freight demand.
Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process
2.34 Network Rail, representing rail industry partners, is leading the Long Term
Planning Process (LTPP). This represents a new approach to strategic planning of
the rail network and is designed to take into consideration the views of the rail
industry, funders, specifies and customers. This process fulfils Network Rail’s
licence obligations to plan the future capability of the network, and will replace
the existing RUS process.
2.35 There are three key elements to the LTPP, summarised as follows:
I Market Studies – articulate strategic goals for each particular market sector,
forecast future rail demand, and develop ‘conditional outputs’;
I Cross-Boundary analysis - considers options for services that run across
multiple routes; and
I Route Studies - develop options for future services and for development of
the rail network.
4 Defined as the Inter Connected Matrix
Technical Report
15
2.36 The LTPP is still at the early stage of development. The four draft Market Studies
were published for consultation in April 2013. They are currently being reviewed
by the rail industry and wider stakeholders and therefore subject to revision.
Importantly in the context of this study they are considered broadly consistent
with other existing strategies and plans. Of these studies three are of particular
interest to the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. These are the studies for: Long
Distance, Regional Urban and Freight. The fourth is for London and the South East.
2.37 Each study has been developed using an assessment of how to deliver the following
three strategic goals. A fourth strategic gaol, affordability, will be considered in
subsequent stages of the planning process.
I Enabling economic growth;
I Reducing carbon and the transport sector’s impact on the environment; and
I Improving the quality of life for communities and individuals.
Long Distance
2.38 In the context of the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions this includes travel between
Leeds and Sheffield, and from these stations to other major centres around the
UK, including: Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leicester, Liverpool, London,
Manchester, Newcastle, and Nottingham. The conclusion of the Long Distance
Market Study is a set of Conditional Outputs, which are aspirations for
development of the rail network up to 2043. These are summarised in the
following points:
I The rail industry can help create the conditions to improve economic growth,
the environment, and the quality of life for communities and individuals by
improving the long distance services between the major regional centres;
I The largest improvements against these goals are likely to be generated by
providing very fast services between London and the other principal regional
centres, and between some of the other principal regional centres of around
100 miles in separation such as Birmingham and Leeds;
I Very large improvements against these goals are also likely to be generated
by providing high frequency interurban services between a number of the
principal regional centres in the north of England;
I Service improvements between other regional centres and principal regional
centres in other regions will also be of benefit;
I Provision of improved opportunities to travel between a number of locations
that are not currently directly served would be beneficial; and
I Significant additional capacity is likely to be required over the next 30 years
to accommodate the growth in economically productive travel.
Regional Urban
2.39 The Regional Urban market relates to an area less than 50 miles from a regional
centre where people travel in large numbers primarily for the purpose of
commuting and leisure. In the context of the Market Study and the Sheffield and
Leeds City Regions the regional centres are: Barnsley, Bradford, Doncaster,
Halifax, Huddersfield, Leeds, Sheffield, Wakefield and York.
Technical Report
16
2.40 The Regional Urban study acknowledges that the services covered by the study,
particularly in the commuter markets, are subject to many location specific
considerations. At this stage West Yorkshire has been used as a case study to
understand Regional Urban markets in other areas.
2.41 The key conclusion from the Regional Urban Market Study is that improving
transport links for commuters into commercial and employment centres will help
to drive economic growth through improved supply of labour to employment.
2.42 The study identifies that most people are typically willing to commute where the
generalised journey time5 is less than 20 minutes, and very few are willing to
commute where the generalised journey time is greater than 60 minutes. The
focus in developing service in the Regional Urban area should therefore be in
reducing generalised journey times that are within this 20 – 60 minute range.
Development should also focus on linking locations where the number of people in
the population catchment of the origin station and the number of jobs in the
catchment of the destination station are high.
Freight
2.43 The Freight Market Study presents a summary of the projected growth in rail
freight nationally. The forecasts are broadly consistent with other forecasts that
have been reviewed for this study, as set out in Appendix B.
Assumed Enhancements in the Optimistic 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Timetable
2.44 The following points provide a summary of the underlying assumptions that have
been observed in determining an Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’ timetable
scenario. These are informed by the plans and strategies set out previously. A
summary of the assumed timetable changes in the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable on a route by route basis is provided in Appendix A. In summary it is
assumed that:
I Committed CP5 infrastructure investment is delivered (including Northern
Hub, Trans Pennine and Midland Main Line Electrification, capacity
enhancements) that will allow the HLOS illustrative service options to be
delivered;
I There is a rolling programme of electrification beyond CP5. This could include
the Calder Valley Line, Harrogate Line, Selby – Hull, Sheffield to South Kirby
Junction/Doncaster and ECML to Middlesbrough. Electrification may result in
modest journey time savings, but the detail of these is yet to be confirmed
and no time savings have been modelled;
I In general the headline frequency outputs identified by the
YRNS/RailPlan 7/draft LTRS are delivered. i.e. a minimum 2 trains per hour
frequency across the network;
I Generally limited frequency enhancement on already higher frequency routes,
but rather additional capacity through train lengthening / higher capacity
trains;
5 Generalised journey time is a measure of journey time used by the rail industry. It includes the station to station
journey time, a service frequency penalty and, if appropriate, an interchange penalty.
Technical Report
17
I Roll out of ERTMS signalling and concentration of signalling operations in
major signalling centres. This will generate cost savings and some capacity
enhancements but no direct service output as a result of change;
I An assumption that freight growth (based on RFG / MDS Transmodal report)
would be accommodated; and
2.45 Enhancements between now and 2032 will only be delivered if there is a robust
business and funding case. It is accepted that there may not currently be a robust
case for some of the enhancements included but it is assumed that favourable cost
and revenue growth by 2032 will make the enhancements viable.
‘Guiding Principles’ Underpinning Development of Post-HS2 Scenarios
2.46 Finally, this chapter sets out the guiding principles that have been considered in
developing scenarios to develop rail services on the existing network post-HS2. The
guiding principles reflect the identified plans and strategies that set out the
objectives for transport, and rail specifically, in the Sheffield and Leeds City
Regions.
2.47 These make it clear that the passenger rail network has an important role to play
in supporting economic growth in the City Regions while ensuring quality of life
and environmental consideration are also met. Further they set out that there are
material benefits to be gained by enhancing connectivity to, from and within the
Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. It is essential that any refinement of passenger
service on the existing network, following the introduction of HS2, supports this
strategic context.
2.48 Conversely, there is also a clear guiding principle that the options developed for a
post-HS2 timetable on the existing network should not result in an overall
worsening in connectivity for any specific location compared to the current
timetable.
2.49 The strategies identified also set out the important benefits that freight delivers
for the economies in the north of England. The demand for freight will not be
directly affected by the step change in passenger connectivity provided by HS2.
Given the differing origins, destinations and routing of passenger and freight
services it is unlikely that the capacity released by HS2 in the City Regions is likely
to create specific opportunities for additional freight movement. However what is
clear is that future passenger timetables must allow for future growth in the
freight market.
Technical Report
19
3 Establishing the 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Demand
Introduction
3.1 This chapter sets out how we have established the 2032 ‘without HS2’ demand on
the existing rail network. Two scenarios have been modelled:
I The Conservative Scenario - which includes unconstrained underlying demand
growth, but assumes the current timetable; and
I The Optimistic Scenario – which includes underlying demand growth and
additional demand as a result of the enhanced Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable, reflecting development of the rail network between now and 2032.
3.2 Reflecting the two elements of demand growth there are two steps in establishing
the 2032 ‘without HS2’ demand.
3.3 The first step involves understanding the underlying demand growth between now
and 2032. This is growth that will occur as a result of changes largely external to
the rail industry, including underlying changes in the economy, employment and
population. This is applied in both the Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios.
3.4 This underlying demand growth assumes no changes to service provision. However
there are a number of committed, planned and aspirational service enhancements
that are likely to be implemented by 2032, as assumed in the Optimistic 2032
‘without HS2’ timetable. The second step in establishing the Optimistic 2032
demand is to use MOIRA to understand the demand impacts of the Optimistic 2032
‘without HS2’ timetable.
3.5 This chapter provides an overview of the approach to calculating background and
timetable generated demand growth that will make up the 2032 ‘without HS2’
demand in each scenario.
Underlying Passenger Demand Growth
3.6 To be able to estimate the effects on demand of HS2 in its opening year of 2032, a
projection for demand growth to 2032 first has to be estimated. This considers
how demand might grow assuming there is no further enhancement in rail services.
It is based wholly on underlying demand drivers and is unconstrained by capacity
limitations.
Approach to Forecasting Future Demand
3.7 The demand growth forecasting has been undertaken using the RIFF-Lite (Rail
Industry Forecasting Framework) model. This model uses the methodology and
parameters set out in of the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)6 to
forecast future rail demand based on changes in economic indicators. For this
work, the future forecast year is 2032/33, the planned opening year of HS2
Phase 2.
6 Both the mathematical methodology and elasticity parameters are adopted from PDFH Version 5
Technical Report
20
3.8 The version of the RIFF-Lite model used for this work is the same as the model
used for the Yorkshire Rail Network Study (YRNS) with input data updated to the
latest values as shown in Table 3.1. The model was also updated to a base year of
2011/12 (from 2010/11 used for YRNS) using the latest revenue and demand data
available from MOIRA.
3.9 Data is entered in to the RIFF model in the form of year-on-year percentage
changes for a number of exogenous variables (see Table 3.1). Depending on the
variable, the change is applied at a RIFF zone level through to a national level.
The majority of the input data was from NTEM (National Trip End Model),
extracted from TEMPRO v6.2 with a forecast year of 2032. TEMPRO zones were
mapped and aggregated to zones used by RIFF using a standard mapping previously
developed for the model.
3.10 The most significant difference in input data from the YRNS work is GDP growth,
which is an important driver of demand. For this, CEBR (Centre for Economics and
Business Research) data supplied by South Yorkshire PTE was used.
TABLE 3.1 RIFF-LITE MODEL INPUTS
Forecast Data Aggregation
Level
Value/Source
Values Changed from YRNS Model
GVA per Capita Region Used CEBR annual data per region for Gross Value Added
(GVA) divided by population from the same data source to
give a value of GVA per capita. Calculated the percentage
year-on-year change and allocated that change to the
RIFF zones by region.
Population RIFF Zone Change in period calculated from TEMPRO v6.2 data
Employment RIFF Zone Change in period calculated from TEMPRO v6.2 data
Car Ownership RIFF Zone Modelled as a decrease in households without cars.
Calculated using TEMPRO v6.2 data for households with
no car divided by number of households
Fuel Cost National Used data from WebTAG unit 3.5.6 to calculate cost and
hence year-on-year percentage change up to 2030.
Assumed percentage change remained constant for 2031
and 2032.
Values Equal to YRNS Model
Car Parking Cost Selected RIFF
Zones
Year-on-year changes for Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield,
Manchester and Newcastle from Northern RUS data
Office Based
Employment
Selected RIFF
Zones
Year-on-year changes for Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield,
Manchester and Newcastle from Northern RUS data
Inflation National Zero year-on-year change as per YRNS model
Technical Report
21
Forecast Data Aggregation
Level
Value/Source
Fares National +3% for 2012-2014, +1% for 2015 onwards
Note: This is consistent with YRNS, but fare policy has
since changed to +1% above RPI for years 2013 and 2014,
although this will not materially impact the conclusions of
this study.
Car Time National Zero year-on-year change
Bus Cost National +3% for 2012-2014, +1% for 2015 onwards as per rail fares
above
Bus Time National Zero year-on-year change
Bus Headway National Zero year-on-year change
GJT (Generalised
Journey Time)
National Zero year-on-year change
Air cost, headway and
passengers
n/a Deemed to be not applicable and so all values set to zero
LUL Cost n/a London Underground – not applicable to this study
RIFF Input Data Trends
3.11 Figures 4.1 to 4.5 show the input data to the RIFF model. For reference, a
comparison with the input data to the YRNS demand forecasting is also provided.
The data presented in the figures is an average across all model zones. ‘YRNS’ and
‘YRNS+’ refer to the ‘Trend’ and ‘Trend Plus’ scenarios from the YRNS work
respectively. The Trend Plus scenario included the Northern RUS changes in office-
based employment and car parking costs. Note that this study has only projected
demand to 2032/33, while the YRNS final forecast year was 2036/37.
3.12 GDP per capita growth from the latest data is noticeably lower than in the YRNS
model, reflecting on-going suppressed economic growth. This is a primary driver
for rail demand and has a material impact on the projected demand growth.
3.13 For employment, population and households with no car available, a single year-
on-year growth percentage is assumed throughout the forecasting time period.
TEMPRO data has been used to forecast the future year of 2032, with growth to
that year assumed to be linear. Differences to YRNS can be attributed to updated
forecast data since that study and (where TEMPRO data is used) the inclusion of
forecasts for interim years as well as the final forecast year.
3.14 For fuel cost forecast data, it can be seen that there is a general declining trend in
the year-on-year growth. This data uses the latest values from WebTAG unit 3.5.6,
which has been updated since the YRNS. WebTAG provides data to calculate the
estimated changes up to 2030. It has been assumed that for the remaining years up
to the HS2 opening year that the year-on-year change remains constant at the
2030 level.
Technical Report
22
3.15 Due to the low percentage of electric vehicles forecast to be in use (5.31% by
20307), it was assumed that electricity costs could be omitted from the fuel cost
change calculations.
FIGURE 3.1 GVA PER CAPITA GROWTH
FIGURE 3.2 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
7 WebTAG 3.5.6 – Table 12
Technical Report
23
FIGURE 3.3 POPULATION GROWTH
FIGURE 3.4 HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO CAR GROWTH
Technical Report
24
FIGURE 3.5 FUEL COST GROWTH
Demand Growth Forecasts
3.16 Figure 3.6 below shows the projected demand growth for Liverpool, Manchester,
Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle (the pertinent line in the figure for this work is
‘HS2’). These locations are those included in the Network Rail Northern RUS
demand forecasts, and have therefore been used in this graph to allow a consistent
comparison with the RUS forecasts. Though the RUS only summarised growth for
these centres, it is considered that the demand growth represented by these is a
fair reflection of demand growth across the study area.
3.17 It can be seen that the demand growth forecast as part of this study lies between
that for the YRNS Trend and Trend Plus scenarios as well as the RUS high and low
forecasts. It is lower than the Trend Plus scenario due to the lower GVA per capita
growth, but is higher than the Trend scenario due to the higher car parking charges
and office based employment growth.
Technical Report
25
FIGURE 3.6 UNDERLYING DEMAND GROWTH FORECASTS
Optimistic 2032 ‘Without HS2’ Timetable Demand
3.18 As set out in the Chapter 2 there are a number of committed, planned and
aspirational initiatives across the City Regions to enhance rail connectivity. Many
of these initiatives will be delivered by 2032 and therefore it is necessary to
understand the demand impacts that these may have.
3.19 An Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’ timetable has been coded, for modelling
purposes, which reflects the assumptions set out in Chapter 2. MOIRA has been
used to forecast the demand impact of the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable.
3.20 The Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’ demand is made up of both the underlying
demand growth (as set out above) and additional rail demand generated as a result
of the service improvements in the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’ timetable.
Total Demand Growth
3.21 The total growth between 2012 and 2032 at each Regional and Sub-Regional Centre
in the study area is shown in Figure 3.7. The underlying demand growth is notably
lower at locations outside the north of England because the input data at these
locations does not include the impact of increasing city centre car park charges
and employment structure change that is taken from the Northern RUS. There are
wider ranging enhancements to the timetable in the Leeds City Region associated
with the much larger rail market and network in this area, which is reflected in
the growth projections graphed below.
Technical Report
26
FIGURE 3.7 TOTAL DEMAND GROWTH
Freight Demand Growth
3.22 A detailed assessment of the freight market is included in Appendix B. Significant
growth in some rail freight markets, particularly intermodal container traffic, is
expected. Demand for container paths between Yorkshire and the South East could
increase by 50% by 2032.
Technical Report
27
4 Impact of HS2
4.1 This chapter sets out an assessment of the likely opportunity to refine services on
the existing network following the introduction of HS2. It includes detail of the
approach taken to understand the opportunities to refine the services.
The HS2 Route and Service Pattern
4.2 This following table and diagram provide a summary of the timetable assumptions
made by HS2 Ltd in developing the case for HS2 and specifically the eastern leg to
the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. Evidence is drawn from the document
“Updated economic case for HS2 (August 2012): Explanation of the service
patterns”8.
4.3 The service pattern report published by HS2 Ltd provides a clear and concise
summary of the assumed High Speed services associated with Phase 2. These are
represented in Figure 4.1 overleaf. Table 4.1 below provides a summary of the
service frequency between stations served by the High Speed services on the
eastern leg. Manchester is also included as some journeys from the Huddersfield
and Caldervale Lines will be quicker via Manchester, and will therefore contribute
to the consideration of released capacity from the Sheffield and Leeds City
Regions.
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF EASTERN LEG + MANCHESTER HS2 FREQUENCY
Trains per
Hour
New
cast
le
Durh
am
Darl
ingto
n
York
Leeds
Meadow
hall
Toto
n
Bir
min
gham
Curz
on S
treet
Bir
min
gham
Inte
rchange
Heath
row
Air
port
Old
Oak
Com
mon
London
Eust
on
Newcastle # # # n/a 1 1 1 - - 2 2
Durham
# # n/a 1 1 1 - - - -
Darlington
# n/a 1 1 1 - - 1 1
York
n/a 1 2 1 - - 2 2
Leeds
5 5 2 2 1 3 3
Meadowhall
5 3 1 1 2 2
Toton
3 2 1 3 3
Manchester 2 2 1 3 3
# = Summarised as part of the classic line timetable
n/a = journey not available with proposed route / - = no service
8 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-
for-HS2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf - Published in 2013
Technical Report
28
FIGURE 4.1 HS2 PHASE 2 SERVICE PATTERN
Technical Report
29
Approach to Assessing the Released Capacity Opportunities
4.4 The approach to considering options to refine services on the existing network
following the introduction of HS2 is governed by the overarching principle that
overall connectivity should not be materially worsened, compared to the current
timetable, as a result of changes to the existing rail network. Reflecting this
principle the onus of our approach is to demonstrate where HS2 will capture
significant demand from the existing rail network and considering whether this
abstraction warrants changes to the way in which specific locations are served.
4.5 We have used MOIRA to understand the likely abstraction from the existing rail
network to HS2. In doing so we have compared the ‘without HS2’ timetable with a
version of that timetable which includes overlain HS2 services. The ‘with HS2’
timetable has been coded reflecting the information included in the HS2
publication ‘Updated economic case for HS2 (August 2012): Explanation of the
service patterns’ (excluding changes to the classic network) and journey times
that are publically available on the HS2 website. This includes all services on the
East of England leg and services from London and Birmingham to Manchester and
Scotland via the Western leg. In addition to the HS2 services it is assumed that all
services between Nottingham and Sheffield would stop at East Midlands HS2
station at Toton, and a shuttle service operates from Derby to Toton, to allow
access to the HS2 East Midlands stop. This is consistent with HS2 Ltd’s
assumptions.
4.6 MOIRA uses a ‘roof top’ model to allocate demand on a specific flow to specific
trains. This considers the journey time, need to interchange and headway between
services. It takes into account where passengers may choose a longer direct
journey rather than a quicker journey that requires interchange. Therefore MOIRA
will not necessarily allocate all demand to HS2 services. For example, some
passengers would rather a direct service from Sheffield Midland to London than
using HS2 via an interchange at Meadowhall. As set out in the brief the method
used for this assessment does not model changes in station catchment. The
modelling therefore does not capture where passengers switch from their current
station to use an alternative that offers better connectivity with HS2 services.
4.7 The output of the MOIRA analysis provides an indication of the proportion of
demand that will switch to using HS2 between different locations. This is
summarised in Table 4.2. The Table shows the level of abstraction to HS2 services
using the following key:
I Dark green - flows where there is likely to be the greatest (>75%) demand
abstraction to HS2;
I Light green – where abstraction to HS2 is between 50-75%;
I Orange – where abstraction to HS2 is between 25-50%;
I Grey – where there is less than 25% abstraction to HS2; and
I Where there is no colour there is no abstraction to HS2, or the station pair is
out of scope for this study.
Technical Report
30
TABLE 4.2 ABSTRACTION FROM THE EXISTING NETWORK TO HS2
Abstraction
From Existing
Network to
HS2 Services
London
Leeds
Bra
dfo
rd
Sheff
ield
York
Nott
ingham
Derb
y
Bir
min
gham
New
cast
le
Edin
burg
h
Harr
ogate
Halifa
x
Hudders
field
Wakefi
eld
Barn
sley
Doncast
er
Roth
erh
am
Chest
erf
ield
Retf
ord
London
Leeds
Dark Green = >75% shift to HS2
Bradford
Light Green = 50-75% shift to HS2
Sheffield
Orange = 25-50% shift to HS2
York
Dark Grey = <25% shift to HS2
Nottingham
Blank = No Change / Out of Scope
Derby
Birmingham
Newcastle
Edinburgh
Harrogate
Halifax
Huddersfield
Wakefield
Barnsley
Doncaster
Rotherham
Chesterfield
Retford
Technical Report
31
4.8 Table 4.2 illustrates that there are relatively few flows to where HS2 is likely to
take a material volume of demand from the existing rail network, and as expected
abstraction is predominantly seen on flows to and from London and Birmingham.
4.9 It shows that, for the majority of flows, HS2 will not capture existing demand.
Therefore if connectivity is to be maintained services on the existing network will
need to be retained. The flows where HS2 will abstract most demand is, as
expected, those directly served by HS2 (i.e. from York, Leeds and Sheffield to
London and Birmingham) and from the Regional and Sub-Regional Centres that
already use these hub stations as an interchange point for journeys to London and
Birmingham e.g. Bradford and Barnsley.
4.10 The opportunity to remove services, and therefore release capacity, would appear
quite limited. The extent to which the existing rail network no longer needs to
provide services is limited to services between Leeds, York, Sheffield and
London/Birmingham. This, however, is challenging because in most cases services
on these routes also provide connectivity from other Centres in the City Regions.
For example:
I All services from Leeds to London stop at Wakefield and most also service
Doncaster;
I Some services from York to London also serve Doncaster;
I Cross Country services from York and the North East to and beyond
Birmingham also serve Wakefield and Chesterfield.
4.11 From the modelling, as shown in Table 4.2, HS2 services will not be the preferred
route for those travelling from Wakefield, Doncaster and Chesterfield to
Birmingham and London. This is because the additional time taken to access and
interchange at an HS2 station is likely to offset the HS2 journey time saving
compared to the direct services that are available in the optimistic 2032 ‘without
HS2’ timetable.
4.12 However, there is a limitation in the modelling approach adopted, in that it does
not consider passengers switching stations in order to take advantage of the
quicker journeys via the HS2 station. It is acknowledged that rail heading may
distort this conclusion and that a proportion of passengers who currently use
stations such as Wakefield, Doncaster and Chesterfield to access trains to
London/Birmingham may well switch to HS2 stations.
4.13 In following the principle that existing network services should not be withdrawn if
this leads to a worsening in connectivity, it might be observed that the current
services from London to Wakefield and Chesterfield ought to be retained but need
not serve Leeds and Sheffield respectively. Similarly the Cross Country services
would need to be retained, but would not need to provide connectivity from Leeds
and York to Birmingham. This however poses a particular challenge in that these
services also provide connections from Leeds, Sheffield and York to important
intermediate destinations such as Wakefield and Doncaster, and locations outside
the Regions, such as Peterborough, Stevenage, Derby, Tamworth and Darlington,
Scotland and the South West.
4.14 At one level, there is a case for retaining the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable even after the introduction of HS2. This is because services on the
Technical Report
32
existing network provide for more than just the longer distance connectivity that
HS2 will provide.
4.15 However it is also necessary to consider the likely levels of residual demand on the
existing network following HS2. For example, the demand solely from Wakefield
and Chesterfield to London may not warrant the same service offer as when the
demand for journeys from Leeds and Sheffield is included. However the wider
connectivity that services at these locations offer, for example from Chesterfield
to Derby, Leicester and Birmingham will remain important for the local economy.
4.16 It is important to consider opportunities that may generate additional demand
while allowing services to still provide connectivity at locations like Wakefield,
Doncaster and Chesterfield. Examples could include diverting some East Coast Main
Line services to Bradford Interchange (via a reinstated Wortley Curve) instead of
Leeds, while Midland Main Line services could potentially operate to Manchester
(providing enhanced Leicester – Manchester connectivity).
4.17 The service offer is not limited to train frequency and journey time. Abstraction of
demand from the existing network may offer the opportunity to retain connectivity
but reduce industry costs, for example by providing services formed of shorter
trains. In some cases shorter trains may have quicker acceleration which could in
turn support journey time savings on the existing network.
Technical Report
33
5 Options for a Post-HS2 Timetable
Introduction
5.1 This chapter sets out the identified ‘post-HS2’ timetable options that have been
used to underpin the valuation of the potential economic benefits. It describes the
considerations made in determining the timetable options and provides caveats as
to how these should be used.
5.2 As identified in the demand abstraction analysis, there is relatively limited
opportunity to release services from the existing rail network following the
introduction of HS2. The options identified focus on five sets of routes where there
is a meaningful opportunity to consider alternative service provision, although this
has not resulted in timetable changes in every case. The routes considered are:
I East Coast Main Line – south of Doncaster;
I East Coast Main Line – north of York;
I Midland Main Line;
I Cross Country routes – York to Nottingham / Birmingham via Leeds and
Doncaster; and
I Feeder services.
5.3 For each route the two future scenarios have been modelled. These scenarios
reflect the extremities of likely development in the rail network over the next 20
years. The two scenarios that have been modelled are as follows:
I ‘Conservative’ Scenario - this is based on the current (December 2012)
timetable. While it is acknowledged that some infrastructure enhancements
and additional rolling stock are committed there are currently no committed
service enhancements. These will be determined as part of the forthcoming
franchising programme; and
I ‘Optimistic’ Scenario – this is based on the identified timetable development
assumptions which consider a ‘best case’ view of likely service enhancements,
including specifically three additional intercity services per hour on the East
Coast Main Line to London and an additional hourly York – Leeds - Birmingham
cross country service.
5.4 It is likely that infrastructure and service enhancement between now and 2032 will
support a timetable that lies somewhere between these two scenarios. The
eventual 2032 ‘without HS2’ scenario will need to be reviewed and refined as the
network is enhanced over the next 20 years, as will the corresponding ‘post-HS2’
timetable.
5.5 The timetables options identified here should be considered as ‘test timetables’,
used to support a valuation of potential benefit. They do not represent any
commitment or recommendation towards a particular timetable solution.
Amendments to services outside the City Region have been avoided as far as
possible. This is because, in most cases, such changes could have a notable impact
on connectivity that does not directly affect the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions,
Technical Report
34
and will therefore be outside the scope of this study. Where such amendments
have been necessary a clear rationale has been provided.
5.6 The remainder of this chapter presents the Conservative and Optimistic post-HS2
timetable options for each of the routes identified above.
East Coast Main Line – south of Doncaster
5.7 The East Coast Main Line has been considered in two parts. This first part focuses
on the provision of services for destinations south of Doncaster and their
connectivity to/from the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. The primary
opportunity afforded on this part of the network post-HS2 is that services will no
longer need to cater for fast journeys to London from locations served by HS2,
namely Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Edinburgh. While
locations such as Wakefield and Doncaster will expect to retain fast services to
London, other services can be used to maintain or provide enhanced frequency
and/or connectivity to other locations.
The ‘Conservative’ Option
5.8 Figure 5.1 provides a summary of the without (current) and ‘with HS2’
conservative timetable options.
FIGURE 5.1 ECML SOUTH – CONSERVATIVE OPTION
5.9 The key opportunity here is to enhance connectivity for those locations not
directly served by HS2. Leeds will no longer need direct fast connections to London
via the East Coast Main Line. Therefore, one Leeds service has been switched to
give Bradford a direct service to London. To maintain connectivity between Leeds,
Peterborough and East Anglia the service that has been switched to Bradford is the
one that stops only at Grantham and Stevenage.
5.10 The stops at Grantham and Stevenage have been moved from the Bradford service
to the Newcastle service to give quicker Bradford, Wakefield and Doncaster to
London journey times. To maintain connectivity from these two locations to Leeds
the current stopping London – York service is diverted to operate to Leeds. It is
Conservative 2032 Without HS2 / Current Conservative Post HS2 - Test Timetable
Edinburgh O Edinburgh O
Newcastle X O Newcastle X O
Durham X Durham X
Darlington X X Darlington X X
Sunderland O Sunderland O
Northallerton X X Northallerton X X
York X @ X X York X X X
Bradford O Bradford O O
Leeds O O Leeds O O
Wakefield X X X Wakefield X X X
Hull O Hull O
Doncaster X @ X X X X Doncaster (X) X X X X X X
Retford O X Retford (X) X X
Newark X X Newark X X
Grantham X X X Grantham X (X) X
Peterborough X X X Peterborough (X) X X X
Stevenage X X Stevenage X (X)
London O O O O O O O O London O O O O O O O O
Origin / Destination @ Extended to York every 2 hours
Calling Point
New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Removed Post HS2 Stop
Open Access
Eve
ry 2
hours
Open AccessStandard HourStandard Hour
4 p
er
day
3 p
er
day
Eve
ry 2
hours
4 p
er
day
3 p
er
day
Technical Report
35
assumed this would be via East Leeds (Garforth and Micklefield), for which there is
a clear aspiration within the rail industry, although no such service is yet
committed.
5.11 Aside from connectivity between York and Scotland, the Edinburgh – London
service caters for a market that is expected to be wholly abstracted to HS2. There
is no need for a non-stop London – York service via this route, the journey time for
which is around 1 hour 50 minutes, given that there will be two trains per hour via
HS2 with journey times around 1 hour 20 minutes. Therefore, additional stops have
been included at Peterborough, Retford (but could be Newark or Grantham
although these are outside our study area) and Doncaster to provide enhanced
connectivity from York to Peterborough and East Anglia and enhanced connections
from Doncaster and Retford to London, the North East and Scotland.
The ‘Optimistic’ Option
5.12 The Optimistic ‘without HS2’ timetable on the East Coast Main Line assumes three
additional intercity paths compared to the current timetable. These are used to
provide enhanced fast connectivity from West Yorkshire and the North East to
London. These additional services therefore primarily serve markets that will be
wholly abstracted to HS2. The only market that HS2 would not capture is for
journeys to intermediate locations, namely Peterborough, Doncaster, Wakefield
and stations to the north of York.
5.13 Our timetable review considered that the Conservative post-HS2 timetable option
for this route would sufficiently serve the residual markets from Wakefield and
Doncaster to London and from the North East, West and South Yorkshire to
intermediate locations south of Doncaster. Therefore the opportunity in the
Optimistic timetable is to use the available capacity to provide new connectivity
opportunities.
5.14 Two Optimistic post-HS2 timetable options have been considered. Each builds upon
the timetable option defined for the Conservative post-HS2 option by providing
additional services.
5.15 Option A provides two additional passenger paths from West Yorkshire and the
North East to East Anglia (for modelling purposes Cambridge is assumed). This is
illustrated in the Figure 5.2.
5.16 The remaining path could be used to provide additional passenger connectivity
outside the region, for example from London to Lincoln. As this is outside the
study area this option has not been modelled.
5.17 Alternatively the path could be used to provide an additional fast freight path.
This would likely need to be a path that could be timed at 75 mph or faster in
order to fit with passenger services on the route, so would be restricted to
intermodal container traffic or potential fast logistics traffic. Both of these
markets are forecast to grow significantly and so there is likely to be increasing
demand for such paths. In the option modelled as part of this study an additional
three return freight paths between Leeds Freight Liner Terminal and Thameshaven
Port have been assumed, reflecting a typical intermodal freight service.
Technical Report
36
FIGURE 5.2 ECML SOUTH – OPTIMISTIC OPTION A
5.18 Option B considers just a single direct path from the East Coast Main Line to East
Anglia. It is assumed that path would be from Scotland and the North East, which
analysis suggests is a larger market than West Yorkshire. Figure 5.3 illustrates this
option.
FIGURE 5.3 ECML SOUTH – OPTIMISTIC OPTION B
Optimsitic 2032 Without HS2 Timetable Optimstic Post HS2 - 7 Passenger Path Option - Test Timetable
Edinburgh O O Edinburgh O O
Newcastle X X O Newcastle X O X
Durham X Durham X (X)
Darlington X X X Darlington X X X
Sunderland O Sunderland O
Northallerton X X Northallerton X (X) X
York X O X X X York X X X X
Bradford O Bradford O O
Leeds O O O O Leeds O O O
Wakefield X X X X Wakefield X X X X
Hull O Hull O
Doncaster X X X X X X X Doncaster (X) X X X X (X) X X X
Retford X X Retford (X) X X
Newark X X Newark X X
Grantham X X X Grantham X (X) X
Peterborough X X X X X Peterborough (X) X X X V V
Stevenage X X Stevenage X (X)
London O O O O O O O O O O O London O O O O O O O O
Origin / Destination @ Extended to York every 2 hours
Calling Point
New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Removed Post HS2 Stop
Additional Services 2012 - 2032
Open AccessStandard Hour Standard Hour Open Access
Eve
ry 2
hours
4 p
er
day
3 p
er
day
3 p
er
day
To E
A
To E
A
Fast
fre
ight
/ p
ass
enger
outs
ide r
egio
n e
.g.
London -
Lin
coln
Eve
ry 2
hours
4 p
er
day
Optimstic Post HS2 - 6 Passenger Path Option - Test Timetable
Edinburgh O O
Newcastle X O X
Durham X (X)
Darlington X X X
Sunderland O
Northallerton X (X) X
York X X X X
Bradford O O
Leeds O O
Wakefield X X X
Hull O
Doncaster (X) X X X X (X) X X
Retford (X) X X
Newark X X
Grantham X (X) X
Peterborough (X) X X X V
Stevenage X (X)
London O O O O O O O O
Origin / Destination
Calling Point
New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Removed Post HS2 Stop
Additional Services 2012 - 2032
Open AccessStandard Hour
1 x
slo
w f
reig
ht
(uti
lisi
ng 2
x f
ast
path
s)
Eve
ry 2
hours
4 p
er
day
3 p
er
day
To E
A
2 x
fast
fre
ight
/ P
ass
enger
- O
R
Technical Report
37
5.19 This option would leave two residual paths on the East Coast Main Line. These
could be used for a further additional fast freight or passenger path or could allow
a single slower (60 mph) freight path to operate. This could serve a variety of
markets, although there is notable movement of aggregates on the East Coast Main
Line with traffic moving from quarries and manufacturers in the north of England
to serve the large construction market in London and the South East. Alternatively
alternative paths could be used by open access operators. In the option modelled
as part of this study an additional six return freight paths between Leeds Freight
Liner Terminal and Thameshaven Port have been assumed.
Additional Infrastructure
5.20 Each of the Conservative and Optimistic options assumes the use of a reinstated
Wortley Curve, allowing direct services from Bradford Interchange towards London
via Wakefield Westgate. It is understood that reinstating the curve is technically
feasible, although the cost is unknown. If the modelled post-HS2 timetable options
are pursued a detailed feasibility study for the reopening of Wortley Curve will be
required.
East Coast Main Line - north of York
5.21 The second part of the East Coast Main Line route considers connectivity north of
York to the study area. Services will no longer need to cater for fast journey times
to London and Birmingham. However the majority of such services also provide
connectivity to and from locations that will not be served by HS2, and therefore
there is limited opportunity to change services on the route.
5.22 In this corridor HS2 classic-compatible services will operate between York and
Newcastle. Consideration was given to whether some existing services providing
this connectivity could be removed or rerouted. However all existing services
provide not just connectivity to locations between York and Newcastle but also
links to other parts of the UK, including Manchester and the North West, London,
Birmingham, and the South. It is therefore not considered appropriate to remove
any services. Instead capacity will need to be provided to accommodate the
existing network and additional HS2 services, subject to a detailed assessment of
the potential costs and benefits of such an approach.
The ‘Conservative’ Option
5.23 Figure 5.4 below shows the Conservative/current timetable on this part of the East
Coast Main Line, together with a summary of the most contemporary indicative
HS2 timetable on the route. As per the summary of opportunities above, there is
no change to the current timetable on this part of the route.
Technical Report
38
FIGURE 5.4 ECML NORTH – CONSERVATIVE OPTION
The ‘Optimistic’ Option
5.24 There are two additional passenger paths in the Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS2’
timetable for this route: an additional fast Edinburgh – London service and an
additional Liverpool to Newcastle service, delivered as part of the Northern Hub
scheme.
5.25 It is likely that much of the demand on the fast Edinburgh – Newcastle – London
services would be abstracted to HS2, with quicker journey times from Scotland to
London via the western leg of HS2, and journeys from Newcastle via the eastern
leg.
5.26 Options have therefore been identified that make better use of the fast East Coast
Main Line intercity services between Scotland, the North East and London.
However the majority of changes made are at locations to the south of Doncaster,
and have therefore been set out in detail in the ECML south section above. The
major change is the introduction of a direct service to East Anglia from Scotland
and the North East.
5.27 For completeness the following figure provides a summary of the optimistic with
and without HS2 timetable options.
Conservative 2032 Without HS2 / Current AND Post HS2 Timetable
Edinburgh O O Origin / Destination
Newcastle X O O X O O O O Calling Point
Chester Le Street X Additional Services 2012 - 2032
Durham X X X X X New Calls in Post HS2 TT
Darlington X X X X X X X HS2 Services
Sunderland O
Middlesbrough O
Northallerton X X X X
Thirsk X X
York X X X X X X X X X
Doncaster X X
Leeds X X X
Manchester / Apt O O
Liverpool
Blackpool
Birmingham (or Beyond) O O O
London O O O O O
EC
ML N
ort
h R
oute
Standard Hour Open Access
4 p
er
day
Technical Report
39
FIGURE 5.5 ECML NORTH – OPTIMISTIC OPTION
Midland Main Line
5.28 The Midland Main Line route links Sheffield and Chesterfield with Derby, Leicester
and London. The route also provides connectivity between Nottingham and
London. At the northern end the route is used by Cross Country services; these
services are considered separately.
5.29 The opportunities to modify services on the Midland Main Line to and from
Sheffield and Chesterfield are more limited than the East Coast Main Line route.
The abstraction analysis suggests there will remain notable residual demand for
Sheffield and Chesterfield to London services on the existing network. While this in
part is a reflection of the limitations of the modelling approach adopted, the
expectation is that the proposed Meadowhall and Toton location for the HS2
Optimsitic 2032 Without HS2 Timetable
Edinburgh O O O Origin / Destination
Newcastle X O X O O X O Calling Point
Chester Le Street X X Additional Services 2012 - 2032
Durham X X X X X New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Darlington X X X X X X X HS2 Services
Sunderland O
Middlesbrough O
Northallerton X X X X X
Thirsk X X
York X X X X X X X X X
Doncaster X X
Leeds X X X X
Manchester / Apt O X X
Liverpool O O
Blackpool
Birmingham (or Beyond) O O
London O O O O
Optimistic Post HS2 Test Timetable
Edinburgh O O O
Newcastle X O X O O O O O O X
Chester Le Street X X
Durham X X X X X X (X)
Darlington X X X X X X X X x
Sunderland O O
Middlesbrough O
Northallerton X X X X (X) X
Thirsk X X
York X X X X X X X X X x X
Doncaster X X V
Leeds X X X X
Manchester / Apt O X X
Liverpool O O
Blackpool
Birmingham (or Beyond) O O O
London O O O O O
Open Access
4 p
er
day
Standard Hour
EC
ML N
ort
h R
oute
4 p
er
day
To E
ast
Angli
a
Open AccessStandard Hour
Technical Report
40
stations will mean that for some travelling to London the existing classic line
services their preferred option. There are also important markets to and between
intermediate locations including Derby and Leicester. It is therefore considered
that the current two trains per hour Sheffield – London St Pancras service would
still need to operate via Derby. On this basis there is no identified option to revise
the Midland Main Line service pattern in the Sheffield City Region following the
introduction of HS2 services.
5.30 Options were considered for an enhanced Optimistic 2032 ‘without HS’ timetable
on this route. While electrification and line speed improvements are expected to
bring journey time savings on the Midland Main Line between Sheffield and
London, there is no commitment to fundamentally change the service pattern and
frequency. The only enhancement on the route is an additional East Midlands to
Manchester service that has been identified as part of the Northern Hub scheme.
No further changes are assumed post-HS2.
5.31 For completeness Figure 5.6 shows the base case Conservative and Optimistic
timetable on the Midland Main Line.
FIGURE 5.6 MIDLAND MAIN LINE – CONSERVATIVE AND OPTIMISTIC BASE
TIMETABLE
Cross Country
5.32 In the context of this work Cross Country is taken to mean services on the route
between Scotland and the North East and Birmingham via Leeds or Doncaster, as
well as fast services from Leeds to Sheffield and between Leeds and Nottingham.
These use a large part of the network including the East Coast Main Line, the route
from Leeds to Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate, Wakefield Kirkgate and the
Midland Main Line.
Conservative 2032 Without HS2 / Current Optimistic 2032 Without HS2
Sheffield O O Sheffield ^ O O
Chesterfield x X Chesterfield X x X
Derby x X Derby X x X
Long Eaton x Long Eaton x
Nottingham O O Nottingham O O
Beeston X Beeston X
East Midlands Parkway X x East Midlands Parkway X X x
Loughborough X x Loughborough X X x
Leicester X X x X Leicester O X X x X
Market Harborough X x Market Harborough X x
Corby O Corby O
Kettering X x Kettering X x
Wellingborough X x Wellingborough X x
Bedford X x Bedford X x
Luton X Luton X
Luton Airport Parkway X Luton Airport Parkway X
London O O O O O London O O O O O
Standard Hour Standard Hour
To /
Fro
m M
anch
ess
ter
Origin / Destination
Calling Point
Additional Services 2012 - 2032
Technical Report
41
5.33 The opportunity here is that some longer distance flows will be abstracted to HS2,
meaning the residual services role will become more focused on providing shorter
distance inter and intra-regional trips. Given these trains will be catering for a
series of shorter distance trips, the importance of quicker longer distance journeys
will reduce, and it may be possible to add a small number of additional station
stops to provide enhanced inter-regional connectivity or enhanced access to the
HS2 journey opportunities at Meadowhall.
The ‘Conservative’ Test Option
5.34 The Figure 5.7 provides a summary of the current and post-HS2 timetable options
scenario considered in the ‘conservative’ case.
FIGURE 5.7 CROSS COUNTRY – CONSERVATIVE OPTION
5.35 There are two obvious locations for additional stops in the Leeds and Sheffield City
Regions:
I Rotherham – has a population of around 120,000, but is relatively poorly
served by heavy rail with typically only three trains per hour providing local
connectivity to Hull, Leeds, Doncaster and Sheffield.
I Meadowhall – is the third busiest station in Sheffield City Region, but primarily
serves those visiting and working at Meadowhall. However, post-HS2 the
station will serve a wider catchment area as a long distance park and ride
facility.
5.36 Additional stops have not been included in the same train at both Meadowhall and
Rotherham. There is considered to be limited need for heavy rail connectivity from
Rotherham to Meadowhall, with the market better served by bus, tram-train and
car. Further, providing two additional stops would increase journey time for these
services.
Conservative 2032 Without HS2 / Current Conservative Post HS2 - Test Timetable
Scotland O Scotland O
Newcastle x O Newcastle x O
Durham x x Durham x x
Darlington x x Darlington x x
York x x York x x
Doncaster x Doncaster x
Leeds O x O Leeds O x O
Wakefield (W/K) K W K Wakefield (W/K) K W K
Rotherham Barnsley X x
Barnsley X x Rotherham (X)
Meadowhall X x Meadowhall X x (X)
Sheffield X x O x Sheffield X x O x
Chesterfield X x Chesterfield X x
Nottingham O Nottingham O
Derby x x Derby x x
Burton X Burton X
Tamworth Tamworth
Birmingham x x Birmingham x x
To Reading / SE O To Reading / SE O
To Bristol / SW O To Bristol / SW O
Calling Point
New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Standard Hour Standard Hour
Origin / Destination
Technical Report
42
5.37 For the purpose of the timetable options, stops at Rotherham have been added to
the current Cross Country services via Leeds. This is because Rotherham is
currently poorly connected to Leeds, with the hourly all-stations service that takes
around 1 hour 5 minutes. Stopping the Cross Country service could halve the
journey time between Rotherham and Leeds as well as provide faster services to
Sheffield Midland station, despite the station not being on the main line.
5.38 Meadowhall stops have not been included in the Cross Country services via Leeds
for two reasons:
I Leeds and Wakefield are already connected to Meadowhall via Barnsley and it
is likely journey times on this route would be notably improved by 2032;
I Rotherham – Doncaster connectivity could be enhanced by stopping Trans
Pennine services.
5.39 The Cross Country route via Doncaster will still provide a quick journey from South
Yorkshire to the North East and there is a need to maintain this connectivity. It
makes more sense to insert the stop at Rotherham into the Leeds train to enhance
the Leeds corridor connectivity and to preserve the journey time advantage of the
Doncaster route for those passengers travelling from South Yorkshire and beyond
to the North East and beyond.
5.40 An additional stop at Meadowhall has been included in the Cross Country services
via Doncaster. While there is already good connectivity between Doncaster and
Meadowhall, stopping the Cross Country service additionally would provide a two
train per hour frequency from Meadowhall to the North East. Providing such
connectivity given Meadowhall’s current role is not necessary, but as the station
involves into a multi modal hub for longer distance services such a service stopping
at Meadowhall will become more valuable.
The ‘Optimistic’ Test Option
5.41 In the optimistic case scenario it is assumed that, by 2032, there would be an
additional York – Leeds – Sheffield - Birmingham service per hour. The additional
service along with the identified post-HS2 Optimistic Scenario service pattern is
shown in Figure 5.8. It is possible that this service could extend south of
Birmingham, but such considerations are outside the scope of this work.
5.42 As with the conservative case scenario the additional Cross Country service is
planned to stop at Rotherham. This would provide a further enhanced half hourly
fast service linking Rotherham with Leeds, which provides a service level more
akin to other similar sized regional centres including Halifax, Barnsley and
Doncaster.
Technical Report
43
FIGURE 5.8 CROSS COUNTRY – OPTIMISTIC OPTION
Additional Infrastructure
5.43 Both options assume additional services operating via Rotherham Central. At
present the Holmes Chord, linking Rotherham Central to the main Sheffield –
Leeds/Doncaster route, is single track which limits the number of services that can
operate via Rotheram Central. There are currently plans to provide double track
on the chord, which could be delivered before 2032. However, should the Holmes
Chord not be doubled prior to HS2, it is likely that any additional stops at
Rotherham in a post HS2 timetable would necessitate doubling of the chord. If this
is the case more detailed analysis of the feasibility of operating service via
Rotherham Central would be required.
5.44 There is also a need to give consideration to the feasibility of operating additional
services via Rotherham Central following the planned introduction of tram/train
services between Sheffield and Rotherham.
Feeder Services
5.45 Feeder services will be important to allow passengers to access the HS2 stations
that serve the region. This includes York, Leeds, Meadowhall, and for passengers
to the south of the Sheffield City Region, Toton.
Leeds and York
5.46 All services already stop at Leeds and York stations. The ‘conservative’ timetable
scenario includes the current timetable, although it is likely that by 2032 local and
inter regional connectivity to these stations will have been enhanced, as reflected
in the assumed ‘optimistic’ without HS2 timetable.
Optimsitic 2032 Without HS2 Timetable Optimstic Post HS2 - Test Timetable
Scotland O Scotland O
Newcastle x O Newcastle x O
Durham x x Durham x x
Darlington x x Darlington x x
York x O x York x O x
Doncaster x Doncaster x
Leeds O x x O Leeds O x x O
Wakefield (W/K) K W W K Wakefield (W/K) K W W K
Barnsley X x Barnsley X x
Rotherham Rotherham (X) (X)
Meadowhall X x Meadowhall X x (X)
Sheffield X x X O x Sheffield X x X O x
Chesterfield X x x Chesterfield X x x
Nottingham O Nottingham O
Derby x x x Derby x x x
Burton X Burton X
Tamworth Tamworth
Birmingham x O x Birmingham x O x
To Reading / SE O To Reading / SE O
To Bristol / SW O To Bristol / SW O
Hour 1
Origin / Destination
Calling Point
Additional Services 2012 - 2032
New Calls in Post HS2 TT (X)
Hour 1
Technical Report
44
Meadowhall
5.47 Meadowhall is already well served by local services from the north and east of
Sheffield, with all but the Cross Country services stopping. As discussed under the
Cross Country timetable scenario, additional stops at Meadowhall would be made
in the Cross Country services via Doncaster in the post-HS2 timetable.
5.48 Meadowhall, however, is not so well served from local stations to the south and
west of Sheffield, including specifically:
I Dore and those stations in the Hope Valley towards Manchester that have no
direct connection; and,
I Dronfield which has an hourly direct service to Meadowhall.
5.49 However the majority of demand from these local stations is for journeys to the
local major centres - Manchester and Sheffield from Dore, and Chesterfield and
Sheffield from Dronfield. Journeys from these locations are more likely to look to
Toton for southbound HS2 journeys, and the northbound market is not likely to be
sufficient to warrant direct connections to Meadowhall.
Toton
5.50 It is assumed that all Liverpool – Norwich and Leeds – Nottingham services on the
Erewash Valley line between Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham would stop at
Toton. This will provide a half hourly connection to the HS2 station at Toton from
Sheffield and Chesterfield, and also an hourly connection from Dronfield.
5.51 Consideration has been given to diverting existing services via Derby to operate
instead via the Erewash Valley and Toton. However, any such revision would
worsen existing connectivity between the Sheffield City Region and Derby, and
connectivity from Derby more widely. Reflecting this, no options to divert existing
services have been identified.
5.52 Although outside the study area, a rail shuttle linking Toton with Derby and
Nottingham has been assumed in the ‘with HS2’ timetable. Part of the rationale
for Toton is that it will connect to the existing rail network serving the East
Midlands area including Derby9.
9 http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/e_midlands_rfs_0.pdf
Technical Report
45
6 Economic Impact Assessment
Introduction
6.1 This chapter sets out the approach to calculating the economic impacts for the
identified timetable scenarios as set out in Chapter 5. The information presented
in this chapter includes a breakdown of the total economic impact by benefit type,
flow and a summary of benefit by location.
6.2 The overall value of benefit identified as part of this study can be taken as an
indication of the potential benefits available to the Sheffield and Leeds City
Regions, and more widely across the north and east of the country. The value of
benefit at specific locations and on specific flows is sensitive to the timetable
assumptions that have been made. The timetable assumptions have been made to
make a plausible assessment of the possible overall benefit to the Regions. They
do not represent any firm commitment to develop the rail network in a particular
manner and more detailed planning of both the HS2 proposal and development of
the existing rail network may identify more advantageous solutions.
Calculating Economic Impact
6.3 The assessment of the economic impact has sought to value the overall economic
benefit of the identified timetable scenarios. This has included valuation of:
I User journey time benefits;
I Additional revenue generated by the rail industry;
I The non-user benefits (highway congestion and environmental benefits) from
reduced car and lorry trips; and
I Wider economic impacts including agglomeration, labour market and
imperfect competition impacts.
6.4 The assessment has made no consideration of potential capital and operating costs
at this stage. The following paragraphs set out how the economic impacts have
been valued.
6.5 MOIRA software has been used to calculate the passenger journey time impacts
and resulting change in demand and revenue. MOIRA is the rail industry’s standard
tool for forecasting the impact of timetable changes. It calculates changes in
demand and revenue using an elasticity model, which considers the generalised
journey time change for each station to station pairing. The MOIRA model reflects
standard demand forecasting assumptions and principles set out in the Passenger
Demand Forecasting Handbook, which is the rail industry’s accepted guidance for
forecasting future rail demand and the associated passenger benefits.
6.6 MOIRA is primarily designed for assessing the impact of incremental timetable
changes. There are two considerations prevalent in the benefit assessment for this
study that the MOIRA model does not reflect, namely:
Technical Report
46
I Demand switching stations where the timetable enhancement sees the
balance of service provision between adjacent stations fundamentally change.
For example many in the Rotherham area currently travel to London via
Doncaster, but following the introduction of HS2 they might be expected to
travel from Meadowhall. Also, the practice of rail heading at Wakefield from
the surrounding area and potential switching to HS2 at Leeds will not be
captured.
I The elasticity approach that MOIRA users to forecast new demand is known to
underestimate the benefit impact where there is a significant reduction in
generalised journey time, for example between Bradford and Wakefield under
the proposed direct rail link.
6.7 The modelling approach adopted for this work does not take into account these
limitations of the MOIRA model. While this may reduce the reliability of the
economic impact assessment on a specific flow by flow basis, it is considered that
the overall net benefit assessment is broadly appropriate. The benefit assessment,
and the modelling tools used, will need to be reviewed and updated as the
development of HS2 progresses.
6.8 Non-user impacts are those experienced by those that do not use the rail network.
In the context of this study it is the decongestion, safety and environmental
impacts as a result of mode shift from car to rail. The valuation of these benefits is
calculated based on the additional rail passenger miles. WebTAG recommended
values suggest that for additional rail passenger mileage there is a 26% reduction in
car mileage.
6.9 Similar benefits will also be found by shifting freight from road to rail. To value
the direct benefits of this mode shift the DfT uses a Mode Shift Benefits (MSB)
calculation. This uses rates per lorry mile reduced, dependent on the road the
lorry would have used. The MSB considers the social benefits of rail freight as a
result of congestion relief, accident reduction, noise costs, climate change costs,
air pollution costs, infrastructure costs and other costs. The method calculates the
net benefit of moving from road to rail freight with some negative costs including
the impact of rail freight journeys on noise and pollution as well as the drop in
taxation from the reduction in HGV use.
6.10 Crowding has not been modelled as part of this study. At this stage of HS2
development, and without knowledge of the long term approach to managing
crowding on the existing it is not possible to undertake a meaningful assessment of
the likely impact of crowding relief. However what is clear is the view taken by
the Northern Hub work, the Yorkshire Rail Network Study and the draft Long Term
Rail Strategy that it is important sufficient additional capacity is provided to
facilitate longer term rail demand growth. HS2 will provide an opportunity to
release seating capacity on services through the region, as a result of abstracting
longer distance demand. In considering how to accommodate long term demand
growth it will be necessary to develop existing line and HS2 service capacity to
accommodate long term future demand growth in the regions.
Technical Report
47
6.11 Wider economic impacts are the broader impacts on the economy, including from
agglomeration benefits, improved labour supply and addressing imperfect
competition. The wider economic impacts have been calculated based on uplift
rates applied to the conventional economic benefits. These rates have been
calculated as part of the Yorkshire Rail Network Study.
6.12 The economic benefit appraisal monetises the economic impacts and extrapolates
these over a period of time to allow comparisons between the benefits of different
schemes. To ensure consistency with other schemes the benefit appraisal follows
guidance set out by the DfT in WebTAG. The following table summarises the key
economic appraisal parameters and assumptions.
TABLE 6.1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Parameter Source / Assumption
Opening Year 2032/33
Appraisal Period 60 Years from 2032/33 - The HS2 Ltd appraisal is also over 60 years
Demand Growth Taken into account through RIFF and so is not included in appraisal
Demand Ramp
Up
Not included, as data not available and relative impact deemed to be
negligible
Real Revenue
Growth
Included in RIFF and so is not included in the appraisal
Price Base MOIRA revenue output in 2012 prices was converted to 2010 prices using
RPI data from the Office of National Statistics website
Value of Time Taken from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, Tables 1 (‘Rail Passenger’) and 2.
Market Prices used
Value of Time
Growth
Growth rates taken from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, Table 3b. Growth rates are
provided to 2061, so as per the guidance, the 2061 value was used for
the following years to the end of the appraisal period
Journey Purpose
Split
Values from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, Table 8, Heavy Rail, All Week Average.
Same values used for regional, sub-regional and local routes
Marginal
External Cost of
Cars
‘Weighted Average’ values used from WebTAG Unit 3.12.2. Interpolated
between values for 2030 and 2035 to obtain opening year values.
Continued growth at same rate following 2035
Change in Car
Highway KM
Value of -26% from WebTAG 3.13.2, Table 1. (i.e. For every 100KM
increase in rail passenger trips, there is a 26KM decrease in car KM)
Discount Rate As per WebTAG Unit 3.9.2, paragraph 7.1.3, the discount rate from 2010
(appraisal year) to 2043 (current year + 30) is 3.5%. From 2044 onwards,
the rate is 3%
Freight Capacity Values for capacity per train, average load factor and load per lorry
were taken from the Yorkshire Rail Network Study (YRNS) appraisal
model
Technical Report
48
Parameter Source / Assumption
Freight Mileage
Mileage per road type for freight flows taken from transportdirect.info
website
Wider Economic
Benefits
Values from YRNS work:
Imperfect Competition – 10% applied to total work time benefits
Agglomeration - 14% applied to total GJT benefits and highway
congestion benefits
Labour Market - 1% applied to total GJT benefits and highway congestion
benefits
Results Overview
6.13 The remainder of this chapter provides a summary of the economic benefits. Detail
of each scenario can be found in Chapter 5, but in summary there are as follows:
I Conservative Scenario – based on the current timetable with enhancements
including direct Bradford – London services, faster services from Wakefield to
London, additional stops at intermediate stations on the East Coast Main Line,
and stops at Rotherham and Meadowhall in Cross Country services;
I Optimistic Option A – based on the enhanced 2032 timetable. In addition to
the Conservative Scenario this includes direct hourly services from Edinburgh
and Leeds to Cambridge together with an additional freight path on the East
Coast Main Line; and
I Optimistic Option B – a variation on Option A, but including additional freight
paths instead of the hourly Leeds – Cambridge service.
6.14 The following table provides a summary of the total economic impact of each
option broken down by benefit type. This illustrates the range of potential
economic benefits, from £308m to £784m (PV 2010 over a 60 year appraisal
period), that could be secured by refining service provision on the existing rail
network following the introduction of HS2.
TABLE 6.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS
£m PV, 2010 Prices Conservative
Scenario
Optimistic
Option A
Scenario
Optimistic
Option B
Scenario
Conventional Economic Impacts
Journey Time £174 £339 £241
Revenue £43 £97 £68
Car Non User Benefits £50 £84 £63
Freight Non-User Benefits £0 £146 £293
Total Conventional Impacts £267 £667 £664
Technical Report
49
£m PV, 2010 Prices Conservative
Scenario
Optimistic
Option A
Scenario
Optimistic
Option B
Scenario
Wider Economic Impacts
Imperfect Competition £8 £15 £10
Agglomeration £31 £89 £102
Labour Market £2 £6 £7
Total Wider Impacts £41 £110 £119
Total Economic Benefits £308 £777 £784
6.15 The table shows that there is a range of possible benefits that could be secured,
dependent on level service level and network capability that is developed on the
existing network between now and 2032. Assuming there is no development of the
rail network between now and 2032, the analysis suggests that economic benefits
of £308m could be secured by revising the service pattern on the existing network.
6.16 However, this could increase to £784m should government policy favour on-going
investment in rail network capability between now and 2032. The additional
benefit is as a result of greater underlying rail demand generated by the enhanced
2032 timetable, and enhanced network capability affording more opportunities to
enhance the service pattern post-HS2 and the opportunity to accommodate
additional freight traffic.
6.17 While the volume of this potential benefit equates to a small proportion of the
total benefit of HS2, £63.6bn for the full network and £40bn for the Leeds and
Manchester legs10, it does reflect a much larger volume of benefit for the regions
specifically. Further it could largely be delivered with relatively small levels of
additional infrastructure and operating costs being incurred.
6.18 The following figures provide a summary of the economic impacts by flow type.
There is a significant amount of development work still to be undertaken in
connection with both HS2 and the existing rail network. The timetable assumptions
are made to give an initial valuation of the potential benefits of refining services
on the existing network. It is quite possible that the disbenefit shown on some
flows (and latterly at some locations) could be mitigated through more detailed
timetable planning.
6.19 It is also important to note that the benefits in the Optimistic Scenario are
compared against the enhanced 2032 timetable. This represents an optimistic view
on likely service development which is not fully committed. Where a particularly
benefit or disbenefit is sensitive to assumptions in the optimistic timetable these
will be noted.
10 Based on the August 2012 updated economic case
http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/Updated%20economic%20case%20for%20HS2.pdf
Technical Report
50
FIGURE 6.1 BENEFIT BY FLOW (EXCLUDING FREIGHT)
6.20 The graph shows the net economic benefit for each flow type, which is made up of
a number of different flows. For example the ‘between regional centres’ bar
includes benefit from flows between Leeds, Bradford, York, Sheffield, Derby,
Nottingham, London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh. In this case there is
only a marginal impact on demand, as the identified post-HS2 timetable makes
little impact on these flows.
6.21 There is notable economic benefit from improved connectivity from the regional
centres to other locations outside the study area. This is because the Optimistic
timetable options include direct service to Cambridge from Leeds (Option A only)
and Scotland / the North East (Options A and B).
6.22 By far the largest impact is on flows on the East Coast Main Line, since this is
where there is the greatest opportunity to revise service provision on the existing
network post-HS2. The overall impact on the East Coast Main Line hides the impact
on different flows within this category, and therefore this is illustrated to the right
hand side of the graph. This shows that there is a net disbenefit from flows to and
from London. This is because services to London are generally slightly slower to
accommodate additional station stops, and in the Optimistic Scenarios services
operate to East Anglia instead of London. However the benefit of enhancing
connectivity to and between some of the more local stations on the East Coast
Main Line, including Stevenage, Grantham, Newark and Retford outweighs the
disbenefit of slower connections to London.
6.23 Figure 6.1 also shows a small disbenefit on flows to and from local corridors. This
disbenefit as a result of minor changes in the times of services, particularly in
interchange times at Leeds and Doncaster as a result of changes to services on the
Technical Report
51
East Coast Main Line. It is likely than many of these disbenefits could be mitigated
through more detailed planning.
6.24 It is difficult to see from Table 6.2 and Figure 6.1 which areas benefit as a result
of the modelled post-HS2 timetable scenarios. The following graph provides a
summary of the economic benefit accruing from flows to and from each of the
regional and sub-regional centres.
FIGURE 6.2 BENEFIT BY REGIONAL AND SUB REGIONAL CENTRE (EXCLUDING
FREIGHT)
6.25 The graph clearly shows which centres will benefit and disbenefit as a result of the
modelled timetable options. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the
notable impacts on location by locations basis.
6.26 Leeds sees a disbenefit because of slower services to intermediate locations on the
East Coast Main Line. However in Optimistic Option A this is outweighed by the
benefit of a direct service to East Anglia. While there are disbenefit at Leeds as a
result of service changes on the existing network these, will be relatively minor
compared to the benefits of HS2 itself.
6.27 Wakefield benefits in the Conservative Scenario from quicker journeys to London,
while retaining the current two train per hour frequency. In the Optimistic
Scenario 2032 pre-HS2 timetable it is assumed that there would be three trains per
hour from Wakefield to London. In the assumed post-HS2 timetable this reduces to
two trains per hour to London, which results in the notable disbenefit. In the
Optimistic Scenario Option A connectivity to Leeds, Doncaster and other East Coast
Main Line locations (excluding London) is maintained and there is some benefit
from improved connectivity to East Anglia, which is reflected in the lower
disbenefit compared to Option B. In the case of Wakefield the service offer for
Technical Report
52
journeys to London in the Optimistic timetable is an improvement on the current
service provision.
6.28 London sees a large disbenefit in the Optimistic Scenarios as these include paths
from Yorkshire and the North East being used for passenger services to East Anglia
and/or freight rather than passenger services to London. However the disbenefit
on flows to and from London is offset by the benefit at intermediate stations on
the East Coast Main Line, and is small in context of the wider benefits of HS2.
6.29 Bradford, Doncaster and Retford benefit as a result of quicker connections to
London via the existing network. In the case of Bradford this is a result of an
hourly direct service via the Wortley Curve. Doncaster and Retford also benefit
from improved direct connectivity to the North East and Scotland.
6.30 York benefits from improved connectivity to intermediate locations on the East
Coast Main Line in the Conservative Scenario. The benefits are enhanced in the
Optimistic Scenario as this also includes direct connectivity to East Anglia.
6.31 Rotherham benefits as a result of the direct fast services to Leeds and longer
distance connectivity to the North East and South West, as well as a more frequent
heavy rail connection to Meadowhall and Sheffield.
6.32 Other centres in the City Regions will see marginal impacts as a result of changes
on the existing network.
Technical Report
53
7 Conclusions and Next Steps
Conclusions
7.1 The analysis suggests that significant economic benefits could be generated by
refining timetables on the existing rail network following the introduction of HS2.
These timetable refinements could bring important local benefits to the Sheffield
and Leeds City Regions and, because the timetable scenarios primarily revise likely
pre-HS2 services patterns, could be achieved at relatively low cost. Further
efficiencies and cost savings may also be possible, for example alternative train
configurations or fuel costs.
7.2 In general, the locations that benefit are the Regional and Sub-Regional Centres,
including Bradford, York, Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham and Retford. In the
case of Wakefield, there are potential benefits compared to the current service,
but the analysis reaffirms the importance of maintaining direct connections to
London, because Wakefield sees a net economic disbenefit where services on the
East Coast Main Line operate to East Anglia rather than London.
7.3 HS2 is a high capacity railway and there may be opportunity for classic services to
make use of the HS2 infrastructure to improve connectivity and generate economic
benefit
7.4 High level analysis that has demonstrated the scope for released capacity afforded
by the introduction of HS2 to be used to refine existing service patterns and define
new services to create economic benefit.
Next Steps
7.5 The study suggests that there are worthwhile economic benefits to be realised
from refining the services on the existing network to, from and within the
Sheffield and Leeds City Regions following the introduction of HS2. It is
recommended that the City Regions and other interested stakeholders work to
realise these benefits by:
I Respond positively to the forthcoming consultation on the wider HS2
propositions for the Phase 2 route to Yorkshire;
I Engage with HS2 Ltd / Network Rail to consider alternative options for use of
the existing network to those currently included by HS2 Ltd in the economic
case for HS2, since an alternative option may generate a greater level of
benefits for the Sheffield and Leeds City Regions;
I In due course, undertake further work to refine the post-HS2 timetable
options as more detail on the development of the existing and HS2 networks
becomes available; and
I Stakeholders should make the case for development of an “existing network
investment pot post-HS2” for 2019 and beyond, geared at ensuring maximum
benefits can be derived from the existing network post-HS2.
Technical Report
Appendix A
APPENDIX
A
OPTIMISTIC 2032 ‘WITHOUT HS2’ TIMETABLE ASSUMPTIONS
Technical Report
Appendix A
A1 OPTIMISTIC 2032 ‘WITHOUT HS2’ TIMETABLE ASSUMPTIONS
Introduction
A1.1 The following paragraphs provide a summary of current passenger services and
how these might change by 2032 on a route by route basis. Unless stated the
summary is based on the standard inter peak hour. The change in service provision
is informed by the committed investment, strategies and plans identified above
and through discussion with Network Rail.
Leeds North West
A1.2 There is currently a two train per hour frequency local stopping services linking
Leeds, Bradford, Skipton and Ilkley. In the peak there are additional services from
Skipton and Ilkley to Leeds, bringing the services frequency to four trains per hour
in the peak hour only.
A1.3 In addition there are seven trains per day from Leeds to Carlisle and four trains per
day from Leeds to Lancaster/Morecambe (the Bentham Line).
A1.4 While the frequency of the local services already meets the identified frequency
outputs it was discussed with Network Rail that the off peak frequency on the local
stopping services may increase to three train per hour by 2032, with the additional
train per hour being limited stop.
A1.5 For the purpose of this study it is assumed that rural nature of the Bentham and
Settled and Carlisle Lines means they will retain their current service frequency.
There may be opportunities to enhance the service, although this is likely to have
minimal impact on this study.
Harrogate
A1.6 In the off peak there is currently an hourly Leeds – Knaresborough and an hourly
Leeds – York service on the line. These form an even pattern service between
Leeds and Knaresborough.
A1.7 On this corridor there is a scheme being developed by local authorities to double
the current off peak service pattern to provide a half hourly frequency between
Knaresborough and York and four train per hour frequency between Knaresborough
and Leeds. This moves beyond the identified frequency outputs.
A1.8 Additional peak capacity will be provided by half hourly shuttle services between
Horsforth and Leeds.
A1.9 It is assumed that the Harrogate Line is electrified by 2032, which will facilitate a
modest reduction in journey times and higher capacity rolling stock.
East of Leeds
A1.10 There are currently a total of seven trains per hour to the east of Leeds.
I 1 tph fast Manchester – Leeds – Selby – Hull
I 1 tph all station Leeds – Selby
Technical Report
Appendix A
I 4 tph fast Leeds – York (of which 1 tph stop at Garforth) made up of Trans
Pennine (to Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Newcastle) and Cross Country (to
Scotland) services; and
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – York (currently the Blackpool – York service).
A1.11 This is likely to change significantly with committed and planned enhancements
during Control Period 5 including the Northern Hub and Trans Pennine
electrification, Micklefield turnback siding and parkway station and the provision
of a third Leeds to London service via East Leeds. By 2032 it is anticipated that the
service east of Leeds would include:
I 2 tph fast Manchester – Leeds – Selby – Hull;
I 2 tph fast Manchester – Leeds – York – Newcastle
I 1 tph fast Manchester – Leeds – York – Middlesbrough
I 1 tph Manchester – Leeds – York – stopping at Garforth and stations to the east
of Micklefield
I 2 tph fast Birmingham/South Coast – Sheffield – Leeds – York –
Newcastle/Scotland
I 1 tph Leeds – Doncaster – London;
I 1 tph Blackpool – Scarborough; and
I 2 tph all stations Leeds – Micklefield Parkway.
A1.12 Note that reference to Manchester may include direct services beyond Manchester.
A1.13 There is currently an hourly service between Scarborough, Malton and York.
Currently this service continues to Liverpool via Leeds and Manchester. It is
assumed that by 2032 there will be an hourly Scarborough – Blackpool service
together with an hourly Scarborough – York service.
A1.14 There is currently an approximately hourly service between Hull and York,
although the timings are irregular. It is assumed that by 2032 there will be a
regular pattern hourly service.
Hallam and Pontefract Lines
A1.15 Services on the Hallam and Pontefract Lines are currently made up of:
I 2 tph fast Leeds – Sheffield services (calling at Wakefield and Barnsley only, 1
tph operates to Nottingham);
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – Knottingley;
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – Sheffield via Castleford; and
I 1 tph all stations Knottingley – Wakefield Kirkgate.
A1.16 It has been assumed that the all stations services would increase in frequency to
two trains per hour by 2032.
Huddersfield Line
A1.17 Significant change to the service pattern on the Huddersfield Line is already
planned as part of the Northern Hub and Trans Pennine electrification schemes. By
2019 it is anticipated that the service pattern will be is as follows:
Technical Report
Appendix A
I 4 tph fast Newcastle/York – Leeds – Huddersfield - Manchester Victoria –
Liverpool/Manchester Airport;
I 2 tph semi fast Hull/Selby – Leeds – Dewsbury – Huddersfield – Manchester
Piccadilly;
I 2 tph all stations Leeds – Huddersfield
I 1 tph Leeds – Dewsbury – Brighouse – all stations to Rochdale – Manchester
Victoria;
I 1 tph all stations Wakefield Westgate – Huddersfield; and
I 1 tph all stations Huddersfield – Manchester Piccadilly.
A1.18 By 2032 it is assumed that the all station Wakefield – Huddersfield and
Huddersfield – Manchester services will have been increased to two trains per
hour. It is also assumed that the Leeds – Manchester service via Brighouse will
increase to two trains per hour.
Penistone Line
A1.19 There is currently an hourly all stations Huddersfield – Sheffield service on the
Penistone Line. By 2032 it is assumed this will have been increased to two trains
per hour.
Caldervale Line
A1.20 The timetable on the Caldervale Line has been informed by the Caldervale Line
Timetable Study that has been undertaken for Metro and TfGM and the service
enhancements that are committed as part of the Northern Hub scheme, namely
and additional fast Leeds - Bradford – Manchester service and a direct connection
from Bradford to Manchester Airport.
A1.21 By 2032 it is anticipated that the Caldervale Line Timetable will include:
I 1 tph York – Leeds – Blackpool, calling at New Pudsey, Bradford, Halifax and
Hebden Bridge;
I 2 tph fast Leeds – Manchester Victoria / Manchester Airport, calling at New
Pudsey, Bradford, Halifax, Hebden Bridge/Todmorden, and Rochdale (an
increase in 1 tph from the current timetable);
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – Bradford – Rochdale and fast to Manchester Victoria;
I 1 tph all stations Huddersfield – Bradford – Leeds;
I 1 tph all station Halifax – Bradford – Leeds (this is additional to the current
timetable); and
I 2 tph Leeds – Brighouse – Manchester (as defined in the Huddersfield Line
section, noting this is beyond the Caldervale Line strategy.)
A1.22 Further electrification is assumed between Leeds and Manchester which will
facilitate a modest reduction in journey times and the use of higher capacity
rolling stock. It is also possible that re-signalling on the route would provide
additional capacity.
Wakefield Line
A1.23 The Wakefield Line is currently served by:
Technical Report
Appendix A
I 2 tph Leeds – Wakefield - Doncaster – London Kings Cross;
I 1 tph Scotland – York – Leeds – Wakefield – Sheffield – Chesterfield – Birmingham
– South West;
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – Doncaster; and
I 1 tph all stations Leeds – Moorthorpe – Sheffield.
A1.24 By 2032 it is anticipated that there would be a significant increase in services on
this corridor with additional hourly services between Leeds and London and
between York and Birmingham as well as a two train per hour frequency on the
local services to Doncaster and Sheffield.
A1.25 It is also assumed that the route between South Kirby Junction and Sheffield will
be electrified by 2032, which will allow cross country type services and local
services to be electrically operated. This will result in modest journey time savings
and, for local services, potential use of higher capacity rolling stock.
Sheffield – Doncaster – Hull/Cleethorpes
A1.26 The service pattern between Sheffield and Doncaster is made up of:
I 1 tph fast Newcastle – Doncaster – Sheffield – Chesterfield – Birmingham – South
Coast;
I 1 tph fast Manchester Airport – Sheffield – Doncaster – Cleethorpes;
I 1 tph fast Sheffield – Doncaster – Hull; and
I 2 tph all station Sheffield – Doncaster – Scunthorpe (1 tph) / Adwick (1 tph)
A1.27 It is not anticipated that the service frequency between Sheffield and Hull /
Cleethorpes would increase by 2032 as the service frequency already meets the
identified frequency outputs. However as part of the Northern Hub it is anticipated
that the fast Hull – Sheffield service would be extended to Manchester.
A1.28 It is also expected that the route between Sheffield and Doncaster would be
electrified by 2032, allowing the cross country type services and some local
stopping services to be electrically operated, resulting in modest journey time
savings and the potential for higher capacity rolling stock.
Worksop Line
A1.29 There is currently an hourly all stations service from Sheffield to Lincoln via
Worksop. By 2032 it is anticipated this will be supplemented by an additional
hourly Sheffield – Worksop service.
Hope Valley
A1.30 There are currently up to three passenger trains per hour on the Hope Valley line.
These include:
I 1 tph fast Cleethorpes – Sheffield – Stockport – Manchester Airport;
I 1 tph fast East Anglia – Nottingham – Sheffield – Stockport – Manchester
Liverpool; and
I 2 hourly all stations Sheffield – Manchester via Marple (hourly during the peak
periods and at weekends).
Technical Report
Appendix A
A1.31 As part of the Northern Hub there will be two additional fast services between
Sheffield and Manchester. These are assumed to be:
I An extension of the fast Hull – Sheffield service to Manchester Piccadilly; and
I An additional Leicester – Manchester Piccadilly via Sheffield.
A1.32 In addition it is assumed that by 2032 the all station service will run every hour.
Midland Main Line
A1.33 There are currently four trains per hour on the Midland Main Line Between
Sheffield and Derby, summarised as follows:
I 1 tph fast Sheffield – London St Pancras calling at Chesterfield, Derby and
Leicester only;
I 1 tph semi fast Sheffield – London which also calls at Long Eaton, East Midlands
Parkway and Loughborough
I 2 tph Scotland / North East – Sheffield – Chesterfield – Derby – Tamworth /
Birmingham – South West / South Coast.
A1.34 Electrification of the Midland Main Line between Bedford and Sheffield via Derby is
planned for Control Period 5 (although completion may not be until early Control
Period 6). This will allow the London – Sheffield services to be electrically
operated, although it is not anticipated that the service frequency from Sheffield
would materially change.
A1.35 IT is also assumed that the route between Birmingham and Derby will be
electrified by 2032 allowing current cross country type services to be electrically
operated. An additional York – Leeds – Sheffield Birmingham services has been
assumed.
Erewash Valley
A1.36 The Erewash Valley line is currently served by longer distance inter regional
services as follows:
I 1 tph Liverpool – Manchester – Sheffield – Nottingham – East Anglia, with
intermediate stops at Chesterfield, Alfreton and Langley Mill; and
I 1 tph Leeds – Sheffield – Nottingham, with intermediate stops at Dronfield,
Chesterfield, Alfreton and Langley Mill.
A1.37 It is not anticipated that this service frequency would fundamentally change by
2032.
East Coast Main Line
A1.38 On the southern part of the route (from Doncaster) there are currently five off
peak service per hour to London. These are made up of:
I 2 tph Leeds – Wakefield – Doncaster – London;
I 1 tph Scotland – York – London;
I 1 tph Newcastle – York – Doncaster – London; and
I 1 tph open access operator service from Sunderland, Bradford or Hull to
London.
Technical Report
Appendix A
A1.39 By 2032 it is assumed that this will have increased to eight trains per hour, with
the following additional services:
I 1 tph Leeds – Doncaster – London (via East Leeds);
I 1 tph Leeds – Wakefield – Doncaster - London; and
I 1 tph Scotland – York – London.
A1.40 On the northern part of the route (from York) there are currently up to seven
trains per hour, made up of:
I 1 tph London – York – Scotland;
I 1 tph London – Doncaster – York – Newcastle;
I 1 tph Birmingham – Sheffield – Doncaster – York – Newcastle;
I 1 tph Birmingham – Sheffield – Leeds – York – Scotland;
I 2 tph Manchester Airport – Leeds – York – Newcastle/Middlesbrough; and
I 4 trains per day London – York – Sunderland.
A1.41 As part of the Northern Hub and Trans Pennine electrification scheme it is assumed
that the current hourly Middlesbrough service would be diverted to Newcastle,
with an additional York to Middlesbrough service provided. However by 2032 it is
assumed that the route to Middlesbrough will have been electrified and a through
Middlesbrough – Manchester service will be reinstated in addition to the half hourly
Newcastle frequency.
A1.42 It is also assumed that by 2032 there will be an additional London – York – Scotland
service, bringing the total frequency to the north of York to nine trains per hour.
Other Outside Study Area
A1.43 There is currently an irregular direct service between Doncaster and Lincoln
operating at approximate 90 minute intervals. This service provides intermediate
stops at Gainsborough Lea Road and Saxilby. By 2032 it is anticipated there would
be a standard pattern hourly service.
Technical Report
Appendix B
APPENDIX
B
FREIGHT MARKET ASSESSMENT
Technical Report
Appendix B
B1 FREIGHT MARKET ASSESSMENT
Introduction
B1.1 This appendix presents our assessment of the freight market to and through the
Yorkshire and Humber area. The work here covers the freight analysis set out in
Stages 1 and 2 of our proposal. Network Rail has had sight of this analysis.
B1.2 The Sheffield and Leeds city regions and their environs are important as generators
of rail freight traffic, and in addition to freight travelling to or from the area,
there are a number of freight flows passing through it. In this section we
summarise the freight activity around these city regions. We describe the freight
commodities which flow in and through the region, and we have used forecasts of
freight traffic between regions of Great Britain in order to provide an indication of
future freight path requirements.
B1.3 Figure A.1 overleaf shows the principal freight facilities in and around the
Sheffield and Leeds city regions, and illustrates the freight corridors.
Freight Commodities
Coal
B1.4 Coal is currently the largest commodity for rail freight in Yorkshire and
Humberside, both in terms of tonnage carried, and the number of train paths
required. Flows are concentrated on the Immingham to Ferrybridge corridor,
conveying imported coal from Immingham to the Aire Valley power stations, as
well as to power stations in the Midlands. There are also significant flows of coal
from Scotland and the North East, using the East Coast Main Line and, in the case
of Scotland, the Settle and Carlisle line. The volume of coal is forecast to decline
by 2030; the rate of decline will depend on the lives of the coal fired power
stations, but volumes are forecast to be substantial by 2030, with coal likely to
remain the dominant commodity in terms of train paths.
Construction
B1.5 The principal source of construction materials in the region is the quarry at
Rylstone, generating traffic on the south end of the Settle and Carlisle corridor.
There are also significant flows into the region of aggregates traffic, and sand
serving glassworks. The corridors most heavily used by construction traffic are the
Settle and Carlisle, Hope Valley and South Coast to Leeds corridors. The overall
volume of construction traffic is forecast to increase slightly by 2030. Freight
operators are understood to be exploring opportunities to run longer/heavier
trains.
Technical Report
Appendix B
FIGURE A.1 FREIGHT CORRIDORS
Technical Report
Appendix B
Maritime containers
B1.6 The main flow of maritime containers is from East Coast Ports and Southampton to
the intermodal terminals in the region. There are also flows through the region to
destinations in Scotland and the North East of England. These flows use the East
Coast Main Line, South Coast to Leeds and (between Adwick Junction and Hare
Park Junction) the Immingham to Ferrybridge corridors. As such they are
competing for paths with long distance passenger services. The volume of traffic is
forecast to increase significantly by 2030, although train weights are forecast also
to increase, so that the increase in train paths required will be less, in percentage
terms, than the increase in traffic carried. This traffic is price sensitive, and,
unlike bulk commodities, can easily travel by road. The forecast growth in
maritime container traffic depends to some extent on rail improving its
competitive position relative to road, and is therefore subject to some
uncertainty.
Ore
B1.7 There is a large flow of ore from Immingham to Scunthorpe; this is confined to the
Immingham to Ferrybridge corridor, and does not therefore impinge on the major
passenger routes. The volume of ore traffic is forecast to decrease slightly by
2030.
Petroleum products
B1.8 There is a large flow of petroleum products from the oil refinery at Immingham to
various destinations across the country. These flows use the Immingham to
Ferrybridge corridor, and certain flows also use the North Trans Pennine and East
Coast Main Line North corridors. The volume of petroleum traffic is forecast to
increase slightly by 2030.
Metals
B1.9 Metals traffic is generated by facilities at Scunthorpe and in the Sheffield area.
There is also a flow into the region from the north east, and traffic between South
Wales and the North East flowing through the region. The corridors most heavily
used by metals traffic are the East Coast Main Line North, Immingham to
Ferrybridge and South Coast to Leeds corridors. The overall volume of metals
traffic is forecast to increase slightly by 2030.
Domestic Intermodal
B1.10 The forecast assume that by 2030 there will be a network of services linking
terminals for intermodal traffic. The forecast of traffic, much of which is not at
present conveyed by rail, depends on the development of intermodal terminals,
and on the ability of rail to offer a competitive price and quality of service. The
forecasts are therefore subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The flows of
intermodal traffic mirror the flows of long distance passenger traffic, and
therefore use the main passenger corridors, namely East Coast Main Line, and
South Coast to Leeds, as well as part of the Immingham to Ferrybridge corridor.
Waste and Biomass
B1.11 Domestic waste is conveyed by rail from Greater Manchester to the landfill at
Roxby. The volume of waste traffic is forecast to increase by 2030, and in addition
Technical Report
Appendix B
there may be biomass traffic imported through Immingham. The corridors used by
this traffic are Hope Valley, North Trans Pennine and Immingham to Ferrybridge.
Path Forecasts
B1.12 We have used data for freight traffic in 2010/11, and forecasts for 2030, produced
by MDS Transmodal, and published by the Rail Freight Group (October 2011).
These show tonnage by commodity flowing within and between regions. We have
estimated the number of trains required to carry this traffic, using typical train
weights for each commodity. We have then estimated the number of paths
required, given path utilisation rates shown in the Freight Route Utilisation
Strategy (RUS) published by Network Rail. In practice the average weight of trains
and the path utilisation rates will vary by flow, and, as noted above, the forecasts
for 2030 are subject to uncertainty, so the figures shown in the tables below can
only provide an indication of the level of paths required.
B1.13 The main flows (where the forecast is for a flow of at least 100,000 tonnes p.a.)
together with an indicative daily path requirement (in each direction) and the
corridors likely to be used by the flow are shown in Tables 1 to 4 below.
I Table B.1 shows flows internal to Yorkshire and Humberside;
I Table B.2 shows flows originating in Yorkshire and Humberside;
I Table B.3 shows flows whose destination is in Yorkshire and Humberside;
I Table B.4 shows flows passing through Yorkshire and Humberside.
B1.14 Network Rail has made estimates of the daily path requirement in 2030 for each
individual route section, and these are published (in terms of a range of paths) in
the Northern RUS (May 2011). The forecasts for each of the corridors we are
considering are reproduced below in Table B.5.
Technical Report
Appendix B
TABLE B.1 FREIGHT FLOWS INTERNAL TO YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
2010 2030
Commodity
Tonnage
2010/11
'000
Forecast
Tonnage
2030 '000
Estimated
annual
trains
Estimated
daily
trains
Estimated
daily paths
Forecast
annual
trains
Forecast
daily
trains
Forecast
daily
paths
Settle and
Carlisle
Sou
th C
oast to
Leeds
ECM
L No
rth
Trans P
enn
ine
Ho
pe V
alley
ECM
L Sou
th
Imm
ingh
am to
Ferrybrid
ge
Coal 10783 6193 7189 23 51 4129 13 29 1
Construction materials 665 1112 443 1 4 741 2 6 1
Metals 921 1504 614 2 4 1003 3 6 1 1 1
Network Rail Engineering 397 397 265 1 1 265 1 1 1 1
Ores 4830 4259 1932 6 12 1704 5 11 1
Petroleum products 100 148 67 0 0 99 0 1 1
Waste and biomass 13 408 9 0 0 326 1 2 1
Principal corridors used
Technical Report
Appendix B
TABLE B.2 FREIGHT FLOWS FROM YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
2010 2030
Commodity Destination
Tonnage
2010/11
'000
Forecast
Tonnage
2030 '000
Estimated
annual
trains
Estimated
daily
trains
Estimated
daily
paths
Forecast
annual
trains
Forecast
daily
trains
Forecast
daily
paths
Settle and
Carlisle
Sou
th C
oast to
Leeds
ECM
L No
rth
Trans P
enn
ine
Ho
pe V
alley
ECM
L Sou
th
Imm
ingh
am to
Ferrybrid
ge
Coal East Midlands 2341 1436 1561 5 11 957 3 7 1
Coal North West 176 176 117 0 1 117 0 1 1 1
Coal West Midlands 1052 573 701 2 5 382 1 3 1
Construction materials East of England 119 115 79 0 1 77 0 1 1 1 1
Maritime containers East of England 1025 2377 2050 7 7 3962 13 13 1 1
Maritime containers South East 537 1058 1074 3 4 1763 6 6 1 1
Metals Channel Tunnel 273 273 182 1 1 182 1 1 1
Metals North East 332 344 221 1 1 229 1 1 1 1 1
Metals North West 107 106 71 0 0 71 0 0 1 1 1
Metals Scotland 227 212 151 0 1 141 0 1 1 1
Metals Wales 181 314 121 0 1 209 1 1 1 1
Metals West Midlands 299 339 199 1 1 226 1 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk East Midlands 0 580 0 0 0 967 3 3 1
Domestic non bulk East of England 0 652 0 0 0 1087 3 4 1
Domestic non bulk Greater London 0 398 0 0 0 663 2 2 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk North West 99 127 198 1 1 212 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk Scotland 11 1262 22 0 0 2103 7 7 1
Domestic non bulk South East 0 758 0 0 0 1263 4 4 1 1
Domestic non bulk South West 0 354 0 0 0 590 2 2 1
Domestic non bulk Wales 10 164 20 0 0 273 1 1 1
Petroleum products East Midlands 358 414 239 1 1 276 1 2 1
Petroleum products North East 1691 2090 1127 4 6 1393 4 8 1 1
Petroleum products North West 149 204 99 0 1 136 0 1 1 1 1
Petroleum products South East 382 403 255 1 1 269 1 2 1
Petroleum products South West 436 436 291 1 2 291 1 2 1
Petroleum products Wales 88 119 59 0 0 79 0 0 1
Petroleum products West Midlands 1537 1635 1025 3 6 1090 3 6 1
Waste and biomass East Midlands 0 162 0 0 0 108 0 1 1
Principal corridors used
Technical Report
Appendix B
TABLE B.3 FREIGHT FLOWS TO YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
7.6 Note: In tables 4.2 and 4.3, the shaded figures show paths which are included in the path figures for the reverse direction. These are for
intermodal traffic where trains are loaded in both directions.
2010 2030
Commodity Origin
Tonnage
2010/11
'000
Forecast
Tonnage
2030 '000
Estimated
annual
trains
Estimated
daily
trains
Estimated
daily
paths
Forecast
annual
trains
Forecast
daily
trains
Forecast
daily
paths
Settle and
Carlisle
Sou
th C
oast to
Leeds
ECM
L No
rth
Trans P
enn
ine
Ho
pe V
alley
ECM
L Sou
th
Imm
ingh
am to
Ferrybrid
ge
Coal East Midlands 294 134 196 1 1 89 0 1 1
Coal North East 2489 1757 1659 5 12 1171 4 8 1 1
Coal Scotland 2052 944 1368 4 10 629 2 4 1 1
Coal Wales 187 154 125 0 1 103 0 1 1
Coal West Midlands 563 202 375 1 3 135 0 1 1
Construction materials East Midlands 1602 1652 1068 3 9 1101 4 10 1 1
Construction materials East of England 361 357 241 1 2 238 1 2 1 1 1
Maritime containers Channel Tunnel 17 675 34 0 0 1125 4 4 1 1
Maritime containers East of England 1002 1517 2004 6 7 2528 8 9 1 1
Maritime containers South East 443 860 886 3 3 1433 5 5 1 1
Metals North East 148 198 99 0 1 132 0 1 1 1
Network Rail Engineering East Midlands 409 409 273 1 1 273 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk East Midlands 15 641 30 0 0 1068 3 4 1
Domestic non bulk East of England 0 1612 0 0 0 2687 9 9 1
Domestic non bulk Greater London 0 353 0 0 0 588 2 2 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk Scotland 2 795 4 0 0 1325 4 4 1
Domestic non bulk South East 7 831 14 0 0 1385 4 5 1 1
Domestic non bulk South West 0 592 0 0 0 987 3 3 1
Domestic non bulk Wales 0 164 0 0 0 273 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk West Midlands 0 188 0 0 0 313 1 1 1
Waste and biomass North East 444 538 296 1 2 359 1 2 1 1
Waste and biomass North West 388 3340 259 1 2 2227 7 14 1 1 1
Principal corridors used
Technical Report
Appendix B
TABLE B.4 FREIGHT FLOWS THROUGH YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
7.7 Note: In Table B.4, for intermodal traffic where trains are loaded in both directions, the tonnage is shown for the busier direction (which will
determine the path requirement).
2010 2030
Commodity Origin Destination
Tonnage
2010/11
'000
Forecast
Tonnage
2030 '000
Estimated
annual
trains
Estimated
daily
trains
Estimated
daily
paths
Forecast
annual
trains
Forecast
daily
trains
Forecast
daily
paths
Settle and
Carlisle
Sou
th C
oast to
Leeds
ECM
L No
rth
Trans P
enn
ine
Ho
pe V
alley
ECM
L Sou
th
Imm
ingh
am to
Ferrybrid
ge
Coal North East East Midlands 991 697 661 2 5 465 1 3 1 1 1
Coal North East Wales 617 617 411 1 3 411 1 3 1 1 1
Coal Scotland East Midlands 1785 851 1190 4 8 567 2 4 1 1
Construction materialsEast Midlands East of England 1150 1327 766 2 7 885 3 8 1 1
Maritime containers North East East of England 125 613 250 1 1 1022 3 3 1 1
Maritime containers Scotland East of England 255 255 510 2 2 425 1 1 1 1
Maritime containers North East South East 0 304 0 0 0 507 2 2 1 1 1 1
Metals Wales North East 379 330 253 1 2 220 1 1 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk East Midlands Scotland 584 1213 1168 4 4 2022 6 7 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk East of England Scotland 0 1457 0 0 0 2428 8 8 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East East Midlands 0 807 0 0 0 1345 4 5 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East East of England 0 335 0 0 0 558 2 2 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East Greater London 0 179 0 0 0 298 1 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East South East 2 249 4 0 0 415 1 1 1 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East South West 0 116 0 0 0 193 1 1 1 1 1
Domestic non bulk North East West Midlands 0 535 0 0 0 892 3 3 1 1 1
Principal corridors used
Technical Report
Appendix B
TABLE B.5 SUMMARY OF FORECAST PATH REQUIREMENTS (NORTHERN RUS)
Corridor Location
Northern RUS 2030 daily
path forecast range (each
direction)
Settle and Carlisle Keighley 5 to 20
South Coast to Leeds Chesterfield 40 to 80
ECML North York 40 to 80
Trans Pennine Huddersfield 5 to 20
Hope Valley Hope 20 to 40
ECML South Doncaster 40 to 80
Immingham to Ferrybridge Thorne 40 to 80
Technical Report
P:\PROJECTS\225\5\51\01\Work\Final Report\Post HS2 Timetable Options Study - Technical Report V6.docx
Control Sheet
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name Sheffield and Leeds City Regions: Post-HS2 Timetable
Option Study
Document Title Technical Report
Client Contract/Project No.
SDG Project/Proposal No. 22555101
ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No. Date Details
V6 03/07/2013 Final draft
REVIEW
Originator Alastair Hutchinson
Other Contributors Mike Costello, David Smith, Philip Whitehead
Review by: Print Jim Richards
Sign
DISTRIBUTION
Client: SYPTE and Metro
Steer Davies Gleave:
