Friends of The Derwent Valley Line
Ian Ambrose
Chairman FDVL
51 Oakerthorpe Road
Bolehill, Wirksworth
Derbyshire DE4 4GP
Email:-
4th November 2009
East Midlands RUS Consultation Response
RUS Programme Manager, Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way, London N1 9AG
Dear Sir
NETWORK RAIL - EAST MIDLANDS DRAFT RUS
The Friends of The Derwent Valley Line (FDVL) welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft RUS for the East Midlands and at the same time to thank you for your presentations and clarifications of the background to your analysis. .
As members of the Derwent Valley Line Community Rail Partnership (DVLCRP) we have also had input to their response to the RUS giving detailed evidence of recent growth trends and we fully endorse the comments included in that document which should be read in conjunction with our response.
We note that there is no mention of Matlock services in the RUS Scoping Document Issue 6 (16th April, 2008) which may partially account for it’s omission in the RUS! We have commented below on other factual errors & omissions from the RUS Appendix, (Spring 2008 version) which we note is not a kept as a “current” document,
Our main concerns with the RUS are
· That it’s starting point (Section 3 Current Capacity, Demand etc) is based on out of date information. It fails to take account of the significant timetable changes made by both East Midlands Trains (EMT) & Cross Country (XC) in December 2008 and therefore the subsequent analysis is immediately “tarnished”.
· That its projections (Sec 4 Anticipated Supply & Demand) are generic and appear not to recognise local circumstances.
With these perceived shortcomings in mind, we have divided our response into 3 sections:-
· Derwent Valley Line issues
· Wider RUS Route issues
· Document Presentation issues
DERWENT VALLEY LINE (DVL) ISSUES
Current Capacity, Demand Delivery (RUS Sec 3)
The RUS fails to reflect the impact of the introduction of an hourly Nottingham – Matlock service, which doubled the frequency on the Derby to Matlock section and immediately.
· Increased the attractiveness of the service
· Improved connectional opportunities at Derby
· Greatly improved the opportunity for commuting & leisure travel to & from Nottingham
The impact of this change is detailed at length in the DVLCRP response, with the headline features being a 54% increase in the number of trains matched by an immediate 53.5% increase in patronage at the start of the 2009/10 year. Passenger journeys at the two major stations (Matlock & Belper) are currently in excess of 120,000. On the Derby-Nottingham section there is evidence of increased usage from intermediate stations, in particular Attenborough on the through service.
Rolling stock diagrammed to the service (2-car & 1 car units) is now already stretched at peak times to cope with passenger demand and during the summer holidays there have been incidents of passengers being left at stations with trains already “full & standing”.
There are a number of distinct periods of “peak” demand for the line, namely:
· Weekday Commuting (morning & evening)
· Saturday – Derby County home football matches – the station is convenient to Pride Park stadium
· Summer Holidays – family tourism to attractions in the Derwent Valley
The increased train service pattern has already attracted passengers in each of the 3 peaks and this is likely to continue as detailed below.
Anticipated Changes in Supply & Demand (RUS Sec 4)
Demand:
Whilst recognising that the use of “generic” growth modelling assumptions using Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) and other central forecasting models for population changes (DfT TEMPRO model), is a starting point, we consider that insufficient account has been taken of specific local demand drivers.
In the case of the DVL we anticipate the following developments will have a direct impact on demand
· Opening the new Derby College adjacent to Derby station will increase weekday commuting (it has already had some impact).
· The DVL runs the whole length of the Derwent Valley World Heritage Site (WHS) north from Derby. Planned major investment in the Arkwright Society’s site at Cromford, further enhancing the WHS status of the valley is expected to create significant additional demand from tourism. .
· Other WHS initiatives associated with the Cultural Olympiad 2012 are likely to invigorate demand.
· Enhanced connection opportunities at Derby into EMT’s London services following the planned extension of services to/from Sheffield
· The recent repairs to the branch, returning it to RA8 capability, coupled with the planned extension of Peak Rail operations into Matlock station, will make the branch an attractive destination for charter trains. With the present hourly service, these trains will only be able to operate on Sundays.
· Cycling - the Peak District National Park (PDNP) actively promotes the area to walkers & cyclists and has recently been awarded £1.25m to improve cycle routes within the Park, including routes emanating from Matlock Station. The inclusion of cycles on trains (both tourist & commuting) is another significant pressure on Rolling Stock requirements
· Derby City Council’s plans for development between the station and the city centre. (These two locations are closer together following the completion of the Westfield Centre).
· Increased commuting into Nottingham following the planned retiming of the first through service of the day in December 2009.
· Increased housing development in Matlock & Belper within 1km of stations (referred to in the CRP response).
There is an untapped demand for northbound & southbound mainline services to call at Belper during certain times of the day. This requires no additional investment in rolling stock and could also provide a solution to “peak” overcrowding.
All of the above demands should be associated with the significant congestion issues along the parallel A6 trunk road both in the WHS and on the approaches to Derby city. Enhancement of the railway offers the best solution to address capacity in the valley as other options are constrained by WHS status & geography. This congestion impact, coupled with the improved train service and the attractiveness of its current reliability, are beginning to suggest “modal shift” to rail and therefore additional resource demand.
Supply:
a) Rolling Stock
In the light of the demand forecasts, we consider that the RUS fails to identify the demand for additional rolling stock on the DVL, although if our proposals to EMT to stop more mainline services at Belper were to be accepted, this would bring immediate benefits. We believe there is minimal risk to headways between Derby & Ambergate Jct.
b) Infrastructure
The planned improvements in infrastructure at Trent East Jct. and Nottingham Station during CP4 are welcome, as are any proposals to remodel Derby to improve performance.
As part of the Derby Area Resignalling project we believe there are two opportunities which should be taken:-
- Remodel Ambergate Jct, involving the relocation of the present layout 100-200 yds further south and providing the facility to allow trains in the northbound loop to proceed onto the branch without having to rejoin the mainline. This would have the triple benefits of
· Increasing the turnout speed from 15mph (possibly to 30 or 45mph) thereby improving planning headways and journey times
· Increasing flexibility during late running
· Significantly reducing NR’s maintenance costs by removing the turnout from the opposite canted mainline onto straighter track.
This remodelling would also contribute towards capacity improvements to your longer term considerations for the 3rd train per hour between West Yorks - Derby – South West .The Broadholme loops would still be long enough to accommodate freight trains.
We understood that Derby Area Resignalling was in CP5 but in your Assessment of Option 4.3 (pg 98) you refer to signalling renewals at Derby in CP6. Which is correct?
- Provide an 800m passing loop on the branch (possibly at the former High Peak Jct MP141) which would enable a half hourly service to be introduced if demand continues to increase and facilitate the operation of additional charter trains. If it was deemed not an immediate requirement, then the provision of intermediate signalling (for possible later addition of track formation) would have the immediate benefit of giving train location data for both PIS reporting to passengers and for Operational control.
- Modernise the single line token arrangement at Ambergate with a more reliable arrangement.
We would expect journey times from Matlock to Nottingham to be reduced following these changes and such an improvement would also further enhance demand if the journey time could achieve the 60min figure (current time is between 66 & 77 mins).
We note that NR are examining the possible re-opening of the line from Matlock to Buxton as part of the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) review and we believe that, should this happen, it should take account of the current & potential passenger growth into and out of the Peak District National Park. Any upgrading of routes in the East Midlands area to deliver the projected increase in freight capacity should not compromise the expected growth in local passenger services in the area by reducing paths available for additional services.
Gaps & Options (RUS Sec 5)
In Sec 5.2 you have identified Generic Gaps of Peak overcrowding & All day crowding & growth. We believe the evidence & potential of the Derwent Valley Line demand should be included in that section with the other examples.
Your assessment Option 1.8 (page 85) for additional rolling stock (1 vehicle) on Nottingham – Worksop service gives a claimed BCR of 2. We would like to see a similar calculation for Matlock – Nottingham which is a comparable example.
Option 4.7 (More Frequent trains between London & Sheffield) – We would like to see some reference to the capacity benefits of additional stops being made by these services at Belper (as referred to above)
Emerging Strategy (RUS Sec 6) including Electrification
In the light of our comments (and those included in the DVLCRP response), we would like to see specific reference to the DVL which is worthy of inclusion alongside other routes in Section 6.5.
We note that in Sec 6 8 the RUS refers to the Government’s consideration of electrification of the MML and your comment that electrification of the branch to Matlock has a marginal business case. We would like to see the Derwent Valley line included, to facilitate operational flexibility & through services to London. We recognise that the case for a regional EMU fleet would need sufficient local routes to be electrified and that the Matlock line alone would not justify this, but we would not like any electrification on the main line to compromise the current DMU service.
WIDER RUS ROUTE ISSUES
Current Capacity, Demand Delivery (RUS Sec 3)
On the Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) services to London your analysis in Sec 3 does not reflect the strategic timetable change by EMT to separate an “outer suburban” service south of Leicester from a “non-stop” service to points north of Leicester.
On the Norwich-Liverpool route the RUS does not recognise the introduction of the Nottingham-Leeds service by Northern Rail
Many of the tables and charts refer to 2006/07 or 2007/8 data. Specific examples are:
Fig 3.25 –– there is no reporting point at Whatstandwell (but there was temporary one during the Erewash Blockade).The data must be of 2006/7 vintage
In Para 3.4.9 – whilst on overview RUS of national Depot Strategy would be useful, we think that this should follow the identification within Route RUS’s by Franchise operators of the locations of depots for their trains in order to minimise ECS moves etc. With more bespoke trains and the trend to manufacturers undertaking maintenance & servicing at custom designed depots this is significant.
Anticipated Changes in Supply & Demand (RUS Sec 4)
Sec 4.2.2 The Forecasting model
· You do not say for which period LENNON data has been used.
· You refer to vers 5.3 of Dft TEMPRO model – it would be helpful to know how current is this version?
· Fares are assumed to rise by RPI +1% - this is not the basis of the EMT franchise. You could be accused of overstating demand when fare rises are likely to be higher (as encouraged by DfT)
Sec 4.2.2 (penultimate para) refers to “committed changes to rail services referred to earlier” but the only reference is in para 4.1.3. There is no mention of the committed changes to the 2008/9 timetables by EMT & XC. Have you assumed they are “neutral”? Is that a valid assumption?
Fig 4.2 The flows to/from Birmingham – do these include flows beyond (e.g. Bristol)? All the other flows are to regions rather than a specific city. What about internal growth within the RUS?
Figs 4.3 & 4.5 These diagrams will be based on the same (out of date) train pattern presented in Fig 3.7? You should make clear on what basis the chart is calculated.
You refer in several places to 16 tph on the Midland Main Line south of Bedford. This of course only applies to the “slow” lines. You should consider distinguishing fast & slow lines in any commentary to make this clear.
PRESENTATION ISSUES
Apart from the “out of date” basis of much of the underlying data, we feel there a number of shortcomings in the presentation of the charts and tables. The following are particular examples
Fig 3.3 Station Footfall 2007/8 Is this “Origin” only or Origin & Destination?
Fig 3.22 & Fig 3.23 Loading Gauge Only W8 has the same colour in each Fig. – why not use consistent colours for each gauge?
Fig 4.1 There are no scales on either axis
Fig 4.5 This type of chart is unclear. Are the arrows in time sequence and if so is this always “clockwise” or Right – Left/Top-Bottom?
In your Option Evaluations in Sec 5 it would be helpful to see the more detail , possibly in an Appendix, to show (for example) your assumptions for Rolling Stock lease charges especially where you are calculating for small vehicle quantities, Rolling Stock maintenance costs, the Discount rate used, etc etc.
Although not part of the RUS Draft Document, the Appendix dated Spring 2008 contains a number of factual errors.