SCOTTISH STRATEGIC RAIL STUDY: Working Paper 5: Option Development
NESTRANS
3.11 Table 13 presents targets for each of the planning objectives developed in Working Paper 3 for the NESTRANS area. These targets take cognisance of the benchmarks discussed in Chapter 2.
Table 13 NESTRANS STAG Planning Objective aspirational Targets
LTS Rail Target
3.12 The following rail target has been developed:
By 2011, to have at least 6% of people working in Aberdeen travelling to work by rail (a trebling from 1991, when 2,620 Aberdeen workers arrived by train, about 2% of the workforce) [Aberdeen]
Tay Area
3.13 Table 14 presents targets for each of the planning objectives developed in Working Paper 3 for the Tay area. These targets take cognisance of the benchmarks discussed in Chapter 2.
Table 14 Tay Area STAG Planning Objective Aspirational Targets
LTS Rail Targets
3.14 The following rail targets have been developed:
Inter-Regional
3.15 Table 15 presents targets for each of the planning objectives developed in Working Paper 3 for the Inter-Regional area. These targets take cognisance of the benchmarks discussed in Chapter 2.
Table 15 Inter-Regional STAG Planning Objective Aspirational Targets
Note: 1 - The study will inform the achievability of the targets under different resource scenarios as well as the point in time that they can be achieved (see §3.3).
(*) - Broad pragmatic target (see §3.5).
LTS Rail Targets
3.16 The following rail targets have been developed:
By 2005 between Aberdeen and Inverness the journey time should be less than 2 hours and the service should be hourly (there are currently ten services per day taking 2.25 hours) [Aberdeen]
By 2011 to have at least six direct passenger rail services to London per day, with average journey times of less than six hours (there are currently four trains per day direct to London averaging more than seven hours, one of which is an overnight sleeper) [Aberdeen]
By 2010 increase the share of long distance rail trips (relative to car or plane) [Fife]
4. PROJECT REVIEW
Project Definitions
4.1 A definitive list of potential projects has been developed (Appendix A table A1). This list draws from:
The Interim Study (Central Belt)
Information provided by the Tay Area and NESTRANS authorities from preliminary meetings
Local Transport Strategies
The WS Atkins review for the Scottish Executive of ITF/PTF projects (summer 2001)
CSTCS recommendations
SRA/Railtrack IOS work and the Railtrack Capacity Review Study
4.2 Projects have been categorised. The purpose of the categorisation was to enable the identification of gaps in projects (by region and generic strategy) as well as to allow the development of packages of projects. Projects have been categorised as follows:
Major Significant projects that would facilitate other projects to be implemented (e.g. Waverley capacity enhancements)
Whole Projects that need to be completed in their entirety (e.g. Bathgate to Airdrie re-opening)
Group A group of small projects that all need to be undertaken to ensure that a single outcome can be achieved (e.g. platform lengthening)
Flexible Projects that can be implemented at varying levels of scale, geographic coverage, etc, (e.g. a customer information project)
4.3 Projects are also categorised by:
4.4 For each project the time lag before earliest implementation date is noted plus any linkages with other projects.
Project Interactions
4.5 While railways form a system that operates on a relatively high scale, investment projects to develop its facilities and services can be made at several different levels. Capital "major-projects" (e.g. rebuilding Waverley station) require major funds, produce a major impact and tend to form the focus of attention. they are almost always led by interests at national level (e.g. Scottish Executive, Railtrack), due to their scale, even though there may well be other stakeholders. In contrast, small capital projects on the railway itself (e.g. (re)opening a local station) are seen as having a primarily local impact and may be promoted and funded primarily by local interests, especially local councils (e.g. as an element in their LTS).
4.6 Investment may also take other forms. On the railway system this may include capital facilities to support services, e.g. traveller information; or staff development, in customer and technical skills. Other supportive investment includes such capital projects as construction of major interchange facilities at stations and development around them; these are usually significant only at local level and are quite likely to be promoted by the local authority or development companies.
4.7 There is a general impression that the latter kinds of project bring benefits but do not interfere with the line's operations, and thus they may proceed independently of any railway network considerations. Small station schemes are also brought forward on the basis that each one brings local benefits and can be promoted by local interests to the benefit of the railway providers without having any wider impact. For these reasons such schemes are sometimes seen as "quick wins", i.e. they can be implemented rapidly to provide a short term boost in rail use while time is allowed to evaluate the potential for major schemes. In turn, there is a tendency to see major schemes as providing comprehensive solutions on their own, albeit at the cost of considerable disruption to facilities and services during the period of their construction.
4.8 These impressions however ignore the extent to which the railway system forms one interrelated network. An example of the inter-relation is that problems in part of the network can affect other distant parts. Capital projects too must be kept in balance if their impact is to be optimised and maximum value for money be gained. This is particularly the case in Great Britain, where the structures introduced by the Railway Act 1993 and Transport Act 2000 have reinforced a long standing culture of making very high use of available capacity. This raises a number of issues concerning the interrelation between particular elements of railway development, which are briefly reviewed in the following paragraphs.
New and Re-Opened Stations
4.9 Single new (or reopened) stations provide access to an existing rail service, and thus in principle bring extra traffic and revenue to the railway and benefits to the community served. However, the scope for real net gains depends on the position of the rail service. Four main factors come into play:
The increase patronage on the train could make it less attractive to all users if it is already heavily occupied and overcrowding issues increase. Users from other stations will also experience slower journey times because of the additional stop.
An additional stop will broadly add 2 to 3 minutes per journey. This extra time for stopping trains may be acceptable operationally if it does not cause disruption to other services. However, on heavily used lines or sections the interval between trains could be only 2 to 3 minutes: by adding 2 to 3 minutes to the stopping train's overall time, it needs an extra "path". If the line is single track, in whole or in part, then the extra time in both directions could have a significant effect on the ability of trains to cross at passing places, making it far harder to accommodate the stop (without extra line investment, that is).
The extra time required on the return trip (4-6 minutes) may require a re-scheduling of the operation and perhaps even require an additional train to be used (with consequent increases in the operating cost of the service). Again, extra constraints would occur on single line sections.
Almost all trains work into one or more major rail centres. Given the pressure on capacity, through the approach junctions and at platforms, especially at Edinburgh and Glasgow, this might involve adjusting the timing of other trains serving other lines or requiring a quicker turn round. The quicker turn round may potentially reduce customer service flexibility (there may not enough time to clean the train) and could increase the chance of unreliability.
4.10 These points relate to the addition of just one stop on one service. If many new stations are introduced across the network, then the impacts will be cumulative. Capacity and hence reliability problems will be intensified, new trains will need to be bought and staffed, and there may be some overall fall in service quality and attractiveness (e.g. too many additional stations between, say, Glasgow and Aberdeen might make the overall journey time less attractive and competitive with other modes). These effects can be offset only by appropriate investment, which could in total amount to as much as a "major-project". Furthermore, unless this happens as part of a cohesive strategy, the piecemeal impact would lead to less than optimum use of resources, in both operating and marketing terms.
Other Local Projects
4.11 Some projects promote the upgrading of particular services. Here too the wider implications need to be taken into account. For example, if this focuses on longer trains to provide more accommodation per train, then this should
include all stations at which the relevant service might be expected to stop, including potential growth locations
ensure that sufficient trains, of the right type, will always be available
ensure that sufficient capacity exists at the termini for the service for longer trains.
4.12 The programme could also be tied in with commitments to promotion and interchange, to underpin the service enhancement, and with local land use planning policies that focus development at the stations concerned.
Major "Facilitating" Projects
4.13 In contrast, major projects are generally seen as having a comprehensive and facilitating impact on the network, especially in the region where they are built. They certainly have the potential to do this; but only if their potential is fully assessed and optimised. A number of aspects needs to be addressed:
Any new infrastructure created by such a project will convey trains from a large number of services, and will function without further investment for a long period. It therefore needs to have sufficient capacity for the whole of its life.
The impact will be over a wide area, leading to a potential full re-cast of all services that use the new infrastructure. To take full advantage of the opportunities facilitated by the project may require additional investment elsewhere in the system (e.g. increasing capacity at Edinburgh Waverley may also require investment at nearby capacity bottlenecks to ensure its full potential is utilised).
A major infrastructure project will raise the issue of how far the existing trains are suitable, in type and in number. For example, if maximum use of the new infrastructure is to be made, then all trains might need to conform to higher power standards, so that complete replacement of part of Scotland's fleet might be required.
Service quality needs to be maintained, or even improved, to ensure that a major project performs as expected. So programmes for e.g. information provision and staff training would form an important part.
Summary: Local and Major Projects
4.14 A programme for local projects can only succeed if there is sufficient capacity on the network to cater for extra services and demands in a reliable, efficient and attractive way. This is likely to require major line investment at some point in time, otherwise local projects cannot continue. Much of this might most effectively be achieved in terms of identified major facilitating projects, provided these are developed with a sound package of related measures. There is therefore a close relationship between major projects and local projects.