5.1.5 Capacity on the South West Main Line - surreycc.gov.uk · \\global.arup.com\london\ptg\icl-jobs\227000\227787 surrey rail strategy\227787-60 heathrow southern rail access\4

$Page 1: 5.1.5 Capacity on the South West Main Line - surreycc.gov.uk · \\global.arup.com\london\ptg\icl-jobs\227000\227787 surrey rail strategy\227787-60 heathrow southern rail access\4$
Surrey County Council Southern Rail Access to Heathrow Final Report

Weybridge to London Waterloo via Virginia Water services that have to be removed (also noting these services would have to be removed to support 4tph to London Waterloo).

The remainder of the infrastructure options look at resolving the level crossing

capacity issue and improving journey times, by providing alternative routeings

avoiding some or all of the level crossings. By removing the need for the

Heathrow services to be routed through the existing infrastructure and level

crossings this also gives the potential to allow for service levels to Heathrow

from Surrey to be enhanced.

Between Chertsey and Woking, the existing curve between Byfleet Junction and Addlestone Junction is currently used operationally as a holding point for freight

trains. The introduction of new services between Heathrow and Woking along this

section of track could necessitate providing a new facility to hold freight services such as an additional freight loop located between Virginia Water and Byfleet.

5.1.5 Capacity on the South West Main Line

The Network Rail Study has assumed capacity enhancements on the South West

Main Line are delivered as a requirement to increase capacity to London Waterloo from Surrey and Hampshire. The following infrastructure schemes would be

required to provide capacity for SRAtH on the South West Main Line (SWML) Slow Lines between Byfleet Junction and Woking:

For all options (to the south):

Grade separation of Woking Junction;

Additional platform at Woking Station; and

Provision of a new freight regulation point, for example between Virginia Water Addlestone Jn.

For options with services to Guildford:

Track alterations at Guildford; and

Additional platform (s) at Guildford.For options with services to Basingstoke:

Grade separation of the Basingstoke Great Western Junction.

What is not made clear is the extent to which the capacity available will be

prioritised for trains to Heathrow. Whilst the Network Rail analysis identifies that the largest potential demand for services to Heathrow from Surrey is from

catchments such as Woking, Guildford and Weybridge it is important to remember that significantly higher levels of passenger demand remain for services

into London via Waterloo (see Demand Assessment section).

The Wessex Route Study identifies that capacity through Woking station (if Woking Junction was improved) would reach 32tph but there may need to be trade-offs between serving London Waterloo and serving Heathrow.

| Final | 21 December 2016

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-

05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX

Page 39


5.2 SRAtH Train Service Options

The Network Rail report outlines several possible train service options dependent

on which infrastructure option is chosen. In general, all options seek to

accommodate up to 4tph between Heathrow and London Waterloo with various

journey time opportunities. Provision of services to Surrey and Hampshire vary

between infrastructure options as outlined in Table 7, but generally where

provision is possible these services can operate in any combination to

Weybridge, Basingstoke or Guildford.

The current journey times for services between Woking and Staines have been

provided for comparison, the journey time is based on the minimum journey times for non-stopping services and an all-stops service. All other timings included have

been taken from the Network Rail study.

Table 7: Infrastructure and Train Service Combinations

Infrastructure

Trains per

Trains per

Woking to

Comments

Option hour to hour to Heathrow

London

Surrey/

journey

Waterloo Hampshire times

Current - - 18-286

minutes

(Woking to

Staines)

Option 1a 4tph all day None - Minimum infrastructure – Western London link

Alignment

Option 1b 4tph all day 2tph peak 32-37 Minimum infrastructure Staines Chord hours minutes London &

4 trains per

Surrey/Hampshire link

hour off- Does not avoid level

peak crossings in the Egham area

Option 2 4tph all day 4tph all day 28-33 Additional services to Egham Tunnel minutes Surrey/Hampshire

Tunnel bypasses level

crossings in the Egham area

Option 3 4tph all day 4tph all day 23-28 Journey time improvements

Chertsey Link

minutes

to Surrey/Hampshire

Surface level alignment

bypasses level crossings in

the Egham area

Option 4 4tph all day None 4-5 minutes Journey time improvements Eastern (Heathrow to London via an eastern

Alignment to Feltham) alignment towards Feltham

6 Journey time is based on the minimum possible timings for a Class 450 timing load between

Woking and Staines non-stopping and stopping all stations. Timings have been sourced from the Timetable Planning Rules (TPR) and B-Plan database Sectional Running Times (SRT). The journey time does not account of any timetabling constraints which may increase this time above the minimum possible, however this is likely the same for each journey time reported in the Network Rail study.

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page 40 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-



The main impact on existing train services in Surrey is that in all options the

existing 2tph Weybridge to London Waterloo stopping service via the Windsor

Lines (Hounslow loop) is removed to enable services to be operated between

Heathrow and London Waterloo. Network Rail suggests that this is replaced by a

Weybridge-Virginia Water shuttle service to replace some of the lost

connectivity, as well as additional Surrey-Heathrow services.

The study also considers the potential to link SRAtH services to trains serving Heathrow from the Great Western Main Line.

Network Rail’s report presents three service options with regard to SRAtH to Surrey and the south. The service options offer services to any pair of three

destinations: Guildford, Basingstoke or Weybridge. The following diagrams

outline the three service options presented in the Network Rail report.

5.2.1 Train Service Option A (Guildford & Basingstoke)




Page 41


5.2.2 Train Service Option B (Guildford & Weybridge)




Page 42


5.2.3 Train Service Option C (Basingstoke & Weybridge)




Page 43


The infrastructure option selected impacts on the intermediate calling patterns

of the train services proposed in the Network Rail Report. Table 8 outlines per infrastructure option which intermediate stations between Byfleet and New Haw

and Heathrow could be served by SRAtH services.

Table 8: Intermediate Station Stopping Pattern by Option

Option 1a Option 1b Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Addlestone Not served 2tph peak 4tph all- 4tph all- Not served

4tph off- day day

peak

Chertsey Not served 2tph peak 4tph all- 4tph all- Not served

4tph off- day day

peak

Virginia Not served 2tph peak 4tph all- Not served Not served Water

4tph off- day

peak

Egham Not served 2tph peak Not served Not served Not served

4tph off-

peak

Staines 4tph all- 4tph all 4tph all 2tph all Not served day day day day

5.3 Alternative Service Options

Arup has developed alternative service options to improve Surrey service connectivity with SRAtH from that proposed in the Network Rail report. The

Arup options involve improving connectivity to Weybridge making use of the proposed Weybridge Chord.

5.3.1 Enhanced Connectivity

The Network Rail options provide capacity for up to 4tph between Heathrow and

either pairings of the following destinations: Basingstoke, Guildford and

Weybridge. The Weybridge chord option potentially provides half hourly (2tph)

connectivity to all three destinations, by making use of the existing Weybridge

Bay Platform 1, and providing an additional infrastructure alignment to connect

the Bay Platform to the SWML Slow Lines via the grade separated Byfleet Jn.

The infrastructure alignment allows trains from the Bay Platform to access the

Down Slow Line without conflicting with services on the other SWML lines.




It is proposed that 1-2tph from Heathrow to Surrey/Hampshire could be routed via

a reversing move to serve Weybridge station. Figure 19 provides a schematic train

service map, with the option of reversing 2tph Basingstoke – Heathrow services at

Weybridge. Stopping airport services at Weybridge provides additional

connectivity options, and could off-set some loss in connectivity on the Chertsey

Line by proving a station interchange at Weybridge. The reversal of services in

the Bay Platform could however increase journey times by approximately 10

minutes.

This option could be developed alongside Option 1b, 2 or 3 in the Network Rail study, however with Option 3 it could result in the loss of connectivity between Virginia Water and Weybridge.

Figure 19: Weybridge Chord option indicative schematic train service map.

5.3.2 Surrey Service Enhancement (with Option 3)

Should the Network Rail Option 3 infrastructure be taken forward, further train

service options could be developed beyond that outlined in the Network Rail

study. These service options would the designed with the objective of improving

rail access from Surrey/Hampshire to Heathrow as a higher priority than services

between Heathrow and London Waterloo. Assuming existing services from the

GWML to Heathrow T5 remain, the maximum capacity available for SRAtH

services is 8tph. 6tph of the 8tph could be routed towards Surrey/Hampshire and

2tph between Heathrow and London Waterloo. Capacity is provided for the 6tph




towards Surrey/Hampshire by making use of the Option 3 alignment joining the

existing rail network at the Chertsey line. The 6tph to Surrey/Hampshire option provides 2tph to each destination: Weybridge, Basingstoke and Guildford. Figure

20 outlines a train service map of this option.

Figure 20: Surrey Service Enhancement (with Option 3) indicative schematic train service map.

Inclusion of the Staines chord (Option 1b) could further enhance this option allowing for 2tph (of the 6tph) to serve Virginia Water and Egham as stopping

services whilst the remaining 4tph operate as fast limited stop services from Woking. Capacity for freight services also would need further consideration with

this option due to the increased utilisation of the Chertsey Line.

Although this option reduces the number of trains between Heathrow and London

Waterloo, reducing direct connectivity from stations such as Twickenham and

Richmond, it could also present less of a performance risk to the Windsor Line

services between Staines and Feltham. This option does however, also require the

most expensive infrastructure option presented and could increase both

operational and capital costs impacting on the overall business case, however it

represents the highest level of service connectivity to Surrey.

| Final | 21 December 2016 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-


Page 46


5.3.3 Airtrack and Airtrack-Lite

Airtrack

Previous proposals to link the Wessex rail network to Heathrow Airport include

Airtrack and Airtrack-Lite. Both schemes presented infrastructure options similar to Options 1a and 1b presented in the Network Rail study. The Airtrack scheme

was suspended in 2011.

The proposed service specification for Airtrack is summarised below:

2tph between Heathrow T5 and London Waterloo (semi-fast);

2tph between Heathrow T5 and Guildford (1tph at peak times) semi-fast;

2tph between Heathrow T5 and Reading semi-fast; and

Extension of the current Heathrow Express services to Staines (from T5).

The scheme differs to the proposed service options in the Network Rail report by

providing services between Reading and Heathrow T5 (via Bracknell), and

fewer services towards Woking and London Waterloo whilst maintaining

existing services. The majority of the airport services were proposed as semi-fast

limited stop services, presenting potential issues regarding the capability of the

infrastructure to support this alongside the current service levels. The proposal to

link Reading to Heathrow via Bracknell is potentially no longer required should

the development of the Western Rail Link to Heathrow proceed, which provides

an alternative link to Reading via the Great Western Main Line.

As noted previously, a significant issue raised against the Airtrack scheme was

the impact of additional services on level crossing barrier down times, particularly between Staines and Virginia Water where an additional 4tph were proposed in

each direction.

Airtrack-Lite

Airtrack-Lite is a subsequent proposal put forward by Wandsworth Council that

looked to resolve some impacts of the increased barrier down time as a result of

additional services on the Waterloo to Reading Line. Airtrack-Lite proposed

utilising existing services instead of additional services by splitting services from

London Waterloo with one portion of the train heading to its original destination and

the remainder to Heathrow. It also removed the Airtrack proposed services linking

Reading and Guildford to Heathrow, leaving links to London Waterloo and

Weybridge only. The Weybridge – Heathrow services proposed in Airtrack-Lite

would be rerouted to Heathrow rather than serving London Waterloo, reducing

connectivity and service provision between Staines and London Waterloo. The

Airtrack-Lite scheme is no longer being actively developed.




Page 47


5.3.4 Heathrow Southern Rail

Heathrow Hub Ltd has proposed a scheme called Heathrow Southern Rail (HSR) for providing rail access to Heathrow from the south. The infrastructure proposals developed for this scheme are very similar to Network Rail Option 3.

The proposed train service is also similar to that in the Network Rail study

providing 4tph between Heathrow and London Waterloo, 2tph between

Heathrow and Basingstoke, and 2tph between Heathrow and Guildford. The

proposals also recommend continuing the 4tph from Basingstoke and Guildford

through the airport to London Paddington in replacement of the current Heathrow

Express services as well as potential extensions to the south coast such as

Portsmouth and Southampton. The extension through Paddington offers the

potential benefit of providing interchange with Crossrail services with High

Speed 2 services at Old Oak Common.

One of the main differences between the Heathrow Hub HSR proposal and that set

out in the Network Rail study are the journey times to the airport. The Heathrow

Hub HSR proposal recommends non-stopping services between Basingstoke and

Guildford to Heathrow, with the exception of stopping at Woking, to reduce the

journey times as much as possible. The Heathrow Hub HSR proposal states a

potential journey time from Woking to Heathrow T5 station of 16 minutes,

compared to the Network Rail study time for Option 3 of 23-28 minutes, which is

a considerable journey time saving. It is understood the main difference between

the two is that the Network Rail study assumed services would stop at all

intermediate stations between Woking and Heathrow.

Achieving fast paths between Guildford/Basingstoke and Heathrow may be

limited on the SWML due to timetabling constraints. Detailed timetable analysis

including future assumptions regarding Crossrail 2 and other capacity

improvements on the SWML would be required to confirm the potential journey

time savings possible with limited stop services. A reduction of intermediate stops

may reduce attractiveness to local users where a change of trains at Woking would

be required.

5.3.5 London Borough of Hounslow Proposal

LB Hounslow submitted a pre-feasibility report for southern rail access to

Heathrow T5 in August 2015. Their work also included a feasibility study for a

new station in the Bedfont area. The train service proposals for services between

London Waterloo and Heathrow are similar to that in the Network Rail report

providing a 4tph service, however with the additional of all services calling at the

proposed Bedfont station. In regards to the proposals for services towards Surrey,

there are no specific recommendations however given the infrastructure option

does not avoid the level crossing in the Egham area the service level would be

limited to 2tph in the peak hours with up to 4tph in the off-peak hours (impacting

off-peak level barrier down time). With the proposed alignment this option would

present the slowest journey times from Surrey and the south to the airport,

requiring an additional stop at Staines, potentially Ashford and the proposed

Bedfont station as well as travelling further to Heathrow T5 compared to the other

options considered.

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page 48 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX


5.4 Cross Heathrow Connections

The Network Rail study briefly outlines opportunities to provide cross-airport

connections to the Great Western Main Line (GWML) utilising the current Heathrow Express trains paths. The Network Rail study indicates that running

Surrey/Hampshire services through Heathrow T5 to London Paddington generates increased benefits.

Through services are also proposed as part of the Heathrow Hub HSR scheme as

an alternative route to London and Old Oak Common (for HS2). Without

operating SRAtH services through the airport towards the GWML, it would not be

possible for SRAtH services to serve Heathrow Central (T1,2,3) due to capacity

constraints with Crossrail services to T4, assuming a ~15 minute service

frequency remains for both Crossrail and Heathrow Express paths.

A brief review of Network Rail’s Western Route Study also outlines several

scenarios which could affect cross-airport connectivity including the proposed

CP6 Western Rail Link to Heathrow (WRLtH). WRLtH is a proposed scheme for

CP6 currently under development, which proposes the provision of a new rail

link between the Heathrow T5 station and the GWML between Iver and Langley.

The WRLtH includes up to 4tph between Heathrow T5 and the GWML towards

Reading and potentially to destinations such as Oxford, Swindon and Newbury.

The Western Route Study outlines several choices for funders regarding making best use of the capacity between London Paddington and Reading, some of which

affects how Heathrow Airport is served and subsequently could affect the choices available for linking services at the airport. For example choice A1b in the

Western Route study, suggests;

“Optimising Main Line passenger capacity could be achieved through the

utilisation of paths [on the Main Lines] for long distance services rather than

dedicated airport services. This supports the principle of harmonising rolling

stock types and maximising the passenger capacity of the Main Lines by

allowing longer trains to run that carry more passengers, particularly in the

peak periods.”(Network Rail, Western Route Study, Final, 2015)

This choice suggests that the current Heathrow Express paths could be operated

on the Relief Lines between London Paddington and Heathrow, to provide

additional capacity for services beyond Reading on the Main Lines. It is

feasible that operating the Heathrow Express services on the Relief Lines could

mean these services run as Crossrail services beyond London Paddington from

central London providing 8tph.

Linking services from SRAtH to Crossrail services at Heathrow Airport will likely result in significant risk to performance of these services, especially with


\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX

Page 49


Crossrail operating up to 24tph in the central core section7. In the scenario

(A1b) outlined above with potentially 8tph between Crossrail and Heathrow it is likely that cross Heathrow connections would not be possible based on the potential impact to performance.

The remaining choices for linking services therefore remains with the existing

service scenario of 4tph between London Paddington and Heathrow T5 operating

on the GWML Main Lines, in between Long Distance High Speed (LDHS)

services from the west. Potentially cross airport links to the WRLtH and SRaTH

are possible in any combination, however linkages of these services with SRAtH

will introduce additional cross route performance risks which will need further

detailed consideration should this be taken forward particularly given both routes

will operate at or near capacity in the peaks. Opportunities may exist to mitigate

risks such as turnback facilities in the vicinity of the airport or possibly at Staines.

Further consideration as to the attractiveness of linking services between SRAtH

and the GWML to London Paddington would be required given the Airport

services have a different passenger demand profile to that of commuters for

example. Airport services will tend to require extended dwell times due to

passengers with flight baggage, and potentially the train layouts would not be

based on a commuter profile (e.g. high-density)8.

7 The central operating core of Crossrail between London Paddington and London Liverpool Street is

planned to operate up to 24tph, with various service grouping between destinations. Punctuality of the

Crossrail services at key locations is critical to ensure the correct ordering of services to ensure the level

of service is sustainable and that all destinations are served. A delay event at Woking for example could

result in a Crossrail service arriving into the central operating core late a subsequently missing its slot in

the timetable, reducing service frequency though central London and potentially not reaching its

destination (due to constraints on the East Anglia Lines).

8 Crossrail services although serving the airport are likely to have an interior layout designed for high-density in-train capacity.




6 Demand Assessment

6.1 Network Rail Demand Forecasts

Network Rail presents demand forecasts in its Feasibility Report. It provides the following information:

A southern rail access link to Heathrow generated significant demand and revenue under even the most conservative Heathrow two-runway capacity scenario. Delivery of the Conditional Outputs could facilitate an additional 8.9m annual rail trips in 2033/4, of which 4.8m were airport journeys, growing the expected number of Heathrow airport journeys by rail from approximately 17m to 22m by 2033/34 of a total 56m passengers per annum.

The most valuable Conditional Outputs were Waterloo-Heathrow services,

the next most valuable Conditional Outputs were for services via Woking to Guildford and Basingstoke. Serving Basingstoke via SRAtH would only be beneficial if the service provides a significantly better service than a service via a Western Rail Access to Heathrow link. All other Conditional Outputs were forecast to deliver significantly lower benefits.

Serving the Guildford and Basingstoke markets brings higher user benefits

for both Heathrow and non-Heathrow journeys than serving the Guildford and Weybridge markets.

When a direct Terminals 2 and 3 call was added to the Surrey/Hampshire

services, the user and non-user benefits for Heathrow journeys were much higher.

When Surrey services are extended through Heathrow to London

Paddington, there is an increase in both benefits and revenue for Heathrow and non-Heathrow journeys.

It is not the final destinations of Waterloo, Guildford and Basingstoke that

provide the majority of the economic benefits in the Market Study findings but instead it is intermediate stations (such as Richmond, Twickenham and Farnborough Main) and the interchange opportunities at Clapham Junction and Woking.

To validate the demand assessment findings from the feasibility study, we provide below information about travel demand to Heathrow from Surrey.

6.2 Demand from Surrey

6.2.1 Passenger Demand

Heathrow Airport had 75m passengers in 2015; of which 51m (68%) were terminating passengers and the rest transited to other flights.




Of the 51m annual trips to the airport, it is estimated that 2.0m (4%) passengers were from Surrey.

Leisure traffic represents the majority of Heathrow demand, with about two thirds (64%) of passengers travelling for leisure. 93% of flights at Heathrow are international, with just 7% domestic.

Surrey residents make on average about 3.5 air passenger trips per year, with 1.65 trips per year to Heathrow Airport. The higher trip rates tend to be nearer to the

airport from Elmbridge, Guildford and Runnymede districts. 44% of the Heathrow

passengers travelling from Surrey are residents of these three districts. The total passengers per year from Surrey districts to Heathrow is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Total Passengers per year from Surrey districts using Heathrow Airport. Source: CAA Survey Data, 2012

6.2.2 Airport Employee Demand

Over 70,000 people work at Heathrow Airport, of whom 10,380 (14%) live in Surrey. The majority of them are from Spelthorne (38%), Runnymede (17%) and Surrey Heath (13%).

About 80% of the airport employees who live in Surrey live within 20km of the

airport. More than half (55%) of the Heathrow employees who live in Surrey are

air cabin crew, maintenance tradesmen and other skilled workers (apron, ramp, cargo, drivers, and baggage staff), 19% are passenger services, sales and clerical

staff, and 6% are management professionals.

82% of the Heathrow employees who live in Surrey drive to work at the airport and most travel without passengers. 6% travel by bus whilst the proportion




commuting by rail is 1%. The Heathrow Airport employee mode share is presented in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Heathrow Airport Employee Mode Share. Source: Heathrow Airport Employee Survey Data, 2011

Public Bus, 6%

Other, Rail, 1% 6%

Car Passenger, 5%

Car Driver, 82%

6.3 Future Growth

6.3.1 Surrey

Surrey has a resident population of 1.14 million people. The main towns in Surrey

are Guildford (73,779 population) and Woking (69,079). Other main population centres include Ewell (42,791), Camberley (33,571), Farnham (39,488) and

Redhill (30,289).

Surrey’s population is forecast to grow by 9% to 2031 (equating to an average

annual population growth rate of 0.45%). At a Borough level, the most growth is

expected in Runnymede (14%), Elmbridge (13%), Reigate & Banstead (13%),

and Epsom & Ewell (11%). The main centres of Woking and Guildford are both

expected to grow by +10%. Surrey’s forecast population change to 2031 is shown

in Table 9




Page 53


Table 9: Population Growth in Surrey. Source: TEMPRO data based on ONS 2008-based population projections

Population Change

2012-2031

Elmbridge 13%

Epsom and Ewell 11%

Guildford 10%

Mole Valley 6%

Reigate and Banstead 13%

Runnymede 14%

Spelthorne 4%

Surrey Heath 8%

Tandridge 6%

Waverley 6%

Woking 10%

Total (Surrey) 9%

6.3.2 Heathrow

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) data indicates that the number of passengers

at Heathrow Airport has increased by 6.3m (9%) from 67.1m in 2004 to 73.4 in 2014. Heathrow is already operating at over 98% of its 480,000 annual Air

Transport Movements (ATM) capacity. The growth is driven by incremental

increases in the average aircraft size operating at Heathrow.

Without the third runway, the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow is forecast at 11% to 82 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2030 and at

16% to 87mppa by 2040. Heathrow’s passenger forecast without the third runway is shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Heathrow Passenger Forecasts (mppa) – 2014-2050

2014 2020 2030 2040 2050

Do 73.2mppa 75mppa 82mppa 87mppa 93mppa

Minimum (+3%) (+12%) (+19%) (+27%)

In July 2015 the Airports Commission recommended that the proposal for a new

northwest runway at Heathrow Airport presents the strongest case and offers the greatest strategic and economic benefits. Figure 23 on the following page shows

the location of the proposed northwest runway.




Page 54


Figure 23: Heathrow Northwest Runway Proposal. Source: Taking Britain Further – Summary, May 2014

The predicted number of passengers and employees for the northwest runway are shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Passenger and Employee Forecasts for Heathrow Northwest Runway

2014

2030

2040

Annual Passengers 73.2m 104m 130m

Change from 2014

-

+30.8m

+56.8m (+42%) (+78%)

Employees 73,436 90,000 110,000

Change from 2014

-

+16,564

+36,564

(+23%) (+50%)

6.3.3 Future Demand to Heathrow from Surrey

Of Heathrow Airport’s 51m terminating passengers, about 2m are travelling from Surrey which is estimated to grow at 9% to 2.2mppa by 2030 and at 16% to 2.3mppa by 2040 without the third runway. With the third runway, the growth in

passenger numbers at Heathrow is forecast at 39% to 2.8mppa by 2030 and at 73% to 3.5mppa by 2040.

Over 70,000 people work at Heathrow Airport, of which 10,380 (14%) live in Surrey. The number of employees from Surrey is not expected to grow without

the third runway, however it is predicted that the employee numbers will increase to 12.6k (+23%) by 2030 and to 15.4k (+50%) by 2040 with the third runway.




With the current passenger rail mode share (4%), the number of Heathrow rail

passengers from Surrey could therefore increase by approximately 7.5k to 87k in 2030 and by approximately 13k to 92.8k in 2040 without the third runway. If it is

assumed that the passenger rail mode share from Surrey will increase to 10%, the number of passengers could increase to 219k and 232k per annum.

With the third runway, the rail passengers are expected to grow by 31k in 2030 and 59k in 2040 with the current rail mode share and to grow by 77k and 147k with higher rail mode share.

The predicted number of passengers and employees with and without the third runway are shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Annual Passenger and Employee Forecasts from Surrey

2015 2030 2040

Without Third Runway

Annual Passengers (mppa) 2,000,000 2,186,667 2,320,000

Annual Employees 10,380 9,935 10,306

Current Passenger Rail Mode Share (4%) 80,000 87,467 92,800

Assumed Passenger Future Rail Mode Share (10%) 200,000 218,667 232,000

Current Employee Rail Mode Share (1%) 103 99 103

Assumed Employee Future Rail Mode Share (5%) 514 497 515

With Third Runway

Annual Passengers (mppa) - 2,773,333 3,466,667

Annual Employees - 12,600 15,400

Current Passenger Rail Mode Share (4%) - 110,933 138,667

Assumed Passenger Future Rail Mode Share (10%) - 277,333 346,667

Current Employee Rail Mode Share (1%) - 126 154

Assumed Employee Future Rail Mode Share (5%) - 630 770

6.4 Demand beyond Heathrow from Surrey

Surrey provides about 3% of Greater London’s workforce. According to the Surrey Local Economic Assessment, around 64% of Surrey residents work within the County. For those that commute out of the county, London is the most

common destination (with 134,200 people or 12% of the Surrey population commuting to the capital).

7% of Surrey workers commute to Outer London boroughs – Hillingdon,

Hounslow and Kingston upon Thames being the most common. A further 5%

commute to Inner London boroughs – principally Westminster and the City of

London. For commuting to central London the most significant flows include the

City of London and Westminster from Tandridge & Woking, and to Westminster

from Tandridge, Woking, and Reigate and Banstead.




Table 13 illustrates the number of Surrey residents commuting to London based on the 2011 Census data.

Table 13: Surrey Residents Commuting to London. Source: 2011 Census Data

Proportion of Surrey No. of Surrey Residents Residents Commuting to

London

19719

14.70% Westminster

13703

10.20% City of London

12324

9.20% Kingston upon Thames

11846

8.80% Hounslow

10727

8.00% Hillingdon

Sutton 7605 5.70%

7075

5.30% Richmond upon Thames

6896

5.10% Croydon

5551

4.10% Camden

5496

4.10% Tower Hamlets

5060

3.80% Merton

4784

3.60% Southwark

4281

3.20% Wandsworth

3566

2.70% Lambeth

3251

2.40% Hammersmith and Fulham

2816

2.10% Islington

4160

3.00% Other (below 1%)

Figure 24 shows the destinations of commuters from Surrey to London boroughs based on the 2011 Census data.



Page 57


Figure 24: Commuter Destinations from Surrey to London Boroughs. Source: 2011 Census Data

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page 58 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX


6.4.1 Cross Heathrow Journey Times

The potential benefit of running trains beyond Heathrow to London Paddington

(either directly or via interchange) are to provide direct access from Surrey into

London, as an alternative to London Waterloo. The additional connectivity and

resilience in the event of disruption to Waterloo is a clear benefit for Surrey, and

modelling by Heathrow Southern Rail indicates that the majority of passengers

on its services (~90%) are accessing destinations beyond Heathrow (i.e.

interchanging at London Paddington or Old Oak Common for underground or

Crossrail services to central London.

Analysis above shows that the key destinations in central London for Surrey

commuters are Westminster, the City, Camden (West End) and Tower Hamlets

(Canary Wharf). These locations are more accessible from London Waterloo than

they are from London Paddington, as shown in Table 14. The analysis considers

journeys from Woking and Virginia Water to central London destinations via

London Waterloo or via Heathrow assuming either Network Rail proposed

services (i.e. stopping services) or Heathrow Southern Rail proposed services

(non-stop from Woking to Heathrow). It indicates that it will be significantly

quicker to travel via London Waterloo than via Heathrow for all journeys from

Woking (i.e. via the SWML). From Virginia Water it is quicker to travel via

London Paddington for all destinations (except Bank) due to connections to

Crossrail. The Heathrow Southern Rail option does not propose stopping at

Virginia Water.

Table 14: Journey Time Comparison to Central London via London Waterloo vs

via London Paddington (Morning Peak Hour)

Origin

Destination

via Waterloo

via SRA/Paddington

Network Rail Heathrow Hub Services Services

Woking Oxford Circus 40 59 50

Bank 37 71 62

Tottenham 39 55 46 Court Road

Canary Wharf 44 68 59

Virginia Oxford Circus 59 49 -

Water

Bank

56

61

-

Tottenham 58 45 - Court Road

Canary Wharf 63 58 - Notes: All journeys via London Waterloo assume current National Rail and Tube times. Network Rail

proposed services assume stopping service to Heathrow. Heathrow Southern Rail proposed services assume

non-stop Woking-Heathrow. Both scenarios via London Paddington assume Crossrail in operation.

The analysis indicates that there is no major journey time saving from the South

West Main Line stations in Surrey to central London via Heathrow. However

crowding levels into London Waterloo, new developments in Paddington and




around Crossrail stations and access to HS2 may make this route more attractive

in future. Although this could be offset by the inconvenience of sharing commuter trains with air passengers and potentially long dwell times at Heathrow

to enable passengers to disembark and embark the trains.

6.5 Validation of Network Rail Forecasts

The following table provides a commentary on the Network Rail Forecasts.

Table 15: Commentary on Network Rail forecasts

Network Rail Forecasts Commentary based on Analysis of Demand

Data

A southern rail access link to Heathrow Under the higher rail mode share (10%) two- generated significant demand and revenue runway scenario in our analysis, rail demand under even the most conservative Heathrow to Heathrow from Surrey is 0.22m for 2030. two-runway capacity scenario. Delivery of the This indicates that the majority of airport trips

Conditional Outputs could facilitate an (4.8m – 0.22m = 4.58m) are not from Surrey

additional 8.9m annual rail trips in 2033/4, of (probably London). This does not change

which 4.8m were airport journeys, growing significantly even by 2040.

the expected number of Heathrow airport

journeys by rail from approximately 17m to

22m by 2033/34 of a total 56m passengers per

annum.

The most valuable Conditional Outputs were Confirmed by data above Waterloo-Heathrow services…

The next most valuable Conditional Outputs Elmbridge, Guildford, Runnymede and

were for services via Woking to Guildford and

Woking have the highest levels of passenger

Basingstoke… serving Basingstoke via SATH

demand from Surrey to Heathrow – this

would only be beneficial if the service

generally supports the NR findings. We have

provides a significantly better service than a

not looked at demand from Basingstoke as it

service via a Western Access to Heathrow

is outside Surrey, but it’s quite feasible that

link.

this would be a major generator of trips given

the size of the town and recent growth.

All other Conditional Outputs were forecast to Our data does not indicate any other areas of

deliver significantly lower benefits. major demand to Heathrow from Surrey so

this seems sensible.

Serving the Guildford and Basingstoke This does not align with our data, as we have

markets brings higher user benefits for both high levels of demand to Heathrow from the Heathrow and non-Heathrow journeys than Weybridge area. This may be due to more

serving the Guildford and Weybridge markets. significant time savings to Heathrow using

SRAtH from Basingstoke.

When a direct Terminals 2 and 3 call was Our data is not disaggregated to terminals at

added to the Surrey/Hampshire services, the Heathrow so we cannot validate this, but it is

user and non-user benefits for Heathrow logical that additional calls at Heathrow journeys much higher. terminals would generate more demand.

When Surrey services are extended through This is logical as serving additional locations

Heathrow to London Paddington, there is an in London is likely to generate additional




Network Rail Forecasts Commentary based on Analysis of Demand

Data

increase in both benefits and revenue for demand from Surrey. However, Paddington is

Heathrow and non-Heathrow journeys. not a major destination from Surrey so this demand is likely to be limited.

It is not the final destinations of Waterloo, Our analysis generally supports this finding,

Guildford and Basingstoke that provide the for example as Elmbridge (Weybridge and

majority of the economic benefits in the Walton on Thames) and Runnymede (Egham

Market Study findings but instead it is and Virginia Water) have high demand that

intermediate stations (such as Richmond, would be served by Guildford/Woking to

Twickenham and Farnborough Main) and the Heathrow services.

interchange opportunities at Clapham Junction

and Woking.

The above assessment indicates that the Network Rail forecasts look generally

sensible and there are no major issues. The only necessary clarification is why serving the Guildford and Basingstoke markets brings higher user benefits than

serving the Guildford and Weybridge markets, which needs discussion with Network Rail.

Given the higher levels of demand to Heathrow from Elmbridge, Guildford,

Runnymede and Woking boroughs in Surrey, we should ensure that these areas are well served by the southern rail link and not excluded at the expense of longer

distance services.

It is also important to note that passenger demand for Heathrow Airport is

significantly lower than residents demand for commuting to London from

Surrey, as shown in Figure 25. We estimate that annual commuting demand to

London from Surrey is in the order of 33m trips per year, whereas total Heathrow

passenger demand is 2m, with rail significantly less (14m vs 0.08m). London

commuting demand is forecast to grow significantly whereas, without a third

runway, Heathrow demand is not expected to grow to the same extent. This is

important to note in considering priority for train paths for Heathrow vs SWML

services or Windsor Lines services to London Waterloo.

Figure 25: Annual Heathrow Demand vs London Commuting Demand from Surrey




Page 61


7 Option Assessment

The scope of this study is to use available data to robustly assess the SRAtH

options presented by Network Rail and comment on whether their key statements and claims are reasonable. The study also considers alternative options for

SRAtH from Surrey and provides a high level assessment of their feasibility.

The study was limited to information in the written report from Network Rail and

further details (e.g. cost assumptions) could not be provided on request, thus limiting the assessment. Therefore conclusions are based on the available

information and where there is uncertainty this is highlighted and further engagement or analysis recommended.

Table 16 summarises the options reviewed and the impacts on Surrey, both positive and negative.



Page 62


Table 16: Option Assessment Summary Table

Infrastructure Option Trains per hour to Trains per hour to

London Waterloo Surrey/Hampshire

Woking to Heathrow

Journey Times

Cost Estimates Benefit Cost

Ratio (BCR)

Option 1a – Western Alignment

4tph (all day)

None

Not applicable

£0.7bn - £0.9bn

16.4 (semi fast)

2.9 (stopping)

Option 1b – Staines Chord

4tph (all day)

2tph (peak)

32-37 minutes

£0.8bn -

0.9-1.0

4tph (off-peak)

£0.95bn

Option 1c – Staines Chord with LX

4tph (all day)

4tph (all day)

Not available

£0.85bn - £1bn

Not available

reduction

Option 2 – Egham Tunnel 4tph (all day) 4tph (all day) 28-33 minutes £1.4bn - £1.5bn 0.4-0.5

Option 3 – Chertsey Link 4tph (all day) 4tph (all day) 23-28 minutes £1.4bn - £1.8bn 0.3-0.5

Option 4 – Eastern Alignment

4tph

None

Not applicable

£1bn - £1.4bn 4.4 (semi fast)

1.8 (stopping)

Heathrow Southern Rail 4tph 4tph 16 minutes £1.1bn 6.2

Airtrack

2tph 4tph

25 minutes

£0.7bn

Not available

2tph (Staines)

Airtrack (Lite) 2tph 2tph Not available £350m Not available

SRA Hounslow

4tph

2tph (peak)

Not available

£900m

4.4*

4tph (off-peak)

*Bedfont station option appraisal

| Final | 21 December 2016 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX

Page 63


Each of the infrastructure options were assessed based on their service

frequencies, journey times, infrastructure costs and value for money in order to produce a relative score against the alternative options. Table 17 shows the results

from this assessment.

Table 17: Option Scoring Summary Source: Arup analysis

Service Journey Infrastructure BCR*

Frequency Times Costs

(Surrey) (Woking- (excluding

Heathrow) risk)

Option 1a None N/A £0.7bn - 16.4 (semi- £0.9bn fast)

2.9 (stopping)

Option 1b

2tph (peak)

32-37 minutes

£0.8bn -

0.9 – 1.0

4tph (off-peak) £0.95bn

Option 1c 4tph (all day) 32-37 £0.85bn - £1bn 0.9 – 1.0+ *

minutes*

Option 2

4tph (all day)

28-43 minutes

£1.4bn -

0.4 – 0.5

£1.55bn

Option 3

4tph (all day)

23-28 minutes

£1.45bn -

0.3 – 0.5

£1.85bn

Option 4 None N/A £1bn - £1.4bn 4.4 (semi-fast)

1.8 (stopping)

Heathrow 4tph (all day) 16 minutes £1bn - £1.4bn 6.8

Southern

Rail (HSR)

*BCR estimated. Opportunities may exist to shorten journey times following removal of level crossings which would increase BCR further.

7.1 Value for Money

There is significant variability in the value for money between the assessed

schemes, reflected in the large range in benefit cost ratios. This variability is

primarily reflected through the benefits associated with the different service patterns that each option facilitates and the areas to which they provide

greater connectivity to Heathrow.

The benefit cost ratios are significantly higher for schemes where services to London are prioritised as this is where a higher proportion of Heathrow demand originates from. In addition, the infrastructure requirements to facilitate Heathrow – London services on the SWML are significantly lower than that required to

facilitate services between Surrey/Hampshire destinations. Options that facilitate

Surrey/Hampshire services will either require a greater length of tunnelling,

viaduct or additional chord infrastructure and will not be solely operating along

pre-existing rail alignments. Analysis indicates that the scale of demand from

London and benefits associated with operating faster, more frequent and more

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page 64 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT

DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX


direct services to London destinations, is able to comfortably offset the initial

infrastructure costs incurred. The analysis from Network Rail reveals that in

many cases, the intermediate stations served on the route into London (Richmond,

Twickenham) actually provide the majority of these benefits, so connecting these

areas is an economic priority. The operation of semi-fast stopping patterns to

London provide the greatest overall value for money by providing the greatest

time savings between Heathrow and London destinations.

In the case of Surrey/Hampshire destinations, the benefits of operating these

services are comparatively lower and are not sufficient to offset the additional infrastructure costs required to facilitate them. However,

establishing Surrey/Hampshire services better meets the strategic goals behind the SRAtH concept.

Table 18 summarises how the BCR values vary between the operation of London

only services and Surrey/Hampshire only services, despite using the same

infrastructure. It also shows how a combination of both services can still generate value for money, while also ensuring that greater connectivity to Heathrow is

established from both localities.

Table 18: London/Surrey Benefit Cost Ratio Comparison

London Service BCR Surrey/Hampshire BCR Combined

Service BCR

Option 1b Waterloo via 16.4 Guildford and 1.0 3.9

Richmond Basingstoke (semi-

(semi-fast) fast)

7.2 Summary of Options

The recommendations for each infrastructure option following the detailed

assessment undertaken as part of this study are included below. For each option

Network Rail Option 1a does not provide any rail service to Heathrow for Surrey but does impact on existing services, as the Weybridge to London via the Windsor Lines service is removed. Surrey (the County Council and its stakeholders) should therefore object to this option.

Network Rail Option 1b provides a reasonable service from Surrey to

Heathrow (2tph in the peaks and 4tph off peak), although a decision would

need to be made on how this splits between Guildford and Basingstoke in the peak (i.e. 1tph to both or 2tph to Guildford). This option has the longer

journey times, results in the loss of the Weybridge service, and has a level crossing impact in the off peak. It is the lower cost option and has the best

BCR of the Network Rail options. This is the best of the Network Rail options presented, but our view is that Option 1c could perform better, so

this option is not supported. Network Rail Option 1c provides a 4tph all day service with potentially

lower costs of Options 2 and 3 (£0.5bn difference between 1b and Option 2 & 3). This means it could produce a positive business case. This option could also be developed incrementally as a second stage delivery following Option 1b. The feasibility of level crossing replacement or closure needs further




assessment in order to understand the costs and impact on road traffic before

further development of this option takes place. This option should therefore be retained for further consideration.

Network Rail Option 2 provides a better service from Surrey to Heathrow

with 4tph at all times. It avoids level crossing impacts in the Egham area, although this is at the expense of serving Egham station. It is a very high cost option and has a lower BCR. It does result in the loss of the Weybridge service but this could be offset with the Arup proposal to serve Weybridge using the Bay platform, although at an additional cost. This option has benefits for Surrey, but the poor BCR and high cost indicate that it should not

be supported. Network Rail Option 3 is similar to Option 2 but provides a slightly faster

service at the expense of missing out Virginia Water. It also has a very high cost and poor BCR (with Network Rail stopping service pattern), and there is potentially and large cost risk from compensation from properties affected on the route. This option should therefore not be supported by Surrey.

Network Rail Option 4 does not provide any rail service to Heathrow for

Surrey but does impact on existing services, as the Weybridge to London via the Windsor Lines service is removed. Surrey should therefore object to this option.

Airtrack and Airtrack Lite require a similar infrastructure alignment to

Options 1a and Option b, however the Airtrack schemes proposed additional services over and above existing levels, impacting significantly on level

crossing barrier down times. The Airtrack-Lite scheme rather than increase services through the Egham area, proposed to split and join existing service

at Staines. This would result in negative impacts on journey times, and reduce on-train commuting capacity for locations to the west of Staines.

Neither of these options should be supported by Surrey. Heathrow Southern Rail presents an infrastructure alignment similar to

Network Rail Option 3 whereby the alignment bypasses Egham and Virginia

Water and joins the Chertsey Line (between Chertsey and Virginia Water).

The proposals include operating fast services from Guildford and Basingstoke,

stopping only at Woking. The proposals also include operating through

Heathrow Airport to London Paddington presenting a connectivity benefit to

Surrey passengers to central London and HS2. The resulting BCR is

reportedly very high (6.8). There are a couple of potential drawbacks for

Surrey from this scheme. Firstly it limits connectivity from other Surrey

stations such as Weybridge, requiring passengers to interchange at Woking.

Secondly, it introduces potential performance risk by joining two routes

operating at near maximum capacity during peak hours. However, despite

these potential drawbacks, this scheme performs better than the Network Rail

options and should therefore be retained for further consideration. London Borough of Hounslow proposals in terms of services towards Surrey

and the south presents the slowest journey times to the airport. The level of service is also limited as with Option 1b during the peak hours to 2tph due to the level crossings in the Egham area. With a cost estimate of £900m, this




option offers limited improvements to the options presented in the Network

Rail report for Surrey. This option however, could potentially be supported by the proposed development at Bedfont.

7.3 Scheme Funding

The final issue for consideration is funding. Network Rail states in its report that

the options are currently not funded and implies that third party funding is

required for the project to proceed. By contrast, the Heathrow Southern Rail

business case report suggests that if the project can be made large enough (i.e.

providing services beyond Heathrow to Paddington and Old Oak Common), then

it could be attractive for private sector funding. It states that the scheme would be

procured and financed privately, funded against a predictable long term revenue

stream (if the latter could be committed by the DfT and TfL to purchase a defined

quantum of train paths at a predetermined price).

This indicates that the Heathrow Southern Rail option would not require a

financial contribution from the public sector, although contributions may be

required for enabling infrastructure, such as Woking junction grade separation. If

the promoters can demonstrate that there would be no major impacts to Surrey rail

services and the concerns over connectivity can be addressed (e.g. potentially

introducing an additional stop between Woking and Heathrow) then this could be

more attractive than publicly funded options. This is consistent with recent announcements by Network Rail on private sector

financing of rail projects9, and establishing a private ownership agreement for

the infrastructure could help to transfer some of the cost risks away from the public sector and reduce overall contributions.

9 In its ‘Transformation Plan’ (Network Rail, July 2016) it states that ‘We are also looking at

how the private sector might help in the delivery, financing and operation of discrete elements of our network’ such as the construction of a new piece of railway.




8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Our conclusions and recommendations from the above analysis and assessment are presented below.

8.1 Conclusions

The Southern Rail Access scheme supports Surrey’s rail

development objectives

Overall, SRAtH supports Surrey’s rail development objectives by enabling:

A fast and direct rail link to the airport from Surrey that increases its attractiveness as a prime location for global and national businesses;

Connectivity between the county and the 70,000 jobs that exist in and around

the airport, helping to further drive economic growth; An alternative to road-based modes for travel to the airport, helping to

reduce the number of vehicles using the road network which would significantly improve localised air quality; and

An improved public transport linkage and increases in county rail capacity that

helps to accommodate sustainable population growth.

However in developing and supporting the SRAtH scheme, it is important to ensure that it can be demonstrated to provide good value for money, be affordable to public and private stakeholders, and have acceptable impacts in Surrey.

Specific outputs are required from the Southern Rail

Access scheme

Our review of previous studies indicates that the following outputs should be achieved in order to fully meet Surrey’s rail development objectives:

New rail infrastructure between the South Western rail network and Heathrow Airport that provides for, preferably, direct rail services between Surrey and Heathrow Airport;

Fast and frequent rail services between Surrey and Heathrow Airport, with fast

defined as reliable journey times between Woking and Heathrow of 30 minutes or less, and frequent defined as four trains per hour;

Potential to run directly beyond Heathrow to Old Oak Common (for

interchange to HS2 in future) and to London Paddington (for connectivity to central London); and

Sufficient stopping points in Surrey to provide convenient access for

travellers to Heathrow from all parts of the county.


\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT


Page 68


There are options that have the potential to deliver these outputs

for Surrey

Based on the available information from the different studies, there are infrastructure / service option combinations that appear to have the potential

achieve the outputs identified above.

The option that appears to have the best overall business case and benefits for Surrey is Option 1c Western Alignment plus Staines Chord with the Egham level crossings removed or replaced. This is because it has:

The lowest cost infrastructure solution; The potential to be delivered incrementally (i.e. the link to Heathrow and

Staines Chord can be delivered first, providing 2tph to Surrey in the peak period and 4tph off peak, and this can be increased to 4tph in the peak when the level crossings are removed or replaced;

The potential to operate a range of service options that best serve key areas

of Surrey/Hampshire and unlocking further potential for growth; A mix of fast and semi-fast services (exact stopping points to be determined);

and A potential new connection to London Paddington with competitive journey

times to existing London Waterloo services.

An alternative option is the Heathrow Southern Rail scheme which has a higher cost

but potential to also have a good business case and provide similar benefits to Surrey.

This option uses the same infrastructure as Network Rail option 3, but the service

pattern has faster services to Heathrow (non-stop from Woking) and runs beyond

Heathrow to Old Oak Common and London Paddington. This scheme:

Avoids level crossing issues completely; Provides fast service patterns to Heathrow and beyond; and Has higher costs due to the viaduct route, but could potentially offer good

value for money if journey time improvements are substantial over the long.

This option does have limited connectivity to stations within Surrey, due to the

reliance on the operation of limited-stop service patterns. This could can be

resolved by assessing the potential for additional station stops and to more

precisely ascertain what effect these would have on overall scheme value for

money and service journey times. A review should also be undertaken into

whether a viaduct or tunnel would be the best type of infrastructure for this option,

taking into account land impacts and mitigation costs.

There is a need for further testing of these options on a consistent

basis

One of the issues from our review is that the infrastructure options have been tested with different service pattern options. For example, Network Rail generally tested infrastructure options with stopping services to Heathrow whereas




Heathrow Southern Rail tested infrastructure options with fast services to

Heathrow and beyond. Both parties used different assessment tools and this is

reflected in the range of benefit cost ratios reported in the option assessment. The

infrastructure/service options identified above need to be tested on a consistent

basis so that infrastructure options can be consistently compared using similar

service patterns, and service patterns can be optimised using consistent

infrastructure options. This means using the same demand forecasting tool and

the same service patterns for different infrastructure options.

8.2 Recommendations

Given the above, our recommendations for Surrey County Council are as follows:

Engage with stakeholders to build support for the SRAtH scheme – this

includes Surrey County Council political leadership, Surrey boroughs and districts as well as neighbouring authorities (e.g. Hampshire) and relevant LEPs);

Promote supporting schemes needed to enable SRAtH – the schemes

identified in this report required to enable SRAtH, such as Woking flyover and station improvements, as these also have a benefit for main line services to Waterloo;

Engage with scheme promoters to undertake further development of

SRAtH options – this would include testing and assessment of the options

identified in our conclusions on a consistent basis to determine the optimum infrastructure and service combination for Surrey. This may require Surrey and its stakeholders commissioning this work themselves. The work should focus on including:

an assessment of infrastructure (Staines link vs longer viaduct/tunnel

link) and service options (fast vs semi-fast services and requirements for stops in Surrey) on a consistent basis. This needs to include a ‘with third runway’ scenario for Heathrow;

a detailed feasibility study of the potential to close/replace the Egham area

level crossings;

consideration of operational impacts on existing non-airport services (with current and future (new SW franchise) service patterns;

the potential service offer for Heathrow services, for example the fares

strategy and rolling stock configuration; and

impacts from and on other Heathrow schemes, for example Western Rail Access from Reading and Crossrail.

The SRAtH scheme should be supported by Surrey and its stakeholders, and with

engagement in further development of the scheme as outlined above, it has the

potential to provide significant and wide ranging economic benefits for the county in future.


\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT


Page 70

Appendix A

Arup Cost Estimates


A1 Cost Estimate Assumptions

The cost estimates developed by Arup are indicative and include a number of

assumptions and clarifications. The cost estimates do not consider the feasibility

of construction for each alignment and should be considered relative to each other to provide an indicative cost for each scheme. Details regarding each cost estimate

and the assumptions are outlined in section A2-A6.

Cost estimates based on Arup drawings

Estimates have been undertaken using the Railway Method of Measurement 1 (RMM1)

The estimate uses in-house historic cost data to calculate generic prices

built from basic principles;

Base date of estimate is 1Q 2015;

There are added items, as a percentage of the base construction cost, to arrive at a total construction cost that a Contractor's bid might include. These are:

o Preliminary items at 39%, which includes:

Preliminaries at 25%; assumes concurrent working allowed;

Assumes Overheads and Profit= at 8%;

Contractor's design of 6%;

o Enabling works 3%; traffic management, archaeological surveys, settlement monitoring, environmental mitigation. (Ancillary items);

o A further 2% for environmental mitigation is allowed for works outside the existing rail corridor;

o Site preparation 1%; ground investigations, site clearance. (Ancillary items);

o There is also an allowance for client and Network Rail costs of 12%; this is an accumulation of 8% management, 2% site

supervision, 1% possession management, 1% RIMINI10

. A

further 14% is allowed for TOC schedule 4 costs (compensation for the impact of planned service disruption), And 1% for rail access costs(Network Rail standard for cost estimates);

Primary power is located locally; no major allowances within this estimate;

10

RIMINI is Network Rail’s process for safe working and risk minimisation.

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page A1 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\REPORT\SURREY SRATH - FINAL REPORT - DEC 2016.DOCX


Power supply to traction is deemed to be sourced locally and thus excluded from this estimate. Only route length cabling allowed;

Power to be provided by 3rd and 4th rail;

Twin track assumed at all locations;

No existing track (incl. 3rd

& 4th

rail) to be replaced within the exception of 200m allowance at turnouts;

Tunnelling undertaken with TBM (Tunnel Boring Machines);

Replacement of 200m of existing track at connection into main line;

Risk allowance of 60%;

Excludes: VAT, utilities upgrades or diversions, inflation, advanced

material purchase procurement, operational costs, rolling stock, vertical alignment changes to the existing rail, works associated with existing mines, soft spots and so forth, flood mitigation measures, any modifications to stations, client design, T5 terminus, archaeological finds, surveys etc.



A2 Option 1a/1b Cost Estimate

The following table provides Arup’s cost estimate for Options 1a (Western Alignment) and 1b (Western Alignment with Staines Chord)

RMM1 - Cost Categories and Group Elements

Option 1a Option 1b

1 Direct Construction Works

1.01 Railway control system £3,240,000 £5,240,000

1.02 Train Power Systems £6,160,000 £8,610,000

1.03 Electric power and Plant £0 £0

1.04 Permanent Way £12,260,000 £17,960,000

1.05 Operational Telecommunication

£2,300,000 £3,720,000 Systems

1.06 Buildings & Property £0 £0

1.07 Civil Engineering £217,440,000 £221,920,000

1.08 Enabling Works £9,660,000 £10,720,000

Sub-Total £251,060,000 £268,170,000

2 Indirect Construction Costs

2.01 Preliminaries £94,140,000 £100,400,000

2.02 Overheads and profit included included

Sub-Total £345,200,000 £368,570,000

3 Project / Design Team Fees and Other Projects Costs

3.01 Design Teams Fees £14,480,000 £15,450,000

3.02 Projects Team Fees £65,180,000 £69,510,000

3.03 Other projects Costs £0 £0

Sub-Total (before Risk) £424,860,000 £453,530,000

4 Risk

4.01 Total Risk Allowance £255,000,000 £272,000,000

Sub-Total (before Inflation) £679,860,000 £725,530,000

5 Inflation

5.01 Inflation Excluded Excluded

Sub-Total (before Tax)

6 Taxation and Grants

6.01 Tax allowances and grants Excluded Excluded

GRAND TOTAL £679,860,000 £725,530,000

| Final | 21 December 2016 Page A3 \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\227000\227787 SURREY RAIL STRATEGY\227787-60 HEATHROW SOUTHERN RAIL ACCESS\4 INTERNAL PROJECT



A3 Option 1c - Level Crossing Cost Estimates

The following table provides Arup’s cost estimates for the removal of the four level crossings in the Egham area that currently place a constraint on maximum service

frequency. These cost totals should be added to the infrastructure costs for Option 1b

in order to obtain a cost estimate for Option 1c.


Prune Station Vicarage Thorpe

Hill Road Road Road


1.01 Railway control system £0 £0 £320,000 £0

1.02 Train Power Systems £0 £0 £1,144,000 £0

1.03 Electric power and Plant £0 £0 £0 £0

1.04 Permanent Way £0 £0 £2,080,000 £0


£0 £0 £227,000 £0 Systems

1.06 Buildings & Property £0 £0 £0 £0

1.07 Civil Engineering £2,447,000 £401,000 £6,176,000 £100,000

1.08 Enabling Works £379,000 £52,000 £971,000 £0 Sub-Total £2,826,000 £453,000 £10,918,000 £100,000


2.01 Preliminaries £950,000 £160,000 £3,880,000 £40,000

2.02 Overheads and profit included included included included

Sub-Total £3,776,000 £613,000 £14,798,000 £140,000


3.01 Design Teams Fees £150,000 £20,000 £600,000 £10,000

3.02 Projects Team Fees £660,000 £110,000 £2,690,000 £30,000

3.03 Other projects Costs £0 £0 £0 £0

Sub-Total (before Risk) £4,586,000 £743,000 £18,088,000 £180,000

4 Risk

4.01 Total Risk Allowance £4,000,000 £1,000,000 £12,000,000 £1,000,000

Sub-Total (before Inflation) £8,586,000 £1,743,000 £30,088,000 £1,180,000

5 Inflation

5.01 Inflation Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded

Sub-Total (before Tax)


6.01 Tax allowances and grants Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded

GRAND TOTAL £8,586,000 £1,743,000 £30,088,000 £1,180,000




A4 Option 2 Cost Estimate

The following table provides Arup’s cost estimate for Options 2


Option 2 (includes 1a)


1.01 Railway control system £6,790,000

1.02 Train Power Systems £12,670,000

1.03 Electric power and Plant £0

1.04 Permanent Way £25,150,000


£4,820,000

Systems

1.06 Buildings & Property £0

1.07 Civil Engineering £461,320,000

1.08 Enabling Works £20,430,000

Sub-Total £531,180,000


2.01 Preliminaries £199,190,000

2.02 Overheads and profit included

Sub-Total £730,370,000


3.01 Design Teams Fees £30,640,000

3.02 Projects Team Fees £137,900,000

3.03 Other projects Costs £0

Sub-Total (before Risk) £898,910,000

4 Risk

4.01 Total Risk Allowance £550,000,000

Sub-Total (before Inflation) £1,448,910,000

5 Inflation

5.01 Inflation Excluded

Sub-Total (before Tax) -


6.01 Tax allowances and grants Excluded

GRAND TOTAL £1,448,910,000




A5 Option 3 Cost Estimate

The following table provides Arup’s cost estimate for Options 3


Option 3 (includes 1a)


1.01 Railway control system £7,400,000

1.02 Train Power Systems £14,840,000

1.03 Electric power and Plant £0

1.04 Permanent Way £29,100,000


£5,250,000

Systems

1.06 Buildings & Property £0

1.07 Civil Engineering £481,070,000

1.08 Enabling Works £75,050,000

Sub-Total £612,710,000


2.01 Preliminaries £209,690,000

2.02 Overheads and profit included

Sub-Total £822,400,000


3.01 Design Teams Fees £32,260,000

3.02 Projects Team Fees £145,170,000

3.03 Other projects Costs £0

Sub-Total (before Risk) £999,830,000

4 Risk

4.01 Total Risk Allowance £606,000,000

Sub-Total (before Inflation) £1,605,830,000

5 Inflation





GRAND TOTAL £1,605,830,000




A6 Weybridge Chord Cost Estimate

Due to the potential requirement of re-locating an existing water treatment works Arup have developed two cost estimates, which provide the same functionality in terms of the rail capability but have different alignments.

The first alignment is designed to avoid the water treatment works and lake, however requires a track radii of <200m and special S&C connections limiting line speeds to 10mph.

The second alignment is designed with a larger radii (500m) however it will likely

require the decommissioning of the water treatment works (Arup have allowed £10m for this), and embankment works across the western edge of the lake. The

estimated costs for this option are detailed below (noting the costs are in addition to Option 2).

The following are additional assumptions and exclusions:

No allowance for works to the water treatment works for alignment 1;

Alignment 2 allows £10m for decommission of water treatment works;

Assumed track on embankment - not structure;

No alterations required to the mainline except at tie in to new line.




Alignment 1 Alignment 2


1.01 Railway control system £1,230,000 £1,360,000

1.02 Train Power Systems £1,260,000 £1,720,000

1.03 Electric power and Plant £0 £0

1.04 Permanent Way £2,380,000 £2,880,000


£870,000 £970,000 Systems

1.06 Buildings & Property £0 £0

1.07 Civil Engineering £1,680,000 £10,360,000

1.08 Enabling Works £470,000 £690,000

Sub-Total £7,890,000 £17,980,000


2.01 Preliminaries £2,890,000 £6,740,000

2.02 Overheads and profit included included

Sub-Total £10,780,000 £24,720,000


3.01 Design Teams Fees £450,000 £1,040,000

3.02 Projects Team Fees £2,000,000 £4,660,000

3.03 Other projects Costs £0 £0

Sub-Total (before Risk) £13,230,000 £30,420,000

4 Risk

4.01 Total Risk Allowance £9,000,000 £18,000,000

Sub-Total (before Inflation) £22,230,000 £48,420,000

5 Inflation





TOTAL £22,230,000 £48,420,000

GRAND TOTAL (INCLUDES OPTION 2 £1,471,140,000 £1,497,330,000

COST ESTIMATE)



Documents

5.1.5 Capacity on the South West Main Line - surreycc.gov.uk · \\global.arup.com\london\ptg\icl-jobs\227000\227787 surrey rail strategy\227787-60 heathrow southern rail access\4