GRIP 3 Study Document: Version: 2 Whitehill Bordon Rail Study
Hampshire County Council 22nd March 2012
GRIP 3 Study Whitehill Bordon Rail Study
Hampshire County Council 22nd March 2012
Halcrow Group Limited Lyndon House, 62 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B16 8PE tel 0121 456 2345 fax 0121 456 1569 halcrow.com Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of client Hampshire County Council for the clientâ€™s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. ÂŠ Halcrow Group Limited 2012
GRIP 3 Study
Document history GRIP 3 Study Whitehill Bordon Rail Study Hampshire County Council
This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Introduction GRIP 2 Study Summary Route Summary Approach Report Structure
5 5 5 7 7
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6
Sectional Running Time Generation VoyagerPlan Timetabling Updated VoyagerPlan Geography Timetable Planning Rules Sectional Appendix Operating Costs
9 9 9 9 10 10
Option 1: Alternating Services to Alton and Whitehill Bordon
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification Timetable Assessment Operating Cost Implications
10 11 11
Option 2: Splitting Existing Services to Run to Both Alton and Whitehill Bordon
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification Timetable Assessment Operating Cost Implications Conclusions
11 11 12 13
Option 3: Amending the Ascot to Guildford Service
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification Timetable Assessment Operating Cost Implications Conclusion
13 14 16 16
Option 4: Extending Woking Terminators
2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification Timetable Assessment Operating Cost Implications Conclusion
17 17 18 19
Introduction Permanent Way
20 20 20
Structures Signalling and Telecommunications
3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3
Signalling Infrastructure Signalling Operational Telecommunications
22 24 24
3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11
Traction Supply Station Land Values Cost Estimates Cost Benchmarking Escalation Optimism Bias
25 26 27 28 29 29 30
Summary of Noise Impacts
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases
Approach to air quality and greenhouse gas appraisal Summary of Air Quality Impacts
Landscape / Townscape
4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3
Description of Landscape and Townscape Features Appraisal of Environmental Capital (Landscape Values) Appraisal of Impact on Landscape/Townscape
34 34 35
Heritage of Historic Resources
4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3
Description of Heritage Features Appraisal of Environmental Capital Appraisal of Impact on Heritage Features
36 38 38
4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3
Description of Biodiversity and Earth Heritage Features Appraisal of Environmental Capital Appraisal of Impact on Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
39 42 43
4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3
Appraisal of Value of Water Environment Potential Impact on Valuable Attributes Overall Assessment Summary
44 45 45
Introduction Modelling Approach
5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3
Trip Rates and Distribution Mode Choice Data Sources
47 48 49
Do Minimum Public Transport Assumptions Demand Forecasts
Validation of Economic Benefits Impact on Crowding On Existing Service
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
Introduction Appraisal Methodology Revenue Financing Appraisal Indicators Sensitivity Tests
55 55 56 57 57 59
6.6.1 6.6.2 6.6.3 6.6.4
Development Assumptions Early Opening Additional Rolling Stock DfT Appraisal Guidance Changes
59 59 60 60
Introduction Halcrow was commissioned by Hampshire County Council in June 2010 to undertake a GRIP2 and 3 style study to assess the business case for re-establishing a heavy rail link to Whitehill Bordon. The concept of a new rail link arose from the selection of the area as one of the government’s new Eco-towns, and in that context it is recognised that a coherent and sustainable transport strategy needs to be developed.
GRIP 2 Study Summary The GRIP2 study published in February 2011, examined a range of corridors and modes to link Whitehill Bordon to the existing heavy rail network through both heavy rail and alternative modes such as Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit. On balance of the issues raised, the preferred option was the further development heavy rail route via Bentley which was the only option showing a positive case for advancing. The GRIP 2 study identified that this option: •
Would generate demand levels of up to 1 million trips per annum;
Had a capital cost of £130M and presented engineering and operational issues that are deliverable and are either the cheapest, or commensurate with the other options;
Had the best economic and financial case with a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 2.14 which is high value for money based on DfT Guidance; and
Provided the least environmental impact of the proposed alignments.
To achieve this BCR, it would be necessary to deliver a through service to London at a 30 minute frequency. Serving Whitehill Bordon via Liphook and Liss is much less attractive due to lower levels of interpeak service frequency at these stations combined with increased environmental constraints. Alton, although potentially providing the most viable option from an operational perspective, is constrained by the high costs of delivering the necessary infrastructure due to the topography in the area, with the costs almost double that of connecting to the mainline at the other 3 stations. Through running options show a higher value for money case than shuttle services to existing stations, primarily due to the advantage associated with removing the uncertainty and inconvenience of requiring interchange.
Route Summary The alignment to be taken forward was based upon the ML1 alignment in the GRIP2 study. Figure 1.1 illustrates the preferred alignment.
Figure 1.1 â€“ Rail Alignment This option largely follows the trackbed alignment of the old Bentley to Bordon light rail branch line which had diverged from the existing operational single track line between Bentley and Alton stations just to the west of Blacknest Road. This line was closed and the track lifted in 1966. The southern end of the line will be diverted into the Hogmoor Inclosure to provide a new station adjacent to the current MOD buildings and within close proximity to the residential development proposed as part of the Eco Town proposals.
In terms of the connection with the existing rail network, a new junction to the west of Bentley would be created on the single track alignment. In terms of current rail service, there is a half hourly service between Alton and London Waterloo operated by South West Trains and semi-regular oil trains to Holybourne Oil Sidings.
Approach The core objective of the GRIP3 study is to examine in more detail the preferred alignment and to improve confidence in the cost estimates and economic benefits. This study covers 6 areas: a)
Business case appraisal of option selected;
Preliminary design and costing;
Railway operations impacts including any reductions in service or capacity on other routes, rolling stock requirements and impact on crowding;
An initial appraisal of potentially relevant sources of funding; and
Guidance on how to progress the project.
It was, however, identified that given public funding constraints, a more innovative method of funding this enhancement is likely to be required and that a funding assessment should be part of this study. Given their involvement in a number of recent schemes using innovative funding mechanisms, KPMG was commissioned to review possible funding options and provide comment on the availability and suitability of each option to fund a new station at Whitehill Bordon. Their report is provided in Appendix A.
Report Structure The report therefore covers the key appraisal inputs to inform the constraints and opportunities for providing a rail link to Whitehill Bordon and draws them together to provide the economic, environmental and delivery case for the proposed scheme. The report is structured as follows: •
Chapter 2 assesses operational constraints to inform the potential options which should be taken forward into the business case
Chapter 3 provides the engineering assumptions and the revised cost estimates to a GRIP3 level of confidence;
Chapter 4 provides the WebTAG environmental assessment;
Chapter 5 provides the demand forecasts;
Chapter 6 provides the economic appraisal and core appraisal indicators; and
Chapter 7 provides conclusions and next steps.
Introduction A key consideration of the delivery of the rail service is to understanding exactly what level of service of could be achieved at Whitehill Bordon, and the impact on the existing franchise both in terms of changes in operating costs and changes in revenue at existing stations through alterations to the current timetabled services. The GRIP2 study identified some potential service options which could be used to provide through running services to Whitehill Bordon. As part of the GRIP3 study, the options related to running via Bentley was first revisited to enable a full assessment of the potential changes to existing service which would enable either a through running service towards London or provide a direct service to a wider quantum of destinations that a â€˜stand aloneâ€™ shuttle service would provide. The intention of this operational assessment is to use the current 2012 passenger timetable including the freight paths as the base timetable and extend or divert existing trains to create sensible operating solutions to the need to provide a regular passenger service to and from the new station at Whitehill Bordon. Consequently, this assessment does not attempt to recast the South West Trains timetable to and from London Waterloo. Headways approaching and leaving Waterloo are in the order of two and a half minutes reflecting the very heavily utilised nature of the line between Clapham Junction and London. To try to change aspects of the timetable in the London area would have too many implications for other trains of entirely different service groups so the only alterations which can really be considered in this type of study are fringe alterations in the Woking, Ascot and Farnham areas. This provided the following options for assessment which have been assessed in more detail in terms of their deliverability in this chapter:
Alternating Alton services to Whitehill Bordon providing an hourly service to each destination;
Splitting existing Waterloo to Alton services to run to both Alton and Whitehill Bordon;
Extension of the Guildford to Ascot Service to Whitehill Bordon to minimise impact on passengers to Alton; and
Extension of Woking terminating service to provide direct London services for Whitehill Bordon to enable continuation of a half hourly frequency to Alton.
Methodology For each of options, the potential deliverability of the option based upon the current timetable constraints was assessed. This section outlines the methodology used to
assess the potential deliverability of the four identified options from a timetable planning perspective. The steps involved in the process and information used are outlined below.
Sectional Running Time Generation RailSys was used to calculate sectional running times (SRTs) for the new line from Bentley to Whitehill Bordon. RailSys is a sophisticated network simulation tool which is used by Network Rail and numerous consultancies in the UK. For this project, it was used to calculate the SRT of a class 450 operating over the reinstated alignment between Bentley and the proposed station at Whitehill Bordon.
VoyagerPlan Timetabling Timetable exercises have been conducted using VoyagerPlan to develop potential timetables for the options and to assess the deliverability of each option. This is the timetable development and train planning software used by most of the train operating companies in the UK and is compatible with the Network Rail train planning systems. For this study, the December 2011 (PIF Public Interface Format) has been used which is applicable to the December 2011 to December 2012 timetable period. A series of databases comprising the appropriate trains for the local network around Woking, Ascot and Guildford to Alton were created for the purposes of optioneering. At the time of creation the information from the Network Rail PIF file was incomplete so data from the 2010 timetable (operational from December 2010 to December 2011) was used for certain empty coaching stock (ECS) trains and freight movements. An initial check of the train graph revealed that the interval between successive Alton line passenger services was occupied by the oil train suggesting that the timings had not altered significantly in the study area between the 2010 and 2011 timetables.
Updated VoyagerPlan Geography Using the sectional running times calculated by RailSys, the VoyagerPlan geography was updated to include the new timing links. A new route was added for the two directions, Bentley to Whitehill Bordon and Whitehill Bordon to Bentley, and the start to stop time for each direction for a class 450 EMU added. The SRT for the down direction to Whitehill Bordon was input as eight minutes whilst the up direction from Whitehill Bordon to Bentley was input as seven and a half minutes. Both of these times are slightly longer than the equivalent Alton times of six and a half minutes down and six minutes in the up direction.
Timetable Planning Rules Network Rail publish a set of timetable planning rules applicable to each area of train operation providing vital information such as line headways, station dwell times, platform lengths, station specific rules and restrictions, and junction margins. This document, formerly known as the â€œRules of the Planâ€? and now known as Timetable Planning rules has been used as the main source of data for the timetabling aspects of
the study. The Wessex area covering all former London and South Western territory has been used for the 2012 timetable.
Sectional Appendix The Sectional Appendix is another Network Rail document and contains information such as line speeds, special working instructions, and diagrams which give useful information about track layouts. Halcrow has access to the Sectional Appendix through the National Electronic Sectional Appendix (NESA) system maintained by Network Rail and this has also been used as a reference for this study.
Operating Costs Associated operating costs were calculated based upon the characteristics of each option. Rolling stock leasing costs are estimated at £610,000 per year for a 4 car Class 450 or equivalent. This is based upon information from 2003 when the Class 450s were introduced on the SWT network, and adjusted for factor price inflation. Other components of operating cost are: •
Variable track access costs are based on published data regarding track access arrangements for the existing South West Trains franchise.
Traction energy costs are based on published data regarding track access arrangements for the existing South West Trains franchise.
Train crew costs are based on current gross salary for South West Trains drivers and guards, plus an allowance of 40% for employment overheads. The cost per hour is based on 1686 hours worked per year.
Other management and supervision costs are assumed to be 25% of total staffing costs.
Station charges are based on published data regarding track access arrangements for the existing South West Trains franchise. A charge of £87,000 per annum has been assumed based upon other stations in the area which are staffed, have car parking facilities, toilets and a small retail kiosk.
The remainder of this section provides an overview of the current service, timetable constraints and solutions, operating costs and conclusions on deliverability of the four proposed options.
Option 1: Alternating Services to Alton and Whitehill Bordon
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification Alton is currently served in the current timetable by a half hourly service to and from London Waterloo. There is though, a gap in the service when the oil train runs to and from Holybourne Oil sidings between Bentley and Alton. The occupation of the single line by the inbound oil train prevents the operation of the following trains:
10.23 from Waterloo, terminates in Farnham at 11.25 but would otherwise terminate in Alton at 11.37; and
12.15 from Alton, starts at Farnham at 12.28 maintaining onward path to Waterloo arriving at 13.25.
This option diverts alternating services at Bentley towards Whitehill Bordon rather than to Alton. This is the most straightforward option from a planning perspective as it simply diverts every other half hourly scheduled Alton service to run to Whitehill Bordon from Bentley. The run times to Whitehill Bordon and Alton are of a similar magnitude so it is straightforward to turn the Whitehill Bordon train round and arrive back in Bentley to operate the identical service east of Farnham to the original half hourly Alton service.
Timetable Assessment With this pattern, Whitehill Bordon has a service of 17 departures per day and Alton has a service of 18 departures per day, each approximately hourly, but the service at Farnham and all stations to London Waterloo remains the same as the present timetable. The public timetable derived for this option is shown in Appendix B.
Operating Cost Implications From an operating cost perspective, this is in effect the cheapest option as there would be minimal additional mileage. The incremental cost of this option in the opening year therefore is ÂŁ114,789 reflecting primarily addition station usage charges. A more serious implication for this option is the reduction in the current Alton passenger service from half hourly for most of the day down to hourly. All stations east of Farnham would retain the same service level but Alton passengers would be expected to put up with a reduced frequency service in both directions throughout the day. In this scenario, both Alton and Whitehill Bordon would receive an hourly service but there would be little opportunity to improve it in the future because of the use of the principal path beyond Farnham.
Option 2: Splitting Existing Services to Run to Both Alton and Whitehill Bordon
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification This option would take the current half hourly service to Alton identified in Option 1 and split west bound trains at a suitable location and then join eastbound trains at the same location.
The Timetable Planning Rules give minimum timings which must be used for train attaching or detaching at specific stations. It is also necessary that the station and its signalling permits â€œpermissive workingâ€? where a second train is allowed to enter an occupied block section under strict rules relating to speed. Under normal operating conditions, railway signalling only permits one train to be in a block section (a controlled section between two successive signals) at a time. This is the basic building block of railway operational safety. There are however, situations where permissive working is required such as the need to join and split trains, or on freight lines where a train can approach the end of a preceding train at very low speeds to make best use of available capacity. The Timetable Planning Rules show that Farnham permits permissive working in both platforms for attaching or detaching, as does Aldershot in platform two only. Therefore, for the joining and splitting of Alton services to be considered it would have to occur in either of these stations or a change of rules would be required for a station such as Bentley. The study assessed the use of Farnham as it is the nearest station allowing permissive operation to Bentley. The rule for the time to be allocated for joining and splitting for class 450 EMUs is a minimum of four minutes each. In addition to the act of splitting a train (in the example of a pair of trains heading west to Alton and Whitehill Bordon) the line headway also needs to be considered. A down train from Waterloo would arrive in Farnham and would then require a dwell time of at least four minutes while the detaching activity took place. Then the first train would depart, assuming the path onto the single line to Bentley was clear, and the second train could then follow five and a half minutes later at the earliest as this is the line headway. Therefore, for passengers from Waterloo, they would have to wait in the train for at least nine and a half minutes in Farnham before following the preceding Alton train, thus arriving in Whitehill Bordon nearly 25 minutes after arriving in Farnham. The resultant journey time from Waterloo would be in the region of one hour and 27 minutes. Similarly, Alton passengers who already have a relatively long journey to Alton of one hour and 17 minutes would increase to at least one hour and 21 minutes due to the need to dwell in Farnham for longer. With these considerations in mind, an attempt was made to plan a service based on joining and splitting at Farnham but no paths were available for a number of the trains due to the constraints of the single line sections and also the use of Absolute Block signalling between Farnham and Aldershot which increases the line headway to approximately seven and a half minutes.
Operating Cost Implications Another constraint associated with this option is that although 24 out of the 35 trains per day from Alton are eight or 12 car formations, 11 off-peak services are of formed of four car units. These trains cannot be split and would therefore require an additional unit to operate from Whitehill Bordon to couple at Farnham and run to Waterloo as eight car trains and vice versa. As identified above, this option would require the procurement of additional rolling stock given the use of 4 car units on some diagrams. In additional, there would be the
requirement of additional mileage based costs as longer vehicles would need to operate the full 38 miles between Farnham and Waterloo, and additional costs for drivers and guards. The annual increase in operating cost required to deliver this option in the opening year is ÂŁ1.65 million per annum. Additionally there would be some loss of revenue through increased journey times to Alton which will be captured in the demand forecasting and appraisal.
Conclusions The lack of suitable paths due to the extended dwell times and the headway and single line constraints presently precludes this option from further consideration from an operational perspective. Some trains are only formed by four car units so additional diagrams would be needed to support the connection from Whitehill Bordon. Although the full wider performance impact has not been modelled, the implementation of attaching and detaching activities introduces increased performance risk which could result in the failure of one or both units at Farnham station with serious repercussions for the rest of the dayâ€™s services.
Option 3: Amending the Ascot to Guildford Service
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification South West Trains currently operate a half hourly service between Ascot and Guildford via a reversal at Aldershot station. These trains depart from Guildford at XX00 and XX30 arriving one hour later at Ascot. The return workings depart at XX23 and XX53 and take 66 minutes to reach Guildford. Aldershot has three platforms and the centre road, platform two, is reversible and allows trains from the Down Main to reverse and gain access to the Up Main. This option extends this current service to Whitehill Bordon and thus removes the need for any frequency or journey time disbenefits to Alton passengers. In practice, it is unlikely that London bound passengers would use the service to travel to Ascot and then connect with a train from there. Typical journey times from Ascot to Waterloo are in the order of 64 minutes, thus giving a Whitehill Bordon to Waterloo time of over two hours. London passengers would be more likely to make a connection at Farnham with one of the half hourly Alton to Waterloo services. The Whitehill Bordon service arrives in Farnham eight minutes before the following ex-Alton service. The Alton services take about 67 minutes so the total journey time to Waterloo from Whitehill Bordon would be 76 minutes which provides a much more rapid service than travelling via Ascot. Option 3 alters the SWT service such that a half hourly service operates to Whitehill Bordon from Ascot and there is also a half hourly service between Guildford and Aldershot.
The arrival and departure times at Ascot and Guildford are maintained so that existing paths between Aldershot and the two destinations are identical to the current and therefore, conflict free. This situation is aided by the long scheduled dwell times at Aldershot for the two direction of service. For a four car unit, according to the Timetable Planning Rules, the minimum turn round time is four minutes. Unit diagrams for the 2007/8 period suggest that the Ascot to Guildford service is comprised of a single four car class 450 EMU. The Aldershot dwell time is typically scheduled to be 13 minutes and this allows the single reversing service to become two independent services which can operate without conflict in the Aldershot area.
Timetable Assessment In order to maintain the half hourly service to and from Whitehill Bordon, all trains need to pass at Bentley. This station and associated passing loop has the following operating rules: â€˘
For reoccupation of the single line, a train must arrive two minutes before passing and depart one minute after passing.
The extension of the services to and from Aldershot results in the trains passing at Bentley as long as they have dwell times in the order of four and a half or five minutes. These times are necessary to permit the trains to occupy and release the single track sections in the correct manner. The dwell times are for operational reasons only and contribute to the overall journey length between Whitehill Bordon and Aldershot. For convenience, all trains to and from Whitehill Bordon are stopped at Bentley for the passing movement so as a result of the new service pattern, Bentley receives a half hourly service all day to and from Ascot. The operation of the oil train from Holybourne Oil sidings prevents the operation of the full Ascot to Whitehill Bordon service at 12.53. This train can only run to Farnham arriving at 13.33 from where it runs ECS to Farnham depot. It then returns from the depot to form the 14.20 from Farnham to Ascot, meaning that Whitehill Bordon has not had an arrival at 13.51 or a departure at 14.03. The highlighted line in blue in Figure 3.1 is the oil train departing Holybourne Oil Sidings at 13.54 and this crosses the down Waterloo to Alton train at Bentley. However, if the Whitehill Bordon train was to depart in its correct path with respect to the timetable and other trains on the graph, it would need to cross the next Whitehill Bordon bound train at a mid point between Farnham and Bentley shown by the red circle.
Figure 3.1 â€“ Conflicts with Holybourne Note also that the next Whitehill Bordon train has an extended dwell time at Farnham so that it can take the single line to Bentley once the freight train is clear. This results in a later arrival than the normal pattern (14.29 rather than 14.21). This then leaves just four minutes for the turn round at Whitehill Bordon rather than the planned 12 minutes. As this only occurs once in the mid afternoon and meets the minimum requirements for a four car unit it is not anticipated to be a performance risk. It is also not possible to run half hourly early morning trains due to conflicts in the Farnham area as trains are leaving Farnham depot. Also, the single track sections between Bentley and Farnham prevent the ECS from reaching Whitehill Bordon in time to form what would be the third service of the day. Therefore, the first two trains are approximately half hourly with departures at 06.04 and 06.31 but the next is at 07.34. After this time, the service is generally half hourly until 13.34 when there is another interval of an hour as the path is taken by the departing tank train from Holybourne Oil Terminal. The 12.53 from Ascot terminates in Farnham and runs ECS to the shed and then forms the 14.20 back to Ascot from Farnham. The regular half hourly services run until the 17.34 departure after which the early evening services vary in their departure times but still maintain an approximately half-hourly schedule. Alternative options though to provide a service to cover the early morning gaps are: i)
Extend 1N90 (AHT-WAT) to start from Whitehill Bordon and reroute 5A90 to run from Farnham CSD to Whitehill Bordon rather than to Aldershot. 1N90 was an 8 car 458 in 2007/8 diagrams so is probably an 8 car 450 (450a in VoyagerPlan database). This train starts at Whitehill Bordon at 06.04 and direct to Waterloo is 1hr 53 minutes (arrives 07.57) as it runs via Richmond. However, connection at Farnham allows transfer to 1A14 from Alton which arrives at
07.18 giving a one hour and 14 minutes journey. The next departure is 07.34 which means a one and a half hour wait until next Whitehill Bordon service. ii)
To reduce the gap and provide a later first train, replace 5A86 from Farnham CSD to Woking with new service train from Whitehill Bordon to Woking in the same path east of Farnham. Back timing gives a 06.31 start from Whitehill Bordon. Passengers could remain on board at Woking to get 2F86 (the train formed by 5A86) to arrive Waterloo at 07.54 giving a one hour and 17 minutes journey time. Alternatively, the 06.44 Alton to Waterloo service could be taken from Farnham or Aldershot arriving Waterloo at 07.49 giving a one hour and 12 minutes journey. However, it does form a more regular hourly service from Whitehill Bordon to Aldershot although in this case, it continues to Waterloo rather than Ascot as the remainder of the services do.
The public timetable for this option is shown in Appendix C.
Operating Cost Implications The extension of the service to Whitehill Bordon would require the use of additional units. The Guildford to Aldershot service would require two units for the shuttle service while the extended run to and from Whitehill Bordon would require five units in total to cover the timetable. Additional crew would be required to operate the extended services and to cover the longer diagrams. This would cost an additional ÂŁ2.2 million per annum in the opening year to deliver this service. A positive element from this option though is that there would be some additional revenue generated outside of Whitehill Bordon as it would be possible to provide Farnham and Bentley with some additional services which has been captured in the demand and revenue forecasting.
Conclusion This option is feasible operationally but would be expensive to implement and would not provide a direct service to London from Whitehill Bordon. It would require the hire of at least two more Class 450 or compatible units. The diagrams for the service are effectively standalone and the trains would only operate on this route so need not be compatible with the existing fleet. However, introducing different trains potentially increases maintenance costs due to the need to maintain a small non-standard fleet. South West Trains currently operate class 458s and it is not known how high their utilisation is so these might be feasible trains for the additional two diagrams or to work the Aldershot to Guildford services while class 450s are kept on the Ascot to Whitehill Bordon line. The conclusion is that this option does have operational merits and theoretically is feasible but the main risk would be associated with finding new units to operate the service.
Option 4: Extending Woking Terminators
Overview of Current Service and Proposed Modification The current timetable provides a half hourly Woking to Waterloo and return service throughout most of the day. There are a few peak time variations but most trains start in platform three at Woking station and take about 47 minutes to reach Waterloo, calling at most stations en-route. This option extends the trains to start at Whitehill Bordon whilst ensuring that they depart Woking at the same time so that their paths are maintained to Waterloo. The trains depart Whitehill Bordon at XX22 and XX52 and call at Bentley, Farnham, Aldershot and Ash Vale before running via the slow lines to Woking.
Timetable Assessment The extended trains from Whitehill Bordon would arrive in Woking platform one at one and a half minutes after the departure of the preceding Basingstoke to Waterloo train; the headway on this stretch of line in the Up direction is three and a half minutes. A check of the May 2011 timetable shows that the minimum interval between departure and arrival from platform one (and two) is two and a half minutes so the new Whitehill Bordon service cannot slot in without adjustment to other services. The Woking terminators originated in bay platform three so there was no conflict with any other trains coming from the Up Slow line but as they have to be rerouted via a through platform, this introduces platform conflicts. There are no margins between Woking and Waterloo so the train cannot run later. Similarly, it is unlikely that SWT would accept a longer journey time on the preceding Basingstoke trains so that they arrived in Woking earlier but ran slowly to regain the remainder of the path to Waterloo. (Implications of changing times between Basingstoke and Pirbright Junction have not been investigated). By routeing through platform two at Woking it is possible to run an hourly service from Whitehill Bordon (the XX52 departure) as there is a suitable interval immediately after a preceding Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo Up Fast service. The Whitehill Bordon train could run at a minimum headway interval ahead of the Basingstoke train and cross to the Up Fast for platform two at Woking Junction. It then retakes the Up Slow after leaving the station. The return service from Woking to Whitehill Bordon is an extension of the XX50 departure from Waterloo. The train follows its current path to Woking and then after a dwell of two minutes takes the Down Slow line to Pirbright Junction. The train then runs via a dwell at Ash Vale, Aldershot and a four minutes dwell at Farnham so that it can take the single line to Bentley after the XX52 departure from Whitehill Bordon has cleared it. The train departs Bentley five minutes before the next Up arrival from Alton. As the service is hourly, it has a scheduled turn round in Whitehill Bordon platform of 29 minutes before forming the next departure for Woking and Waterloo.
This option though, is not viable with the present timetable as the assessment identified that although an hourly Up service could be operated, it is not possible to get a train to Whitehill Bordon from Woking. If the XX50 departures from Waterloo are extended they pass right through the Ascot-Guildford services which are occupying platforms two and three at Aldershot simultaneously. These services lock up both Aldershot down platforms twice every hour. The situation at Aldershot is shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 - Aldershot Platform Occupation Graph This is a platform occupation graph for Aldershot with platforms on the y-axis and time of day on the x-axis. On platform one, there are intervals of 30 minutes between each train. These are the Alton to Waterloo services using the Up Main platform. In the reversible platform two, the Ascot to Guildford via Aldershot trains reverse and there are also opportunities for the London to Alton services to pass through. In platform three, the Guildford to Ascot trains reverse. This leaves very little opportunity to run other trains through Aldershot in the down direction and the timings from Woking brings an extended train directly into conflict with the terminating trains in Aldershot.
Operating Cost Implications There is currently a long turn round in platform three at Woking. With the half hourly service it is XX07 to XX33 (26 minutes). With alternating hourly Whitehill Bordon and Woking trains, the Woking turn round becomes XX07 to XX03 (56 minutes) which is unlikely to be acceptable to SWT. Additional units would be required to complete the Whitehill Bordon journey from Woking so this option becomes very inefficient in its use of expensive resources. Woking to Waterloo services are formed by Class 455 EMUs and it is unlikely that there would be any spare to operate the additional mileage.
Conclusion The conclusion from this exercise is that this option is not feasible operationally and would have significant performance implications on services into Waterloo given the reduced turnaround time in Woking. This option therefore has not been considered for further analysis.
Overall Conclusions The assessment of the four options has resulted in two being operationally viable without requiring significant alterations to the current SWT timetable. These are Option 1 â€“ Divert Alternative Trains from Alton to Whitehill Bordon and Option 3 â€“ Extend Ascot to Guildford services to Whitehill Bordon. For Option 1 to work, the current half hourly service from Alton to Waterloo is halved to an hourly service so that the alternate half hour service to and from Waterloo is diverted to Whitehill Bordon. In this scenario, both locations have an all day hourly service. Option 3, involves a journey of almost an hour just to reach Ascot plus the Ascot to London time and travelling via Guildford would require two changes plus an extended journey time to London. This option does provide good connectivity with other local centres such as Farnham, Aldershot, Ascot and Guildford. Therefore passengers travelling towards London would interchange at Farnham or Aldershot as opposed to continuing to Ascot. This option would also be costly as it requires two new diagrams to support the additional service with associated costs for traction supply, crew, and maintenance and track access. Option 4 which assessed the viability to extend Woking terminators was identified as not being deliverable due to significant timetable constraints linked to Platform availability at Woking, and significant issues in procuring compatible rolling stock with the current fleet. Although identified as being operationally unfeasible without major timetable changes, this report will continue to undertake demand forecasting and appraisal for Option 2 - Splitting at Farnham. This is to compare with other options to enable an understanding of the business case should a half hourly direct service be deliverable in the future, and to enable a comparison of results with the GRIP2 study.
Introduction This section provides the key assumptions relating to the development of the cost estimates. Full technical appendices supporting this workstream are contained in Appendix D to Appendix H. The GRIP2 study built on the horizontal alignment, trackwork at interchanges with existing lines, and signalling from the Mott Gifford GRIP1 engineering study. A vertical alignment was developed for each horizontal alignment using topographical and contour information with the objective of providing a cost comparison between the four alignments with the existing rail network and the construction works to deliver a connection to the mainline rail network. The cost of the preferred alignment connecting into the network to the west of Bentley was costed at ÂŁ129.9Million or ÂŁ169.0Million including optimism bias at 2010 Q4 prices. As part of this study a more focused approach to understanding the costs of this alignment was undertaken to develop a more affordable solution. This included provision of single track alignment, examining ways to reduce structures costs at interfaces with highway and footpaths, and also examining a more cost effective signalling solution. This chapter has been structured as follows:
Signalling and Telecommunications;
Scheme Cost Estimates;
Escalation and Optimism Bias Assumptions.
Permanent Way The route largely follows the trackbed alignment of the old Bentley to Bordon branch line. The proposed alignment diverges from the existing operational single track line between Bentley and Alton stations just to the west of Blacknest Road using a CV9.25 turnout. In the design development of this option, the horizontal alignment proposed at GRIP Stage 1 and 2 has been retained whilst further consideration has been given
to the possible civil engineering requirements and demands in the development of the proposed vertical alignment. For vertical alignment, horizontal alignment ALW/ARC/CTKAAD/0001 in Appendix D.
Beginning from the Bentley station end of the route, the vertical alignment follows the existing grade for the first 0.3km at 1.27% before entering a 0.4km cutting on a moderate 0.51% rising gradient. Between chainages 900m and 6,500m (approx.) the gradient falls slightly (-0.35%). Within this stretch the alignment crosses Binstead Road (ch.1,785m), Sickles Road (ch.4,180m), B3004 Forge Road (ch. 5,470m). All these roads are crossed at level, thus requiring road over rail, grade separated crossings. At ch. 5,675m the alignment crosses Kingsley stream. Depending on the size of the steam it will have to be determined at a more detailed stage whether to cross the stream on a bridge or build a culvert for it to traverse underneath the track. Between chainages 6,500m and 7,950m the vertical alignment climbs again (0.61%) to cross Oakhanger Road (ch. 7,540m) at level. Again a road over rail, grade separated crossing is required. From chainage 7,950m onwards the final 530m long stretch reaches the proposed Whitehill-Bordon station at a grade of 0.20% which is to standard for railway stations and supports the station drainage. All embankments and cuttings have been kept lower/ deeper than 10 metres. The maximum fill height is 8.4 metres (ch. 5,100m), the maximum cutting depth is 7.4 metres (ch. 800m). The alignment has been designed for a single track option with line speed of 60 mph, however, due to tight curves between chainages 6,500m and 8,150m and following the station the line speed is reduced with a line speed of 35 mph. No provision has been included for any passing loops and for double tracking in the future.
Structures The previous permanent way alignment option had the railway at a higher level with the roads going underneath the bridges. This railway alignment for the GRIP 3 engineering assessment follows the existing railway corridor which previously required level crossings at all road crossings. The old railway has been dismantled and the level crossings removed. The previous level crossings cannot be reintroduced as the proposed link will be considered as a new railway. NR/L2/OPS/100 â€“ â€œProvision, risk assessment and review of level crossingsâ€? specifies where it not practicable, a level crossing can be proposed at road railway intersections. However this has to be qualified with a risk assessment which can be undertaken by an individual who has the appropriate competency and also has to be accepted by the railway authority. For the rail link from Bentley to Whitehill/Bordon, there are 4 road intersections. A site visit to all locations has identified that a road over railway structure can be provided. Spatially and geometry wise, a new bridge structure can be accommodated at these locations and therefore level crossings are not an option.
For footpaths, it is proposed that a level crossing can be provided with a gate access to prevent animals straying onto the line. Although a risk assessment would still need to be undertaken, the line is a single track and the speed is no greater then 60mph, a level crossing is assumed acceptable at these locations. There could be a rationalisation of the number of crossings but for this costing exercise it is assumed that all the footpath crossings are maintained. It should be noted that at Bentley station at the Farnham end, there is an existing public footpath which crosses the railway line and every other train is a through train, not stopping at the station. There are 4 road crossings, 3 are minor roads and 1 is a major road. The minor roads are Binstead Road, Sickles Road and Oakhanger Road whilst Forge Road is a B Road. The bridges proposed are prestressed/concrete integral bridges. They have been chosen for their whole life cost, as maintenance is much lower then the alternative steel beam bridge. The bridge structure is a portal frame with pile foundations. Reinforced earth wall form the approach embankments. The highway alignment from existing road level will rise at a gradient of 7% to climb over the railway and then descend at the same gradient. For this gradient, 80m length of RE wall is required. The pile foundations are 750mm diameter piles and the lengths vary from 15m to 20m. Although Borehole locations for the Geotechnical assessment of the land is limited to due to lack of boreholes on the MOD owned land, generally the ground conditions improve towards Whitehill Bordon. It is proposed that a temporary road diversion is constructed to divert the traffic and the new structure built on the existing alignment. All existing services are also diverted onto the new bridge. Existing services like the Esso LPG pipeline at Binstead Road will be retained at ground level. The same may also apply to fibre optics and drainage. For the Kingsley Stream, a box culvert will be proposed
Signalling and Telecommunications In order to reduce costs, a viable option which delivers the minimal of lineside signalling arrangements would be provided for the new link and this are shown on Appendix E. A technical description of the infrastructure in the diagram and how it is proposed to operate in practice are outlined below.
Signalling Infrastructure The single lead point connection to be provided at the new junction would be motorised. Signal FN101, which would protect the new junction for trains arriving from Alton, would need to be re-located towards Alton. Because its distant signal, FN101R, would then not allow sufficient braking distance from signal FN101, this would also need to be relocated towards Alton. All equipment associated with signals FN101 and FN101R would also have to be relocated. At Bentley station, the existing FN100 signal in Platform No. 2 has a single route towards Alton. A new Position Light Junction Indicator would be added to this signal which would allow train movements to be authorised onto the new link towards Whitehill / Bordon.
A new junction signal (shown as FNxxx on the sketch in Appendix E) would be provided at the Alton end of Platform No. 1. This would have a similar profile to the altered FN100 signal, and would similarly authorise train movements either towards Alton or towards Whitehill / Bordon. For train movements from Whitehill Bordon off the link to Bentley and beyond, a new 3-aspect red / yellow / green signal (shown as FNyyy on the sketch in Appendix E) would be provided, to authorise train movements into Bentley Platform 1 only. This would be consistent with the existing signal FN101 on the line from Alton, which similarly only allows movements into Platform 1. A distant signal (shown as FNzzz on the sketch) would be provided to give adequate braking distance for trains to safely come to a stand at the new junction protection signal FNyyy. Two new track circuits would be provided approaching signal FNzzz and through to the new junction for the purposes of the signalling interlocking and in order to provide the signaller with approaching train indications. For the latter, a treadle would also be provided, in conjunction with the track circuits, to provide a “train approaching” audible / visible indication to the signaller of trains approaching from Whitehill Bordon. Signals FNxxx and FNyyy would be provided with Train Protection Warning System. Signals FNyyy and FNzzz would also be fitted with Automatic Warning System (with suppression for reverse direction movements). The AWS for existing signal FN99 would also be modified to be the AWS for signal FNxxx, with suitable suppression required for train movements towards Farnham. At Whitehill Bordon station, an illuminated (red light) buffer stop would be installed. Train Protection Warning System would be provided in respect of this buffer stop. It is not proposed that any “TPWS failure” indications will be provided at the controlling Power Signal Box (currently Farnham PSB), as this would require full cabling from Whitehill Bordon for over 8.5km back to Bentley, which would add considerable expense in provision of the cable. A retro-reflective distant board and an associated Automatic Warning System permanent magnet would be provided at adequate braking distance before the buffer stop to allow trains to safely come to a stand in the platform. For trains leaving Whitehill Bordon station, a retro-reflective “Cancel AWS” notice board would need to be provided on the Bentley side of the permanent magnet referred to above, as the latter would not be suppressed for reverse-direction movements, in order to save cabling costs. All existing local signalling is linked to the signalling interlocking within Bordon Relay Room and this in turn links via Time Division Multiplex system to Farnham Power Signal Box (PSB), which is the operational control for the entire area. All new signalling works associated with this rail link would need to interface with this signalling system as described. It is not proposed to provide any other lineside signalling on the rail link, in order to minimise the overall cost of signalling provision. However, in addition to the
physical lineside equipment provision, there would need to be signalling interlocking alterations, associated alterations to Farnham PSB Signalling Control Panel and power supply alterations may also be required.
Signalling Operational The normal method of train operations to be adopted for the new rail link would be such that only one train would be permitted onto the line at any one time. Once a train had been authorised onto the line, that train must come off the line before another train could be signalled onto the line. However, under perturbation or engineering work, different safe systems of work would be temporarily employed. Consistent with the proposed alignment and interface with the existing line, it is assumed that services would only operate between Whitehill Bordon and Farnham (and beyond) and not towards Alton. The proposed method of train operation would be for trains from Farnham bound for Whitehill Bordon to arrive at Bentley platform 1. The signaller would set the route on signal FNxxx towards Whitehill Bordon. At peak times, if required, Platform 2 could alternatively be used for arriving trains and the route set from signal FN100 towards the rail link. Trains would proceed towards Whitehill Bordon and, with the track circuits through the junction showing the train clear of the junction points, the points could be normalised for Alton – Bentley – Farnham services. The train would proceed using “line of sight” towards Whitehill Bordon until arriving at the distant board, after which the driver would commence braking of the train to a stand into the Whitehill Bordon station platform. When the train was ready to depart Whitehill / Bordon station it is proposed that the driver would advise the signaller using the National Radio System fitted in the cab. This will give the signaller advanced notice that the train would be approaching the junction with the Farnham – Bentley – Alton line. After the train left Whitehill Bordon and traversed the permanent magnet for the incoming distant signal, a warning buzzer would sound in the driver’s cab. The driver would cancel the warning, and the “Cancel AWS” board would confirm to the driver that no further action was required. The train would proceed along the route towards the junction using “Line of Sight” and when the train activated the treadle and track circuit, approaching signal FNzzz, the signaller would receive an audible warning that the train was approaching the junction. Providing there were no conflicting train movements in the Bentley area, the signaller would operate the route from signal FNyyy to authorise the train movement into Bentley Platform 1. When the train moved clear of the junction and entered Bentley station, the junction points could be restored to their normal position for the Alton – Bentley – Farnham line.
New signal post telephones would be mounted on posts on the approach to new signals FNxxx and FNyyy. Two telephones would also be installed at each of the foot crossings and connected in parallel. They would be jumpered to the main cabling and terminated at the controlling signalling centre. The Signal Post Telephones (SPT) and foot crossing phones would be connected to the concentrator at the controlling signalling centre. New line cards would be installed as necessary and the touch screen reprogrammed or key panel relabelled in agreement with the Local Operations Manager. An electrification phone would be installed on the platform at Whitehill Bordon. This would be a lift-to-call type, configured as a direct line to the appropriate Electrical Control Office (ECO). Train despatch at Whitehill Bordon station would be by Driver Only Operation CCTV. A new monitor bank would be designed and installed at the end of the platform, cameras would be installed along the platform to allow the driver to assess the platform / train interface before finishing station operations. Due to the need to connect systems and services at Whitehill Bordon Station to the Fixed Telecoms Network (FTN) network, a copper bearer cable would be laid alongside the alignment to Bentley station. This necessitates the installation of a new troughing route to protect this cable and any tail cables. This route would be suitable to house any signalling, telecoms or other low voltage cables. The copper bearer cable would be jointed and terminated on the lineside to ensure tail cables are kept to within limits described by Fixed Telecom Network (FTN) standards. Station Information and Security Systems (SISS) would be installed at the station in accordance with the requirements of the Train Operating Company, Network Rail and the Equality Act 2010. The Customer Information Systems covering Bentley station would be extended to Whitehill Bordon. This would enable passengers to receive real time visual and audio information about train running. SISS control equipment and data modems would be located within an active cabinet at Whitehill Bordon Station and an equipment room at Bentley station. CCTV cameras would be fitted to give coverage of the public areas of the station, including the station car park. Recording equipment would be located within an active cabinet at the station and the system configured to transmit recordings on request. A passenger help point would also be installed on the platform.
Traction Supply In order to provide through running services the the proposed railway alignment would need to interface with Network Rail Southern area, which is primarily 3rd rail 750V d.c. electrified. There is a large High Voltage network (33kV) which connects traction power substations to provide the 750V d.c. traction power to the 3rd rail. Islington
substation is located just south of Bentley Station and is a single rectifier 1.5MW substation. This substation was subject to analysis as part of the recently completed Southern Power Upgrade Project (PSU), therefore we have reason to believe that this substation may not have sufficient capacity to contribute power the alignment and Network Rail has advised that the study should not consider spare capacity nor enhancement of its infrastructure in support of this scheme. Using alignment data a power simulation of the alignment option was undertaken to provide some confidence that the proposed capacity and position of new additional traction substation(s) is optimised. This simulation was undertaken using RAILSIM® which is an analytical tool for use in modelling rail systems. It is designed to simulate complex rail systems and the interactions of trains, the physical plant, control systems, and the operation of single trains. Outputs from the simulation exercise, assumptions and the necessary major components required are shown in Appendix F. It is assumed that the required traction substation (TSS) will be similar in construction and capacity to existing Network Rail traction substations, albeit to modern standards. A single two transformer rectifier substation rated at (2 x 500 kW) is recommended for the Whitehill Bordon extension as the amount of traffic using this line is very low with a single train on the connection at any one time. As this load is small and the supply will need to be derived direct from the DNO it is recommended that an 11kV supply is obtained. Each feeder should be rated to support 2.7MVA and 11kV Copper feeder cables of 70mm2 can achieve this. It is recommended that the TSS also supplies domestic power to the station.
Station Based on the station location identified in the Masterplan, a preliminary station design exercise was conducted. This was to inform a greater understanding of costs and to understand the potential interaction with the public transport hub in the town centre and examine the potential provision for car parking the site. The key assumptions used for the station are: •
Platform length of 170 metres with single side platform with passive provision to create second platform;
Sheltered waiting areas;
Provision for customer information service;
Fully lighted platform;
Closed circuit television cameras for security and operations;
Automatic ticketing machines;
Provision for car parking spaces for 250 cars;
Car park ticket machine;
20 cycle spaces;
Drop down and pick up area for buses, taxis and cars;
Turning areas for buses and vehicles; and
Station to be fully DDA compliant.
Preliminary design drawings used to inform the cost estimates are shown in Appendix G. The costing exercise has also made allowance for a road access point and the bus/taxi access road linking to Bordon High Street.
Land Values As part of this study, indicative land compensation costs have been included for this alignment. This has been based upon: a)
Land take required to deliver the proposed alignment derived from the alignment cross section;
Type of land usage based upon information from site visits support the engineering and environmental workstreams; and
Current market rates based upon current land which is presently on the market in the Hampshire area.
This approach has been adopted in line with compensation being based on the market value of the land and the current level of development of the project. An order under the Transport and Works Act would need to be submitted to the Secretary of State. A further detailed assessment of the legal ownership of the land, use and whether any potential conditions exist relating to the sale of the land relating to the re-instatement of the former railway would need to be undertaken to improve the confidence in these cost estimates. Based upon previous studies, starting the compilation of the registry of land interests/ownerships and determining land-take requirements (limits of deviation) is likely to be counterproductive before GRIP 3 is complete and an exact alignment within the route selected has been chosen. For example NR will not commit to a fixed price until at least GRIP 4 where the scope of the enhancement is frozen. For acquisitions requiring CPO powers, these cannot be completed until the Transport and Works Act has been successfully secured i.e. at least early GRIP 5. However, acquisitions / interests which can be secured without exercising CPO powers could be progressed earlier.
Cost Estimates Table 3-1 shows a summary of the cost estimates based upon the engineering inputs and associated quantities. A comprehensive breakdown of all cost elements and assumptions is contained in Appendix H. Capital Cost 2011 Q4 - £m Stations
Civils works in forming embankments, cuttings, etc
P-Way and Associated Works
Project Development Costs
Provision For Land Purchase
£96.38 Table 3-1 – Cost Summary (Excluding Optimism Bias)
Although the procurement and funding strategy has yet to be developed, the approach taken to the develop the costings reflects: a)
Full consultant based design except for traction power and signalling works which are assumed to be undertaken by Network Rail; and
Competitive fixed price tendering.
In terms of the phasing, the cost build up shown in Table 3-2 has been assumed. Year 1
Design and Management Costs
Railway systems works
Table 3-2 - Cost Phasing This assumes approximately 3 years for detailed design, funding approval and TWA with 3 years to undertake the civil engineering and railway systems works. Therefore
based on this assumption, the earliest which the rail link could fully open to passenger services would be 2018/2019.
Cost Benchmarking In order to validate the cost assumptions, a benchmarking exercise was conducted to provide confidence in the magnitude of the cost estimates. The current cost estimate of £97M in 2011 Q4 prices equates to £11.6M per kilometre of new line for 8.4km stretch of line. Care needs to be taken when comparing scheme costs on a cost per route kilometre basis due to the varying characteristics of schemes and inclusion of additional rolling stock within capital costs. This section provides a brief summary of schemes and costs which are new line reopenings along previously used corridors where significant work was required to provide new structures along the alignment.
Lewes-Uckfield Line Reinstatement A study was conducted in 2008 to assess the business case for the reopening of 12km of railway between Lewes and Uckfield. Although a number of the structures from the original railway which was closed in 1969, in many places, parts of the structure have been removed and will need replacement and some completely new structures were required. The total cost of this scheme was estimated at £141M in 2008 prices which works out at a cost of £11.8 million per route kilometre.
Croxley Rail Link This scheme reopens the former railway between to Watford and Croxley to extend Metropolitan Line services and a Major Scheme Business was submitted to Department for Transport (DfT) who is conducting an assessment of the scheme. The length of new railway added to the Metropolitan Line is approximately 4.5km and the capital cost of construction for this was £111.81 in Jan 2007 prices equating to £24.9 million per route kilometre.
Escalation In April 2011, DfT produced revised guidance on the estimation and treatment of scheme costs. This identified that the inflation rates relevant to the delivery of transport schemes were higher than general inflation rates over the period 2006 to 2008. More recently, and related to the world recession, many commodity prices and scheme tenders have been falling, or rising at lower rates. Independent projections suggest immediate change is unlikely, and that significant cost increases may not occur for some time. However, under current circumstances it seems unreasonable to adopt central case projections which include capital costs rising above general inflation based on historical trends. It is therefore suggested by DfT that base cost projections should incorporate the most recent relevant actual indexation which has been done in this study by uprating costs
to 2011 Q4 prices, and then, as a default, assume no change in real costs up to 2014 hence the above costs are at 2011 prices. In the absence of further indices, it has assumed that capital costs increase in line with RPI (i.e. no real growth) going forwards.
Optimism Bias As per DfT Guidance optimism bias has been applied to the costs in the appraisal which is used to calculate the Benefit to Cost Ratios in Chapter 6. Given that the costs are at a GRIP 3 level of detail a level of optimism bias of 40% has been applied for capital costs. As there is some overlap between the elements of uncertainty captured within contingency and those within optimism bias, contingency has been removed from the capital estimates for appraisal purposes.
Introduction The GRIP2 study identified the alignment to Bentley as presenting the least number of environmental constraints as it does not require land take from any statutory environmental planning designated areas. However, the majority of the alignment passes through the SDNP, which would require planning approval from the SDNP Authority. The environmental assessment as part of this study undertaken covers two objectives: a)
Ensuring environmental implications for this alignment are suitably addressed as per DfT WebTAG guidance;
Inform the costing exercise where mitigation measures may be required to deliver the proposed alignment.
In addition to WebTAG, additional guidance from the Highways Agency contained within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 and Interim Advice Note 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact, have been drawn upon. The full noise and air quality appraisals have been limited by the lack of modelled traffic data although the mode shift implications these have been captured in the appraisal through the use of WebTAG 3.13.2 which covers the external costs of car use through mode shift. For noise and air quality, these objectives are driven by the level of service provided and thus will vary depending on service frequency and length of train. For example the more trains, the larger impact this would have on noise and rail vehicle emissions. For all other environmental topics, only the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed options has been considered, as the operation of the line has no bearing on the appraisal results. Where appropriate and relevant, other specialist guidance on appraisal has been referred to under the individual topic headings. In line with WebTAG this section provides a summary and scoring of the impacts for: •
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases;
Noise The methodology for the appraisal of noise follows where possible the guidance given within WebTAG Unit 3.3.2 – ‘The Noise Sub-Objective’. The methodology compares the predicted noise level of the ‘with’ and ‘without’ scheme scenarios and calculates the number of people annoyed by noise for each scenario. This is undertaken for the scheme opening year and also 15 years after scheme opening. An estimate of the monetary valuation of the change in noise is also captured in the appraisal. Due to lack of data at this early stage, several assumptions have been made for the appraisal process. These are briefly described below.
Existing levels in the area surrounding the proposed route have had to be assumed. It has been assumed that the existing noise climate is relatively low due to the semi-rural location. Therefore it has been assumed that existing conditions are within the range considered by the World Health Organisation to be acceptable levels. These are 50 dB(A) for the more rural areas, and 55 dB(A) for the area surrounding Bentley and Bordon.
No changes in the existing road network have been assumed for the ‘with’ scheme scenario.
The identification of dwellings (the only buildings considered by noise appraisal) has been undertaken from OS mapping and aerial photography. These have been grouped in 50m bands for the calculation of noise from the proposed line.
There will be no train movements at night and the number and type of train will remain unchanged over the appraisal period.
It has been undertaken assuming the landform is flat, therefore the assessment of alternative vertical alignments has not been made at this stage.
Summary of Noise Impacts There are estimated to be 238 people currently annoyed by noise. With the proposed scheme, this would increase by four people with the proposed option, giving rise to an overall slight adverse impact. Although there are moderate adverse impacts on a few dwellings, at the vast majority of the dwellings there are negligible or slight adverse impacts. It is therefore considered that slight adverse best describes the overall impact. Allowance has been made in the cost estimates for acoustic measures where the route runs near to residential areas.
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases
Approach to air quality and greenhouse gas appraisal The Whitehall to Bordon rail line will be electrified using Third Rail DC Voltage. There will be no air pollutant emissions along the rail line as it will not be used by diesel units. Although there will be a regional air quality impact due to pollutant
emissions associated with the electricity consumed along the line, TAG Unit 3.3.4 (Regional Pollution) guidance states that the regional air quality impact of rail electrification is negligible and in most cases can be scoped out of an appraisal. Furthermore, since there will be no impacts on local air quality local air quality has also been scoped out. The energy generated to electrify the line will release carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon emissions associated with energy consumption along the line have been quantified for the greenhouse gas appraisal following TAG Unit 3.3.5 (The Greenhouse Gases Sub-Objective). It should be noted that because the emissions are associated with electricity generation they are included within the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and are therefore in the ‘traded sector’. This differs from direct emissions associated with road and rail (diesel powered units), which is classed as non-traded carbon. Traded sector carbon emissions have a different monetary value to non-traded carbon emissions up to the year 2030, where they then merge. The convergence of the traded and non traded carbon values is based on the assumption that there will be a functioning global carbon market by 2030. Information on the power consumption rate for class 450 locomotives has been used to calculate annual power consumption along the line. Train power consumption for Class 450 locomotives has been obtained from the Office of Rail Regulation. Information relating to power consumption for this class was found for a number of lines operated by south western trains. The average power consumption (kwhr/train mile) for these lines was calculated and used to calculate the total annual power consumption for the Whitehill to Bordon rail line based on the frequency of trains and length of line. Data on CO2 emissions per unit electricity generated from the national grid have been used to quantify annual CO2 emissions from the total power consumption along the rail line. CO2 emission factors associated with electricity generation for 2009 to 2010 have been obtained from the Department of Energy and Climate Change Interdepartmental Analysts’ Group, October 2011 guidance document ‘Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal and evaluation’. Tradable carbon prices from 2009 to 2010 have also been obtained from the guidance. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the total change in traded fuel consumption related carbon emissions has been calculated between the ‘with scheme’ and ‘without scheme’ scenario over the 60 year appraisal period assuming central cost of carbon.
Summary of Air Quality Impacts The rail line will be electrified and there will therefore be no air quality impacts during the operation of the line. The electricity generated to power the lines will produce traded carbon emissions. As part of the appraisal, a range of different service frequencies were examined, and these are shown in Table x.x. Frequency
Opening Year CO2 (t)
Appraisal Period CO2 (Mt)
4 Car Half Hourly
Opening Year CO2 (t)
Appraisal Period CO2 (Mt)
4 Car Hourly
8 Car Half Hourly
8 Car Hourly
Table 4-1 â€“ Carbon Emissions of Rolling Stock
Landscape / Townscape
Description of Landscape and Townscape Features The proposed rail alignment follows the route of a disused railway line through a predominately rural area. The northern section between Bentley and Sickles Road is on the boundary between the Alice Holt, Mixed Farmland and Woodland character area to the east and the Selbourne Greensand Terrace character area to the west according to the East Hampshire District Landscape Character Assessment (EHDLCA). The, character areas and photo locations are shown on the Landscape Character Plan, with photos illustrating the typical character on the Photo Sheet in Appendix I. To the east of the route there is a feeling of enclosure with arable and pasture fields defined by hedges, lines of trees and post and rail fences. The houses along the roads and lanes bring a suburban element to the landscape, with cut lawns, clipped hedges, driveways, sheds and greenhouses contrasting with the surrounding rural landscape. The highly maintained Blacknest golf course adds to the suburban feel on a larger scale. To the west of the route the field rises up steeply over the greensand terrace which is capped with mixed woodland. South of Sickles road the route runs through the Kingsley/ Blackmore Mixed Farmland and Woodland character area of the EHDLCA. This is a clay vale, lying at the base of the greensand terrace. The landscape is of medium sized mixed use fields defined by hedges, trees and small streams. The Village of Kinsley has a suburban feel to it with small estates of houses and a golf course to the south. The greensand terrace has retreated into the distance but its woodland capped slopes are still visible beyond the houses and horse paddocks. There are is also gravel extraction in the area which is well screened and has little impact on character. The area between Kingsley and Bordon is located in the Whitehill / Liphook Wealden Farmland and Heath Mosaic character area of the EHDLCA. The gently undulating landform is defined by mostly medium sized fields of pasture, horse paddocks, rough grazing and arable with areas of woodland and heathland. In contrast on the edge of Bordon the areas of woodland are mixed with military establishments, industrial sheds and suburban housing.
Appraisal of Environmental Capital (Landscape Values) A high value is placed by society on the character of the landscape of the northern part of the route between Bentley and Kingsley, because it is located within the South Downs National Park. There are also a number of protected features of the landscape
in the area some of which can be seen from the route such as the East Hampshire Hangers SAC, although none are located directly on it. There are also a number of listed buildings clustered along the roads and in villages in the vicinity. The route is crossed by a number of footpaths and a bridle way reflecting the recreational use of the countryside in this area. There is a tranquil scene of fields, hedges, hills and woodland, with grazing deer and buzzards in the sky giving it an isolated feel. Road noise, especially close to Kingsley and Bordon and the Blacknest Road detract from this to some extent. The gravel works near Kingsley also generate some industrial sounds although they are largely hidden from view. Many gardens are maintained to high standard demonstrating the value that residents place in their surroundings. It is likely that many of them live in the area because of the beauty of the surroundings. The disused railway line is part of the history of the area and is a distinctive feature in the landscape. Around Bordon the mosaic of fields and woodland is broken by industrial estates with large sheds, military establishments and barracks and housing.
Appraisal of Impact on Landscape/Townscape The proposed route largely follows that of the disused railway and it could be argued that it is restoring a historic feature in the landscape. It will largely fit with the existing landscape because it runs along the base of the greensand terrace for half of its length, a natural change in landscape character, and often between hedges and lines of trees that form part of the current field pattern. The rail link will increase the impact on the surrounding landscape character by placing new structures which are out of keeping with the landform. Raising the level of the track or the roads leading up to bridges will require a larger footprint than the existing transport infrastructure, and will require removal of existing trees and other vegetation. Some of the trees are mature and make a significant contribution to the local landscape character and cannot be replaced. The Railway line will be electrified, by the use of a third rail. This will minimise the visual impacts compared with overhead line electrification. The noise of the trains is likely to disturb the tranquillity of the area. Due to the medium size of the field patterns it is relatively easy to integrate the proposals into the landscape by planting trees and hedges and creating meadows on the embankments that will be of value to wildlife. Provision for the planting of new trees adjoining the sides of the route has been made in the cost estimates. Additional mitigation will be required to integrate new bridges and culverts into the surroundings. This is can be done by good design of the structures, and the use of local materials such as brick or sandstone. The colour of the overhead gantries should be considered to integrate them into their surroundings, a dark colour when seen against a dark background such as a woodland or grey when seen against the sky for example. Overall the landscape/townscape appraisal score is slight adverse.
Heritage of Historic Resources
Description of Heritage Features Heritage features have been mapped and each feature has a corresponding number, which is shown on the Cultural Heritage Features plans. There are 3 cultural Heritage Features Plans showing different sections of the proposed railway route, these are in Appendix J.
Statutory and Non-Statutory Designations There are no World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas, Registered Battlefields or Historic Parks and Gardens along the line of the scheme or within the wider study area. A scheduled monument (SM) lies at the southern end of the proposed scheme to the west of the cemetery at Bordon. This comprises five separate Bronze Age bowl barrows (17207-17211). Although there are no listed buildings directly along the line of the scheme, there are three within the wider study area: •
A 19th century converted barn (13544) at Kingsley (Grade II listed);
A 17th-19th century converted barn (12944) at Bentley (Grade II listed); and
A 17th-19th century house at no. 2 Station Road (12975), Bentley (Grade II listed).
Kingsley village and the area immediately surrounding it is designated as an Area of Archaeological Potential (AAP). This is a local designation which denotes areas such as historic settlements and groupings of known archaeology as sensitive areas. 126.96.36.199
Non-designated heritage The following archaeological monuments either lie along the line of the proposed scheme or abut it: •
The site of a WWII Defence of Britain (DoB) feature (58379) at Bordon – possibly a training target;
The site of a WWII anti-aircraft battery (37840) at Bordon;
A collection of field systems, kilns and artefacts (58106) recovered in advance of quarry excavation (sand extraction) to the west of the proposed scheme at Kinglsey. These comprised features dating from throughout the prehistoric to the Romano-British period;
A collection of crop marks (35784) abut the proposed scheme just to the south west of the Alice Holt Forest;
A circular crop mark (62903) is cut by the dismantled railway; and
A single series of cropmarks (62951) just to the south of Bentley might represent a buried field system.
Other entries on the Historic Environment Record (HER) in close proximity to the proposed scheme are included on the HER, but represent artefact find spots (3700437006, 39492, 34237 and 39730) and therefore have no remaining archaeological value, though their presence might denote buried archaeology in that approximate location. In the wider study area, the following archaeological monuments and find spots are recorded on the HER: •
A stable at Baker’s Farm (50502);
A series of Defence of Britain (DoB) features at the southern end of the scheme around the present industrial estate or retail park: a set of WWII bomb craters (58373); a WWII gun emplacement (58377); possible WWII trenches (58378); the site of a military depot (58375) and a WWII prisoner of war camp (62995) called Oakhanger Camp. A temporary military camp is located just to the east of the SM site (58390).
Just to the north of the Forge Road are a collection of HER entries: extensive prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval pottery and general scatters (34134, 34135, 17254, 39485, 39483 and 39475) which taken together indicate a certain potential for a buried settlement site to exist at this location;
A medieval farmstead (39955) at Dean Farm;
The site of a pond (61129) on the Kingsley Tithe Map;
Find spots north of Kingsley featuring Roman tile (39477) and post-medieval tile (39478);
Evidence of prehistoric occupation (34130 and 34132) north of Kingsley;
Prehistoric and Romano-British find spots (17256, 17258 and 17259) north of Stephenfield Copse;
A prehistoric pottery sherd (39492) was located along the line of the dismantled railway;
To the west of the scheme at Alice Holt Forest is the site of a likely RomanoBritish settlement (39491);
A modern findspot (39722) lies just to the south of a possible prehistoric enclosure (39721);
Romano-British pottery (17058 and 17059) lies to the north of the enclosure above;
To the north west of Alice Holt Forest is a prehistoric (39381) and RomanoBritish (39383) settlement site. In the area around it are Iron Age (39730 and 39729) and Romano-British (39729, 39731 and 34237) pottery scatters;
To the north of the settlement site above, and within the Blacknest Country Club, the remains of a medieval and post-medieval building (34029) have been excavated. On the same archaeological excavation, a series of stake holes and
post holes were located (34157). No discernable pattern was identified from them; •
In the area to the west and south of Broadview Farm, a series of cropmarks have been identified from aerial photographs. These include an Iron Age and Romano-British feature (62947) with a trackway and field system (62950) along with a possible cursus (36276) which would be both prehistoric in date. The prehistoric nature of the archaeology in this area is supported by the cropmarks to the west of the farm, which include those mentioned above (62951) which are bisected by the old railway. Iron Age, Romano-British and prehistoric flints (39726-39728) have been recovered from the area of these crop marks;
The site of a house called ‘Clay Pitts’ (34220);
At the northern end of the proposed scheme around Bentley is the site of a medieval farmstead (38697) and the site of a post-medieval brickworks (55432) at the eastern end of Aldix Copse. To the west of these monuments is the location of a firmer medieval tile kiln (39716) with associated dump of wasters (39717). A medieval building (39718) stood at this location also. In the village of Bentley itself is the site of a modern wind-pump (56315) now demolished, with further medieval pottery kilns (17086) on the northern edge of the village.
The former infrastructure along the dismantled railway is not recorded on the HER, but it is reasonable to assume that features such as original bridges crossing the railway might still exist along its length.
Appraisal of Environmental Capital The scheduled monuments at the southern end of the scheme have a national value, and therefore in terms of DMRB guidance (DMRB, Section 3, part 2, HA 208/07) would have a high value. The designated built heritage within the scheme’s study area is Grade II listed properties and therefore has a medium value, using the guidance above. Other buildings might have a local listing, or be significant on a local basis, which would warrant a low value. These might include any buildings relating to the dismantled railway. With respect to the known non-designated archaeological resource, values can not be easily assigned. Although recorded as cropmarks, extent and significance can not be determined until physical investigation has been undertaken. Find spots can not be given a value because the artefacts have been removed from their context, but nevertheless these can be indicative of buried archaeology, especially when full assemblages are identified. Some monuments have been subject to excavation already in advance of development and therefore won’t have any remaining value.
Appraisal of Impact on Heritage Features
Archaeology The proposed route runs through areas of known archaeological sensitivity. The route shows groupings of archaeological sites within the study area at intervals along the length of the proposed scheme. The potential impacts to the buried archaeological resource can not be accurately determined at this stage, as the scope of future construction is not known. However, the scale of impacts to archaeology can only be more accurately determined through detailed archaeological assessment, and with access to detailed design proposals.
Built Heritage There are likely to be extant structures along the dismantled railway corridor that have an historic significance. This might include railway bridges and trackside structures that would likely hold a local heritage value and which might be adversely affected by the scheme. The listed buildings are not situated along or adjacent to the scheme and so any impacts are likely to relate to historic and visual settings. In summary, the built heritage resource is a varied one, and should be included in detailed cultural heritage assessment in support of any future planning application. Future assessment should include a non-listed heritage survey along the course of the dismantled railway. Given adequate mitigation, such as preservation by record, excavation or monitoring of the archaeological and built heritage resource, the effect of the scheme should be neutral. Detailed assessment and archaeological investigations where necessary, would be a required part of the EIA process.
Description of Biodiversity and Earth Heritage Features The Whitehill-Bordon preferred rail alignment runs from Bentley in the north to Bordon in the south and is within the Wealden Greensand Natural Area (English Nature, not dated). The nature conservation interest of the Natural Area lies in its key physical and wildlife features, as the soils have not been heavily cultivated and retain habitats of considerable nature conservation interest. In the west of the Natural Area, forestry, military training and amenity land occupy extensive areas and include large tracts of important wildlife habitat. Key habitats within the Wealden Greensand Natural Area, which are relevant, are: •
Lowland heathland and mire;
Unimproved acid grassland;
Ponds and lakes; and
Bare sand habitats.
Key fauna within the Wealden Greensand Natural Area, which are relevant, are:
Reptiles and amphibians, including nationally rare species; and
Designated Sites The northern section of the proposed route runs through the South Downs National Park (predominantly a designation to conserve landscape, biodiversity and cultural heritage). In addition, the proposed route runs within 1km of a large number of sites designated for their nature conservation value and 2km of European designated sites which are described in detail in Appendix K. These sites include a Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). At the northern end of the proposed route the habitats adjacent to the route include woodland, which is also ancient in origin (i.e. continuous tree cover since at least 1600AD). These woodlands are recognised as ancient semi-natural woodland and areas of ancient replanted woodland and within the search area these all occur within designated sites.
Habitats The dismantled railway line is tree-lined in many places with areas of grassland, particularly in the north section, and in places the surface now forms tracks used by farm or other vehicles.
Woodland The northern section of the proposed route from Bentley to Kingsley runs adjacent to several areas of ancient semi-natural woodland that includes; Redcap Copse, Cobden’s Copse and Straits Inclosure, which are all designated sites. South of Kinglsey the route runs through areas of woodland as it runs off the disused railway route south to Oakhanger Road. There are small areas of generally recent woodland growth adjacent to the proposed route that is not within a designated site.
Trees & Hedgerows This habitat comprises linear vegetation that has grown up adjacent to the dismantled railway line and hedgerows that cross or are adjacent to the proposed route. Scattered trees are present and are often associated with boundary features, such as hedgerows, or scattered through open fields.
Floodplain Grazing Marsh Periodically inundated pasture, or meadow, which is either grazed or cut for hay or silage and may include seasonal water-filled hollows and permanent ponds. The habitat is present in the north of the proposed route (meadows adjacent to the River Wey) and where the route crosses the River Slea and its feeder streams.
Grassland The proposed route runs through and adjacent to extensive areas of grassland in the form of pasture and amenity grassland (golf course), mainly in the north of the route from Bentley to Kingsley.
Running Water The proposed route crosses several minor watercourses, predominantly on the existing dismantled railway, which includes the River Slea and feeder streams that flow into the River Slea. The River Wey is in the vicinity of the northern part of the proposed route at Bentley.
Open Water There are few identified areas of open water adjacent to the route, although there are some large areas of open water west of Kinglsey created from sand extraction; ponds within Blacknest Golf Course (south of Bentley); and a waterbody within Free Piece West, Oxney Farm SINC.
Species Bats - There are records for pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp., brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and Nattererâ€™s bat Myotis nattereri within the vicinity of the proposed route. The wider landscape includes features of potential significance for bats including woodland, mature trees, hedgerows and watercourses. Otter Lutra lutra - There is a record for otter from the search area. The proposed route crosses approximately six minor watercourses which could provide potential otter habitat. Amphibians - The only record for amphibians from the search area is for common toad Bufo bufo. A natterjack toad Bufo calamita colony is known within north-east Hampshire. Great crested newts Triturus cristatus are known to be present in the adjacent landscape. Ponds adjacent to the proposed route are mainly associated with golf courses and large waterbodies from mineral extraction. Reptiles - There are records for slow worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix, adder Vipera berus and common lizard Zootoca vivipara from the search area, predominantly from designated sites. The habitats of and adjacent to the proposed route include habitats (particularly within designated sites) with the potential for all these species of reptile. Birds - There are numerous bird records from the search area, predominantly from designated sites. These include barn owl Tyto alba, Dartford warbler Sylvia undata, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria and wood lark Lullula arborea.
Invertebrates - There are numerous invertebrate records from the search area, predominantly from designated sites. These include species with potential to be present on and adjacent to the proposed route, such as moths, butterflies and damselflies. Badger Meles meles - There are seven records for badgers within the search area. Within the landscape of the proposed route there is a significant proportion of optimal badger habitat present, with woodlands, copses, hedgerows and pasture. Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius - There are no records for dormouse within the search area, however, there are records for the species in surrounding woodlands (particularly Alice Holt Forest). Other Mammals - There are records for brown hare Lepus europaeus and Eurasian hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus within the search area. Within the landscape there is a significant proportion of optimal habitat for these species, including arable, pasture, woodlands, copses, hedgerows.
Appraisal of Environmental Capital
European Designated Sites These sites are of very high importance and rarity at the international scale as the listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level.
The primary reasons for designation and qualifying features (but not primary reasons for designation) for SACs within 2km of the preferred option include transition mire and quaking bog habitat, European dry heath, bog woodland, Asperulo-Fagetum beech forest, Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines and natural dystrophic lakes and ponds.
Wealdon Heaths Phase II SPA is designated for rare and vulnerable birds, namely: nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus; woodlark Lullula arborea; and Dartford warbler Sylvia undata.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Those designated sites that are SSSI, but do not have a European designation, are considered of high importance and rarity at the national scale. These two sites (Broxhead and Kingsley Commons and Bentley Station Meadow) comprise a diversity of heathland and grassland habitats in close juxtaposition to a variety of habitats, which support a rich invertebrate fauna, a rich flora, nationally rare sand lizard Lacerta agilis and important heathland bird species.
Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation These sites are of high importance and rarity at the regional scale as they are of particular importance for nature conservation within Hampshire. These include ancient semi-natural woodland, ancient replanted woodland, heathland, wetland and sites that support notable species.
Habitats The habitats identified as being likely to be present are all considered to be of lesser value than SINCs, but are likely to have some local value, due to some degree of legal or policy protection (e.g. hedgerows), a valued habitat which is covered by the UK or Hampshire BAP (e.g. floodplain grazing marsh) and potential to support valued species (e.g. ponds and wetlands). Therefore, the habitats are of low or medium importance and rarity (depending upon the habitat type) at the local scale.
Species The species with potential to be present within and adjacent to the proposed route are considered to have a range of values depending upon their degree of legal protection or other recognised value (e.g. UK BAP priority species). As there is not currently any detailed survey information on the presence/absence of these species and their populations, the values are assumed as a likely maximum potential value if the species is present. Therefore, bats, amphibians (great crested newts), otter and dormouse are valued at up to high importance and rarity at the international scale; reptiles, birds and invertebrates at up to high importance and rarity at the national scale; and badgers and other mammals at up to medium importance at the local scale.
Appraisal of Impact on Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
Temporary Effects Effects during construction cannot be assessed fully at this stage but are likely to include temporary disturbance, damage and fragmentation to some SNCIs, habitats and species through haul and access routes, for example. Any construction pollution incidences or where there is a temporary alteration to hydrological regimes, will be particularly significant upon waterbodies, watercourses and other habitats reliant upon water quality and hydrology for their value (e.g. wet grassland, floodplain grazing marsh and bog). It is considered that there would be no temporary effects to European designated sites and SSSIs, due to the distance of them from the proposed route and through the implementation of best practice construction methods.
Permanent Effects It is predicted that the proposed route would not result in any permanent significant impacts to European designated sites and SSSI as there would be no direct impacts or habitat loss and indirect impacts to qualifying features are likely to be negligible. However, as part of detailed design and planning it will be necessary to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the proposals, due to the proximity of the route to European sites. In particular the HRA would need to screen the potential for indirect impacts to qualifying bird species at Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA and movement of these species between different areas of habitat within the landscape. The route passes through or immediately adjacent to several SINCs, namely: Redcap Copse & Catham Copse; Broadview Farm Dismantled Railway; Cobden's Copse; Straits Inclosure; Lode Farm Sand Pit North; Lode Farm Sand Pit South; Free Piece West, Oxney Farm; Oxney Farm Woodland; and Hogmore Inclosure. Any permanent effects to most of these sites are likely to be minor, although Broadview Farm
Dismantled Railway SINC may be lost, and there could be significant impacts and loss of habitat at Free Piece West, Oxney Farm SINC. The route could also result in significant impacts to breeding sand martin Riparia riparia populations at Lode Farm Sand Pit North & South SINCs from habitat loss and disturbance from the new railway. Potential permanent effects to these SINCs could be Moderate Adverse. The proposals follow a dismantled railway for much of its route, and the works would involve a loss of habitat that has developed since the railway was dismantled (e.g. neutral grassland, scrub and woodland), as well permanent effects to adjacent habitats (e.g. hedgerows, trees, woodland, watercourses and waterbodies) from loss and fragmentation. Due to the limited nature and extent of the route it is considered that effects may not be greater than Slight Adverse, however, should significant habitats be present (e.g. mature/veteran trees or species-rich grassland) and directly impacted then there is potential for the effects to higher. Due to the presence of protected species within the vicinity of the proposed route and the habitats present there is potential for effects to protected and important species. The proposals would result in the loss of existing linear habitat and other habitat that could support these species, or provide an important part of their lifecycle. Therefore, there is potential for some effects, although following the implementation of mitigation to ensure legal requirements are met, these impacts are considered likely to be Slight Adverse. There are potential effects to bats, amphibians, reptiles, birds, invertebrates and dormouse if these species are present. The options for the vertical alignment of the proposed route give rise to similar impacts, with additional habitat losses where bridges are proposed for the roads. Overall the biodiversity sub-objective has been given a score of Moderate Adverse.
Appraisal of Value of Water Environment The proposed route crosses a number of small to medium sized surface watercourses. These range from being of low importance (local ditches, small surface watercourses) to being of moderate importance (water bodies designated as being of moderate status under the Water Framework Direction). The route passes close to a small number of ponds and small lakes that are assigned low importance. A detailed assessment split by individual location is contained in Appendix L. The southern section of the proposed route crosses a Principal Aquifer (Godalming Greensand), and the northern section of the route passes adjacent to the Alton Upper Greensand Principal Aquifer. Both aquifers are assigned a very high importance for quantative and chemical quality. The route passes within 1km of two separate groundwater source protection zones. These potential receptors are also assigned a very high importance reflecting their high regional value. The route passes a number of floodplains associated with watercourses. These include Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3. Where the proposed route crosses Flood Zone 2 and 3 around Kingsley, there is a small amount of existing development in the flood plain, and therefore, the floodplain receptor is assigned a medium value. Elsewhere, other watercourse crossings are considered to have a low value due to the
general absence of either floodplains, or there being limited development in the floodplain.
Potential Impact on Valuable Attributes Surface water quality may be impacted upon by discharges from the railway embankment to surface watercourses. These may be routine runoff during precipitation events, or from accidental spillages. Although they will in part depend on the nature of the track drainage, the magnitude of the impact to surface water quality is predicted to be minor adverse. Considering both receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of potential impact, the overall significance of the impact is predicted to be insignificant. It is considered unlikely that drainage will be directly to groundwater receptors from the proposed route. Should discharges or accidental spillage occur, the predicted impact on groundwater quality is predicted to be of minor adverse magnitude, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Groundwater recharge may be reduced by expansion or construction of new rail embankments, resulting in a minor adverse impact that may have a potentially significant effect. The construction of new, or raising of existing embankment for the proposed option within Flood Zones 2 or 3 may cause a reduction in the area available for flood storage, and cause an increase in peak run off rates as a result of the removal of greenfield land. River crossings may cause a loss of flow conveyance in the watercourse. The estimated magnitude of the impacts on flooding risk is considered to be potentially major adverse, resulting in a potentially significant effect. It is expected that a flood risk assessment and subsequent mitigation will reduce the magnitude of this impact to have no net negative impact on flood risk as a result of the scheme. Where the railway is kept at its current level, the impact on flood zones may be slightly reduced as there would be less loss of conveyance of flow, i.e. a smaller loss of the floodplain. There would be no change in impact to water quality assuming all discharges are to surface water.
Overall Assessment Summary Due to the uncertainty over impact on flood risk; it is considered that the scheme could have up to a potentially moderate adverse impact on the water environment. It is though, anticipated that suitable mitigation can be identified for all aspects of the water environment assessment, and a future overall assessment is likely to be reduced to neutral.
Introduction As part of the GRIP2 study, a demand forecasting exercise was conducted to understand the potential flows along the 4 potential corridors to link to the wider network. A revised methodology for appraising the preferred option is proposed that will produce more robust estimates of the economic benefits. The new methodology adopts a 4 stage modelling approach and considers the relative costs between different modes to forecast rail demand. This enables a wider range of sensitivity tests to be conducted and enhances the derivation of the economic benefits delivered by the scheme. The multi-stage approach to modelling transport demand attempts to replicate the decisions made by rational, utility maximising consumers by representing them as a series of linked choices - whether to make a trip, where to travel to, how to get there, which route to take and when to travel. Since the original study was conducted Hampshire County Council has produced the Whitehill Bordon Transport Evidence Base. As part of this more information on the proposed routing, journey times of local bus services which would provide links to existing rail services at Farnham for trips to London, and Liphook for services to the South West.
Modelling Approach The stages in the proposed methodology are listed below: •
Trip Generation and Attraction – how much travel demand will be generated and attracted per person or household. This is based on the population, employment and other activities in the town.
Trip Distribution – where will trips travel between, based on the distance or travel time / costs between centres and the need to travel between centres. Such centres are the main towns and cities in the local area, including London, and the need for travel is reflected in the size of each.
Mode of Travel – what mode of travel – car, bus or rail, or even a combination of modes – will be used for the trip given the relative costs and time of using each mode.
Route or Service Taken – what route or service will be taken to complete the trip to the selected destination and modes. In some cases, there may be no route or service choice for a mode, as there is only one route or service available for that mode.
The approach to modelling the different stages are listed below, together with the data inputs required and the outputs generated. Where data from the existing modelling process can be used again in the new process, this is highlighted. New data inputs are also shown together with the availability of such data to assist in the study.
Trip Rates and Distribution Using the Census 2001, trips made to and from Whitehill and Bordon have been extracted to form the basis of the future distribution. Outliers from the Census were removed so they did not unduly affect distribution within the model but were included as part of an ‘other’ zone. In addition, further analysis of Census data for towns surrounding the Eco-Town was made together with National Rail Travel Survey data. One issue that would be present in the Census data is that the current trip patterns will evolve through time as the development of the Eco-town and should the provision of a rail service be introduced. This was to understand distribution for towns which have existing rail stations, in particular to validate the level of demand towards London. In total, the Masterplan for the site details four development scenarios which have been tested, which are: • • • •
4,000 residential dwellings and employment to support 5,500 jobs; 5,300 residential dwellings and employment to support 6,800 jobs; 1,700 residential dwellings and employment to support 3,200 jobs; and Reuse of MoD buildings for non-MoD use.
The Census of 2001 has been used to generate the number of work trips generated by the proposed new dwellings. Based upon data for the Local Authority of East Hampshire, there were 55,237 economically active people and 43,625 households. These numbers generate 1.266 economically active people per house, and therefore for the development quantum of 4,000 new dwellings this will create 5,065 people who are economically active. The proportion of external trips to and from the town was defined. Internal trips in the town are of no interest in the forecasts, as such trips will not use rail. Based upon the Masterplan, the model is based upon an internalisation factor of 50%, i.e. of all employment trips, 50% will be made within the town. In total, presently 2,766 people are modelled to travel to Bordon from external areas for employment, while 5,331 travel to work from Bordon to external areas. With development these numbers increase to 5,513 travelling to the town for work and 7,863 travelling from the town. This is shown in Table 5-1. Direction
Existing to Whitehill Bordon
Existing from Whitehill Bordon
Future to Town Plus Development
Future from Town Plus Development
Table 5-1 – Trip Assumptions In order to distribute these trips a gravity model was developed. The attractiveness of each destination would be defined by the population or employment of each. The
gravity model formula would be as below, with the power function (X is formula below) defined through calibration. Trips = Destination Attraction / Cost to Destination ^ X The model was be calibrated to JTW data, NTS data for trip lengths, and National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) data for rail movements from stations close to Whitehill (i.e. Bentley, Liss, Alton and Liphook). Forecast populations and employment value for external centres will be based on the Tempro database version 6.2. Tempro is able to provide factors by time of day and for a range of different forecast years.
Mode Choice Based upon the travel generalised cost for each journey option, a LOGIT model was developed. This was calibrated to existing modal shares using data from sources such as JTW census data. The base scenario for the calibration of the mode choice model will reflect the size of the current town, hence the trip generation and distribution processes will need to be run assuming no growth and current highway infrastructure and transport services. The costs of travel will need to reflect the following choices: •
Car all way;
Park and ride to local rail station;
Bus all way;
Rail all way.
Other modes such as cycle and walk would not be part of the choices as in the vast majority of cases the length of trips would render the use of such modes unviable. The model structure will need to reflect car availability for park and ride, and follows the hierarchy shown in Figure 5.1.
Total Demand Public Transport
Car all way
Park and Ride
Figure 5.1 – Model Structure The service choice for rail will apply to walk, cycle, public transport interchange and those wishing to park and ride, where the rail station choices are Whitehill or the existing stations at Bentley, Liss, Alton and Liphook. The majority of locally based park and ride trips are likely to select Whitehill, especially if the proposed service is direct to London or another major destination.
Data Sources For the new modelling approach, the following data and information sources were used. The availability of each is summarised below:
Transport Strategy and Transport Evidence Base;
NTS – available on line at DfT Statistics;
NRTS – obtained from DfT Rail;
Tempro – Version 6.2 available online.
Do Minimum Public Transport Assumptions One key driver behind the demand generated by the rail scheme is how the rail network would interface with the bus network proposed for the Eco-Town. Although Whitehill Bordon does not have a rail station, enhanced links to the network would provide opportunities for rail travel for residents by linking to existing stations at Farnham, Liphook, Haslemere and Alton. Existing and proposed bus networks as noted in the Transport Assessment document were drawn in Accession to understand which zones could connect to Whitehill Bordon and generate associated bus demand to external zones.
The bus network information from the Transport Assessment document was used for the assumed Do Minimum bus network which would be provided as part of the EcoTown and would provide alternative services to rail in the Do Minimum.
Service 13 Alton to Liphook - This service starts on the B3004 in East Worldham and travels along the A325 to Sleaford and the new town centre of Bordon before travelling along Liphook Road in Whitehill and ending in Liphook centre.
Service 18 Aldershot to Haslemere - This service begins on East Street in Farnham and travels along the A325 in Sleaford and stops in the new town centre in Bordon. The service then travels along the B3002 to Headley before terminating on the A286 in Haslemere.
Service 37 Havant to Bordon - This service travels along the A3 north of Petersfield and stops on Petersfield Road in Greatham before travelling along the A325 to Whitehill. The service then stops on Budds Lane and Station Road in Bordon.
Service 50 Bordon to Guildford - The service begins on Budds Lane in Bordon then travels to Louisburg Barracks before travelling along the B3004 to Lindford. The next stop is in Liphook centre before travelling along the A3 to Guildford.
Service 51 Bordon to Farnborough - This service begins in the new Bordon town centre and travels to the Louisburg Barracks before heading along the A325 in Sleaford followed by East Street in Farnham. The route terminates on the A325 north of Farnham.
Service 52 Bordon to Basingstoke - This service begins in Bordon on Budds Lane then travels along Drift Road before heading along the B3006 in Selbourne. The service then stops in Alton centre before travelling along the A339 north of Alton and terminating in Basingstoke.
Demand Forecasts Table 5-2 shows the demand forecasts associated with each option. The new demand to rail network captures extraction from the Do Minimum plus any change in demand associated with the service changes modelled in MOIRA. Scenario
Annual Demand at Whitehill Bordon
New Demand to Rail Network
Option 1 – Divert 1 tph to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 5-2 - Demand Forecasts (4,000 residential dwellings and employment to support 5,500 jobs) Option 1, which only provides an hourly service delivers 779,000 trips per annum at Whitehill Bordon, it should be noted that with an incremental demand to the rail network of 489,000, only 62% are new trips hence reflecting the loss of demand from Alton in addition to abstraction from other stations. Option 3, which provides a half hourly service to Ascot delivers 765,000 trips at Whitehill Bordon of which 550,000 are new demand to the rail network Option 2 which would result in a direct half hourly service to London, delivers demand at Whitehill Bordon of just over 1 million trips. Of these trips though, 258,000 would be extracted from the wider network leaving a net incremental increase in demand to rail of 786,000. Table 5-3 shows the same table but showing the impact should the full build out in the Masterplan be implemented. Scenario
Option 1 – Divert 1 train per hour to Whitehill Bordon Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Demand at Whitehill Bordon
New Demand to Rail Network
Table 5-3 - Demand Forecasts (5,300 residential dwellings and employment to support 6,800 jobs)
Validation of Economic Benefits In order to validate the economic benefits which underpin the demand forecasts, Figure 5.2 shows the impact in terms of the relationship between GJT and changes in modal share based upon the origin/destination pairs within the model. This was used to validate the outputs which formed the basis of the economic appraisal.
Change in Rail Mode Share
Benefit per All Rail Trip
Figure 5.2 â€“ Benefits and Change in Modal Share Plots The downward sloping pattern shows a direct link between changes in generalised cost and changes in modal share between given origins and destinations. Hence where the larger the benefit per rail trips in terms of Generalised Journey Time, the larger the observed percentage change in modal share for trips.
Impact on Crowding On Existing Service Although the crowding impact on the wider rail network was not modelled in terms of demand changes into Waterloo, it is vital to understand the impact on the existing network of the additional patronage at Whitehill Bordon. This issue was identified by both DfT and SWT. The starting point was to understand current loadings based upon weekday on train count data provided by SWT. Table 5-4 shows the maximum loading of individual AM peak services inbound, and Table 5-5 shows the same data for the outbound PM peak services. This reflects the most loaded point on each train, which is between Surbiton and London Waterloo for all services. Seating capacity data is based upon those stated in the Network Rail Rolling Stock RUS which provides 233 standard class and 24 first class seats. Seating Capacity
05:42 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
Maximum Passengers 398
06:12 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
06:44 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
07:14 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
07:44 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
08:14 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
08:44 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
09:14 (Alton - London Waterloo N)
Table 5-4 – Current Inbound Loadings (AM Peak)
15:53 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
Maximum Passengers 230
16:25 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
16:55 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
17:25 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
17:55 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
18:25 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
18:55 (London Waterloo N - Alton)
Table 5-5 – Current Outbound Loadings (PM Peak) These figures show that overall trains from Alton into and out of Waterloo in the peak periods are currently above seating capacity. Although adding passengers at Whitehill Bordon would add to train crowding, it can be argued that loading would increase regardless of whether a new station was provided at Whitehill Bordon and that new rolling stock or changes to the configuration of existing rolling stock would be required regardless to mitigate these identified crowding issues. Providing additional capacity on every peak service just to accommodate the additional demand at Whitehill Bordon would provide a substantial negative impact on the business case due to the large additional cost given the annual leasing costs of the rolling stock. In order to mitigate the identified impact and ensure that appropriate costs for providing additional capacity are included within this business case, sensitivity tests would be conducted in Chapter 6. This will show the impact of providing additional rolling stock equal to the additional seating capacity required to cover the total additional peak demand to cover the full build out of the Eco-Town. Additional rolling stock has been included within the operating costs where additional rolling stock is required to fulfil operational constraints to ensure that current diagramming requirements for the current timetable are met. Where this additional rolling stock doesn’t cover the additional capacity required for Whitehill Bordon, additional rolling stock has been included to cover the total demand. Table 5-6 shows the additional rolling stock that would be required to cover additional demand generated by Whitehill Bordon from both an operational analysis and capacity based approach. Daily AM Peak Demand
Daily PM Peak Demand
Number of Units Required
Units Costed For (Operations)
Option 1 – Divert
Option 2 – Split
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 5-6 – Additional Rolling Stock Costs to Accommodate Demand Although, in practice the diversion of Alton services could be achieved without any rolling stock, the additional peak demand of just under 400 passengers, equates to 2 additional 4 car units at a total cost of £1.2M. Similarly, Option 2 would require an additional 3 units to cover the additional peak demand, whereas Option 3 has sufficient rolling stock already costed for.
Introduction Any transport schemes which seek public funding should contain a section on value for money (VfM). This should •
Set out the estimated Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the project
Assess whether it has any significant benefits or costs which cannot be put in money terms ("non-monetised impacts") and
On the basis of this analysis, describe the project as "poor", "low", "medium" or "high" value for money.
The DfT currently assess the value for money of a scheme •
‘Poor’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is less than 1;
‘Low’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 1 and 1.5;
‘Medium’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 1.5 and 2;
‘High’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 2 and 4; and
‘Very High’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is greater than 4.
Value for money is only one of a number of key factors which will influence whether a proposal should be recommended for acceptance. However, given tight financial constraints, it is a very important consideration. The remainder of this section provides the assumptions and the BCR’s for the options considered in the study, and sensitivity tests to ascertain the variations of Value for Money around key assumptions.
Appraisal Methodology Appraisal assumptions are consistent with those outlined in the DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance and NR GRIP Investment Regulations. In summary these are: •
60 year appraisal period;
2002 price and discounting base;
Discount rate of 3.5% for first 30 years from current year, with 3.0% thereafter; and
Unit of account is market prices and therefore any factor prices are uplifted by 20.9% which is the average rate of indirect taxation in the economy.
Journey time benefits were derived from the outputs of the demand forecasts based upon implied changes in perceived costs and consumer surplus using rule of half, based upon the outputs of the GJT model. Values of time are based on those contained in WebTAG which are £36.96 per hour for business rail user, £5.04 for commuter and £4.46 for leisure. The values of time
have been grown throughout the appraisal period in line with real growth per capita in GDP, with an elasticity of 1 for business trips and 0.8 for leisure and commuter trips. The GJT benefits capture all elements of journey time including in vehicle time, waiting time and interchange penalty. Waiting time is valued as being two times the value of in-vehicle time plus there is an additional penalty for the need to interchange. Underlying growth influencing values of time have been updated in line with DfT appraisal guidance published since the GRIP 2 study. Real GDP growth for years from 2009 to 2015 is now based on Office of Budget Responsibility March 2011 forecasts whilst real GDP growth from 2016 onwards is based on long term Treasury planning assumptions as published in the March 2008 Long Term Public Finance Report. In the absence of a highway model, the method for assessing the external costs of road use such a congestion reduction to highway users through mode shift has been based upon the method identified in WebTAG 3.13.2. In terms of opening year, it has been assumed that the new station opens in 2029, consistent with the anticipated full build out of the 4,000 houses. This ensures consistency of approach across all options and ensures that the business case in not negatively influenced by slow demand build up by commencing the appraisal period before a suitable amount of demand has been generated by the Eco-town development. Sensitivity tests will also be conducted which show the impact of opening the station as soon as physically possible, which in transport planning terms would clearly be desirable.
Revenue The additional revenue has been based upon the incremental trips forecast as a result of the provision of a new station at Whitehill Bordon. It will therefore not include revenue generated in the Do Minimum where passengers generated as a result of the Eco town without a new station, will access existing rail stations via car or public transport switch to using the new station. As part of this study, Halcrow used the South West Trains version of MOIRA to derive an expected yield per trip. Although specific data cannot be published in this report due to confidentiality reasons, the revenue calculations captured more accurately ticket type splits and revenue per passenger mile observed on the Alton line and the revenue that would be generated at Whitehill Bordon. For revenue impacts identified in Chapter 3, these have been netted off against the incremental revenue at Whitehill Bordon to ensure the net fare box impact of each option is captured. This ensures that both current revenue and potential revenue growth lost from other stations going forward are captured. In terms of future revenue growth, revenue has been assumed to grow at RPI+1% with RPI+3% between 2012 and 2015.
The opening net revenue for when the Eco-Town is fully built out and revenue is fully ramped up is shown in Table 6-1 in 2011 prices. Net Revenue
Option 1 – Divert 1 train per hour to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-1 - Opening Year Net Revenue 2011 Prices (Undiscounted)
Financing Unless there is good reason to assume alternative financing we would expect the central case in the appraisal to assume Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) financing according to ORR's determination. The construction of the new connection would be funded by an increase in Network Rail’s RAB. This currently requires a rate of return of 4.75% on capital, with depreciation occurring over a 30 year period. In the economic appraisal, this implies a 30 year (declining, and concave) repayment schedule that must be discounted (as per the scheme benefits) at the standard 3.5%. In servicing capital, the rail industry could in theory capture the benefits to passengers of station improvements by raising fares. Network Rail could then extract this from the TOCs through increases in station or track access charges. In reality, rail fares are regulated, and there is no linkage between quality of service and the price paid by rail users. Moreover, if rail demand is highly responsive to fare levels (i.e. ‘price-elastic’), then the benefits of rail enhancements (in terms of revenue plus user benefits) are maximised if fares are left unchanged. However, the franchising process represents a ready mechanism for the DfT to capture generated fares’ revenue on infrastructure projects which are implemented outside of the current franchises. Thus, there is a substantial element of revenue ‘clawback’ which is in effect a transfer payment from the private sector to the public sector within the TEE table. This approach is fully consistent with DfT appraisal guidance and GRIP investment requirements.
Appraisal Indicators As identified in Chapter 2, two options were deliverable from an operational perspective and these were: a)
Option 1 – Divert 1 train per hour to Whitehill Bordon; and
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford.
The key WebTAG value for money indicators are shown in Table 6-2. This shows the Present Value of Benefits (PVB), Present Value of Costs (PVC) and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).
As previously discussed, although the operational analysis ruled out the delivery of the splitting at Farnham and extension of Woking terminators, splitting the Train at Farnham has been included to enable comparison with the GRIP2 study. Full TEE tables for these options are shown in Appendix M. Option
GRIP 2 Preferred Alignment
Option 1 – Divert 1 Train per Hour to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-2 – Key Appraisal Indicators The TEE table presented for a rail scheme differs to that for other transport schemes. Whereas operating costs and revenues for highway and bus based schemes typically cannot be recaptured by the DfT, these tend to be included as part of the Private Sector Provider Impacts and thus only the investment cost is categorised as cost to public sector expenditure. For example for rail schemes, the economic benefits such as journey time and accident savings are captured within the PVB, whereas all financial impacts such as revenue, operating costs and investments costs are netted off to generate the PVC. The investment cost is netted off against the revenue clawed back from the franchise and is thus presented as reduction in PVC as opposed to part of the PVB which is how it would traditionally be presented in a bus based scheme which generates additional revenue to the bus operator. Table 6-3 shows the build up of PVC for the three options plus comparison with the GRIP2 preferred option to illustrate the build up of the PVC. Item
Farebox Revenue (1)
Operating Cost (2)
Revenue Clawback (3)=(1+2)
Investment Cost (4)
Indirect Tax (5)
Present Value Of Costs (4+5-3)
Option 2 £35.39
Option 3 £67.67
Table 6-3 - PVC Breakdown (Discounted in 2002 prices over 60 years) Option 1 although generating 882,000 trips per annum by 2032, when extraction and loss/reallocation of demand at Alton is taken into account, only 562,000 trips per annum is new demand. Compared to Option 2, the lower operating cost of Option 1 though counteracts the difference in revenue to some degree although not of a sufficient magnitude to increase the BCR above that of providing a half hourly service as per Option 2 due to higher journey time savings contained in the PVB. For Option 3, the significant increase in operating costs combined with lower revenue results in a higher PVC which is almost double that of the other two options. This combined with lower economic benefits results in a BCR of 0.68.
Development Assumptions Table 6-4 shows the sensitivity of the BCR to changes in development assumptions to understand the impact on the scheme given the dependency on future development which underpins the business case. The approach to the modelling was to cap the demand growth based upon the Masterplan assumptions whereby 5,300 houses are delivered by 2031, 4,000 houses by 2028 and 1,700 by 2020. Scenario
BCR (4,000 Houses)
BCR (1,700 Houses)
Option 1 – Divert 1 tph to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-4 – Sensitivity to Development Assumptions As expected the lower development levels reduce BCR due to costs remaining the same but revenue and benefits reducing.
Early Opening As previously discussed, the assumption was made in the central case that the scheme opens in 2029. This test shows the impact of opening in 2019 on each scenario. Table 6-5 shows the sensitivity of the BCR to moving the opening date.
Option 1 – Divert 1 tph to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-5 – Opening in 2019 This reduces the BCR across all options, due to the increased level of operating subsidy required due to lower revenue and benefits in the first 10 years of the appraisal.
Additional Rolling Stock Table 6-6 shows the sensitivity of the BCR based upon providing additional rolling stock to cater for additional demand over and above what is required to fulfil the service from an operating perspective. Based upon the assessment of capacity the additional rolling stock required for each option is: a)
Option 1 – Increasing the requirement for no additional rolling stock to 2 units;
Option 2 – Increasing two additional units to 3 additional units; and
Option 3 – No additional units as 2 additional units indicates sufficient capacity provided.
Option 1 – Divert 1 train per hour to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting and Joining at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-6 – Additional Rolling Stock
DfT Appraisal Guidance Changes As part of the revised WebTAG update in April 2011, the treatment of indirect taxation in appraisal was changed. The indirect taxation captures element captures both loss of fuel duty through modal shift from car and also captures the impact of changes in expenditure from table goods towards rail fares which are VAT exempt. As shown in Table 6-7, this increases the BCR for schemes which have a BCR greater than 1 and reduces for those below 1. Although the NPV remains the same, the PVB is reduced and the PVC is also reduced by the same amount. Option
Option 1 – Divert 1 Train per Hour to Whitehill Bordon
Option 2 – Splitting at Farnham
Option 3 – Ascot to Guildford
Table 6-7 – Changes in Treatment of Indirect Taxation Although only a presentational change and all of the underlying calculations of costs and benefits remain unchanged, this has notable effect of the BCR on this scheme. This change though will be strongest on rail schemes such as new stations where additional revenue is a strong driver behind the BCR as opposed to schemes which generate improvement for predominantly existing passengers where economic benefits strongly outweigh revenue gains.
Conclusions The operational assessment identified two options which could be delivered without a significant recast of the SWT timetable which are diverting 1 train per hour from Alton to Whitehill Bordon and modifying the Ascot to Guildford service to provide an Ascot to Whitehill Bordon service. Options which would provide through running are: •
Splitting the existing Alton to Waterloo services at Farnham to provide half hourly services to both Alton and Whitehill Bordon; and
The extension of the Woking to London Waterloo services to Whitehill Bordon.
However both these options have been shown to not be deliverable without significant alterations to the timetable. Additionally, even if the timetable was altered, the most feasible option for a through service by splitting at Farnham would introduce additional performance risk through the attaching and detaching activities which would need to be quantified as part of the appraisal process. Therefore, delivering these options will offer significant challenges which would need to be addressed through discussions with the DfT, Network Rail and the Train Operating Company. The engineering and costing work stream estimated costs at £96.4M in 2011Q4 prices (excluding optimism bias) to construct the rail link, station and acquire the associated land. This cost was based upon a value engineering exercise to align the outputs with the proposed options as part of the operational assessment and assumes fixed price competitive tendering based upon current prices. It reflects the costs of delivering the minimal amount of infrastructure to make a through running rail service feasible and ensure that the station links into the measures as part of the Eco Town which is essential in ensuring the forecast demand can be delivered. Although environmental constraints along the proposed alignment have been identified, in particular relating to Biodiversity and Water, a significant proportion of these could be addressed though suitable mitigation measures. A more detailed assessment of the requirements would be determined through the EIA process should the scheme proceed. The benefit to cost ratio of the two deliverable options are 1.5 for the hourly service to London which would deliver 881,000 trips per annum at Whitehill Bordon (assuming the full build out of the Eco Town) and 0.7 for the diversion of Ascot to Guildford which would deliver 764,000 trips per annum. Option 1 which is the hourly service alternating between Whitehill Bordon and Alton to London Waterloo, would be classed as ‘Medium’ value for money. Option 3 which is the provision of the Ascot to Whitehill Bordon service, would be classed as ‘Poor’ value for money as the costs exceed the economic benefits delivered by this option.
Securing public funding for this scheme would be challenging at present considering limited availability of public funding combined with competition from alternative schemes which are classed as ‘High’ and ‘Very High’ value for money. As shown in the work conducted by KPMG, the scheme is likely to require a substantial proportion of DfT funding due to the additional franchise revenue being generated not exceeding the additional capital and operating costs, hence the scheme would require ongoing revenue support through the franchising process to operate all options considered. This would restrict alternative mechanisms such a prudential borrowing as there is not an income stream sufficient to repay the debt. Complexities with the rail revenue allocation system would also pose issues in ring fencing the revenue as not all revenue would be allocated to a single franchise where trips on multiple train operating companies are made. The future South Western franchise agreement offers a potential funding option for the Whitehill Bordon rail link. Showing a positive economic case is though an essential driver in securing the inclusion of new infrastructure within franchises. The two deliverable options currently show a BCR of less than 2 which would be a significant barrier in arguing the value for money case for the inclusion of the Whitehill Bordon rail link as part of the South Western franchise.