[PPT] - Refresh RUS 1 Network RUS: Electrification Refresh 30 year PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

1

Electrification Refresh RUS

SLIDE 2

2

Network RUS: Electrification ‘Refresh’

30 year perspective as part of Long Term Planning Process 'to

give funders’ choices for investment in CP6 and beyond'

3 key objectives:

–Identify the extent of lines to be electrified –Consider the case for conversion of third rail DC network to AC –Include a consideration of lines to be electrified to maximise the ability of freight operators to use electric locomotives

SLIDE 3

3

Work programme to date

2013 - Working Groups 1, 2 and 3. Freight Electrification and DC

– AC workshops

A number of bilateral meetings held with interested stakeholders
Business cases being produced for priority options
Costs being produced in parallel

SLIDE 4

4

The starting point

Baseline electrified network with all known committed schemes

completed

Most likely view of services using the network at that time

SLIDE 5

5 5

Current and planned electrification (S)

SLIDE 6

6 6

Current and planned electrification (N)

SLIDE 7

7

The initial sift

Key measure of likely business case is traffic converted to length of

route electrified (the ‘conversion ratio’)

For each remaining diesel service group calculate the length of

electrification required for it to convert to electric

Look at where service groups overlap and combine options where the

conversion ratio can be improved (with a limit on option size)

Consider requirements for diversionary routes, and add these to the

most appropriate options

Order the options by their conversion ratio, and consider how the case

for each would be affected by the earlier higher-priority schemes

Group options into tiers, where 1 = highest conversion ratio and 6 =

lowest

SLIDE 8

8

Results of initial sift (S)

SLIDE 9

9

Results of initial sift (N)

SLIDE 10

10

Wider factors

Capture other key issues :

1.Efficient use of infrastructure – reduction in diesel vehicle kilometres on ‘existing’ electrified network per STK electrified 2.Efficient use of rolling stock – ‘island fleet’ measure at TOC level 3.Value of released infrastructure – number of high speed / high frequency long distance conditional output aspirations which could be delivered by electric traction 4.Diesel rolling stock released – number of released vehicles adjusted for age 5.Passenger diversionary route capability – average annual diverted traffic on key flows able to convert 6.Freight – overlap with freight option 7.Strategic fit with other schemes, wider considerations

Results for factors 1-5 are grouped into six categories and allocated star ratings
5 stars indicates a result in the top 1/6 for that measure

SLIDE 11

11

Choosing options for appraisal

Likely to be a case for undertaking full business case appraisal for:

– Options with passenger conversion ratio of either tier 1 or tier 2 – Options in tiers 3 or 4 which perform well against the wider criteria

Where the ratio analysis doesn’t suggest that there is a better case for

combining options, but that there is nevertheless a relationship between them we have grouped into packages

Examples of the types of relationship are:

– The case for a given option relies on an earlier phase having been completed – The options may be served by the same TOC, rolling stock or depot

Subsequent slides show LNW options being appraised

SLIDE 12

12

22 117 115 113 34

Crewe Sheffield

96 27

Birmingham

111 112 85 110 109 81

Wigan Warrington

79

Chester Wrexham

31 26

Shrewsbury

35

Hereford

97

Wolverhampton Worcester Stafford Preston

20

verpool

82 80 92 91

Newark

95

Lin Chesterfield

23

Retford Huddersfield Manchester

90 84 21 83

Grantham

43 101

Westbury

49

nton Salisbury

107

Rugby Leamington Coventry Banbury Kett Northamp

137

29

Leicester

131

Didcot Milton Keynes Oxford

45

Aylesbury

56 114

LOND Swindon

118

Gloucester Nuneaton Cheltenham

116

Stoke on Trent Derby Nottingham

28 132 108

Bristol Cardiff Reading

44

Newport Basingstoke

55

Guildford Doncaster Cross Country Core Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester Baseline / previous packages

Cross Country

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput aspirations

Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 1 



  2     

SLIDE 13

13

117 115 120 40 43 133

Mai Co Cambridg

37 39 121

Ely

136

Guildford Redhill Tonbrid

139 132 108

Bristol Cardiff Reading

44

Newport Basingstoke

55

Gloucester Nuneaton Cheltenham

116

127

Chelmsford LONDON Swindon

118

Stevenage

120 131

Didcot Milton Keynes Oxford

45

Aylesbury

56 114

Peterborough

29

Leicester

36

Rugby Leamington Coventry Bedford Banbury Kettering Northampton

137

106 50

staple Westbury

49

Taunton Salisbury

107

Southampton Eastbou ansea

43 101 100 35

Hereford

97

Wolverhampton Worcester

31 109

Birmingham

111 112 110 113 34

13

Chilterns, Snow Hill and Malverns

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput aspirations

Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 1 



 1 


1

 





SLIDE 14

14

Chester & North Wales

22 117 99 115 69

Morecambe Lancaster York

18

Blackpool

16

Leeds

75

Skipton

14 15 80

Blackburn

23 17

Preston

79

Huddersfield

83 81

Wigan Doncaster

19

Liverpool

20

Manchester

24

Holyhead

87

Llandudno

21

Sheffield

82

Warrington

84 90

Retford Lin

86

Bangor

25

Chester

95

Chesterfield Newark

88

Wrexham Crewe

91

Stoke on Trent

89

Blaenau Ffestiniog

26 85 92 27

Derby Grantham

28

Nottingham

98

Pwllheli

96 30

Shrewsbury Stafford

29

Leicester Nuneaton Kett Birmingham

97

Wolverhampton Rugby

119 34

Coventry

138

Aberystwyth

31

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput

aspirations Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 1    

3

   

SLIDE 15

15

117 115 120 40 133 122 124

Norwich Great Y

54

Maidstone

125 38

Felixstowe Colchester Cambridge

37

Lowestoft

39

Ipswich

121 126

Ely dford l

139 108

Reading Basingstoke

55

Derby Nottingham

28

cester Nuneaton Cheltenham

116

127

Chelmsford LONDON Swindon

118

Stevenage

120 131

Didcot Milton Keynes Oxford

45

Aylesbury

56 114

Peterborough King's Lynn

29

Leicester

36

Rugby Leamington Coventry Bedford Banbury Kettering Northampton

137

s

32 33

Grantham

92

reford mpton ster Stafford

27

Birmingham

111 112 110 113 34

15

Midlands to Anglia

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput aspirations

Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 6


5

 



 4     

SLIDE 16

16 16

22 117 115 120 42

Swansea Chelmsford

120 127 113

Oxford

110

Cheltenham

118

Aylesbury

109

Gloucester Stevenage

39 37

137

Milton Keynes Bedford

100

Hereford

112

Banbury Carmarthen Northampton

116

36

Ca

35

Worcester

111

Leamington Rugby Ely

34

Coventry Aberystwyth

31

Birmingham

97

Wolverhampton Nuneaton

121

Kettering

29

Leicester Peterborough

122

Kin

30

Shrewsbury Stafford

32 28

Nottingham Pwllheli

96 89

Blaenau Ffestiniog

26 85 92 27

Derby Grantham

88

Wrexham Crewe

91

Stoke on Trent

95

Chesterfield

94 93

Newark

86

Bangor

25

Chester

84 90

Retford Lincoln

21

Sheffield

82

Warrington

87

Llandudno

19

Liverpool

20

Manchester

83 81

Wigan Doncaster

79

Huddersfield

Shrewsbury and Mid Wales

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput aspirations

Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 3  



SLIDE 17

17

22 77

Scarboro

16

Blackburn Crewe Sheffield

96 27 85

York Harrogate

78 14

Leeds

15 30 81

Wigan

25

Warrington

79

Chester

88

Wrexham Blaenau Ffestiniog

26

Bangor Llandudno Shrewsbury mpton Stafford Preston

19 20 70

Northallerton Liverpool

82 80 17

Barrow-in-Furness

76 92 91

Newark

95

Lincoln Chesterfield

93 23

Retford Huddersfield Manchester

90 84 21 32 83

Grantham Peterb cester aton Stoke on Trent Derby Nottingham

28

Hull

69

Morecambe Lancaster

18

Blackpool

75

Doncaster Skipton

Calder Valley

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput

aspirations Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 3 



SLIDE 18

18

South Trans Pennine

22 117 115 16 34

Blackburn Crewe Sheffield

96 27

Birmingham

85

York

14

Leeds

15 30 81

Wigan

25

Warrington

79

Chester

88

Wrexham

31

Blaenau Ffestiniog

26

Bangor Llandudno Shrewsbury

97

Wolverhampton Stafford Preston

19 20

Liverpool

82 80 17 92 91

Newark

95

Lincoln Chesterfield

93 23

Retford Huddersfield Manchester

90 84 21 32 83

Grantham

94

Rugby Coventry Kettering Peterborough Kin

29

Leicester Nuneaton Stoke on Trent Derby Nottingham

28

Hull

122 69 18

Blackpool

75

Doncaster Skipton

Tier Reduction in traffic on 'existing' electric network Island fleet measure Number of A, B or D conditional

utput aspirations

Released vehicles adjusted for age

f current rolling

stock Average annual diverted traffic able to convert 3 





4

 



SLIDE 19

19

Approach to business case appraisal

Business cases being produced for shortlisted options using the economic appraisal

framework defined by funders (e.g. WebTAG by DfT)

Key measure of Value for Money is the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), which reflects…
Benefits = Net sum of (dis)benefits to users & non-users, and indirect taxation

impacts – Improved journey times & journey opportunities – Increased capacity – The environment

Cost = Net cost to the transport budget (Δ Capex + Δ Opex + Δ Revenue):

– Initial infrastructure cost – Changes in operating costs – Changes in revenue arising from time savings and/or new service patterns

SLIDE 20

20

Journey times & journey opportunities

Potential timetable impacts considered include:

– Journey time improvements resulting from superior acceleration/deceleration characteristics of electric trains – Opportunities to improve connectivity through the introduction of new service patterns – ‘End of wires’ issue; toolkit of ‘solutions’ ranging from interchange & shuttle service, bi-mode trains, loco-hauled services, diesel under the wires, backfilling by extension of other services

Often the ‘best’ solution differs according to whether one takes a

‘financial’ or ‘socio-economic’ perspective

Drives revenue, user benefits, non-user benefits, and indirect taxation

impacts

SLIDE 21

21

Capacity

On train capacity

– Direct (e.g. replacement of diesel loco-hauled stock with multiple units) & indirect (e.g. release of cascadable diesel units to meet growth elsewhere on the network) – Replacement of ‘short’ DMUs - is there a VfM case for the additional capacity? What is the envelope in which electrification becomes a VfM enabler of additional capacity? – PDFH provides the tool for valuing the demand response and user benefits

Network capacity – infrastructure costs avoided in the context of

accommodating additional train services where the network is (or will be) at capacity – scheme specific benefit

SLIDE 22

22

The environment

Reducing the environmental impact of rail services

– Greenhouse gases

Estimating emissions (tCO2e) – rail energy consumption rates & DECC marginal

emission factors

Valuation – DECC values reflecting national targets and abatement costs1
Body of evidence growing on embedded carbon1

– Other environmental benefits (e.g. noise, other particulate matter) typically not quantified for economic appraisal purposes, but benefits noted in AST

Reducing the environmental impact of transport through encouraging mode-shift to rail

– Highway impacts including air pollution, noise & greenhouse gases reflected in the ‘Marginal External Cost’ of car use values; quantum of benefit linked to rail demand generation

1 Note the cost of carbon is ‘internalised’ in the price of electricity if using DECC’s energy price forecasts. Also, the majority embedded emissions

relating to materials are likely to be covered by the EU ETS and will therefore also be “internalised”

SLIDE 23

23

Operational costs

Rolling stock; lease, fuel consumption, maintenance &

availability, VTAC (as a proxy for track wear & tear) –Anticipated cost of new build fleets; sensitivity testing & scenarios important

Maintenance of new electrification assets; average rates or the

electrification asset usage charge

Number of diagrams, incl. potential for journey time savings to

reduce resource requirements

Replacement of ‘short’ (2-car) DMUs

SLIDE 24

24

Capital costs

Whilst awaiting cost estimates appraisals produced on basis of

‘placeholder cost’ based on indicative cost per STK – the ‘Atkins range’ referenced in the 2009 RUS

These costs are being reviewed to ensure consistency of unit

rate assumptions and with conclusions emerging from ECAM process

SLIDE 25

25

Planned next steps

Reporting to Northern Task Force of emerging BCRs for

northern options September 11th

Ongoing review of costs
Completion of appraisals during October, to be followed by

Working Group

Strategy development October onwards
Draft for consultation to be published alongside report of

Northern Task Force in February 2015