1. Depot Planning Guidance

Foreword I am pleased to present the Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance document, which seeks to provide good practice industry guidance to any party involved in the renewal or enhancement of existing passenger rolling stock depots or the development of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Passenger rolling stock depots are a key element of the railway system and as such play a vital role in the safe and efficient operation of rolling stock across the railway network. As the demand for rail continues to grow, new rolling stock will be required with the associated requirement for new and enhanced depots to maintain this rolling stock. With suitable land choices for such new facilities limited, this document seeks to provide guidance on the material factors that influence passenger rolling stock depot planning. It seeks to focus on the factors at and across the interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network which influence operation, performance, capability and capacity across the interface which affect both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network. In this context we are keen to continue to work with train operators, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), and the rest of the industry, to develop a live rolling stock plan which can inform government refranchising decisions

and provide the basis upon which we plan the infrastructure in the medium to long term. By considering these factors as part of the passenger rolling stock depot planning process the guidance seeks to identify areas where the industry can realise better value for money in line with the conclusions originating from the 2011 ‘Realising the Potential of GB Rail – Report of the Rail Value for Money Study’ by Sir Roy McNulty. The development of the document has involved the whole railway industry and as such I am grateful for the significant contribution made in terms of both the development of the guidance and the case study material contained herein. By continuing to work together across the railway industry and identifying best practice, this guide will enable all promoters of works to either existing passenger rolling stock depots, or new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, to consider the wider impacts that affect the railway system across the depot network interface and the industry benefits that can be realised in terms of improving network wide safety, performance, capability and capacity through such works. Paul Plummer Group Strategy Director

2

Executive Summary There are 104 passenger rolling stock depots on the British railway network. Whilst the majority are owned by Network Rail, increasing numbers are being constructed and operated by other parties. Depots play a vital role in the safe and efficient operation of the British railway system. Their efficient operation enables well-maintained and well-presented rolling stock to enter service. Their location on the network has an appreciable effect on the operation of the network – determining the level and nature of empty stock movements, the ability of rolling stock to be presented in time for start of service and the performance of the network in its vicinity as trains enter and leave the depot. The continuing growth in demand for railway services, and the changing profile of passenger rolling stock as the railway system continues to be modernised, places changing and evolving requirements on depots. The need for more rolling stock to meet projected growth will itself place a heavy demand on existing depot capacity and capability and will present a need for new depots where suitable land is already scarce and choice for depot location is limited.

which Network Rail promotes for all the depots it owns. This should ensure that a whole ‘railway system’ view is taken so that the industry becomes more efficient and offers improved value for money and affordability, particularly as the planning of depots is in general a significant long term decision and is an investment for the future of the railway. Consideration of the ‘generic’ principles will assist in this process whilst still balancing trade-offs to special requirements or constraints. The production of the document has been overseen by a Stakeholder Management Group of key industry parties consisting of Network Rail, The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (ROSCOs), the Department for Transport (DfT), Transport Scotland (TS), the Welsh Government, Transport for London (TfL), the Passenger Transport Executive Group Passenger Focus and London TravelWatch. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) attended meetings as an observer. A Working Group consisting of Network Rail, ATOC, ROSCOs, the Rail Industry Association, the DfT, TS, and TfL, developed the key findings and recommendations.

Depot location is driven by the scarcity of suitable available land, and the operational requirements of the services that the depot is required to provide for. Therefore it is imperative that planning for depots takes cognisance of these constraints at an early stage of any proposal to introduce either new trains onto the network or provide new and additional services. This Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance document presents good practice railway industry guidance for any promoter of depot renewal or enhancement works to existing passenger rolling stock depots and to any party wishing to construct a new depot on the network. It places particular emphasis on those factors which affect how the depot's location and configuration affects the capability, capacity and performance of the network. It also includes sections providing advice on Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority issues and presents good practice on environmental issues Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

3

1 Introduction

 

1.1 Document purpose The purpose of the Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance document is to:   

provide a consistent approach to railway industry passenger rolling stock depot planning provide guidance on railway industry good practice provide synergy with passenger rolling stock strategic planning.

Consideration of these principles as part of the passenger rolling stock depot planning process will enable the industry to improve its value for money by utilisation of good practice across the passenger rolling stock depot railway network interface. The document provides guidance on the material factors that influence passenger rolling stock depot planning and also those factors that align with future rolling stock strategic planning as set out in the Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock workstream. It focuses on the factors at and across the interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network which influence operation, performance, capability and capacity and which affect both the passenger rolling stock depots and the railway network. Throughout the document there is an emphasis upon a commitment to achieving good practice in the development, design and implementation of changes to existing passenger rolling stock depots, or provision of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities where these impact upon the capacity, capability and performance of the railway system across the depot/railway network interface. In considering these factors the guidance seeks to be consistent with the conclusions originating from the 2011 ‘Realising the Potential of GB Rail – Report of the Rail Value for Money Study’ by Sir Roy McNulty.

 

promoters of passenger rolling stock depot facilities requiring enhancement promoters of new passenger rolling stock depot facility schemes/proposals Local Highway Authorities Local Planning Authorities.

The document has been produced in collaboration with the railway industry and has followed the governance structure applied to other Network RUS workstreams in that a Stakeholder Management Group (SMG) provides the necessary governance for the workstream, with work being progressed and directed by specific Working Groups as required.

1.2 Document remit The analysis within this document is based upon a remit agreed by the SMG to develop an understanding of: 

   

those factors which determine the location, number and size of depots, such as frequency of maintenance for different types of rolling stock the factors which influence reliability of access to/from the network the characteristics which affect the robustness of the connections between the depot and the network how network capacity and capability affect the efficiency of the depotnetwork interface, consideration of environmental issues which should be taken into account when planning depot location.

It should be noted that assessment of both operational and occupational health and safety issues will be a fundamental aspect of the more detailed development, design and implementation of recommendations outlined in this document. This relates to the need to comply with relevant Health and Safety legislation.

The guidance presented within the document is aimed at:

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

4

1.3 Document structure and relationship with other Network RUS workstreams Chapter 1 provides an overview of the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. Chapter 2 summarises how this document has been developed to provide the necessary evidence base behind the considerations and recommendations made within the document. Chapter 3 provides a high level baseline of the existing passenger rolling stock depot profile. It details future committed depot developments. Details of depot, network siding and station platform overnight stabling utilisation and capacity are shown in Appendix 4. Chapter 4 outlines both the key statutory and Network Rail processes that will need to be considered, when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 provide the passenger rolling stock depot planning guidance and identify key considerations as well as making a number of recommendations. Chapter 9 provides a summary of recommendations for passenger rolling stock depot planning. It identifies potential compromises and trade-offs that might be considered when seeking to justify capital cost investment in such facilities. This has been drawn from consultation with industry. Appendix 1 provides a list of all passenger rolling stock depot facilities in Great Britain. Guidance is underpinned by the use of case studies which are included in Appendices 2 and 3. The document has synergy with a number of other Network RUS workstreams, particularly the stock characteristics of rolling stock which will operate on the railway network and which will consequently affect passenger rolling stock depot requirements. (a) Network RUS: Electrification The Network RUS: Electrification workstream was established in 2009. It recommended a core strategy of electrification schemes – four of which (the Great Western Main Line, the North West of England and Chat Moss, the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme, and the Transpennine route between Manchester and Leeds via Diggle) have been funded. The electrification

programme resulting from this RUS workstream will have an impact on the rolling stock that will operate on the network and consequently their depot requirements. (b) Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock The Network RUS Passenger Rolling Stock workstream considers the characteristics of passenger rolling stock that would best serve key markets, and the infrastructure requirements which would be required to enable the rolling stock to operate where they are required. (c) Network RUS: Alternative Solutions This is a workstream due for publication during 2012. It seeks to identify solutions to deliver efficiency savings in meeting passenger demand. It examines the case for light rail – tram train, lower cost forms of electric traction and community rail. Passenger rolling stock depot provision will need to be considered as part of the wider operational strategy in relation to rolling stock utilisation decisions.

1.4 The role of passenger rolling stock depot planning in the industry planning framework and railway industry structure Passenger rolling stock depots are an integral element of the operational railway system. Planning requirements for passenger rolling stock depots are therefore an integral element of wider industry planning decisions. It is particularly important in relation to rolling stock procurement decisions. as rolling stock design/characteristics (vehicle length, train composition, traction and onboard facilities) will have a significant influence upon the requirements for passenger rolling stock depots that will maintain and service such rolling stock. Flexibility and diversity in the provision of passenger rolling stock depot facilities and the need for enhancement of existing facilities or provision of new facilities, needs to be considered strategically. This is to ensure that industry becomes more efficient and to offer improved value for money in the decisions that are made. Consideration of certain ‘generic’

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

5

principles will assist in this process. It is accepted that there will be few opportunities to design and implement a passenger rolling stock depot that is optimal to all requirements or that is not constrained by land use or special considerations. Therefore it is important that trade-offs are assessed and the overall impact on the railway system is fully understood. This is in terms of the impact on the overall performance, capability and capacity of the railway system that include both passenger rolling stock depots and the national railway network. The continuing growth in demand for rail travel, and the changing profile of rolling stock as the railway system continues to be modernised, places evolving requirements on depots. The need for more rolling stock to meet projected growth will itself place a heavy demand on existing depot capacity and capability and will present a need for new depots where suitable land is already scarce and choice for depot location is limited.

proposal to introduce either new trains onto the network or provide new and additional services.

Figure 1.1 highlights the main drivers that affect the need to plan passenger rolling stock depot facilities. The guidance presented within this document provides a direction to key land use planning, operational, technical, commercial and regulatory considerations in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. The process will require a series of trade-offs being made in optimising the passenger rolling stock depot planning process from all of the different considerations needing evaluation.

Depot location is driven by the scarcity of suitable available land, and by the operational requirements of the services that the depot is required to provide. Therefore it is imperative that the planning for depots takes cognisance of these constraints at an early stage of any Figure 1.1: Passenger rolling stock depot planning within the railway industry planning process

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

6

on the railway network and is responsible for the control of train movements to and from passenger rolling stock depots. Therefore, proposals for new passenger rolling stock depots and extensions to existing facilities will often be on land owned by Network Rail. Where this is not the case, Network Rail will still require to be involved in the planning process to ensure that connections with passenger rolling stock depot facilities are designed to interface satisfactorily with performance, capability and capacity requirements on the main railway network.

1.5 Industry structure – key participants in passenger rolling stock depot planning A number of industry parties are directly or indirectly involved in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. Figure 1.2 illustrates the existing high-level industry structure, identifying key parties in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. It should be noted that not all parties will be involved in the planning process of all passenger rolling stock depots, eg privately funded and constructed depots by train manufacturers

(b) Train Operating Companies At the majority of depots, franchised passenger Train Operating Companies (TOCs) act as the leaseholder for passenger rolling stock depots within their franchise area. At some depots, TOCs may act as the depot customer in that servicing and maintenance duties are undertaken by a train manufacturer under contract. There are some cases where TOCs also provide servicing and maintenance services to other TOCs. This will typically occur in situations where different TOCs use the same fleet and where network geography results in trains ending operational service remote from their ‘home’ depot.

The roles of each of the organisations in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process are outlined below: (a) Network Rail As the owner and operator of Britain’s rail infrastructure, Network Rail is responsible for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the railway network and leads the strategic planning requirements for the industry. Network Rail owns the majority of passenger rolling stock depots

Figure 1.2: Key parties with an interest in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process Local authorities Rolling Stock Companies Provide finance for new rolling stock and lease rolling stock to TOCs

Train manufacturers

Train Operating Companies

Passenger Transport Executives

Transport for London

Office of Rail Regulation

Lease and operate the depot

Regulate depot access through depot access agreements

Passenger rolling stock depot planning

Review GPDO, planning applications for depots. Ensure compliance with GB planning policy from a land use and transport perspective.

BRB Residuary Ltd Looks after the residual responsibilities and liabilities of the former British Railways Board (BRB) and manages former BRB nonoperational property portfolio

Department for Transport Transport Scotland

Provide financial support for local rail services and influence rail policy development

Provide financial support for local rail services and specify rail policy

Welsh Government

Plan and build, sub-lease depots to TOCs

Network Rail

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Specify rolling stock requirements and depot investment via the franchise agreement

7

A number of passenger train operators run services on a free-standing commercial basis. These companies (known as ‘open access’ operators) are licensed by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) but do not have a franchise or service level commitment agreement with the Department for Transport (DfT). They do not receive subsidy or necessarily act as a leaseholder of a depot. They procure access to existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities and receive maintenance and servicing from such facilities. Passenger rolling stock depot facilities therefore need to comply with the requirements for Open Access operators to apply for access to such facilities. (c) Office of Rail Regulation The ORR issues and modifies licenses to operate depots. It approves and can alter contracts for access to depots. Each TOC requires a contract to allow its trains to access a passenger rolling stock depot. For a depot operator, this is achieved through a depot lease agreement and for a train operator (who is not the depot operator), this is achieved through a depot access agreement. The ORR must approve any new depot access agreement and amendments to existing ones. Further information concerning the Depots Access regime can be seen on the ORR website at: http://www.railreg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2513 (d) Rolling Stock Companies Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs) own rolling stock and lease it to TOCs. The rolling stock that they own and procure will influence the passenger rolling stock depot planning process regarding the need for any specialist or bespoke facilities at passenger rolling stock depots. (e) Train manufacturers Apart from manufacturing rolling stock, train manufacturers are increasingly providing additional value added services to TOCs. These include the provision of build, service and maintain contracts for new rolling stock. Train manufacturers provide depots for such rolling stock, typically on private land adjacent to the network. They also operate in depots owned by Network Rail and managed by the TOCs. At such depots, they normally provide the maintenance servicing

contract which often is part of the initial contract for the new rolling stock. (f) Department for Transport DfT has overarching responsibility for rail strategy and is the franchising authority for passenger railway services provided by franchised TOCs in England and Wales. The DfT, through the franchise agreement that it signs with the successful franchise bidder, is able to secure any required investment in passenger rolling stock depot facilities as part of the franchising process. (g) Transport Scotland Transport Scotland (TS) is responsible for the specification of passenger railway services in Scotland. Through the franchise agreement, it is able to specify passenger rolling stock depot investment where required. These include the asset surveying of existing depot facilities and specification of improvements to the depot, during the lifetime of the ScotRail franchise. (h) Welsh Government The Welsh Government (WG) specifies and funds passenger railway services provided wholly within Wales and across the Wales-England border by the franchised TOC in Wales. It has the jurisdiction to fund rail infrastructure upgrades within Wales over and above those specified by the DfT. (i) Transport for London Transport for London’s rail directorate ‘London Rail’ is the specifier and funder of passenger services on the North, East and West London Lines (between Stratford and Richmond, Highbury & Islington and Crystal Palace/West Croydon, and Willesden Junction and Clapham Junction respectively), the suburban DC lines from London Euston to Watford Junction, the Gospel Oak to Barking Line and the extended East London Line between Dalston Junction and Crystal Palace and West Croydon. During 2010, a new TfL depot was opened at New Cross Gate to service and maintain the Class 378 Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) fleet. (j) Passenger Transport Executives Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) specify passenger railway services in

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

8

various conurbations across the country and will have an interest in any new passenger rolling stock enhancement or provision proposals as it is likely that passenger rolling stock depot investment will be in association with changes in rolling stock provision and possible service enhancements. (k) Regional Transport Partnerships In Scotland, seven Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs) were established by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. The specific role of each of the RTPs is to plan and deliver transport solutions for all modes of transport on a regional basis. This is in co-operation with both member councils and industry partners. (l) Local authorities At a local authority level, there are two interfaces, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and Local Highways Authority (LHA). The LPA:   

provides strategic guidance in relation to national planning policy, translating this in to a local context undertakes decisions on planning applications will typically be a District or Borough Council.

 

negotiates contributions jointly with the LPA and the developer is a County Council or in some larger cities, a Unitary Authority.

1.6 Importance of passenger rolling stock depot planning As detailed in Section 1.4, passenger rolling stock depots need to be considered as an integral element of the railway system and as such it is important that such facilities are considered as part of strategic planning requirements. Where there is a requirement to enhance or construct new depot facilities these will need to be planned around the availability of suitable land and the operational requirements of the services that the depot will need to provide for, whilst at the same time giving consideration to any impact upon performance, capability and capacity of the overall railway system. This document outlines the key factors that need consideration as part of the process. These are detailed in Chapters 5-8.

The LHA: 

 



provides strategic transport planning guidance in relation to national transport/land use policies, applying this at a local level ensures that any new development has no significant adverse transport impact upon the local community provides expert transportation planning advice to the Local Planning Authority in helping it to make informed transportation decisions in relation to planning applications will, where there are concerns regarding the transport impact of a new development, recommend that mitigation measures are to be implemented and to be paid for by the promoter of the development via the Section 106 1990 Town and Country Planning Act developer contributions process

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

9

The following passenger rolling stock/ passenger rolling stock depot scenarios are shown in Figure 2.1.

2 Development of this guidance document

Inevitably, certain planning situations cross over several segments of the matrix. For example, there will be instances when passenger rolling stock depots are planned for a mix of old and new rolling stock.

The development of this document has been undertaken in collaboration with the railway industry. It has involved various processes as outlined below. 

In addition, a workshop of industry stakeholders determined that the factors that influence capability of the passenger rolling stock depot/network interface should be assessed under the four following areas:

Review of existing related workstreams such as:  

 

the ReFocus Twenty Point Plan: Fleet Reliability Focus Group the Rail Safety and Standards Board – T782 – Maximising Future Rolling Stock Reliability (2008) report the National Task Force – Fleet Challenge.

   

The document therefore details all identified factors to be considered in the planning process (‘considerations’) under these headings in Chapters 5-8 and assesses all such considerations against the scenarios outlined in Figure 2.1.

facilitated workshops to review good practice in the provision of passenger rolling stock depot facilities and interface with the railway network surveys of passenger rolling stock depots nationally, and interviews with a number of passenger rolling stock depot and fleet personnel nationally.

 

Survey information provided by passenger rolling stock depot facility operators was used to assist in identifying the evidence base for the factors to be considered, when enhancing existing facilities or developing new facilities.

The guidance should be used when: 

planning an enhancement of an existing facility planning the re-opening of a previously closed facility planning a new facility.

 

land use planning and depot design operational interfaces technical interfaces commercial and regulatory interfaces.

Figure 2.1: Passenger rolling stock depot/rolling stock scenarios Rolling stock

New

Depot

Existing

Existing

New

Existing rolling stock and existing depot

New rolling stock and existing depot

Where a rolling stock cascade or a significant recasting of services leads to rolling stock being allocated to a different (but already existing) depot. It also applies where current leased rolling stock is in existing depot facilities.

Where new rolling stock is introduced, and allocated to an existing depot.

Existing rolling stock and new depot

New rolling stock and new depot Where a new facility is provided in order to service new rolling stock.

Where a new depot is provided with capacity to service existing rolling stock, which would be re-allocated to that depot. It also includes the situation of older rolling stock in a new depot facility when the facility may be modified.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

10

Finally, to support the evidence base and identify good practice/lessons that can be learnt, interviews with a number of selected passenger rolling stock depot personnel have been undertaken to develop case studies which are included as appendices to this document.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

11

3 Baseline: Passenger rolling stock depot and future committed developments 3.1 Introduction Passenger rolling stock depots vary in their size and functions undertaken. They service a mixture of electric and diesel vehicles and hauled coaching stock. It is not uncommon for passenger rolling stock depots to provide a range of services to cater for operational requirements and undertake a diversity of both light and heavy maintenance duties. This chapter presents an overview of existing passenger rolling stock depots and includes the identification of future committed passenger rolling stock depot developments across the network.

3.2 Passenger rolling stock depot types and their typical functions/facilities The core underlying function of a passenger rolling stock depot is the provision of servicing, maintenance and stabling of rolling stock. The specific rolling stock serviced at individual passenger rolling stock depots may change over time, as the deployment of rolling stock within and between Train Operating Companies (TOCs) alters. This will typically be in response to franchise commitments. Historically, passenger rolling stock depots have been classified as either a Light Maintenance Depot (LMD) or Heavy Maintenance Depot (HMD). An LMD is defined in the Railways Act 1993 as provider of services of any of the following descriptions: (a) the refueling, or the cleaning of the exterior, of locomotives or other rolling stock; or (b) the carrying out to

locomotives or other rolling stock of maintenance work of a kind which is normally carried out at regular intervals of twelve months or less to prepare the locomotives or other rolling stock for service. HMDs are usually distinguished by the type of maintenance performed and the time taken to undertake it. Modern rolling stock typically requires less maintenance, assisted by greater fuel capacity in the case of diesel trains, is capable of self-diagnosis of faults and can be monitored remotely. LMDs more frequently undertake former HMD tasks, thus improving availability as trains do not have to be dispatched to remote HMD locations.

3.3 Current GB passenger rolling stock depot profile 3.3.1 Number and functions of passenger rolling stock depots In recent years, the industry has seen a number of depots closed, and then reopened, with new depots created to meet demand requirements of the railway network. Recent examples have included the re-opening of Clacton depot for the Class 321 EMU fleet and the opening of New Cross Gate depot for the Class 378 EMU fleet. As at December 2011, there were 104 passenger rolling stock depots on the network. Of these, 14 depots are owned by parties other than Network Rail such as rolling stock manufacturing companies. A full listing of current passenger rolling stock depots can be seen in Appendix 1.

Table 3.1 highlights the different passenger rolling stock depot types and their functions. Factors influencing allocation of rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depots include:  

availability of capacity within the depot to service/stable the specific rolling stock depot location in relation to services on which the rolling stock is used

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

12



  



franchising process and/or remapping decisions which can influence rolling stock allocation to a particular franchise (particularly in relation to the cascading of rolling stock) availability of specialist equipment to service specific types of rolling stock availability of appropriately trained staff to maintain the specific fleet type at a particular depot physical characteristics of the network/services being operated, eg whether it is diesel or electric train, suburban or intercity/regional market sectors maintenance requirements and intensity of the usage of the rolling stock, eg suburban versus inter city journeys



availability of depot facilities to service and stable the class/classes of rolling stock.

3.4 Location of passenger rolling stock depots As the railway industry has evolved over time, to meet the changing demands placed upon it, passenger rolling stock depot location has also evolved. New passenger rolling stock depots have been constructed to meet the needs of new rolling stock and service structures. Figure 3.1 shows the locations of passenger rolling stock depots.

Table 3.1: Depot types and their functions Predominant function of depot Maintenance location

Functions Equipped with enhanced facilities to enable full scale rolling stock examinations to occur.

Servicing site

Facilities provided are less comprehensive than a maintenance location. The emphasis would be upon cleaning and carriage washing facilities.

Stabling and minor cleaning

Facilities would be similar to a servicing site but would not be as extensive. For example, there may not be the provision of carriage washing facilities.

Multi-function

These types of depots would encompass all functions of the above three depot types. They would be typically servicing a diversity of rolling stock types and may service stock of more than one operator.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

13

Figure 3.1: Locations of passenger rolling stock depots

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

14

Figure 3.1a: Locations of passenger rolling stock depots 1 Abbey Foregate (Shrewsbury) 2 Allerton 3 Ardwick (Manchester) 4 Ashford 5 Aylesbury 6 Ayr 7 Barrow-In-Furness 8 Basingstoke (Barton Mill) 9 Bathgate 10 Bedford Cauldwell Walk 11 Bedford Midland 12 Birkenhead North 13 Blackpool North 14 Bletchley 15 Bognor Regis 16 Bounds Green (London) 17 Bournemouth West 18 Brighton (Lovers Walk) 19 Bristol St Philips Marsh 20 Cambridge 21 Camden Washer 22 Cardiff Canton 23 Central Rivers 24 Chester 25 Chingford 26 Clacton 27 Clapham Junction (London) 28 Clayhills (Aberdeen) 29 Cleethorpes 30 Colchester 31 Corkerhill (Glasgow) 32 Craigentinny (Edinburgh) 33 Crewe LNWR 34 Cricklewood 35 Crofton (Wakefield) 36 Crown Point (Norwich) 37 East Ham (London) 38 Eastbourne 39 Eastcroft (Nottingham) 40 Eastfield (Glasgow) 41 Etches Park (Derby) 42 Exeter Td 43 Farnham 44 Ferme Park (London) 45 Fratton Tcd 46 Gillingham 47 Glasgow Train Care Centre (Polmadie) 48 Grove Park (London) 49 Haymarket (Edinburgh) 50 Heaton (Newcastle) 51 Holyhead 52 Hornsey (London) 53 Hull (Botanic Gardens) 54 Ilford (London) 55 Inverness 56 Kirkdale TCS (Liverpool) 57 Letchworth 58 Littlehampton 59 Liverpool Train Care Centre (Edge Hill) 60 Machynlleth 61 Manchester Train Care Centre (Longsight) 62 Midlands Train Care Centre (Oxley - Wolverhampton) 63 Neville Hill (Leeds) 64 New Cross Gate (London) 65 Newton Heath (Manchester) 66 Northam (Southampton) 67 Northampton (Kings Heath) 68 Old Oak Common – HEX (London)

69 Old Oak Common - HST (London) 70 Orient Way (London) 71 Orpington TCD (London) 72 Penzance (Long Rock) 73 Perth 74 Plymouth (Laira) 75 Ramsgate 76 Reading Turbo 77 Ryde 78 Salisbury 79 Selhurst (London) 80 Sheffield 81 Shields (Glasgow) 82 Shoeburyness 83 Shrub Hill (Worcester) 84 Skipton 85 Slade Green 86 Soho (Birmingham) 87 Southend Victoria 88 St Leonards 89 Stewarts Lane (London) 90 Stourbridge North 91 Strawberry Hill (London) 92 Streatham Hill (London) 93 Swansea (Landore) 94 Swansea High Street Washer 95 Temple Mills (London) 96 Tyseley (Birmingham) 97 Victoria (Grosvenor Road - London) 98 Welwyn Garden City 99 Wembley Stadium (London) 100 Wembley Train Care Centre (London) 101 Willesden Train Care Centre (London) 102 Wimbledon (London) 103 Yoker (Glasgow) 104 York Leeman Road

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

15

3.5 Passenger rolling stock depot and remote stabling locations Rolling stock is stabled overnight at passenger rolling stock depots, network sidings and stations. Stabling requirements will vary according to the:    

maintenance requirements of rolling stock train plan to be delivered depot capacity to accommodate the rolling stock type to be stabled availability of alternative suitable remote stabling facilities.

As a result, there will be variation in stabling utilisation on a day by day basis. Appendix 4 provides an overview of stabling location capacity and utilisation.

3.6 Passenger rolling stock depot ownership and operations Passenger rolling stock depots are predominantly owned by Network Rail and in turn are leased to TOCs. There are other arrangements which include:  

privately owned depot leased to a TOC privately owned depot used to service a TOC’s rolling stock fleet.

The privately owned and operated passenger rolling stock depots are managed by rolling stock manufacturers and are often associated with a service maintenance contract with the Train

Operating Company. This encompasses the provision of all maintenance and servicing for one or more specific classes of rolling stock. An example of this is the Siemens Northam (Southampton) depot which was opened in 2003 to service Class 444 and 450 EMUs. All 14 privately owned passenger rolling stock depots service and maintain new rolling stock. Some of the depots such as Central Rivers (Burton-On-Trent), Northam (Southampton) and Ashford (Kent) were specifically built to maintain and service new bespoke rolling stock fleets.

3.7 Committed developments As the railway network develops further to meet the demands placed upon it, new passenger rolling stock depot facilities will be required. This may be in response to developments on the network such as increased electrification, infrastructure and associated service enhancements and changes to the rolling stock fleet profile to meet passenger demand.

Table 3.2 shows committed future passenger rolling stock depot builds. In order to implement these future depot builds, planning permission will need to be obtained by the developer if the passenger rolling stock depot is not going to be located on land already owned by Network Rail. If the land is owned by Network Rail, then it is deemed good practice to secure support by the Local Planning Authority for the proposed development. Further discussion on planning issues (both policy and procedural) is provided in Chapter 4.

Table 3.2: Committed future passenger rolling stock depot builds

Table 3.2: Committed future passenger rolling stock depot builds Committed depot Three Bridges Hornsey Reading Old Oak Common Source: Network Rail (2011)

Date of opening 2014 2015 2015 2017

Current operator First Capital Connect First Capital Connect First Great Western Crossrail

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

16

4 Statutory and railway industry processes 4.1 Planning consent process Planning consent is required for anything which is defined as ‘development’ in planning legislation. This will include both the construction of new rolling stock depots as well as the extension of existing facilities. It is important to note that some types of railway developments have the benefit of ‘deemed’ planning consents through the General Permitted Development Orders that are in place in Scotland and in England and Wales. Such ‘permitted development uses’ do not require full planning consent but in certain circumstances there is a requirement to secure a formal ‘prior approval’ for works. Some of the types of permitted development are particular to Network Rail and may apply to some passenger rolling stock depot developments. This is a complex and specialist area as there are many caveats, exceptions and local restrictions that apply to their use. Network Rail’s Town Planning team can provide specialist advice in this area. If ‘permitted development’ is not available, full planning permission will be required. Many factors will need to be addressed and a full range of supporting, technical material will need to be prepared and submitted with the planning application. In all cases it is essential that early preapplication discussions are held with the relevant Local Planning Authority to determine the initial appropriateness of the depot works and identify any significant issues that need to be addressed which can include noise, vibration, visual impact, highways issues, hours of operation and other site specific impacts. For major schemes an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required. Planning permission may be granted subject to a) conditions and b) the need to enter into a planning agreement to secure the provision of all mitigation measures (referred to as a S106 Agreement). Depot construction works cannot commence until

all appropriate conditions and S106 obligations have been met. Given the sensitivities surrounding the extension or construction of new depots, it is essential that a full and detailed ‘public consultation strategy’ is established at the outset. Sensitive neighbouring uses, such as residential areas, will require particular care and attention and the depot design may need to be amended to mitigate any impacts. For depot planning applications ‘statements of community consultation’ must be submitted. It is important to note that adequate time should be provided within the project programme to secure all planning permissions required. It is important to note that circumstances may sometimes dictate that planning consent is sought via alternative routes such as Transport and Works Orders in Scotland or as a consequence of the project meeting the requirements of National Infrastructure Projects in England and Wales (as defined within the Planning Act 2008 where a Development Consent Order is obtained). This is a further specialist area on which Network Rail’s Town Planning Team can advise.

4.2 Network Rail processes Network Rail processes are those which need to be followed in depot planning when the proposed passenger rolling stock depot scheme is on Network Rail owned land. Some of the processes will be equally applicable to private depots (typically those not owned by Network Rail nor operated by a franchised train operating company).

4.3 Property/contractual land arrangements Where Network Rail owns passenger rolling stock depot facilities which are leased to train operators or maintainers (Depot Facility Owners (DFO’s)), it will need to be consulted on any plans to enhance or materially alter such facilities as any such plans 1) will affect Network Rail’s asset, and 2) may have an impact

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

17

on the wider railway operation in terms of capability, capacity and performance. When planning a site for a new passenger rolling stock depot, it is important to establish the ownership of the land and if there are currently any other activities occurring or planned for the site. Contact should be made with Network Rail’s Depot Portfolio Manager to confirm, if the site is owned by Network Rail, or a land search undertaken on the area concerned to ascertain the landowner. If the land is owned by Network Rail, then checks will be undertaken to see whether or not the site is earmarked for development and where appropriate, Network Rail will issue a clearance certificate. The operating requirements that will drive the maintenance and servicing requirements for a fleet of rolling stock will determine largely where a new passenger rolling stock depot facility will need to be located. Once a site has been identified, a decision will need to be made as to what is required within the passenger rolling stock depot. Generally, the following facilities are required as basics;         

access to the network access platforms for servicing trains train washing machine lighting water CET emptying facilities power staff accommodation and welfare facilities.

Other additional facilities that are found at passenger rolling stock depots include:  train shed facilities  pit access  wheel lathes  train jacks  bogie drops and  cranes. After the facilities and services for the passenger rolling stock depot are agreed, an application may be required under the Town and Country planning regulations for the proposed development. If the depot is to be owned by Network Rail, a depot lease will be required. This outlines the legal requirements for the

occupation of the site and confirms the maintenance, repair and renewal obligations between Network Rail and the DFO. The two options available for leases to TOCs are:  

a variation to the existing multilocation lease an individual lease.

The negotiation of this should be concluded prior to the commencement of any works. The lease will usually reflect the standard Network Rail Depot Letting Conditions and Depot Access Conditions and contain the standard franchised depot responsibilities for the DFO and Network Rail for maintenance, repair and renewal obligations. Enhancement of existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities is usually delivered in one of two ways; either by the DFO directly or by Network Rail, and each has its own unique characteristics. Most enhancement work undertaken on a passenger rolling stock depot will require a Network Rail Sponsor to be appointed to manage the proposed enhancement work (either under Landlord’s Consent or under Asset Protection arrangements). A Depot Change document will be issued, outlining the enhancement work at the passenger rolling stock depot and the Depot Change will require consent from the beneficiaries of the depot concerned. If the enhancement works at the passenger rolling stock depot are being funded by the DFO, the proposed changes will need to be reviewed by Network Rail via the Landlord’s Consent process. Network Rail will either issue a Landlord’s Consent or appoint a sponsor to oversee the enhancement on its behalf. The latter will occur if the scheme or any part of it contains alterations or work at, and around, the depot that may carry a risk to the safety of the railway. This is clarified by the following seven questions:

1 could the alterations or work be a risk to the safety of the railway network? 2 will an engineer be required to close a section of track? 3 will train traction power supplies need to be isolated? 4 will any of the proposed alterations or work take place outside the area of the premises that are currently rented?

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

18

5 will the alterations or work need specialist skills and knowledge that currently are not possessed by the promoter? 6 will alterations or work affect services and equipment – within the area of the premises that are currently rented – which serve the network (such as power supplies and drainage)? 7 will any of the alterations or work not be covered by the promoter’s safety management systems (‘safety case’)? If the answer to any of these is yes then Network Rail will appoint a Sponsor to assist in the process. For any small alterations or work that is totally within the depot, then this can be taken forward via the Landlord’s Consent system.

services or amenities offered to all passenger rolling stock depot access beneficiaries. An additional procedure covers any works (minor or major) which are proposed by Network Rail. Similar to the depot access process, the process is regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. An overview of the depot contractual change procedures can be found at: http://www.railreg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/depot_contractual_c hange_procedures.pdf http://www.railreg.gov.uk/upload/doc/dep_acc_conds_13 216.DOC

4.4 Commercial

4.5 Network planning

4.4.1 Depot access

Network Rail should be consulted with regards to any planned new or proposed changes to connections between passenger rolling stock depots and the national network so that the impact on capacity, capability and performance can be considered. Specific areas of advice which will be required, depending upon the passenger rolling stock depot planning scenario, will include an evaluation of:

Access to passenger rolling stock depots is regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. This is achieved via the approval of depot access agreements as per the terms of the Railways Act 1993. The operator of the passenger rolling stock depot is referred to as Depot Facility Owner (DFO). Other train operators, third parties procuring depot services on behalf of a train operating company are referred to as beneficiaries. These parties are required to enter into a depot access agreement with the DFO. If the agreements are not approved by the Office of Rail Regulation, they are invalid. Further guidance as to the depot access regime can be found within the Office of Rail Regulation’s criteria and procedures for the approval of depot access agreements (December 2010) publication at: http://www.railreg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/depots-criteriaprocedures-dec2010.pdf

4.4.2 Proposal for depot change There will be situations where depots will require modifications. Therefore, it will be necessary for the promoter of the enhancement to apply for a change to the depot access agreement. This will be where the proposed changes materially affect the condition, standard, or level of









the effect the enhancement of an existing facility would have upon capacity, capability and performance of the adjoining network the effect the opening of a new facility would have upon capacity, capability and performance of the adjoining network the effect the re-opening of a previously closed facility would have upon capacity, capability and performance of the adjoining network. how the planned enhanced or new passenger rolling stock depot facility would fit with established railway industry strategy.

4.6 Town planning It is recommended that Network Rail be consulted within the passenger rolling stock depot planning process, to seek advice as to how the development fits in strategically with land use/town planning policies at a national and local level.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

19

Network Rail will be able to provide guidance of application of these policies in the context of the railway enhancement development process and assess the planning implications for a particular site. This is through a planning assessment, which would advise on:  

the type of consent required and timescales, costs etc in obtaining it the chances of obtaining consent taking account of all the material considerations relevant to the site.

In order to undertake the assessment, the promoter would need to provide (as a minimum) information regarding the:      

site location building size(s) private car and operational vehicle parking requirements storage space required number of staff (office based and others) and shift patterns activities to be carried out at the site.

It should be noted that this only specifically applies to depots on Network Rail land, but parts of this guidance may still have wider relevance.

4.7 Environmental planning processes It is recommended that in developing a passenger rolling stock depot, consideration should be given to environmental performance. It is important to do so to:  



mitigate the overall operational footprint of the site upon the local community demonstrate the minimal environmental impact of the site (which would be particularly important if considering a future enhancement) reduce operational costs through recycling of materials used within the passenger rolling stock depot.

When planning for a new or enhanced passenger rolling stock depot, it is important that the full environmental impact is understood. Assessment of suitable mitigation measures may offer the opportunity for significant cost efficiency in the design and operation of the facility. Failure to fully appraise and consider environmental planning issues at the outset of any passenger rolling stock depot development scheme could cause resultant difficulties in relation to:  

legal implications restrictions being imposed upon the site’s activities.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

20

5 Land use planning and passenger rolling stock depot design 5.1 Introduction The relationship between design and land use planning/availability should be considered early in the development phase of any plans to modify or provide new passenger rolling stock depot facilities From the outset, it will be important to ensure that the land is available to accommodate the required functions of the passenger rolling stock depot development. The following sections identify key criteria which influence passenger rolling stock depot design and the interface with the railway network. For ease of reference, each consideration has been allocated a specific reference number with a preceding letter, (L - Land use/spatial strategy and process considerations, O – Operational interfaces, T – Technical interfaces, C – Commercial and regulatory interfaces).

demonstrate compliance with national land use policies. Recommendations: Demonstration of compliance with national land use planning policies will need to be shown when planning passenger rolling stock depots. It is recommended that the key planning documents cited within this guidance document are consulted as a minimum base requirement. A full understanding of the planning history associated with the proposed site for development/enhancement should be obtained as early in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process as possible. This will ensure that appropriate informed decisions regarding land use/spatial strategy can be made.

5.3 Passenger rolling stock depot location considerations (L2 to L4) 5.3.1 Existing passenger rolling stock depots (L2) When assessing the requirement for passenger rolling stock depot enhancement to meet changes in circumstances, such as the need to accommodate additional vehicles or undertake additional maintenance and servicing activities, the following should be considered: 

5.2 Land use/spatial strategy and process considerations (L1) When planning or extending a passenger rolling stock depot it will be important to develop an understanding of: 

 

the planning rights already present on a particular site. This should be gained at the beginning of the passenger rolling stock depot planning process the land use pressures at and within the vicinity of any potential site the thresholds as to whether or not the intended scheme will require planning permission. Even if the works do not require planning permission owing to permitted development rights, Local Authorities view it as good practice to submit a planning application to the Local Planning Authority to

 

is there additional land available and what statutory planning requirements would need to be met? can the additional requirements be accommodated in the space available? if additional land is available, is it suitable for the intended purpose?

Future demands may require changes to existing passenger rolling stock depots which may require the expansion of existing facilities. Consideration should be given to the safeguarding of suitable land that may be considered strategic in this regard, both within the railway industry and from a local and national planning policy perspective. In determining such requirements and associated justification, it will be necessary to establish if the required additional train movements to and from an enhanced passenger rolling stock depot could be accommodated on the railway network.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

21

Any further interventions that this might drive to the main railway network to maintain its capability will need to be identified. Recommendations: When planning the enhancement of existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities to accommodate changes in requirements, the following should be assessed:   

the availability of additional suitable land the statutory planning requirements the impact of additional train movements to and from the passenger rolling stock depot on network capability.

Consideration should also be given to the appropriate safeguarding of suitable land (from both a railway industry and local/national planning policy perspective) that could be used to enhance existing or construct new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, where it is considered beneficial to do so.

the rolling stock maintenance and servicing requirements. Passenger rolling stock depot accessibility (non rail) When determining the optimum location for a new passenger rolling stock depot facility, the suitability of the location should be considered in terms of its accessibility to the wider transport network. To meet with statutory planning requirements the following will need to be considered: 



5.3.2 New passenger rolling stock depots (L3) When considering the location for a new passenger rolling stock depot facility, the key decision factors will be commercially driven, but will also need to align with network strategic objectives and both operational and technical considerations. Operational and technical interface considerations are described in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively, and the following therefore identifies the key factors that need consideration in determining the optimum site for a new passenger rolling stock depot facility: Availability and suitability of land This should be as close as possible to the existing railway network to enable a suitable connection to be made to the railway network that does not compromise network capability. The site should also be in an optimum location to meet the service specification of the rolling stock allocated to the passenger rolling stock depot, so that empty coaching stock (ECS) mileage and associated operational costs are minimised, while at the same time minimising the requirement to use potentially scarce network capacity.





how will staff access the passenger rolling stock depot, what parking provision will be required and what impact might this have upon the local highway network? how will supplies be delivered to the passenger rolling stock depot and is the local highway network infrastructure suitable for the type of supplies that might need to be delivered to the passenger rolling stock depot? are there likely to be any planning restrictions on the times that supplies can be delivered to the passenger rolling stock depot? what additional local road traffic might be generated and what would be the impact of this upon the local environment?

It is desirable that land locked sites or sites likely to experience complete land lock are avoided as it is likely to be difficult to provide suitable access to roads and or key service utilities without incurring significant additional capital cost outlay. This may not always be possible, since spatial development strategies for areas will always be subject to change as land use pressures alter. For example, where a passenger rolling stock depot has been in situ for a number of years, it is quite possible that a site that once had available adjacent land (either railway or third party land) now as a result of development, is either partially or fully land locked.

The site should be of an adequate size and configuration to enable all the required passenger rolling stock depot facilities to be accommodated on the site to deliver

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

22

Recommendations: Optimum sites for new passenger rolling stock depot locations should be situated close to the existing railway network. This will enable suitable connections to be made to the railway network and to ensure that network capability is not compromised. The location of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities should be optimum as possible to meet the service specification of the rolling stock allocated to the passenger rolling stock depot. This will ensure that ECS mileage is reduced and in turn, offer associated operational cost efficiencies. The site for the location of a new passenger rolling stock depot facility should be of an adequate size and configuration to enable all the required passenger rolling stock depot facilities to be accommodated on the site. This is to meet the rolling stock maintenance and servicing needs. The location of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities should be suitable from both a statutory planning and environmental perspective.

5.3.3 Availability of suitably skilled and trained labour (L4) It is recommended that when considering the requirements for extending the facilities that a passenger rolling stock depot offers or considers the requirements for developing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, consideration should be given to local labour markets. Of particular importance is the availability of suitably skilled labour necessary to undertake the maintenance and servicing requirements that will be required. Therefore such considerations and any associated training requirements should be assessed at an early stage in the planning process. This is to mitigate any potential capability risks that could cause either an enhanced depot facility or a new passenger rolling stock depot facility to operate sub-optimally. Recommendation: The availability of appropriately skilled labour and associated training requirements needs to be assessed when extending existing or developing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. This is to mitigate any potential capability risks that could cause either an enhanced depot facility or a new passenger rolling stock depot facility to operate suboptimally.

5.4 Passenger rolling stock depot operational design considerations (L5 to L6) 5.4.1 Development of Client Brief (L5) When assessing the requirement for enhancing existing passenger rolling stock depots or developing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the suitability of the site will need to be assessed against a range of criteria. This is to consider if it meets the key drivers in terms of both the business and operational requirements. As such it is important that the ‘end user’ (the party that will undertake the maintenance and servicing requirements and operate the depot) is involved at an early stage in development of the Client Brief, as this will enable all of the operational requirements to be identified which are likely to determine suitability or otherwise of a particular site and its ability to be suitably integrated with the railway network. By involving the ‘end user’ in the process of developing a Client Brief, all operational and technical requirements can be identified and associated risks mitigated at an early stage of the development of enhancements to existing, or provision of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Typical considerations as part of this process include the:    

    

design of connections to the railway network design of layout to accommodate maintenance, servicing, shunting and stabling requirements location of plant and machinery technical design standards for infrastructure, plant and machinery so that this is compatible with the rolling stock train crew accommodation and booking on facilities security requirements environmental requirements for removal of waste products storage requirements staff facilities.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

23

Recommendation: ‘End users’ should be involved in the enhancement to existing or development of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities at an early stage of the Client Brief. This is to ensure that all operational requirements are identified which are likely to determine suitability or otherwise of a particular site and its ability to be suitably integrated with the national railway network.

5.4.2 Development of good practice (L6) The railway industry has over 100 years experience of building, enhancing and operating passenger rolling stock depots. Alongside this, a number of franchised train operating companies and rolling stock maintainers who operate passenger rolling stock depot facilities have wide experience in both the operation and maintenance of passenger rolling stock outside the UK.

In developing a railway system that generates value for money, which is more efficient and more affordable, it is essential that lessons learned from the enhancement of existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities, and the development of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities are reviewed, when undertaking future passenger rolling stock depot work. This is so that solutions can be optimised for the benefit of the railway system as a whole and good practice is utilised in all such circumstances. Recommendation: Application of good practice and lessons learnt from previous passenger rolling stock depot enhancement and provision of new passenger rolling stock depots should be identified. Wherever applicable, this should be factored into future planned passenger rolling stock depot works and fed back into this guidance.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Considerations

The factors which influence reliability of access to/from the network Land use/spatial strategy and process considerations (L1) Passenger rolling stock depot location considerations - existing depots (L2) Passenger rolling stock depot location considerations - new depots (L3) Availability of suitably skilled and trained labour (L4) Development of the Client Brief (L5) Development of good practice (L6)

The characteristics which effect reliability and availability of the connections between the depot and the network

Factors How network capacity and capability effect the efficiency of the depot-network interface

Operational and land use depot planning considerations





Considerations such as environmental issues which should be taken into account when planning depot location 















 

 

 

 

  

24

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

5.5 Summary of land use planning and design issue considerations required against key driving factors when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

25

6 Operational interfaces 6.1 Introduction The operational interface between a passenger rolling stock depot and the network, and operational factors both on the main network and within a passenger rolling stock depot, can impact upon the capacity, capability and performance of both the main railway network and the passenger rolling stock depot itself. These need to be considered as part of a railway system with an integrated approach to the planning of passenger rolling stock depot renewals, enhancement or construction of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. The passenger rolling stock depot-network interface relates to the network connection to/from the depot. This connection is critical in ensuring that the depot facility is able to undertake its day-to-day activities of servicing and maintaining rolling stock in a timely manner to ensure full availability for operational service. It may also have an impact on the capacity and performance of the network itself. The network connection to/from the depotnetwork interface is equally dependent upon an optimised internal depot configuration. An optimised internal passenger rolling stock depot configuration is one that allows efficient train movements in and around the passenger rolling stock depot. Therefore, the required maintenance and servicing duties can be undertaken with minimal operational risk to the depot itself and any consequential performance and/or operational impact onto the network. The following are key operational issues pertinent to both the passenger rolling stock depot-network interface (network connection) and passenger rolling stock depot internal configuration.

6.2 Configuration of passenger rolling stock depot/network interface (O1) The configuration of the passenger rolling stock depot/network interface will depend upon a number of factors. For older passenger rolling stock depots that have been in existence for many years, the configuration of the interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network will have been designed to meet the requirements at the time the passenger rolling stock depot was constructed. Any subsequent changes to the configuration will have been driven by emerging business and operational needs over time. In a number of cases, the interface may not be configured in an optimised manner to meet today’s requirements because of any number of factors which include:     

changes in characteristics of rolling stock using passenger rolling stock depots changes in train plans and service specifications over the years changes in maintenance regimes over time capacity and capability changes to the passenger rolling stock depot capacity and capability changes to the network.

Changes to the configuration of rolling stock using a passenger rolling stock depot could potentially have an impact upon the optimum operational capability of the interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network. Changes to service specifications may potentially require longer trains to access and egress passenger rolling stock depots which will need to be considered in terms of train planning (and potentially infrastructure such as track, signalling and power supply configuration) so as not to import performance risk into the railway system. Additionally, changes to service specifications and the train plan may alter the number and timing of train movements over the passenger rolling stock depot/network interface which may drive a

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

26

requirement for change if this impacts upon operational capability, capacity and performance of either the passenger rolling stock depot or the railway network. Maintenance regimes for modern and newer rolling stock can drive changes, whereby such rolling stock will not necessarily be required to visit a passenger rolling stock depot at the frequency of older rolling stock (for example due to modern diagnostic equipment or increased endurance). Consequently, this may reduce the number of train movements required which will be a factor to be considered in planning the optimum interface and its operational capability. It is important when optimising the configuration of the physical connection between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network that consideration is given to the train movements on either side of the connection. Movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network will require the connection to be configured in such a manner, as not to import performance risk onto either the railway network or to the passenger rolling stock depot operations. Such planning will therefore need to consider the location, configuration and operational requirements of other infrastructure beyond the immediate connection (for example, the location of wash plant facilities, stabling sidings etc). These factors need to be considered when looking to enhance the passenger rolling stock depot/network interface and will need to take account of the considerations detailed as follows in Sections 6.3 to 6.14, as well as many of the other factors set out in detail in Chapters 5 to 8 of this document. Generally, when new passenger rolling stock depot facilities are being planned, the trade-offs to be considered will be that of availability and suitability of land on which to construct a new passenger rolling stock depot, its location viz a viz the train service specification to be by the rolling stock to be maintained/stabled at the passenger rolling stock depot, and the ability to connect the new passenger rolling stock depot location to the railway network. When purely considering these

key driving factors, such planning will need to consider the capacity, capability and performance criteria for both passenger rolling stock depot operations and main railway network. This in turn can drive the requirements for change to existing passenger rolling stock depot configuration or configuration of connections between a new passenger rolling stock depot facilities and the main railway network. Recommendations: The connection(s) between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network should be considered as part of the ‘railway system’ and should wherever possible be optimised so as to:  

minimise the risk of causing performance perturbation to both passenger rolling stock depot and railway network meet the operational requirements of both passenger rolling stock depot and railway network without compromising either capacity or capability of the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network.

6.3 Diversity of connections onto and off the depot (O2) The number of routes onto and off a passenger rolling stock depot from the main railway network, along with their configuration and control, will affect the degree of operational flexibility between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network and vice versa. and as such is an important factor when considering any required enhancement to existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities or new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. It is generally considered that having a diversity of routes onto and off a passenger rolling stock depot from the main railway network, affords additional flexibility in operations, particularly during perturbation. Having separate exit and entrance routes may also afford greater operational flexibility as well as potentially affording a better access regime for maintenance of the railway infrastructure at the depot/network interface. This will assist in ensuring that operational performance risk is not imported between the depot and railway network and that the planned service is provided to the end customer.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

27

Recommendations:

Generally, when considering the need for optimising access between passenger rolling stock depots and the main railway network and the case for alternative routes needs to be considered on a case by case basis and will need to consider the following key factors:   





 

the intensity and service frequency of rolling stock needing to access/egress the passenger rolling stock depot the capability and capacity of the adjacent main railway network the configuration of alternative routes onto and off a passenger rolling stock depot (eg is an alternative route needed to serve a different destination?) the train service specification (timing and regularity of train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network required to meet this specification) the availability of land to accommodate both the required connections and design configuration requirements the type and complexity of signalling control required rolling stock configuration.

When considering such factors, it may not always be possible to achieve an optimum solution to provide an alternative route between the passenger rolling stock depot and the main railway network. In such scenarios, consideration should be given to ways of mitigating any potential risk to operational capability and performance by, for example, provision of an enhanced infrastructure maintenance regime. This can been seen in Case Study 2.1 which considers the operational requirements of Eurostar between their depot at Temple Mills International and High Speed Line 1 (HS1) at Stratford International, where movements are made via a single line due to space limitations. This single line is maintained to the same standard as HS1. Proven technology is used with standard components available for use in the event of asset failures.

In providing the optimum connection between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network and in assessing the need for diversity of routes between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network, the following considerations need to be assessed: 

     

the train service specification and the number of and the complexity of train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network the impact upon operational capability of both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network the impact upon capacity for both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network the impact upon performance for both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network the type of control method (eg do all the access/egress points need the same standard of control) the physical space to provide multiple connections the infrastructure maintenance regime to be employed at the connection.

6.4 Signalling at the passenger rolling stock depot – network interface (O3) The types and standard of signalling between passenger rolling stock depots and the main railway network vary significantly around the network. For passenger rolling stock depots that have existed for many years, the type of signalling that controls movements between the depot and the main railway network, and vice versa, will generally have been designed and implemented as part of the signalling on the main railway network route to which the passenger rolling stock depot is connected. For new passenger rolling stock depots being developed, the method of signalling to control moves both into and out of the depot will need to consider how this can be interfaced to the signalling to which the new passenger rolling stock depot facility is to be connected. In both scenarios the optimum level of signalling required is driven by the operating requirements across the interface such as the: 

intensity and service frequency of rolling stock needing to access/egress the passenger rolling stock depot

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

28

    

capability and capacity of the adjacent main railway network routing requirements rolling stock configuration rolling stock compatibility communication arrangements and systems between the passenger rolling stock depot and the signaller.

It is important from an operational perspective that a signaller has the ability to be able to send a train into a depot running line without necessarily having to communicate first with a shunter. Good practice is to therefore to provide track circuit or axle counter equipment on a depot entrance running line to prevent conflicting train movements being made and which provides greater safety and operating resilience. It is these factors that should be assessed when planning the renewal or, enhancement of or development of passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Consideration should also be given to the future signalling strategy for the route to which the passenger rolling stock depot is or will be connected to. This is to ensure that there is synergy in any requirements for planned signalling renewals/upgrades which will impact passenger rolling stock depot operation with consequential impact on network capability, capacity and performance. Recommendations: When considering the type and standard of signalling to be used to control train movements both into and out of passenger rolling stock depots, the following should be considered 

    

 

the train service specification and number of and complexity of train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network the impact on operational capability of both the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network the impact on capacity for both the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network the impact on performance for both the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network whether all the available connections need to be signalled to the same standard the method of communication between passenger rolling stock depot and signallers in both normal and perturbed operations and the ease of despatch of rolling stock onto the depot rolling stock compatibility the synergy with planned network signalling renewals.

6.5 Availability of diversionary routes to/from the depot (O4) Wherever possible, it is desirable for passenger rolling stock depots to be located where there are alternative routes available to and from the locations at which rolling stock will normally be planned to commence and finish service operation. For established passenger rolling stock depots, such routes will either be established or will not exist. When planning changes to service specifications, such considerations will need to be assessed so that rolling stock allocated to passenger rolling stock depots can access and egress locations for start/close of service in both planned operation and during times of scheduled maintenance to the railway network. Drivers of change such as the re-allocation of rolling stock between passenger rolling stock depots may increase a particular passenger rolling stock depot’s allocation of rolling stock. Consequentially, this may drive changes to the train plan to optimise the usage of both network capacity and capability. Such drivers may require tradeoff considerations. Examples of these are described within this chapter. When planning new passenger rolling stock depots the same considerations will need assessment. They can also impact upon optimum location considerations for such a facility. Availability of alternative diversionary routes will be governed by route availability for the rolling stock that is or will be allocated to a specific passenger rolling stock depot. Consideration will need to be given to train crew route knowledge and the capacity and capability of diversionary routes to cater for the additional services.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

29

Recommendations: Availability of diversionary routes (where they exist) between the locations at which rolling stock will normally be planned to commence and finish service operation and a passenger rolling stock depot , should be considered where appropriate, for empty stock train movements where:     

network capacity is scarce network performance can be improved by using alternative routes rolling stock is compatible with diversionary routes train crew have or can obtain appropriate route knowledge planned engineering works can impact upon the train plan.

Where diversionary routes are not available, consideration should be given where appropriate, to what other interventions could mitigate risk to meeting the service specification and impacting upon network capability, capacity and performance, as outlined in this chapter.

6.6 Power supply at the depot-network interface (O5) Domestic supply Electrical power supplies to passenger rolling stock depots are essential to the successful operation of passenger rolling stock depot facilities. They are typically provided in both standard domestic supply form for all passenger rolling stock depots and traction current form (either third rail 750 DC or overhead 25kV AC) where electric rolling stock is allocated and serviced at a passenger rolling stock depot. If depot domestic power is drawn from the traction supply system, either from the depot or main line supply, alternative arrangements must be available for when the traction current is isolated for either maintenance or during unplanned incidents. The provision of electrical power to a passenger rolling stock depot will need to cater for the level of planned maintenance and servicing activity that a passenger rolling stock depot undertakes and its electrical current draw. Where appropriate, diversity of power supplies should be considered so that maintenance and servicing can be undertaken to schedule. This is to ensure that operational performance risk is not imported onto the

railway network and that the planned service is provided to the end customer.

Traction supply Where existing passenger rolling stock depots are electrified, infrastructure controller responsibilities and boundaries will have been determined for electrical traction supply control and maintenance. For passenger rolling stock depots that need to be enhanced to accommodate electric rolling stock or new passenger rolling stock depots that are developed to accommodate electric rolling stock, such arrangements will need to be established. Where traction current is supplied to a passenger rolling stock depot, considerations should be assessed as to the diversity of power supply and associated switching arrangements. This is to ensure that planned maintenance and servicing of rolling stock can be undertaken at times when the electrical infrastructure of either the adjacent railway network or the depot is isolated due to scheduled maintenance or during perturbed situations. Additionally, diversity of the power supply feeding will enable continuity of traction supply, when running line maintenance and associated electrical isolations (overhead line or third rail) are required and during emergency electrical isolation scenarios. When planning new passenger rolling stock depots, or electrifying existing passenger rolling stock depots to cater for allocation of electrified fleets of rolling stock, consideration will need to be given to the neighbours of the railway. Immunisation works may be required, so that risk of electrical interference is mitigated, and where education and awareness needs to be promoted as to the inherent risks posed to the public of coming into contact with high voltage railway infrastructure.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

30

Recommendations: Domestic supply

Assessment of and requirements for the diversity of domestic electrical supplies should be evaluated against the planned workload of a particular passenger rolling stock depot. Changes in rolling stock fleet allocation and maintenance regimes may impact upon such requirements and should be assessed accordingly. This is to minimise the potential of any risk being imported into day-to-day service operation. Traction current supply

Where traction current is supplied to a passenger rolling stock depot, consideration should be given to the diversity of power supply and the associated switching arrangements. This is to ensure the continuity of maintenance/servicing of rolling stock during both planned and unplanned isolation of the network traction supply. Where existing passenger rolling stock depots need to be enhanced to accommodate electric rolling stock or new passenger rolling stock depots developed to accommodate electric rolling stock, infrastructure controller responsibilities and boundaries for traction current control and maintenance must be clearly determined.

6.7 Operational train planning (O6) When planning train movements between the railway network and passenger rolling stock depots, it is important that any constraints with regard to the passenger rolling stock depot configuration are understood. This is to ensure that train movements can be received by the depot in a seamless manner with no blocking back of trains onto the network with a potential consequential effect on network performance. It is therefore important that Network Rail’s train planning function continues to widen its knowledge and understanding of existing passenger rolling stock depot operation. This is so that when planning such train movements, these can take account of how specific passenger rolling stock depots operate and their intrinsic ability to receive train movements from the network. Developing Network Rail’s train planning body of knowledge to understand the local specific passenger rolling stock depot operational issues for all passenger rolling stock depots nationally, will assist in performance risk mitigation. When planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities it is also important that the train plan specification for the

rolling stock that will be allocated to the passenger rolling stock depot is understood. This could involve the end user (depot operator and/or train operator) being involved at the Client Brief stage, so that train planning considerations can be fully understood at the early stage of planning for a new passenger rolling stock depot facility. Recommendations: Network Rail’s train planning function must continue to develop its knowledge of local passenger rolling stock depot operating issues to mitigate risk of train performance impact being exported both from the passenger rolling stock depot onto the railway network and, from the railway network onto the passenger rolling stock depot. When planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, consideration needs to be given to the proposed train plan with regard to the movements of rolling stock to and from the passenger rolling stock depot.

6.8 Depot internal configuration (O7) Passenger rolling stock depots are an integral part of the ‘railway system’ and as such play a key role in its efficient operation. It is therefore important that the internal layout configuration within a passenger rolling stock depot is planned from an overall rail system capability so that operational and performance risk between depot and network (in both directions) is reduced as far as it is practical to do so. This will enable efficient movement of trains in and around the depot, and onto and off the depot . The following section outlines the key factors that need to be considered when optimising the internal configuration of a passenger rolling stock depot to meet these criteria. Existing established passenger rolling stock depots will generally be configured to the operational requirements placed upon the passenger rolling stock depot at the time of construction. These may then have seen subsequent enhancements over the years to meet prevailing requirements at any specific time, but they will often not be optimised for current and future requirements given the growth that the network has experienced.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

31

Optimisation of the internal depot layout configuration will enable a smooth throughput of passenger rolling stock depot movements which will minimise any operational risk and resultant delays upon train service delivery to/from the passenger rolling stock depot. Optimum layout of stabling and servicing sidings will be driven by current and future service specifications and associated allocation of rolling stock to a specific passenger rolling stock depot. It is important that the requirements for the whole process from receiving trains from the network, undertaking cleaning, servicing, maintenance, reforming and finally returning trains to the network are understood so that the depot design can be developed in a form that enables this work to be reliably scheduled, planned undertaken. It is therefore important that the following factors are considered: 





 

suitability of the train plan to deliver trains to the passenger rolling stock depot and accept serviced trains back onto to the network, taking account of any constraints that an existing depot may have location of plant and machinery (eg washing plant facilities, Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) plant) that may impact on the smooth movements of trains between the network and the passenger rolling stock depot compatibility of the passenger rolling stock depot with different types of rolling stock allocated to the depot (eg can all plant, machinery and infrastructure accommodate all types of rolling stock allocated) capacity for stabling rolling stock can shunting movements be minimised, as these could impact upon passenger rolling stock depot and (by knock-on) network performance?

Recommendations: The internal layout of a passenger rolling stock depot needs to be configured in a manner that enables the maintenance and serving requirements to be undertaken in as efficient manner as possible. For existing passenger rolling stock depots, the service specification and associated allocation of rolling stock will drive the requirements for optimising both the internal passenger rolling stock depot layout and how it is operated. This is to ensure that the risk to performance, capacity and capability is not either imported to or exported from the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network. Planning of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities should in optimising internal passenger layout configuration, consider the whole maintenance/servicing requirements from the receipt of trains from the network, to delivery of the trains back to the network to commence service operation, in order to optimise the depot layout.

6.9 Rolling stock profile and configuration (O8) When allocating rolling stock to a particular passenger rolling stock depot, aside from pure capacity considerations, it is important that the passenger rolling stock depot has the capability from both the perspective of the infrastructure that the rolling stock has to operate over within the passenger rolling stock depot, and the plant, machinery and equipment that will be required to service and maintain it. Failure to meet these criteria in part or in full will involve rolling stock needing to visit other passenger rolling stock depot locations at various times which may involve use of scarce network capacity as well as incurring additional operating costs. Where existing rolling stock is allocated to either existing established passenger rolling stock depots or new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the above criteria will need to be assessed as part of the process for allocation or re-allocation of rolling stock. In addition, the rolling stock will need to have the appropriate route availability in order to operate on routes to and from the passenger rolling stock depot from the network routes over which it would normally operate. When planning the introduction of new rolling stock onto the network, under ‘The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006’ (ROGS), it is a requirement for those

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

32

introducing the new rolling stock, to demonstrate compliance with necessary standards and that risks are controlled (whether they are non-safety or safety related). This assurance should assess any specific issues that may be relevant to interfaces between the railway network and passenger rolling stock depots over which the rolling stock will operate. Recommendations: When allocating or re-allocating rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the passenger rolling stock depot capability should be assessed to ensure that infrastructure, plant and equipment is compatible with the rolling stock. This is to avoid unnecessary downtime and scarce network capacity being utilised for the movement of rolling stock to other passenger rolling stock depots that have the necessary capability. When allocating or re-allocating rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities, rolling stock route availability criteria should be assessed for the route over which the rolling stock will need to access the depot from the main railway network. Introduction of new rolling stock should assess railway system wide safety assurance considerations. These include the interfaces between passenger rolling stock depots and the railway network.

6.10 Key infrastructure assets (O9) Key infrastructure assets that control the movement of trains between a passenger rolling stock depot facility and the main railway network can have an important role to play in the performance of a passenger rolling stock depot and the associated adjacent railway network. For existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the reliability, availability and maintainability (RAMS) of such key assets will determine the level of performance that can be achieved, in terms of train movements that operate over that infrastructure. Focus should be upon mitigation of performance risk to both the internal passenger rolling stock depot operation and the operation of the railway network. Therefore maintenance and renewal regimes for such assets should consider the operational requirements placed on the infrastructure, and the nature of potential performance risk that is associated with failure of such assets. This is particularly relevant if the level of a passenger rolling stock depot operation

changes (eg the growth in rail travel demand, resulting in more vehicles to be maintained at a specific passenger rolling stock depot). When designing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the configuration of the connection and associated key infrastructure assets that control train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network should be designed in terms of the levels of: availability, reliability and maintainability required to meet the operating requirements of both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network. Recommendations: Existing passenger rolling stock depots should assess the requirements for the maintenance and renewal of key infrastructure assets (where this can present a performance risk to both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network) which may have greater use placed upon them as growth of demand for rail use drives changes to passenger rolling stock depot requirements. Key infrastructure assets in new passenger rolling stock depots should be designed to maximise availability, reliability and maintainability of movement between the depot and the railway network, having regard to the required level of movements, in order to minimise risk to the performance of both facilities.

6.11 Remote stabling (O10) The diversity of rolling stock operating on the railway network, its age profile and associated maintenance and servicing characteristics will drive a number of different requirements at passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Older types of rolling stock will generally require the more specific servicing requirements that a passenger rolling stock depot facility can offer. Consequentially, this will influence the number of empty coaching stock (ECS) movements required between the railway network and passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Newer types of rolling stock will benefit from more modern characteristics, such as self diagnostic equipment and greater endurance, that may require the rolling stock to visit depots on a less frequent basis. This can have a positive effect on network capacity, by the associated reduction in the number of ECS train movements.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

33

Recommendation:

Growth in the demand for railway services, which will see a greater requirement for network availability and greater network utilisation, will also place changing requirements upon passenger rolling stock depots nationally. When planning the requirements for the allocation of rolling stock, consideration should be given to what servicing could be undertaken at remote stabling locations and the associated facilities required at such locations. An example of this is where in recent years there has been substantial fitment of sanding equipment to electric multiple unit rolling stock (new fleets having the requirement for such equipment as part of their build) which currently requires these vehicles to visit a passenger rolling stock depot to have the sanders filled. In the autumn period when rail adhesion levels are typically at their lowest, sand use is at its greatest, with the consequential requirement for sanders to be filled more often. The ability for this servicing requirement (and potentially other servicing requirements) to be conducted at remote stabling locations with appropriate installation of plant and equipment, should be assessed on the grounds of both the improved safety benefit (reduced risk to sanders running empty at times of greatest useage) and the reduced need to access passenger rolling stock depots, which may involve use of scarce network capacity. Such assessment will also need to consider any associated commercial and regulatory requirements where a stabling siding is used to perform servicing and maintenance activities. Additionally, use of remote stabling facilities should consider issues such as potentially less productive train crew diagramming, the security of rolling stock against vandalism and other factors which include the provision of a safe working environment for servicing and maintenance staff and environmental considerations (eg discharge of cleaning and tanking fluids).

Consideration of what maintenance and servicing requirements could potentially be undertaken at remote stabling locations should be assessed, where justification can be made on the basis of improved safety and reduced empty rolling stock mileage. Such assessment will need to consider any additional capital investment needed to upgrade remote stabling locations and any associated commercial implications. This may also provide additional benefit in terms of network capacity and performance.

6.12 Control of train movements within a passenger rolling stock depot (O11) Passenger rolling stock depot movements can be controlled both from the national railway network and independently within the passenger rolling stock depot or by a combination of both. Efficient control of movements within a passenger rolling stock depot is particularly important in enabling a depot to operate successfully and deliver serviced rolling stock to meet the required service specification. For established passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the level of control will have evolved with complexity of operation and volume of rolling stock maintained/serviced and will require to be continually reviewed to meet future demands but should take cognisance of any systems integration requirements with the railway network. For new passenger rolling stock depot facilities being planned, decisions as to the level and standard of the independent depot control should be made as part of the Client Brief. This is to meet the requirements to be placed upon the new passenger rolling stock depot facility. Recommendation: Requirements for control of train movements internally within a passenger rolling stock depot facility should be assessed against the complexity of operation and the volume of train movements required. Systems integration requirements with the railway network should also be considered.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

34

6.13 Rules and regulations (O12) Specific operating rules and regulations within a passenger rolling stock depot (which are relevant to a particular depot only and over and above generic railway industry standard rules and regulations) will be tailored to the specific requirement of an individual facility. This will be the responsibility of the passenger rolling stock depot facility operator. However, any particular rules and regulations for dealing with issues at the interface of operation between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network should be developed so that no safety or performance risk is exported to the network.

Similarly, local Network Rail operating instructions that relate to the interface between the railway network and a passenger rolling stock depot facility should be assessed so that no safety or performance risk is exported to the passenger rolling stock depot. Recommendation: Local passenger rolling stock depot rules, regulations and operating instructions and Network Rail operating instructions that issues at the interface between a passenger rolling stock depot facility and the railway network should be assessed. so that no safety or performance risks are introduced between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network and vice versa.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Considerations

The factors which influence reliability of access to/from the network Configuration of the passenger rolling stock depot-network interface (O1) Diversity of routes onto and off the depot (O2) Signalling at the passenger rolling stock depot – network interface (O3) Availability of diversionary routes to/from the depot (O4) Power supply at the depot-network interface (O5) Operational train planning (O6) Depot internal configuration (O7) Rolling stock profile and configuration (O8) Key infrastructure assets (O9) Remote stabling (O10) Control of train movements within depot (O11) Rules and regulations (O12)



The characteristics which effect reliability and availability of the connections between the depot and the network 

Factors How network capacity and capability effect the efficiency of the depotnetwork interface

Operational and land use depot planning considerations



 













Considerations such as environmental issues which should be taken into account when planning depot location.

       

 

   



 





  

35

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

6.14 Summary of operational interface considerations required against key driving factors when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

36

7 Technical interfaces 7.1 Introduction The physical connection between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network and its design characteristics (some of which have been considered in Chapter 5) will determine the:  

volume of train movements that can be accommodated over the interface reliability of the interface and its availability.

This section identifies a number of technical considerations that need to be assessed in the planning of passenger rolling stock depots. This applies to the following scenarios where: 



existing passenger rolling stock depots may be required to accommodate more vehicles and different types of vehicles new passenger rolling stock depots that will require a design of a suitable and efficient interface with the railway network.

7.2 Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document (T1)

7.3 Rolling stock data transfer at the depot (T2) Increasingly, modern rolling stock has diagnostic equipment that both monitors rolling stock performance and the wider railway network. Where such rolling stock is allocated to existing depot facilities, or new facilities, assessment will be required to ascertain what enhancements may be required to facilitate the transfer of the diagnostic data from rolling stock to the monitoring systems (which can capture data such as vehicle diagnostics, driver performance and infrastructure status). Additionally, all modern rolling stock is provided with, and increasingly existing rolling stock is being retrofitted with, CCTV, providing recorded surveillance of the on board environment. Such data may require downloading at the depot. Consideration will need to be given to the provision of adequate appropriate storage space (dry area) and appropriate data communications networks to facilitate the ease of transfer of onboard data to the depot. Recommendation: Planning of requirements for both existing and new passenger rolling stock depot facilities should assess the needs for facilitating transfer of both rolling stock diagnostic data to maintenance monitoring systems and onboard CCTV data to depot data storage facilities.

Network Rail has produced a Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document which provide guidance on the technical aspects of many of the issues outlined in this Passenger Rolling Stock Depots Planning Guidance document. These documents can be accessed at: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/ aspx/4449.aspx Recommendation: It is recommended that the Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document is used as a source document to provide guidance in the planning of enhancements to existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities and regarding the specification requirements for the planning of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

37

7.4 Operational control (T3) The operational control of train movements within a passenger rolling stock depot is discussed in Chapter 6. However, when assessing the requirements for control of train movements between a passenger rolling stock depot facility and the railway network, consideration will need to be given to any technical interfaces required to enable the smooth and efficient movement of trains between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network. Key issues to be considered will be:

Signalling interface What arrangements are required to control the entry of trains onto the railway network from the passenger rolling stock depot, and vice versa, and what form of communication is required between the passenger rolling stock depot and the signallers. Usually the signal controlling the exit from a passenger rolling stock depot will be controlled by Network Rail with a track circuit or axle counter detecting the train in advance of the signal. Communication arrangements between the passenger rolling stock depot and signallers are also required in the event of perturbation to the operation. Other systems may be desirable so that the depot has visibility of what rolling stock movements are being made towards it, (eg in the form of being able to see the signalling diagram and access to systems such as Web GEMINI to check what rolling stock is on which diagram). For existing passenger rolling stock depots, the signalling control will have evolved as part of the signalling system installed on the adjacent railway network. It will have been designed to accommodate the requirements at the time that the area was re-signalled. Where current arrangements are deemed inadequate, enhancements should be aligned to planned signalling renewal requirements. When new passenger rolling stock depot facilities are being planned, the number and frequency of train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network should be assessed. This is to ensure that signalling

is optimised to facilitate such requirements. The signalling will need to interface with the signalling on the adjacent railway network. This in turn will drive factors in determining the arrangements for both the physical interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network. Capacity within the existing signalling control facility will also need to be assessed.

Electrical control interface Where existing passenger rolling stock depots are electrified with either 750v dc (third rail) or 25kv (overhead) traction supply equipment, arrangements will have been established for electrical control (usually from Network Rail) and the infrastructure boundary arrangements in terms of the boundary where maintenance responsibility may differ. When reviewing the requirements for the technical electrical interface for a new passenger rolling stock depot, these arrangements will need to be taken into account. This is in addition to the considerations outlined in Chapter 6. Existing passenger rolling stock depots will have established communication protocol with Network Rail Electrical Control Rooms (ECR). Similar arrangements will need to be established for new passenger rolling stock depots that are planned to be electrified to accommodate electric traction rolling stock.

Maintenance arrangements Maintenance of the railway infrastructure across the passenger rolling stock depot/railway network interface will also need to be assessed. This is to identify the most appropriate parties to undertake the required maintenance. For example, it may be most appropriate for signalling equipment such as train detection equipment (track circuits or axle counters) on a depot access line to be maintained by the Network Rail local maintainers who have the knowledge of the local signalling equipment, who will also have signal technicians and access to spares. This may be more cost effective than having bespoke contracts to maintain such infrastructure separately from the main railway network. Such maintenance requirements should be considered in terms of infrastructure controller arrangements. This is where operational

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

38

control and maintenance boundaries may well vary for different types of infrastructure.

7.6 Application of technical standards (T5)

Recommendations:

When undertaking the enhancement of passenger rolling stock depot facilities, or when planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, there are a number of technical standards that should be reviewed or assessed for their applicability for the proposed works. A number of criteria can determine which technical standards are applicable:

Signal control arrangements for train movements between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network will be driven by the level and the volume of train movements. Existing arrangements deemed inadequate, should be assessed for enhancement, as part of any planned signal renewal works. When planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the signalling interface with the railway network will need to be assessed from both a compatibility and capacity perspective. When planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities that will accommodate electric trains, the design of the electrical interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network will need to assess the following technical arrangements for: electrical infrastructure control and boundaries; electrical traction supply switching arrangements; and arrangements for communication protocol with Electrical Control Rooms.

7.5 Supply chain management of passenger rolling stock depot processes (T4) Modern rolling stock can exploit technological advances so that the rolling stock can remotely communicate with the depot prior to arrival at the facility, as to a particular fault or failure mode. This allows tools and parts to be readily available to affect the repair upon receipt of the vehicle, improving turnaround times, and therefore, availability for service, and reducing risk of in service failure. Consideration should also be given to key passenger rolling stock depot infrastructure and plant and machinery components. Failure of such key component parts may have a detrimental affect on the ability of the depot to meet the required service specification or import a performance and capability impact into the railway system.

  

Statutory and legal requirements such as Health and Safety considerations Railway Group Standards Interoperability requirements.

This document does not intend to consider these in detail but notes that relevant guidance should be sought in both the applicability and application of such standards and legal requirements when planning works at passenger rolling stock depot facilities. In the context of this Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance document, this is particularly relevant in terms of where the application of such standards may have an impact on network capacity, capability and performance. These may require assessment as part of the overall design considerations. A Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document has been developed by Network Rail to provide best practice guidance on technical design guidance associated with building new rail maintenance depots, and the renewal and enhancement of existing rail maintenance depot facilities. This can be accessed at: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4449.as px Recommendation: When planning works to passenger rolling stock depots, guidance on the applicability and application of technical standards should be sought.

Recommendations: Passenger rolling stock depot supply chain management processes should be optimised to provide timely procurement and the provision of key components and exploit modern technology where appropriate, so that maintenance downtime is minimised, availability is maximised, and risk of in service failure of equipment is minimised.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

39

7.7 Rolling stock technical compatibility of future fleets of vehicles (T6) In Chapter 6, a number of rolling stock compatibility issues were identified. These relate to the planning for future fleets of vehicles that will be required to replace life expired rolling stock and meet projected future demand for railway services. Designs for new and enhanced passenger rolling stock depot infrastructure should take account of what generic types of vehicles are likely to be developed to meet these future needs. The Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock document provides recommendations of potential future generations of rolling stock that should be considered by the railway industry and what their high level generic characteristics may look like. Recommendation: When designing new or enhanced passenger rolling stock depot infrastructure, use should be made of the guidance on future fleets of rolling stock and their generic characteristics that will be required to meet future requirements. This can be sourced within the established Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock document.

7.8 Autumn and winter readiness (T7) The role of a passenger rolling stock depot is fundamental to the safe and timely delivery of rolling stock to serve the demand for passenger services nationally. Traditionally, the autumn period in each year presents significant challenges to the railway industry to maintain the necessary levels or required safety and performance due to the nature of weather experienced at this time of year which significantly impacts upon the wheel rail interface. Severe winter weather can also impact upon rolling stock servicing and maintenance requirements. As part of the role that depots play in preparing vehicles to operate safely at such times of year, consideration needs to be given to any specialist equipment that might be required at passenger rolling stock depots and at out based stabling locations where appropriate (see Section 6.11), and how this might be justified on the basis of improved safety and operating performance.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

40

Additionally, key passenger rolling stock depot infrastructure assets need to be monitored and protected from failure. Consideration should be given to the requirements for point heating and automated condition monitoring equipment where this can be justified on the basis of performance. There is currently a national ‘Intelligent Infrastructure Programme’, which automates asset condition monitoring leading to accelerated asset attention where failure risk is identified, thereby predicting and preventing failures of equipment. This national programme is currently targeting 5000 sets of points, 750 signalling power supplies, with future targeting of point heating mechanisms, and an aspiration to identify key assets at depot locations. Recommendation: Autumn and winter planning should consider the fundamental role played by passenger rolling stock depots in terms of where enhanced plant, machinery and infrastructure may be justified, on the basis of maintaining safety and performance levels during this time of the year.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Considerations

The factors which influence reliability of access to/from the network Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document (T1) Rolling stock data transfer at the depot (T2) Operational control (T3) Supply chain management of passenger rolling stock depot processes (T4) Application of technical standards (T5) Rolling stock technical compatibility of future fleets of vehicles (T6) Autumn and winter readiness (T7)



The characteristics which affect reliability and availability of the connections between the depot and the network 

Factors How network capacity and capability affect the efficiency of the depot-network interface 

Operational and land use depot planning considerations



Considerations such as environmental issues which should be taken into account when planning depot location 

 

















 















41

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

7.9 Summary of technical interface considerations required against key driving factors when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

42

Recommendation:

8 Commercial and regulatory interfaces 8.1 Introduction Strategic planning for passenger rolling stock depots needs to take cognisance of the regulated requirements of the railway industry and associated commercial arrangements that govern access to the railway network and passenger rolling stock depots. Franchising of passenger railway services will drive maintenance, servicing and stabling requirements, and how these are allocated between passenger rolling stock depot facilities on different parts of the network. The regulated framework of the railway industry also places certain legal requirements for passenger rolling stock depot facilities operated by one company to be available for the use by other operators. This will drive various considerations in the depot planning process. The following chapter identifies such key criteria. It highlights their particular relevance concerning the impact that such decision making can have on the performance, capacity, and capability of the railway system. This is when considering the interaction between passenger rolling stock depot design and the railway network. Development of newer passenger rolling stock depots to manage bespoke fleets of rolling stock can build in much of the required standardisation at the design stage. They should also consider value for money in being able to share high capital cost equipment (see Section 8.3).

When assessing the requirements to enhance passenger rolling stock depots to accommodate different fleets of vehicles or developing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the following will need to be considered: the degree of standardisation, and what impacts this may drive in terms of vehicles needing to visit other passenger rolling stock depots, from time to time with any consequential impact upon the railway network capability and capacity.

8.2 Sharing of/access to/regulation of high value capital cost depot equipment (C1) The ability to share and optimise the use of certain high capital infrastructure, such as wheel lathes, offers opportunities for the railway industry to become more efficient, where it is practical to do so. This can avoid the need for costly enhancement of, or design of, new high capital cost depot equipment. However, this does need to be considered against potential operating requirements for additional empty train movements, additional operating costs, additional down time of vehicles out of service and the environmental impact of additional train movements. Additional longer distance movements to alternative facilities utilise valuable network capacity and it is not always possible to timetable train movements to align with the operational train planning requirements or the planned network infrastructure maintenance and renewal requirements. The ability to use high capital cost regulated assets such as wheel lathes needs to be considered at an industry level. This is to ensure the optimum use of such equipment industry wide, which can if planned, carefully realise considerable efficiencies in the railway industry as a whole. To avoid any access problems in the longer term, it will be important early on in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process to consider a strategy for access to the heavier maintenance equipment across all time periods. Failure to do so, could create resultant operational and financial difficulties in the longer term, should access to the required facilities become more limited.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document December 2011

43

Decisions as to the approach to take regarding accessibility to the heavier maintenance facilities will need consideration on an individual scenario basis, taking account of local operational requirements. Recommendation: When assessing requirements for high capital cost passenger rolling stock depot equipment, consideration should be given to the ability to use such equipment at other locations, where it is practical and efficient to do so. Operational efficiency and network performance and capability should not be compromised.

8.3 Franchising policy (C2) Franchising policy will need to be considered, particularly from an operator perspective, due to the individual requirements of the franchise and especially any specific franchise agreement commitments regarding depot investment. Length of franchise will have an impact upon the level of investment that can be potentially made when considering enhancement to passenger rolling stock depot facilities. Franchise geography boundaries will need to be considered in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. Franchising policy will not only influence rolling stock which is likely to operate under a particular franchise but also specify specific primary assets (of which depots are one) available to the franchisee. All such factors will need to be assessed where these might impact the number of vehicles that a passenger rolling stock depot needs to maintain and service as well as any associated changes to train plans and train movements accessing and egressing passenger rolling stock depots.

8.4 Passenger train service requirements – rolling stock and train crew diagrams (C3) When assessing the need for enhancement of existing depots, or the provision of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, it is essential that the investment is planned with full consideration of the passenger train service requirements and the requirements necessary to meet the franchise specification. Therefore planning should give consideration to the key criteria that enable successful operation of the passenger train service (these include the ability to deliver maintained and serviced rolling stock, and the availability of train crew to operate these services) and the assessment of all such requirements outlined in this document. Recommendation: Drivers of enhancement to existing passenger rolling stock depots, or the investment in new passenger rolling stock depot facilities will be determined by the franchise specification. These should be planned in full consideration of how the passenger train service specification should be met. Any associated impact upon passenger rolling stock depot and railway network performance, capability and capacity should also be considered.

Recommendation: Changes to operating, maintenance and servicing requirements driven as a result of franchise changes will need to be assessed. This is to ensure that passenger rolling stock depot capability can be maintained and that the proposed requirements concerning train movements to and from passenger rolling stock depots on the railway network can be accommodated, without impact on network performance, capability and capacity.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document December 2011

Considerations

The factors which influence reliability of access to/from the network Standardisation of equipment and strategic parts (C1) Franchising policy (C2) Passenger train service requirements – rolling stock and train crew diagrams (C3)



The characteristics which affect reliability and availability of the connections between the depot and the network

Factors How network capacity and capability affect the efficiency of the depot-network interface

Operational and land use depot planning considerations



Considerations such as environmental issues which should be taken into account when planning depot location 







44

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

8.5 Summary of Commercial and regulatory interface considerations required against key driving factors when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

45

9 Passenger rolling stock depot planning recommendations 9.1 Introduction The guidance document has presented a comprehensive resume of a number of high level passenger rolling stock depot planning considerations in relation to operational, land use planning, technical, commercial and regulatory issues. These were formulated on the basis of extensive cross-industry liaison, involving a wide range of personnel involved in passenger rolling stock depot operations.

Furthermore, it is important to recognise that the planning considerations will vary in relative importance depending on the individual planning scenario (whether it be the planning for a new passenger rolling stock depot, the enhancement of an existing facility or the re-opening of a previously closed facility). To illustrate this, consideration has been given as to how this may vary in relation to the planning process for:  

For Network Rail owned passenger rolling stock depots this is split further down into:  

This section provides: 





a summary of the key considerations and their relative importance as a recommendation in the depot planning process identification of trade offs needing evaluation, if it is not possible to fully/partially implement a specific consideration or recommendation details of the next strategic steps in further developing the recommendations originating from the Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance document.

9.2 Recommendation of key passenger rolling stock depot planning considerations and their relative importance Based upon the presented guidance, it is recommended that a number of passenger rolling stock depot planning guidance considerations are evaluated in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. Adoption of all the recommendations should provide an optimum passenger rolling stock depot planning scenario. However, this is unlikely to be achievable and as such trade-offs will need to be made.

a Network Rail owned passenger rolling stock depot a privately owned passenger rolling stock depot.



a single user passenger rolling stock depot a multi user passenger rolling stock depot (where the Depot Facility Operator undertakes work for other operators) shared user passenger rolling stock depot (where a number of operators share facilities).

The variance has been expressed in terms of the degree to which the individual issue (land use planning, operational and technical) should be considered in the planning process. It is graphically expressed in a traffic light style format, whereby red strongly advises adoption of the consideration, amber recommends adoption of the consideration and green considers it optional to adopt the consideration. Wherever possible, for each recommendation relevant case studies are provided. These are found in Appendices 2 and 3. Irrespective of the relative importance cited, all depot planning considerations are important. Therefore, in order to undertake as effective a passenger rolling stock depot planning process as possible, they should be considered as interdependent. No consideration should be examined in isolation. The cited considerations should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Figure 9.1 summarises the key recommendations, their relative importance, and the potential trade-offs that need to be evaluated as part of the planning process for passenger rolling stock depots.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Recommended guidance.

2.3, 2.6

Recommended guidance.

2.3, 2.6

Can the revised train plan be accommodated?

2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5

with the national land use planning policies as appropriate.

L1- When planning passenger rolling stock depot

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

enhancements or the development of new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the planning history associated with the site should be reviewed to assess any risks and planning implications associated with the site.

L2 -

When planning the enhancement of existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities to accommodate changes in requirements, the following should be assessed:  availability of additional land and suitability  statutory planning requirements  impact of additional train movements to and from the passenger rolling stock depot on network capability.

46

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot Land use ● ● ● ● L1 - Planning of passenger rolling stock depot planning and enhancements or development of new passenger depot design rolling stock depot facilities will need to comply

of suitable land that could be used to enhance existing or construct new passenger rolling stock depot facilities where it is considered beneficial to do so.

L3 - Optimum sites for new passenger rolling

●

stock depot locations should be situated close to the existing railway network to enable suitable connection to be made to the railway network that does not compromise network capability.

L3 - Location of new passenger rolling stock

rolling stock depot facilities should be of adequate size and configuration to enable all required passenger rolling stock depot facilities to be accommodated on the site to deliver the rolling stock maintenance and servicing needs.

Link to case studies

If suitable land is not available, can additional requirements be:  accommodated by reconfiguration of existing site  accommodated elsewhere  accommodated by other interventions (depot and network). Sub-optimum locations should be assessed against the risk of importing risk to network performance and capability, and commercially against what passenger rolling stock depot capacity and capability exists elsewhere.

2.6

●

Sub-optimum locations should be assessed against the risk of importing risk to network performance and capability, and commercially against what passenger rolling stock depot capacity and capability exists elsewhere.

●

Some maintenance and servicing requirements could be undertaken at alternative locations. This would need to be assessed in terms of cost efficiency and network capability to deal with additional Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) movements.

depot facilities should be optimised as possible to meet the service specification of the rolling stock allocated to the depot so that Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) mileage is reduced with associated operational cost efficiencies.

L3 - Sites for the location of new passenger

Trade-offs/compromises

2.8

2.3

47

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● Land use L2 - Consideration should also be given to the planning and appropriate safe-guarding (from both a railway depot design industry and local/national planning perspective)

L4 - Availability of appropriately skilled labour

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

and associated training requirements to be assessed when extending existing passenger rolling stock depots or developing new passenger rolling stock depot facilities. This is to mitigate any potential capability risks that could cause either an enhanced depot facility or a new passenger rolling stock depot facility to operate suboptimally.

L5 -‘End user’ to be involved in the enhancement to/or the development of a new passenger rolling stock depot facilities at an early stage of the Client Brief. This is to ensure all operational requirements are identified which are likely to determine suitability or otherwise of a particular site and its ability to be suitably integrated with the railway network.

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Sub-optimum locations should be assessed against the risk of importing risk to network performance and capability, and commercially against what passenger rolling stock depot capacity and capability exists elsewhere. If provision of suitable levels of skilled labour is considered a risk, can other staff be relocated from elsewhere?

2.3, 2.6,

Recommended guidance.

2.1

48

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot Land use ● L3 - Location of new passenger rolling stock planning and depot facilities should be suitable from a statutory depot design planning and environmental perspective.

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Recommended guidance.

passenger rolling stock depots to be factored into future planned passenger rolling stock depot works. Operational interfaces

O1 - Configuration of connection between a passenger rolling stock depot should wherever possible be optimised to 1) minimise the risk of performance perturbation being imported to the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network operations, and 2) not compromise the capacity or capability of the passenger rolling stock depot or adjoining railway network.

●

●

●

●

Modifications to the train plan should be considered, where this may mitigate performance risk before any further higher capital cost infrastructure interventions are proposed.

2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6

O2 - The optimum number of connections between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network should be assessed on a case by case basis against the operational needs, taking into account both current and future performance, capacity and capability issues.

●

●

●

●

If an optimum number of connections between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network cannot be provided mitigation of risk at the existing connection(s) should consider factors such as:  modifications to train plan  enhanced maintenance of connections  enhanced control of existing connection(s).

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6

49

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● Land use L6 - Application of good practice and lessons planning and learned from previous passenger rolling stock depot design depot enhancement and the provision of new

requirements at the connection, between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network should assess the operational requirements to be placed on the connection. In assessing future growth, performance, capacity and capability consideration should be given to synergy with any planned signalling renewals.

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

To be assessed against the frequency and volume of train movements and impact on performance and capacity across the depot network interface. Modifications to the train plan should be considered where this may mitigate performance risk before any further higher capital cost infrastructure interventions are proposed.

2.4, 2.5

O4 - Availability of diversionary routes (where they exist) between the locations at which rolling stock will normally be planned to commence and finish service operation and a passenger rolling stock depot should be considered where appropriate for empty stock train movements where this will mitigate performance risk and/or improve network capacity utilisation.

●

●

●

●

If no alternative route to the depot is available, network capacity and capability to be assessed to meet planned and unplanned requirements. Additionally, consideration should be given to what alternative depot facilities may be available for both planned (eg during engineering works) and unplanned circumstances.

2.4

O5 - Diversity and/or provision of continuous domestic electrical supply to be assessed on the basis of required passenger rolling stock depot operations to meet service specification.

●

●

●

●

Consideration should be given to what alternative depot facilities may be available during unplanned circumstances.

2.3

50

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O3 - Optimum provision of signalling

depot, either from the depot or main line supply, consideration should be given to the diversity of power supply and associated switching arrangements

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Consideration should be given to what alternative depot facilities may be available for both planned (eg during engineering works) and unplanned circumstances.

O5 - Where existing passenger rolling stock depots need to be enhanced to accommodate electric rolling stock/new depots developed to accommodate electric rolling stock, Infrastructure Controller responsibilities/boundaries for traction current control and maintenance should be determined.

●

●

●

●

Do any of the drivers of electrification preclude the enhancement of existing facilities, driving changes to the fleet allocation and the enhancement of alternative facilities?

2.4

O6 - Network Rail’s train planning function to continue to develop its knowledge of local passenger rolling stock depot operating issues. This is to mitigate the risk of train performance impact being exported both from the passenger rolling stock depot onto the railway network and, from the railway network onto the passenger rolling stock depot.

●

●

●

●

None - continued education required.

2.4

O6 - When planning new passenger rolling stock

●

●

●

●

Selection of appropriate sites and associated network capacity and capability is critical to ability to deliver service specification. Do such requirements drive any network enhancement requirements?

2.4

depot facilities, consideration needs to be given to the proposed train plan, with regard to movements of rolling stock to and from the passenger rolling stock depot.

51

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O5 - Where traction current is supplied to a

allocation of rolling stock will drive the requirements for optimising both the internal layouts for existing passenger rolling stock depots and how they are operated so that risk to performance, capacity and capability is not either imported or exported between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network.

O7 - The planning of new passenger rolling stock

Link to case studies

To be assessed against the frequency and the volume of train movements and impact on performance and the capacity across the depot network interface. Modifications to the train plan should be considered where this may mitigate the performance risk, before any further higher capital cost infrastructure interventions are proposed.

2.4,

●

●

●

●

Can the existing facilities be enhanced to meet the requirements at better value for money?

2.3, 2.4

●

●

●

●

Consider trade off between ability to allocate rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities that have better capability to deal with the rolling stock against the ability to enhance the passenger rolling stock depot facility to deal with the rolling stock.

2.4

depot facilities should in optimising internal passenger layout configuration, consider the whole maintenance/servicing requirements from the receipt of trains from the network, to delivery of the trains back to the network to commence service operation.

O8 - When allocating or re-allocating rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities, the depot capability should be assessed so that infrastructure, plant and equipment is compatible with the rolling stock, so that scarce network capacity is not utilised for movement of rolling stock to other passenger rolling stock depots that have compatible requirements.

Trade-offs/compromises

52

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O7 - The service specification and associated

stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities, rolling stock route availability criteria should be assessed for the route over which the rolling stock will need to access the depot from the main railway network.

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Ability to use alternative routes should be assessed, before any high capital cost route enhancement is considered.

2.4

O8 - Introduction of new rolling stock should assess railway system wide safety assurance considerations including interfaces between passenger rolling stock depots and the railway network.

●

●

●

●

Does the passenger rolling stock depot facility need to be enhanced for the new rolling stock?

2.5

O9 - Existing passenger rolling stock depots should assess the requirements for maintenance and renewal of key infrastructure assets (where this can present a performance risk to both passenger rolling stock depot and railway network performance) which may have greater use placed upon them, as growth of demand for rail travel drives changes to passenger rolling stock depot requirements.

●

●

●

●

Where key infrastructure assets are important factors in performance and capability of both the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network, consideration needs to be given to the appropriate maintenance and renewal regime.

2.1

Consideration should also be given to enhancement of alternative facilities where these exist, where this may reduce the impact of failure risk of other key infrastructure assets where it is justifiable to do so.

53

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O8 - When allocating or re-allocating rolling

depot facilities should assess availability, reliability and maintainability of key infrastructure assets that control train movements between the passenger rolling stock depot and railway network, where performance and capability risk can be exported to both passenger rolling stock depot and railway network operations.

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Can alternative infrastructure be ‘designed-in’, which mitigates impact risk of single point infrastructure failures?

2.1, 2.5, 2.6

O10 - Consideration of what maintenance and servicing requirements could potentially be undertaken at remote stabling locations should be assessed, where justification can be made on the basis of improved safety and reduced operating mileage and associated performance and capability impact of the railway network and passenger rolling stock depot operations.

●

●

●

●

Consideration of suitable facilities for limited remote servicing/maintenance of rolling stock would potentially enable network utilisation capability and network performance to be improved. It would also potentially provide greater capacity at passenger rolling stock depot locations to meet future demand.

2.5, 2.6

O11 - Requirements for control of train movements internally within a passenger rolling stock depot facility should be assessed against the complexity of operation and volume of train movements required and should consider any systems integration requirements with the railway network.

●

●

●

●

Train plan to be developed wherever possible, so that trains can be presented in an optimum manner to a passenger rolling stock depot, so that the number of train movements within a passenger rolling stock depot can be minimised.

2.6

54

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O9 - Design of new passenger rolling stock

regulations and operating instructions and Network Rail operating instructions that deal with issues at the interface between a passenger rolling stock depot facility and the railway network, should be assessed, so that no safety or performance risks are introduced between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network and vice versa. Technical interfaces

T1 - It is recommended that the Network Rail

Trade-offs/compromises

Joint development of local operating instructions and practices that impact safety and operation of train movements between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network and vice versa.

●

●

●

●

Recommended guidance.

●

●

●

●

Can the download of data be undertaken elsewhere (other depots or remotely) and what impact does this have on network capacity and availability if additional train movements are required?

Rail Maintenance Depots – Design Guidance document is used as a source document to provide guidance in the planning of enhancements to existing passenger rolling stock depot facilities and on specification requirements for the planning of new depot facilities.

T2 - Planning of requirements for both existing passenger rolling stock depots and new passenger rolling stock depot facilities, should assess their requirements for facilitating transfer of diagnostic data (for both rolling stock and infrastructure) from rolling stock to passenger rolling stock depot facilities.

Link to case studies

55

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● O12 - Local passenger rolling stock depot rules,

movements from a passenger rolling stock depot onto the railway network will be driven by the number and frequency of train movements. Existing arrangements deemed inadequate should be assessed for enhancement as part of any planned signal renewal works.

T3 - As part of the planning of new passenger

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

If the technical signalling characteristics of a connection between a passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network are deemed inadequate to meet required operating requirements, can any other changes be made before enhancement is required, eg alteration to the train plan.

2.4, 2.5

●

●

●

●

Recommended guidance.

2.4, 2.5

●

●

●

●

Recommended guidance.

2.5

rolling stock depot facilities, the signalling interface with the railway network will need to be assessed from both a compatibility and capacity perspective.

T3 - When planning new passenger rolling stock depot facilities that will accommodate electric trains, the design of the electrical interface between the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway network will need to assess the technical arrangements for: electrical infrastructure control and boundaries, electrical traction supply switching arrangements and arrangements for communication protocol with Electrical Control Rooms.

56

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● T3 - Signal control arrangements for train

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Recommended guidance.

2.5

management processes should be optimised to provide timely procurement and provision of key components and exploit modern technology where appropriate, so that risk of in service failure of equipment is minimised with consequential performance risk.

T5 - When planning works to passenger rolling

●

●

●

●

Recommended guidance.

●

●

●

●

Recommended guidance.

stock depots, guidance on the applicability and application of technical standards should be with particular regard to the impact on network capacity, capability and performance.

T6 - Guidance of future generic fleets of rolling stock and their generic characteristics that will be required to meet future requirements can be sourced in the Network RUS: Rolling Stock document.

2.1, 2.5

57

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● T4 - Passenger rolling stock depot supply chain

the fundamental role played by passenger rolling stock depots in terms of where enhanced plant, machinery and infrastructure may be justified on the basis of maintaining safety and performance levels during this time of the year. Commercial and regulatory interfaces

C2 - When assessing requirements for high capital cost passenger rolling stock depot equipment consideration should be given to ability to use other such equipment where it is practical and efficient to do so without compromising operational efficiency and network performance and capability

●

●

●

●

Trade-offs/compromises

Link to case studies

Justification for enhanced plant, machinery and infrastructure to enable improved operation during autumn and winter to be assessed on networkwide benefits in improved safety and performance at these times of year. Trade offs to be assessed when considering either investment in high capital cost depot equipment or sharing of such equipment should assess the wider cost impacts and impact on network capability and performance.

58

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● T7 - Autumn and winter planning should consider

servicing requirements, driven as a result of franchise changes, will need to be assessed, in order that passenger rolling stock depot capability can be maintained and that proposed requirements in terms of train movements to and from passenger rolling stock depots on the railway network can be accommodated without detrimental impact on network performance, capability and capacity.

C4 - Drivers of enhancement to/or investment in new passenger rolling stock depot facilities will be determined by the franchise specification. These should be planned in full consideration of how the passenger train service specification should be met and any associated impact on passenger rolling stock depot and railway network performance, capability and capacity.

●

●

●

●

Trade-offs /compromises

Link to case studies

Franchise specifications should consider any changes in circumstances that will be placed on passenger rolling stock depots as a result of any proposed changes to franchise specifications.

2.1

Recommended guidance.

59

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Network Rail Depot Private Depot Single Multi Shared User User Depot Depot Depot ● ● ● ● C3 - Changes to operating, maintenance and

Appendices

61

Appendix 1: Passenger rolling stock depots within Great Britain Appendix 1: Passenger rolling stock depots within Great Britain – (104) Depot

Facility

Site freehold owner

Depot Facility Owner (DFO)

Abbey Foregate (Shrewsbury)

SD

Network Rail

London Midland

Other passenger operators using the depot None

Allerton

DMUD

Network Rail

Northern

None

Ardwick (Manchester)

DMUD

Other

Siemens

Ashford Aylesbury

EMUD DMUD

Network Rail Network Rail

Ayr Barrow-In-Furness

EMUD SD

Network Rail Network Rail

Hitachi Chiltern Railway Company ScotRail Northern

First TransPennine Express South Eastern Trains None

Basingstoke (Barton Mill)

SD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None First TransPennine Express None

Bathgate

EMUD

Network Rail

ScotRail

None

Bedford Cauldwell Walk

EMUD

Network Rail

First Capital Connect

None

Bedford Midland Birkenhead North Blackpool North

EMUD T&RSMD SD

Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail

First Capital Connect Merseyrail Northern

None None None

Bletchley

SD

Network Rail

London Midland

None

Bognor Regis

EMUD

Network Rail

Southern

None

Bounds Green

T&RSMD

Network Rail

East Coast

None

Bournemouth West

T&RSMD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None

Brighton (Lovers Walk)

EMUD

Network Rail

Southern

None

Bristol St Philips Marsh Cambridge

T&RSMD EMUD

Network Rail Network Rail

First Great Western First Capital Connect

None None

Camden Washer

SD

Network Rail

London Midland

None

Cardiff Canton

DMUD

Network Rail

Arriva Trains Wales

Cross Country

Central Rivers (Burton-on-Trent)

TMD

Other

Bombardier

Chester

DMUD

Network Rail

Alstom

Cross Country, Virgin West Coast Arriva Trains Wales

Chingford

EMUD

Network Rail

Clacton

SD

Network Rail

Clapham Junction (London)

SD

Network Rail

National Express East Anglia National Express East Anglia South West Trains

None

Clayhills (Aberdeen)

CSD

Network Rail

East Coast

None

Cleethorpes

SD

Network Rail

Siemens

Colchester

SD

Network Rail

Corkerhill (Glasgow)

DMUD

Network Rail

National Express East Anglia ScotRail

First TransPennine Express None

Craigentinny (Edinburgh) Crewe LNWR

T&RSMD T&RSMD

Network Rail Other

East Coast Arriva

Cross Country Arriva Group

Cricklewood

EMUD

Network Rail

First Capital Connect

East Midlands Trains

Crofton (Wakefield)

TMD

Network Rail

Bombardier

First Hull Trains, First TransPennine Express

Crown Point (Norwich)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

National Express East Anglia

None

East Ham (London)

EMUD

Network Rail

c2c

None

None None

None

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

62

Appendix 1: Passenger rolling stock depots within Great Britain – (104) Depot

Facility

Site freehold owner

Depot Facility Owner (DFO)

Eastbourne

EMUD

Network Rail

Southern

Other passenger operators using the depot None

Eastcroft (Nottingham)

SD

Network Rail

East Midlands Trains

Cross Country

Eastfield (Glasgow)

DMUD

Other

ScotRail

None

Etches Park (Derby)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

East Midlands Trains

None

Exeter Ferme Park (London)

DMUD CSD

Network Rail Network Rail

First Great Western East Coast

None None

Fratton

EMUD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None

Gillingham Glasgow Train Care Centre - Polmadie

EMUD T&RSMD

Network Rail Network Rail

South Eastern Trains Alstom

None Virgin West Coast

Grove Park (London) Haymarket (Edinburgh) Heaton (Newcastle) Holyhead Hornsey (London) Hull (Botanic Gardens)

SD TMD T&RSMD SD EMUD SD

Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail

South Eastern Trains ScotRail Northern Arriva Trains Wales First Capital Connect Northern

None None Grand Central None None None

Ilford (London)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

None

Inverness

TMD

Network Rail

National Express East Anglia ScotRail

Kirkdale TCS (Liverpool)

EMUD

Network Rail

Merseyrail

None

Letchworth Littlehampton Liverpool Train Care Centre (Edge Hill) Machynlleth Manchester Train Care Centre (Longsight ) Midlands Train Care Centre (Oxley Wolverhampton) Neville Hill (Leeds)

EMUD EMUD CSD DMUD T&RSMD CMD

Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail Network Rail

First Capital Connect Southern Alstom Arriva Trains Wales Alstom Alstom

None None Virgin West Coast None Virgin West Coast Virgin West Coast

T&RSMD

Network Rail

East Midlands Trains, Northern

Cross Country, East Coast

New Cross Gate (London) Newton Heath (Manchester) Northam (Southampton) (Siemens)

EMUD DMUD EMUD

Network Rail Network Rail Other

London Overground Northern Siemens

None None None

Northampton (Kings Heath) Old Oak Common – HEX (London)

EMUD EMUD

Other Network Rail

Siemens Heathrow Express

London Midland Heathrow Connect

Old Oak Common - HST (London) Orient Way (London)

HSTMD SD

Network Rail Network Rail

First Hull Trains None

Orpington TCD (London)

SD

Network Rail

First Great Western National Express East Anglia South Eastern Trains

None

Penzance (Long Rock)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

First Great Western

None

Perth

SD

Network Rail

ScotRail

None

None

Plymouth (Laira)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

First Great Western

Cross Country

Ramsgate

EMUD

Network Rail

South Eastern Trains

None

Reading (Turbo)

DMUD

Network Rail

First Great Western

None

Ryde

EMUD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None

Salisbury

DMUD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None

Selhurst (London)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

Southern

None

Sheffield

SD

Network Rail

Northern

None

Shields (Glasgow)

EMUD

Network Rail

ScotRail

None

Shoeburyness

SD

Network Rail

c2c

None

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

63

Appendix 1: Passenger rolling stock depots within Great Britain – (104) Depot

Facility

Site freehold owner

Depot Facility Owner (DFO)

Shrub Hill (Worcester)

SD

Network Rail

London Midland

Other passenger operators using the depot None

Skipton

SD

Network Rail

Northern

None

Slade Green

EMUD

Network Rail

None

Soho (Birmingham)

EMUD

Network Rail

Southern Eastern Trains London Midland

Southend Victoria

EMUD

Network Rail

St Leonards

T&RSMD

Network Rail

Stewarts Lane (London) Stourbridge North

T&RSMD T&RSMD

Network Rail Network Rail

Strawberry Hill (London)

EMUD

Network Rail

Streatham Hill (London)

SD

Swansea (Landore)

T&RSMD

Swansea High Street Washer Temple Mills (London)

National Express East Anglia South Eastern Trains

None None None None None

Network Rail

Southern Chiltern Railway Company South West Trains, Siemens Southern

Network Rail

First Great Western

None

SD T&RSMD

Network Rail Other

First Great Western Eurostar

None None

Tyseley (Birmingham)

DMUD

Network Rail

London Midland

None

Victoria (Grosvenor Road) (London)

SD

Network Rail

South Eastern Trains

None

Welwyn Garden City

SD

Network Rail

First Capital Connect

None

Wembley Stadium (London)

T&RSMD

Other

None

None None

Wembley Train Care Centre (London)

T&RSMD

Network Rail

Chiltern Railway Company Alstom

Willesden Train Care Centre

EMUD

Network Rail

London Overground

None

Wimbledon (London)

EMUD

Network Rail

South West Trains

None

Virgin West Coast

Yoker (Glasgow)

SD

Network Rail

ScotRail

None

York Leeman Road

DMUD

Network Rail

Siemens

First TransPennine Express

Key CMD - Carriage Maintenance Depot CSD - Carriage Stabling Point DMUD - Diesel Multiple Unit Maintenance Depot EMUD - Electric Multiple Unit Maintenance Depot HSTMD - High Speed Train Maintenance Depot SD - Stabling Point T&RSMD - Traction & Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot TMD - Train Maintenance Depot

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

64

Appendix 2: Passenger rolling stock depots – depot case studies The following passenger rolling stock depot case studies highlight a number of key lessons that should be considered as part of the future passenger rolling stock depot planning process.

Case study 2.1: Eurostar Relocation of maintenance and servicing facilities from North Pole International Depot to Temple Mills International Depot (new depot for existing rolling stock)

1. Introduction This case study considers a number of key factors that were considered as part of the relocation of the Eurostar depot from North Pole to Temple Mills and which influenced the design and construction of the new depot facility and the interface with High Speed 1 (HS1) namely: 

  

the role of Eurostar as an “end user” of the Temple Mills International depot facility and collaborative approach to the development of Client Brief the lessons learned from the constraints of North Pole site the constraints and risks associated with a single connection between depot facility and HS1 Open Access requirements and the ability to cater for new design rolling stock.

2. Background th

On 14 November 2007, Eurostar transferred its London Terminal for its passenger services from Brussels and Paris to London from London Waterloo International station to London St Pancras International station. Services started operating along the new High Speed Line

1 (HS1) between London St Pancras International and the Channel Tunnel, giving a journey time of just over two hours between London and Paris and just under two hours between London and Brussels. In readiness for this move, a new purposebuilt depot on part of the former site of the Temple Mills railway marshalling yard was constructed to service and maintain the Class 373 train sets that operate between London and the continent. The construction of the Eurostar depot at Temple Mills was part of a ‘masterplan’ with the facility originally planned to replace North Pole depot after 2020, with North Pole continuing to provide the servicing and maintenance facilities up until this time. During 2005, Great North Eastern Railway (GNER), leased five Class 373/1 train sets (this rolling stock being the shorter length fleet originally constructed for use between the continent and regional locations within Great Britain) to augment its services between London King’s Cross and Leeds. As part of this arrangement, the practice of moving these train sets between North Pole International Depot and London King’s Cross via the North London Line (NLL) highlighted:  

the significant time required for these train movements (up to 1½ hours) a limited number of available train paths which would cause a significant constraint when the later full service between London St Pancras International and the continent commenced unless significant upgrade of the infrastructure could be achieved along the NLL.

Therefore, the decision was made by the UK Government that the construction of HS1 would include construction of a dedicated new Eurostar servicing and maintenance facility at Temple Mills in East London, close to Stratford.

3. Location Temple Mills International Depot is accessed via a 1½ km single line connection from Stratford International station. The connection to HS1 at Stratford International is via a London facing connection onto both the up and down Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) running lines, just west of the station between the

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

65

station and the London Tunnel 1 portals. Signalling control for the HS1 Route is from the Signalling Control Centre at Ashford (Kent). At Temple Mills, the depot comprises a 450 metre long eight siding main servicing shed, designed to accommodate 400 metre long trains as defined in the High Speed Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI), and ancillary facilities that are accessed from a depot throat at the end of the single line link to HS1 at Stratford International station.

4. Client Brief Temple Mills was constructed by Union Railways (the client) as part of the construction of part of HS1. As client, Union Railways was therefore responsible for all planning and construction activities, although this was undertaken in close collaboration with Eurostar (end user) with the Client Brief being jointly developed and signed-off between the two organisations. This was critical in enabling Eurostar to meet its prime objectives in improving production efficiency, improving supply on site, removing duplication of effort, and reducing operational risk. Temple Mills International Depot was effectively constructed on a ‘brown field’ site, which offered significant advantages over the long but very narrow site at North Pole International. Key design improvements (as a result of the available land) enabled a depot layout to be constructed that limited train movements and the need to split Class 373 train sets.

5. Depot Planning As detailed above, the client for Temple Mills International Depot was Union Railways. However, in being fully integrated as part of the Design Team, Eurostar was able to strongly influence the design of the depot layout to meet the requirements that would be placed upon it from a day to day management and operational aspect. The land constraints at Temple Mills were less onerous than at North Pole International Depot which enabled the depot to be configured in a way more suitable to its operational requirements than could be achieved at the more constrained North Pole site. Key aspects considered and developed based upon the experience of operating North Pole International Depot for over 13 years included: 







This is also relevant to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007, which require (amongst others) new build construction to be designed and constructed in a safe manner, which can also be maintained and operated in a safe manner.



Recommendation



Where a passenger rolling stock depot is constructed for operation by a third party ‘end user’ it is important that the end user is integrated into the Depot Design Team throughout the whole process, so that all requirements are assessed, developed and constructed so that the operator of the facility can conduct all their required business activities.



the design of railway infrastructure within the depot utilised proven technology where possible to mitigate risks associated with using new or modified technology the design of railway infrastructure within the depot adhered to TSI and Railway Group standards wherever possible with suitable mitigation being applied where standards could not be fully achieved the Temple Mills site enabled design of a more efficient layout that could be operated more efficiently, with less duplication of resource and effort and more safely by reducing exposure to risks (such as splitting train sets) the ability to plan the depot layout for serving and stabling 400m long train sets without the need to split the train sets as was required at North Pole International the Temple Mills site enabled design to better consider improving supply of materials about the site due to the less restrictive site constraints than at North Pole International a lack of convenient local transport links required the depot to provide suitable parking with an additional staff mini-bus linking with local transport hubs (a concept developed at North Pole International) as the site at North Pole international depot was over 2km in length, it was imperative that a roadway was provided along the length of the site for both transportation of supplies and

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

66

the ability for staff to move between locations at the depot both safely and quickly. However, at Temple Mills, although the length of the layout is much shorter than North Pole International, no such roadway exists along the length of the site, requiring additional access/exit points from the site which require to be managed carefully from a security perspective.

significant gradients that potentially present operational risk in the event of a train set stalling. The Class 373 train sets are designed to be able to be rescued by another Class 373 train set which does mitigate this risk, as does the ability to operate over this link with only two out of six motor blocks being operational 

Recommendation Best case practice developed and experience gained at other locations should be assessed and applied as and when considered appropriate. Risks and constraints of existing operations should be reviewed to see if mitigation can be applied in new or enhanced design of facilities.

6. Operational Interface with HS1 During the development of Temple Mills International Depot, it was determined that it was not possible to install a second running line on the 1½ km single track link between HS1 and Temple Mills International. This was primarily due to a lack of space between adjacent railway infrastructure and signalling capacity constraints at Stratford. Additionally the link line to the depot has to both cross over the HS1 down line (down CTRL) and beneath the Temple Mills line linking Stratford station and Temple Mills East Junction, with prevailing up and down gradients in both directions. These factors present a number of operational challenges as follows: 



the single line linking Temple Mills International Depot with HS1 presents a risk if there is any failure of either infrastructure or rolling stock, which could prevent other rolling stock accessing or exiting the depot. Dependant upon circumstance, this could lead to potential delays in the servicing and maintenance cycle, (which could lead to additional empty stock (ECS) mileage, if vehicles have to visit other depot locations on the continent). In addition, such failures could impact upon both rolling stock movements within the depot and HS1 performance, as train sets block back on to the network

the throat of Temple Mills International Depot is in close proximity to the A12 overbridge and has no road access, so is therefore reliant on a road/rail crane in the event of any serious derailment in the depot throat infrastructure. Again this has the potential for serious impact as described above, in such circumstances.

It is clear that in the event of any blockage or failure on or with the single line link connecting HS1 and Temple Mills International Depot there is the potential for significant operational and performance risk. This is exacerbated by the lack of an alternative rail route for train sets to access/egress the depot. In considering these risks, as part of the development of the site, the design and maintenance criteria for the infrastructure both along the link line and within the depot, was to the same standard as that on the rest of HS1. A number of mitigation measures are in place to mitigate the operational risks created by the single line access/egress to the depot facility. Measures include the:   

provision of a “higher standard” of infrastructure and associated maintenance use of proven technology utilisation of standard supply items for when spares are urgently required.

It should be recognised that there have been few such failures related to either the link infrastructure or operation on it, since the depot commenced operating.

the single line linking HS1 and Temple Mills International Depot has

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

67

Recommendation Key infrastructure reliability, availability and maintainability (RAMS) should be assessed, especially where site constraints impose risks related to rail access/egress. As no real alternative exists to provide an alternative rail access/egress to/from Temple Mills International Depot, risk mitigation has been applied in the choice of proven technology, infrastructure, the ready availability of strategic spare components, and the quality of both the initial construction and subsequent maintenance regime.

as part of the design. In the case of Temple Mills International Depot, there was the need to comply with the requirements for interoperability, specifically the TSI. This provides key reference within the depot specification that enables built in provision for the accommodation of new and future generation rolling stock. Recommendation

7. Ability of the depot to handle new fleets and Open Access operators The legislation that surrounds the construction, operation and access of HS1, also requires Temple Mills International Depot to be made available for any new entrants who wish to operate services between Europe and the UK. In addition, Eurostar have recently placed an order for new train sets, of a different design to those used currently.

It is good practice for design and enhancement of passenger rolling stock depot infrastructure to consider future generations of rolling stock. It is recommended that consideration be given to types of, or families of rolling stock that are and in future will be used on routes with which depots are associated. The Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock document provides recommendations of potential future generations of rolling stock that will be considered across the industry.

The design of Temple Mills International Depot had to therefore consider the requirement that the depot would in the future have to be able to service and maintain new generation rolling stock. At the time of construction of the depot, the specific type and specification of such rolling stock was somewhat uncertain. The design and construction of the depot was therefore undertaken in line with the High Speed Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI) which set out general design principles and parameters that the design of the depot had to accommodate. This compliance enables the depot to be constructed so that future generations of rolling stock can be suitably serviced and maintained at the depot. It is important to recognise that the train sets were constructed to the particularly narrow UK loading gauge required to operate over the classic routes between London Waterloo International and the Channel Tunnel. This has led to some significant modifications being required at Temple Mills to accommodate new generation rolling stock, where stepping distances have been constructed for the existing fleet. In general, the internal layout of depots, do not have specific technical and operational railway standards that can be referenced

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

68

Case study 2.2: Crewe London North Western Railway (Arriva) An existing depot for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction Crewe London North Western Railway (LNWR) depot is situated at Crewe on the West Coast Main Line (WCML), and provides servicing, maintenance and repair of a number of types of rolling stock which operate along the WCML and on routes to North and South Wales, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and the East Midlands via Stoke-on-Trent.

2. Depot operational service profile The depot provides servicing, maintenance, repair and overhaul for a number of passenger and freight operating companies, and rolling stock leasing companies, which include:         

London Midland (Siemens) Virgin Trains (Bombardier) Arriva Trains Wales East Midlands Trains Freightliner VSOE Network Rail DB Schenker Angel Trains.

The depot typically services 21 units per night, consisting of:    

6 Class 221 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUS) 8 Class 350 Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) 5 Class 150/158 DMUs 2 Class 153/158 DMUs.

3. Commercial considerations The depot at Crewe is in a prime site geographically being located centrally on

the WCML. It affords easy access to a number of geographic areas. Furthermore, the depot has a strategic fit into the operations of the train operators that it undertakes duties for. For example, the site services:

(a) Class 350 EMUs operating London Euston – Crewe and Birmingham New Street – Liverpool Lime Street services (b) Class 150/158 DMUs operating North Wales and Marches services originating from Crewe (c) Class 153/158 DMUs operating Crewe – Derby services (d) Class 221 DMUs operating London – Chester – North Wales services. As such, with many services originating at Crewe, Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) mileage is kept to an absolute minimum, which is desirable from both an operational and environmental perspective. Recommendation Wherever possible, the depot should be located as close to the start of service as possible, to minimise ECS mileage and associated risk of perturbation.

4. Depot-network interface characteristics (a) Depot-network connection The depot is located approximately ¼ mile south of Crewe station. Trains departing the depot are able to access all platforms at the station. This is equally applicable to movements from the station towards the depot. Currently all departures from the site have to exit via a single line at the northern end of the depot in the direction of Crewe station. An alternative emergency connection is available at the southern end of the depot (Basford Wood). However, use of this connection requires hand signalling on to the network and as such has been used only once. Providing a signal controlled connection at the south end of the depot would provide benefit in times of perturbation. However, from a day to day operational perspective, current traffic movements see the majority of ECS moves scheduled to depart for origins in the northbound direction.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

69

The primary northern end entrance/exit to the depot in the direction of Crewe railway station, is a depot operator capacity constraint on the depot-network interface in that:

(a)

(b)

two departure roads filter into a single in/out connection. This represents a performance risk, in the event of any perturbation within the depot or on the depot connection there is no track circuit extending from the connection into the depot, meaning that drivers at either the station or in the depot have to manually contact the signalman to obtain authority to proceed.

Recommendation Subject to individual circumstances (frequency of usage of the connection/service structure etc), it is desirable to avoid single road entry/exit roads from a perturbation risk management perspective. Depot-network interface control should be optimised in accordance with operational requirements where it is justifiable to do so.

(b) Internal configuration Minimisation of shunting movements is desirable from an operational perspective. This is to reduce operational risk associated with such moves. Such moves where required, can at times, incur a time penalty in delivering the train to the network or reduce the amount of maintenance time during the ‘down’ period between operational services. In order to improve efficiency of the depot process, the depot process requirements should be optimised where possible, so that the various routine tasks undertaken can be done in the most efficient manner. At Crewe LNWR depot, the process which seeks to minimise shunting movements sees trains enter inbound from the network onto the reception siding and then onto the wash facility, fuel apron and then to the head shunt. At the head shunt, options for returning to the network include: (a) returning to the network via the Through Siding and Carriage Sheds and onto the main line, (b) returning to the network via the wheel lathe and (c) returning to the network via the workshop. This approach is desirable since all the core facilities are accessible from the head shunt and as

such there is only a single shunt reverse at the head shunt. Furthermore, the capacity of the facilities permits the longest typical operational rolling stock formation to be serviced at the facility (two five car Class 221 DMUs) without having to be split and thus present a performance risk. Recommendation Shunt moves within a depot represent a potential for perturbation both within a depot and consequently onto the network. It is recommended that consideration be given to the optimisation of core depot activities which seek to minimise such movements.

5. Land use planning (a) Land use and future proofing The current depot location, located within the triangle of the WCML and CreweDerby line is land-locked. However, land is available for the provision of additional siding facilities, should they be required.

(b) Road access The depot is located between two railway lines. This restricts operational access for road movements to/from the depot. Movements are required to access/leave the site via a manual crossing keeper controlled crossing. Recommendation It is recommended wherever possible, that consideration be given to ensuring that land is available within the depot or adjacent to the site to cater for future expansion, subject to an appropriate business case and policy. Road access is imperative for many depots and must be an integral element in the future depot design and planning process.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

70

6. Other Timetable planning There are particular constraints at certain times with the timing of arrivals at the depot as a result of the configuration of the network connection. This can impact upon optimum depot performance. Recommendation In the passenger rolling stock depot planning and timetable planning process, it is recommended that the depot will have the necessary infrastructure and planning input to deliver the desired service required to fulfill the timetable. It will be important to mitigate and reduce the risk of any performance impact on both the network and at the depot.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

71

Case study 2.3: Derby Etches Park (North) (East Midlands Trains)

resultant key passenger rolling stock depot planning guidance recommendations.

(a) Operational (1) Depot-network interface



Trains can arrive at the depot in an unplanned manner in the event of perturbation on the main railway network. Therefore, depot layout configuration should be optimised wherever possible to ensure that the mainline is not blocked in such circumstances with empty rolling stock waiting to access the depot. Such layout configuration would wherever possible permit a smooth flow on to the main depot site. Without this, the depot will become quickly congested



it is recommended that accessibility to/from the depot is provided with at least one access and egress point. It is preferable that routes on should not also be routes off the depot



track at access and egress points is critical. Where economic business case justifies, consideration should be given to the assessment of track at such points, as part of the planned renewals programmes. This would be where economies of scales synergies may be achieved through renewals strategy.

Opening of a new passenger rolling stock depot within the existing depot footprint for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction On 20th May 2010 Etches Park North (Derby) depot was opened. It represented a £25 million investment from East Midlands Trains. The new depot was designed to supplement the existing Etches Park facilities by providing increased capacity to maintain East Midlands Trains’ fleet of Class 222 DMUs.

2. Depot facilities The depot facilities include (a) three sidings for maintaining trains (one of them has synchronised jacks capable of lifting a seven car Class 222 DMU), (b) a new £1 million pound wheel lathe to ensure that train wheels are correctly profiled to reduce noise and wear on rails and enhance passenger comfort and (c) improved fuelling facilities to permit East Midlands Trains and Bombardier staff to service trains more effectively. In addition to this new depot, East Midlands Trains has invested £250,000 to improve other maintenance facilities at Etches Park to benefit the company’s local train services.

3. Depot planning considerations in designing the depot The depot design has been predominantly developed to East Midlands Trains specification and requirements. This is within the constraints of the footprint of the existing Etches Park Depot. Based upon the experience of building the new Etches Park, there are a number of considerations which should be considered in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process as good practice. These are now summarised, alongside a number of

(2) Internal depot configuration



It is recommended that the track layout be designed in a manner that permits a minimum number of changes of direction and/or shunting and/or points operations



subject to a business case and available funding sources, it is recommended that points be motorised and wherever possible electronically signalled and interlocked. This will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis



when considering future capability of depots consideration will need to be given to the typical length of vehicle(s) and consists that the depot might have to cater for

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

72



the depot should not be built around specific vehicle characteristics (length, gauge, weight etc) and should encourage flexibility. It should be remembered that depots as an asset will have a substantially longer life span than the train that the depot was built for.

It is recommended that consideration is given to continuity of power supply both on the network and within the depot environment in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process.

(d) Commercial (6) Optimisation of operating costs

Recommendation In planning for a new depot, it is recommended that there be diversity of access to/from the depot/network to provide optimum operational flexibility and minimise disruption during times of perturbation.

(b) Land use planning (3) Environmental



Recommendation

In deciding upon the depot location and construction of associated buildings, it is recommended that environmental considerations (particularly noise) are at the forefront in developing planning criteria for site selection.



The depot should be constructed with the emphasis on attempting to reduce operating costs. For example this could include usage of motorised points and electronic signalling. This would need to be subject to an appropriate business case and funding sources being available.

Recommendation It is recommended that emphasis be placed upon achieving cost efficiencies wherever possible in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process.

Recommendation It is recommended that at the beginning of the passenger rolling stock depot planning process, that the full environmental impact of the facility is appraised and factored into the design of the facility.

(4) Land availability/transport planning



It is recommended that depots wherever possible, consider the requirements necessary for road access for road vehicles to convey rolling stock.

Recommendation It is recommended that land use/transport planning issues be considered early on in the planning process. It is imperative that appropriate road accessibility is provided to/from the site.

(c) Technical (5) Power supply



It is recommended that consideration be given to independent power supply at the depot on a case by case basis, subject to economic justification.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

73

Recommendation

Case study 2.4: Heaton - Newcastle (Northern Rail) An existing depot for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction Heaton is situated to the north of Newcastle on the East Coast Main Line. The depot is currently operated by Northern.

2. Depot operational service profile The depot provides servicing, maintenance and repair for Northern’s north eastern suburban, regional and rural routes. Rolling stock maintained within Heaton is predominantly Class 142 and Class 156 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). The allocation of these classes is governed by both driver and engineer knowledge of traction types. The depot also undertakes servicing of Class 43 High Speed Train (HST) train sets and Class 180 DMUs for Grand Central Railway services between Sunderland and London Kings Cross.

3. Depot-network interface characteristics The depot-network interface consists of a main exit to the south and another to the north. The majority of traffic uses the southern entrance/exit as it is the main exit to Newcastle. The northern entrance/exit has somewhat limited usage as there is a time penalty associated for stock using this route heading towards Newcastle, since there is a requirement for drivers to change cab ends.

In undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning, it is recommended that adequate capacity at the depot-network interface is provided in the direction that the majority of the traffic accesses/egresses to/from the depot. Provision of diversity of access routes to/from the depot-network interface is desirable from an operational perspective during perturbation, even if it incurs a time penalty due to requiring a reversal to access the required route.

4. Depot internal configuration characteristics (a) Single point failures – key infrastructure assets There is one set of points that can cause operational issues, if there is a fault. The resultant impact of such a failure is that a set may miss specific functions being undertaken.

Operational flexibility The network connection at both the southern and northern ends of the depot provides the necessary operational flexibility in times of perturbation either within the depot or at the depot-network interface. The through maintenance shed helps to minimise the need for any head shunts and resultant performance risk associated with such movements. The ability to enter/exit the depot from both the southern and northern ends is desirable. However, the majority of Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) movements are via the southern entrance/exit to/from Newcastle. This is due to the service structure focusing upon services originating/terminating at Newcastle. When services are required to exit via the northern exit, there is a time penalty associated with this movement, due to the need for drivers to change cab ends to access Newcastle.

Depot layout – rolling stock change (future proofing) The depot has a number of long sidings which reflect what the depot was originally built for. Over the years the use of the type of traction using the depot has changed.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

74

7. Other

Recommendation Wherever possible, in future planning for depots, there should be the minimisation of instances whereby a single set of points control large sections of the depot, due to the performance risk that this carries. This needs clarifying on a case by case scenario. Where topography does not allow, an alternative, enhanced maintenance may be required. It is recommended that consideration be given to provision of access to/from both ends of a depot site at all future depots to provide operational resilience for periods of perturbation. Depots need to be able to cater for future rolling stock change and as such should be able to be easily modified in a cost effective manner.

(a) Storage of spares/components Storage of spares/components is in general an issue. Wherever possible, the depot seeks to store items that are required frequently. However, high value items will be procured as and when required. Critical to this ‘Just In Time’ approach is maintaining a good relationship with suppliers, to ensure maximum efficiency of the supply chain.

(b) Security

5. Commercial considerations (a) Operational structure of services using the depot Due to the nature of the services around the Newcastle area, where a mix of market sectors is served (suburban, regional and rural routes) it would be very difficult to arrive at a position where one type of traction is used at the depot. Recommendation When undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning, it is recommended that consideration be given to the operational structure of services using the depot. Each service type will have their own specific needs, alongside the broad overarching need of being maintained and serviced in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible.

Trespass on the depot via access from the main East Coast Main Line is a continual issue. Emphasis needs to be placed upon ensuring that fencing is continually maintained to minimise the opportunity for trespass. Recommendation It is recommended that consideration be given in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process as to the strategy to be adopted for management of spares/components. Optimisation of the supply chain through a close relationship with suppliers is important. When undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning it is recommended that security of the depot environment be given serious consideration.

6. Land use planning (a) Road accessibility Road access, in common with many older depots, is poor to many parts of the depot. This is a generic issue for older depots, since in the past, stores were delivered by rail. Nowadays, stores are predominantly delivered by road. Recommendation Ease of access to the depot site by road and within the internal depot environment is an important land use planning consideration. It is recommended that this be factored into the passenger rolling stock depot planning process at an early stage.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

75

Case study 2.5: Newton Heath – Manchester (Northern Rail) An existing depot for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction

serving the connection would assist efficiency and mitigate performance risk associated with manual operation. Recommendation Wherever possible, the effect of the signalling system on performance should be considered early on in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. This should assess the capability requirements of the depot network interface in terms of the capacity and performance required between depot and network. It is desirable to provide a diversity of routes onto/off the depot to cater for any perturbation that may occur within the depot or on the depot-network interface.

Newton Heath is situated to the East of Manchester on the Manchester Victoria to Rochdale line. The depot is currently operated by Northern.

4. Depot internal configuration characteristics

2. Depot operational service profile

(a) Single point failures – key infrastructure assets

The depot provides servicing, maintenance and repair for Northern’s Manchester area Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) fleet. Rolling stock maintained within Newton Heath is predominantly Class 142, 150 and 156 DMUs. Less frequent visitors to the depot include Class 153 and 158 DMUs. During 2008, Northern acquired three Class 180 DMUs to their fleet, to operate services from Hazel Grove and Manchester Victoria to Preston and Blackpool North. These units are maintained and serviced at Newton Heath.

3. Depot-network interface characteristics The depot-network interface consists of separate entry and exit points. Normal access to the depot is via a connection from the Manchester Victoria to Rochdale line. This is the only entry point that permits immediate arrival onto the fuel point. The other depot access point is via a connection from the former Oldham Mumps line which is used when issues arise at the normal access point. However, this requires a lot of shunting to move units into position. Exit from the depot is by the former Oldham Mumps line The connection from the depot to the interface is reliant upon manually controlled points. Automation of points

A key capacity constraint within the depot is where a single track fans into 10 sidings. Any asset failure within this area of the depot will cause perturbation to services originating from the depot.

(b) Diversity of DMU rolling stock The diversity of DMU rolling stock classes, all with differing maintenance and servicing means that dedicated sidings are provided for maintenance purposes. Therefore, careful planning is required to ensure that appropriate roads are available.

(c) Shunting movements within different functions of the depot The nature of the depot facility, designed in the steam era, presents difficulties in terms of accessing different parts of the depot. For example, the refuelling and carriage washing facilities adjacent to the mainline, from the DMU shed, will require shunting moves to access the facilities. Typically units will enter the reception road, refuel, wash, shunt, receive internal cleaning and then progress to the maintenance facility for any necessary maintenance. From an optimisation perspective, the process at the depot would encompass arrival, fuelling and Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) discharge at the same point, washing, access the stabling sidings or maintenance shed and finally stabling prior to departure into service.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

76

(d) Depot layout – rolling stock cascades Accommodating the Class 180 DMUs has presented challenges to depot operations in that the depot is predominantly designed to cater for 2/3 car Class 142, Class 150, and 156 type DMUs. The Class 180 DMU, is an intercity unit of 5 car configuration. This presented challenges in relation to: (a) ensuring available capacity to stable the unit, (b) maintenance of the unit, (c) cleaning of the unit and emptying of the CET on the train sets, (d) refuelling and (e) storage of components for the units. Therefore careful planning has been required to ensure that integration of the units into the depot operations had as minimal impact as possible. Recommendation In future planning of passenger rolling stock depots, wherever practical, the risks associated with key assets failing should be assessed where these could import performance risk onto the network. Such risk could be mitigated by improving layout flexibility where space and commercial considerations can be met, or by considering enhanced standards of asset design/maintenance, where space is at a premium. It is recommended that careful future planning be undertaken to ensure that depots are able to accommodate a diversity of rolling stock. If the industry moves towards more standard designs, this may be less of an issue. It is recommended that wherever possible, there should be minimisation of shunt moves within a depot, since this constitutes a performance risk and that future depot design consider this as a strategic design priority.

Recommendation Ease of access to the depot site by road and within the internal depot configuration is an important land use planning consideration. This should be factored into the passenger rolling stock depot planning process at an early stage.

6. Other (a) ‘Lean and agile’ depot maintenance processes The depot employs a focus on ‘lean and agile’ processes to its operations. One such area this is applied to, is in the management of repairs/maintenance exams on units. It was found that anything up to 1.5 hours could be lost in associated movements of tools/spare parts. In an effort to mitigate this, the depot has work practices which ensure that relevant tools/parts for the repair/examination are held in cages ready for the arrival of the unit at the pit. This potentially reduces the turn round time.

(b) Security Preventing trespass on the depot from the main line is a continual challenge. Recommendation Optimisation of the depot maintenance supply chain is an important passenger rolling stock depot planning consideration. This can help to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency. When undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning, it is recommended that security of the depot environment be given serious consideration.

It is recommended that future depot design facilitates the ability to accommodate rolling stock cascades with minimum impact to the depot in terms of both preparation for the cascade and dayto-day operation.

5. Land use planning (a) Road accessibility Road access, in common with many older depots, is poor to many parts of the depot. This is a generic issue for older depots, since in the past, stores were delivered by rail and now stores are predominantly delivered by road. Limited space for lowloaders to turn round within the depot is a difficulty.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

77

Case study 2.6: St Philips Marsh Bristol (First Great Western) An existing depot for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction St Philips Marsh is situated to the west of Bristol Temple Meads. The site is unique to First Great Western (FGW) in that it has a Goods Through Siding running through the middle of the depot. This route links into Bristol Temple Meads to the east and Bedminster to the west. The route sees little passenger traffic, only in times of track improvement work or severe perturbation, impacting upon Bristol Temple Meads. The depot is currently operated by FGW.

2. Depot operational service profile As a result of the merger of the old FGW and Wessex Trains operations into one new franchise in 2006, entirely under FGW, the role of the depot changed. The depot was extended in 2006/2007 to maintain FGW’s fleet of Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), which were previously maintained at Cardiff Canton Train Maintenance Depot by Arriva Trains Wales on behalf of FGW. Rolling stock maintained within St Philips Marsh Depot is predominantly Class 43 High Speed Train (HST) and Mark 3 loco hauled coaching stock and the DMU fleet consists of Class 142, 143, 150, 153 and 158 DMUs. Whilst under contract to FGW (up until 2006/7) Class 180 DMUs were accommodated at the depot.

3. Depot-network interface characteristics The depot-network interface consists of entrances/exits to both the east and western sides of the depot. The western access to the depot is via a single line connection south of Bristol Temple Meads (close to Bedminster) to the depot which represents a performance risk in the event

of either infrastructure failing or unit/train set failure. Access on the eastern side to the depot is via the up & down Goods Shed Road and access to stabling sidings, wheel lathe and under frame cleaning facilities via the St Philips Marsh Avoiding Line (with a reversal required). Recommendation In future passenger rolling stock depot planning, wherever possible, diversity of routes onto and off the depot-network interface should be provided to mitigate performance risk. The diversity of routes should have, if at all possible, no limiting constraints such as single road access which could constitute a performance risk.

4. Internal depot configuration characteristics (a) Single point failures – key infrastructure assets There is a complex of single point failures, known as the ‘Diamond’ that control access from:        

Western single line entrance/exit carriage washing machine Victoria Sidings (where HSTs are typically stabled) HST maintenance shed the through siding from both the east and west Coal Field Siding New Sidings (Stabling sidings – predominantly for the DMU fleet) Marsh Junction (DMU facilities).

The resultant impact of such a failure at the diamond (points 13A, 13B, 13C, 14A and 14B) would see depot activities severely perturbed/brought to a standstill dependent upon the nature of infrastructure/rolling stock failure. A mini signalling panel that controls the majority of depot signals and points within the depot, (including the ‘Diamond’) is located adjacent to this critical asset. Over a 10 hour night period there will be typically 50+ movements involving the ‘Diamond’.

(b) Depot control Due to the complexity of the depot and intense mix of movements it is important that local control is provided. This is achieved by the provision of a mini

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

78

signalling panel at the ‘Diamond’ critical asset overseeing movements and depot signalling. Signalling on the eastern side of the Through Road and B, C and D Roads is controlled by the Bristol Area Panel at Bristol Temple Meads station. The current arrangement works effectively in terms of allowing the depot to manage the complex movements locally and to be able to respond to any perturbations associated with the ‘Diamond’.

(c) Depot layout – site complexity Given the extensive nature of the site, movements around it can be time consuming. For example, from one end of the site to the other is a 10-15 minute walk for staff. This needs to be factored in to diagramming processes etc. This is to ensure that late starts are minimised and any resultant impact upon (a) the train set moving through the depot and (b) exiting the depot on to the network. Recommendation It is recommended that in future passenger rolling stock depot planning, depot internal design avoids single point failures such as sets of points that control large parts of the depot. These constitute significant performance risk. This can be achieved by improved layout flexibility if space permits or enhanced maintenance and availability of strategic parts etc. It is recommended that passenger rolling stock depot planning should consider local depot control, which has the advantage of more localised control, particularly in relation to critical assets. This will need to be assessed on a case by case approach, subject to an appropriate business case. Wherever possible, depot layout should facilitate ease of access to all parts for staff. This assists in ensuring right time departures in to service. It is desirable from a performance perspective, to minimise shunt moves within the depot. Future passenger rolling stock depot planning should consider this as a priority.

(d) Shunting/rolling stock configuration The depot configuration is complex, with the maintenance shed, carriage washing machines, HST sidings (Victoria Sidings) being one side of the Through Running Road and wheel lathe, under frame cleaning facility where this means shunting movements to access different parts of the depot for servicing and maintenance facilities.

Equally, shunts to assist in rolling stock configuration will be required for operational service requirements, for example insertion/removal of buffet cars, power car changes etc. Typically, there will be two power car shunts and a few coaching stock shunts each night.

5. Commercial considerations (a) Rolling stock configuration into the depot from the station DMUs are combined in order to reduce the number of movements and operational costs. A total of anything up to 11 car formation can be sent in to the depot from Bristol Temple Meads station. This provides a difficulty from a depot operational perspective, if there is any delay in entering the main shed, since the network connection reception siding is only able to accommodate up to five cars in length. Therefore, it is not uncommon for units to be tailing out on to the main network, presenting a performance risk to other services.

(b) Train composition of HSTs leaving the depot Train operator train planning policy is whenever possible, to ensure that:   

first class carriages are at the leading London end when departing Bristol Temple Meads consistency is provided as to where disabled seating areas are located within the train formation consistency is provided as to where Coach A is located, for the storage of cycles in the rear power car.

The train planning policy service requirements frequently require HST train sets to undertake shunting movements in the vicinity of Bedminster. This is to access Bristol Temple Meads station in the correct formation for departure purposes. In instances where this is not possible, for whatever reason, the depot ensures communication prior to arrival at the station of the unforeseen reverse formation.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

79

Recommendation Wherever possible, it is recommended that the depot reception siding and network connection be able to accommodate the longest foreseeable train configuration which will access the depot. It is important that stock does not tail back onto the main network thus creating a potential performance risk. In future depot design, consideration should be given to provide adequate capacity to allow required shunt movements to ensure that stock is in the required formation for entry into service, without the need for complex movements at or in the vicinity of the depot.

6. Land use planning (a) Environmental planning At weekends, more stock is stabled at the depot than during the week. The primary stabling point for the HST fleet is Victoria Sidings on the north western side of the depot. There are shore supplies at the sidings.

7. Other (a) Stabling Units that are maintained at the depot will not necessarily be serviced and stabled solely at the depot. Stabling and/or servicing facilities exist for FGW at Cardiff, Exeter, Gloucester, Penzance, Plymouth and Westbury. The main driver behind whether or not to stable remotely is fulfillment of the train service plan/service structure. Recommendation It is recommended that in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process for future depots, consideration be given to a full appraisal of opportunities for remote stabling. This is to optimise efficiency in delivering the train service plan.

(b) Future proofing for growth Although expansion opportunities within the depot are somewhat limited in terms of available land, there is an area on the eastern side of the depot known as the ‘Long Spur’ which could be developed. This area provides the added advantage of being closer to the Through siding and eastern/western exits than the current New Sidings.

Recommendation It is recommended that the full environmental impact of depot activities upon the local neighbourhood be considered in passenger rolling stock depot design. Consideration should be given to protecting land within the depot configuration or adjacent to the facility to cater for future growth of the facility. It will need to be considered on an individual merits basis.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

80

Case study 2.7: Thameslink Three Bridges New depot case study (Thameslink franchisee)

1.1 Introduction The Network Rail Thameslink Programme is sponsored and funded by the Department for Transport (DfT). It constitutes a significant element in the enhancement of the London and Regional commuter network. It includes: 

 

£6 billion total investment in upgrading infrastructure managed by Network Rail and the provision of new rolling stock a new fleet of Thameslink rolling stock, to enter into service from 2015 and associated depots; and franchise modifications as required.

The underlying aims of the Thameslink Programme are to:    

Ease overcrowding on existing Thameslink rail services to/from/across central London improve interchange opportunities with other transport modes create new through journey opportunities with an expanded route network ease overcrowding on London Underground services, through enhanced train frequency and rolling stock capacity on the central core Thameslink route through London.

The scheme relieves existing constraints which include a current maximum train length of 160m and several junction capacity constraints. Longer trains (up to 12 fixed car formation (243m length)) will be introduced. An increase in train frequency will occur, with the provision of up to 24 trains per hour through the central ‘Core Area’ between London St Pancras International and London Blackfriars stations.

1.2 Depot site selection process 1.2.1 Initial considerations In May 2008, the DfT commissioned a site selection study with the purpose of identifying the most appropriate available locations for the new Thameslink depots. Key to this process was acquiring an understanding of the geographic nature of the Thameslink route. All services are required to cross through central London. Therefore an early consideration in the depot planning process was how many passenger rolling stock depots needed to be provided. Network Rail’s operational assumption for the scheme is that the Core Area may require a ‘white period’ for maintenance each night which would result in the section of track being restricted (possible single line working). There is no alternative electrified route across London to/from the Midland Mainline. Therefore a single depot strategy could result in a proportion of units being unable to reach the depot in a timely manner from the opposite side of the Core Area and they could become unavailable for operational service the following day. An option to mitigate this nd situation, apart from the provision of a 2 depot would have been to sub-contract maintenance to other depots. This would have depended upon available capacity at the respective depots and the relative cost of providing such services. It would still not resolve the logistical problem of ensuring units were located proportionately in time for commencement of operational service the following day. A two depot strategy, with a site located in the north and one to the south of the Thames, provides greater operational flexibility by minimising the risk of rolling stock becoming positioned at the end of service, remotely from the depot (this could be partially mitigated through optimisation of the timetable). Significant savings in terms of empty coach stock (ECS) movements to/from a single depot would also occur by the provision of two depots on the route. A further rationale for the adoption of a two depot strategy was land availability. Despite evaluation of potential available

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

81

sites to accommodate a single Thameslink depot, it was considered that no site would be large enough to accommodate all the facilities and the required number of sidings. Therefore, a two depots strategy was considered the most appropriate strategy to adopt.

     

1.2.2 Initial review of the sites

The following section provides a synopsis of each of the six shortlisted sites.

Initially, during the site selection process, all brown and green field sites on/or close to the Thameslink route were considered for the locating of depot facilities. Consideration was given to the adaption of existing depot facilities along the route, to meet the needs of new rolling stock. Some of the initial shortlisted sites included existing depot locations. However, since the majority of the land considered during the initial site selection phase was heavily restricted by planning policy designations for non-rail uses, it was considered that only operational railway land should be progressed for further site evaluation. As a result of consultation with train operators, an initial short list of 15 sites was formulated. Identified sites were evaluated against the following criteria: 



  

operational performance which was based upon key assumptions and principles in relation to the Thameslink fleet and operational needs compliance with relevant planning legislation (including environmental designations and the impact upon adjacent land users) cost availability of suitable land and site development and interface.

Nine of the fifteen sites were deemed unacceptable due to a range of factors which included: site size, land availability and planning related constraints. None of the sites were deemed to have environmental issues which would not permit the development of a depot site. However, issues such as nature conservation areas, floodplains and possible conflicts with adjacent land use and the impact of the depot upon neighbouring uses constituted a key element of the site appraisal process. The six sites which were taken forward for further appraisal included:

Wellingborough Hornsey Cricklewood Selhurst Three Bridges Tonbridge.

Site 1: Wellingborough The site constituted a number of sidings which could be used to accommodate the fleet, subject to the re-location of the incumbent operator G.B. Railfreight. There were no environmentally sensitive land issues identified within or on adjacent land to the site. However, the site location is 16 miles from the existing Thameslink network and would have needed electrification and doubling of the slow lines between Bedford and Wellingborough. This option was discounted due to the need to displace an established rail freight depot and the relative remoteness of the site to the majority of the core Thameslink network. During the stakeholder consultation phase, train operators highlighted the fact that an additional maintenance facility would be required north of the Core Area due to the relative remoteness of the Wellingborough site. Additionally, the site was discounted due to the belief that electrification of track between Bedford and Wellingborough would not be able to be delivered before introduction of new rolling stock in 2014.

Site 2: Hornsey The site at Hornsey is operational railway land. The site provides a large enough footprint to accommodate a maintenance depot and the required associated facilities. The existing operational rail use of Hornsey and lack of specific extant planning permissions for alternative uses, ensure that planning history facilitates support for a maintenance depot at the location. The provision of a maintenance depot facility within the vicinity of the existing depot facility would be efficient from an operational perspective. Land availability would enable easy accommodation of the necessary warehousing, offices and car parking. The

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

82

existing facility, operated by First Capital Connect has reasonable access though shared with Network Rail maintenance facility and limited car parking for staff and visitors. During the site selection appraisal process, it was noted that part of the site is located within a locally designated Ecological Corridor. However, local planning policy highlights that development for operational transport requirements within a green corridor may be permissible if the need for the development is imperative. The site location is also close to high-density residential areas and the New River. Of the two potential locations at Hornsey, the preferred location for the maintenance depot, was at Coronation Sidings which is a large existing mothballed carriage sidings on the up side of the East Coast Main Line, between Bounds Green in the North and Hornsey in the South. This would include associated stabling facilities alongside the existing Hornsey depot. This arrangement was more suitable from an operational perspective. The configuration permits double-ended stabling adjacent to the existing facility and for main line rail services to continue without significant disruption. The configuration of the southern half of the site takes into account the interface with nearby land uses by ensuring that any noise and light from stabling facilities is ‘cushioned’ between live railway tracks to the west and the existing rail depot to the east. Therefore, this minimises any potential impact upon nearby residential units. As a result, activities within the maintenance depot facility would be fully enclosed. Hornsey was considered an appropriate site for development due to the size, dimensions and capacity for railway operational development. The depot and associated facilities would be located completely within the operational rail corridor and located within existing railway operations.

Site 3: Cricklewood The Cricklewood site is situated within the Cricklewood, Brent Cross ad West Hendon Regeneration Area and as such significant development is programmed to occur within the site. During the site

selection process, an outline planning application was being considered by the London Borough of Barnet for a substantial mixed development and building of a new station to serve the Brent Cross and West Hendon regeneration area. Barnet has land allocated for rail usage (reserved as stabling for Thameslink), a freight transfer depot and waste transfer facility. The outline planning application made allowance for the provision of a new Thameslink rolling stock depot with sidings for up to 14 x 12 car EMUs and a train wash facility. However, this would create significant site capacity constraints restricting the site’s ability to accommodate a maintenance shed, wheel lathe or other depot facilities without requiring the removal of the stabling sidings. Cricklewood was rejected due to the lack of available space to accommodate the depot footprint as a result of the limited capacity of existing available operational land on site and other commitments for the wider railway land at Cricklewood. Site 4: Selhurst Selhurst is an existing depot for the Southern franchise. It has some spare operational capacity but would be unable to accommodate the full Thameslink depot requirements, particularly concerning stabling, without a significant re-location of Southern franchise vehicles. The only appropriate location for a 12 car maintenance shed would have been on the site of the existing Southern franchise facility and significant restrictions exist regarding space for an under frame cleaning facility (UFC) and wheel lathe. Accessibility to the remainder of the site is limited due to its location between three main lines. Furthermore, the site is located adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, allotments and a brook and the location itself partly designated as a Green Corridor. Whilst these issues did not totally preclude the use of the site, Selhurst was deemed inappropriate due to interfacing issues (the ability to connect safely to the main line), lack of space for construction, possible expansion and access problems. Site 5: Three Bridges A depot at Three Bridges provides a good location both from a physical and operational perspective as part of a two

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

83

depot strategy and the ability to provide a stabling location at the southern end of the network. Available space at Three Bridges is restricted by the operational main Brighton line which cuts through the middle of the site. Although the site is too small for a single depot solution, it provides enough space for separate 12 car stabling and maintenance facilities located on both sides of the line. Dwellings near to the down side were noted as a potential sensitive issue but were not deemed preclusive to development of a depot and associated facilities. The site is completely on operational railway land and no planning policy designations would exist to prevent usage of the site for a maintenance depot. Additionally no specific environmental designations were noted, although full environmental/ecological assessments were undertaken to identify and potential environmental impact of site activities. Three Bridges is considered an appropriate site for a depot development due to its site size, and therefore capacity for a railway operational development. The depot footprint would be totally within the railway operational corridor and situated within existing railway operations. Furthermore, the close proximity of the Three Bridges depot location to Crawley/Gatwick Airport provides the opportunity for the recruitment of staff from the local engineering/technical orientated labour skills market. There would potentially be a number of core generic transferable core engineering and technical transferable skills from the aeronautical to the railway industry.

Site 6: Tonbridge The site affords a significant potential footprint for a depot and permits a through depot arrangement with a single ended maintenance shed. The site is somewhat remote from the Brighton Main Line Thameslink route. It would therefore require a number of ECS movements via Tonbridge and Godstone to access the Brighton Main Line at Redhill. The site was therefore initially rejected as being too remote to the core Thameslink network. Further constraints included, limited road accessibility, the close proximity to residential dwellings and the adjacent Countryside Protection Area status.

The site has also been identified as Green Belt land in the Local Development Plan. Although the site is established as railway land and planning policy could allow increased rail usage of the site, it was deemed that intensified usage could significantly impact upon the Green Belt designation. Due to the large amount of space and available capacity to accommodate a maintenance depot and associated facilities, the site was further shortlisted for an Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Appraisal.

1.2.3 Detailed engineering feasibility and environmental appraisal As a result of the initial review of sites, three sites were taken forward for further engineering feasibility and environmental appraisal. This occurred between September and November 2008 and included the locations at Tonbridge, Hornsey and Three Bridges. The intention was to select two sites to encompass the two depot strategy. The key findings from this appraisal for each site are now summarised.

Option A: Hornsey Operational issues identified with the Hornsey depot site included:  main depot building to be located at the northern end of the site, with a UFC facility to the south and stabling shared with the existing FCC depot  further stabling point would be required at Cricklewood  train washers and other ancillary buildings could be accommodated within the site. Planning and environmental issues included:  

no specific local planning policies would prohibit the increased rail related usage of the Hornsey site a number of environmental designations existed and included:  



the site is located within an Ecological Corridor. Development for operational transport needs may be acceptable if there is an essential requirement for the development the site is on the edge of a designated Archaeological Priority

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

84

Area. However, archaeological potential is reduced due to previous disturbance of the ground.  







the site is situated within an Air Quality Management Area due to traffic related pollutants a range of ecological habitats exist within the site such as railway ballast which is likely to be used by invertebrates and reptiles and mature trees and vegetation alongside embankments which could accommodate birds and bats the New River runs adjacent to the site and has a low potential for flooding. The location is within a source protection zone, but is underlain by London Clay and hence not directly connected to the groundwater aquifer the location is in close proximity to residential areas. Therefore, noise and visual effects would require mitigation. Locating the depot on the elevated Coronation Sidings area would increase the visibility of the depot the site is located adjacent to a proposed residential and mixed use development within the Haringey Heartlands development area.

The Hornsey site was considered an appropriate location for the location of a depot facility, given its operational, planning and environmental characteristics. Option B: Three Bridges Operational issues cited with the Three Bridges depot site included: 

 

the base layout would see the main depot building sited on the west side of the railway and the UFC and stabling areas located on the eastern side. The two sides would be operationally separate from one another but interlinked by a footbridge the site could accommodate a carriage wash and stabling site on both sides construction and operational access would be possible from both the eastern and western sides.

 

no planning policy was in situ which would limit the increased rail orientated usage on the site access to the site is constrained and would therefore limit the size of vehicles that would be able to access the site for construction and operational purposes.

No environmental designations existed on the site, but numerous environmental issues were identified which included: 

 







the depot location’s close proximity to residential areas and consequential noise and visual impact which would require mitigation the location of the site on an embankment would increase the visual presence of depot buildings the majority of the railway corridor has wooded banks which link neighbouring habitats and a number of local nature reserves. Therefore, the embankment acts as an important route for wildlife other habitats exist within the site which consists of railway ballast and disused tracks with vegetation and scrub the site includes structures with the potential to accommodate roosting bats and vegetation with potential for dormice the site has low potential for flooding from rivers. Adjacent areas have greater potential for flooding. Potential sites which would be receptive to water quality impacts would include the Gatwick Stream and Tilgate Brook and the minor aquifer underlying the site.

The Three Bridges site was considered suitable for the location of a depot facility given its operational, planning and environmental characteristics. A map of the depot layout is shown in Figure A1.

Planning and environmental issues included:

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Figure A1: Three Bridges passenger rolling stock depot plan

85

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document December 2011

86

footbridge which would need realignment.

Option C: Tonbridge Operational issues with Tonbridge included: 







the base scheme comprised a main depot building, UFC and associated buildings sited in the northern part of the triangular site and sidings on the south side access to the Brighton Thameslink route would be via Redhill. This would require a 22 mile off-route journey via Godstone the only access to the site would be via a narrow bridge with weight restrictions on a neighbouring road and through a residential estate with narrow roads with on street parking. This would restrict the size of vehicles able to access the site for construction and operational purposes the creation of a new access route would necessitate extensive off-site land acquisition and engineering works.

Planning and environmental issues included: 

 







the site was identified as Green Belt land within the Local Development Plan. It was deemed that increased usage of the land could have a significant impact on the Green Belt designation (even though planning policy permitted increased rail usage on the land) the site was close to residential areas and thus noise and visual impacts would require mitigation on the north-western boundary of the site there is an area of wetland and woodland which is a Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat. It was noted that this area could support protected species vegetation such as Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam is prevalent in the area and requires specialist control and eradication. water sources which could be impacted upon, by the development, included Bardon Lake in the adjacent Country Park and an unspecified brook running beneath the site the site accommodates a public footpath both at grade and on a

The Tonbridge site was deemed the least optimum from an operational perspective due to vehicle accessibility difficulties and from a planning and environmental perspective in relation to the Green Belt designation.

1.3 Design considerations In designing the layout of the depot, three underlying considerations influenced the process, which included:   

operational issues site safety and mitigating of visual and noise impact upon the neighbouring area.

The design of the depot has been primarily dictated by operational requirements. It was necessary to locate the various elements of the depot which would permit trains to access and exit the depot, in both a safe and timely manner. It was deemed important that the main line should not be blocked and that rolling stock should be able to access the respective depot facilities in an efficient manner. These would include stabling, sidings, train wash, depot and wheel lathe facilities. Rolling stock formations would be up to 12 car fixed formation which in turn would present challenges operationally in the planning and design of the site. The optimum arrangement of the depot is whereby the depot building is centrally located so that train movements can be coordinated through the depot and movements within are not constrained and flow as freely as possible. The proposed layout permits adequate circulation for staff to facilitate access to maintenance buildings and facilities such as the underframe cleaning facility and wheel lathe. The footprint of the depot facility buildings are influenced by the requirements to ensure safe walking routes by trains as specified by railway safety standards. The optimum railway design for the depot has had to give serious consideration to

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

87

the environmental implications of the development. This was to ensure that mitigation measures are in place to protect the local environment and adjoining users. As part of the design of the depot sustainable design features were incorporated. Network Rail’s Sustainable Design and Construction Strategy for the Thameslink Programme (2008) specified the achievement of nine sustainability objectives which included:         

restrict carbon emissions use sustainable materials in a sustainable manner minimise waste production conserve water supplies protect land and minimise pollution protect and enhance biodiversity protect and enhance cultural heritage support health and amenity support sustainable transport.

In the design of the new depot, specific sustainability measures included: 





sustainable design of the depot buildings such as incorporating day light sensors and Passive Infrared (PIR) sensors in the lighting controls provision of electric charging points at eight car parking spaces to encourage usage of electric cars thus assisting in reduction of the scheme’s CO2 emissions sustainable sourcing and manufacturing of materials (rails, ballast and other materials) for engineering works taking into account technical and operational requirements.

The original balance of the depots had to be changed due to planning issues that developed at the North Site, Hornsey/Coronation Sidings. Originally the North depot was to have the bigger depot buildings, accommodating 5 covered/shed roads. The planning issues took a long time to resolve and during the process, the depot/fleet balance had to be adjusted in accordance with planning restrictions. The result is that the Coronation Depot Building is being reduced to three covered roads. Source: Arup (2011) Thameslink Programme – Rolling Stock Project: Depots and Stabling – Three Bridges Depot Scheme – Planning Statement – REPPL-3BR-001A and Network Rail (2011). Recommendation When undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning for a new depot, it is recommended that a full appraisal of all potential site options is undertaken. It should evaluate all the considerations identified within this document in relation to land use planning, operational, commercial and regulatory, technical and ‘other’ considerations. Whilst certain activities have permitted rights, local authorities still have the power to challenge them and have them removed with possible consequences nationally. Therefore, even when restrictions are not envisaged, such complications should be considered and investigated at a very early stage of the passenger rolling stock depot planning project.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

88

Case study 2.8: Bathgate (ScotRail) A new depot for existing rolling stock

1. Introduction

   

types of Electrical Multiple Units (EMUs) eg Class 320 and Class 334 etc., types of Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) eg Class156 and Class170 etc., future provision for other types of units length of trains to be accommodated eg six-car unit and 20 metre or 23 metre vehicle carriage length.

The following case study highlights a number of good practice passenger rolling stock depot planning design considerations. These have been identified by the Network Rail Airdrie to Bathgate project team.

Signalling

2. Background to the new depot development



In order to accommodate additional rolling stock to serve on the newly re-opened Airdrie to Bathgate route (December 2010), a new depot was required to service, stable and clean the stock. The construction of the passenger rolling stock depot highlighted a number of planning issues that the project team had to work through. The project team have created a check list of requirements/considerations to assist other projects. The following presented checklist is not exhaustive as Bathgate depot did not construct a shed, pits or provide for heavy maintenance.

3. Depot planning checklist In light of the experience gained with the planning of Bathgate depot, the project team developed a checklist of key considerations to aid future project teams when undertaking similar work. These are summarised below:

 

will the depot be signalled? how will train departure from the depot be controlled eg Train Ready To Start (TRTS)? will the signaller control the reception line?

Overhead Line Equipment  



will the depot be electrified? will the depot supply be separate from main line supply, ie can the depot still operate during times of main line isolations? do specific lines within the depot need individual isolations facilities eg for pantograph inspection etc?

Electrical and power supply   



110V supply points will be required on cleaning platforms at approximately 20-30m centres are 240V supply points required on cleaning platforms for EMU battery chargers? if depot building/accommodation is being provided, what IT power requirements are needed eg 4no. 45A sockets within building? compliance with relevant standards.

Proposed Depot Activities What of the following activities will the depot undertake?

Buildings/Accommodation

      



stabling servicing de/re-stocked of catering fuelling examination maintenance heavy repair.



 

Rolling Stock What type of rolling stock in terms of its operational/design characteristics will be accommodated at the depot?



will the depot be a signing on/off point for train crews? who will be based at the depot eg train crew, cleaning staff, engineering staff, clerical staff and management? are separate cleaning and engineering stores required and do they require their own exterior access? what facilities do the cleaning and engineering stores require eg shelving, a small office, Belfast sink etc? how many car parking bays are required?

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

89

    



  

 

 



will accommodation for shunters be required within the depot taking account of the working of the depot? how many train crew (ie drivers and guards) will be based at the depot? approximately how many shunters/shunt drivers will be based at the depot? approximately how many engineering/cleaning staff will be based at the depot? are lockers for all train crew and engineering/cleaning staff required and also how many lockers are required? will toilet and messing facilities be required and for approximately how many staff eg how many toilets and how many showers etc? will toilet facilities be serviced and does this require specific equipment? what percentage split for messing facilities to accommodate males and females? will a ‘signing on point’ with facilities for displaying operating notices be 2 required. Also how large an area in m is required for displaying of operating notices? will office accommodation for management/ admin staff be required and also for how many staff? will facilities for storing, issuing and receiving portable ticket machines and cash handling be required within the depot building? will a private office for interviews, briefing and small meetings be required? will separate accommodation for shunters, containing toilets and basic messing facilities be required, separate from the main building? Is furniture within the building required and does this require to be a specific make/type?

   

Permanent Way   

will a security gate and fencing be required? is a telecom system required from the access gate and the depot building? will security CCTV only, be required? will operational CCTV required for the day to day depot operations be required? what method is required for accessing/egressing security access

what type of points are preferred eg hand points with American switch stands etc? what type of buffer stops are preferred eg friction buffers etc? will manual derailers be required at ends of cleaning platforms?

Water Supplies 



where are water supplies required eg cleaning platforms, CWM, CET, Cleaning Store, Maintenance Stores and Depot Building? where is tanking water to be provided eg at the CET facilities or the cleaning platforms?

Communications    

will a radio system with voice recording be required for depot operations? is direct communication with the local signal box required? is an IT system required and who will provide/install it? are BT phone lines required and who will provide them?

Carriage Wash Machine (CWM)      

Security 

points eg swipe card, mechanical key pad etc?

   

the CWM will be designed and installed in accordance with Railway Group Standards what type of rolling stock is to be cleaned and what will be the primary unit? what areas of the units are to be cleaned (body sides, skirts, roofs etc.? what will be the daily throughput anticipated for the depot? what will be the level of throughput per hour (ie tank size)? will the CWM be required to be a ‘Straight Through’ or ‘Through and Back’ plant? will the machine clean the units utilising detergent, acid or both? will the machine operate with ‘Flails’ or ‘Brushes’? is overspray protection required ie generally required where depot electrified? what is the lowest temperature that the CWM will be required to work to?

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

90

 

 

is wash and rain water recycling required? Is a train ‘No Wash’ button required on the approach to the CWM and at what level is it required, eg at ground level, cab level or both? is a system required to monitor train speeds on the approach to the CWM? what back up water supplies are required, eg is sufficient back up water available to allow one full day of train washing?

Retention Toilet Servicing (CET)     



 

the CET will be designed and installed in accordance with Railway Group Standards is the CET required to be an ‘Automatic’ or ‘Manual’ system including back flush? will tanking be undertaken at the CET? are measures required to be installed to minimise water spillage during tanking operations eg Solanoid? what back up water supplies are required eg availability of sufficient back up water to allow one full day of train washing? can effluent be discharged straight into a sewer or is a holding tank required where discharge will take place at certain times eg early hours every morning? is a ‘Macerator’ required as part of the CET? at what centres are the extraction points required, ie this will be depend upon the position of the toilets on the train?

Additional Queries 

Is a compressed shore supply required on the cleaning platforms?

Recommendation When undertaking future passenger rolling stock depot planning work, it is recommended that consideration be given to the issues raised in the lessons learnt from both other depot enhancement schemes and new depot facilities constructed such as the Bathgate depot project. Only by learning through past experience, will it be possible to optimise the passenger rolling stock depot planning process. It should be accepted that not all issues raised within the case study via the checklist, will necessarily be applicable to every passenger rolling stock depot planning scenario.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

91

Appendix 3: ScotRail depot profile case study Appendix 3: ScotRail depot profile evaluation

1. Introduction The following case study presents an overview of a Train Operating Company’s (TOC) depot profile. It is a self evaluation by the TOC of the strengths and weaknesses of its depot facilities. This is in relation to both the depot itself and the depot-network connection. It provides an overview of a diversity of types of depots and rolling stock (both new and old depots/rolling stock). A number of issues are identified which require evaluation in the future passenger rolling stock depot planning process. ScotRail operates 10 depots, servicing and maintaining a mixed fleet of Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) and Anglo-Scottish locohauled rolling stock covering regional, rural, suburban and long distance services. The depot locations are at:          

Ayr Bathgate Corkerhill (Glasgow) Eastfield (Glasgow) Haymarket (Edinburgh) Inverness Motherwell Perth Shields (Glasgow) Yoker (Glasgow).

For the purpose of the case study, each of the depot locations will be evaluated from a train operator depot planning perspective, outlining respective pros and cons of each site. Specific passenger rolling stock depot planning considerations will relate to the depot-network interface connection, internal configuration, land use planning, commercial and technical issues. Additionally, based upon experience drawn from the ScotRail depots, a number of specific passenger depot planning considerations have been

identified requiring consideration when enhancing/building new passenger rolling stock depots are highlighted at the end of this case study.

2. Depot site evaluation Ayr Ayr depot is situated just south of Ayr station and stables a mix of diesel and electric multiple units. Pros  recently been refurbished to accommodate new rolling stock and increase depot capacity  close to drivers’ depot. Cons    

depot layout operationally restrictive noise contamination issues after extension unable to extend the depot further there is no provision for Overhead Line Electrification (OLE) isolation to facilitate roof works on EMUs at the depot.

Bathgate Bathgate depot is a new electric traction depot situated to the west of Edinburgh, on the newly re-opened EdinburghGlasgow via Airdrie route. Pros  new depot  drivers’ depot on site. Cons    

no under vehicle inspection pit lack of shelter minimum servicing facilities there is no provision for OLE isolation to facilitate roof works on EMUs at the depot.

Corkerhill (Glasgow) Corkerhill depot is situated to the south west of Glasgow City Centre. It stables both diesel and electric traction units. The facility carries out all diesel maintenance for ScotRail in the west of Scotland.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

92

Pros  

the head shunt is being extended to accommodate the new Class 380 EMU rolling stock full servicing facilities.

Cons  limited flexibility as depot access/egress is all through the same point  road access is poor (through a housing estate)  noise contamination issues  unable to extend depot further  now at or very near full capacity.

Eastfield (Glasgow) Eastfield depot is situated in the Glasgow area to the east of Queen Street Station. It stables DMUs only. Pros 

recently refurbished.

Cons      

restrictive head shunt would have to remove the rock face to extend no under vehicle inspection pits lack of shelter in extreme weather minimum servicing facilities access by rail for units is restricted and will worsen with the gradual increase in passenger services (this is due to route capacity on the main line).

    

land contamination issues noise contamination issues additional exit to the west of the yard is required for full flexibility poor road access as lorries have to reverse up the access road since there is no turning point. access by rail for units is restricted – and this will get worse with the gradual increase in passenger services (due to route capacity on the main line).

Inverness Inverness depot is a diesel only depot, situated just outside Inverness Station. The depot stables and services Diesel Multiple Units, Mark 3/4 coaching stock and locos. Trains are stabled and cleaned in the station overnight. Pros     

close to the station there is a lot of land full servicing facilities the driver depot is adjacent opportunity to rationalise land use, which may potentially benefit a number of companies.

Cons     

main line runs through the depot level crossing to access the depot from the station depot spread over a wide area new shed has restricted capacity old shed has restricted facilities.

Motherwell Haymarket (Edinburgh) Haymarket is a large diesel only depot in the Edinburgh area. It stables multiple units. Pros  full servicing facilities  two access routes from the North Lines and Haymarket platform zero. Cons  drivers’ depot based at Edinburgh Waverley (an operational consideration)  depot is completely land locked  shed height will be an issue if there are ever plans to electrify  depot running at capacity

The depot comprises of a series of sidings around Motherwell Station where limited cleaning occurs and stabling of both diesel and electric traction. Pros  close to the station and drivers depot  old Motherwell Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD) purchased by Network Rail recently and a project to develop suitable stabling and servicing facilities has been initiated for Control Period 5 delivery. Cons  

cleaning is undertaken by a mobile team no under vehicle inspection pit is provided

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

93

     

a lack of shelter in extreme weather exists siding layout is operationally restrictive no servicing facilities exist poor walking routes and lighting at some of the stabling points poor road access stabling is used to a maximum.

Cons   

Perth



Perth depot is a diesel only facility which is adjacent to the station. It provides stabling facilities for multiple units.



Pros   

the depot is at the station the drivers’ depot is based at the station some stabling is under cover.

Cons   

      

depot facilities are scattered all over the station, requiring multiple shunt moves the fuel road can take a maximum of three cars road access is an issue as there is six ton limit on the bridge, which means supplies like antifreeze need to be brought in by a van which increases the cost and number of deliveries fuel is piped in from Caledonian Road, rather than adjacent bridge due to restriction no under vehicle inspection pits are provided there are limited servicing facilities depot capacity is an issue the depot is operationally restrictive track maintenance is an issue stabling sidings are being increased in capacity, but access is only via one set of points.

  

Yoker (Glasgow) Yoker depot is an electric traction facility built to the west of Glasgow City Centre. Pros  the facility was recently enhanced for the opening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line  access is available to both the east and west side of the yard  the drivers’ depot is on the site. Cons       

Shields (Glasgow) Shields depot is situated to the south west of Glasgow City Centre. The facility provides stabling facilities for both diesel and electric traction units. Shields carry out all electric maintenance for ScotRail. Pros  the depot was recently extended to accommodate new rolling stock  the depot has good road access.

there is limited flexibility since depot access/egress is all through the same point additional access/egress is required to improve flexibility, ie sidings 4 – 11 could access via Burma Road the extension doesn’t resolve operational issues potential noise contamination issues exist after extension the depot is unable to be extended any further the site is restricted for shunting the layout is restricted access from the new shed via the east end would be beneficial (ie using a depot bypass siding).

the yard is operationally restrictive since most roads pass through one central set of points noise contamination issues exist there are minimum servicing facilities no under vehicle inspection pit is provided there is lack of shelter in extreme weather the depot is now at, or very near full capacity there is no provision for OLE isolation to facilitate roof works on EMUs at the depot.

Recommendation When undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning, it is recommended that a full appraisal of current depot sites be undertaken to understand the existing strategic strengths and weaknesses of such sites from a passenger depot planning perspective. This will help to learn lessons from past experience and plan to optimise any new site.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

94

It should be recognised that EMU traction does not visit the 'maintenance depot' as frequently as the DMU fleet, and therefore, in general terms, the stabling locations would benefit from having improved facilities to allow minor repairs to be carried out, thus reducing the amount of ad-hoc ECS moves for repairs only.

3. General future passenger rolling stock depot planning recommendations Based upon experience acquired with existing Scotrail depots the following general considerations/point should be considered when undertaking planning for enhancements of existing facilities or development of a new passenger depot. 



  



extensions/refurbishments should where possible be designed to accommodate more than one type of traction. An example of this would be overhead cranes which maybe the best solution for a diesel only depot but a gantry system allows for overhead lines. It is recommended that this only be adopted where the depot is on a line identified by the Network RUS: Electrification document as a candidate for future electrification operational requirements must continue to be the top priority when carrying out work at a depot. The construction element of a build cannot be permitted to jeopardise network operations landlord tenant agreements should not impact on depot performance fuel pumps in all depots should be fully compatible and interchangeable between depots wash plants should be fully compatible and all parts interchangeable regardless of renewals/refurbishments to existing depots take place work should be carried out to an agreed industry standard. Modular type set up will assist in driving down costs security at all depots is generally an issue and one of the major weaknesses is the access from the running lines.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

95

Appendix 4: Overnight stabling data The following series of tables provide a high level overview of overnight stabling at depots, stations and network sidings. For purposes of clarity, overnight stabling is where rolling stock enters the stabling point the previous evening and exits the location for the following morning. The data has been obtained from a diversity of sources. It should be taken as general guidance as to operational stabling utilisation and available capacity. Utilisation will vary on a daily basis, in response to current operational conditions. The data is shown on a Network Rail route basis. Overnight stabling at depots, station platforms and network sidings is included within the analysis. Please note that detailed information on depot, station and network siding utilisation and capacity is being obtained and these tables will be updated as soon as possible. Where TRUST train performance reporting data has been used to calculate the location utilisation, the following methodology has been applied:  Analysis of overnight stabling at locations has been undertaken using three weekday nights (03/01/12, 04/01/12 and 05/01/12) to seek to avoid any abnormal or unplanned passenger rolling stock movements to and from depots/sidings/stations  The highest number of vehicles stabled overnight is the figure quoted in relation to utilisation. For a number of locations a depot/network siding/station capacity figure has not been provided, as this information was not available at the time this document was published.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

96

4.1 Anglia (a) Depots Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

First Capital Connect and National Express East Anglia East Midlands Trains

124

120

4

National Express East Anglia

86

84

East Ham EMU

c2c

92

224

Ilford EMU

National Express East Anglia

160

160

Orient Way (London)

National Express East Anglia

88

144

Location

Cambridge Crown Point (Norwich)

Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), National Express East Anglia (2011),Network Rail (2010) and TRUST (2012).

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Cambridge

National Express East Anglia

3

48

Chingford

National Express East Anglia

16

24

Clacton

National Express East Anglia

8

Harwich International

National Express East Anglia

12

Hertford East

National Express East Anglia

16

8

Ilford

National Express East Anglia

8

8

Ipswich

National Express East Anglia

16

12

King’s Lynn

First Capital Connect and National Express East Anglia National Express East Anglia

12

24

20

56

Norwich

Sources: National Express East Anglia (2011), Network Rail (2010), Network Rail (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

National Express East Anglia

28

32

84

96

Chingford Country End Sidings

Cross Country, First Capital Connect and National Express East Anglia National Express East Anglia

40

40

Chingford London End Sidings

National Express East Anglia

32

40

Clacton Carriage Sidings

National Express East Anglia

84

92

Colchester Carriage Sidings

National Express East Anglia

93

82

Colchester Sud Dock

National Express East Anglia

4

Gidea Park Carriage Sidings

National Express East Anglia

80

80

Ipswich Carriage Sidings

National Express East Anglia

13

12

Location

Bishops Stortford Carriage Sidings Cambridge Carriage Sidings

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

97

Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Kings Lynn Carriage Sidings

National Express East Anglia

16

24

First Capital Connect

8

National Express East Anglia

7

Norwich Carriage Sidings

40

Parkestone (Harwich) Carriage National Express East Anglia 24 Sidings Shenfield Down Carriage National Express East Anglia 24 24 Sidings (Hack Sidings) Shoeburyness Carriage c2c 216 360 Sidings Southend Victoria Carriage National Express East Anglia 148 152 Sidings Southend Victoria: Down National Express East Anglia 12 28 Stabling Sidings Sources: National Express East Anglia (2011), Network Rail (2010), Network Rail (2011) and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

98

4.2 East Midlands (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Bedford Cauldwell Walk

First Capital Connect

40

56

Eastcroft (Nottingham)

East Midlands Trains

12

Etches Park (Derby)

East Midlands Trains

126

Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), First Capital Connect (2011) and TRUST (2012)

(b) Stations Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

East Midlands Trains

10

First Capital Connect

0

Nottingham

East Midlands Trains

56

St Albans

First Capital Connect

0

Location

London St Pancras International Luton

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

40 48

Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), First Capital Connect (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Bedford sidings

First Capital Connect

92

104

Cricklewood carriage sidings

East Midlands Trains

5

First Capital Connect

52

48 18

Leicester

Cross Country

12

Lincoln carriage sidings

East Midlands Trains

10

Luton Crescent Road

First Capital Connect

0

8

St Albans station centre siding First Capital Connect 0 8 Sources: Cross Country (2011), East Midlands Trains (2011) and First Capital Connect (2011) and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

99

4.3 Kent and HS1 (a) Depots Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

176

Chart Leacon (Ashford)

First Capital Connect and South Eastern South Eastern

15

Gillingham

South Eastern

92

126

Grove Park

South Eastern

108

300

Ramsgate

South Eastern

212

Slade Green

South Eastern

132

St Leonards

South Eastern and Southern

39

Location

Ashford

Depot capacity (vehicles)

210

Victoria (Grosvenor Road)

First Capital Connect and 48 120 South Eastern Sources: First Capital Connect (2011), Hitachi (2011), Network Rail (January 2010): Kent RUS and Network Rail (March 2008) South London RUS.

(b) Stations Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

24

48

London Cannon Street

First Capital Connect and South Eastern South Eastern

28

84

London Charing Cross

South Eastern

24

72

London Victoria (Eastern side)

South Eastern

24

84

Location

London Blackfriars*

* Not during Thameslink upgrade works due to removal of bay platforms Source: First Capital Connect (2011) and Network Rail (March 2008): South London RUS.

(c) Network sidings Location

Ashford East Beckenham Junction sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

First Capital Connect and South Eastern South Eastern

12

24

0

24

Bellingham sidings

South Eastern

0

32

Blackfriars Carriage Roads

0

24

Dartford sidings

First Capital Connect and South Eastern South Eastern

48

56

Dover station sidings

South Eastern

30

Faversham station sidings

South Eastern

51

Folkestone East sidings

South Eastern

36

Hastings station sidings

Southern and South Eastern

28

Orpington carriage sidings and station platforms

South Eastern

70

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

100

Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Plumstead sidings

South Eastern

0

30

Sevenoaks sidings and gusset

South Eastern

8

Sidcup sidings

South Eastern

0

10

Smithfield sidings

First Capital Connect and South Eastern South Eastern

0

16

Tonbridge sidings, West Yard 66 and station platforms Sources: First Capital Connect (2011), Hitachi (2011), Network Rail (January 2010): Kent RUS, Network Rail (March 2008): South London RUS, Network Rail (January 2010): Sussex RUS and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

101

4.4 London North Eastern (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Bounds Green (London)

First Hull Trains

5

Cleethorpes

First TransPennine Express

12

Northern

1

Cross Country

20

First TransPennine Express

8

Crofton (Wakefield) (not Saturday)

Grand Central

10

Ferme Park (London)

Grand Central

8

Heaton (Newcastle)

First TransPennine Express

6

9

Northern

36

64

Heaton (Newcastle)

Grand Central

21

Holbeck (Leeds)

Northern

14

27

Hornsey (London)

First Capital Connect

70

152

Hull (Botanic Gardens)

Northern

20

32

Letchworth

First Capital Connect

62

72

Neville Hill (Leeds)

Cross Country

10

18

East Midlands Trains

100

Northern

64

79

Sheffield

Northern

39

42

Tyne Yard (Middlesbrough)

Cross Country

16

30

Welwyn Garden City

First Capital Connect

45

56

York Leeman Road

First TransPennine Express

33

36

Crofton (Wakefield)

Depot capacity (vehicles)

24 32

Sources: Cross Country (2011), East Midlands Trains (2011), First Capital Connect (2011), First Hull Trains (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), Grand Central (2011), Northern (2010) and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

102

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Boston

East Midlands Trains

10

Bradford Forster Square

Northern

8

Bradford Interchange (Saturday night only) Bradford Interchange

Grand Central

10

Northern

0

Harrogate

Northern

12

12

Hull

First TransPennine Express

6

12

Northern

0

Ilkley

Northern

8

Leeds

Northern

34

Sheffield

First Trans Pennine Express

6

York

Northern

15

6

Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), Grand Central (2011), Northern (2010), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings

Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Darlington

Northern

10

Doncaster

Northern

15

Hertford North

First Capital Connect

18

Huddersfield

Northern

16

Peterborough Nene carriage sidings Scarborough

First Capital Connect

84

87

First TransPennine Express

6

15

Northern

2

Northern

33

Skipton

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Sources: First Capital Connect (2011), First Hull Trains (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011) and Northern (2010).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

103

4.5 London North Western (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Allerton

Northern

8

98

Ardwick (Manchester)

First TransPennine Express

57

63

Aylesbury

Chiltern Railways

0

20

Birkenhead North

Merseyrail

18

18

Central Rivers (Burton-on-Trent)

Cross Country Virgin West Coast Arriva Trains Wales Arriva Trains Wales East Midlands Trains London Midland Virgin West Coast

63 19 32 8 3 24 30

95

Northern

12

Virgin West Coast

45

54

16 10 87

61

Kirkdale (Liverpool)

Arriva Trains Wales Virgin West Coast Merseyrail

87

Longsight (Manchester)

Cross Country

17

179

Northern

45

Virgin West Coast

99

Newton Heath (Manchester) Northampton (Kings Heath)

Northern London Midland

103 104

144 104

Oxley (Wolverhampton)

Virgin West Coast

81

117

Polmadie (Glasgow)

Virgin West Coast

68

72

Soho (Birmingham)

London Midland

54

54

Stourbridge North

Chiltern Railways

15

32

Tyseley (Birmingham)

Chiltern Railways Cross Country

13 36

12 74

London Midland

80

120

Wembley (Stadium)

Chiltern Railways

17

24

Wembley Train Care Centre

Virgin West Coast

108

162

Chester Crewe LNWR

Edge Hill (Liverpool) Holyhead

Sources: Chiltern Railways (2011), Cross Country (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), London Midland (2011), Network Rail (March 2008): Merseyside RUS, Northern (2010), Northern (2011), TRUST (2012) and Virgin Trains (2008).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

104

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Banbury

Chiltern Railways

25

Birmingham Moor Street

Chiltern Railways

13

Blackpool North

Northern

0

Buxton

Northern

12

Chester

Arriva Trains Wales

8

Crewe

Arriva Trains Wales

7

High Wycombe

Chiltern Railways

0

Liverpool Lime Street

Northern

22

London Marylebone

Chiltern Railways

0

16

Manchester Piccadilly

First TransPennine Express

4

4

Northern

0

Manchester Victoria

Northern

4

New Brighton

Merseyrail

18

18

Rock Ferry

Merseyrail

12

12

Southport station/sidings

Merseyrail

30

30

West Kirby

Merseyrail

6

6

24

5

Sources: Chiltern Railways (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), London Midland (2011), Network Rail (March 2008): Merseyside RUS, Northern (2010), Northern (2011), TRUST (2012) and Virgin Trains (2008).

(c) Network sidings Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Aylesbury South

Chiltern Railways

56

60

Banbury Cattle Road sidings

Chiltern Railways

7

32

Barrow-in-Furness

First TransPennine Express

12

15

Northern

22

Bicester North

Chiltern Railways

0

11

Bidston

Arriva Trains Wales

0

12

Birkenhead Central

Merseyrail

6

6

Birmingham Snow Hill

Chiltern Railways

0

8

Blackpool North

First TransPennine Express

12

12

Northern

0

Bletchley

London Midland

96

96

Camden Washer

London Midland

0

84

Careys/Neasden aggregate siding Carlisle

Chiltern Railways

0

16

Northern

10

Carlisle

Virgin West Coast

0

Chester

Northern

4

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

18

105

Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Crewe

Northern

0

Gerrard's Cross

Chiltern Railways

0

7

Leamington Spa

Chiltern Railways

0

24

London Marylebone Wall siding

Chiltern Railways

0

11

Mayfield Loop (Manchester)

Arriva Trains Wales

0

4

Preston

Virgin West Coast

15

18

Princes Risborough

Chiltern Railways

0

8

Stockport

Northern

28

Wembley Neasden South

Chiltern Railways

0

8

West Ruislip

Chiltern Railways

0

16

Wigan Wallgate

Northern

20

Workington

Northern

3

Sources: Chiltern Railways (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), London Midland (2011), Network Rail (March 2008): Merseyside RUS, Northern (2010), Northern (2011), ORR (2011), TRUST (2012) and Virgin Trains (2008).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

106

4.6 Scotland (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Aberdeen Clayhills

ScotRail

31

48

Ayr Townhead

ScotRail

46

51

Bathgate

ScotRail

54

54

Corkerhill (Glasgow)

First TransPennine Express

6

6

ScotRail

92

94

137

176

Dumfries Yard

Cross Country, East Coast and ScotRail ScotRail

6

8

Eastfield (Glasgow)

ScotRail

47

65

Haymarket (Edinburgh)

ScotRail

60

56

Polmadie (Glasgow)

126

126

Shields (Glasgow)

Cross Country, ScotRail and Virgin West Coast ScotRail

81

88

Yoker (Glasgow)

ScotRail

114

110

Craigentinny (Edinburgh)

Sources: First TransPennine Express (2011) and Network Rail (June 2011): Scotland RUS.

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Aberdeen

ScotRail

19

27

Airdrie

ScotRail

12

12

Ayr

ScotRail

7

12

Dundee

ScotRail

10

23

Edinburgh Waverley

ScotRail

32

41

Fort William

ScotRail

2

6

Glasgow Queen Street

ScotRail

12

24

Glasgow Central

ScotRail

33

35

Gourock

ScotRail

12

12

Haymarket

First TransPennine Express

3

3

Helensburgh

ScotRail

15

15

Inverness

ScotRail

41

62

Inverness

East Coast

11

11

Kyle of Lochalsh

ScotRail

2

6

Mallaig

ScotRail

2

4

Motherwell

ScotRail

33

33

Oban

ScotRail

2

6

Perth

ScotRail

46

46

Stirling

ScotRail

18

20

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

107

Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Stranraer

ScotRail

2

6

Wick

ScotRail

4

4

Sources: First TransPennine Express (2011) and Network Rail (June 2011): Scotland RUS.

4.7 Sussex (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Brighton (Lovers Walk)

Southern

90

144

Selhurst (London)

Southern

228

234

Stewarts Lane (London)

Southern

74

174

Streatham Hill (London)

Southern

74

140

Sources: Network Rail (January 2010): Sussex RUS and TRUST (2012).

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Gatwick Airport Platform 6

Southern

0

12

Three Bridges Platform 1

Southern

12

12

Hove Platform 1

Southern

0

12

Lewes Platform 5

Southern

0

6

Barnham Platform 1

Southern

11

12

Bognor Regis Middle Siding

Southern

0

12

West Croydon

Southern

6

8

Epsom Downs

Southern

0

8

Tattenham Corner

Southern

0

20

Eastbourne Platforms 1-3

Southern

0

36

Littlehampton Platforms 1-4

Southern

27

28

Bognor Regis Platforms 1-4

Southern

25

28

Brighton Platforms 1-8

First Capital Connect/Southern First Capital Connect/Southern Southern

0

44

58

92

70

84

London Bridge Platforms 8-16 London Victoria Platforms 9-19

Sources: First Capital Connect (2011), Network Rail (March 2008): South London RUS and Network Rail (January 2010): Sussex RUS.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

108

(c) Network sidings Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Battersea Pier Sidings

Southern

0

16

Bognor Regis Sidings

Southern

26

50

Chichester Reception Road

Southern

0

8

Eastbourne Carriage Sidings Ebury/Pugs Hole Sidings (London Victoria) Gatwick Airport Up Sidings

Southern

28

44

Southern

16

16

First Capital Connect

8

36

Haywards Heath/Ardingly Branch

Southern

0

12

Horsham Sidings

Southern

54

62

Hove Sidings

Southern

35

48

Lewes Wall Siding

Southern

0

7

Littlehampton Carriage Sidings Preston Park

Southern

48

52

First Capital Connect

8

24

Southern

8

Purley Down Siding

Southern

0

16

Redhill Loco Sidings

First Great Western

20

36

Reigate Down Siding

Southern

0

12

Three Bridges Sidings

Southern

0

24

Sources: First Capital Connect (2011), Network Rail (January 2010): Sussex RUS and TRUST (2012).

4.8 Wales (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Cardiff Canton

Arriva Trains Wales

48

82

Cross Country

6

82

Arriva Trains Wales

19

61

Virgin West Coast

10

Arriva Trains Wales

18

Holyhead Machynlleth

Sources: Arriva Trains Wales (2011) and Cross Country (2011).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

24

109

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Carmarthen

Arriva Trains Wales

17

Fishguard Harbour

Arriva Trains Wales

1

Treherbert

Arriva Trains Wales

12

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Source: Arriva Trains Wales (2011).

(c) Network sidings Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Abbey Foregate (Shrewsbury)

Arriva Trains Wales

7

Pwllheli station sidings

Arriva Trains Wales

2

Rhymney station sidings

Arriva Trains Wales

16

Source: Arriva Trains Wales (2011).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

110

4.9 Wessex (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Basingstoke (Barton Mill)

South West Trains

48

48

Bournemouth West

South West Trains

106

Clapham Junction (London)

South West Trains

138

148

Eastleigh

Cross Country

36

45

Exeter New Yard

First Great Western

10

17

South West Trains

6

Farnham

South West Trains

128

Fratton

South West Trains

92

Northam (Southampton)

South West Trains

64

Ryde

Island Line

12

Salisbury

South West Trains

47

Strawberry Hill (London)

South West Trains

72

Wimbledon (London)

South West Trains

188

136

12 51

Sources: Network Rail (2009), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Ascot platforms

South West Trains

0

Basingstoke platforms

South West Trains

0

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Bournemouth platforms

South West Trains

0

8

Guildford platforms

South West Trains

44

48

London Waterloo platforms

South West Trains

74

118

Portsmouth & Southsea platforms Portsmouth Harbour platforms

South West Trains

8

10

South West Trains

30

30

Salisbury platforms

South West Trains

30

Southampton Central platforms

South West Trains

8

48

Weymouth platforms

South West Trains

24

30

Windsor & Eton Riverside platforms Woking platforms

South West Trains

0

10

South West Trains

14

16

Sources: Network Rail (2009), Network Rail (2011) and ORR (2011).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

111

(c) Network sidings Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Basingstoke Down East End

South West Trains

6

6

Basingstoke Down Yard

South West Trains

12

12

Bournemouth Middle sidings

South West Trains

0

5

Eastleigh Down carriage sidings

South West Trains

0

5

Fratton Old Yard

South West Trains

0

0

Guildford CHS

South West Trains

32

32

Guildford Down siding

South West Trains

0

16

London Waterloo south sidings

South West Trains

16

8

Portsmouth & Southsea DCS

South West Trains

24

32

Salisbury carriage sidings

South West Trains

10

Staines CHS

South West Trains

32

32

Wemouth Jersey Sidings

South West Trains

0

10

Woking East End siding

South West Trains

12

12

Woking Up siding

South West Trains

0

8

Sources: Network Rail (2009), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

4.10 Western (a) Depots Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Depot capacity (vehicles)

Barton Hill (Bristol)

Cross Country

19

30

Bristol St Philips Marsh

First Great Western

129

Landore (Swansea)

First Great Western

88

Long Rock (Penzance) Old Oak Common – HEX (London) Old Oak Common – HST (London)

Plymouth (Laira)

Cross Country

10

First Great Western

46

Heathrow Connect and Heathrow Express First Great Western

86 97

First Hull Trains

5

Cross Country

23

First Great Western

53

14 95

39

Sources: First Hull Trains (2011), Heathrow Connect/Heathrow Express (2011) and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

112

(b) Stations Location

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Station stabling capacity (vehicles)

Bristol Temple Meads

First Great Western

0

22

Hereford

First Great Western

9

11

Penzance

First Great Western

0

11

Plymouth

First Great Western

0

22

Swansea

First Great Western

0

33

Train Operating Company (vehicles stabled at location)

Vehicles stabled overnight

Siding stabling capacity (vehicles)

Sources: ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings Location

Alstone sidings (Cheltenham Spa) Oxford Up carriage sidings

First Great Western

0

11

First Great Western

38

42

Paignton Goodrington sidings

First Great Western

0

22

Worcester

London Midland

35

35

Sources: London Midland (2011), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Network Rail King’s Place 90 York Way London N1 9AG

www.Networkrail.co.uk