Burnley Borough Council

Chief Executive
Town Hall, Manchester Road
Burnley, Lancashire BB11 1JA

Yorkshire and Humber RUS Consultation Response,

RUS Programme Manager, Our Ref DW
Network Rail,
King’s Place, Date 2nd December, 2008
90 York Way,
London,
N1 9AG

Also by e-mail to: YorkshireandHumber.RUS@networkrail.co.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy Consultation Draft

I write on behalf of the Pennine Lancashire Leaders and Chief Executives (PLLACE).
PLLACE comprises the local authorities of Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn,
Pendle, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and Lancashire County Council. PLLACE promotes the
regeneration of the area with a particular focus on economic and social well being. PLLACE
acts as the democratic leadership for Pennine Lancashire, overseeing the development of
key strategies and providing the delivery mechanism for regeneration programmes. More
recently PLLACE has led the development of the Multi Area Agreement (MAA), which
articulates the area’s main priorities in order to bring about transformational change.

PLLACE welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation
Strategy Consultation Draft. Although this is a Pennine Lancashire partnership, we have a
strong interest in the Calder Valley line, both in terms of the existing roses link service and
the urgent need to reinstate the Todmorden Curve, providing the eastern area of Pennine
Lancashire with a direct train link to Manchester.

The PLLACE partners believe that improving connectivity to nearby economic drivers,
particularly Manchester, is key to the regeneration of Pennine Lancashire and in particular
the boroughs of Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle. Current journey times are well over an hour
in length and involve at least one change. Securing a direct rail service to Manchester via a
reinstated Todmorden Curve is identified as a transformational project in the Pennine
Lancashire Integrated Economic Strategy and is a key ask in the Pennine Lancashire MAA,
which is currently being negotiated with Government. The scheme has the backing of the
NWDA who have expressed a willingness to make a financial contribution to the scheme.
We support the proposal on page 78 for up to six additional Todmorden and Rochdale –
Manchester Victoria services, rather than train lengthening on the Manchester Leeds service,
requiring a turn-back facility at Todmorden. However, there are still a number of options for
turning back this train which remain undecided in the draft.

Earlier this year, Burnley Borough Council commissioned Colin Buchanan to undertake a
feasibility study of providing a new direct rail service between Accrington and Manchester. A
copy of the report is attached. This study concluded that the capital cost of the Todmorden
Curve proposal would be under £5m and that a Benefit Cost Ratio of between 1.5 and 2.75
could be achieved based on a 38 minute journey time, predicted rail growth and constant car
journey times.

This work was reconsidered by Network Rail in the final version of the Lancashire and
Cumbria RUS. Whilst the cost benefit calculation was revised down slightly, the proposal still
offered value for money. In the L&C RUS Network Rail concluded that the potential for a
Burnley/Accrington service was dependent on a solution for the HLOS metrics bringing the
train that terminates in Rochdale through to Todmorden and funding infrastructure to allow
the train to come off the main line along the old Todmorden Curve track bed. The
incremental case for a further extension to Burnley and Accrington would have a medium
value for money.

We would, therefore, ask Network Rail consider the Todmorden turn-back option as the
preferred option rather than the Hebden Bridge proposal set out in the document and that
the location of the turn-back on the Todmorden Curve facilitates the reinstatement of the
Curve in control period 4 (2009 – 2014). In the meantime, Burnley Borough Council is
leading on behalf of Pennine Lancashire local authorities on working with Network Rail and
other partners to further develop the business case, including understanding the potential
benefits funding sources rolling stock availability and timetabling requirements as
recommended in the L&C RUS.

We believe that this is the best option, both in terms of securing a direct service from
Burnley/Accrington to Manchester and providing more frequent services between
Todmorden, Rochdale and Manchester. It is also imperative, given the already severe over-
crowding on the route and the regeneration needs of this part of Pennine Lancashire, that
this enhancement takes place in CP4 and that this is considered in any prioritisation, should
the ORR Determination not be sufficient to fund all recommendations in the strategy.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Colin Rigby

Chair of PLLACE

Enc: Feasibility study – Colin Buchanan

2
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Burnley Borough Council

March 2008
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Project No: 143551

March 2008

Newcombe House
45 Notting Hill Gate,
London, W11 3PB
Telephone: 020 7309 7000
Fax: 020 7309 0906
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk

Prepared by: Approved by:

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
AlexB HughC

Status: Final Issue no: 1 Date: 28 March 2008

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Contents

Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Background 2
1.2 This report 2
2 Engineering and operational option review 3
2.1 FM options 3
2.2 Issues 3
3 Demand Analysis 6
3.1 FM assumptions 6
3.2 CB Analysis 6
4 Conclusions 13
4.1 Conclusions 13
4.2 Next steps 13
Appendix A – Train Graph (Todmorden Curve Option) 14
Appendix B – Assumptions Register 16

Tables

Table 2.1: Todmorden Curve costs 4

Table 2.2: Cost ranges 4
Table 3.1: Comparison of switch to rail in Todmorden option 7
Table 3.2: Comparison of switch to rail in Blackburn option 7
Table 3.3: Appraisal results for Todmorden option 8
Table 3.4: Appraisal results for Blackburn option 9
Table 3.5: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with shorter rail journey time
10
Table 3.6: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with higher rail demand growth
10
Table 3.7: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with lower rail demand growth
11
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Executive Summary
Colin Buchanan (CB) were commissioned to provide further study into a report carried out by Faber
Maunsell (FM) into the feasibility of providing a new direct rail service between Burnley and
Manchester. This initial study produced two preferred options with a benefit:cost ratio (BCR) of above
1.5. These were a route from Manchester Victoria to Nelson via Blackburn and Burnley Central, and a
route from Manchester Victoria to Accrington via Todmorden and Burnley Manchester Road. The latter
option requires re-instatement of the Todmorden Curve.

CB re-analysed the two options to ensure that they indeed are the two best options and suggested
some modifications in which a better BCR could be obtained. Under the Blackburn route option, CB
believe that the costing of the Colne re-signalling to allow two trains on that single track section was
too much at £2m. CB have re-costed this at £835,000. The Todmorden Curve route option was also
costed at too high a level. Timetable planning has shown that it is unnecessary to provide turnback
sidings at Todmorden and Accrington as proposed in the FM report for a new service using the
Todmorden Curve to be feasible.

The overall infrastructure costs are shown below:

Table S 1: Infrastructure costs

Option Infrastructure cost

FM Blackburn route £7.416m

CB Blackburn route £6.251m

FM Todmorden route £8.22m

CB Todmorden route £4.05m

In terms of the BCR for each scheme, we believe that the Blackburn route option does not justify the
costs of providing the service because the journey time is not at a level sufficient to realistically
compete with the private car. The Todmorden Curve option can provide a total journey time of 37
minutes between Burnley and Manchester Victoria, and thus is an attractive alternative to the car.

CB recommend that the option of providing a direct service from Accrington to Manchester Victoria via
Burnley and Todmorden is taken forward to examine sources of funding. We believe that the potential
benefits arising from the scheme could satisfy Network Rail requirements for inclusion in the
Lancashire and Cumbria Route Utilisation Study.

1
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
1.1.1 Burnley Borough Council (BBC) have aspirations to see a new direct rail service between
Burnley and Manchester introduced. With this in mind, they commissioned Faber
Maunsell (FM) to conduct a study to find a feasible way of providing this service, and to
provide a cost: benefit analysis of the solutions that they suggested. This FM report
produced two preferred options that were recommended for further testing. The first
option called for an hourly service running between Manchester Victoria and Nelson via
Blackburn and Burnley Central, whilst the second option requires the re-instatement of
the Todmorden Curve for a service to Accrington via Todmorden, Burnley Manchester
Road and Rose Grove.

1.1.2 Colin Buchanan (CB) were commissioned to take the FM study further forward by testing
the preferred options to confirm their feasibility, or to suggest modifications to make a
direct service more feasible.

1.2 This report

1.2.1 This report is intended to test the conclusions of the earlier report conducted by Faber
Maunsell, before coming to conclusions as to the feasibility of providing the direct
Manchester service, and the best method by which such a service can be achieved.

1.2.2 The report is structured as follows:

ƒ Chapter 2 studies engineering and operational issues associated with providing the
service. Where problems are identified, potential solutions are suggested.
ƒ Chapter 3 sets out a cost: benefit analysis of the favoured options in order to
assess the financial viability of the scheme.
ƒ Chapter 4 draws the conclusions of the analysis together and sets out next steps.

2
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

2 Engineering and operational option review

2.1 FM options
2.1.1 In the initial FM report, four main options with a series of sub-options were tested to find
their feasibility in terms of railway operations and engineering, and the potential costs and
benefits associated with each. We believe that in theory the right options were chosen as
the preferred options by FM. This chapter shows however that FM have over-estimated
some of their engineering requirements and therefore the associated costs. This chapter
is intended to show the engineering and operational implications of the preferred options,
and suggests some modifications to those options in order to provide the best value for
money solution.

2.2 Issues
2.2.1 The major engineering issue associated with the FM preferred options is that of re-
instating the Todmorden Curve, thus negating the need for passengers to interchange at
Hebden Bridge to get to Manchester. The trackbed of the curve is still in place, although
overgrown with trees now, and there are still points in place on each line leading off
towards the curve. Engineering Scheme TN3, including a single track curve at
Todmorden, a new crossover just to the north east of the station and the viaduct, and a
new siding just off the curve for the local Manchester – Todmorden train to wait to allow
the new service to run past, was costed by FM at a total of £4.8m. £2.3m of this consists
of signalling. In addition to this, FM stated that a turnback siding is required at Accrington
so that trains can turn around off the main line, at a cost of £3.42m. The FM report
showed that the scheme that would create the best benefit:cost ratio was option 4c,
requiring this investment of £8.22m in re-instating the Todmorden curve and providing the
Accrington siding.

2.2.2 The other preferred option (2c) involving a service from Manchester to Burnley and
Nelson via Bolton and Blackburn requires less infrastructure work. According to the FM
report, this solution would require engineering Schemes BB1 and BB2, involving Turton
Crossing, double tracking from Darwen to Sough Tunnel, and a crossover at the western
end of Blackburn station at a total cost of £5.416m.

2.2.3 CB have conducted our own analysis of the costs involved in providing these two options,
including discussions with Network Rail on the subject. We believe that the FM costs
have been overstated. FM have over-estimated signalling requirements in particular. We
have recently worked with NR on a project regarding introducing a new tram-train service
in north Northants, which included providing new track, sidings, crossovers and signals,
and these were all costed by NR in the study. This study produced a cost figure of
£200,000 per Signalling Equivalent Unit (SEU). SEUs include point ends, signal heads,
etc. In addition to this, the Northants work resulted in a track cost figure of £580 per
metre, based on an existing formation being in place. Design costs are estimated as 10%
of the engineering cost, and we have assumed that contingencies and risks are 5% of the
engineering costs. Indirect costs are 20% of the engineering cost. These figures are all
based on NRs own assumptions in the Northants work. CB have added a 60% optimism
cost to our overall cost estimate.

Todmorden Curve route analysis

2.2.4 The FM report showed that a turn-back siding is required at Todmorden for the train to
Burnley and Accrington to pass a Manchester to Todmorden service. We believe that
there is sufficient space in the timetable for an hourly service to operate without having to

3
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

provide this siding, as shown in the train graph in Appendix A. This cuts out a significant
infrastructure cost. In other words, we recommend option FM engineering option TN2
rather than TN3 for the engineering of the re-instated Todmorden Curve.

2.2.5 The same is true for the Accrington siding. The Accrington siding is unnecessary
especially with the crossover that exists just to the west of the station. We disagree with
the FM report that there is a likelihood that trains will have to wait for a period requiring a
new siding for other trains to pass at Accrington before the service returns to Manchester.
There is enough white space in the timetable for the train to turn round at the crossover at
Accrington without there being any significant performance risk, as shown in Appendix A.

2.2.6 We believe that the possession costs have also been over-estimated. The actual work of
re-instating the curve, providing the signals and points, etc. will probably require a single
possession, with a further evening possession required for tamping.

2.2.7 Taking the above into account, and with an SEU value of £200,000, the revised cost of
the Todmorden Curve option can be broken down as follows:

Table 2.1: Todmorden Curve costs

Item FM costing (TN2) FM costing CB costing (TN2)

(TN3)
Site clearance and £150,000 £150,000 £120,000
minor earthworks
Preparation of £240,000 £320,000 £297,000
formation, new ballast
and track
Motorised turnouts £180,000 £300,000 £198,000
New and modified £2,000,000 £2,300,000 £1,920,000
signals
Buffer stop - £25,000 -
Possession £690,000 £800,000 £480,000
compensation costs
Design, contract £690,000 £800,000 £302,000
management,
supervision and
preliminaries
Risk - - £151,000
Indirect cost - - £603,000
Rounded total £4,130,000 £4,800,000 £4,070,000

2.2.8 The costs for the Accrington turn-back are completely negated in CB’s opinion as there is
already a signalled cross-over in place at the station. There is plenty of time available in
the timetable for a train to arrive at Accrington and turn round to head back to Manchester
Victoria, as shown in the train graph in Appendix A. Therefore the overall cost range for
re-instating the Todmorden Curve is as follows:

Table 2.2: Cost ranges

Scheme Total cost

CB estimate (TN2 – No Accrington £4.07m
turnback)
FM estimate (TN2 and AN1) £7.55m
FM estimate (TN3 and AN1) £8.22m

4
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Blackburn route analysis

2.2.9 The feasibility of this alternative at least partially is dependent on the re-modelling of
Salford Crescent. There is currently no timescale in place for the re-modelling of Salford
Crescent, although if and when this does take place, there will be more opportunities to
run trains from Manchester Victoria towards Burnley via Blackburn. It is beyond the scope
of this report to attempt to cost the re-modelling of Salford Crescent.

2.2.10 It should be noted that Northern Rail have introduced an experimental service on this
route running once from Colne to Manchester Victoria, calling at Burnley Central at 0632
and arriving at Manchester Victoria at 0751, and returning from Manchester Victoria to
Colne leaving at 1729 and arriving at Burnley Central at 1850. No usage data is available
at present as the service has only recently been introduced. This is a single service
southbound in the AM peak and northbound in the PM peak. If it became a regular
service throughout the day, that is when pressure would come on Salford Crescent.

2.2.11 CB agree that the single track for large sections between Bolton and Blackburn is
restrictive, and there will need to be some double tracking in order to attain the level of
service required. This is scheme BB1 in the FM work. The Blackburn option also requires
option BB2 – a trailing crossover at Blackburn. Option NE1 requiring some additional
signalling on the Colne branch was the final engineering requirement of Option 2c.

2.2.12 Options BB1 and BB2 were costed in a previous FM study specifically looking into the
Manchester to Bolton and Blackburn route. BB2 was costed at £1m in the previous work,
and this is a reasonable estimate. BB1 was costed at £4.416m and required double
tracking, new signalling and new points being installed. This is a substantial piece of
engineering and this allowance is also reasonable.

2.2.13 £2m was assumed for Option NE1, the re-signalling allowing two trains onto the Colne
branch at any one time, with one standing at Colne and the other turning round at Nelson.
This is excessive, especially considering that no track or points work is required and an
SEU costs £200,000 to install. The FM report only called for one extra stop signal to be
provided in each direction, and so the £2m figure is excessive. We consider a total of
£864,000 is sufficient for this improvement, including design costs, risk, indirect costs and
an optimism factor.

5
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

3 Demand Analysis

3.1 FM assumptions
3.1.1 CB have kept to the FM service assumptions for both the Blackburn route and the
Todmorden route. This is one train an hour, with the Blackburn service being a stopping
service towards Nelson, and the Todmorden service operating a semi fast service calling
at Todmorden, Burnley Manchester Road, Rose Grove and Accrington. The Blackburn
service requires four additional trains, whilst the Todmorden service requires two.

3.1.2 90mph units are the most suitable for the route to capitalise on the aspiration contained
within the NR Route Plan for the region for an increase of line speed between Hall Royd
Junction and Gannow Junction (Todmorden and Burnley), as well as to benefit the most
from fast running between Manchester and Todmorden in that particular direct Burnley
service option.

3.2 CB Analysis

Estimating rail demand

3.2.2 The first step of our approach was to produce an estimate of the likely switch to rail from
car and bus when the direct rail scheme is implemented, for journeys between the
districts of Burnley / Hyndburn / Pendle and central Manchester. To do this, a logit model
was used.

3.2.3 The logit model takes the form:

P = 1
Tij1
=
(
exp − βCij1 )
∑ exp(− βC )
ij k
Tij ij
k
3.2.4 Where

Pij1 = the proportion of trips between zones i and j using mode 1

Tij1 = the number of trips by mode 1 between i and j

Cij1 = the cost by mode 1 between i and j

3.2.5 β = the factor determining the sensitivity of mode choice to relative cost differences.

3.2.6 Although this uses a complicated-looking formula, the principle behind it is relatively
simple – it takes into account the generalised cost of travel by each mode, using the
parameter β to measure the sensitivity of demand to the changes in costs and hence the
share of trips accounted for by each mode.

3.2.7 It is therefore necessary to calculate generalised costs of travel between each of the
three districts and Manchester, for car, bus and rail, in both the Do Minimum and Do
Something scenario. Our calculations took the following factors into account:

6
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

3.2.8 Car:
- In vehicle time
- Walk time
- Vehicle operating cost (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.9 Bus:
- In vehicle time
- Wait time
- Walk time
- Boarding penalty
- Fare (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.10 Rail:
- In vehicle time
- Wait time
- Walk time
- Boarding penalty
- Interchange penalty
- Fare (converted into time using a value of time)

3.2.11 More information on the assumptions relating to these can be found in the assumptions
register in Appendix B. To summarise the in vehicle times from Burnley to Manchester,
the car journey is deemed to be 70 minutes, and the bus journey is 99 minutes (as per
the timetable). Rail journey times were dependent on the individual scheme and are
summarised in Appendix B.

3.2.12 The logit model was applied to car and bus demand using census journey to work data.
There is uncertainty over the value of β, but it was set by selecting a value that gave a
very low demand for rail (close to zero) in the Do Minimum. This then enabled an
estimate to be made of the likely switch to rail once a direct rail scheme is implemented.

3.2.13 As a comparison, Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 show the switch of demand from car to rail in
the Faber and CB models, for the Todmorden and Blackburn options respectively.

Table 3.1: Comparison of switch to rail in Todmorden option

Origin district CB estimate Faber estimate

Burnley 84 64
Hyndburn 10 44
Pendle 9 32

Total 103 140

Table 3.2: Comparison of switch to rail in Blackburn option

Origin district CB estimate Faber estimate

Burnley 2 71
Hyndburn 2 58
Pendle 1 61

Total 5 190

7
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

3.2.14 Clearly there is a significant difference between the Faber and CB estimate for the
Blackburn option. This is explained in the results section below.

Calculate benefits and costs

3.2.15 Having estimated the peak rail demand that would be generated by the direct rail
scheme, the transport benefits were then quantified and valued. A 60-year appraisal
period is used, assuming that the scheme opening year is 2010.

3.2.16 To obtain demand for future years, a range of growth rates can be used. Our central case
uses the medium scenario that was applied in the NW Route Utilisation Strategy (NW
RUS).

3.2.17 The benefits that were quantified were as follows:

- Time savings;
- Vehicle operating cost savings; and
- External highway benefits (local air quality, noise etc) arising from the switch
from car.
3.2.18 The costs include:
- Capital cost – assumed to be incurred in the opening year;
- Operating costs;
- Indirect tax loss (due to people switching from car to rail and hence less fuel
being consumed);
- Net rail revenue (this is counted as a reduction of costs).
3.2.19 Benefits were valued using parameters from the Department for Transport’s WebTAG
guidance. More detail on the assumptions for the benefits and costs is provided in the
assumptions register.

Results
3.2.20 Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 show the results for the Todmorden and Blackburn options
respectively. Results are presented as a Present Value over the 60-year appraisal period,
discounted to a base year of 2002.

Table 3.3: Appraisal results for Todmorden option

PV £m
Benefits
Time savings -6.99
Vehicle operating costs 8.57
External highway benefits 32.33
Total 33.91

Costs
Capital 3.09
Operating 23.41
Indirect tax 6.05
Revenue -3.98
Total 28.58

Net Present Value 5.33

Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.19

8
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Table 3.4: Appraisal results for Blackburn option

PV £m
Benefits
Time savings -1.03
Vehicle operating costs 0.38
External highway benefits 1.43
Total 0.78

Costs
Capital 4.75
Operating 39.10
Indirect tax 0.27
Revenue -0.18
Total 43.94

Net Present Value -43.16

Benefit / Cost Ratio 0.02

3.2.21 The Benefit / Cost Ratios (BCRs) arising from our appraisal are 1.19 and 0.02 for the
Todmorden and Blackburn schemes respectively. This compares with 1.8 and 1.6
respectively from the Faber study.

3.2.22 Our BCR for the Blackburn option is significantly lower than Faber’s. This appears to be
driven by the scale of the rail journey time saving that the option provides. Our
calculations indicate that, in terms of generalised time, it will still be much quicker to travel
to Manchester by car even if the Blackburn option is introduced. As a result, our model
shows very little shift in demand from car to rail for that option.

3.2.23 Logit models can be rather sensitive and it is worth testing the impact on the BCR of
different levels of demand – this has been done in the next section. However, Network
Rail are broadly in line with our view that the Blackburn option is likely to offer a poor
value for money.

3.2.24 For the Todmorden option, there is also a time disbenefit for people who switch from car
to rail. However, this is outweighed by the vehicle operating cost savings that are made,
so there is more of an incentive to use rail instead of car and hence the shift in demand is
much higher than for the Blackburn option.

3.2.25 From the information provided in the Faber report, it is difficult to see how a similar BCR
is achieved for the two options given that the journey time to Manchester is so different in
each case. We noted in our interim report that the Faber utility-based model included a
doubling of car travel time, which would not usually be done in an economic appraisal. It
may be the case that this leads to rail being artificially more attractive than car in the FM
model (because doubling car travel time may mean that rail becomes a relatively quicker
mode), hence the higher switch to rail and higher benefits.

Sensitivity tests
3.2.26 As outlined in the assumptions register, it is assumed that the in-vehicle time for Burnley
– Manchester would be 47 minutes under the Todmorden option. Our understanding from
discussions with Network Rail is that it may be possible to reduce this to 38 minutes.
Table 3.5 shows the appraisal results if the assumption is changed to reflect this.

9
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Table 3.5: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with shorter rail journey time

PV £m
Benefits
Time savings -6.15
Vehicle operating costs 18.51
External highway benefits 69.77
Total 82.13

Costs
Capital 3.09
Operating 23.41
Indirect tax 13.07
Revenue -8.60
Total 30.97

Net Present Value 51.16

Benefit / Cost Ratio 2.65

3.2.27 Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 show the Todmorden results if a high or low growth scenario is
used as per the NW RUS.

Table 3.6: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with higher rail demand
growth

PV £m
Benefits
Time savings -9.06
Vehicle operating costs 10.92
External highway benefits 42.45
Total 44.30

Costs
Capital 3.09
Operating 23.41
Indirect tax 7.70
Revenue -5.12
Total 29.08

Net Present Value 15.22

Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.52

10
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Table 3.7: Appraisal results for Todmorden option with lower rail demand
growth

PV £m
Benefits
Time savings -6.18
Vehicle operating costs 7.59
External highway benefits 28.57
Total 29.98

Costs
Capital 3.09
Operating 23.41
Indirect tax 5.36
Revenue -3.52
Total 28.34

Net Present Value 1.64

Benefit / Cost Ratio 1.06

3.2.28 The sensitivity tests on demand growth are not appropriate for the Blackburn option,
because the switch of demand is too low for a different growth rate to have an effect. As
already explained, it is the high rail journey time relative to car that underpins this result.

3.2.29 We have therefore tested the reduction in journey time in the Blackburn option, relative to
the current assumption, that would be necessary to achieve a BCR of i) 1.0 and ii) 1.5.

3.2.30 Our model indicates that a BCR of 1.0 would be achieved if the in-vehicle journey time
was 36% lower than currently assumed (this means the in-vehicle time would need to be
51 minutes from Burnley). To achieve a BCR of 1.5, the in-vehicle time would need to be
reduced by 41% (equivalent to 48 minutes from Burnley).

3.2.31 A separate test can be undertaken to find the level of switch from car to rail that would be
necessary in order to achieve a particular BCR. In the case of the Blackburn option, a
BCR of 1.0 would be achieved with a total peak demand shift of just under 280 (a 25%
switch from car). To achieve a BCR of 1.5, a mode switch of nearly 450 passengers
would be required (a 40% mode switch).

3.2.32 For the Todmorden assumption we have made our own estimate of the capital costs, but
have maintained the Faber assumptions on operating costs. Another set of sensitivity
tests can therefore be undertaken to show the level of operating costs necessary to
achieve a BCR of i) 1.5 or ii) 2.0, if all other assumptions are kept fixed.

3.2.33 The results indicate that a BCR of 1.5 could be achieved if operating costs were reduced
from £1.2m a year to just over £900k. The operating costs would need to be almost
halved, to just over £600k a year, to reach a BCR of 2.0.

Agglomeration
3.2.34 The project brief specified that the study should look into any potential agglomeration
benefits arising from a direct service to Manchester. It is our opinion that the scheme is
too small for there to be any measurable agglomeration benefits.

11
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Conclusions
3.2.35 Our results indicate that the Blackburn option has a poor value for money, with a low
BCR. This is because the time savings in the Do Something option are not high enough
to make rail an attractive option relative to car.

3.2.36 The Todmorden option has a BCR greater than 1.0 under a range of different scenarios.
It is feasible that the scheme could offer a high value for money if further rail time savings
were achieved, or with higher demand growth / lower costs. The results indicate that the
Todmorden option should be pursued.

3.2.37 It should also be noted that the results assume that highway generalised journey times
remain the same in the future. However, if either i) highway congestion levels increase
significantly in the future or ii) congestion charging for road trips into Manchester is
introduced, then the shift to rail and resulting benefits would be likely to be much higher.

12
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

4 Conclusions

4.1 Conclusions
4.1.1 The main conclusion of this study is that under certain circumstances it is feasible to
introduce a direct rail service to Manchester Victoria from Burnley at a cost less than that
attained in the initial FM report. The greatest benefits would arise from the option
involving the re-instatement of the Todmorden Curve, as the greatest journey time
benefits would occur here. The Blackburn option is restricted by the pressure on Salford
Crescent. The infrastructure costs to increase the capacity of the Bolton to Blackburn line
do not create sufficient benefits particularly in terms of journey time.

4.1.2 It has been shown clearly that there is room in the timetable for a semi-fast service to run
between Manchester Victoria and Accrington via Todmorden and Burnley without any
more significant engineering works other than the re-instatement of a single track
Todmorden Curve. We have also showed that FM over-stated some of the engineering
costs in their previous study. The total engineering cost of less than £5m for this scheme
along with the BCR of 2.65 assuming the fastest possible journey time of 37 minutes from
Burnley to Manchester have meant that it could be viable and sources of funding should
now be looked into.

4.1.3 The Blackburn route had serious negatives in terms of journey time. There are significant
infrastructure costs, and more trains are needed for this option thus increasing operating
costs as well. Therefore, the BCR produced was negligible. As Northern Rail have
commenced a test service from Colne to Manchester Victoria via Blackburn, it would be
interesting to see the results when they become available, along with their thoughts as to
the viability of introducing an all day service on the route. However, our opinion is that the
Todmorden Curve option gives significantly greater benefits at a significantly lower cost.

4.2 Next steps

4.2.1 The overall infrastructure cost of the Todmorden Curve option is less than £5m, making it
eligible to receive funding under the Network Rail Discretionary Fund (NRDF). The NRDF
scheme has £200m available for projects worth less than £5m between 2005/6 and
2008/9. Discussions should take place with NR as to the possibility of gaining this funding
for the re-instatement of the Todmorden Curve.

4.2.2 The other important issue alongside that of infrastructure costs is that of obtaining funding
to cover the operating costs of providing a service. The level of support for the direct
service should be gauged amongst local stakeholders along with the potential for any
financial support for the operation of the scheme.

4.2.3 The journey time benefits of the Todmorden Curve scheme assuming a 38 minute
journey resulted in a very high BCR. On this basis, further discussions should be held
with NR in order to have the scheme included in the Lancashire and Cumbria Route
Utilisation Study.

13
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Appendix A – Train Graph (Todmorden Curve

Option)
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Manchester
Victoria

Todmorden

Burnley Central

Burnley
Manchester Road

Rose Grove

Accrington

Blackburn

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Appendix B – Assumptions Register

Table A 1: Assumptions

Assumption Value Source

Opening year 2010 Same as Faber assumption

Discount rate
Value of time
Vehicle operating costs
Car occupancy
Demand growth rate
Average journey distance to
Manchester by car (kilometres)
Annualisation factor
Real fare growth
External highway benefit per car
kilometre removed
Generalised cost inputs for car,
bus and rail
Value of β in the logit model
Capital costs of Todmorden
option
Operating costs of Todmorden
option
Capital costs of Blackburn
option
Operating costs of Blackburn
option
3.5% a year until 2039, 3.0% WebTAG
thereafter
£5.72 an hour in 2002, with WebTAG (base values, journey
growth rates applied for future purpose splits and growth rates)
years
Fuel: 75.4 pence per litre in WebTAG (base values and
2002, changing in future years future changes)
Non-fuel: 3.8 pence per
kilometre
1.45 in 2002, reducing over time WebTAG (base values and
future changes)
Central scenario based on NW Network Rail
RUS – growth rate of around
2% a year, reducing to 0.35% a
year and constant from 2029
Burnley: 45 www.transportdirect.info
Hyndburn: 37
Pendle: 52
1012 Annualisation factor is applied to
an AM peak, so annualise by
253 (number of weekdays in a
year), multiply by 2 to account
for PM peak and multiply by 2 to
account for demand during rest
of the day and weekends
1% a year CB assumption
15.5 pence in opening year, WebTAG
rising to 51.5 pence in final year
of appraisal
See separate tables below Combination of journey times
from transportdirect.info,
0.115 Value selected so that Do
Minimum has very low rail
demand
£4.07m CB cost workings
£1.22m a year Same as Faber assumption
£6.25m CB cost workings
£2.03m a year Same as Faber assumption
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Generalised cost assumptions

Figure A 1: GC assumptions for Todmorden option
Do Minimum Do Something
Burnley Hyndburn Pendle Burnley Hyndburn Pendle
Car:
In vehicle time 70 65 75 70 65 75
Walk time 1 1 1 1 1 1
Boarding penalty 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOC (£) 4.5 3.9 5.0 4.5 3.9 5.0
VOC (mins) 47.3 40.5 52.8 47.3 40.5 52.8
Total generalised cost (mins) 118.3 106.5 128.8 118.3 106.5 128.8

Bus:
In vehicle time 99 81 119 99 81 119
Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Walk time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Boarding penalty 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fare (£) 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
Fare (mins) 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3
Total generalised cost (mins) 147.3 129.3 167.3 147.3 129.3 167.3

Rail:
In vehicle time 76 74 93 47 55 61
Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Walk time 10 10 10 10 10 10
Boarding penalty 5 5 5 5 5 5
Interchange penalty 16 16 16 0 0 16
Fare (£) 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95
Fare (mins) 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4
Total generalised cost (mins) 174.4 172.4 191.4 129.4 137.4 159.4
Manchester Direct Railway Scheme
Report

Figure A 2: GC assumptions for Blackburn option

Do Minimum Do Something
Burnley Hyndburn Pendle Burnley Hyndburn Pendle
Car:
In vehicle time 70 65 75 70 65 75
Walk time 1 1 1 1 1 1
Boarding penalty 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOC (£) 4.5 3.9 5.0 4.5 3.9 5.0
VOC (mins) 47.3 40.5 52.8 47.3 40.5 52.8
Total generalised cost (mins) 118.3 106.5 128.8 118.3 106.5 128.8

Bus:
In vehicle time 99 81 119 99 81 119
Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Walk time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Boarding penalty 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fare (£) 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
Fare (mins) 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3
Total generalised cost (mins) 147.3 129.3 167.3 147.3 129.3 167.3

Rail:
In vehicle time 76 74 93 80 70 93
Wait time 5 5 5 5 5 5
Walk time 10 10 10 10 10 10
Boarding penalty 5 5 5 5 5 5
Interchange penalty 16 16 16 0 0 0
Fare (£) 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95
Fare (mins) 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4
Total generalised cost (mins) 174.4 172.4 191.4 162.4 152.4 175.4

Car in-vehicle time was sourced from transportdirect.info (Accrington & Nelson were used as proxies
for the districts of Hyndburn and Pendle)

Bus in-vehicle time: sourced from timetables and transportdirect.info

Rail in-vehicle time: sourced from National Rail timetables and Network Rail / CB assumptions

Walk time / wait time etc are CB assumptions

Boarding penalties are from WebTAG

Interchange penalty was calculated by CB

Bus fare: divide the return fare of £5.40 by two

Rail fare: divide the return fare of £11.90 by two