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 which Network Rail promotes for all the

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.
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.
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.

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.
The guidance presented within the
document is aimed at:
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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 depot-
network 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.
 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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 on-
board 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
 5

principles will assist in this process. It is proposal to introduce either new trains
accepted that there will be few onto the network or provide new and
opportunities to design and implement a additional services.
passenger rolling stock depot that is
optimal to all requirements or that is not Figure 1.1 highlights the main drivers
constrained by land use or special that affect the need to plan passenger
considerations. Therefore it is important rolling stock depot facilities. The guidance
that trade-offs are assessed and the presented within this document provides a
overall impact on the railway system is direction to key land use planning,
fully understood. This is in terms of the operational, technical, commercial and
impact on the overall performance, regulatory considerations in the passenger
capability and capacity of the railway rolling stock depot planning process. The
system that include both passenger rolling process will require a series of trade-offs
stock depots and the national railway being made in optimising the passenger
network. rolling stock depot planning process from
all of the different considerations needing
The continuing growth in demand for rail evaluation.
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.

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

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
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 Britains 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
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.
(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.

Figure 1.2: Key parties with an interest in the passenger rolling stock depot planning process

Local authorities

Rolling Stock Office of Rail Regulation Review GPDO, planning applications for
Companies depots. Ensure compliance with GB
planning policy from a land use and
Provide finance for transport perspective.
new rolling stock Regulate depot
and lease rolling access through
BRB Residuary Ltd
Train manufacturers stock to TOCs depot access
agreements
Looks after the residual responsibilities and
liabilities of the former British Railways Board
(BRB) and manages former BRB non-
operational property portfolio
Lease and
Train Operating operate the depot
Passenger
Companies Department for Transport
rolling stock Specify rolling
depot planning stock requirements
and depot
Transport Scotland
Passenger investment via the
Transport franchise
Executives Provide financial agreement
support for local rail
Welsh Government
services and influence
rail policy
development

Plan and build,

sub-lease depots to
TOCs
Transport for Provide financial
London support for local rail
Network Rail
services and specify
rail policy

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 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.rail-
reg.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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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 Londons 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
 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/

2 Development of passenger rolling stock depot scenarios
are shown in Figure 2.1.
this guidance
Inevitably, certain planning situations
document cross over several segments of the matrix.
The development of this document has For example, there will be instances when
been undertaken in collaboration with the passenger rolling stock depots are
railway industry. It has involved various planned for a mix of old and new rolling
processes as outlined below. stock.

Review of existing related In addition, a workshop of industry

workstreams such as: stakeholders determined that the factors
that influence capability of the passenger
the ReFocus Twenty Point Plan: rolling stock depot/network interface
Fleet Reliability Focus Group should be assessed under the four
the Rail Safety and Standards following areas:
Board T782 Maximising Future
Rolling Stock Reliability (2008) land use planning and depot design
report operational interfaces
the National Task Force Fleet technical interfaces
Challenge. commercial and regulatory interfaces.

facilitated workshops to review good The document therefore details all

practice in the provision of passenger identified factors to be considered in the
rolling stock depot facilities and planning process (considerations) under
interface with the railway network these headings in Chapters 5-8 and
surveys of passenger rolling stock assesses all such considerations against
depots nationally, and the scenarios outlined in Figure 2.1.
interviews with a number of passenger
rolling stock depot and fleet personnel Survey information provided by passenger
nationally. rolling stock depot facility operators was
used to assist in identifying the evidence
The guidance should be used when: base for the factors to be considered,
when enhancing existing facilities or
planning an enhancement of an developing new facilities.
existing facility
planning the re-opening of a
previously closed facility
planning a new facility.

Figure 2.1: Passenger rolling stock depot/rolling stock scenarios

Rolling stock

Existing New

Existing rolling stock and existing depot New rolling stock and existing depot
Existing

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

Existing rolling stock and new depot New rolling stock and new depot
Where a new depot is provided with capacity to service Where a new facility is provided in order to service new
existing rolling stock, which would be re-allocated to that rolling stock.
New

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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 re-
opened, 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
 12

franchising process and/or remapping availability of depot facilities to service

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
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 Functions

Maintenance location 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) 69 Old Oak Common - HST (London)
2 Allerton 70 Orient Way (London)
3 Ardwick (Manchester) 71 Orpington TCD (London)
4 Ashford 72 Penzance (Long Rock)
5 Aylesbury 73 Perth
6 Ayr 74 Plymouth (Laira)
7 Barrow-In-Furness 75 Ramsgate
8 Basingstoke (Barton Mill) 76 Reading Turbo
9 Bathgate 77 Ryde
10 Bedford Cauldwell Walk 78 Salisbury
11 Bedford Midland 79 Selhurst (London)
12 Birkenhead North 80 Sheffield
13 Blackpool North 81 Shields (Glasgow)
14 Bletchley 82 Shoeburyness
15 Bognor Regis 83 Shrub Hill (Worcester)
16 Bounds Green (London) 84 Skipton
17 Bournemouth West 85 Slade Green
18 Brighton (Lovers Walk) 86 Soho (Birmingham)
19 Bristol St Philips Marsh 87 Southend Victoria
20 Cambridge 88 St Leonards
21 Camden Washer 89 Stewarts Lane (London)
22 Cardiff Canton 90 Stourbridge North
23 Central Rivers 91 Strawberry Hill (London)
24 Chester 92 Streatham Hill (London)
25 Chingford 93 Swansea (Landore)
26 Clacton 94 Swansea High Street Washer
27 Clapham Junction (London) 95 Temple Mills (London)
28 Clayhills (Aberdeen) 96 Tyseley (Birmingham)
29 Cleethorpes 97 Victoria (Grosvenor Road - London)
30 Colchester 98 Welwyn Garden City
31 Corkerhill (Glasgow) 99 Wembley Stadium (London)
32 Craigentinny (Edinburgh) 100 Wembley Train Care Centre (London)
33 Crewe LNWR 101 Willesden Train Care Centre (London)
34 Cricklewood 102 Wimbledon (London)
35 Crofton (Wakefield) 103 Yoker (Glasgow)
36 Crown Point (Norwich) 104 York Leeman Road
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)

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 15

Operating Company. This encompasses

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
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.

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 TOCs 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
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 Date of opening Current operator

Three Bridges 2014 First Capital Connect
Hornsey 2015 First Capital Connect
Reading 2015 First Great Western
Old Oak Common 2017 Crossrail
Source: Network Rail (2011)

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

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 Rails 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 pre-
application 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
16
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 Rails
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 (DFOs)), it will
need to be consulted on any plans to
enhance or materially alter such facilities
as any such plans 1) will affect Network
Rails asset, and 2) may have an impact

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 Rails 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
17
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 multi-
location 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 Landlords 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 Landlords Consent process.
Network Rail will either issue a Landlords
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?

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 promoters 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 Landlords Consent system.
4.4 Commercial
4.4.1 Depot access
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 Regulations criteria and procedures
for the approval of depot access
agreements (December 2010) publication
at:
http://www.rail-
reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/depots-criteria-
procedures-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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
18
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.rail-
reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/depot_contractual_c
hange_procedures.pdf
http://www.rail-
reg.gov.uk/upload/doc/dep_acc_conds_13
216.DOC
4.5 Network planning
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:
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 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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
19
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
sites activities.

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).
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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
20
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:
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.

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.
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.
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
21
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:
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.

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 sub-
optimally.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
22
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.

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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
23
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.
 5.5 Summary of land use planning and design issue considerations required against key driving factors
when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Factors
The factors which The characteristics which How network capacity Operational and land Considerations such as
influence reliability effect reliability and and capability effect use depot planning environmental issues
of access to/from availability of the the efficiency of the considerations which should be taken into
the network connections between the depot-network account when planning
depot and the network interface depot location
Land use/spatial strategy and process

considerations (L1)
Considerations

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)

24
 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 depot-
network 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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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 todays
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
 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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.

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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
27
Recommendations:
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

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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
28
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 depots 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 trade-
off 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.

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
29
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.

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 Rails 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 Rails 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
30
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 Rails 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.

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?
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
31
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

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
32
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.
 33
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).
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
Recommendation:
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.
 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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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.
 6.14 Summary of operational interface considerations required against key driving factors when
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

Factors
The factors which The characteristics which How network capacity Operational and land Considerations such as
influence reliability of effect reliability and and capability effect the use depot planning environmental issues which
access to/from the availability of the efficiency of the depot- considerations should be taken into account
network connections between the network interface when planning depot
depot and the network location.
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
Considerations

depot (O4)
Power supply at the depot-network interface

(O5)
Operational train planning (O6)
Depot internal configuration (O7)

35
Rolling stock profile and configuration (O8)
Key infrastructure assets (O9)
Remote stabling (O10)
Control of train movements within depot
(O11)
Rules and regulations (O12)
 36

7.3 Rolling stock data

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)
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
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.

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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

control and maintenance boundaries may
well vary for different types of
infrastructure.
Recommendations:
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.
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
38
7.6 Application of technical
standards (T5)
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:
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.
 39

7.7 Rolling stock technical 7.8 Autumn and winter

compatibility of future fleets readiness (T7)
of vehicles (T6)
The role of a passenger rolling stock depot
is fundamental to the safe and timely
In Chapter 6, a number of rolling stock
delivery of rolling stock to serve the
compatibility issues were identified. These
demand for passenger services nationally.
relate to the planning for future fleets of
Traditionally, the autumn period in each
vehicles that will be required to replace life
year presents significant challenges to the
expired rolling stock and meet projected
railway industry to maintain the necessary
future demand for railway services.
levels or required safety and performance
Designs for new and enhanced passenger
due to the nature of weather experienced
rolling stock depot infrastructure should
at this time of year which significantly
take account of what generic types of
impacts upon the wheel rail interface.
vehicles are likely to be developed to meet
Severe winter weather can also impact
these future needs. The Network RUS:
upon rolling stock servicing and
Passenger Rolling Stock document
maintenance requirements.
provides recommendations of potential
future generations of rolling stock that
As part of the role that depots play in
should be considered by the railway
preparing vehicles to operate safely at
industry and what their high level generic
such times of year, consideration needs to
characteristics may look like.
be given to any specialist equipment that
might be required at passenger rolling
Recommendation:
stock depots and at out based stabling
When designing new or enhanced passenger rolling locations where appropriate (see Section
stock depot infrastructure, use should be made of the 6.11), and how this might be justified on
guidance on future fleets of rolling stock and their
generic characteristics that will be required to meet the basis of improved safety and operating
future requirements. This can be sourced within the performance.
established Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock
document.

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
 7.9 Summary of technical interface considerations required against key driving factors when
undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Factors
The factors which The characteristics which How network Operational and land Considerations such as
influence reliability affect reliability and capacity and use depot planning environmental issues
of access to/from availability of the capability affect the considerations which should be taken into
the network connections between the efficiency of the account when planning
depot and the network depot-network depot location
interface
Rail Maintenance Depots Design
Guidance document (T1)
Rolling stock data transfer at the depot
Considerations

(T2)
Operational control (T3)
Supply chain management of passenger

rolling stock depot processes (T4)
Application of technical standards (T5)

41
Rolling stock technical compatibility of

future fleets of vehicles (T6)
Autumn and winter readiness (T7)
 42
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).
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document December 2011
Recommendation:
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.
 43

Decisions as to the approach to take 8.4 Passenger train service

regarding accessibility to the heavier
maintenance facilities will need requirements rolling stock
consideration on an individual scenario and train crew diagrams
basis, taking account of local operational
requirements.
(C3)

Recommendation: When assessing the need for

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.
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
 8.5 Summary of Commercial and regulatory interface considerations required against key driving
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

factors when undertaking passenger rolling stock depot planning

Factors
The factors which The characteristics which How network Operational and land Considerations such as
influence reliability affect reliability and capacity and use depot planning environmental issues
of access to/from availability of the capability affect the considerations which should be taken into
the network connections between the efficiency of the account when planning
depot and the network depot-network depot location
interface
Standardisation of equipment and
Considerations

strategic parts (C1)

Franchising policy (C2)

Passenger train service requirements
rolling stock and train crew diagrams (C3)

44

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.
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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
45
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:
a Network Rail owned passenger
rolling stock depot
a privately owned passenger rolling
stock depot.
For Network Rail owned passenger rolling
stock depots this is split further down into:
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Single Multi Shared Depot

User User Depot
Depot Depot
Land use L1 - Planning of passenger rolling stock depot Recommended guidance. 2.3, 2.6
planning and enhancements or development of new passenger
depot design rolling stock depot facilities will need to comply
with the national land use planning policies as
appropriate.
L1- When planning passenger rolling stock depot Recommended guidance. 2.3, 2.6
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 Can the revised train plan be accommodated? 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5

46
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation
Network Rail Depot
Single
User
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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)
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
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
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.
Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Private
Multi Shared Depot
User Depot
Depot
If suitable land is not available, can additional 2.6
requirements be:
accommodated by reconfiguration of existing
site
accommodated elsewhere
accommodated by other interventions (depot
and network).
Sub-optimum locations should be assessed 2.8
against the risk of importing risk to network
performance and capability, and commercially
against what passenger rolling stock depot
capacity and capability exists elsewhere.
Sub-optimum locations should be assessed 2.3
against the risk of importing risk to network
performance and capability, and commercially
47
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Single Multi Shared Depot
User User Depot
Depot Depot
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Land use L3 - Location of new passenger rolling stock Sub-optimum locations should be assessed 2.3, 2.6,
planning and depot facilities should be suitable from a statutory against the risk of importing risk to network
depot design planning and environmental perspective. performance and capability, and commercially
against what passenger rolling stock depot
capacity and capability exists elsewhere.
L4 - Availability of appropriately skilled labour If provision of suitable levels of skilled labour is
and associated training requirements to be considered a risk, can other staff be relocated
assessed when extending existing passenger from elsewhere?
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 sub-
optimally.
L5 -End user to be involved in the enhancement Recommended guidance. 2.1
to/or the development of a new passenger rolling

48
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Network Rail Depot Private

Single Multi Shared Depot
User User Depot
Depot Depot
Land use L6 - Application of good practice and lessons Recommended guidance.
planning and learned from previous passenger rolling stock
depot design depot enhancement and the provision of new
passenger rolling stock depots to be factored into
future planned passenger rolling stock depot
works.
Operational O1 - Configuration of connection between a Modifications to the train plan should be 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6
interfaces passenger rolling stock depot should wherever considered, where this may mitigate performance
possible be optimised to 1) minimise the risk of risk before any further higher capital cost
performance perturbation being imported to the infrastructure interventions are proposed.
passenger rolling stock depot and railway network
operations, and 2) not compromise the capacity or

49
capability of the passenger rolling stock depot or
adjoining railway network.
O2 - The optimum number of connections If an optimum number of connections between a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5,
between a passenger rolling stock depot and the passenger rolling stock depot and the railway 2.6
railway network should be assessed on a case by network cannot be provided mitigation of risk at
case basis against the operational needs, taking the existing connection(s) should consider factors
into account both current and future performance, such as:
capacity and capability issues. modifications to train plan
enhanced maintenance of connections
enhanced control of existing connection(s).
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation
Network Rail Depot
Single Multi
User User
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
Depot Depot
O3 - Optimum provision of signalling
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.
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.
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.
Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Private
Shared Depot
Depot
To be assessed against the frequency and 2.4, 2.5
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.
If no alternative route to the depot is available, 2.4
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.
50
Consideration should be given to what alternative 2.3
depot facilities may be available during unplanned
circumstances.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Single Multi Shared Depot

User User Depot
Depot Depot
O5 - Where traction current is supplied to a Consideration should be given to what alternative
depot, either from the depot or main line supply, depot facilities may be available for both planned
consideration should be given to the diversity of (eg during engineering works) and unplanned
power supply and associated switching circumstances.
arrangements

O5 - Where existing passenger rolling stock Do any of the drivers of electrification preclude the 2.4
depots need to be enhanced to accommodate enhancement of existing facilities, driving changes
electric rolling stock/new depots developed to to the fleet allocation and the enhancement of
accommodate electric rolling stock, Infrastructure alternative facilities?
Controller responsibilities/boundaries for traction
current control and maintenance should be
determined.
None - continued education required. 2.4

51
O6 - Network Rails 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.
O6 - When planning new passenger rolling stock Selection of appropriate sites and associated 2.4
depot facilities, consideration needs to be given to network capacity and capability is critical to ability
the proposed train plan, with regard to to deliver service specification. Do such
movements of rolling stock to and from the requirements drive any network enhancement
passenger rolling stock depot. requirements?
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation
Network Rail Depot
Single
User
Depot
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
O7 - The service specification and associated
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
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 Link to case studies
Private
Multi Shared Depot
User Depot
Depot
To be assessed against the frequency and the 2.4,
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.
Can the existing facilities be enhanced to meet 2.3, 2.4
the requirements at better value for money?
Consider trade off between ability to allocate 2.4
52
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation
Network Rail Depot
Single Multi
User User
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
Depot Depot
O8 - 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.
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.
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.
Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Private
Shared Depot
Depot
Ability to use alternative routes should be 2.4
assessed, before any high capital cost route
enhancement is considered.
Does the passenger rolling stock depot facility 2.5
need to be enhanced for the new rolling stock?
Where key infrastructure assets are important 2.1
factors in performance and capability of both the
passenger rolling stock depot and the railway
network, consideration needs to be given to the
53
appropriate maintenance and renewal regime.
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation
Network Rail Depot
Single
User
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
Depot
O9 - Design of new passenger rolling stock
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.
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.
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.
Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Private
Multi Shared Depot
User Depot
Depot
Can alternative infrastructure be designed-in, 2.1, 2.5, 2.6
which mitigates impact risk of single point
infrastructure failures?
Consideration of suitable facilities for limited 2.5, 2.6
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.
54
Train plan to be developed wherever possible, so 2.6
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Single Multi Shared Depot
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

User User Depot

Depot Depot
O12 - Local passenger rolling stock depot rules, Joint development of local operating instructions
regulations and operating instructions and and practices that impact safety and operation of
Network Rail operating instructions that deal with train movements between a passenger rolling
issues at the interface between a passenger stock depot and the railway network and vice
rolling stock depot facility and the railway network, versa.
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 T1 - It is recommended that the Network Rail Recommended guidance.
interfaces 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

55
depot facilities and on specification requirements
for the planning of new depot facilities.
T2 - Planning of requirements for both existing Can the download of data be undertaken
passenger rolling stock depots and new elsewhere (other depots or remotely) and what
passenger rolling stock depot facilities, should impact does this have on network capacity and
assess their requirements for facilitating transfer availability if additional train movements are
of diagnostic data (for both rolling stock and required?
infrastructure) from rolling stock to passenger
rolling stock depot facilities.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Single Multi Shared Depot

User
Depot
T3 - Signal control arrangements for train
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.
User Depot
Depot
If the technical signalling characteristics of a 2.4, 2.5
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.

T3 - As part of the planning of new passenger Recommended guidance. 2.4, 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 Recommended guidance. 2.5

56
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.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Network Rail Depot Private

Single Multi Shared Depot
User User Depot
Depot Depot
T4 - Passenger rolling stock depot supply chain 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.
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.

57
T6 - Guidance of future generic fleets of rolling Recommended guidance. 2.1, 2.5
stock and their generic characteristics that will be
required to meet future requirements can be
sourced in the Network RUS: Rolling Stock
document.
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs/compromises Link to case studies
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Network Rail Depot Private

Single
User
Depot
T7 - 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.
Commercial and C2 - When assessing requirements for high
regulatory capital cost passenger rolling stock depot
interfaces 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
Multi Shared Depot
User Depot
Depot
Justification for enhanced plant, machinery and
infrastructure to enable improved operation during
autumn and winter to be assessed on network-
wide 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
and capability
 Table 9.1 Summary of Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document Recommendations
Theme Recommendation Relative importance of recommendation Trade-offs /compromises Link to case studies
Network Rail Depot Private
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011

Single Multi Shared Depot

User User Depot
Depot Depot
C3 - Changes to operating, maintenance and Franchise specifications should consider any 2.1
servicing requirements, driven as a result of changes in circumstances that will be placed on
franchise changes, will need to be assessed, in passenger rolling stock depots as a result of any
order that passenger rolling stock depot capability proposed changes to franchise specifications.
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 Recommended guidance.
new passenger rolling stock depot facilities will be
determined by the franchise specification. These

59
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.
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 Depot Facility Owner Other passenger
owner (DFO) operators using the
depot
Abbey Foregate (Shrewsbury) SD Network Rail London Midland None
Allerton DMUD Network Rail Northern None

Ardwick (Manchester) DMUD Other Siemens First TransPennine

Express
Ashford EMUD Network Rail Hitachi South Eastern Trains
Aylesbury DMUD Network Rail Chiltern Railway None
Company
Ayr EMUD Network Rail ScotRail None
Barrow-In-Furness SD Network Rail Northern First TransPennine
Express
Basingstoke (Barton Mill) SD Network Rail South West Trains None
Bathgate EMUD Network Rail ScotRail None
Bedford Cauldwell Walk EMUD Network Rail First Capital Connect None
Bedford Midland EMUD Network Rail First Capital Connect None
Birkenhead North T&RSMD Network Rail Merseyrail None
Blackpool North SD Network Rail Northern 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 T&RSMD Network Rail First Great Western None
Cambridge EMUD Network Rail First Capital Connect 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 Cross Country, Virgin

West Coast
Chester DMUD Network Rail Alstom Arriva Trains Wales
Chingford EMUD Network Rail National Express East None
Anglia
Clacton SD Network Rail National Express East None
Anglia
Clapham Junction (London) SD Network Rail South West Trains None

Clayhills (Aberdeen) CSD Network Rail East Coast None

Cleethorpes SD Network Rail Siemens First TransPennine
Express
Colchester SD Network Rail National Express East None
Anglia
Corkerhill (Glasgow) DMUD Network Rail ScotRail None
Craigentinny (Edinburgh) T&RSMD Network Rail East Coast Cross Country
Crewe LNWR T&RSMD Other Arriva 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 None
Anglia
East Ham (London) EMUD Network Rail c2c 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 Depot Facility Owner Other passenger
owner (DFO) operators using the
depot
Eastbourne EMUD Network Rail Southern 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 DMUD Network Rail First Great Western None

Ferme Park (London) CSD Network Rail East Coast None
Fratton EMUD Network Rail South West Trains None
Gillingham EMUD Network Rail South Eastern Trains None
Glasgow Train Care Centre - Polmadie T&RSMD Network Rail Alstom Virgin West Coast

Grove Park (London) SD Network Rail South Eastern Trains None

Haymarket (Edinburgh) TMD Network Rail ScotRail None
Heaton (Newcastle) T&RSMD Network Rail Northern Grand Central
Holyhead SD Network Rail Arriva Trains Wales None
Hornsey (London) EMUD Network Rail First Capital Connect None
Hull (Botanic Gardens) SD Network Rail Northern None
Ilford (London) T&RSMD Network Rail National Express East None
Anglia
Inverness TMD Network Rail ScotRail None
Kirkdale TCS (Liverpool) EMUD Network Rail Merseyrail None
Letchworth EMUD Network Rail First Capital Connect None
Littlehampton EMUD Network Rail Southern None
Liverpool Train Care Centre (Edge Hill) CSD Network Rail Alstom Virgin West Coast
Machynlleth DMUD Network Rail Arriva Trains Wales None
Manchester Train Care Centre (Longsight ) T&RSMD Network Rail Alstom Virgin West Coast
Midlands Train Care Centre (Oxley - CMD Network Rail Alstom Virgin West Coast
Wolverhampton)
Neville Hill (Leeds) T&RSMD Network Rail East Midlands Trains, Cross Country, East
Northern Coast
New Cross Gate (London) EMUD Network Rail London Overground None
Newton Heath (Manchester) DMUD Network Rail Northern None
Northam (Southampton) (Siemens) EMUD Other Siemens None
Northampton (Kings Heath) EMUD Other Siemens London Midland
Old Oak Common HEX (London) EMUD Network Rail Heathrow Express Heathrow Connect

Old Oak Common - HST (London) HSTMD Network Rail First Great Western First Hull Trains
Orient Way (London) SD Network Rail National Express East None
Anglia
Orpington TCD (London) SD Network Rail South Eastern Trains None
Penzance (Long Rock) T&RSMD Network Rail First Great Western None
Perth SD Network Rail ScotRail 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 Depot Facility Owner Other passenger
owner (DFO) operators using the
depot
Shrub Hill (Worcester) SD Network Rail London Midland None
Skipton SD Network Rail Northern None
Slade Green EMUD Network Rail Southern Eastern None
Trains
Soho (Birmingham) EMUD Network Rail London Midland None

Southend Victoria EMUD Network Rail National Express East None

Anglia
St Leonards T&RSMD Network Rail South Eastern Trains None

Stewarts Lane (London) T&RSMD Network Rail Southern None

Stourbridge North T&RSMD Network Rail Chiltern Railway None
Company
Strawberry Hill (London) EMUD Network Rail South West Trains, None
Siemens
Streatham Hill (London) SD Network Rail Southern None
Swansea (Landore) T&RSMD Network Rail First Great Western None
Swansea High Street Washer SD Network Rail First Great Western None
Temple Mills (London) T&RSMD Other Eurostar 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 Chiltern Railway None
Company
Wembley Train Care Centre (London) T&RSMD Network Rail Alstom Virgin West Coast
Willesden Train Care Centre EMUD Network Rail London Overground None
Wimbledon (London) EMUD Network Rail South West Trains None
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

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
64
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 purpose-
built 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
Kings Cross and Leeds. As part of this
arrangement, the practice of moving these
train sets between North Pole International
Depot and London Kings Cross via the
North London Line (NLL) highlighted:
the significant time required for these
train movements (up to 1 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 1 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

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.
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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
65
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:
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

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.
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 1 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 single line linking HS1 and Temple
Mills International Depot has
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
66
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
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.
 67

Recommendation as part of the design. In the case of

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.
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.
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
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

the WCML. It affords easy access to a

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.
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.

2. Depot operational service Recommendation

profile Wherever possible, the depot should be located as

The depot provides servicing, close to the start of service as possible, to minimise
ECS mileage and associated risk of perturbation.
maintenance, repair and overhaul for a
number of passenger and freight operating
companies, and rolling stock leasing 4. Depot-network interface
companies, which include: characteristics
London Midland (Siemens)
(a) Depot-network connection
Virgin Trains (Bombardier)
Arriva Trains Wales The depot is located approximately mile
East Midlands Trains south of Crewe station. Trains departing
the depot are able to access all platforms
Freightliner
at the station. This is equally applicable to
VSOE
movements from the station towards the
Network Rail depot.
DB Schenker
Angel Trains. Currently all departures from the site have
to exit via a single line at the northern end
The depot typically services 21 units per of the depot in the direction of Crewe
night, consisting of: station. An alternative emergency
connection is available at the southern end
6 Class 221 Diesel Multiple Units of the depot (Basford Wood). However,
(DMUS) use of this connection requires hand
8 Class 350 Electric Multiple Units signalling on to the network and as such
(EMUs) has been used only once.
5 Class 150/158 DMUs
2 Class 153/158 DMUs. Providing a signal controlled connection at
the south end of the depot would provide
3. Commercial benefit in times of perturbation. However,
from a day to day operational perspective,
considerations current traffic movements see the majority
The depot at Crewe is in a prime site of ECS moves scheduled to depart for
geographically being located centrally on origins in the northbound direction.

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 69

The primary northern end entrance/exit to such there is only a single shunt reverse at
the depot in the direction of Crewe railway the head shunt. Furthermore, the capacity
station, is a depot operator capacity of the facilities permits the longest typical
constraint on the depot-network interface operational rolling stock formation to be
in that: serviced at the facility (two five car Class
221 DMUs) without having to be split and
(a) two departure roads filter into a thus present a performance risk.
single in/out connection. This
represents a performance risk, in Recommendation
the event of any perturbation
Shunt moves within a depot represent a potential for
within the depot or on the depot perturbation both within a depot and consequently
connection onto the network. It is recommended that
consideration be given to the optimisation of core
depot activities which seek to minimise such
(b) there is no track circuit extending movements.
from the connection into the
depot, meaning that drivers at
either the station or in the depot 5. Land use planning
have to manually contact the
signalman to obtain authority to (a) Land use and future proofing
proceed. The current depot location, located within
the triangle of the WCML and Crewe-
Recommendation Derby line is land-locked. However, land is
Subject to individual circumstances (frequency of available for the provision of additional
usage of the connection/service structure etc), it is siding facilities, should they be required.
desirable to avoid single road entry/exit roads from a
perturbation risk management perspective.
(b) Road access
Depot-network interface control should be optimised The depot is located between two railway
in accordance with operational requirements where it lines. This restricts operational access for
is justifiable to do so.
road movements to/from the depot.
Movements are required to access/leave
(b) Internal configuration the site via a manual crossing keeper
Minimisation of shunting movements is controlled crossing.
desirable from an operational perspective.
This is to reduce operational risk Recommendation
associated with such moves. Such moves
It is recommended wherever possible, that
where required, can at times, incur a time consideration be given to ensuring that land is
penalty in delivering the train to the available within the depot or adjacent to the site to
network or reduce the amount of cater for future expansion, subject to an appropriate
maintenance time during the down period business case and policy.
between operational services. In order to Road access is imperative for many depots and must
improve efficiency of the depot process, be an integral element in the future depot design and
the depot process requirements should be planning process.
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

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

Case study 2.3:
Derby Etches Park
(North) (East
Midlands Trains)
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 companys 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
71
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.
(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
 72

the depot should not be built around Recommendation

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.
Recommendation
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

In planning for a new depot, it is recommended that The depot should be constructed
there be diversity of access to/from the with the emphasis on attempting
depot/network to provide optimum operational to reduce operating costs. For
flexibility and minimise disruption during times of
perturbation.
example this could include usage
of motorised points and electronic
signalling. This would need to be
(b) Land use planning subject to an appropriate business
case and funding sources being
(3) Environmental available.

In deciding upon the depot location Recommendation

and construction of associated
buildings, it is recommended that It is recommended that emphasis be placed upon
achieving cost efficiencies wherever possible in the
environmental considerations passenger rolling stock depot planning process.
(particularly noise) are at the forefront
in developing planning criteria for site
selection.

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
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 Northerns
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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
Recommendation
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.
 74

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.
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.
7. Other
(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
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

Case study 2.5:
Newton Heath
Manchester
(Northern Rail)
An existing depot for existing rolling
stock
1. Introduction
Newton Heath is situated to the East of
Manchester on the Manchester Victoria to
Rochdale line. The depot is currently
operated by Northern.
2. Depot operational service
profile
The depot provides servicing,
maintenance and repair for Northerns
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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
75
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.
4. Depot internal
configuration
characteristics
(a) Single point failures key
infrastructure assets
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.
 76

(d) Depot layout rolling stock Recommendation

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.
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.

It is recommended that careful future planning be Recommendation

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.
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 day-
to-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 low-
loaders 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 FGWs 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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

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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
78
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.
 79

Recommendation

Wherever possible, it is recommended that the depot 7. Other

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) 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.

(a) Environmental planning Recommendation

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.
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

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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
80
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 Rails 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

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
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:
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
81
Wellingborough
Hornsey
Cricklewood
Selhurst
Three Bridges
Tonbridge.
The following section provides a synopsis
of each of the six shortlisted sites.
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

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
82
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 sites
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
 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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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

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.
Planning and environmental issues
included:
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
84
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 locations 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.
 85
Figure A1: Three Bridges passenger rolling stock depot plan
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance Document December 2011

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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
86
footbridge which would need re-
alignment.
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

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 Rails 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 schemes CO2
emissions
sustainable sourcing and
manufacturing of materials (rails,
ballast and other materials) for
engineering works taking into account
technical and operational
requirements.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
87
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 REP-
PL-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.
 88
Case study 2.8:
Bathgate (ScotRail)
A new depot for existing rolling stock
1. Introduction
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.
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:
Proposed Depot Activities
What of the following activities will the
depot undertake?
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?
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
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.
Signalling
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.
Buildings/Accommodation
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?

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?
Security
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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
89
points eg swipe card, mechanical key
pad etc?
Permanent Way
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)
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?
 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

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 Companys
(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 loco-
hauled 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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
91
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 Edinburgh-
Glasgow 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.

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).
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
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
92
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
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

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.
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.
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.
Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
93
Cons
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 doesnt 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).
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
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.
 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 Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (vehicles)
Cambridge First Capital Connect and 124 120
National Express East Anglia
Crown Point (Norwich) East Midlands Trains 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
Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), National Express East Anglia (2011),Network Rail
(2010) and TRUST (2012).

(b) Stations
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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
Kings Lynn First Capital Connect and 12 24
National Express East Anglia
Norwich National Express East Anglia 20 56
Sources: National Express East Anglia (2011), Network Rail (2010), Network Rail (2011) and
TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Bishops Stortford Carriage National Express East Anglia 28 32

Sidings
Cambridge Carriage Sidings Cross Country, First Capital 84 96
Connect and National Express
East Anglia
Chingford Country End Sidings 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

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 97

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Kings Lynn Carriage Sidings National Express East Anglia 16 24

First Capital Connect 8
Norwich Carriage Sidings National Express East Anglia 7 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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (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 Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

London St Pancras East Midlands Trains 10

International
Luton First Capital Connect 0 40
Nottingham East Midlands Trains 56
St Albans First Capital Connect 0 48
Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), First Capital Connect (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Bedford sidings First Capital Connect 92 104

Cricklewood carriage sidings East Midlands Trains 5
First Capital Connect 52 48
Leicester Cross Country 12 18
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 Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (vehicles)
Ashford First Capital Connect and 176
South Eastern
Chart Leacon (Ashford) South Eastern 15
Gillingham South Eastern 92 126
Grove Park South Eastern 108 300
Ramsgate South Eastern 212
Slade Green South Eastern 132 210
St Leonards South Eastern and Southern 39
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 Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

London Blackfriars* First Capital Connect and 24 48

South Eastern
London Cannon Street South Eastern 28 84
London Charing Cross South Eastern 24 72
London Victoria (Eastern side) South Eastern 24 84
* 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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Ashford East First Capital Connect and 12 24

South Eastern
Beckenham Junction sidings South Eastern 0 24
Bellingham sidings South Eastern 0 32
Blackfriars Carriage Roads First Capital Connect and 0 24
South Eastern
Dartford sidings 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 South Eastern 70
station platforms

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 100

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight 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 0 16

South Eastern
Tonbridge sidings, West Yard South Eastern 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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (vehicles)

Bounds Green (London) First Hull Trains 5

Cleethorpes First TransPennine Express 12 24

Northern 1
Crofton (Wakefield) Cross Country 20 32
First TransPennine Express 8

Crofton (Wakefield) (not Grand Central 10

Saturday)
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
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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Boston East Midlands Trains 10

Bradford Forster Square Northern 8
Bradford Interchange (Saturday Grand Central 10
night only)
Bradford Interchange 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 6
York Northern 15
Sources: East Midlands Trains (2011), First TransPennine Express (2011), Grand Central
(2011), Northern (2010), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Darlington Northern 10
Doncaster Northern 15
Hertford North First Capital Connect 18
Huddersfield Northern 16
Peterborough Nene carriage First Capital Connect 84 87
sidings
Scarborough First TransPennine Express 6 15
Northern 2
Skipton Northern 33
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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (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 63 95
Virgin West Coast 19
Chester Arriva Trains Wales 32
Crewe LNWR Arriva Trains Wales 8
East Midlands Trains 3
London Midland 24
Virgin West Coast 30
Edge Hill (Liverpool) Northern 12
Virgin West Coast 45 54
Holyhead Arriva Trains Wales 16 61
Virgin West Coast 10
Kirkdale (Liverpool) Merseyrail 87 87
Longsight (Manchester) Cross Country 17 179
Northern 45
Virgin West Coast 99

Newton Heath (Manchester) Northern 103 144

Northampton (Kings Heath) London Midland 104 104
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 13 12
Cross Country 36 74
London Midland 80 120
Wembley (Stadium) Chiltern Railways 17 24
Wembley Train Care Centre Virgin West Coast 108 162
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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Banbury Chiltern Railways 25

Birmingham Moor Street Chiltern Railways 13 24
Blackpool North Northern 0
Buxton Northern 12
Chester Arriva Trains Wales 8
Crewe Arriva Trains Wales 7
High Wycombe Chiltern Railways 0 5
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
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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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 Chiltern Railways 0 16
siding
Carlisle Northern 10
Carlisle Virgin West Coast 0 18
Chester Northern 4

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 105

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight 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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity

Location
stabled at location) overnight (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
Craigentinny (Edinburgh) Cross Country, East Coast 137 176
and ScotRail
Dumfries Yard ScotRail 6 8
Eastfield (Glasgow) ScotRail 47 65
Haymarket (Edinburgh) ScotRail 60 56
Polmadie (Glasgow) Cross Country, ScotRail and 126 126
Virgin West Coast
Shields (Glasgow) ScotRail 81 88
Yoker (Glasgow) ScotRail 114 110
Sources: First TransPennine Express (2011) and Network Rail (June 2011): Scotland RUS.

(b) Stations
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight 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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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 0 44
Connect/Southern
London Bridge Platforms 8-16 First Capital 58 92
Connect/Southern
London Victoria Platforms 9-19 Southern 70 84
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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Battersea Pier Sidings Southern 0 16

Bognor Regis Sidings Southern 26 50
Chichester Reception Road Southern 0 8
Eastbourne Carriage Sidings Southern 28 44
Ebury/Pugs Hole Sidings Southern 16 16
(London Victoria)
Gatwick Airport Up Sidings First Capital Connect 8 36

Haywards Heath/Ardingly Southern 0 12

Branch
Horsham Sidings Southern 54 62
Hove Sidings Southern 35 48
Lewes Wall Siding Southern 0 7
Littlehampton Carriage Sidings Southern 48 52
Preston Park 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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (vehicles)

Cardiff Canton Arriva Trains Wales 48 82

Cross Country 6 82
Holyhead Arriva Trains Wales 19 61
Virgin West Coast 10
Machynlleth Arriva Trains Wales 18 24
Sources: Arriva Trains Wales (2011) and Cross Country (2011).

Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock Depot Planning Guidance December 2011
 109

(b) Stations
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Carmarthen Arriva Trains Wales 17

Fishguard Harbour Arriva Trains Wales 1
Treherbert Arriva Trains Wales 12
Source: Arriva Trains Wales (2011).

(c) Network sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

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
 110

4.9 Wessex
(a) Depots
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (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 128 136
Fratton South West Trains 92
Northam (Southampton) South West Trains 64
Ryde Island Line 12 12
Salisbury South West Trains 47
Strawberry Hill (London) South West Trains 72 51
Wimbledon (London) South West Trains 188
Sources: Network Rail (2009), ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(b) Stations
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Ascot platforms South West Trains 0

Basingstoke platforms South West Trains 0
Bournemouth platforms South West Trains 0 8
Guildford platforms South West Trains 44 48
London Waterloo platforms South West Trains 74 118
Portsmouth & Southsea South West Trains 8 10
platforms
Portsmouth Harbour platforms 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 South West Trains 0 10
platforms
Woking platforms 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

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Depot capacity
Location
stabled at location) overnight (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) Cross Country 10 14
First Great Western 46
Old Oak Common HEX Heathrow Connect and 86 95
(London) Heathrow Express
Old Oak Common HST First Great Western 97
(London)
First Hull Trains 5

Plymouth (Laira) Cross Country 23 39

First Great Western 53

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
Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Station stabling
Location
stabled at location) overnight 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
Sources: ORR (2011) and TRUST (2012).

(c) Network sidings

Train Operating Company (vehicles Vehicles stabled Siding stabling

Location
stabled at location) overnight capacity (vehicles)

Alstone sidings (Cheltenham First Great Western 0 11

Spa)
Oxford Up carriage sidings 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

www.Networkrail.co.uk
London N1 9AG
90 York Way
Network Rail
Kings Place