Appendix A – Scoring criteria

Introduction
East London Line Phase 2 services between Dalston Junction and Clapham
Junction will start operating in 2012, completing the Overground orbital network. At
the same time, the existing South London Line service between London Bridge and
Victoria will cease to operate because Thameslink programme construction works
will be commencing at London Bridge which reduces the capacity available for
terminating services. Some stations on the South London Line will therefore
experience a reduction or loss of services to Victoria.

A study is currently underway to identify whether any service changes can be

implemented which would enable this gap to be mitigated. A long list of potential
schemes has been developed. This long list will be sifted to create a short list of
schemes that are potentially viable. The short listed schemes will then be assessed
in more detail to determine whether they are operationally feasible, the capital cost of
implementing them and the ongoing operating cost, as well as the forecast revenue
generated and the social benefits that would result from their implementation. The
best option(s) can then be identified.

This note describes a proposed scoring methodology which would allow the long list
of schemes to be reduced to a short list.

Overview of proposed methodology

The methodology proposed takes into account five different sets of scores which
focus on different areas of the sifting:

• fit with Mayoral transport objectives

• whether the scheme addresses some or all of the post-SLL service gaps at
each relevant station
• the scale of impact upon passengers of the scheme
• the indicative cost of the scheme
• the deliverability of the scheme

The methodology proposed is similar to that adopted in TfL’s Rail Corridor Plans,
with the key modifications being scoring of the schemes against the specific service
gaps at each station and the use of the latest Mayoral transport objectives being
developed for the new Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). The scoring for the
previous RCP work used central Government objectives, Mayoral London Plan
objectives and TfL strategic priorities instead of MTS objectives.

A score will be developed using the MTS objectives and station gaps and this is then
weighted using the scale of impact and indicative cost criteria to develop an overall
score. The calculation proposed is described later in this note. This score will then be
used in association with a deliverability score. The deliverability score will in effect
determine whether or not the scheme can go ahead. If a scheme scores highly in
terms of transport benefits but is not considered to be deliverable it will therefore not
be short listed.
Each section of the scoring methodology will now be described in more detail.

Fit with Mayoral transport objectives

There are five objectives being included in the new MTS. A scoring system has been
developed based on these objectives. Because the scoring in this area is fairly
subjective, the scoring is simple with a score of 1 (low impact), 2 (medium impact) or
3 (high impact) adopted. This is described in Table 1.

Table 1 MTS objectives scoring

Objective Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3 Notes

Economic Does not Small Significant Consider: does the
development increase increases in increases in increase in capacity
capacity capacity capacity (infrastructure,
frequency or train
capacity) target
specific overcrowding
problem areas?
Quality of life No impact or Small Significant Consider: noise, local
has quality of quality of life quality of life air quality, townscape,
life benefits benefits landscape, physical
disbenefits fitness and journey
ambience
Safety and No impact or Small safety Significant Consider: accidents
security has safety and security safety and and passenger
and security benefits security security
disbenefits benefits
Transport No impact or Small Significant Consider: transport
opportunities has opportunity opportunity availability to minority
for all opportunity benefits benefits groups, elderly,
Londoners disbenefits mobility impaired, low
income, unemployed,
areas of deprivation
Climate No impact or Small Significant Consider: CO2
change has climate climate climate emissions
change change change
disbenefits benefits benefits

The scores here will be added together to give a total score out of 15 for meeting
MTS objectives.

Addressing station gaps

There are six stations affected by the reduction or loss of services to Victoria: South
Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, Clapham High
Street and Wandsworth Road. At Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill whilst there is an
overall increase in service frequency, the service to Victoria is reduced by 2 tph
between 08:00 and 20:00 on weekdays and Saturdays, and there is no Victoria
service before 08:00 and after 20:00 on weekdays and Saturdays or all day on
Sundays. At South Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street and
Wandsworth Road there is no longer any Victoria service under current plans.

A scoring system has been developed to identify whether the proposed scheme on
the long list addresses the gaps at these locations. As the gap and all schemes have
the same effect on Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations (and
because passenger demand at these stations is considerably less than at Peckham
Rye and Denmark Hill) these stations will be considered together. Likewise South
Bermondsey and Queens Road Peckham will be considered together as the number
of passengers from these stations currently travelling to Victoria is lower than at
Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill.

The proposed scoring is shown in Table 2. Again, a score out of 3 is applied to each
station(s).

Table 2 Station gaps scoring

Stations Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3 Notes

South Does not Partially Fully Gap: loss of Victoria
Bermondsey / address addresses addresses service at all times
Queens Road gap at gap at these gap at these
Peckham these stations stations
stations
Peckham Rye Does not Partially Fully Gaps: reduction in
address addresses addresses Victoria service
gap at this gap at this gap at this 08:00-20:00
station station station weekdays and
Saturdays, loss of
Victoria service at
other times
Denmark Hill Does not Partially Fully Gaps: reduction in
address addresses addresses Victoria service
gap at this gap at this gap at this 08:00-20:00
station station station weekdays and
Saturdays, loss of
Victoria service at
other times
Clapham High Does not Partially Fully Gap: loss of Victoria
Street / address addresses addresses service at all times
Wandsworth gap at gap at these gap at these
Road these stations stations
stations

Again, these scores will be added together to give a score out of 12. As addressing
the gaps is considered to be at least twice as important as meeting the MTS
objectives, an overall factor of 2 will be applied to weight these scores accordingly.
Scale of impact on passengers

A weighting needs to be applied to the overall score to identify the number of people
who would be affected by the proposed scheme. There is little value in progressing a
scheme that in theory has very good transport benefits if very few passengers would
be in a position to take advantage of these benefits. The weighting is based on the
impact the scheme would have and the number of passengers that would be
affected. A ten-point scoring system is proposed, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Scale of impact weighting

Weighting score Scale of impact weighting Passengers affected

Negligible impact on negligible < 0.25m passengers per
1
number year
Negligible impact on small Around 2.5m passengers
2
number per year
Small impact on small number Around 2.5m passengers
3
per year
Small impact on medium Around 5m passengers per
4
number year
Large impact on small number Around 2.5m passengers
per year
Medium impact on medium Around 5m passengers per
5
number year
Small impact on large number Around 7.5m passengers
per year
Medium impact on large Around 7.5m passengers
6
number per year
Large impact on medium Around 5m passengers per
7
number year
Large impact on large number Around 7.5m passengers
8
per year
Very large impact on large Around 7.5m passengers
number per year
9
Large impact on very large > 10m passengers per year
number
Very large impact on very large > 10m passengers per year
10
number

It is proposed that the sum of the scores for MTS objectives and station gaps is
multiplied by the scale of impact score to give a weighted score at this stage. In this
way the schemes which have the greatest beneficial impact on the highest numbers
of passengers will be more likely to be short listed.

Indicative cost

Throughout this study, it is paramount that the potential funding opportunities for any
mitigation is borne in mind. There is little chance of any scheme which requires
significant capital investment proceeding, as neither TfL nor the DfT have available
funding to deliver this. The potential operating costs of the schemes also need to be
considered as if the operating costs are high it is unlikely that sufficient revenue will
be generated to cover the costs so an ongoing subsidy would be required. The
proposed scoring for costs is set out on a ten point scale in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Indicative cost weighting

Weighting score Indicative cost weighting

1 Very low cost
2 Low cost
3 Low to small cost
4 Small cost
5 Small to medium cost
6 Medium cost
7 Medium to high cost
8 High cost
9 Very high cost
10 Very major projects

The capital cost and operating cost ranges relevant to each weighting score have not
yet been decided as the likely cost of implementing each scheme has not yet been
assessed. Once costs have been assessed appropriate ranges will be developed for
use in the indicative cost weighting to ensure a sensible weighting can be used.
Ranges will be developed for the present value of the capital costs of implementing
(including infrastructure works, rolling stock modifications, etc.) and the present
value of annual operating costs.

The total score at this stage will be divided by the indicative cost weighting to give an
overall weighted score for each scheme. This methodology will mean that schemes
with high capital and/or operating costs will have a worse score than cheaper
schemes.

Calculation of weighted score

The overall scoring procedure described above can be summarised by the formula
below:

Weighted score =

[Σ (MTS objectives scores) + 2 * Σ (Station gaps scores)] * Scale of impact score

Indicative cost score

This formula emulates the calculation of the benefit-cost ratio, albeit in qualitative
terms.
Deliverability

It is proposed that the weighted score is considered alongside a further score for
deliverability, since it is not worth pursuing a scheme further if it is not considered to
be deliverable.

Issues that will be considered for deliverability include:

• operational/timetabling feasibility
• complexity of implementing
• performance/reliability impact
• acceptability to passengers
• political acceptability

Whilst acceptability to passengers would in part be indicated by the revenue and

social benefits generated, under deliverability other passenger issues, such as
changes in central London terminal choices, will be considered. It is not necessary to
consider the deliverability of infrastructure in this score because this is captured in
the indicative cost weighting.

The proposed deliverability scores are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Deliverability scores

Deliverability score Indicative cost weighting

1 Apparently infeasible
2 Very complex and slow to deliver
3 Complex to deliver, long lead time
4 Complex to deliver, medium lead time
5 Medium complexity to deliver, long lead time
6 Medium complexity to deliver, medium lead time
7 Medium complexity to deliver, quick lead time
8 Little complexity, medium lead time
9 Little complexity, quick lead time
10 Easy and quick or immediate to deliver

Schemes which can be implemented easily will therefore score highly on this
criterion.

Short listing

It is desirable that a relatively small number of schemes (approximately five) are

taken forward from the long list to the short list. If too many schemes are short listed
then it will not be feasible to undertake a sufficiently robust assessment of the
schemes in the time available for the study.

It is proposed that a threshold system is used to determine which schemes are taken
forward. Thresholds on the weighted score and deliverability score will be
determined to ensure that a sensible number of options are taken forward. The value
of the thresholds can only be determined once all options have been scored.

It is likely that the threshold system will work as follows:

• schemes with a weighted score below a minimum threshold value will be

discarded with no need to consider deliverability
• schemes with a “medium” weighted score between the minimum threshold
and a medium threshold score will be short listed provided their deliverability
score is above a high threshold value
• schemes with a weighted score above the medium threshold (i.e. those
schemes with a high weighted score) will be shortlisted if their deliverability
between a minimum threshold value and the high threshold value
• any scheme with a deliverability score below the minimum threshold value will
be discarded regardless of its weighted score

Using the methodology set out in this note a small number of schemes will be short
listed for further detailed analysis.
Appendix B – Map of rail network
Appendix C – Long list of options

Glossary
East London Line (ELL) South London Line (SLL) Trains per hour (tph)

OPTION DN A: Do Nothing (East London Line extension Phase 2: 4 trains per hour
to Clapham Junction only)

OPTION ELL A: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2
trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria

OPTION ELL B: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 4
trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria

OPTION ELL C: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2
trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria with Victoria
services changing identity between London Overground and Southern services at
Wandsworth Road

OPTION ELL D: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2
trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Battersea Park

OPTION ELL E: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 4
trains per hour to Victoria with Victoria services changing identity between London
Overground and Southern services at Wandsworth Road

OPTION SLL A: Retain existing South London Line service (2 trains per hour
between London Bridge and Victoria)

OPTION SLL B: Alternative South London Line service (2 trains per hour between
Charing Cross and Victoria)

OPTION SLL C: No East London Line Phase 2 service and replaced with 2tph
between London Bridge and Victoria

OPTION CATFORD LOOP A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between

Bellingham and Victoria

OPTION CATFORD LOOP B: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Bromley
South and Victoria via the Catford Loop

OPTION CATFORD LOOP C: Additional 2 trains per hour service between

Orpington and Victoria via the Catford Loop

OPTION HITHER GREEN A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Hither
Green and Victoria 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays
OPTION SIDCUP A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Sidcup and
Willesden Junction via the South London Line

OPTION ORPINGTON A: Additional stops in 2 out of the existing 4 trains per hour
service between Orpington and Victoria at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth
Road

OPTION ORPINGTON B: Additional stops in existing 4 trains per hour service

between Orpington and Victoria at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road

OPTION NORWOOD JN A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Norwood

Junction and Victoria via Tulse Hill

OPTION HAYES A: Replace existing 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and
Charing Cross with new 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and Victoria

OPTION HAYES B: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and Victoria
06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays

OPTION HAYES C: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Beckenham

Junction and Victoria via the Hayes branch 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day
Sundays

OPTION SUTTON A: Replace existing 2 trains per hour service between Wimbledon
loop and the Thameslink route with new 2 trains per hour service between the
Wimbledon loop and Victoria via Tulse Hill

OPTION DARTFORD A: Change existing 2 trains per hour service between Dartford
and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at regular intervals

OPTION DARTFORD B: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between

Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at 3 trains per hour frequency
throughout peak periods

OPTION DARTFORD C: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between

Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at 4 trains per hour frequency
throughout peak periods

OPTION DARTFORD D: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Dartford and
Victoria via Bexleyheath 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays

OPTION DARTFORD E: Additional stops in existing 2 trains per hour service

between Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath at Clapham High Street and
Wandsworth Road

OPTION DARTFORD F: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Dartford and
Victoria via Sidcup 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays
OPTION THAMESLINK A: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between
Catford Loop and Thameslink route via Blackfriars to operate at 4 trains per hour
frequency at off peak times

OPTION THAMESLINK B: Enhance existing 4 trains per hour service between

Catford Loop and Thameslink route via Blackfriars to operate at 6 trains per hour
frequency throughout peak periods

OPTION CANTERBURY A: Additional stops in existing 2 trains per hour service

between Canterbury East and Victoria at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill

Note: all options where trains longer than 4 cars call at Clapham High Street and
Wandsworth Road assume use of Selective Door Opening equipment at these
locations.