Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report: A Report For HS2
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report: A Report For HS2
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report: A Report For HS2
February 2010
Notice
This report was produced by Atkins limited for High Speed Two Limited for the specific purpose of High
Speed Two Modelling Framework Development.
This report may not be used by any person other than High Speed Two Limited without High Speed Two
Limited’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses
arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than High
Speed Two Limited.
Document History
Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Overview 4
1.2 Document Structure 4
2. The HS2 Model Framework 5
2.1 Background 5
2.2 The Validation Process 12
3. PLD Validation 15
3.1 Overview 15
3.2 Rail Demand Matrices - Validation Checks 15
3.3 Rail Network and Services 17
3.4 Rail Assignment 18
3.5 Air Model 28
3.6 Highway Model 30
4. PLANET South Model Validation 32
4.1 Overview 32
4.2 Flow Validation 32
5. PLANET Midlands Model Validation 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 Flow Validation 35
6. Conclusions 37
6.1 PLD Model 37
6.2 PLANET South Model 37
6.3 PLANET Midlands Model 37
6.4 HS2 Model Framework 37
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - PLD Network Components 8
Table 2.2 - PLD Matrix Components 8
Table 2.3 - PLD Model Components 8
Table 3.1 - Demand Matrix Validation Checks 16
Table 3.2 - Data Sources for PLD Rail Validation 18
Table 3.3 - London Termini Screenline 21
Table 3.4 - South of Midlands Upper Screenline 22
Table 3.5 - South of Midlands Lower Screenline 23
Table 3.6 - North of Midlands Upper Screenline 24
Table 3.7 - North of Midlands Lower Screenline 24
Table 3.8 - Doncaster Upper Screenline 25
Table 3.9 - Doncaster Lower Screenline 25
Table 3.10 - Newcastle Upper Screenline 26
Table 3.11 - Newcastle Lower Screenline 26
Table 3.12 - Air Demand Check 28
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 2
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
Table 3.13 - Comparison of CAA Annual Passenger Data & Modelled Flows at Heathrow Airport 29
Table 3.14 - Highway Journey Time Validation (Minutes) 31
Table 4.1 - PLANET South Validation Flows (0700-1000 arrivals in Central London, 2007) 33
Table 5.1 - PM Validation Flows (To Birmingham New Street) 35
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - PLANET Long Distance Model Framework 6
Figure 2.2 - HS2 Modelling Framework 6
Figure 2.3 - PLD Rail, Highway and Air Networks 7
Figure 2.4 - PLD Matrix Territories 9
Figure 2.5 - PS Model Network 10
Figure 2.6 - PM Model Network 11
Figure 3.1 - London Termini Screenline Location 20
Figure 3.2 - South of Midlands Screenlines 22
Figure 3.3 - North of Midlands Screenlines 23
Figure 3.4 - Doncaster 25
Figure 3.5 - Newcastle 26
Appendices
Appendix A – Rail Service Checks 38
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This report is concerned with the 2007/08 Base Model Validation of the HS2 Model Framework,
used by High Speed Two (HS2) to test options for High Speed Rail between London and
Birmingham.
To form this framework, a new long distance model was developed, using elements of the
previous PLANET Strategic Model (PSM) to form a new PLANET Long Distance (PLD) Model.
This model was then combined with PLANET South (PS) and PLANET Midlands (PM) and
integrated with a separate spreadsheet model for Heathrow passenger access (LHR).
This report describes the validation process for the modelling framework. The purpose of the
validation is to ensure that the base model adequately reproduces trip-making behaviour in terms
of both independently derived count data and journey times. Base year validation is vital to give
assurance that future year forecasts are derived from a representative base year, and is essential
before any future years can be constructed and schemes can be tested with confidence.
Validation is focused on the main corridors affected by high speed rail proposals and associated
released capacity on the existing rail network, principally the West Coast Main Line between
London Euston and Birmingham New Street stations.
1
“Model Development Report: A Report for HS2”, Atkins February 2009
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 5
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
PLD
Surface Long Long
access distance distance
costs matrix pre‐loads
LHR PS PM
PLD
.
Figure 2.2 - HS2 Modelling Framework
distance services are fed into the model from PS and PM by means of “pre-loaded” demand
volumes, i.e. assumed passengers on particular long-distance services which affect the crowding
experienced by long-distance passengers but are not subject to any re-routeing or demand
response effects themselves.
Similarly, demand associated with access to Heathrow Airport is also imported into PLD from a
separate Airport Access spreadsheet model, although this demand is input on a matrix origin-
destination basis and allowed to re-route to take advantage of quicker routes or reduced
crowding.
While the existing PSM model included a high level station choice model for London and
Birmingham (and three other cities), the station choice model did not work at a sufficient level of
detail to capture accessibility of different station sites within the Greater London and West
Midlands areas. As a result, the station choice procedures were updated to take into account
forecast station access times from RAILPLAN (for Greater London) and PRISM (for the
Birmingham urban area) models. For the purposes of this modelling work, the inputs on station
accessibility are static, i.e. they do not include any feedback of knock-on effects of increased
London Underground or highway congestion resulting from accessing alternative station locations.
PLD was created in 2009 by updating the 2001/02 PLANET Strategic Model (PSM) to 2007/8
matrices and networks, and combining it with PS, PM and the LHR model. The PLD Model is
discussed in detail in the PLD Model Development Report, but in basic terms is a multi-modal
national model of strategic movements in mainland Britain. The network coverage is as shown in
Figure 2.3.
Rail Highway Air
The version of PLD validated in this report is based on work undertaken between May and July
2009, but includes other amendments identified in the development of initial HS2 forecasts during
Autumn 2009. The source of each of the components of the model is clarified in this section in
Tables below.
Station Choice July 2009 Old 5 city station choice replaced by new
Greater London and West Midlands station
choice.
As regards the rail passenger demand in particular, but also to some extent the associated
highway (car) demand, the three models differentiate between demand territories. Trips wholly
within the PM area, or wholly within the PS area, are not represented in PLD for either rail or
highway demand. The areas concerned are outlined in Figure 2.4
PLD
PM
PS
to peak-only levels. This demand is then assigned onto long-distance services, with the PS
assignment routines allowing the demand to reach their final destinations within the PS area using
any other rail or underground services. The model works in a similar way for trips from the London
& South East area to the rest of the country.
It is important to note that while long-distance movements are included in PS matrices and are
assigned in a way that allows them to find quickest and least crowded routes to their final
destination, they are not subject to any demand response. By contrast, local trips within the
London & South East area are subject to any changes in crowding as a result of changes to long-
distance services and demand – expected to be a reasonably significant effect in future years.
The matrices in PS are cut down to those origin-destination pairs wholly within the South East, as
shown by the thicker blue line, running east-west from the Wash to South Wales, in Figure 2.5.
PLD
PS
on local rail services feeding long-distance rail passengers from the outskirts of Birmingham into
central Birmingham to catch long-distance services.
PM is an AM Peak rail model for the Midlands. It was constructed by Atkins and Arup, and
validated by Jacobs Consultancy in 2009. It was validated against counts in the following
locations:
Birmingham;
Nottingham
Leicester;
Lincoln
It was considered fit for use to be integrated with PLD in the Model Framework, in order to
improve the representation of local rail passenger demand in the West Midlands, as far as service
crowding is concerned.
The matrices in PM are cut down to origin-destination pairs wholly within the West Midlands, as
shown by the red line making a cordon in Figure 2.6.
PLD
PM
if the model does not reproduce a particular element of travel behaviour at the validation stage, it
is reasonable to ascribe less confidence in the model’s forecasts regarding that element.
It must be stressed that a good model validation does not, of itself, guarantee a good model
forecast, or vice versa.
It follows that the process of model development and validation requires skilled interpretation
rather than application of standard criteria and procedures. However, conformance with published
guidance on model validation is highly desirable, particularly for a scheme which is likely to be
seeking support from Government sources, either political or financial.
All of these were undertaken for PLD, and are reported in sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4/3.5
respectively. This approach was also adopted in the validation of PS and PM, discussed in
sections 4 and 5 respectively.
Guidance on acceptable validation criteria for public transport models is defined in WebTAG Unit
3.11.2, and is shown below:
The rail and air flows in the models are compared on this basis in sections 3.4 and 3.5
respectively.
2
WebTAG: See http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/
3
DMRB: See http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 13
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
Guidance on acceptable validation criteria and measures for highway models are provided in
DMRB Volume 12. This is shown in the box below:
The highway model in PLD is compared only on the journey time basis in section 3.6, as the main
focus of the highway validation is to ensure realistic highway times are produced to feed back into
the mode-choice model. Importantly, no consistent independent count data exists for strategic
traffic flows. PLD (and PSM) are only concerned with strategic highway flows by car.
3. PLD Validation
3.1 Overview
This section covers the validation and checking of the core elements comprising the PLD model,
which is the principal forecasting tool in the Model Framework as regards the HS2 forecasts and
Business Case, as discussed above. Accordingly, this section is the major part of the report.
Again, for a major rail based scheme, the rail mode is the most important element of PLD, and this
is covered in sections 3.2 to 3.4. The validation of the more limited air and highway models is
discussed in the remaining sections.
The suitability of the data sources are explained in turn in the following section. The main category
of data to be unsuitable for use is the guard count data from the AM peak. This was available for:
Sheffield and Leicester stations (East Midlands Trains) for the AM and PM peaks on a single
day in April 2008. This data was collected in terms of boarding and alighting passengers,
together with departing train total loads.
Various points on National Express East Coast (Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow):
counts were undertaken over 5 days in November 2007, these collected the loadings on
trains at various points on the network en route to or from King’s Cross in the AM and PM
peaks.
Various locations on Virgin West Coast services (Coventry, Wolverhampton, Crewe and
Stoke). This data was taken between September and November 2007, and was broken down
into average weekdays, first and standard class.
This data is not directly usable to validate an all-day model, as further factoring is required to uplift
to daily level. This estimation of locally specific factors from peak to all-day counts violates the
principle of independently observed data, and defeats the object of validation. It could be
considered for use in the validation of a peak period model, such as PS or PM, although it is of
limited coverage - spatially and only represents a single day.
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 18
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
!(
i
Te rmin
don
Lon
Kings Cross (London)
!(
!(
St Pancras (London)
!(
!(
!(
Euston (London)
!(
!(
Guard Count
% Difference
Strategic
(Observed)
PLD Model
(Modelled)
Difference
Pass / Fail
TOC
At an individual count location level, all sites validate within the WebTAG guidance of 25%, and
the London Terminus screenline validates well within the 15% criteria.
On the key route of interest for this study – the WCML route – the overestimate of PLD in
comparison to guards counts could be due to over-allocation of passengers to the strategic TOC
on the route within PLD in comparison to the local operator. However no all-day counts for any of
the three principal north-south lines are available, so it is difficult to confirm this theory.
In addition, guards counts generally tend to be higher than modelled data from ticket sales for
several reasons including:
Guards counts measure passengers carried on each service rather than “tickets carried”. A
significant number of advance purchase tickets are unused on services. While this results in
a slight bias towards over-estimating modelled train usage from using ticket sales data,
passengers carried data can similarly result in an underestimate of associated ticket revenue;
and
As responsibility for undertaking counts has generally been a lower priority for on-board train
staff than core duties of operations, train safety or passenger care, guards counts tend to be
missed on busier services when train staff are more concerned with core duties.
The comparison data was MOIRA West Midlands base loading data for 2007/08. This means the
same timetable and demand data as used in PLD was available; however, it is not truly
independent validation data, as MOIRA flows are based on LENNON data.
!(
(!
r
ppe
s: U
!(
nd
idla
of M
!(
!(
th
Sou
!( !(
!( !(
er
!(
!(
!(
ow
!(
:L
!(
!(
!(
ds
!(
an
M idl !(
f
ho
ut
So
Bicester North
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Oxford !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
The results are shown in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 below.
Table 3.4 - South of Midlands Upper Screenline
As screenlines, the differences are well within the WebTAG validation guidance. Individually, all
movements meet the WebTAG validation guidance of being within 25% of observed on the
modelled link flows, and within 15% of the screenline as a whole.
!(
!(
!(
ppe r
Mid lands: U
North of
Crewe !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
r
we
!(
: Lo
Stoke-on-Trent nds
!(
a
dl
!( !(
f Mi
o !(
orth
!(
N !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
These smaller screenlines covers West Coast and Cross Country services. The results are shown
in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7.
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 23
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
Individually, all movements meet the WebTAG validation guidance of within 25% of observed on
the modelled link flows, and within 15% as a screenline.
3.4.3.4 Doncaster
East Coast Main Line trips were extracted from MOIRA Northern to give count data either side of
Doncaster. This is close to the timetable and demand data in PLD.
The locations are shown in Figure 3.4 below:
!(
Doncaster: Upper
Doncaster
!(
!(
Doncaster: Lower
The counts are shown in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 below.
Table 3.8 - Doncaster Upper Screenline
The counts show that both sides of the Doncaster, train loads are well within the 25% criteria.
There was no suitable data to create a wider screenline in the area.
3.4.3.5 Newcastle
Similarly, East Coast Main Line trips were extracted from MOIRA Northern to give comparison
data either side of Newcastle. The locations are shown in Figure 3.5 below.
er
pp
: U er
tle ow
as L
ewc le
:
N st
ca
ew
N
!(
Newcastle
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
The comparisons are all within 25%, except for loadings departing southbound from Newcastle.
This overestimation is likely to be due to the balance between long distance and more local
services: in many cases the balance between long distance and local services is affected by the
forced used of strategic stations, as non-strategic stations are effectively locked out of use.
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 26
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
The absence of a local model for the area also means that the local demand is concentrated on
the limited strategic corridor, leading to over assignment.
It follows that such over assignment of demand does not reflect a significant error in the model. In
addition, this corridor is far removed from the core corridor (London to the West Midlands) and any
marginal discrepancies in the level of demand and consequential crowding are unlikely to be of
any significance to the HS2 forecasts and Business Case.
3.4.4 Conclusions
Providing comprehensive independent validation of PLD’s rail model will, in time, require further
data collection and analysis. However, on three core indicators the model performs well:
Comparison of matrix levels with published region-to-region movements shows an excellent
correspondence at an annual level, providing reassurance that the overall volumes of trips in
the model and associated annualisation factors are appropriate;
The model passes WebTag requirements for validation against independent guards’ counts
data for the main north-south routes affected by high speed rail; and
Although no independent validation data exists, cross-comparison with other models also
shows good results on the main HS2 corridor and is generally within WebTag requirements
on all other main corridors.
The fact that the PLD rail model validates less well in areas where there are significant numbers of
local trips outside the main HS2 corridor emphasises the value of developing the framework:
validation is far improved in the London & South East and West Midlands areas due to the link
with the local models. If HS2 proposals are developed in more detail in the Leeds and Manchester
area then further linkages with local models in those areas would be likely to improve validation
significantly.
Overall, validation of the PLD rail model on strategic corridors meets the requirements for
development of the HS2 business case.
% of Demand to SE England
G. Manchester (& Cheshire) 12%
North East (& Cumbria) 9%
Scotland 72%
A sense check with the CAA “end to end” data at Heathrow airport suggests this data to be in the
right order with more than half of all end to end trips to Heathrow being from Scotland.
Manchester and Newcastle are the other largest generators of demand to Heathrow.
3.5.4 Validation
The following validation checks were undertaken on the updated air demand matrices:
Loading figures on all flights, to ensure reasonable levels of passengers per plane;
Assignment validation against the SKM/CAA data.
3.5.5 Conclusions
The PLD air model validates very well in terms of the flows into and out of London, and has
realistic numbers of passengers on all air routes modelled.
4
Car access at a maximum of one end of the rail trip only (the other ends at a fixed speed as a proxy for
local public transport access).
5
Car access at both ends of an air trip.
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 30
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
For the reasons outlined, the only appropriate validation to undertake is that of the highway
journey times. The results are shown in Section 3.6.4.
(PLD-Average)
% Difference
Difference
Pass / Fail
Green Flag
Average
RAC
AA
Birmingham Leeds 131 127 128 129 118 -11 -9% Pass
Birmingham Manchester 109 101 101 104 110 6 5% Pass
Heathrow Birmingham 120 116 124 120 107 -13 -12% Pass
It can be seen that all journeys are within ±15% of the average times.
Generally, reported travel times in PLD tend to be faster than the trip planning data. This is due to
the fact that PLD does not include a detailed representation of the final “local leg” from the
strategic highway network to each zone (“zone connectors”). Since the mode-choice model is
incremental in structure, the urban sections at the extreme ends of the journey do not need to be
modelled in great detail in the end-to-end journey time by highway: it is the 'modellable' change in
journey time on the strategic part of the route, rather than the 'un-modellable' local congestion,
which is unlikely to be impacted by a model scenario test, and is not the focus of the model.
3.6.5 Conclusions
This validation check shows that the model validates well against the only appropriate measure for
the highway mode. The PLD highway model is sufficiently accurate in representing journey times
between major urban centres, albeit slightly faster for the reasons outlined in section 3.6.4 above.
This effect is not of major importance, as the role of the highway model is to represent the change
in journey time associated with a change in congestion (resulting from a change in car demand).
4.1 Overview
PS was refined and revalidated in early 2009, including a validation exercise based on TOC
Green Book / PIXC 6 count data. The validation exercise was reported separately in DfT reports 7 .
PS is generally accepted for use on London & SE rail forecasting exercises, subject to validation
exercises on specific corridors where options are being tested.
Only relatively small changes to PS have been made as part of the development of the
framework: the key change has been the separate treatment of peak period long-distance
demand in the model. Whereas the original PS includes matrix representation of long-distance
demand, the framework cuts back the main scope of the model to places closer to London.
Longer-distance demand, calculated in PLD, is fed into PS at the new boundary through new
zones created for that purpose, and appropriately scaled back to represent morning peak period
demand. Certain other minor amendments were also made to PS.
Accordingly, this section shows how the flow validation of the integrated version of PS differs from
the previous full validation, and assesses its appropriateness for use for assessing possible uses
of released capacity on the WCML route as part of HS2 options.
6
PIXC = Passengers in Excess of Capacity, annual monitoring data of London and South East TOC train
loadings during morning and evening peak periods.
7
“PLANET South AM model development and updates (PSAM v4)”, Atkins October 2009
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 32
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
and count data; however it should be stressed that this data is not independent count data, and
there is no inherent reason why it should be more reliable than the PS data.
Table 4.1 sets out the independent validation data alongside the framework and non-framework
versions of PS for comparison.
Table 4.1 - PLANET South Validation Flows (0700-1000 arrivals in Central London, 2007)
Route / Green Book PS Non-
HLOS Data PS Framework
Count Point (PIXC) Counts Framework
Great Western
Main Line 22,973 24,100 20,210 21,314
(Paddington) 8
Chiltern
Main Line 10,222 9,100 8,535 7,766
(Marylebone)
West Coast
Main Line 17,256 23,800 18,958 16,434
(Euston) 9
Midland
Main Line 23,543 25,900 20,213 23,556
(St Pancras)
East Coast
Main Line 32,752 31,300 32,737 32,250
(Finsbury Pk)
Total 106,746 114,200 100,653 101,320
Overall validation of the framework against Green Book counts is maintained, with individual
improvements in validation on the West Coast, Great Western and Midland Main Line routes and
a slight worsening on the Chiltern route. PS validation on the Chiltern route is known to be
relatively poor because of the assignment allocation mechanisms between LUL Metropolitan Line
and NR Chiltern services on the Harrow-on-the-Hill corridor.
It should be noted that PS does not include specific representation of demand related to Heathrow
Express in the model, which is not included within the core “travelcard” type data set used to
develop the model. This reflects the relative difficulty in representing premium travel to Heathrow
Airport in a model which ostensibly does not have fares representation – simple inclusion of
demand could make validation worse rather than better and would not represent premium airport
passenger behaviour in any meaningful way.
This means that there is likely to be an underestimate of demand to Heathrow Airport from central
London in PS both in base year and forecasting years. The effect of this on the HS2 business
case was judged to be minor, as crowding on Heathrow Express services is expected to be
extremely limited. For subsequent stages of HS2 scheme development, where more detail is
needed on patterns of access from Greater London to Heathrow Airport it will be appropriate to
extend this representation further.
8
Heathrow Express figures not available or included in observed or modelled figures. It is unclear whether
this demand is included in HLOS figures.
9
London Overground figures not available or included in observed or modelled figures. It is unclear whether
this demand is included in HLOS figures.
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 33
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
4.2.2 Conclusions
On the critical WCML corridor, the framework slightly under-predicts morning peak demand on the
route, however validation is within 5% of observed figures, generally regarded as very good
validation for public transport modelling and well within daily variation of passenger counts.
No other routes are affected by HS2 option tests; however validation of the rest of the model is
generally unchanged between the framework and non-framework versions of the model.
5.1 Introduction
PM was developed as a new demand forecasting model in early 2009, covering morning peak rail
movements in the East and West Midlands areas. A validation exercise was undertaken for the
model in the West Midlands area, focused on local commuter movements into central
Birmingham.
Similar to the process used for the PS model, PM was cut back in scope to provide greater detail
on the effects of capacity release by high speed rail on corridors into central Birmingham. Long-
distance demand is fed into the model through pre-loads on transit-lines using information from
PLD.
The focus of the validation is on corridors into central Birmingham which could be affected by
capacity release through reductions or removal of long-distance passenger demand between
London and Birmingham. This principally affects three corridors:
West Coast Main Line between Coventry and Birmingham New Street, and between
Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street; and
Chiltern Main Line corridor between Leamington Spa and Birmingham Moor Street;
Accordingly, this section shows how the flow validation of the integrated version of PM differs from
the previous full validation, as reported by Jacobs Consultancy in “PM Validation Summary
Report” dated November 2009, on these corridors.
The figures show the validation worsens on the routes from the south and east, but improves on
the Wolverhampton corridor. The reduction in validation and passenger volumes on the Coventry
and Chiltern corridors could be due to a number of possible causes:
Usage levels of long-distance services during peak periods is higher than estimated within
the model development process, resulting in modelled volumes of long-distance passengers
being lower than forecast fed through from PLD to PM;
Underlying poor allocation between long-distance and local demand within the underlying PM
model demand data, resulting in a lack of local demand left within the framework; and
Unlike PS, onward passenger demand from Birmingham New Street and International
stations to local stations in the West Midlands area is not included in the local model. For
modelling purposes, these trips are assumed to start and end at principal stations served by
long-distance services. This may also contribute towards an underestimate on local services
in PM.
It is worth noting that, even with the reduced validation, the models still meet WebTag validation
requirements on the main WCML corridor through Coventry and Wolverhampton. On the Chiltern
corridor – where only a handful of services operate directly to Birmingham New Street during the
morning peak period – validation appears poor but is based on an exceptionally small flow
relatively to the numbers of people using New Street in the morning peak period.
Overall, the reduced validation may result in a slight underestimate of demand, and hence of
crowding relief provided by high speed services on the Coventry corridor in the West Midlands
area. Further investigation of the balance between local and long-distance demand in PM in the
West Midlands area is being undertaken which will enable improvement in validation levels on key
corridors – however the lack of comprehensive data has meant that this investigation could not be
completed within study timescales.
5.2.2 Conclusions
On the main WCML corridor affected by capacity release, the framework under-predicts morning
peak demand on the route compared to both observed data and the non-framework model. This is
likely to result in an underestimate of the impacts of crowding relief on the route.
However this impact is small in terms of the overall benefits from high speed rail, and is
conservative, i.e. improvements to model validation will tend to strengthen the business case for
high speed rail.
Further data collection on peak usage of long-distance services into the West Midlands will
improve the validation on this corridor during any potential further development phases of high
speed rail options.
6. Conclusions
6.1 PLD Model
The PLD models validate well where information is available at the correct level:
All day, all TOC counts on rail links;
Airport trip totals; and
Journey times by car.
The model can be used with confidence for strategic rail service option testing, particularly in the
corridor between London and the West Midlands.
The PLD models are more likely to over-estimate than under-estimate demand, and hence
crowding levels, in conurbations beyond the main HS2 corridor where integration with local
models has not been undertaken as part of this work, however this is expected to have only a very
small impact on the overall HS2 business case or development of options.
Correct Routing
Issue: To confirm that the correct series of nodes are visited by the transit lines
Check: Sorting transit lines by number of segments in Emme 3 to identify lines with
suspiciously high numbers of segments. These often signify a transit line where an
incorrect node is specified, causing a large detour to be required.
Result: Transit line routings are sensible.
No import errors
Issue: All transit lines should import without error.
10
Perl: Practical Extraction and Reporting Language. See http://www.perl.org
11
TIPLOC: Timing Point Location
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 38
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
Train Aggregation
Issue: Pre- and Post-Aggregation trains per hour should be consistent.
Check: A check was made to confirm that the number of trains was equal.
Result: This was found to be correct, subject to minor rounding differences (such as where
7 trains individual trains becomes a train every 25.71 minutes).
Redundant Services
Issue: Services running ‘perpendicular’ to the modelled axis had to be removed.
Check: The ratio of Route Length / Crowfly Length was used to find those services with very
high ratios. The ratios were used to find routes which were deemed not suitable to
be included, due to the peripheral nature of the routes.
12
Railplanner Rail Timetable Tool. See http://www.travelinfosystems.com
5082342/5082342 Model Framework Validation Report (26-02- 39
10).doc
HS2 Model Framework Validation Report
These services are removed by naming lines with such origins and destinations as
‘XX____’ and automatically deleting them after import.
Result: These are removed.
This process ensured that the rail services in the model were optimised to be as error-free as
possible within the time-scale.