Has anyone heard anything about the status of the Calder Valley capacity/line speed improvements due under the Northern Hub? The CP5 Plan says of these that design and delivery will be integrated with the Huddersfield Line improvements/electrification, although delivery was due to be carried out during 2016 and be available by the time of the December 2016 timetable. Have these also been delayed by 3 years or has this activity been de-integrated from the delayed programme?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
Yeah, they will be getting the 185's!
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Calder Vale will get a Chester service from Dec 2017 and an Airport service from Dec 2019. What type of new trains Northern will get and which routes will get them and which routes will get more modern cascaded stock isn`t yet set in stone.
zuriblue
Member
northwichcat
Veteran Member
It`s rumoured the TPE bidders have all included a mix of new build bi-mode and electric Intercity stock. Obviously initially electric would be for Scottish services only. I imagine if that is the case they`ll be the option of ordering more electric only if a franchise extension is agreed - like with Scotrail.
The 332s and 333s also have 23m carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can you fit a pantograph and traction motors on a Pacer?
No but you can fit 3rd rail equipment - watch out Southeastern.
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
A new build of class 444s for TPE won't be an option as:
- Siemens no longer off it as an option
- It doesn't meet the current crash regs
No but something like the Verve might be good. That or an Aventra. I think it's been discussed a few times as to why end doors and TPE don't necessarily mix!
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Yes, I was thinking about available designs - the 'new' Desiro family is available in a 23m version with a Class 444 type 'intercity' configuration, should that be something bidders for the franchise wish to pursue, and should Siemens respond to the request for proposals.
The favoured option, being led by ROSCOs, who want a product they can easily lease to another franchise, is Hitachi AT300 units though, as mentioned by several posters previously.
The other option which was talked about for a while was Alstom Pendolino sets for TransPennine, allowing EPS operation on the WCML and higher speed operation on the ECML, if 140mph operation is introduced. There are vacant build slots which could be used to build Pendolino sets in Italy in the next couple of years, which would have allowed early delivery to coincide with planned completion prior to the schedule re-working. That's not urgent now and more Hitachi AT300 units would seem to be the preferred solution by all bidders.
Last edited:
That is part of what the Northern Franchise Spec says, although you have omitted that there will be at least an extra Manchester to Bradford service from 2019, calling pattern unspecified.
As I have posted before elsewhere on this forum the cumulative effective of the Northern Hub improvements (Grip 3 complete, Grip 6 due Autumn 2016), Network Rail CP5 improvements at Bradford Interchange (Grip 3 delayed) and West Yorkshire Transport Plan funded improvements (due in 2018 but not even mentioned in the CP5 plan, but budget approved independent of Network Rail's) are cumulatively supposed to support a service looking something like the one attached (note the tentative wording there, no guarantees any of these changes will happen, but this service has been specified on a maximising revenue basis by Arup and has backing in principle from Network Rail and Northern Rail).
But this all has major dependencies on the Transpennine improvements:
- the CP5 plan lumps the Calder Valley enhancements in with Transpennine North activity.
- extra capacity at Leeds is required with at least capacity improvements to/a turnround provided at Micklefield (or a new station thereabouts), which is also included in Transpennine North activity
- provision of 8tph capacity from Mirfield to Leeds ditto
- whatever happens at Victoria ditto.
But all I was asking was if anyone had heard of a change of delivery date for the Calder Valley Northern Hub capacity/line speed improvements, which as the CP5 plan is currently written is the first deliverable from the TP North improvement, due to be complete Aug 2016. I don't expect there's a cat in hells chance of all the above being delivered anytime soon, but it would be nice to know if the first step is still on time, three years late like the whole programme or somewhere inbetween. Afterall, that piece of work is due to be complete within 12 months
.No i have no idea what rolling stock will be used on the Calder Valley line, and since the bidders have not been told what service they will be required to run in the medium term (the Ariup report has not even been released to them) I suspect it may end up different from their current plans.
Attachments
Last edited:
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,959
The dates for starting the wiring 2017/2018 would be too late for Corbyn to cancel. By May 2020 NR should be half way through the programme of works and in the case of Corby finished. It would be political suicide to cancel the project (or even pause it for that matter).
However I would be surprised if there were to be any other major wiring schemes announced for CP6 with the budget already spent as per today's announcements using CP6 money. So Osborne's and Cameron's announcements regarding Bristol to Derby via Birmingham seem rather hollow right now.
However I would be surprised if there were to be any other major wiring schemes announced for CP6 with the budget already spent as per today's announcements using CP6 money. So Osborne's and Cameron's announcements regarding Bristol to Derby via Birmingham seem rather hollow right now.
While I think it's a good idea in principle, I hope there will be some resilience built in to the Transpennine scheme - such as bidirectional working and/or electrified diversion route(s). Otherwise, there is a risk that it might grind to a halt at the slightest disruption.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
If the MML and TP electrification schemes can proceed on time and to budget, there's capacity in the last 2 years of CP6 to begin work on an additional scheme, and by the end of CP6, there's will be available capacity to electrify somewhere in the region of 750 route miles in CP7 (obviously not every route mile or track mile is equal).
There will be some of that tied up doing Scottish Government STPR dictated work, but there's likely to be the capacity for around 100 route miles per year for England and Wales available.
There is a fairly well informed article available at: http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/09/30-transpennine-and-midland-electrification-to.html. A careful reading of the correspondence between the Chair of Network Rail and the Secretary of State, together with other evidence, suggests that Trans-Pennine and Midland mainline electrification schemes are basically delayed by about four years. Indeed, on trans-Pennine, journey time improvements may precede electrification. Or, to put it crudely, what we had hoped for in CP5 will be delivered towards the end of CP6. Perhaps even more worryingly, Government will have lost confidence in the ability of Network Rail to deliver on its commitments. That may make the next high level output specification HLOS less ambitious – and some real conflict with HS2 might begin to emerge.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
I see it moving more from Government specified outputs to individually negotiated and funded projects by local regional government/tocs.
Part of the problem really is the government went shopping tipping stuff in its trolley without the means to pay at the till so they gave less money than it would require (half the programs were just tacked on to the CP5 programme at the last minute by government without emerging organically from the industry developing solutions to capacity problems). It also calls into question the oversight of ORR, just saying you can do this cheaper so we will give you less money isn't the same as delivering efficiencies and you cant just keep piling on more and more 'cost efficiency' cuts year on year without things eventually running the risk of suffering unrealistic schedules, insufficient contingency, insufficient resourcing leading to programs slipping and taking longer.
Part of the problem really is the government went shopping tipping stuff in its trolley without the means to pay at the till so they gave less money than it would require (half the programs were just tacked on to the CP5 programme at the last minute by government without emerging organically from the industry developing solutions to capacity problems). It also calls into question the oversight of ORR, just saying you can do this cheaper so we will give you less money isn't the same as delivering efficiencies and you cant just keep piling on more and more 'cost efficiency' cuts year on year without things eventually running the risk of suffering unrealistic schedules, insufficient contingency, insufficient resourcing leading to programs slipping and taking longer.
Last edited:
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
It wasn't so much that the government went shopping and started tipping stuff in the trolley without the means to pay, they were tipping things into the trolley without knowing the actual cost, or how they would get all their shopping home even if they could pay for it all - and they didn't even know what size of car they had gone to the shops in.
Network Rail, DfT, HM Treasury and numerous politicians have been sold fairy stories masquerading as engineering solutions by the thousands of 'industry consultants', a significant percentage of whom are utterly useless and a number of which I wouldn't trust to even be able to explain what a train is.
We need to accept that widespread electrification is vital - the NOx emissions scandal will focus minds on that goal - and begin detailed design and costings work for more routes, with a proper rolling electrification program consisting of a specified budget for works each control period. The piecemeal approach isn't working and isn't good for the industry itself.
But isn't piecemeal the only approach Britain knows (and not just for the railway industry but for every other major sector you can think of)? our politicians don't do long-term planning or consistent rolling programmes. Our Treasury has always been known for working with very short horizons, our politicians see only to the next general election -- and it seems almost a matter of honour that each party coming into government will make at least a few major changes of direction and cuts for the previous government's ongoing projects. Whereas railways (like roads, education, health, etc) all need a long-term approach.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
The answer would appear to be that different political parties have their own set of priorities and set out their stalls accordingly to appear to be different from other parties. It will only be in a one-party state that such long term aspirations that you refer to would form part of an "x"-year plan would be viewed as the norm.
One thing is pretty certain, that is that we have a Tory government for some years to come. Something more is beginning to emerge of what Sir Peter Hendry, Chair of Network Rail, is going to recommend; and one thing that is clear is that resource constraints will limit progress, particularly on electrification, for many years to come. Here is a quote from the Yorkshire Post:
"But Mr McLoughlin [Secretary of State for Transport] also signalled a shift away from the Governments previous focus on electrification as the main way to improve rail journeys in the North.
Before the General Election a Government-commissioned taskforce was asked to recommend the next routes to undergo electrification which suggested several in Yorkshire, including the Harrogate and Calder Valley lines, should be prioritised.
But, speaking at Leeds station, he yesterday moved to temper expectations that those routes would be next in line for investment.
Describing the existing schemes as a big task, he added: I know there is pressure in other areas to try and do more work but we will look and that and try and address some of that. But we will also address it through new rolling stock as well.
The message was reinforced by Network Rail chairman Sir Peter Hendy who has just completed a review of Network Rails spending plans.
He said: The aspiration in the North of England for a large amount of electrification is more than adequately answered by a combination of what is being done already and the unfreezing of these two schemes.
Sir Peter said electrification isnt the only answer adding: If what you need is more capacity, if what you need is faster journey times, more reliability then actually that is what you should ask for.
There are limits to capacity, theres limits to the amount of money there is around, theres certainly limits to the capacity in the industry to do this stuff.
"
See http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...ification-hopes-as-projects-restart-1-7488711.
"But Mr McLoughlin [Secretary of State for Transport] also signalled a shift away from the Governments previous focus on electrification as the main way to improve rail journeys in the North.
Before the General Election a Government-commissioned taskforce was asked to recommend the next routes to undergo electrification which suggested several in Yorkshire, including the Harrogate and Calder Valley lines, should be prioritised.
But, speaking at Leeds station, he yesterday moved to temper expectations that those routes would be next in line for investment.
Describing the existing schemes as a big task, he added: I know there is pressure in other areas to try and do more work but we will look and that and try and address some of that. But we will also address it through new rolling stock as well.
The message was reinforced by Network Rail chairman Sir Peter Hendy who has just completed a review of Network Rails spending plans.
He said: The aspiration in the North of England for a large amount of electrification is more than adequately answered by a combination of what is being done already and the unfreezing of these two schemes.
Sir Peter said electrification isnt the only answer adding: If what you need is more capacity, if what you need is faster journey times, more reliability then actually that is what you should ask for.
There are limits to capacity, theres limits to the amount of money there is around, theres certainly limits to the capacity in the industry to do this stuff.
"
See http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...ification-hopes-as-projects-restart-1-7488711.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
So Germany and Switzerland are one-party states?
Let's say NR and DfT wanted to increase the capacity for electrification work, how realistic is that in what timetable? I see there are now various 'rail academies' starting, presumably aimed at training more engineers - would one solution be to boost those in order to get more resource available?
Also, and maybe relevant to TP electrification, I have understood that from an engineering perspective having longer possesions is more effeicent for fairly obvious reasons. I wonder if having a look to say full weekend possesions on parts of the TP line (with Calder valley open and services diverted / strengthened for example) would allow TP electrification to proceed quicker, cheaper and with a more optimal use of those resources. Maybe that is something that RailNorth may be better able to agree than DfT as they are 'more representative' of the local population?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Bidders have been given minimum service levels for December 2017 and December 2019 timetables. They also have had to produce rolling stock figures based on the December 2019 timetable, presuming North West electrification is complete and that Pacers are withdrawn.
What's in the December 2019 minimum service level is what they'll be bidding on. Unless there's unexpected extra demand I wouldn't expect Calder Vale will see any future enhancements until either a franchise extension is being talked about or a future franchise is being specified for commencement in about 8 years time. Rail North were involved in writing the specification for the next franchise and TfGM and Metro are the two biggest parties in Rail North, so I very much doubt any pre-2023 plans were omitted by accident.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheKnightWho
Established Member
You're kidding yourself if you think Germany and Switzerland never make short-sighted decisions on things.
You beat me to it! Switzerland has quite a good history with regard to long-term railway planning. They decide what sort of service they want, see what sort of infrastructure is needed to provide it, and then get on with it. Germany used to have a pretty enviable record of doing the same, but for much of the last fifteen years or so the whole thing seems to have gone to the dogs and the Bundesverkehrswegeplan has been little better than a work of fiction. Projects are running years late, there are questions over standards, planning issues have been disastrously obstructive ... one could go on. If you want the ultimate horror-story, look at the goings-on over the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (and the restoration of the Dresdner Bahn to get proper rail access to it).
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
It depends on what single track mileages Network Rail, the DfT and HM Treasury can agree upon and what can be afforded. Electrification is a one time project, unlike renewals, and these are skilled careers with a fair bit of time and money needing to be invested, it would be wise to have a fairly rigid plan of action that can be agreed upon and stuck to.
In an ideal world, you would commit to 100% electrification over the average career span, around 45 years. You recruit school leavers into as many roles as possible and train them up for a job they will retire from in 2055-2060, when we finish wiring to Wick or Mallaig or something, with lower level on-going recruitment and training to meet natural wastage and to provide maintenance staff for post completion repairs and renewals work.
The current capacity could be sufficient (just) if that's the baseline levels that would be utilised in CP6 onwards, if you want to ramp up electrification, then now is the time to be training and recruiting, given there are current schemes that apprentices can be taken to and shown around, and gradually introduced to. Training when there isn't work on-going is much more difficult, and recruitment is increasingly difficult now with falling unemployment - people want a modicum of job security, which you don't get with projects based on a 5 year cycle of investment, and one where there's only one customer to boot.
Re the possession question - absolutely, the longer the possession, the more time can be spent on site actually doing work, and the easier it is to do the work. A weekend closure with diversions would be bliss for the GWML and it would make the TP scheme easier - 54 hours gives you a good 50 to 52 hours of on-site time, with 2 - 4 hours to get train and plant on and off site, you'll still have 2 to 4 hours of getting trains and plant on and off site with overnight possessions, but you only start with 7 to 8 hours, about half of which is wasted.
Longer possessions could more realistically make use of proper locomotives and rolling stock too, no more of these preposterous Windhoff units which take far too long to move around. The Carillion setup in Scotland works really well - Movax piling rig, converted container flats for piles, and a pair of Class 66 locomotives to move the lot around. Longer possessions also need longer trains, which can easily be provided with a top and tail locomotive configuration - if you use a fixed formation HOPS style train, no matter how long the possession, when it's empty it needs to go back to base for re-loading.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The issue really is that rail policy is now "political" in a way it wasn't until 1993.
It's now like health and education where the idealogues are permanently at loggerheads over the operation and development of both sectors.
It's interesting that steel, coal and air/sea transport, all once nationalised, are now "normal" and not subject to much political interference (give or take a 3rd runway at Heathrow).
Energy and water are a bit nearer the danger area, but railways look like being a political football for another 2 elections at least, to the detriment of the industry.
It's now like health and education where the idealogues are permanently at loggerheads over the operation and development of both sectors.
It's interesting that steel, coal and air/sea transport, all once nationalised, are now "normal" and not subject to much political interference (give or take a 3rd runway at Heathrow).
Energy and water are a bit nearer the danger area, but railways look like being a political football for another 2 elections at least, to the detriment of the industry.
Thankyou for your usual informative and very clear thoughts. I think the weekend possesion with diversions avenue is worth exploring as I think, with good careful explanations / PR then the majority of the travelling public would understand that they get the end result quicker and for less money which allows more projects to be afforded and resourced.
I note in the letters exchanged between Hendy and McLoughlin some mention is rightly made of cost and time pressures. To me as an occasional rail user use of weekend posessions where a sensible diversion is possible seems a very obvious thing to do. Clearly though it may not be possible in all cases, but my limited knowledge of TP routes suggests a good opportunity should exist there.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
For a classic case of the piecemeal approach of this country you only have to look at the A1 and its off and on motorway upgrades since the 1950's. Also the M25 is a *******isation of two ring roads with various bits botched and missing to create the one road, bits were missing off the M23, M40, with unbuilt motorways also intended to connect the lot together especially with what has become the north and south circulars etc. Fascinating web page http://pathetic.org.uk details most of these but it just goes to show how any long term attemots get swept under the carpet or on the back burner in the name of short term politics
Or, to put it another way: circumstances change (i.e. oil prices surge, technology advancess and new things are possible) and so do plans as a result. It's probably now seen as a good thing quite a few of those motorways into the inner cities did not get built!
I do agree though it must be helpful for the government to get public finances into such a position that they can keep spending on good infrastructure projects to ensure the skills are kept during a downturn.
I do agree though it must be helpful for the government to get public finances into such a position that they can keep spending on good infrastructure projects to ensure the skills are kept during a downturn.
Sure thats what they'll be bidding on, there has to be a defined known baseline in a bid document for bidders to produce their prices. But after that change control is a standard part of any contract/project and usually highly lucrative for the bidder. During the current franchise, there have been significant new Calder Valley services on a so-called "no-growth" franchise award. Growth estimates for the line, both from the Northern Hub and the Arup report, are forecast to be significantly higher than the average during the next franchise. Extra services are not only likely, but have been planned for some time, with strengthening at both the Manchester and Yorkshire ends of the line as well as the 4th through train.
Service strengthening at the Manchester end is a Northern Hub output. I've seen posts on this forum claiming that the "plan" at Victoria is to send all (4-5tph?) diesel services from the west through to the new bay platform at Rochdale. There are alternatives such as an extra service to Todmorden or extending the other services from Leeds. Whatever there will be some strengthening, a minimum of running extra trains to Rochdale.
I'm more in touch with the whats happening at the Yorkshire end, i.e constant replanning due to uncertainties with Leeds capacity and TPE North. However since West Yorkshire have blagged their own budget for capacity upgrades (including a third platform at Halifax) and Network Rail are upgrading Bradford Interchange, there will be strengthening of the service on the Leeds-Bradford-Halifax corridor and possibly improvements through Brighouse.
Neither of these were sufficiently well defined to be included in the detailed franchise spec. Bidders are fully aware that there are £70m worth of capacity/line speed upgrades planned in the next few years on the Calder Valley line through the Hub, NR and W Yorks budgets and will be fully aware that they will be asked to price new services at some stage. They will undoubtedly be adding their assumptions about rolling stock requirements to their tenders. It is completely normal and standard practice in a bid to tie your price to as long a list of assumptions and client dependencies as possible - its all power to the programme management to drive hard bargains (aka sc***ing the client) during subsequent change control negotiations.
Isn't part of the problem the fact that although a good infrastructure is essential for a modern society it is also very much a long-term thing, so short-termism can always lead to cuts on infrastructure spending in the sure knowledge that it will be quite a long time (and well after the end of a current parliament) before the impact of the lack of investment is felt? Isn't infrastructure just a very easy target, however serious the long-term consequences may be?