Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[GRALISTAIR]

I see in the latest Modern Railways, uncle Roger et al have a very bleak assessment of TP electrification and all schemes in general.

 

[IanXC]

Leeds to Micklefield capacity for carrying increasing passenger numbers is not a problem, its only an issue to those who think there should be more than 8tph or more than 2tph stopping services.

There is no chance of any significant investment for >8tph until the future of HS3/NPR is known.

Anyway has there been any official suggestion of a 6th TPE train east of Leeds. To and from where? The 6th TPE service west of Leeds is a replacement for Northern stopper(s), not an extra|inter-regional/inter-city service. It may revert to Northern after electrification.

I think the question at this stage is what future capacity is required, and I think you're right that we won't move forward until various other infrastructure questions are resolved.

How to provide greater local capacity is becoming an issue. The current stopping services are increasingly full, whether converting these to EMU operation would allow for additional EMU stoppers is a key question. For the record:

Transpennine Express
2 tph to Newcastle
1 tph to Middlesbrough
1 tph to Scarborough
1 tph to Hull

CrossCountry
1 tph to Scotland

Northern
1 tph all stops Selby (ex Leeds but to Huddersfield)
1 tph all stops York (ex Blackpool)

(There will be a Leeds to Bridlington service, yet unconfirmed whether this will be an extension of the Selby or (franchise agreement allows for) an additional service, presumably calling at South Milford and Garforth.)

The additional TPE service west of Leeds replaces Northern stoppers, but certainly in the case of the western part the suggestion is that post electrification it might 'revert' to Northern without the loss of the 6th TPE, as a seventh train per hour.

Network Rail documents continue to suggest electrification to Selby and this sixth TPE terminating there.

All in all, many unknowns and many possibilities!

 

[deltic08]

I think the question at this stage is what future capacity is required, and I think you're right that we won't move forward until various other infrastructure questions are resolved.

How to provide greater local capacity is becoming an issue. The current stopping services are increasingly full, whether converting these to EMU operation would allow for additional EMU stoppers is a key question. For the record:

Transpennine Express
2 tph to Newcastle
1 tph to Middlesbrough
1 tph to Scarborough
1 tph to Hull

CrossCountry
1 tph to Scotland

Northern
1 tph all stops Selby (ex Leeds but to Huddersfield)
1 tph all stops York (ex Blackpool)

(There will be a Leeds to Bridlington service, yet unconfirmed whether this will be an extension of the Selby or (franchise agreement allows for) an additional service, presumably calling at South Milford and Garforth.)

The additional TPE service west of Leeds replaces Northern stoppers, but certainly in the case of the western part the suggestion is that post electrification it might 'revert' to Northern without the loss of the 6th TPE, as a seventh train per hour.

Network Rail documents continue to suggest electrification to Selby and this sixth TPE terminating there.

All in all, many unknowns and many possibilities!

You have omitted the plan to run one Leeds-KX train an hour via Hambleton Junction, occasional East Coast trains extended beyond Leeds to Scotland and freight trains. This takes the frequency to over 8tph.

Even without electrification there is the possibility of diverting bimode IEP services via Leeds if the ECML is blocked between Doncaster and York. At 8tph Leeds-Micklefield this would be impossible.

 

[IanXC]

You have omitted the plan to run one Leeds-KX train an hour via Hambleton Junction, occasional East Coast trains extended beyond Leeds to Scotland and freight trains. This takes the frequency to over 8tph.

Even without electrification there is the possibility of diverting bimode IEP services via Leeds if the ECML is blocked between Doncaster and York. At 8tph Leeds-Micklefield this would be impossible.

Aye yes I'll give you the VTEC via Hambelton.

Occasional VTEC Leeds to Scotland is pretty irrelevant though, given that it is one service at around 7am northbound (before all of the TPE services begin) and one southbound after midnight!

Diverting via Leeds vice the Selby diversion is a very unattractive proposition - you'd go via Askern; via some combination of Hambelton junctions; via Temple Hirst, Selby Canal and Sherburn; nearly any other option before going via Leeds!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You have omitted the plan to run one Leeds-KX train an hour via Hambleton Junction, occasional East Coast trains extended beyond Leeds to Scotland and freight trains. This takes the frequency to over 8tph.

Even without electrification there is the possibility of diverting bimode IEP services via Leeds if the ECML is blocked between Doncaster and York. At 8tph Leeds-Micklefield this would be impossible.

There are also plans for a KX-Leeds service to extend to Huddersfield, but I can't recall whether this is hourly/bi-hourly or just a token service up in the morning and back in the evening. When electrification was first announced, the assumption was that once the wires were up, the improved acceleration of electric trains would allow the stoppers to return to their previous pattern (2 separate services from Leeds and Manchester, both terminating at Huddersfield). Of course the passengers from Slaithwaite and Marsden might not want to lose their direct Leeds service though!

 

[Mollman]

I think the question at this stage is what future capacity is required, and I think you're right that we won't move forward until various other infrastructure questions are resolved.

How to provide greater local capacity is becoming an issue. The current stopping services are increasingly full, whether converting these to EMU operation would allow for additional EMU stoppers is a key question. For the record:

Transpennine Express
2 tph to Newcastle
1 tph to Middlesbrough
1 tph to Scarborough
1 tph to Hull

CrossCountry
1 tph to Scotland

Northern
1 tph all stops Selby (ex Leeds but to Huddersfield)
1 tph all stops York (ex Blackpool)

(There will be a Leeds to Bridlington service, yet unconfirmed whether this will be an extension of the Selby or (franchise agreement allows for) an additional service, presumably calling at South Milford and Garforth.)

The additional TPE service west of Leeds replaces Northern stoppers, but certainly in the case of the western part the suggestion is that post electrification it might 'revert' to Northern without the loss of the 6th TPE, as a seventh train per hour.

Network Rail documents continue to suggest electrification to Selby and this sixth TPE terminating there.

All in all, many unknowns and many possibilities!

Northern currently operate some peak extras to / from Selby - not sure if this path will become all day for Brid services.

 

[Ploughman]

Are any freight paths included in the planning between Leeds - Selby?
JUst wondering if the Oil tanks still run to Neville Hill.

 

[IanXC]

Northern currently operate some peak extras to / from Selby - not sure if this path will become all day for Brid services.

Indeed, although they don't really stick to a particular time in the hour....

I suspect a significant timetable rewrite for services through Hull will be required, as for instance, the Bridlington to Leeds will need to be at the opposite side of the hour to the Scarborough to Hull from Bridlington. And that is constrained by the single line sections. We're also yet to see how the Bridlington to Leeds will interact with the Hull to York in terms of stopping patterns.

 

[Daz9284]

Aye yes I'll give you the VTEC via Hambelton.

Occasional VTEC Leeds to Scotland is pretty irrelevant though, given that it is one service at around 7am northbound (before all of the TPE services begin) and one southbound after midnight!

Diverting via Leeds vice the Selby diversion is a very unattractive proposition - you'd go via Askern; via some combination of Hambelton junctions; via Temple Hirst, Selby Canal and Sherburn; nearly any other option before going via Leeds!

The poster never mention Selby. The VTEC services would run Leeds-Gascoigne wood - Hambleton Jn then onto ecml to Doncaster

 

[Daz9284]

Are any freight paths included in the planning between Leeds - Selby?
JUst wondering if the Oil tanks still run to Neville Hill.

The Nev Hill tanks run via Methley Jn, Woodlesford and through leeds

 

[IanXC]

The poster never mention Selby. The VTEC services would run Leeds-Gascoigne wood - Hambleton Jn then onto ecml to Doncaster

I'm sorry what?!

The route you've described is what I have abbreviated to "via Hambelton".

The poster was considering the possibility of bimode units allowing Doncaster to York ECML services to divert via Leeds. I pointed out this is a very unattractive option due to the time penalty and listed a whole collection of diversionary routes that would be more attractive.

(The Selby diversion being of course the current mainline route from Doncaster to York.)

 

[Daz9284]

I'm sorry what?!

The route you've described is what I have abbreviated to "via Hambelton".

The poster was considering the possibility of bimode units allowing Doncaster to York ECML services to divert via Leeds. I pointed out this is a very unattractive option due to the time penalty and listed a whole collection of diversionary routes that would be more attractive.

(The Selby diversion being of course the current mainline route from Doncaster to York.)

My apologies, when you mentioned Selby canal I thoughthink you meant via selby

 

[superkev]

I'm surprised there seems to be no consideration to running say one train an hour via Wakefield Castleford. Not everyone from York and beyond wants to go to Leeds and I'm sure the people of Castleford Wakefield would love direct trains avoiding Leeds.
Would relieve congestion in Leeds and probably quicker too.
K

 

[IanXC]

My apologies, when you mentioned Selby canal I thoughthink you meant via selby

Oh sorry, Selby Canal is a chord that takes you from the Doncaster/Temple Hirst direction to the Leeds/Hambleton direction. It is in Selby but avoids the station. Its purpose has been almost entirely removed since the Hambelton South to West chord opened.

I'm surprised there seems to be no consideration to running say one train an hour via Wakefield Castleford and pontefract. Not everyone from York and beyond wants to go to Leeds and I'm sure the people of Castleford and pontefract would love direct trains avoiding Leeds.
Would relieve congestion in Leeds and probably quicker too.
K

I've pondered this too. Whether just an hourly stopper, or routing an express service this way, it does seem to be wasted opportunity.

I've been specifically pondering if the Leeds Bridlington would be suitable. Leeds, Castleford, Selby, onwards. Although that does nothing for improving service the other way, presumably if the Leeds to Bridlington was additional to the Selby stopper it would call at South Milford and probably Garforth.

 

[Class 170101]

Why not send the 6th train via Castleford to reach York if Leeds to Micklefield capacity is an issue.

Probably because Leeds is the place most of the passengers want to go to.

I assumed he meant run Leeds-York via Castleford which might have some merit with a stop at Castleford giving that area an outlet to York and direct trains to the West.

Yes I did However to stop at Castleford would require reopening of the (currently) closed westbound platform.

You have omitted the plan to run one Leeds-KX train an hour via Hambleton Junction, occasional East Coast trains extended beyond Leeds to Scotland and freight trains. This takes the frequency to over 8tph.

Even without electrification there is the possibility of diverting bimode IEP services via Leeds if the ECML is blocked between Doncaster and York. At 8tph Leeds-Micklefield this would be impossible.

I would expect most east to west freight to avoid Leeds and take the route via Castleford, Wakefield Kirkgate and Mirfield instead. As for diverting bi-modes between Doncaster and York there are plenty of routes avoiding Leeds that East Coast sign, via either Knottingley or Normantion. The only reason to run via Leeds would be to extend the London to Leeds services onwards to Edinburgh and cancel the booked London to Edinburgh services.

 

[deltic08]

I would expect most east to west freight to avoid Leeds and take the route via Castleford, Wakefield Kirkgate and Mirfield instead. As for diverting bi-modes between Doncaster and York there are plenty of routes avoiding Leeds that East Coast sign, via either Knottingley or Normantion. The only reason to run via Leeds would be to extend the London to Leeds services onwards to Edinburgh and cancel the booked London to Edinburgh services.

I meant only in an emergency if the Doncaster-York section was closed for any reason.

 

[snowball]

Freel07 has posted on SSC some pictures of work that may be related to Manchester-Stalybridge electrification.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=140135989&postcount=3516

 

[lejog]

Freel07 has posted on SSC some pictures of work that may be related to Manchester-Stalybridge electrification.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=140135989&postcount=3516

The siding at Collyhurst St/Miles Platting is interesting given the forthcoming changes at Victoria. Could it be for use by terminators from the west that would otherwise have an excessive dwell time when the station switches to mainly through running? There is already provision for one train to turn at Brewery Junction on the four track section of the Calder Valley line, but I can see extra provision may be desirable.

(And before someone comes out with the fallacy seemingly etched in forum folklore that all DMUs will run through to Rochdale and all EMUs to Stalybridge, this isn't so, only 2tph will run to Stalybridge and 1tph to Rochdale).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The siding at Collyhurst St/Miles Platting is interesting given the forthcoming changes at Victoria. Could it be for use by terminators from the west that would otherwise have an excessive dwell time when the station switches to mainly through running? There is already provision for one train to turn at Brewery Junction on the four track section of the Calder Valley line, but I can see extra provision may be desirable.

(And before someone comes out with the fallacy seemingly etched in forum folklore that all DMUs will run through to Rochdale and all EMUs to Stalybridge, this isn't so, only 2tph will run to Stalybridge and 1tph to Rochdale).

And wiring to Newton Heath would be too costly (even if desirable.)

 

[furnessvale]

The siding at Collyhurst St/Miles Platting is interesting given the forthcoming changes at Victoria. Could it be for use by terminators from the west that would otherwise have an excessive dwell time when the station switches to mainly through running? There is already provision for one train to turn at Brewery Junction on the four track section of the Calder Valley line, but I can see extra provision may be desirable.

(And before someone comes out with the fallacy seemingly etched in forum folklore that all DMUs will run through to Rochdale and all EMUs to Stalybridge, this isn't so, only 2tph will run to Stalybridge and 1tph to Rochdale).

Is some of this work connected to the Manchester Collyhurst St to Scunthorpe thread in the Allocations, Diagrams etc section?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

And wiring to Newton Heath would be too costly (even if desirable.)

Tben again, Intercity said that about Neville Hill...

 

[Greybeard33]

The siding at Collyhurst St/Miles Platting is interesting given the forthcoming changes at Victoria. Could it be for use by terminators from the west that would otherwise have an excessive dwell time when the station switches to mainly through running? There is already provision for one train to turn at Brewery Junction on the four track section of the Calder Valley line, but I can see extra provision may be desirable.

(And before someone comes out with the fallacy seemingly etched in forum folklore that all DMUs will run through to Rochdale and all EMUs to Stalybridge, this isn't so, only 2tph will run to Stalybridge and 1tph to Rochdale).

Do you have a source for this? A Northern employee has posted on another forum that Northern's 2018 timetable plan has 2tph terminating at Rochdale, from Clitheroe/Blackburn via Bolton. There will be 1tph to Stalybridge from Wigan via Bolton and a 1tph shuttle between Stalybridge and Victoria. 3tph from the west will terminate at Victoria, 2tph from Kirkby/Wigan via Atherton and 1tph (electric) from Preston. The other Northern services through Victoria will comprise 1tph from Southport to Blackburn via Atherton and Todmorden, 1tph from Southport to Leeds via Atherton and Dewsbury, 1tph from Chester to Leeds via Bradford and 1tph from Manchester Airport to Leeds via the Ordsall Chord and Bradford.

 

[absolutelymilk]

A Northern employee has posted on another forum that Northern's 2018 timetable plan has ....

Is this the plan for the December 2017, May 2018 or Dec 2018 timetable change onwards?

 

[lejog]

Do you have a source for this? A Northern employee has posted on another forum that Northern's 2018 timetable plan has 2tph terminating at Rochdale, from Clitheroe/Blackburn via Bolton. There will be 1tph to Stalybridge from Wigan via Bolton and a 1tph shuttle between Stalybridge and Victoria. 3tph from the west will terminate at Victoria, 2tph from Kirkby/Wigan via Atherton and 1tph (electric) from Preston. The other Northern services through Victoria will comprise 1tph from Southport to Blackburn via Atherton and Todmorden, 1tph from Southport to Leeds via Atherton and Dewsbury, 1tph from Chester to Leeds via Bradford and 1tph from Manchester Airport to Leeds via the Ordsall Chord and Bradford.

I'm glad to see we now agree there will be terminators from the west. My reason for saying this was partly historic and partly down to the Franchise Agreement. As I've said previously, part of the Northern Hub Calder Valley improvements was upping the speed limit between Rochdale and Manchester to 90mph (which has happened and very nice it is), it was never the plan as part of the same project to stuff the line up with large numbers of 70mph DMUs from Salford Crescent, 6tph was the plan.

Northern seem to be bringing forward some of their 2019 commitments to 2018 e.g. the Calder Valley - Airport service, so it isn't too surprising there is a 6th train to Rochdale. Whether the 2nd terminator survives the introduction of the Calder Valley to Liverpool service in 2019 remains to be seen.

 

[Greybeard33]

Is this the plan for the December 2017, May 2018 or Dec 2018 timetable change onwards?

May 2018 I believe is the plan. But "many a slip 'twixt cup and lip" as the saying goes!

I'm glad to see we now agree there will be terminators from the west. My reason for saying this was partly historic and partly down to the Franchise Agreement. As I've said previously, part of the Northern Hub Calder Valley improvements was upping the speed limit between Rochdale and Manchester to 90mph (which has happened and very nice it is), it was never the plan as part of the same project to stuff the line up with large numbers of 70mph DMUs from Salford Crescent, 6tph was the plan.

Northern seem to be bringing forward some of their 2019 commitments to 2018 e.g. the Calder Valley - Airport service, so it isn't too surprising there is a 6th train to Rochdale. Whether the 2nd terminator survives the introduction of the Calder Valley to Liverpool service in 2019 remains to be seen.

By 2019 the Stalybridge line should be electrified, so the Preston EMU can be extended to Stalybridge (in place of the DMU shuttle) instead of terminating at Victoria. That might then give capacity for the Clitheroe or Blackburn service to terminate at Vic, so the Liverpool Connect service can take over the path to Rochdale. We will have to wait and see.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The FT are reporting that parts of Transpennine may not be electrified, with bi-modes used to cover the gaps

https://www.ft.com/content/522c0f8e-6e0f-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

Grayling said

We don’t need to electrify all of every route. There are places that are built in Victorian times where it is very difficult to put up electric cables. If there are bits of the Transpennine network that are complicated to do and we have a bi-mode train we can say, ‘Here is a section we can have a diesel’. We will be electrifying Transpennine but we can do it in a smarter way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't agree with the new policy, but it's entirely possible that the business case for bi-modes is now better than EMUs with electrification (over the lifetime of the rolling stock).
MML will go bi-mode and probably XC too.
The TP plans probably depend on what the route upgrade studies say in the autumn.
If they start talking about bi-modes on HS2 we will know electrification is dead.

 

[snowball]

The FT are reporting that parts of Transpennine may not be electrified, with bi-modes used to cover the gaps

There's similar stuff in the current issue of Rail magazine.

 

[Chester1]

The FT are reporting that parts of Transpennine may not be electrified, with bi-modes used to cover the gaps

https://www.ft.com/content/522c0f8e-6e0f-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

Grayling said

The phrasing would indicate limited sections of diesel running. If these are only small sections such as bridges then a last mile diesel engine would suffice to cover the gap. If they decided not to wire Stanledge tunnels they would need full bi modes which would be a waste. Leaving short sections of unwired probably has a good business case. I think Grayling has awknowledged that the political and business case for transpennine electrification is better than the MML and parts of GWR. I don't mind how journey times are reduced as long as they are. 40 minutes for Manchester-Leeds is possible without electrification but it is a neccessary part of reducing to 30 minutes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think Grayling has aknowledged that the political and business case for transpennine electrification is better than the MML and parts of GWR. I don't mind how journey times are reduced as long as they are. 40 minutes for Manchester-Leeds is possible without electrification but it is a neccessary part of reducing to 30 minutes.

According to the NR ranking of routes (2009 Electrification RUS), MML had the best business case of all, better than GW.
In fact it was so good it would be more expensive not to electrify than to electrify.
I suspect NR is now regretting making that statement.