Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[snowball]

It does seem to be quoting a hell of a lot of closure time for the project. How do all these 39 weeks of closure for five years compare with other electrification schemes such as GW and the ECML ?

This project seems to be much more a rebuilding of the railway than GW and ECML. They were already modern fast main lines when electrification came to them.

 

[td97]

5 years of disruption sounds entirely plausible given that the Manchester - Leeds route mileage (based on my crude dot to dot Google Maps calculation) is almost exactly the same as Manchester - Blackpool (minus WCML). There's been weekend closures for years, and early am services have been RRB.
Something to consider is the availability of resources for electrification, given there's going to be HS2 construction, MML still to complete, and any other surprises Grayling might announce

 

[snowball]

Something to consider is the availability of resources for electrification, given there's going to be HS2 construction, MML still to complete, and any other surprises Grayling might announce

I imagine there will be very little actual electrification work on TP for the next 3 years or on HS2 for the next 5 years. The currently committed MML work will be finished in the next 2 years.

 

[ainsworth74]

MML still to complete

MML was stupidly ditched last year! The wires will reach Corby and no further currently so not really a very large project anymore.

 

[snowball]

MML was stupidly ditched last year! The wires will reach Corby and no further currently so not really a very large project anymore.

Except that in the last couple of months there have been strong rumours of extension some distance north of Kettering on the main line.

 

[ainsworth74]

Except that in the last couple of months there have been strong rumours of extension some distance north of Kettering on the main line.

Oh that's encouraging! But we probably need to take further discussion of that to another thread

 

[squizzler]

I started a thread a week or so back looking at creating temporary bus lanes or other designations for high occupancy vehicles during long disruptions of the rail network. I was thinking of the long running rail strikes when I started the thread but this talk of five years extreme disruption makes me think the M62 should have one lane in each carriageway reserved for high occupancy vehicles to allow an intense replacement bus service to be unaffected by other types of traffic. Effectively it would supplement or replace the railway with a Bus Rapid Transit system for the duration!

Highway and railway administrations rarely co-operate but surely the point of Transport for the North is to make stuff work together like this?

The thread is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/emergency-bus-lanes-during-rail-disruption.169469/

 

[59CosG95]

Oh that's encouraging! But we probably need to take further discussion of that to another thread

Indeed, there already is one ongoing, and any updates on wires to the north of Ket'rin' will be gratefully received there.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It reads for 39 weeks out of 52 weeks for 5 years - part of the route will be closed. It does not mean the whole route will be closed for 39/52 = 3/4 of the year. While upgrading Miles Platting to Heyrod Grid feeder, divert via Rochdale and Calder Valley. While doing Church Fenton to Leeds divert via Castleford etc. The whole route will not be closed is how I read it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

5 years of disruption sounds entirely plausible given that the Manchester - Leeds route mileage (based on my crude dot to dot Google Maps calculation) is almost exactly the same as Manchester - Blackpool (minus WCML). There's been weekend closures for years, and early am services have been RRB.
Something to consider is the availability of resources for electrification, given there's going to be HS2 construction, MML still to complete, and any other surprises Grayling might announce

Manchester-Preston (25 miles) will have taken 4 years to upgrade by December (boots on ground etc), longer if you count the Euxton Jn redoubling.
Much of that was general route improvement (Chorley Arches, Farnworth Tunnel, Bolton P5 etc) rather than electrification per se.
There have been repeated long blockades over parts of the route, as well as practically continuous overnight/weekend possessions and disruption.
NR managed to do Preston-Blackpool in that time too, also the Ordsall Chord, though they were disconnected projects.
Manchester-Leeds is 40 miles between the wired bits, with many obstacles and generally ancient infrastructure, particularly on the west side.
Any route realignment or tunnel reconstruction will be very disruptive, even with the Calder Valley as a diversion route.
I can quite see Rob McIntosh's point.
Still, it's useful to see a list of the work envisaged, and a timescale within CP6.
Digital signalling seems to be the magic ingredient for Huddersfield-Stalybridge, instead of wiring.
The TfN press release also confirms a budget of £3 billion.

 

[Mollman]

Not electrifying the full route presents a number of rolling stock issues. The main one being that there is not deemed to be a suitable bi-mode loco to take over from the 68s. The cancellation of Selby - Hull came with the promise that TP electrification would see the 802s cascaded onto this route - replaced by EMUs and or electric loco and mk5s on Newcastle services. There is also the issue of what will operate the local services - will more new DMUs be needed to replace the 150s / 155s?

 

[Spartacus]

I started a thread a week or so back looking at creating temporary bus lanes or other designations for high occupancy vehicles during long disruptions of the rail network. I was thinking of the long running rail strikes when I started the thread but this talk of five years extreme disruption makes me think the M62 should have one lane in each carriageway reserved for high occupancy vehicles to allow an intense replacement bus service to be unaffected by other types of traffic. Effectively it would supplement or replace the railway with a Bus Rapid Transit system for the duration!

Highway and railway administrations rarely co-operate but surely the point of Transport for the North is to make stuff work together like this?

The thread is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/emergency-bus-lanes-during-rail-disruption.169469/

I think if someone implemented that they'd have to stay a long way from the M62 or risk being strung up from a tree adjacent to it, it's bad enough as it is without a lane being taken away. Besides, for the most part the route won't be closed as they would be diversions via Hebden Bridge. The only awkward part would be Mirfield where the L&Y and LNWR converge and I dare say that with plans to quadruple most of the really disruptive work might be able to be done over an Xmas/Near Year blockade. Even then diverting via Bradford would be an option, even possibly via Sheffield.

 

[Grumpy]

Capacity is easily solved, 8-coach trains. Frequency is easily solved. With longer trains they only need to be every 20 minutes with Scarborough and Middlesbrough sharing one splitting/joining at York into 2 x 4 coaches. The other two being Newcastle/Edinburgh and Hull. This will then allow for local stoppers Huddersfield-Manchester, Huddersfield-Leeds and Leeds-Dewsbury-Calder Valley-Manchester. A TPE train every ten minutes in the Leeds-Manchester core is not necessary.

Spot on. The barmy TPE management seem to cause problems everywhere. No need to quadruple Marsden to Micklefield at massive cost and disruption.

 

[quantinghome]

WYCA is recommending 4 fasts and 4 slows per hour as easier to achieve than 6 fasts.

 

[yorksrob]

This project seems to be much more a rebuilding of the railway than GW and ECML. They were already modern fast main lines when electrification came to them.

Yes, personally I think they should just electrify as normal which would enable a massive increase in capacity. The route never strikes me as being particularly slow, with the exception of the bit west of Stalybridge (which they could speed up a bit).

 

[Ploughman]

Does anyone in the real world actually think that a project like this could be completed without creating any disruption.

 

[squizzler]

I think if someone implemented that they'd have to stay a long way from the M62 or risk being strung up from a tree adjacent to it, it's bad enough as it is without a lane being taken away. Besides, for the most part the route won't be closed as they would be diversions via Hebden Bridge. The only awkward part would be Mirfield where the L&Y and LNWR converge and I dare say that with plans to quadruple most of the really disruptive work might be able to be done over an Xmas/Near Year blockade. Even then diverting via Bradford would be an option, even possibly via Sheffield.

Regardless of the merit of specifically putting temporary bus lanes on the M62, I think Transport for the North has the opportunity, as a multi modal agency, to develop an integrated transport approach to managing the disruption caused by the upgrade. After all, the works will benefit all the region's travellers, not just those who actually use the trains at present, when the expected modal switch to rail reduces congestion on the highways. So with all travellers standing to benefit - road and rail - I would use the maxim "a burden shared is a burden halved" and devise a travel plan for the upgrade that optimally integrates both modes.

 

[59CosG95]

Yes, personally I think they should just electrify as normal which would enable a massive increase in capacity. The route never strikes me as being particularly slow, with the exception of the bit west of Stalybridge (which they could speed up a bit).

Having read the SA for the Leeds-Manchester route via Huddersfield, the problem seems to be the differing speed limits and the lack of loops. If the speed limit was largely uniform along the route (OK, maybe not 85mph at every opportunity), that could bring the 40-minute Leeds-Manc goal closer to reality.

 

[yorksrob]

Having read the SA for the Leeds-Manchester route via Huddersfield, the problem seems to be the differing speed limits and the lack of loops. If the speed limit was largely uniform along the route (OK, maybe not 85mph at every opportunity), that could bring the 40-minute Leeds-Manc goal closer to reality.

The route does seem to have a lot of loops to me. With the exception of the Stalybridge end where they're a bit sparse.

 

[The_Engineer]

WYCA is recommending 4 fasts and 4 slows per hour as easier to achieve than 6 fasts.

….. and freight???

 

[Nomad8459]

Interesting discussions - i sent a submission to strategic North Rail group with a map highlighting the old avoiding line for Bradford Interchange that would really help with timings when diversions take place - its a small stretch of track that should never have been removed really, the route of this avoider is largely (98%) still unencumbered - its hoped that the recent news and pressure from Andy Burnham will push this (TPE Wires) onto a completion - seems to me that the same pressure needs applying with the relatively small sections of Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads and Didcot to Oxford, these two aspects of GWR wires seem the minimum required to make that project worthwhile at all.

 

[Iskra]

Interesting discussions - i sent a submission to strategic North Rail group with a map highlighting the old avoiding line for Bradford Interchange that would really help with timings when diversions take place - its a small stretch of track that should never have been removed really, the route of this avoider is largely (98%) still unencumbered - its hoped that the recent news and pressure from Andy Burnham will push this (TPE Wires) onto a completion - seems to me that the same pressure needs applying with the relatively small sections of Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads and Didcot to Oxford, these two aspects of GWR wires seem the minimum required to make that project worthwhile at all.

To my knowledge TPE diversions don't go via Bradford, they go via Huddersfield to call there and then go via Brighouse avoiding Bradford completely. They use the Wakefield Kirkgate/Huddersfield/Brighouse lines and Calder Valley as diversions, but not the Pudsey line to Bradford Interchange.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong.

While it's a nice idea, I can't think of any real uses for such a chord. I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid calling at a large city like Bradford for a few extra minutes and freight goes via Brighouse and Mirfield.

 

[Nomad8459]

To my knowledge TPE diversions don't go via Bradford, they go via Huddersfield to call there and then go via Brighouse avoiding Bradford completely. They use the Wakefield Kirkgate/Huddersfield/Brighouse lines and Calder Valley as diversions, but not the Pudsey line to Bradford Interchange.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong.

While it's a nice idea, I can't think of any real uses for such a chord. I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid calling at a large city like Bradford for a few extra minutes and freight goes via Brighouse and Mirfield.

Yeah the route exists down to Mirfield but with diversions when extensive work is taking place it would put a lot of pressure on the route - avoiding Bradford can be useful for future freight and the diversions across the five years of upgrade works

 

[tbtc]

It was faster than Hope Valley at the time of passenger withdrawal. All that was needed was a connection between Midland and Victoria and extension of electrification into Midland.

All that matters is that...

...Woodhead would be slower today...

...Hope Valley capacity can be easily improved with longer trains...

...there's no way you are going to build a simple connection from Victoria to Midland (given the Don, the Canal, the Parkway, the higher difference, the angle etc)...

...there's no scope for fast trains west of Dinting...

... let go.

Anyway what is an article about the Huddersfield route doing in a Bradford newspaper? Bradford has its own unaffected route to Manchester which is not made clear in the article.

Well, whilst electrifying the line through Huddersfield wouldn't benefit Bradford (which may make Bradford punters question why so much money is being spent on something they'll see no benefit from), it will impact upon the space for Leeds - Bradford - Rochdale - Manchester services - i.e. Bradford sees none of the benefits but may have to put up with five years of disruption - that sounds like a story of interest to the people of Bradford to me...

5 years of disruption sounds entirely plausible given that the Manchester - Leeds route mileage (based on my crude dot to dot Google Maps calculation) is almost exactly the same as Manchester - Blackpool (minus WCML). There's been weekend closures for years, and early am services have been RRB.
Something to consider is the availability of resources for electrification, given there's going to be HS2 construction, MML still to complete, and any other surprises Grayling might announce

Agreed - five years sounds like a good headline scary figure but it will take years to do the whole thing properly - piece by piece - just look at how long it's taking to upgrade one station (Derby, previously Reading etc).

If we want them to do a thorough job then we need to accept the Replacement Bus Services as our medicine.

Does anyone in the real world actually think that a project like this could be completed without creating any disruption.

I didn't - upgrading existing lines is messy - hence my support for HS2 - this is a huge undertaking and we are going to have to break a lot of eggs to sort this omelette.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

WYCA is recommending 4 fasts and 4 slows per hour as easier to achieve than 6 fasts.

I am increasingly leaning in favour of this approach. The fasts could well be genuine fasts ie Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester and nowhere else. With 4 slows as well the intermediate stations would still have a decent service and providing fasts overtake the previous slow at Huddersfield (build that additional island!) connections would still provide reasonable journey times for the likes of Dewsbury and Stalybridge

….. and freight???

In all seriousness what are the long-term prospects for trans-Pennine freight? The flow which has caused the most discussion recently is Liverpool-Drax biomass but I suspect it might be cheaper to construct a suitable shipping berth close to the power station itself rather than trying to accommodate daytime movements on the Diggle route. Anything else?

 

[furnessvale]

In all seriousness what are the long-term prospects for trans-Pennine freight? The flow which has caused the most discussion recently is Liverpool-Drax biomass but I suspect it might be cheaper to construct a suitable shipping berth close to the power station itself rather than trying to accommodate daytime movements on the Diggle route. Anything else?

I believe such a berth already exists and is used at Immingham.

The problem would appear that it is actually cheaper to empty a ship from the USA at Liverpool and continue the move by rail, rather than sending the ship around the UK and still have to use rail for final delivery to Drax.

As for other potential rail freight flows, who knows. With road congestion growing daily perhaps sanity will eventually prevail. I just hope rail is in a position to take advantage of that sanity and not been subject to even more "rationalisation" paring everything down to what the bean counters "think" will happen.

 

[Grumpy]

5 years of disruption sounds entirely plausible given that the Manchester - Leeds route mileage (based on my crude dot to dot Google Maps calculation) is almost exactly the same as Manchester - Blackpool (minus WCML). There's been weekend closures for years, and early am services have been RRB.
e

It may sound plausible if you accept dire management. Over a roughly similar period in the 1980's, BR electrified Hitchin to Leeds and Edinburgh, nearly 10 times the route mileage including resignalling most of the route in the NE. And this was achieved without the level of service disruption now being threatened

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It may sound plausible if you accept dire management. Over a roughly similar period in the 1980's, BR electrified Hitchin to Leeds and Edinburgh, nearly 10 times the route mileage including resignalling most of the route in the NE. And this was achieved without the level of service disruption now being threatened

It was also done under a much more relaxed H&S regime which made a huge difference as it was possible to wire one track while the other remained in use: not acceptable today. And of course so much was done on the cheap that significant sections have had to be re-done more recently. Not a fair comparison.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not electrifying the full route presents a number of rolling stock issues. The main one being that there is not deemed to be a suitable bi-mode loco to take over from the 68s. The cancellation of Selby - Hull came with the promise that TP electrification would see the 802s cascaded onto this route - replaced by EMUs and or electric loco and mk5s on Newcastle services. There is also the issue of what will operate the local services - will more new DMUs be needed to replace the 150s / 155s?

The 155s are apparently moving to Hull anyway. As for locals, Huddersfield to Leeds can be an EMU, other local services will need to be diesel or bi-mode. Huddersfield to Wakefield/Castleford will be a 150 in the short-term but by the time the upgrade is done the 150s will hopefully be razor blades.

The enthusiast in me would like to see old-school loco changes at Huddersfield... never going to happen of course!

WYCA is recommending 4 fasts and 4 slows per hour as easier to achieve than 6 fasts.

I'll drink to that... if I live long enough to see it (and I'm "only" 36!)

 

[bbrez]

Weren't they looking at some new routes in regards to the Standedge routes? I remember reading the report as part of my old job, but I can't place is that was as part of NPR or just a normal transpennine upgrade?

If anyone knows the document link, would love to read it again!

EDIT: Found it - https://assets.publishing.service.g...08412/160316_NPR_Station_Report_-_issue_4.pdf