• 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

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,693
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Isn't infrastructure just a very easy target, however serious the long-term consequences may be?

It goes the other way too.
NR has recently built the Shaftholme flyover, just in time for the announcement of the closure of Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations (and uncertainty about the future of Drax).
Not to mention the closure of Kellingley pit and other deep mines in the area.
The business case has evaporated, almost overnight.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Hophead

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
1,193
The adoption of Network Rail 5-Year Control Periods should be a considerably more stable way of dealing with the funding of infrastructure than has been apparent in the last 20 years or more. That's of reduced help, though, when cost control goes out of the window, scope doesn't so much creep as dash, and the company tasked with implementing all this seems to have little say in its own investment priorities.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
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.

One if is on time aspect but I have another if, does the government have the confidence in NR (suggested as being unlikely on this board) and secondly the money. I wonder whether the CP6 settlement will be anywhere the CP5 settlement given the cuts being made elsewhere in the government's budget (25 to 40% depending what way the wind blows) currently. I guess the railways will have to suffer some pain at some point.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
One if is on time aspect but I have another if, does the government have the confidence in NR (suggested as being unlikely on this board) and secondly the money. I wonder whether the CP6 settlement will be anywhere the CP5 settlement given the cuts being made elsewhere in the government's budget (25 to 40% depending what way the wind blows) currently. I guess the railways will have to suffer some pain at some point.

DfT funding to the railway is decreasing as premium payments increase, so there's not necessarily going to be a requirement to make significant savings to any of the funding available to Network Rail - either the network grant or the various special programs. That said, I'd say there's a little leeway to remove a few hundred million from NR's CP6 budget without it being too problematic.

There's a lot of work being done now which will not need to feature in future control periods - double/four tracking works continue in many areas, we've got a lot of level crossings closed, many stations have now been made disabled compliant, lots of route clearance has been carried out for 26m IEP stock, lots of platforms have been extended and lots of energy and maintenance efficient equipment has been installed - LED signal heads, LED PIS systems and so on.

Track, signalling and basic maintenance work always needs to be carried out, but some of that is being helped by the programs of work being carried out, disabled accessible bridges replace tired, life expired structures, such as happened at Dunblane, and provide electrification clearances for the cost of an extra couple of steps and a few inches of steel whilst platform extensions and re-openings remove some of the decaying and crumbling platforms which need attention and vegetation management. Drainage upgrades, culvert rebuilds and hundreds of other small projects are one time exercises.

Re-doubling, four tracking and other traffic management works being carried out has the side effect of tidying up signalling cable runs and cabinets, generally moving it from positions where it was acceptable when lines were singled back in the days of BR, into new acceptable locations today, well clear of the running lines, helping to eliminate red zone working, that sort of thing.

Electrification work also removes lots of future problems - Farnworth famously is getting a lovely twin track, W12 gauged, 100mph capable tunnel in lieu of a 200 year old maintenance and gauging nightmare, so for the one time upfront cost of re-boring Farnworth, we get decades of tiny maintenance expenditures instead of significant ones. Farnworth will save Network Rail a significant sum during CP6 alone.

There's a lot of bridges which are getting to the point where they're needing attention, electrification removes and rebuilds these, providing us with a better overhead environment, with robust parapets compliant with the latest safety regulations - in some areas, we don't have to worry about parapets being knocked off or simply falling down onto the track and incidents like the Oxshott bridge containment failure can't happen on our new bridges.

Signal gantries and posts also tend to be replaced or moved around during electrification works too, and as with track layout changes, we generally tidy up cable routings, move cabinets into better locations and make maintenance work safer and easier for those involved.

Electrification also reduces the maintenance cost per passenger km - a Class 319 is 15 tonnes lighter than 2 x Class 150 units and there are good maintenance savings as a result, even taking into account OLE maintenance, and the little savings as a result of lower energy costs make a little extra available for premium payments or reduced subsidy.

What we will see is the amount of revenue coming into the railways increasing, the amount of money being spent on maintenance increasing at a slightly slower rate, as some of the most expensive and costly maintenance costs are slowly dealt with, the amount of subsidy reducing accordingly. There's still going to be lots of money poured into the network to increase capacity, and in light of the growing NOx emissions issue/scandal, more commitments to electrify key railway lines and eliminate diesel trains, especially from city centre locations.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
There's a lot of work being done now which will not need to feature in future control periods


That's a very optimistic outlook !

Let's be careful not to fall into the trap of falling back to previous years of low investment. Following on from the currently known projects there's going to be a huge amount of work required heading into the HS2 era to update lines to service the new lines that perhaps aren't on anyone's radar currently, then there's work that has been lurking in the "to do" list, replacement structures on mainlines that are being held together through unsustainable maintenance because of track access difficulties that may ease post HS2 enabling replacement. The roll out of new technologies for signals and passenger comms, ever increasing train lengthening on commuter routes into major employment centres - 12 carriages will eventually be required on some Manchester services, despite the current plans for 8 carriages.
 

TBY-Paul

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2013
Messages
329
Reading through the thread, and the "un-pausing", there doesn't seam to be any mention of electrification of the Northallerton to Middlesbrough route.

Has it been dropped/put back. I'm not a 100% sure if it was in the original plans or whether it was something that was just hinted at? I seam to think I read somewhere that it was to be added to/ brought forward to one of the CP's?
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
It goes the other way too.
NR has recently built the Shaftholme flyover, just in time for the announcement of the closure of Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations (and uncertainty about the future of Drax).
Not to mention the closure of Kellingley pit and other deep mines in the area.
The business case has evaporated, almost overnight.

But six years ago when that business case was first constructed this was up to five years in the future - what would you rather have happened?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
Reading through the thread, and the "un-pausing", there doesn't seam to be any mention of electrification of the Northallerton to Middlesbrough route.

Has it been dropped/put back. I'm not a 100% sure if it was in the original plans or whether it was something that was just hinted at? I seam to think I read somewhere that it was to be added to/ brought forward to one of the CP's?

It was never in the original scheme but was expected to be included at some stage as a follow on project.
 

TBY-Paul

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2013
Messages
329
Reading through the thread, and the "un-pausing", there doesn't seam to be any mention of electrification of the Northallerton to Middlesbrough route.

Has it been dropped/put back. I'm not a 100% sure if it was in the original plans or whether it was something that was just hinted at? I seam to think I read somewhere that it was to be added to/ brought forward to one of the CP's?

It was never in the original scheme but was expected to be included at some stage as a follow on project.

Thanks for that, I wasn't 100% sure. The line could do with something doing to it. Considering how relatively straight the line is, it can sometimes feel as though your ambling along (but that might be to do with all the level crossings/farm crossings etc)..

Realtime Trains show the distance from Eaglescliffe to Northallerton is 14m 52ch, TPE cover the distance in about 19mins with a stop at Yarm. GC take 17m30s without a stop, so it somewhere in the region of 45-50mph average.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,693
Location
Mold, Clwyd
But six years ago when that business case was first constructed this was up to five years in the future - what would you rather have happened?

I accept it's hard for NR to read the crystal ball, but they do publish stuff predicting demand out to 2043!
If the cost was down to the coal sector, no problem, it's their business.
But I think it was one of several schemes justified for ECML capacity.
There's a whole lot of recent infrastructure improvements in the same boat: G&SW redoubling, S&C upgrade, Alloa-Kincardine etc.
Felixstowe-Nuneaton is another scheme which is half done and looks like not achieving the benefits promised.
It all adds to the credit card debt.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
It goes the other way too.
NR has recently built the Shaftholme flyover, just in time for the announcement of the closure of Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations (and uncertainty about the future of Drax).
Not to mention the closure of Kellingley pit and other deep mines in the area.
The business case has evaporated, almost overnight.

Could the power stations burn biomass instead (I know Drax partially does)? Would this see biomass imported using the route instead?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,693
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Could the power stations burn biomass instead (I know Drax partially does)? Would this see biomass imported using the route instead?

Yes, there's always hope while the power station is still open.
Shaftholme is focussed on Immingham imports though.
I think the Drax biomass trains are coming from Teesport and Liverpool, so not likely to use Shaftholme.

On a slightly wider perspective, there must be quite a lot of freight infrastructure around Doncaster that must be at risk in the future without coal traffic.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
My reading of this is that the MML and TPE schemes will have first call on whatever infrastructure funding is available for CP6, moreorless regardless of what they cost. The amount available to pay for all other CP6 enhancements will depend firstly on how much the Government (and other sources) choose to offer, and secondly on how much MML and TPE actually cost.
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
But six years ago when that business case was first constructed this was up to five years in the future - what would you rather have happened?

As an example of this I was on a reballasting job of the Crossover and turnout to Monkwearmouth colliery in the early 90s.
About 2 weeks later it shut.

The railway work had been on the cards for 2 years or more.
The Closure decision took less than a week.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
Thanks for that, I wasn't 100% sure. The line could do with something doing to it. Considering how relatively straight the line is, it can sometimes feel as though your ambling along (but that might be to do with all the level crossings/farm crossings etc)..

Yeah it can feel rather interminably long at times, especially in the dark. Well I think the level crossings are mostly AHB (automatic half-barrier) which is good for 100mph but the farm crossings might be more of an issue.

I suppose it also depends on what the conditions are under the track and how much maintenance Network Rail are willing to do to maintain higher speeds on what is in the grand scheme of things, to be fair, a bit of a secondary route (though, to us, it's obviously important!).

But in any event I'm sure that Northallerton to Middlesbrough/Tees Port will get wired at some stage in either CP6 or CP7.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
My reading of this is that the MML and TPE schemes will have first call on whatever infrastructure funding is available for CP6, moreorless regardless of what they cost. The amount available to pay for all other CP6 enhancements will depend firstly on how much the Government (and other sources) choose to offer, and secondly on how much MML and TPE actually cost.

I concur with these thoughts but would add these projects would probably have first call on the resources to construct them before any other wiring takes place.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,693
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I concur with these thoughts but would add these projects would probably have first call on the resources to construct them before any other wiring takes place.

After Crossrail, Thameslink, Northern Hub and probably East West Phase 2.
There are a lot of CP5 projects which could claim priority if they overrun into CP6.
eg GOBLIN and the Bromsgrove/Chase lines in the Midlands.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
After Crossrail, Thameslink, Northern Hub and probably East West Phase 2.
There are a lot of CP5 projects which could claim priority if they overrun into CP6.
eg GOBLIN and the Bromsgrove/Chase lines in the Midlands.

GOBLIN, as it currently stands, should complete well before CP6, but despite the contracts being signed, it's gone worryingly quiet.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,742
Location
Leeds
Roger Ford's email preview is out for his column in the next issue of Modern Railways.

Politicians can be deeply sensitive people, their egos easily bruised. No, I’m not joking.

On 12 September Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party. His policy platform includes renationalisation of the railways which for some reason spooked the Department for Transport and the train operators.

Meanwhile, following the announcement in June that the Trans-Pennine and Midland Main Line electrification schemes would be ‘paused’ while Network Rail Chairman Sir Peter Hendy worked out which enhancement schemes were affordable and could be delivered in the current Control Period, Labour politicians in the North started teasing Chancellor George Osborne that his much vaunted vision of a Northern Power House had become a Northern Powercut. This was entirely down to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin’s mishandling of the ‘pause’ announcement.

While work on the MML had indeed been paused, even before the Northern Power house was dreamed-up, Northern and Trans-Penning Express had already told Network Rail and DfT that the Trans-Pennine route needed speed and capacity upgrades to meet the aspirations in the franchise ITTs. Electrification would freeze the current infrastructure in steel and concrete: wouldn’t it make sense to plan an old fashioned total route modernisation before putting up the electric knitting?

So TP electrification was already sliding back into Control Period 6, and for a very good reason. Enter the Transport Secretary who says a scheme which is being expanded to serve the Northern Powerhouse is being paused. What an own goal.

Around a week after Mr Corbyn’s election, the Northern Powercut jibes finally got to the Chancellor and he demanded that DfT un-pause the TP electrification immediately. And the MML electrification too.

This non-negotiable instruction went down badly with DfT. As for Sir Peter Hendy, he was three months into his enhancements review. This involves juggling a fixed budget for CP5 against still-emerging scheme completion dates and the associated likely costs. The result will determine what can be afforded and delivered and what will have to be put back to CP6 or binned (Informed Sources October).

Sir Peter’s revised CP5 enhancements schedule is due to be published in November. To have two expensive projects, one of which has gone back to GRIP 2 (Feasibility), suddenly locked into your multi-dimensional spread sheet with six weeks or so to go is vexing.


Vexed

How vexed is equally clear in the exchange of correspondence between Sir Peter and the hapless intermediary Patrick McLoughlin. I have some fun deconstructing Sir Peter’s letter,

For example, he opens by noting that he was asked ‘more recently’ for his ‘advice’ on options for NTP and MML electrification, while ‘bearing in mind the Government commitments to the Northern Power House but mindful that the rest of my review is not complete’. For ‘more recently’ read ‘last week’, for ‘advice’ read ‘rubber stamp’ and, un-coded, the final passage points out ‘I know you are b*gg*r*ng me about to avoid political embarrassment’.


Trans-Pennine

On Trans-Pennine Sir Peter says that that a full planning exercise should start ‘immediately’. This work will be concluded by the end of 2017. Electrification could start at the beginning of 2018 for completion by the end of 2022. This is pretty much the timescale that was emerging following the TOCs’ intervention.

On the MML Sir Peter advises that electrification should be staged, with Bedford to Kettering and Corby completed by 2019. Continuation to Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield would follow with completion by 2023

This letter was a classic and the final paragraph headed ‘costs’ is commended. It reads ‘I am continuing work to set out the already evident likely funding shortfall in CP5. I understand the Government acknowledge that un-pausing now will create further significant spending pressure’.

Now the Treasury line is that Network Rail will have to deliver what it can from the £38.5 billion in its CP5 settlement. So the ‘significant spending pressure’ could mean more schemes being added to the unaffordable list.

But what should we make of the final paragraph of Mr McLoughlin’s reply to Sir Peter? ‘As you say, it is right that Network Rail are as ambitious as possible in seeking to meet pressures from within existing resources in the first instance, before making a call for additional public funds’.

‘Before making a call for additional public funds?’ What I hear is that Network Rail’s £38.5 billion to cover operations, maintenance, renewals and enhancements in CP5 is all they are going to get.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,693
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I don't get some of this TP design stuff.
Long before the "pause", there were NR programmes for journey time improvements between Leeds and Manchester/Liverpool - hence the work at Huyton and on the Chat Moss route.
There were also plans for more trains between Leeds and Manchester, including more loops and signalling/junction improvements.
Then electrification came along, and some of the other infrastructure work was deleted (usually reported as not 4-tracking Standedge tunnels).
Then NR discovers the planned infrastructure will not support 6tph, so goes back to the drawing board.

How can the original electrification scheme be described as simply "changing the power source"?
It would surely have to take into account the other programmes of work (JTI and 6tph etc).
Another factor which doesn't ring true is the view of the TOCs.
It's very unusual for TOCs, especially those at the end of their franchise term, to have much influence on infrastructure decisions.

Anyway, we have another "clean sheet of paper".
Let's hope they get it right this time.
Are they going to sort out the abysmally slow routes between Manchester and Stalybridge?
And what exactly prevents them from getting on with Leeds-York?
And nobody ever seems to ask the question - do we really need 6tph mini-trains between Leeds and Manchester?
 

John S2

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2011
Messages
75
Are they going to sort out the abysmally slow routes between Manchester and Stalybridge?
And what exactly prevents them from getting on with Leeds-York?
And nobody ever seems to ask the question - do we really need 6tph mini-trains between Leeds and Manchester?
These are three good questions.
Given the importance of the Manchester-Leeds route it is inexcusable that the abysmally slow routes between Stalybridge and Manchester have not been significantly improved. There also needs to be opportunity for westbound fast services to overtake stoppers much earlier after leaving Leeds.
My opinion is we do not need six trains per hour, unless the six includes a couple of semi-fasts. Four fast services would be sufficient providing they were all of at least six cars and ran to faster timings than at present.
 
Last edited:

stockport1

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2011
Messages
169
I don't get some of this TP design stuff.
Long before the "pause", there were NR programmes for journey time improvements between Leeds and Manchester/Liverpool - hence the work at Huyton and on the Chat Moss route.
There were also plans for more trains between Leeds and Manchester, including more loops and signalling/junction improvements.
Then electrification came along, and some of the other infrastructure work was deleted (usually reported as not 4-tracking Standedge tunnels).
Then NR discovers the planned infrastructure will not support 6tph, so goes back to the drawing board.

How can the original electrification scheme be described as simply "changing the power source"?
It would surely have to take into account the other programmes of work (JTI and 6tph etc).
Another factor which doesn't ring true is the view of the TOCs.
It's very unusual for TOCs, especially those at the end of their franchise term, to have much influence on infrastructure decisions.

Anyway, we have another "clean sheet of paper".
Let's hope they get it right this time.
Are they going to sort out the abysmally slow routes between Manchester and Stalybridge?
And what exactly prevents them from getting on with Leeds-York?
And nobody ever seems to ask the question - do we really need 6tph mini-trains between Leeds and Manchester?


would reopening the other standedge tunnels make the job easier/cheaper?
the two disused tunnels could be brought to standard and electrified before being used as a diversion while the main currently used tunnel is upgraded.

without reopening the tunnels what will the scope be? limited passing loops and a few platform reopenings (marsden)???
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
would reopening the other standedge tunnels make the job easier/cheaper?
the two disused tunnels could be brought to standard and electrified before being used as a diversion while the main currently used tunnel is upgraded.

without reopening the tunnels what will the scope be? limited passing loops and a few platform reopenings (marsden)???

The other bores at Standedge are single track, one of them is currently used as emergency access for the adjacent canal tunnel (and indeed the working railway tunnel should it ever be needed) so might not be suitable for reopening unless some sort of tramway combined with slab-track is used to allow fire appliances to enter. Either way, being single bore clearance for OHLE might be more tricky.
All that being said, even if reopened without wiring, the one "free" bore would at least be preferable during the wiring works to a lengthy, slow, and limited diversion via the Calder Valley, at least when work is centred on the tunnel itself.
 

ianhr

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2013
Messages
534
This - to my mind is key. This bit can get done. It would enable London- Edinburgh via Leeds. Leeds - Edinburgh and Glasgow etc. Serve as a useful diversionary route for Doncaster -York etc.

Also London-Leeds via Hambleton Jct (proposed about 10 years ago) and the Leeds-York(and Selby?) locals which would save 2 or 3 DMUs from the West Yorks fleet. The 24 EMUs based in West Yorks are not fully deployed at present.

It is difficult to see that much new infrastructure is needed between Leeds and York. There are already 4 tracks York-Church Fenton and virtually all junctions can be taken at speed; perhaps loops at Cross Gates where there is plenty of space would allow fasts to overtake stopping trains and increase capacity marginally and improve reliability.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And nobody ever seems to ask the question - do we really need 6tph mini-trains between Leeds and Manchester?

The mini-train policy of the last 25 years has been a disaster and needs to be knocked on the head once and for all NOW. If any of the new bids propose continuing to run 2 and 3 car trains they should be binned along with any further use of Pacers by Northern.
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
would reopening the other standedge tunnels make the job easier/cheaper?
the two disused tunnels could be brought to standard and electrified before being used as a diversion while the main currently used tunnel is upgraded.

A few years ago when talking this over with a Northern Rail train planner.
It was said that the idea of reopening at least one of the old bores would be so that a stopper could leave Marsden and enter the single bore tunnel with a TPE passing in the main tunnel. This would then permit the stopper to then run to Stalybridge with a 3 - 4 mile shorter run after being passed and crucially 3 - 4 minutes quicker on time before the next TPE.

Vehicle access into the tunnels is or was normally from the Stalybridge end but is possible from either end. Larger vehicles such as Artics must come in from the WEST though due to limitations at Marsden.
A one way traffic circuit is usually set up with the Northern most single bore set for East bound moves. It is possible to short circuit this by use of the "Cathedral" chamber in the middle of the tunnels.

I used to spend a number of weekends each year working in the tunnel on renewals and had to set up the planning for the traffic system.
 

Top