• 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

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,709
Location
Leeds
The Guardian has this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vernment-cancels-transpennine-electrification

Northern politicians have warned of “anger and outrage” should the government confirm it has ditched plans to fully electrify the Transpennine rail route linking Manchester with Leeds and York.

The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, has suggested since summer 2017 that the eventual upgrade would fall short of full electrification, although he has pledged to spend billions improving the route.

Options for improving the Transpennine railway were submitted to ministers around six months ago by Network Rail, with an entirely electrified line being the most difficult and expensive – although extensive electrification is expected in a £3bn upgrade.

However, northern transport bodies have fought for the government to honour its original pledge to deliver full electrification, a project that was at the heart of plans to improve rail links between cities across the north.

The scheme was paused in June 2015 due to the escalating costs of other rail upgrade projects carried out by Network Rail, notably the tripling of its budget on Great Western electrification. Electrification of lines in the Midlands and Wales have also since been axed.

A report in the Sunday Times suggested a decision had been made to cancel electrification. A government source described the story as “tosh”.

However, the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said if it was true, “it will spark real anger and outrage across the north of England.

“People here have been at the back of the queue for transport investment for as long as any of us can remember and this would leave promises of a northern powerhouse in tatters.

“At a time when we are looking to phase out diesel cars, it seems that this government thinks it is acceptable to have diesel trains running across the north of England for decades to come. That tells you all need to know about how they view the north.”

He called on the government to clarify its plans immediately, adding: “The decision to prioritise transport projects in the South – such as Crossrail 2 and investment to support the expansion of Heathrow – is creating a real fear that the north is being pushed to the back of the queue once again.”

A Commons transport select committee report last week said there was strong evidence electrification remains the current optimal solution on heavily used parts of the railway and called on the government to work with the industry to reduce costs.

Lilian Greenwood, chair of the committee, said: ”If Transpennine electrification is cancelled, people across the north will conclude that the government has officially abandoned the northern powerhouse and any claim of credibility on the environment.”

The Department for Transport said no announcement was imminent. A spokesperson said: “We are committed to improving journeys on the Transpennine route, bringing in state-of-the art trains, longer carriages and more frequent services for passengers. But we want to go further, and expect to spend around £3bn on a rolling series of upgrades on this key route between Manchester, Leeds and York from spring 2019.

“We are working with Network Rail and Transport for the North to determine the best way to achieve these major improvements for passengers.

“Network Rail has established options for infrastructure works that could deliver these improved journeys and we are considering these before making further decisions later this year.”

I'm surprised that the DfT says no announcement is imminent - on the other hand they do confirm that work starts next spring on a major upgrade (£3 billion, not £1 billion as I wrongly said above).
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,990
The Guardian has this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vernment-cancels-transpennine-electrification



I'm surprised that the DfT says no announcement is imminent - on the other hand they do confirm that work starts next spring on a major upgrade.

It also states they will be making further decisions later this year. So far its unnamed sources in The Times, Labour politicians and The Guardian saying electrification has been cancelled. There has been nothing official apart from a statement from the DfT saying no announcement is imminent questions the reliability of The Times sources. I keep to my opinion that they will seperate the route upgrade and electrification and annouce some sort of fudge on the latter.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,932
The upgrade and electrification work do not need to be done at the same time. The government may not wish to do electrification at a later date but it is politically easier to do that compared with cancelling electrification outright. Doing Victoria-Stalybridge and / or Leeds-York/Selby alonside the route upgrade can be sold as the start of transpennine electrification and make the decision about Stalybridge-Leeds someone elses problem. Grayling is not likely to take a bullet over transpennine electrification cancellation if he can kick the can down the road, claim electrification is being done in phases and let someone else make the real decision at a later point. Victoria to Stalybridge would be a useful start due to Manchester's political influence and because it would ease Northern's DMU shortage.
It also states they will be making further decisions later this year. So far its unnamed sources in The Times, Labour politicians and The Guardian saying electrification has been cancelled. There has been nothing official apart from a statement from the DfT saying no announcement is imminent questions the reliability of The Times sources. I keep to my opinion that they will seperate the route upgrade and electrification and annouce some sort of fudge on the latter.

Do the whole thing at once as it save disrupting the route twice with weekend blocks or blockades.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,335
I suspect we will see an answer something along the lines of "we have placed all of the discrete segments of upgrade to the Transpennine Route in BCR order, and then funded the first £3bn worth. That means we will do x, y, z." Where x, y and z, include for instance, grade separation of Heaton Lodge, throat works at Leeds, electrification of the Garforth corridor, etc.

To my mind there are key items in TRU which will be almost impossible to avoid - removing conflicts, improving stopper speeds in the Garforth corridor - but that other than that there are items which can be excluded, whilst remaining true to the objectives.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
769
Location
Munich
To my mind there are key items in TRU which will be almost impossible to avoid - removing conflicts, improving stopper speeds in the Garforth corridor - but that other than that there are items which can be excluded, whilst remaining true to the objectives.

Quite right. In order of achieving objectives of capacity and speed then, from what we have learnt, electrification is probably quite far down the list of interventions. Electrification seems more a cost reduction investment.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,912
Full electrification always sounded like it was going to cause more problems than it solved, especially given how frequently services are diverted off the core route due to various factors, having just the core route electrified would mean an end to that, leaving at least some of it unelectrified ties services to hybrids or diesels, maintaining that option to divert via Hebden Bridge, Healey Mills, Castleford etc as required, rather than everything just coming to a stop.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
Full electrification always sounded like it was going to cause more problems than it solved, especially given how frequently services are diverted off the core route due to various factors, having just the core route electrified would mean an end to that, leaving at least some of it unelectrified ties services to hybrids or diesels, maintaining that option to divert via Hebden Bridge, Healey Mills, Castleford etc as required, rather than everything just coming to a stop.
How well do you think that argument would go down in London-land? The population density in W Yorkshire would probably generate enough rail journeys to justify new electric trains (or even redeployed 319s) on the diversionary routes if they were electrified anyway. Also I don't remember much of a problem from diversions, but I admit I have tried to avoid weekend travel in the last few years...
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,335
Quite right. In order of achieving objectives of capacity and speed then, from what we have learnt, electrification is probably quite far down the list of interventions. Electrification seems more a cost reduction investment.

For the real core yes. However, for the Garforth corridor I really cannot see how electrification can be avoided. Let's remember the service pattern is 2 stoppers per hour (and 3 in the peak, remember 3 all day is a franchise option for Northern) *and* 6 expresses per hour. Clearly increasing line speeds will be important, other than electrification, how else can you get the stoppers out of the way?

TRU gives us an objective of 62 minutes for York to Manchester, and 40 from Leeds to Manchester; so that means York to Leeds must be 20 minutes less dwell time at Leeds. Given currently it's typically times for 25 minutes there is clearly some way to go!
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
TPE getting bi-modes may actually be a blessing in disguise, as it does allow for use of the Calder Valley line as a diversionary route without the urgency of electrifying both lines. I mean, obviously it would be preferable to see Calder Valley electrified this side of 2030, but the bi-modes give a little flexibility in giving Calder Valley a rolling electrification programme as and when needed.

The constant problem that seems to have plagued Transport since the end of the Coalition is that the Tories have treated bi-modes as a solution to all the world's ills rather than a transitionary measure. I think the North would accept another decade of two of partial diesel-running if they saw further investment in their railways, but a fully electric railway is an inevitability, and no amount of special pleading to immature technologies can justify stalling the immediate conversion we need in the way Whitehall did in the 00s and are doing again now.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,990
TPE getting bi-modes may actually be a blessing in disguise, as it does allow for use of the Calder Valley line as a diversionary route without the urgency of electrifying both lines. I mean, obviously it would be preferable to see Calder Valley electrified this side of 2030, but the bi-modes give a little flexibility in giving Calder Valley a rolling electrification programme as and when needed.

The constant problem that seems to have plagued Transport since the end of the Coalition is that the Tories have treated bi-modes as a solution to all the world's ills rather than a transitionary measure. I think the North would accept another decade of two of partial diesel-running if they saw further investment in their railways, but a fully electric railway is an inevitability, and no amount of special pleading to immature technologies can justify stalling the immediate conversion we need in the way Whitehall did in the 00s and are doing again now.

Calder Valley is the chosen route for "Northern Powerhouse Rail" therefore I can't see electrification happening for a long time because large sections of the line will need to be completely rebuilt. I think most important issue is that the planned rail investment in Standedge route happens and that electrification of the route does not get cancelled even if it is delayed. While Wigan-Lostock is still in limbo I very much doubt that Stalybridge-Leeds-York will be cancelled outright.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,912
How well do you think that argument would go down in London-land? The population density in W Yorkshire would probably generate enough rail journeys to justify new electric trains (or even redeployed 319s) on the diversionary routes if they were electrified anyway. Also I don't remember much of a problem from diversions, but I admit I have tried to avoid weekend travel in the last few years...

Dunno about London-land, but as the diversionary routes aren't planned to be electrified (Castleford - Church Fenton would be very unlikely, Healey Mills the same unless Kirkgate was electrified. The Calder Valley might have a decent arguement for it, but as Chester1 says, it would probably be more expensive than via Diggle, and for a worse business case.

At the moment there are booked diverts via Healey Mills overnight and quite a few were booked via Hebden Bridge on Sunday morning, with a few via Castleford overnight this week too. If the trains can't be diverted overnight and early/late for engineering work they'll end up being buses, or the work might have to be done with blocks during the day. That's when it's a booked diversion too, there's ones that are diverted due to points, breakdowns and external factors regular away. Adding electrification adds one more potential way one line could be blocked.

At the moment it's great for most as the routes between the main stations are all virtually duplicated, with few places where the job can be totally stopped.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,691
Failures causing diversions aren't actually very common though.

Diversionary routes do not make good business cases for electrification.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,869
Location
Nottingham
Calder Valley is the chosen route for "Northern Powerhouse Rail" therefore I can't see electrification happening for a long time because large sections of the line will need to be completely rebuilt. I think most important issue is that the planned rail investment in Standedge route happens and that electrification of the route does not get cancelled even if it is delayed. While Wigan-Lostock is still in limbo I very much doubt that Stalybridge-Leeds-York will be cancelled outright.
Is the Calder Valley in fact the chosen route or has someone just jumped to that conclusion because it's supposed to go through Bradford? It could follow a more easterly and shorter route and just keep going straight in the vicinity of Huddersfield instead of going right towards Leeds.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,691
A new alignment over much of it's length would probably give a better value for money because of the lack of construction disruption and better alignment.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,709
Location
Leeds
Is the Calder Valley in fact the chosen route or has someone just jumped to that conclusion because it's supposed to go through Bradford? It could follow a more easterly and shorter route and just keep going straight in the vicinity of Huddersfield instead of going right towards Leeds.

Depends how long a tunnel they can afford. I like the idea of following the Rochdale line from Manchester to near Littleborough, then a tunnel to near Sowerby Bridge.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Is the Calder Valley in fact the chosen route or has someone just jumped to that conclusion because it's supposed to go through Bradford? It could follow a more easterly and shorter route and just keep going straight in the vicinity of Huddersfield instead of going right towards Leeds.
No it is most certainly not a Calder Valley upgrade. Go back to the latest NPR announcement and Leeds-Bradford-Manc was described as a new line and not an upgrade to an existing line.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
For the real core yes. However, for the Garforth corridor I really cannot see how electrification can be avoided. Let's remember the service pattern is 2 stoppers per hour (and 3 in the peak, remember 3 all day is a franchise option for Northern) *and* 6 expresses per hour. Clearly increasing line speeds will be important, other than electrification, how else can you get the stoppers out of the way?

TRU gives us an objective of 62 minutes for York to Manchester, and 40 from Leeds to Manchester; so that means York to Leeds must be 20 minutes less dwell time at Leeds. Given currently it's typically times for 25 minutes there is clearly some way to go!
Requadrify from Marsh Lane Leeds to Cross Gates and use the wide trackbed from here to Garforth to make four tracks. This will allow overtaking of the stoppers at Garforth, Cross Gates and new station at Thorpe Park by non stoppers.
Non-stop Leeds-York is 23 minutes already so only needs reducing by 3 minutes. Increasing speed limit to 100mph and electrification should do it.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,335
Requadrify from Marsh Lane Leeds to Cross Gates and use the wide trackbed from here to Garforth to make four tracks. This will allow overtaking of the stoppers at Garforth, Cross Gates and new station at Thorpe Park by non stoppers.
Non-stop Leeds-York is 23 minutes already so only needs reducing by 3 minutes. Increasing speed limit to 100mph and electrification should do it.

Marsh Lane to Crossgates is easy enough. But the route is very tight after that, I'm not even sure much more of it was ever more than 2 tracks.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
Marsh Lane to Crossgates is easy enough. But the route is very tight after that, I'm not even sure much more of it was ever more than 2 tracks.
The trackbed from Cross Gates to just west of Garforth station is four tracks wide but was never used as such.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,912
The trackbed from Cross Gates to just west of Garforth station is four tracks wide but was never used as such.

Parts of the trackbed were built to allow 4 track, but in many places it was just the overbridges that were built to allow 4 tracks but often the cutting wasn’t cut back that far.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
So thanks to the magic of the Freedom of Information Act, the DfT have confirmed that they've had the inspector's report into four-tracking Piccadilly to Deansgate since February 2016 and yet Grayling hasn't issued the TWO yet.

Surely it should've been issued by now?
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,709
Location
Leeds
So thanks to the magic of the Freedom of Information Act, the DfT have confirmed that they've had the inspector's report into four-tracking Piccadilly to Deansgate since February 2016 and yet Grayling hasn't issued the TWO yet.

Surely it should've been issued by now?

If this was a nationally signifcant project (the term has a specific legal definition) seeking approval under the Planning Act 2008, he would have to make a decision within three months of receiving a recommendation (though I think there's a mechanism for that to be extended).

But as this is a project seeking approval under the Transport & Works Act 1992, he is not under any legal obligation to announce a decision on any particular timescale.

He is on record as saying he thinks the project may be unnecessary and that it should be possible to achieve higher capacity through fancier signalling (the magical digital railway). He has looked at the numbers of trains per hour projected to run through the two-track Thameslink and Crossrail cores. Of course, these have more uniform train types and no freight.

Incidentally the project if approved would not involve four-tracking throughout. It would remain two tracks at the narrowest point between Piccadilly and Oxford Road, and through Deansgate.
 
Last edited:

The_Engineer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2018
Messages
524
Incidentally the project if approved would not involve four-tracking throughout. It would remain two tracks at the narrowest point between Piccadilly and Oxford Road, and through Deansgate.
But Oxford Road is already four track; what exactly will be four tracked then?
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
DfT guidance says they try to work to the three month deadline for TWO projects. I did have a look at previous TWOs, and the turnaround time in reality seems to be around six to nine months.

That the Barking Riverside project had its planning permission application, public inquiry, inspector's report, and TWO approval done wholly within the time the Piccadilly P15-16 report has been sitting on the table may speak a lot to the government's priorities.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,709
Location
Leeds
I think the decision on the Hope Valley improvement took a couple of years, though I don't know the date of receipt of the inspector's report.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,709
Location
Leeds
But Oxford Road is already four track; what exactly will be four tracked then?

The through platforms at Oxford Road would be realigned and lengthened, with the side effect of closing the bay platform. The main improvement would be the two new through platforms at Picc.

They say that by alternating use of the two new westbound platforms at Picc, and the same at Oxford Road, and the same eastbound, the platform capacity would be well matched to the track capacity between the two stations.
 

The_Engineer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2018
Messages
524
The through platforms would be realigned and lengthened, with the side effect of closing the bay platform.
Thank you! I feel that the extra platforms at Piccadilly without four-tracking will not deliver many extra paths, but I would like to see what the plans say.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,990
I think the decision on the Hope Valley improvement took a couple of years, though I don't know the date of receipt of the inspector's report.

The Hope Valley passing loops where subject to legal challenges by nearby residents while the delay with Piccadilly is simply due to Grayling keeping his options open.
 

Top