Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

snowball · 11 Sep 2018

Apparently Haines addressed the Commons transport committe yesterday. I'm looking around for reports.

The new chief executive of Network Rail Andrew Haines has not ruled out potentially selling off stations in future if it can be proven to be value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.

Speaking to the Transport select committee in parliament, Mr Haines noted that it would be hard to classify many stations as “non-core” assets for the railway given the critical function they play as part of the rail network.

However the rail boss said he would be open to discussions if a meaningful proposal was bought forward.

“I have a very pragmatic view of these things, I want to see more money invested in the railway and I want us to use it wisely.

“If we can find partners that will allow us to bring additional finance into the railway without jeopardising the operational integrity of the railway I will be very keen to explore that. It has to be value for money and it has to work for both parties.

Asked by committee member and conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle Huw Merriman about any further plans for Network Rail in regards to selling parts of the estate, including stations, Haines said: “I wouldn’t rule out disposing of certain stations… [however], I am not sure that stations are non-core [assets].

“If people have got innovative ideas about how they may run a station, and they may run it better than Network Rail, subject to protecting the employment of my employees I would be very happy to talk to them about it.”

Mr Haines’ comments come as the rail body finalised the sale of a £1.5bn property portolio to private firms Telereal Trillium and Blackstone.

The rail boss was also critical of the previous Network Rail investment round, Control Period 5 (CP5), which has been criticised for delays and overspend.

Mr Haines said that CP5 was a “top-down plan” that led to disruption and added costs whereas the next investment cycle [CP6] had been built from the “bottom up”, with new proposals expected to be thought out thoroughly, including a business case, before being given the go-ahead.

Asked by Transport committee chair Lilian Greenwood about the plans to improve the rail link between Manchester and Leeds, known as the TransPennine upgrade, Mr Haines raised concerns that the project may fail to meet raised expectations due to the level of cost and disruption involved.

He said: “It [TransPennine] is a good example of somewhere where there is a potential misalignment of what people would like to do, and what is available in funds and the scale of disruption.

“The TransPennine would probably be the biggest redevelopment of an existing railway line since the west coast mainline intervention. The ability to do it without significantly disrupting passengers will to a certain extent temper what people would like to do.

“It feels like a project which, if we had thought more clearly about the desired outcomes at the outset, we may have made more progress.

Mr Haines said he expected the contribution from the private sector to increase over time, with work on new lines that do not disrupt the rail the obvious choice for third-party contractors to challenge Network Rail for work.

The Network Rail chief stated that the Heathrow western access route, a 6.5 km railway linking the airport to the Great Western Mainline and the Felixstowe Loop upgrade project were prime candidates for third-party contracts.

“You are allowing the third party to take on a project without having to take on the full risk of the operational railway.

“I think you can be a nationalised industry and still want to use private finance to supplement your core expenditure.”

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/...l-boss-open-to-station-sales/10035015.article

The above quote includes this about TP:

Asked by Transport committee chair Lilian Greenwood about the plans to improve the rail link between Manchester and Leeds, known as the TransPennine upgrade, Mr Haines raised concerns that the project may fail to meet raised expectations due to the level of cost and disruption involved.

He said: “It [TransPennine] is a good example of somewhere where there is a potential misalignment of what people would like to do, and what is available in funds and the scale of disruption.

“The TransPennine would probably be the biggest redevelopment of an existing railway line since the west coast mainline intervention. The ability to do it without significantly disrupting passengers will to a certain extent temper what people would like to do.

“It feels like a project which, if we had thought more clearly about the desired outcomes at the outset, we may have made more progress.

There's also this, which doesn't mention TP:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ut-passengers-interests-first?dorewrite=false

RailUK Forums

47802 · 11 Sep 2018

It would seem to me that electrification should be put on the back burner until we see what's happening with NPR after all the line is getting new rolling stock in the medium term anyway, we need to decide between NPR or TPE electrification I'm not sure having both are really justified.

Class 170101 · 11 Sep 2018

Here for Andrew Haines at Transport Select Committee
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/40f6c865-7c9f-4caa-890f-cd9ba8dabc47

matacaster · 11 Sep 2018

47802 said:
It would seem to me that electrification should be put on the back burner until we see what's happening with NPR after all the line is getting new rolling stock in the medium term anyway, we need to decide between NPR or TPE electrification I'm not sure having both are really justified.

Err, NPR will wither on the vine, it just isn't going to happen -too far away from London, too expensive and will not be delivered in most people's lifetime

So, Electrification of Standedge route is the way to go with as many improvements as we can get.

B&I · 11 Sep 2018

47802 said:
It would seem to me that electrification should be put on the back burner until we see what's happening with NPR after all the line is getting new rolling stock in the medium term anyway, we need to decide between NPR or TPE electrification I'm not sure having both are really justified.

Other countries seem to have no problem electrifying main and secondary lines

Bald Rick · 11 Sep 2018

Elecman said:
Andrew Haines has apparently said TP electrification May now not take place in his view of Route Upgrade

Where’s he said this?

squizzler · 11 Sep 2018

47802 said:
It would seem to me that electrification should be put on the back burner until we see what's happening with NPR after all the line is getting new rolling stock in the medium term anyway, we need to decide between NPR or TPE electrification I'm not sure having both are really justified.

I'm with you on this. It sounds to me that Haines has learnt the lessons of the WCML route upgrade and is nudging the debate away from a replay of that and GWML and towards a replacement mainline (i.e. NPR).

158756 · 12 Sep 2018

squizzler said:
I'm with you on this. It sounds to me that Haines has learnt the lessons of the WCML route upgrade and is nudging the debate away from a replay of that and GWML and towards a replacement mainline (i.e. NPR).

Electrification may or may not be a good idea for the Transpennine route. But it would be foolish to put all the eggs in the basket of an idea with no proposed route, no business case, certainly no funding, and probably 20+ years away even if it happens.

snowball · 12 Sep 2018

158756 said:
Electrification may or may not be a good idea for the Transpennine route. But it would be foolish to put all the eggs in the basket of an idea with no proposed route, no business case, certainly no funding, and probably 20+ years away even if it happens.

You took the words out of my mouth!

superkev · 12 Sep 2018

Calderdale council are campaigning to electrifying the Calder valley route.
With lots of start stop where electric trains excel I think it would be a better bet.
K

squizzler · 12 Sep 2018

158756 said:
Electrification may or may not be a good idea for the Transpennine route. But it would be foolish to put all the eggs in the basket of an idea with no proposed route, no business case, certainly no funding, and probably 20+ years away even if it happens.

Building the case for a new route will naturally take a while, but so what? They can hook more coaches on the class 68's to cope with growing demand whilst that happens.

I am glad that Andrew Haines is being explicit about the difficulties of route modernisation, and openly saying that passengers would have to suffer years of disruption. He then goes on to say (in a general sense) that new railways allow open bidding for contracts which implies a better control of costs. The way the address to committee is structured looks to me that he believes in new build over total route modernisation, which in retrospect the country should have done for the WCML all those years ago. Going through a range of hills as it does, the Transpennine route has fewer alternative highway routes than WCML where replacement bus services can be routed, which will compound the inconvenience to passengers.

No doubt if the Transpennine modernisation happens with the disruption alluded to everybody will be saying in retrospect they should have just build a new mainline. Perhaps for once Network Rail has a strategic thinker whose organisation has the will to turn down a very expensive and greasy bag of chips now in favour of a three course meal later!

B&I · 12 Sep 2018

snowball said:
You took the words out of my mouth!

And mine. Why do so many people pretend that a new high speed line is a done deal ? A new line is vitally necessary, would radically improve matters, and would make electrification of the Calder Valley and Standedge routes (which should happen anyway) much easier. At present, however, the new line has about as much connection to reality as an episode of 'Thunderbirds'

takno · 12 Sep 2018

squizzler said:
Building the case for a new route will naturally take a while, but so what? They can hook more coaches on the class 68's to cope with growing demand whilst that happens.

I'm less concerned about the growing demand and more about the underserved and repressed demand that is already there. I've never once been on a transpennine train that wasn't full and standing. Not once.

squizzler · 12 Sep 2018

takno said:
I'm less concerned about the growing demand and more about the underserved and repressed demand that is already there. I've never once been on a transpennine train that wasn't full and standing. Not once.

Loosely speaking, we might say that modernising the route will deal only with current trend of growth in travel - you would be running faster just to stay in the same place. What you describe as the underserved and repressed demand on the other hand (the quantum leap in connectivity required to link both sides of the pennines into a true Northern Powerhouse) can only be achieved by a new route.

Lets not mess about with the former, just go straight to the latter!

keith1879 · 12 Sep 2018

The overall tenor of recent replies seems to be "don't bother modernising - just build a new line". Great idea in theory but it will never ever happen. Get started now please on the (possibly) phased improvements to the existing route so that we can get over the hills quicker in our lifetimes. The new rolling stock is a good start....

Senex · 12 Sep 2018

squizzler said:
Loosely speaking, we might say that modernising the route will deal only with current trend of growth in travel - you would be running faster just to stay in the same place. What you describe as the underserved and repressed demand on the other hand (the quantum leap in connectivity required to link both sides of the pennines into a true Northern Powerhouse) can only be achieved by a new route.

Lets not mess about with the former, just go straight to the latter!

keith1879 said:
The overall tenor of recent replies seems to be "don't bother modernising - just build a new line". Great idea in theory but it will never ever happen. Get started now please on the (possibly) phased improvements to the existing route so that we can get over the hills quicker in our lifetimes. The new rolling stock is a good start....

If we could believe that once a decision to create a new route had been taken the work would proceed without delays and would be completed within a reasonble time, certainly no more than ten years, then it might make sense to run some longer trains to meet demand and not undertake too many disturbing improvements to the existing route. But this is Britain. Who could believe that things would go like that? There would be delays in determining a route, delays in getting all the authorisations into place, delays in construction and commissioning—quite apart from the political risks of cancellation or delays on national economic grounds. And so we'd end up with either nothing for perhaps quarter of a century or nothing at all—and an existing line still lacking capacity and offering the journey-times that should have been improved upon years ago.
Far better to get on with a full upgrading and electrification of the LNW line to deliver real improvements in capacity and speed within half a dozen years, taking care to limit the chaos whilst the work is done, than wait for the magic solution of an NPR that may well never come.

61653 HTAFC · 12 Sep 2018

AndrewE said:
Time to call him and Grayling out now, then and ask (no, demand to know) why not? No evasions or platitudes will be accepted.

What makes it unlikely? Is any one of the tunnels more difficult than the Severn Tunnel?
Is the number of trains (or passengers) per day insufficient to justify the investment?
How will you reduce (soon) the carbon dioxide and other noxious gas emissions on the route - no bionic duckweed or other non-established technology allowed either. Just equipment currently in use and available in the UK.

No more jam tomorrow!

Agree with this sentiment, it's absolutely appalling that we have a government that's falling apart at the seams over Brexit yet the likes of Grayling are able to get away with sheer incompetence (and that's being generous) with their ministerial responsibilities.

The only genuine problem areas on the route are (i) the houses close to the line near Mossley station; and (b) site access to the western portal of Morley tunnel.

"Disruption" isn't a valid excuse for not doing work, as the old saying about omelettes goes. Imagine if such an excuse was used to avoid (for example) upgrading sections of the A1 to Motorway standards? Or for rolling out fibre-optic broadband?

superkev said:
Calderdale council are campaigning to electrifying the Calder valley route.
With lots of start stop where electric trains excel I think it would be a better bet.
K

The nature of the route would lend itself to electrification for sure, though it'd have many of the problems Standedge supposedly has, including a few genuinely problematic tunnels (as mentioned in the threads about both 170s and Mk5a sets).

B&I said:
And mine. Why do so many people pretend that a new high speed line is a done deal ? A new line is vitally necessary, would radically improve matters, and would make electrification of the Calder Valley and Standedge routes (which should happen anyway) much easier. At present, however, the new line has about as much connection to reality as an episode of 'Thunderbirds'

This. Five years ago we thought Transpennine electrification was a "done deal" and look where we are now!

Assuming that NPR does happen eventually, suggesting that this would make TRU pointless or a waste just doesn't stand up. On that logic why draw the line at infrastructure upgrades? The new rolling-stock won't be any good for HSR so why bother with that either? Just leave us in our sardine-tin 185s for the next 15-20 years.

If running fast just keeps you in the same place, that argument (by it's own logic) isn't a reason to stand still- it's quite the opposite!

Chester1 · 12 Sep 2018

What has actually been said / published this week?

Bantamzen · 12 Sep 2018

So reading between the lines, the cost & difficulties of the NW wiring has scared the DfT, NR et al and now they are looking for political solutions to back out of wiring the TransPennine. So they may well look to push forward an idea that is decades away (conveniently), that has no planned alignment (conveniently), and has not even a vague idea on budget (conveniently). A great way to kick the can down the road for another couple of general elections, & long enough to kill off any actual hope of it ever happening (which NPR never was).

Now a better plan would be to work closely with contractors to understand the mistakes made in previous projects, and work together to come up with an engineering plan that takes the lessons leant from these to provide better value for the TP wiring and all future projects up and down the country. Oh wait, this is the UK public sector that resides in an almost permanent state of fear induced paralysis.....

LNW-GW Joint · 12 Sep 2018

Andrew Haines is simply saying there is no agreed plan for what the TP upgrade should be, and what benefits it should bring.
It's fairly clear there is something like a £3 billion investment pot for it, but no definition of what it should deliver.
Is it about capacity, frequency or journey time improvements, because it's unlikely we can have all three.
Until the stakeholders (ie TfN, DfT and NR) agree then there's no point in throwing toys out of the pram about lack of electrification plans.
He did say there was a session with TfN on Thursday about these issues.

I don't quite get the disruption issue, though it does cost NR a great deal to compensate TOCs for being unable to deliver their franchise commitments.
TP actually has a good diversion capability via the full Calder Valley route, and the sensible thing would be to modestly upgrade that route first to enable capacity for diverting the Standedge route services for a spell of several years.
Even so, Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury would face several years of disruption and limited services.
There would be complications on the common sections of route out of Victoria and around Mirfield.

He also referred to the Class 185 capacity situation a decade ago, and portrayed it as being impossible to order more vehicles because of changes to emissions regulations.

squizzler · 12 Sep 2018

Senex said:
If we could believe that once a decision to create a new route had been taken the work would proceed without delays and would be completed within a reasonble time, certainly no more than ten years, then it might make sense to run some longer trains to meet demand and not undertake too many disturbing improvements to the existing route. But this is Britain. Who could believe that things would go like that? There would be delays in determining a route, delays in getting all the authorisations into place, delays in construction and commissioning—quite apart from the political risks of cancellation or delays on national economic grounds. And so we'd end up with either nothing for perhaps quarter of a century or nothing at all—and an existing line still lacking capacity and offering the journey-times that should have been improved upon years ago.
Far better to get on with a full upgrading and electrification of the LNW line to deliver real improvements in capacity and speed within half a dozen years, taking care to limit the chaos whilst the work is done, than wait for the magic solution of an NPR that may well never come.

I have more faith in a new route proceeding without delays and being completed in a reasonable time than I have of a comprehensive upgrade. Where is the 140mph moving block signalled West coast railway? When is GWR electrification going to reach Bristol, Swansea and Oxford? So the brand new Crossrail might be a year late and a few million over budget, but compared to the upgrades I mention that is nothing.

Bantamzen said:
Now a better plan would be to work closely with contractors to understand the mistakes made in previous projects, and work together to come up with an engineering plan that takes the lessons leant from these to provide better value for the TP wiring and all future projects up and down the country. Oh wait, this is the UK public sector that resides in an almost permanent state of fear induced paralysis.....

You suggest that learning from past mistakes is key to better management of upgrades, then suggest the public sector is unable to learn from past mistakes due to "fear induced paralysis". Talk about trying the same thing over and over hoping for different results next time! The answer is not to use the public sector by getting a separate company to build a railway on green fields surely, where even "fear induced paralysis" will not affect the operational railway?

driver_m · 12 Sep 2018

The obvious answer to the disruption aspect would be to reopen Skipton-Colne and thus redo the Calder Valley line by closing it to rebuild it with appropriate dynamic loops and OLE. Get that sorted, then go for the big prize of rebuilding the Standedge route with full 4 tracking throughout and OLE. But seeing as we have the long term planning skill of a daddy long legs, we'll probably bodge it with the promise of a few hydrogen 321s from Widnes and a new coffee shop on Bradford Interchange.

Bantamzen · 12 Sep 2018

squizzler said:
You suggest that learning from past mistakes is key to better management of upgrades, then suggest the public sector is unable to learn from past mistakes due to "fear induced paralysis". Talk about trying the same thing over and over hoping for different results next time! The answer is not to use the public sector by getting a separate company to build a railway on green fields surely, where even "fear induced paralysis" will not affect the operational railway?

Trust me when I say this, the public sector really does suffer from "fear induced paralysis". In my experience the problem is that too often the public sector decision makers don't fully understand the issues, the engineering and/or technology when negotiating contracts with private contractors, and so often rubber stamp plans that allow projects to proceed with either unrealistic budgets & timeframes, or are a little too flexible for contractors to basically exploit.

So time after time when something goes wrong, the almost endless rounds of procrastination begin, eventually decision makers are shuffled around and away, & any lessons learnt start to fade into the background & so when decisions are finally made the same mistakes pop up again. I've watched it for more than half my career up close and personal in my own area (despite my very best efforts to break the cycle), so I'm pretty sure it will extend beyond into the rest of the public sector.

But you are at least partly right. The private sector does need more involvement, but I wouldn't hand the entire projects over but ensure that the planning & decision making teams have independent experts in the relevant fields, contracted into the projects to oversee what the contractors would propose & ensure that everything is feasible and budgets realistic.

snowball · 12 Sep 2018

NPR is at a far less advanced stage than HS2 Phase 1 was when the first draft route was published, which I think was eight and a half years ago. Also since May replaced Cameron, and Osborne disappeared to edit the Standard and a few dozen other jobs, it is far from clear that the government is willing to spend on the scale needed for NPR at all. I think it would be daft to refrain from upgrading the Standedge route on the grounds that NPR might open in 12, 15 or 20 years or never.

keith1879 · 12 Sep 2018

Bantamzen said:
Trust me when I say this, the public sector really does suffer from "fear induced paralysis". In my experience the problem is that too often the public sector decision makers don't fully understand the issues, the engineering and/or technology when negotiating contracts with private contractors, and so often rubber stamp plans that allow projects to proceed with either unrealistic budgets & timeframes, or are a little too flexible for contractors to basically exploit.

Having worked around most sectors of the economy I would have to agree with that in regards to the civil service - a dreadful place to get anything done. I found the true nationalised industries (mainly the Electricity industry in the 70s and 80s) to be massively better - much more focused on delivering an output and on training people to do it. Current experience in financial services is mixed - anything involving big consultancy companies is a disaster because they are focused on their own growth.

squizzler · 12 Sep 2018

snowball said:
NPR is at a far less advanced stage than HS2 Phase 1 was when the first draft route was published, which I think was eight and a half years ago. Also since May replaced Cameron, and Osborne disappeared to edit the Standard and a few dozen other jobs, it is far from clear that the government is willing to spend on the scale needed for NPR at all. I think it would be daft to refrain from upgrading the Standedge route on the grounds that NPR might open in 12, 15 or 20 years or never.

Andrew Haines compares the scale of intervention required for Transpennine route modernisation with that of the WCML, which in turn was described by some commentators as trying to build a new railway on the alignment of the old. If so, we are not really looking at a choice between an upgrade of existing line or new railway. We are really being offered a choice between a brand new railway in green fields, or a brand new railway in a historically constrained alignment. Oh, and the latter has to be built whilst continuing to offer a service.

jonesy3001 · 12 Sep 2018

well the trackbed is still there for the woodhead route, just a shame some of the route has been built on and they'll have to build a new tunnel.

Chester1 · 12 Sep 2018

How about wiring Leeds to York? It doesn't seem to be part of NPR and is necessary part of any electric line. Why not start that after Manchester-Preston to buy time to make long term decisions for Manchester-Leeds.

snowball · 12 Sep 2018

squizzler said:
Andrew Haines compares the scale of intervention required for Transpennine route modernisation with that of the WCML, which in turn was described by some commentators as trying to build a new railway on the alignment of the old.

That's a very old analogy. It was often used with pride when describing the original WCML electrification.

Senex · 12 Sep 2018

jonesy3001 said:
well the trackbed is still there for the woodhead route, just a shame some of the route has been built on and they'll have to build a new tunnel.

How often did you travel over Woodhead? It was a very attractive route, but it wasn't and never could have been a fast alignment.

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member