Except we don't know what the plan for Leeds - York is yet, which could include:
Leeds - Cross Gates (at least) 4 tracking
West to North junction on to HS2
New stations at Thorpe Park and East Leeds Parkway
-
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
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- Start date
Except we don't know what the plan for Leeds - York is yet, which could include:
Leeds - Cross Gates (at least) 4 tracking
West to North junction on to HS2
New stations at Thorpe Park and East Leeds Parkway
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Good point! It wasn't even a hole in the ground when I was last working on that list!
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
Whilst I can understand that Standedge tunnel might present difficulties, not wiring the most arduous section of the line and having bi-mode diesels working very hard in diesel mode on the seriously uphill bits is surely somewhat against the idea of reducing pollution.
Can the bi-modes change power mode from electric to diesel and vice versa on the fly or will they have to stop at Huddersfield to change mode?
If they can do it on the fly, why not four-track and electrify from Huddersfield to Marsden as I think the formation is already available. I am aware that the bridge at the end of Platform 1&2&8 at Huddersfield doesn't look to have much clearance and might be rather pricey to replace as would lowering a fair chunk of track bed and platforms in the station. There are also the platforms and Slaithwaite and Marsden. Perhaps I've answered my own question!
Can the bi-modes change power mode from electric to diesel and vice versa on the fly or will they have to stop at Huddersfield to change mode?
If they can do it on the fly, why not four-track and electrify from Huddersfield to Marsden as I think the formation is already available. I am aware that the bridge at the end of Platform 1&2&8 at Huddersfield doesn't look to have much clearance and might be rather pricey to replace as would lowering a fair chunk of track bed and platforms in the station. There are also the platforms and Slaithwaite and Marsden. Perhaps I've answered my own question!
The bi-modes can change on the fly, yes. The problem is there are various viaducts and cuttings between Huddersfield and Marsden i.e. expensive
The same can be said of the North London and East London lines, but it didn't stop the job there.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,922
Personally I’d love it to be reliant on bi-modes, it’ll mean things post electrification won’t change too much in that services don’t all have to come to a halt and rely on buses if there’s any sort of blockage. From what I can tell from newspaper reports what is currently being suggested is what is really needed, not a half arsed attempt (which electrification without other improvements was) and not some sort of belt and braces wish listing that’s more chance of being totally abandoned that completed (like electrifying diversionary routes or restoring all former 4 track sections). I’ll be happy enough with the disruption for what’s now being suggested.
Ploughman
Established Member
With the amount of Leeds services that use the Normanton lines as far as Church Fenton, I would hope all 4 lines are wired.
But totally isolated from each other electrically.
It has always been practise between Colton and Church Fenton for possessions to be taken of one pair of tracks and normal running on the other pair except for the use of safety speeds when passing worksites
Network Rail are unsure about electrification:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...shut-down-route-for-lions-share-of-five-years
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...shut-down-route-for-lions-share-of-five-years
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
but not an electrified fence as he doesn't agree with electrification
On North West Tonight tonight. Focusing on the five years of disruption, fewer seats, longer journeys etc. Also featuring 185s and 350s whilst the presenter talked about the trains being old.
I'd love to see an electrified fence jammed up Grayling's fundament. Might interrupt the flow of policy pronouncements, though
Unfortunately its the northern way, complain about a problem and then complain about the solution*. I am sure plenty would complain about building a new line, saying the existing one should be upgraded instead... I am waiting for complaints that its bias towards Manchester...
The details published so far seem to indicate a reasonable plan to make a big difference while leaving long term options open. I think it will end up like the West Coast modernisation - late, over budget and cause demand to increase to the point that a new line becomes the best solution.
* I am a northerner before I am accused of being a southerner!
Halifaxlad
Established Member
I don't suppose anyone reckons the Bradford Avoiding line will be reopened as part of a diversionary route?
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.
Bucephalus
Member
I'm rather late to the party but has third rail ever been considered as part of the electrification?
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.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Hopefully a side-effect of incomplete electrification will be abandonment of the stupid and pointless 6tph pledge, with a more sustainable 4tph along with proper stoppers split at Huddersfield- of which the Leeds ones can be fast-accelerating EMUs.Well having inside information would be a first for the T&A.....
Its encouraging, but at the same time you have to wonder about the logic of wiring all but a few miles over the tops when most services currently using Leeds-Huddersfield-Stalybridge-Manchester are through services, and fully wired electrics could be used throughout and beyond. But we'll have to wait and see what the final proposal is.
If it's going to happen, disruption is a given while it does. Just as long as we at the "forgotten" stops get nice fast clean frequent trains at the end of it too, I don't mind. No pain, no gain.
Where's that like button?
Unlikely I'd have thought, as the reversal doesn't add so much time now that everything is a unit (or push-pull in the case of Mk5a sets). Freight (Heaton Lodge to Ravensthorpe mostly) could be an issue but it'll probably be cheaper to add an intermediate block to the Bentham line and send it all that way.
Is the alignment still clear anyway?
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,922
Far from it, there's been quite a bit of development at the Bowling Tunnel end (as well as the sometimes rail served scrapyard at the other), but there would have to be a bridge replaced on Ripley Road and a level crossing put back in on Hall Lane. Just looked on google and there's still a barrier there in April 2017!
At the time of withdrawal, yes, and I'd certainly like to have seen that connection built (though the chance was lost years ago). But the Woodhead line was not a fast one. Line-speed was 60, even though the EM2 locomotives were built for 90, and there were lower restriction in a number of places. If memory serves, there were 35s at Ardwick, Guide Bridge, and Penistone, and 40s at Mottram Viaduct and Dinting Viaduct. It was a lovely journey in all seasons of the year, but fast it most certainly was not.
squizzler
Established Member
Whilst agitating for NPR to be done before the Transpennine Route Upgrade being aware that it was going to be a difficult and involved series of works, talk of five years of disruption really brings home what is involved.
Elon Musk's Boring Company reckon they can dig smaller diameter tunnels at 10x the speed of traditional tunnel boring machines. Perhaps a little tongue in cheek, but has anybody thought of asking them to knock a couple of mouseholes under the pennines to act as diversionary routes during the disruption?
Concrete Loz
Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 7
I understand that Stalybridge Tunnel presents a far more significant challenge for electrification and the work to remedy this would be extremely disruptive - not just for the railway.
Standedge, meanwhile, is roomier inside and would be comparatively straightforward to wire.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,385
No, because there is a safety implication, and as far as ORR are concerned no new installations are possible, except for minor alterations to the existing network. This has been covered in numerous previous discussions though, best just to take it as a fact now...
It seems from the article that NR are looking for an excuse not to upgrade the route quoting 39 weeks of closure per year for 5 years! Get on with it.The sooner they start, the sooner the disruption will be over.
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.
Halifaxlad
Established Member
In the opening it does state:
"In a letter to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, Rob McIntosh says it will be a very ambitious programme of work that will transform the passenger experience between York, Bradford and Manchester."
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...ars-of-disruption-on-transpennine-rail-route/
This is essentially NPR anyway or at least part of it, that will affect Bradford!
The viaducts and cuttings were 4 track until the late 1960s when 2 tracks were removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Engineer
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 524
Not electrifying ANY part of the route means that electric traction cannot be used for the freight, which will again lead to slower trains and therefore less capacity. The Rail Freight Group is strongly campaigning for an all-electric Transpennine route for this very reason... they fear that their freight will be excluded from the route and have to take longer, slower routes instead.
But NPR will not be disruptive for 5 years to Bradford or Huddersfield.
It is a very ambiguous article anyway. It seems to confuse the uninformed reader about two completely separate schemes, probably deliberately.
Last edited by a moderator:
nr758123
Member
A couple of thoughts.
The purpose of the leak, if that's what it really is, is to see what reaction it gets from public and politicians.
By the time the project is under way, Chris Grayling will have moved on (please, make it soon!), and a more enlightened transport secretary may decide that it makes sense to electrify the missing core section.
The purpose of the leak, if that's what it really is, is to see what reaction it gets from public and politicians.
By the time the project is under way, Chris Grayling will have moved on (please, make it soon!), and a more enlightened transport secretary may decide that it makes sense to electrify the missing core section.
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 ?
Yes the route is quite hilly, but the formation is very wide in a lot of areas and the Wakefield diversion stops Huddersfield being left out.
Has temporary single track working been considered in some circumstances ?
Yes the route is quite hilly, but the formation is very wide in a lot of areas and the Wakefield diversion stops Huddersfield being left out.
Has temporary single track working been considered in some circumstances ?