And presumably similar arguments can be made for the section between Neville Hill and Church Fenton. Faster accelerating EMUs will help ease the capacity crunch on that section. The argument is perhaps not as strong as that for Huddersfield - Leeds but still, should be enough to tip the balance you'd have thought?
-
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
And presumably similar arguments can be made for the section between Neville Hill and Church Fenton. Faster accelerating EMUs will help ease the capacity crunch on that section. The argument is perhaps not as strong as that for Huddersfield - Leeds but still, should be enough to tip the balance you'd have thought?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
However for Neville Hill to Church Fenton the "four tracking" could be use of a bit of HS2/NPR infrastructure.
jonesy3001
Established Member
This is the compound I'm on about off Oldham rd near miles platting.
Attachments
Just to add to Jonesy3001's photo, there's now an information board on the small traffic island just out of shot to the left. This suggests that there will be two, extended closures of Queens Road between May and August next year. I would assume this will be for the installation of the new bridges.
jonesy3001
Established Member
This is the sign, I work not far away from the compound, seen to be doing something to the oldham rd bridges as well, but only happens during the day.
Attachments
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Now that is good news and surely to goodness electrification will be included
Elecman
Established Member
That compound is for the Bridge reconstruction and associated track works
Has electrification from Victoria to Stalybridge (or anywhere further east) been authorised and funded? If not, the compound won’t be for any electrification. If it has, then I’ve missed the announcement (which would surely be big news)
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
You haven't.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I always seem to get my hopes up too soon.
Wait for announcements is my best advice. Personally I’d be surprised if we didn’t have a couple before the year is out.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Yes - the question will be what is funded when the TDNS is published.
Legolash2o
Member
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 601
I can't wait for that report. Any know when it's now due?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
September at the earliest, the funding announcements now likely to be bundled with the publication will need to be announced in Parliament first.
There’s plenty to choose from! I know what I’d do, but that was a discussion had on another thread (possibly before your return, Sir).
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
(With apologies for simply always saying the same thing.)
How on earth does any sensible planning leave us in this mess? The way we look at value for money must be wrong if it can leave gaps in the main route and obvious less main routes (like the Leeds to Hambleton Jn) unelectrified. This is like the algorithm for A levels, it has logic but patently has come out with the wrong answer. Likewise stopping wires at Selby, that vast sprawling metropolis where the bulk of journeys start and end. It may have made sense by the cock-eyed logic of Whitehall but in the real world anyone with the brains of a gnat would have asked why?
I know this sounds like a rant, it isn't, I really cannot understand the logic applied that gets these suggestions from the centre.
How on earth does any sensible planning leave us in this mess? The way we look at value for money must be wrong if it can leave gaps in the main route and obvious less main routes (like the Leeds to Hambleton Jn) unelectrified. This is like the algorithm for A levels, it has logic but patently has come out with the wrong answer. Likewise stopping wires at Selby, that vast sprawling metropolis where the bulk of journeys start and end. It may have made sense by the cock-eyed logic of Whitehall but in the real world anyone with the brains of a gnat would have asked why?
I know this sounds like a rant, it isn't, I really cannot understand the logic applied that gets these suggestions from the centre.
Well, Neville Hill to Hambleton was a decision taken by BR in 1984; electrifying the gap may seem obvious to you, but it clearly didn’t to the various engineers and operators involved back then.
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,409
1984 was a long time ago. Innumerable surveys and studies have been carried out since then and even a few decisions have been made.
Selby is the first place you come to where you can reasonably do a locomotive swap. Obviously we don't do those now because a certain civil servant believed they couldn't be done in less than 3 hours and required the sacrifice of a goat, but back in the 80s they were still considered a practical way of switching modes on long distance trains
I always had the impression that Selby was based on the old timetable which had an easy of Leeds stopper terminating there every hour. If you were going to Hambleton anyway Selby really isn't much further at all.
Of course now that that service goes to Hull you'd have to alter the timetable to get the same benefit but that's not unheard of.
Really? About Leeds- Hambleton?
Nottingham59
Established Member
I think that Virgin at least proposed just that at around the time it took over the East Coast franchise
59CosG95
Established Member
I recall that, around 15 years prior, they also tabled a bypass HS line along parts of the ECML, dubbing it a "VGV", in addition to wiring Leeds - Hambleton. Obviously neither got beyond the proposal stage!
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,409
You've misunderstood my point. Since 1984 the railway industry has looked again and again at various possible projects, Manchester to Leeds being a prominent example. Why has no-one re-examined the merits of electrifying Hambleton Junction to Leeds? A decision made 36 years ago should not be the last word on the subject.
Except Selby - Leeds was part of the pre-Graylingised plan for TP-Electrification.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think Leeds-Hambleton was GNER and Virgin proposed the high speed line, complete with gauge-inappropriate graphic of TGVs in Waverley. I guess Virgin might have thrown in Leeds-Hambleton too, as it would have been small change in that project.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
GNER proposed KGX to KGX via Leeds with (IIRC) the NH to Hambleton referred to as the Electric Horseshoe didn't they? It improved stock and platform utilisation at Leeds.
Found it. I'd quote it but is all off topic!
Found it. I'd quote it but is all off topic!
Last edited:
Until bi-mode trains came along, what trains would have actually been able to use it without also electrifying something substantial somewhere else too?
Although it demanded an extra path in the busy Leeds-Micklefield Jn route (and would have restricted Wakefield to 1tph)