Balfour Beatty Rail wins electrification contract

[IanXC]

On top of that to maintain the current full Trans Pennine service they will have to do all the above along with the lines:

• Northallerton to Middlesborough
• Leeds to Hull
• Doncaster to Gilberdyke

Am I missing something on Doncaster-Gilberdyke? London services go via Temple Hirst Junction to Selby, and there is no Transpennine Service between Hull and Doncaster.

Services on the Doncaster-Gilberdyke via Goole route are almost entirely Sheffield-Hull (and beyond) so that stretch really wouldn't allow any more EMU operation.

Much as I don't want to argue against investment in services near me, I'm sure there must be better electrification projects than Doncaster-Gilberdyke!

 

[tbtc]

Am I missing something on Doncaster-Gilberdyke? London services go via Temple Hirst Junction to Selby, and the is no Transpennine Service between Hull and Doncaster.

Services on the Doncaster-Gilberdyke via Goole route are almost entirely Sheffield-Hull (and beyond) so that stretch really wouldn't allow any more EMU operation.

Much as I don't want to argue against investment in services near me, I'm sure there must be better electrification projects than Doncaster-Gilberdyke!

You are right (there is a Doncaster - Hull stopper via that this route too, but that's not sufficient to justify electrification either).

Doncaster - Gilbertdyke only makes sense if you do Doncaster - Sheffield. And Doncaster - Sheffield (despite being five trains an hour) only makes sense if you wire the MML from Bedford to Leeds (including branches).

 

[IanXC]

You are right (there is a Doncaster - Hull stopper via that this route too, but that's not sufficient to justify electrification either).

Doncaster - Gilbertdyke only makes sense if you do Doncaster - Sheffield. And Doncaster - Sheffield (despite being five trains an hour) only makes sense if you wire the MML from Bedford to Leeds (including branches).

Its roughly 50% go beyond Doncaster to Sheffield, and 60% originate north of Hull.

You're spot on with the need to do the MML scheme to make it worthwhile, in addition to make up for the lack of through services from north of Hull you'd have to add some more destinations from Hull, my suggestion would be extending the XC Nottingham services to Hull, could be EMU this side of Birmingham at that point. Hmm.

 

[ainsworth74]

Doncaster - Gilbertdyke only makes sense if you do Doncaster - Sheffield. And Doncaster - Sheffield (despite being five trains an hour) only makes sense if you wire the MML from Bedford to Leeds (including branches).

If the MML were to be wired then there are so many routes off of it that suddenly seem very attractive to wiring. Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull via Goole, Sheffield - Leeds (via Wakefield), Hope Valley, Dearne Valley (ECML/XC diversion) and Penistone (with TPE electrification) to name just a few.

For XC that would then mean they could run with electrification from at least Derby as far as Edinburgh/Glasgow, the ECML gains a useful electrified diversionary route whilst local services would benefit enormously.

 

[tbtc]

Its roughly 50% go beyond Doncaster to Sheffield, and 60% originate north of Hull.

You're spot on with the need to do the MML scheme to make it worthwhile, in addition to make up for the lack of through services from north of Hull you'd have to add some more destinations from Hull, my suggestion would be extending the XC Nottingham services to Hull, could be EMU this side of Birmingham at that point. Hmm.

Good thinking - Nottingham and Hull are two cities with poor longer distance links. For example, much has been written about Hull's link to London, but it must be one of the biggest places in northern England without a link to Birmingham (apart from the London service, the furthest south you can get from Hull is Sheffield).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once the MML get's wired there are so many routes off of it that suddenly seem very attractive to wiring. Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull via Goole, Sheffield - Leeds (via Wakefield), Hope Valley, Dearne Valley (ECML/XC diversion) and Penistone (with TPE electrification) to name just a few.

True.

I'd hope that if there are (say) three teams electrifying different parts of the UK over the next decade that'll encourage further electrification.

The MML encourages completion of the XC line from Birmingham to Doncaster and Wakefield (for Leeds), the local routes around Barnsley/Castleford, the Doncaster - Hull line... each electrification encourages the next....

...we just need to keep this virtuous circle going. If the "domino effect" continues then maybe one day we'll look back at these days as the equivalent of "black and white telly"...

 

[bluenoxid]

I see all these suggestions but the main should be the biggest bang for the buck. First of all, it is not against the rules to changes service patterns.

I have always been a fan of the Morecambe electrification. I think it offers a bit of flexibility and helps shrink a worrying diesel island in the area. I don't know why NR are creating a diesel island on the Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester route. I just hold my head in my hands when I see this because these services are going to belch diesel and clog up the Oxford Road Corridor when they do not need to.

I agree with Windemere but Barrow just seems a bit far at the moment when you consider that electrifying all the routes to Marple and Chorley would release a larger number of Diesel Trains particularly if Barrow suffers cuts to its Manchester service with the electrifcation of Blackpool.

I have seen the idea for Calder Valley and think there is some scope there. I have my views on SELRAP's ideas and I don't think a discussion will help this thread but I do see the Blackpool South Branch receiving DC before AC.

 

[tbtc]

I see all these suggestions but the main should be the biggest bang for the buck

...in which case we need to target routes like the Cardiff Valleys, rather than TPE North.

it is not against the rules to changes service patterns

True, and I expect that electrification in Lancashire/ Thames Valley will mean a shake up of services. But the Doncaster - Goole - Hull service has been half hourly for some time, with half the services to/from Sheffield (and a reasonable number to/from Bridlington/Scarborough). There's a reasonable flow between Hull (and the coastal towns) to Meadowhall/Sheffield that you'd lose by cutting.

I have always been a fan of the Morecambe electrification. I think it offers a bit of flexibility and helps shrink a worrying diesel island in the area. I don't know why NR are creating a diesel island on the Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester route

Morecambe is still only every other hour or so.

The Chat Moss electrification doesn't change anything about the Warrington route, but I agree that it ought to be electrified too (the half hourly all stops service would be converted to EMU, though you may need to cut the long distance services before you could convert them)

 

[SuperOwl86]

Why does the MML and Sheffield get a poor deal when it comes to investment?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why does the MML and Sheffield get a poor deal when it comes to investment?

The NR Electrification Strategy put it first in terms of business case, better even than GW, let alone TP North.
However, it doesn't go to "big places" with lots of organised MPs like Manchester/Leeds, nor politically sensitive places like South Wales.
GW also faced the brick wall of HST fleet retirement.
The MML business case was so good it was cheaper in the long term to electrify the route than not!

But it has got embroiled in the IEP/bi-mode and HS2 wrangles.
Newish 222s don't help either (there's your recent investment).
Might be sorted out positively for the next franchise (the franchisee might fund it under the new regime) and when the HS2 Y route north of Derby is clear.

Wiring of TP North ought to help a bit because in a sane world you would wire to Leeds (ie Moorthorpe) and Doncaster to get the network effect.
Ending at Sheffield was always a silly idea because it would keep MML as an electrified island with a 15-mile gap to the rest of the network.

Line speeds are at least due to be increased soon (more investment).

 

[WatcherZero]

Windhoff has won the £35m contract to manufacture the electrification factory train that NR has spent the last three years designing. It will be first deployed on the Great Western electrification project which is due to begin in late 2013.

 

[HSTEd]

Am I being naive if I think that will lead to a rolling electrification programme simply to keep the train working continuously? Assuming it actually can manage its claimed tension length a night rate

 

[ole man]

Am I being naive if I think that will lead to a rolling electrification programme simply to keep the train working continuously? Assuming it actually can manage its claimed tension length a night rate

Why wouldn't it do a complete wire run a night?
It does now with ease, though depending on what structures you have would depend on how long.
Do you think NR are going to spend that amount for it not to work.
Only two companies are capable of running these wiring trains... Network Rail OCR and Aspire Rail.
OCR are taking over the GE renewals later this year so i imagine these wiring trains will be run with a mix of both companies.

 

[HSTEd]

Why wouldn't it do a complete wire run a night?
It does now with ease, though depending on what structures you have would depend on how long.
Do you think NR are going to spend that amount for it not to work.
Only two companies are capable of running these wiring trains... Network Rail OCR and Aspire Rail.
OCR are taking over the GE renewals later this year so i imagine these wiring trains will be run with a mix of both companies.

I mean will rolling electrification carry on beyond the currently announced projects to keep the train working? Or will we simply see a burst of production in advance of Pacer withdrawal and then just see nothing, especially if the economy continues to slide.

I dont think Railtrack spent that much on the WCRM to not have it achieve its objectives

 

[ole man]

At current the electrification programmes will take us well into the 2020's, and possibly later if HS2 is sorted out.
That would be a good investment by NR, considering the other options on putting wire up

 

[Holly]

... will rolling electrification carry on beyond the currently announced projects to keep the train working? Or will we simply see a burst of production in advance of Pacer withdrawal and then just see nothing, especially if the economy continues to slide. ...

As a practical matter, that will be decided pursuant to the price of crude oil. It is largely a matter of luck whether the crucial decisions are made during a peak or a trough in oil prices. We cannot reasonably expect vision and long term thinking from elected politicians.

An "unfair" part of railway electrification is that the payoff is often better for short infills than for long bold routes into new territory.

 

[tbtc]

An "unfair" part of railway electrification is that the payoff is often better for short infills than for long bold routes into new territory.

...which is why we should be concentrating on these kind of "quick win" schemes that I have been suggesting - instead of building a 100 mile new section of route we could get significantly bigger benefits with ten sections each miles long (as a crude example).

I mean will rolling electrification carry on beyond the currently announced projects to keep the train working? Or will we simply see a burst of production in advance of Pacer withdrawal and then just see nothing, especially if the economy continues to slide

At this rate (even including TPE North) we won't convert sufficient lines to withdraw all Pacers by 31 December 2019 (meaning we will need a batch of "local" DMUs building). For a start, we aren't converting the right type of lines (HSTs on the GWML, 185s around Manchester) - we should concentrate on areas like the Valley Lines where the Pacers live.

Its hard to know longer term. As you tackle the "obvious" electrification areas, you are left with only "back water" lines to tackle (e.g. bi-hourly branches). But then, as you electrify more and more the business case on some "back water" lines becomes better (because they are linked in to longer distance routes).

 

[ole man]

I agree there are many short infill routes that would make life easier for people, and would probably make sense, they will get done eventually, it is now the green thing to do, where as years ago money stopped these projects from progressing