Considerations around further electrification in the North

[childwallblues]

Of course it is It's just about the cheapest, simplest electrification project imaginable.

Many years ago there was a plan to use redundant electrification equipment from Kingmoor Yard on the Windermere Branch but that camet nothing.

 

[Jozhua]

Quite. Alternatively, given the post-Covid economic reality, close the Windermere branch and make Oxenholme a bus interchange. Most visitors to the Lake District do not stay within walking distance of a station, so they might as well change modes at Oxenholme rather than Windermere or Kendal. Like visitors to the North Lakes change at Penrith.

Railway investment should be concentrated on busy main lines, where the railway can carry large numbers of passengers long distances quickly. Not spent on hourly 3/4-carriage trains trundling slowly along a 10 mile branch, parallel to a main road that carries far more people.

I absolutely disagree. I think you must also consider the "rails" effect, people like the permanence of rails and a comparable journey on a train will generally be favoured over one on a bus. Plus, you take away one of the big advantages of the train, which is the fact it can skip all the traffic when the lakes become jammed over summer.

Concentrating rail investment onto mainlines completely misses the benefits of the network effect. Plus, even the "slow trundling" branch lines typically offer a much faster journey time than the equivalent on a bus. A lot of these routes are absolute lifelines for the communities they serve, if you lived on one you would understand. One of my friends used to live in Windermere and his family often took the train to Kendal or to interchange at Oxenholme to other cities, over the bus. It is reliable and easy to use, often cheaper too.

But it does make a valid point.
The expense of OHLE when a diesel shuttle offers a comparable if not improved service frequency. Though lots of buses can't be any more environmentally friendly.
Electrification of branch lines shouldn't be the priority when resources are finite.

If it was only a diesel shuttle, then it probably wouldn't be an issue. Electrification of branch lines is as much a priority as the mainlines, due to the shortage of DMUs, many of which spend a lot of time running under the wires.

Sure, resources are finite. But many other countries have electrified vast swathes of their network, because they didn't do the stupid boom or bust approach of the current DaFT, but instead did a rolling program that doesn't require retraining workers and restarting supply chains every 10 years. If the government is serious about decarbonisation, expanding the reach of the rail network and electrification of it must be a priority. Otherwise, it is just empty words.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Surprised nobody's suggested converting the Windermere branch to tram operation yet.

 

[py_megapixel]

Surprised nobody's suggested converting the Windermere branch to tram operation yet.

Come on, give this forum at least some credit ......
it would obviously have to be tram-trains!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised nobody's suggested converting the Windermere branch to tram operation yet.

I've suggested it before, I think I made a thread a while back about tram-ising branch lines and the advantages that can bring generally, particularly those (unlike Windermere to be fair) with no through running onto the mainline. I had it more posed as a means of cheaply electrifying them, though, and potentially reducing the cost of adding stations etc.

 

[Energy]

I had it more posed as a means of cheaply electrifying them

Stadler have made bimode diesel trams before, I wouldn't find it too surprising if the DfT decided bimode trams instead of battery or all electric...

 

[py_megapixel]

Stadler have made bimode diesel trams before

As have Alstom

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But it does make a valid point.
The expense of OHLE when a diesel shuttle offers a comparable if not improved service frequency. Though lots of buses can't be any more environmentally friendly.
Electrification of branch lines shouldn't be the priority when resources are finite.

The problem is without branch lines being electrified, it's difficult to electrify enough route mileage to justify any electrification. You risk having only a small number of route miles electrified and no services being converted. You do need a reasonable number of route miles electrified on any given route to even justify a bi-mode diesel unit, they don't like engines stopping then starting again after only a few miles of electric running.

The previous model of main line focused electrification doesn't work particularly well because of the way in which the railway is divided into different train operating companies, and with it, TOC specific depots with dedicated rolling stock and dedicated driver pools. MML wiring, which everybody thinks is a panacea, isn't perfect. It needs to be the start of a rolling program, not a once in a two decade project like GWML, ECML and WCML projects were.

Electrification now has to focus on groups of routes and look at which diagrams, and eventually, which fleets and then which depots can be fully converted from diesel to electric traction. There's not the mixture of driver links, rolling stock, traction and route knowledge that there was under British Rail, when we could simply cover one route which is only partially electrified by rostering staff and traction from another depot, or by swapping locomotives en route.

It's for this reason that Blackpool South wasn't wired - there's a few chains of wiring running onto the branch but it was slightly pointless to wire the full branch because at the time, services from Blackpool South ran to Colne (and still do on Sundays, I believe). It's a decision that was based on the need for Blackpool South rolling stock to be diesel powered (though a Class 769 would be an option now - but it wasn't at the time electrification was authorised).

The core TransPennine route is the same but different problem - without electrifying to Redcar and Scarborough, there's a high risk of the Class 68 and Mark 5 stock running under our shiny new wiring, with only the Class 802 units making full use of the wiring. If you wire in the branches to Redcar and Scarborough, suddenly you can swap the Class 68 diesel for a Class 88 electric locomotive. It wouldn't normally be a higher priority than Selby and Hull electrification, but with rolling stock considerations and converting entire routes, it rather becomes an issue.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The core TransPennine route is the same but different problem - without electrifying to Redcar and Scarborough, there's a high risk of the Class 68 and Mark 5 stock running under our shiny new wiring, with only the Class 802 units making full use of the wiring. If you wire in the branches to Redcar and Scarborough, suddenly you can swap the Class 68 diesel for a Class 88 electric locomotive. It wouldn't normally be a higher priority than Selby and Hull electrification, but with rolling stock considerations and converting entire routes, it rather becomes an issue.

Not forgetting that Man Vic - Leeds - Colton Jn also needs coppering before that can happen

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Not forgetting that Man Vic - Leeds - Colton Jn also needs coppering before that can happen

(a) It's not copper...

(b) Yes, that's rather my point - despite wiring the core (Manchester to York) you can't switch all services from diesel to electric because of 'branch' lines.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Electrification of the TPE branches could then be used as a leaping ground for further new projects; as in, wiring to Redcar should then help wiring of the Tees Valley get underway, and wiring both Scarborough and Hull would make doing the Coast line via Bridlington a fairly simple infill project (there are very few bridges on the line as well, and most of the bridges there are simple footbridges) as examples.

 

[py_megapixel]

Electrification of the TPE branches could then be used as a leaping ground for further new projects; as in, wiring to Redcar should then help wiring of the Tees Valley get underway, and wiring both Scarborough and Hull would make doing the Coast line via Bridlington a fairly simple infill project (there are very few bridges on the line as well, and most of the bridges there are simple footbridges) as examples.

Yes, but before they get started on that there's a couple of important infill projects which already exist. The most notable is the CLC line out of Liverpool, but there's others.

Once the silly gaps in existing electrification are filled in, the rolling electrification team (which, just for clarity, doesn't exist yet) can start on new areas.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Of course, I would consider the CLC line a priority for wiring at the moment.

 

[tbtc]

To be fair, there's a potential recast in there - it would make sense, once the wires were up, to operate all Windermere services through to Manchester with the Barrow DMUs instead being the connection (perhaps on a simplified hourly clockface pattern with all services going round the Coast and no more Barrow terminating services).

On the line from Preston towards Oxehholme, the full timetable in future will be:

• Hourly Avanti service from London - eleven coaches
• Hourly Avanti service from Birmingham (ex London) - presumably nine or eleven coaches once the Voyager replacements are in operation
• Hourly TPE service from Manchester Airport - five coaches
• Irregular TPE service from Liverpool - five coaches

...not all of those will stop at Oxenholme on each journey but that's a pretty good frequency from Lancashire into Cumbria (and reasonably long trains too IMHO) - does Northern really need to be providing an additional service each hour on this corridor (when it's struggling for capacity in it's "core" area)? Seems a bit of a luxury (especially if part of the plan involves a bespoke bi-mode micro fleet dedicated to Northern's Windermere services).

One big problem which people don't generally see with this is that the capacity constraint isn't just at the Leeds end. In the normal timetable the Northern service usually has to share a platform with an EMR one, usually platform 4, and this can only take a pair of 2 car services, limiting not only the Northern Nottingham - Leeds but also the EMR Newark Castle - Matlock trains. Both have been known to strengthen to 3 cars, or occasionally more, but it causes delays.

Ah, that's a good point! I use it more at the Leeds end than the Nottingham end, so am less aware of the platform capacity there.

170’s have never worked the service. They were sent to Notts in driver training runs but via the Dearne Valley from Holbeck to Sheffield as they aren’t cleared for the Barnsley route.

Apologies, I thought 170s had been running through to Nottingham in service.

Could it be done with a "guaranteed connection" of sorts? i.e. Windermere connects with TPE, and it's guaranteed that the TPE service won't leave until 5 minutes after the Windermere arrives?

Being a single track branch with only one unit diagrammed, I can't imagine it actually ever holding up the TPE service, but it gives passengers some peace of mind

I suppose it could, but that would rely on the TPE service passing through at roughly the same time in each direction (and works on the assumption that the Windermere demand is to/from Manchester rather than connecting with other services)

I absolutely disagree. I think you must also consider the "rails" effect, people like the permanence of rails and a comparable journey on a train will generally be favoured over one on a bus. Plus, you take away one of the big advantages of the train, which is the fact it can skip all the traffic when the lakes become jammed over summer

People tend to prefer trains to buses, I'd prefer the train to a bus if everything were otherwise broadly comparable (frequency, fares, journey time etc) - but it's significantly more expensive to provide a train service - you could maintain a guided busway from Oxenholme to Windermere a lot cheaper than an electrified railway - you could run a bus service that connected with every main line train (rather than there only being capacity for one train per hour) - you could run a service from Oxenholme to beyond the centre of Windermere - you could achieve a lot - it's worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand with the "Always Rail" approach.

Electrification of the TPE branches could then be used as a leaping ground for further new projects; as in, wiring to Redcar should then help wiring of the Tees Valley get underway, and wiring both Scarborough and Hull would make doing the Coast line via Bridlington a fairly simple infill project (there are very few bridges on the line as well, and most of the bridges there are simple footbridges) as examples.

I suggested a few months ago that the Bishop Auckland - Saltburn line could be an electrification candidate - a fairly self contained route operationally speaking - a good way of the Vote Leave party showing investment in the "red wall"/"blue wall" seats (both Bishop Auckland and Redcar went blue in December, there's a Tory mayor in "Tees Valley") - it's a bit "blue sky thinking" but it might be a good bit of political "box ticking"

Of course, I would consider the CLC line a priority for wiring at the moment.

+1

Electrified at both ends already, no major junctions to worry about, a half hourly shuttle (on top of longer distance services), plenty of intermediate stops (so an EMU should be faster at all the breaking/accelerating than the current DMUs), it ought to be very high up the list of priorities IMHO.

 

[Jozhua]

On the line from Preston towards Oxehholme, the full timetable in future will be:

• Hourly Avanti service from London - eleven coaches
• Hourly Avanti service from Birmingham (ex London) - presumably nine or eleven coaches once the Voyager replacements are in operation
• Hourly TPE service from Manchester Airport - five coaches
• Irregular TPE service from Liverpool - five coaches

...not all of those will stop at Oxenholme on each journey but that's a pretty good frequency from Lancashire into Cumbria (and reasonably long trains too IMHO) - does Northern really need to be providing an additional service each hour on this corridor (when it's struggling for capacity in it's "core" area)? Seems a bit of a luxury (especially if part of the plan involves a bespoke bi-mode micro fleet dedicated to Northern's Windermere services).

I believe at least one Avanti and one TPE stop at Oxenholme per hour. I believe the service runs every two hours to Manchester and once hourly to Oxenholme. This has appeared to have changed to once every two hours to Manchester Airport, due to Coronavirus being a nice convenient excuse to do unpopular things companies wanted to do anyway.

But yeah, considering the Windermere services run through Castlefield, it could probably be fairly easily axed. Considering it is once every two hours, I'm unsure if it would have that much of an impact. That could be politically controversial though, especially as the area is heavily reliant on tourism and will want a direct connection to the airport.

People tend to prefer trains to buses, I'd prefer the train to a bus if everything were otherwise broadly comparable (frequency, fares, journey time etc) - but it's significantly more expensive to provide a train service - you could maintain a guided busway from Oxenholme to Windermere a lot cheaper than an electrified railway - you could run a bus service that connected with every main line train (rather than there only being capacity for one train per hour) - you could run a service from Oxenholme to beyond the centre of Windermere - you could achieve a lot - it's worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand with the "Always Rail" approach.

Aha! You suggested investing in infrastructure to reduce long term ongoing costs. This is pretty unlikely with the tories in charge.

I guess I would agree that a busway could be better, if it remained within the same ticketing system. The best solution though, would probably be to increase frequency to every 30 minutes and ensure connections at Oxenholme. Then diesel's could be kept on that section of line. Two 150's could do it, with a passing loop if necessary. Possibly the shuttle could even go as far as Lancaster. A twice hourly service to Oxenholme and once hourly to Lancaster would seem a fair trade for losing a once two-hourly service to Manchester.

 

[Mollman]

170’s have never worked the service. They were sent to Notts in driver training runs but via the Dearne Valley from Holbeck to Sheffield as they aren’t cleared for the Barnsley route.

I'm surprised at that as they used to work the Barnsley - London St P MML service I would have thought they would have been cleared to run to Wakefield or Leeds as alternative empty stock route.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm surprised at that as they used to work the Barnsley - London St P MML service I would have thought they would have been cleared to run to Wakefield or Leeds as alternative empty stock route.

They haven't been cleared to work in passenger service between Wakefield Kirkgate and Barnsley AIUI. A surprising omission maybe, but we are where we are.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A little off topic but is that difficult? Beyond gauging what is needed?

 

[Halish Railway]

A little off topic but is that difficult? Beyond gauging what is needed?

I doubt that route clearance is the issue as Voyagers are cleared on that route which have few exterior differences.

 

[sjm77]

But yeah, considering the Windermere services run through Castlefield, it could probably be fairly easily axed. Considering it is once every two hours, I'm unsure if it would have that much of an impact. That could be politically controversial though, especially as the area is heavily reliant on tourism and will want a direct connection to the airport.

If you remove the Windermere service from Castlefield every two hours then do you also remove Barrow in the alternating hours to standardise which hourly paths are needed/retained? Personally I would suggest that Cumbria loosing both Windermere and Barrow direct Manchester services would be politically unacceptable.

 

[37424]

If you remove the Windermere service from Castlefield every two hours then do you also remove Barrow in the alternating hours to standardise which hourly paths are needed/retained? Personally I would suggest that Cumbria loosing both Windermere and Barrow direct Manchester services would be politically unacceptable.

The Normal Windermere Service isn't 2 hourly to the Airport anyway its 4 trains a day roughly at 3 hour intervals, you could reduce the Windermere/Barrow-Airport service to 2 hourly and interface it with another service reduced to 2 hourly, Reduce the Windermere service to 3 trains a day and adjust the Barrow Service as required, you might get a few moans at that but seems reasonably justified and Oxenholme would also have the TPE service

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A little off topic but is that difficult? Beyond gauging what is needed?

I doubt that route clearance is the issue as Voyagers are cleared on that route which have few exterior differences.

If there's never been a need to clear a class along a route, no TOC will want to go to the expense of clearing that class. For something like 170s along the line through Darton (as is being discussed) the fact that 158s, 220s and HSTs are cleared would suggest that getting 170s cleared shouldn't be a problem if there's a need to do so. That being said, different units can sometimes behave in unexpected ways depending on things like cant, speed and load. The presence of mine workings beneath that route is also a "known unknown" that might affect the 'dynamic envelope' of a unit.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A little off topic but

If there's never been a need to clear a class along a route, no TOC will want to go to the expense of clearing that class.

To a lot of outsiders that doesn't really explain what is needed to be done and makes it sound more like a restrictive practice than prudent precaution. What does need to be done other than gauging trials?

 

[Jozhua]

If you remove the Windermere service from Castlefield every two hours then do you also remove Barrow in the alternating hours to standardise which hourly paths are needed/retained? Personally I would suggest that Cumbria loosing both Windermere and Barrow direct Manchester services would be politically unacceptable.

Yeah, probably, but other areas need to start supporting our infrastructure needs if they want access to us. As it is now, we barely have enough capacity to funnel the residents of Greater Manchester around.

 

[supervc-10]

What's really needed is the extra platforms that have been discussed at Piccadilly. 13 and 14 are not enough for the number of trains passing through there and the number of people getting on/off. An all EMU fleet might improve things through the Castlefield corridor too, with better acceleration.

 

[Halish Railway]

An all EMU fleet might improve things through the Castlefield corridor too, with better acceleration.

I don’t think that acceleration will really make much of a difference on that route - What makes more of a difference is having double-sliding doors at 1/3 and 2/3s along the carriages as opposed to single end-doors, therefore helping to reduce dwell times.

 

[supervc-10]

Oh that too, definitely. I suppose the distance between Oxford Road and Piccadilly is too short to make much of a difference. The dwell times are why I think they need to get on with the extra platforms at Piccadilly- the long-distance TPE trains can have the time they need at Piccadilly without causing havoc. Longer platforms across the Northern network enabling longer trains is needed too.

People always go on about the subsidy to Northern, but I'm convinced that it's a chicken and egg situation. People don't use the train because it's a rubbish service so much of the time, and so there's not enough money to make it a good service, so people don't use it.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

It’s embarrassing that a core city the size of Sheffield has ZERO electrification. At a minimum I’d like to see the line between Sheffield and Doncaster electrified, followed by some electrification to Leeds via Barnsley. Hopefully the MML electrification will be reinstated so we can run electric services from Sheffield to Nottingham and maybe eventually Leeds to Nottingham.

 

[Iskra]

It’s embarrassing that a core city the size of Sheffield has ZERO electrification. At a minimum I’d like to see the line between Sheffield and Doncaster electrified, followed by some electrification to Leeds via Barnsley. Hopefully the MML electrification will be reinstated so we can run electric services from Sheffield to Nottingham and maybe eventually Leeds to Nottingham.

It's not quite zero anymore, due to the tram train. But yes, I personally think all of the cross country and TP core should be electrified. It would require a re-think of how the XC core service is provided to maximise the benefits however.

 

[37424]

It’s embarrassing that a core city the size of Sheffield has ZERO electrification. At a minimum I’d like to see the line between Sheffield and Doncaster electrified, followed by some electrification to Leeds via Barnsley. Hopefully the MML electrification will be reinstated so we can run electric services from Sheffield to Nottingham and maybe eventually Leeds to Nottingham.

It it? they have an extensive Tram Network along with Tram-Train to Rotherham