Electrification east of Selby

[IanXC]

I can't find a link anywhere, but BBC Radio Humberside and BBC Look North (Hull) have been reporting a meeting between Rail Development Humber, Network Rail, First Hull Trains and others regarding electrification from Selby to Hull.

The result reported is that the line could be electrified, using "private finance", and that it could cost about £100m. Perhaps a Chiltern style facility charge is envisaged - I wonder if this is to form the basis for FHT's bid for access rights after December 2016?

Does anyone know any more about this?

 

[PhilipW]

Here's a local newspaper link to the story
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-17466377-detail/story.html

Realistic or just wishful thinking ? We will all have to make our own judgment.

 

[joeykins82]

Well it makes sense for First as operator of both TPE and Hull Trains, especially given the unreliability of their Adelante fleet and the cost savings available from running EMUs out of a more local TMD (which will need building somewhere for TPE's incoming extended EMU fleet). Oh, and not paying for diesel fuel to run under the wires for ~160 miles of a ~210 mile journey too. Given that DafT/NR are putting up the knitting at Selby station as part of the CP5 HLOS stuff (TBC of course) there's probably a sound business case for First Group in getting it all done at once, especially if it can be done on NR's credit card and repaid over the long term a la Chiltern.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given that DafT/NR are putting up the knitting at Selby station as part of the CP5 HLOS stuff (TBC of course) there's probably a sound business case for First Group in getting it all done at once, especially if it can be done on NR's credit card and repaid over the long term a la Chiltern.

FirstGroup might not be running TPE beyond 2015 (and the HT rights are not guaranteed after 2016).
It will probably be an NR project for CP6 (2019-24).
We don't even know when the wires will reach Selby yet.

 

[joeykins82]

I suppose that's the appeal of negotiating a facility charge; my understanding of the Chiltern situation is that whoever inherits the franchise is obligated to pay the higher rate track access fees. Presumably if this went ahead any service using the facility charge provided electrification would be paying the premium for doing so, which in turn presumably means that it'd need mutual approval between NR, DfT, Northern Rail, East Coast, FHT & FTPE to go ahead in advance of any DfT-driven scheme.

I'd guess that if this does turn out to be a non-starter then Temple Hurst to Hull will indeed be a DfT CP6 scheme since Leeds-Selby is supposedly happening "some time in CP5" (like you say, we don't know exactly when). Wait and see what NR put out in January I suppose!

 

[Chris125]

Realistic or just wishful thinking ? We will all have to make our own judgment.

I really don't think there's much doubt that Hull will be electrified as part of the transpennine project, but the government has made it quite clear its up to the railway industry to make a case and sort out financing for these extra infill projects.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

I really don't think there's much doubt that Hull will be electrified as part of the transpennine project, but the government has made it quite clear its up to the railway industry to make a case and sort out financing for these extra infill projects.

Chris

Agreed, but there's enough to be getting on with in CP5 that I expect that a lot of the logical "follow on" schemes like Selby - Hull, Sheffield - Doncaster and Swinton - Moorthorpe will take until CP6 anyway. We'll have our work cut out *just* to do the GWML to Swansea, the MML to Sheffield etc

 

[YorkshireBear]

It will come later, speaking to engineers there as also a relatively cheap solution for selby swing bridge.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the scheme is sponsored by FirstGroup for HT, there will have to be some deal with the franchised operators of the the electrified route so they can use it.
Chiltern Evergreen 3 is a bit different as CH is the only operator, but the Hull line has services by EC, NT and TP as well as HT (and freight).
Not sure how this is any different from just adding it to the national NR list.
Then there is the route via Goole to Sheffield to think about (or many trains will remain DMU-worked).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Not sure how this is any different from just adding it to the national NR list.
Then there is the route via Goole to Sheffield to think about (or many trains will remain DMU-worked).

Half also extend up the Yorkshire Coast to Bridlington too, and I can't see that being OHLEd soon. Goole would make sense as an infill, it also acts as a diversionary route for HT at times too.

 

[ainsworth74]

Half also extend up the Yorkshire Coast to Bridlington too, and I can't see that being OHLEd soon.

If you timed the connections properly you could split many services at Hull as there is normally a very heavy churn of passengers there (on the order of 90% plus of passengers get off at Hull in each direction).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Indeed, I forgot to say that in that case it'd likely be cut! I suppose it's just one of those many services that just so happen to be easier to run as through services, despite the main market in both directions being in the middle of the route (like Preston-Manchester-Hazel Grove, Doncaster-Lincoln-Peterborough etc).

 

[tbtc]

I'm slightly sceptical about First finding the money to pay for these infrastructure improvements, given that the Hull Trains service only has a handful of (guaranteed) years left, is only a handful of services a day and the parent company seems to be struggling for cash (hence selling off profitable bus operations and closing down unprofitable ones).

Could this just be the first part of the PR campaign to get a contract extension?

 

[joeykins82]

If NR stump up the capital and First/HT are just leading the negotiations about how the facility charge would directly repay that investment then I don't think there's any reason for scepticism; they could ditch the horribly unreliable c180s and probably reduce their operating costs by switching to electric operation, even with premium track access fees between Selby & Hull. It may be partially PR driven but it fits in with the presumed NR strategy. The DfT CP5 HLOS calls for electrification from Leeds to Selby with relevant ECML connections. I think the presumed outcome was that some TPE services would either be extended from Leeds to Selby or that some of the TPE services to Hull would terminate at Selby and be run with EMU stock, but the through services to Hull would remain DMU operated along with the EC/HT/NT Hull services. If all of the operators signed up to a scheme which allowed them to run their Hull via Selby services as electric at an agreed premium access charge but benefitting from the cost savings then it might be a goer. It's totally sensible, we just have to see what comes out in the wash.

 

[The Ham]

Thinking about it, given that track access charges for EMU's are less than those for DMU's, even if there was a premium along the whole length of the route to London, then HT are likely to still pay less in track access charges.

 

[ainsworth74]

Breaking out my napkin for some maths suggests that the savings could be enormous. From the CP4 track access charge document here a 180 vehicle costs 14.03 pence per mile (ppm), the most expensive DMU out there by the by, which means a five car unit costs 70.15ppm. Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs) so I've done figures for 444s instead (a long distance EMU and probably a reasonable guide for any replacement). In which case a 444 motor vehicle costs 11.07ppm and a trailer 8.18ppm meaning a total cost of 46.68ppm for a five car unit. Which means there's 23.47p to play with before any track access charge is costing them more.

Again this is back of the napkin stuff but it suggests that HT could pay above the odds for what's normal for an EMU and still either be paying the same overall or even making a small saving.

 

[tbtc]

Breaking out my napkin for some maths suggests that the savings could be enormous. From the CP4 track access charge document here a 180 vehicle costs 14.03 pence per mile (ppm), the most expensive DMU out there by the by, which means a five car unit costs 70.15ppm. Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs) so I've done figures for 444s instead (a long distance EMU and probably a reasonable guide for any replacement). In which case a 444 motor vehicle costs 11.07ppm and a trailer 8.18ppm meaning a total cost of 46.68ppm for a five car unit. Which means there's 23.47p to play with before any track access charge is costing them more.

Again this is back of the napkin stuff but it suggests that HT could pay above the odds for what's normal for an EMU and still either be paying the same overall or even making a small saving.

This also suggests that some other lines around the UK that aren't currently profitable (Cardiff, Manchester etc) may become profitable post-electrification

 

[YorkshireBear]

Breaking out my napkin for some maths suggests that the savings could be enormous. From the CP4 track access charge document here a 180 vehicle costs 14.03 pence per mile (ppm), the most expensive DMU out there by the by, which means a five car unit costs 70.15ppm. Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs) so I've done figures for 444s instead (a long distance EMU and probably a reasonable guide for any replacement). In which case a 444 motor vehicle costs 11.07ppm and a trailer 8.18ppm meaning a total cost of 46.68ppm for a five car unit. Which means there's 23.47p to play with before any track access charge is costing them more.

Again this is back of the napkin stuff but it suggests that HT could pay above the odds for what's normal for an EMU and still either be paying the same overall or even making a small saving.

Very interesting in addition to tbtc another interesting point, could we see TPE become profitable? Now that would be an achievement.

Is there a chance HT will go for IEPs? track acces charges for them are avaliable and i think they are worse then 390s....

 

[ainsworth74]

could we see TPE become profitable? Now that would be an achievement.

I'm not sure the savings are spectacular enough to get TPE to profitability but they're not to be sniffed at. A three car 185 clocks in at 12.53ppm per vehicle meaning a total cost of 37.59ppm whilst a four car 350 (which of course TPE will be getting and is probably a fairly reasonable guide to whatever they end up with long term) comes in at 8.26ppm for a motor vehicle and 6.56ppm for a trailer meaning a total cost of 29.64ppm. A difference of 7.95ppm. My preferred option of something along the lines of a five car 444 (but AC obviously) costs 46.68ppm but that's an extra two vehicles on the current trains and if you shorten it by one trailer then a four car 444 would be 38.50ppm or about a penny more for an extra vehicle.

 

[joeykins82]

Well the 390s have been on ECML test runs so it's possible that they're what HT have in mind for an electric fleet. Are there any 125mph capable Desiros (or Electrostars for that matter)? I know the 350s have been upped to 110mph, but is squeezing another 15mph from them realistic? Perhaps an AC-converted 444 (344?) without the end gangways would be 125mph capable? Or maybe IEP or some other new class.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm not sure the savings are spectacular enough to get TPE to profitability but they're not to be sniffed at. A three car 185 clocks in at 12.53ppm per vehicle meaning a total cost of 37.59ppm whilst a four car 350 (which of course TPE will be getting and is probably a fairly reasonable guide to whatever they end up with long term) comes in at 8.26ppm for a motor vehicle and 6.56ppm for a trailer meaning a total cost of 29.64ppm. A difference of 7.95ppm. My preferred option of something along the lines of a five car 444 (but AC obviously) costs 46.68ppm but that's an extra two vehicles on the current trains and if you shorten it by one trailer then a four car 444 would be 38.50ppm or about a penny more for an extra vehicle.

Interesting so for a 350 your looking at a 20% reduction(ish) for an extra 25% capcity. So, combine these and you do have some fairly nice increases in revenue, combined with sparks effect and reduction in maintenance and fuel costs. Leasing charges less as construction cost is less?

It all adds up and maybe one day you could see it. Optimistic i know but i certainly think it will make a huge difference, i think up north the sparks effect is larger than down south, fromt he evidence i have seen on electrification schemes anyway (principally airdale but others too)

Well the 390s have been on ECML test runs so it's possible that they're what HT have in mind for an electric fleet. Are there any 125mph capable Desiros (or Electrostars for that matter)? I know the 350s have been upped to 110mph, but is squeezing another 15mph from them realistic? Perhaps a 344 without the end gangways would be 125mph capable? Or maybe IEP or some other new class.

They could be capabale but not being fitted with crumple zones prevents it. Hence 110mph limit.

 

[joeykins82]

Interesting, didn't know about the crumple zone requirement, thanks!

 

[ainsworth74]

Interesting, didn't know about the crumple zone requirement, thanks!

All trains have crumple zones but once you're going much over 100mph they start to get much more significant. If you look at units that are cleared for 125mph you'll notice that roughly a third of the leading vehicle is non-passenger space. Once upon a time passengers were forbidden from being accommodated in leading vehicles of trains that travelled faster than 100mph hence why we got vehicles like DVTs with no passenger seating. Those rules have been relaxed as time has gone on and our vehicle construction has got better/stronger. Interestingly there must be some sort of derogation in place for the LM 350s to do 110mph as they don't have the front third of the leading vehicle out of use.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs)

FirstGroup will have costs for the mini-Pendolinos they planned to introduce on WC, and they could de-spec tilt from that.
But a small unique fleet of approx 5 units wouldn't work - needs to be on the back of a larger order elsewhere. Or use 5-car IEPs.
EC would also have the same options and could eliminate the odd HST as well.

 

[joeykins82]

Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs)

I'd guess it's because the traction power supply has to be enhanced to support the draw of the c390s (and c91 locos which is presumably why the mk4 coach costs so much more than the mk2 or mk3)

 

[tbtc]

Well the 390s have been on ECML test runs so it's possible that they're what HT have in mind for an electric fleet. Are there any 125mph capable Desiros (or Electrostars for that matter)? I know the 350s have been upped to 110mph, but is squeezing another 15mph from them realistic? Perhaps a 344 without the end gangways would be 125mph capable? Or maybe IEP or some other new class.

Genuine question - do HT's paths require 125mph trains? Or are they running 125mph trains because that was all that was available to lease?

(I don't know the answer)

 

[IanXC]

Genuine question - do HT's paths require 125mph trains? Or are they running 125mph trains because that was all that was available to lease?

(I don't know the answer)

I'm pretty certain they do require 125mph stock, the paths on the ECML are pretty tight as it is; I'm sure Network Rail have described it as such.

Interestingly I'm sure I read one of the Saturday paths has the highest timetabled speed in the UK (other than HS1), something like between Newark and Gratham.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm pretty certain they do require 125mph stock, the paths on the ECML are pretty tight as it is; I'm sure Network Rail have described it as such.

Interestingly I'm sure I read one of the Saturday paths has the highest timetabled speed in the UK (other than HS1), something like between Newark and Gratham.

You are correct sumat like 111mph average peterbough to somewhere.

I believe all stock on ECML between doncaster and Peterbrough now has to be 125mph (excluding specials and freight etc). But i could be making that up.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It used to be a weekday northbound HT service between Stevenage and Grantham, and to the best of my knowledge that hasn't changed. Was roughly 112mph average I recall.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=61135&highlight=grantham. >77 miles in 44 mins, an average of 106.2 mph.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

FirstGroup will have costs for the mini-Pendolinos they planned to introduce on WC, and they could de-spec tilt from that.
But a small unique fleet of approx 5 units wouldn't work - needs to be on the back of a larger order elsewhere. Or use 5-car IEPs.
EC would also have the same options and could eliminate the odd HST as well.

Could TPE use the 350/4 fleet as a stop gap until some baby 390s come then use them for both TPE and HT operators