Electrification Study for Hull-Leeds

[IanXC]

BBC Look North and Radio Humberside are reporting today that DfT have requested a feasability study on extending electrification to Hull from Network Rail.

Its not on the BBC website as far as I can see, anyone know what kind of work this is and when they'll report?

 

[Class377/5]

BBC Look North and Radio Humberside are reporting today that DfT have requested a feasability study on extending electrification to Hull from Network Rail.

Its not on the BBC website as far as I can see, anyone know what kind of work this is and when they'll report?

Been reported in a few places that the DfT have asked NR to look at extending the wires from York onto the TPE branches as under the current announced plan there would be a change of trains at Leeds (for Hull services) or York (for Middlesbrough or Scarborough services).

 

[eastwestdivide]

The BBC has it up now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-16407008
Basically repeats what the OP said.

 

[tom1649]

"Train route"?! What's wrong with "railway line"?

 

[yorksrob]

Good news - of all the Trans-Pennine "branches" I'd have thought that this one has the most going for it.

 

[bluenoxid]

Certainly. It would possibly allow for the first open access OHLE operator. There are also the benefits of more local services becoming electric and I would not be surprised to see more local services from Leeds with the Diesel services sped up.

 

[eastwestdivide]

And only a little more wiring, from Selby south to the ECML junction, would allow Hull-London electrics and give two electric diversionary routes London-Leeds (via Selby or via Hambleton Junction where the ECML meets the Leeds-Hull line)

 

[TheWalrus]

I would not be surprised to see more local services from Leeds with the Diesel services sped up.

Like a Leeds-York stopper with everything else non stop?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And only a little more wiring, from Selby south to the ECML junction, would allow Hull-London electrics and give two electric diversionary routes London-Leeds (via Selby or via Hambleton Junction where the ECML meets the Leeds-Hull line)

Id imagine they would do that bit.

 

[Nym]

Well, if you think in a slightly abstract way, if you include the diversions in the whole project, and a timetable recast, it does meet the 2tph to electric criteria from NR, 2tph between Leeds and Selby, and 1tph hourly between Hull and Selby then roughly 2tp2h with HT and Northern to KX and York/Doncaster via Selby...

 

[IanXC]

Well, if you think in a slightly abstract way, if you include the diversions in the whole project, and a timetable recast, it does meet the 2tph to electric criteria from NR, 2tph between Leeds and Selby, and 1tph hourly between Hull and Selby then roughly 2tp2h with HT and Northern to KX and York/Doncaster via Selby...

Plus Hull to York via Selby is nearly hourly since the ECML recast, and there is a long standing desire for a second Hull-Leeds each hour.

 

[Nym]

Plus Hull to York via Selby is nearly hourly since the ECML recast, and there is a long standing desire for a second Hull-Leeds each hour.

Indeedy, so on avarage it's >2tph for all of the route that can move from Diesel to Electric haulage, so long as the Sherburn route to York is also completed (and if thats done you might as well go via Ponte and back to the ECML for diversions)

Put it this way, Hull has a much stronger financial case than Middlesbrough, as for that you'd need to include more branchey bits, and you can move to a more 'fun' timetable even without Middlesbrough done...

ie.

1tph Liverpool - Newcastle
1tph Liverpool - Hull
1tph Manchester Airport - Newcastle
1tph Manchester Airport - Hull
(Although that will mean either Liverpool services or Newcastle services being flighted 15 and 45mins appart from Victoria, so maybe a standard Liverpool - Hull 2tph and Airport - Newcastle 2tph)
2tph Semi Fast Manchester - Huddersfeild - Leeds - York (Extended from current plans) to make up for the loss of 1tph Leeds - York for Hull.

Currently terminating Newcastle XC Service sent to Middlesbrough.

Not to mention that York - Hull can then move over to EMU (Massive overprovision of seating at the moment, but put nice seats on nice trains that are leccy and what happens, peeps use em!)

And then all Hull - London services can move over to Leccy traction, and the 'Leeds Loop' would be closed up with wires, so LDPE services terminating Leeds can run in a loop via Leeds E Parkway.

 

[IanXC]

Put it this way, Hull has a much stronger financial case than Middlesbrough, as for that you'd need to include more branchey bits, and you can move to a more 'fun' timetable even without Middlesbrough done...

Currently terminating Newcastle XC Service sent to Middlesbrough.

I think that this is a pretty good solution. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who travel from Middlesbrough beyond Leeds towards Manchester is about equal to the number who change to travel towards Sheffield.

Not to mention that York - Hull can then move over to EMU (Massive overprovision of seating at the moment, but put nice seats on nice trains that are leccy and what happens, peeps use em!)

And then all Hull - London services can move over to Leccy traction, and the 'Leeds Loop' would be closed up with wires, so LDPE services terminating Leeds can run in a loop via Leeds E Parkway.

Selby-York can be standing room only on 2+3 150s so its not quite so crazy. Hull-York suffers from its journey time and (up until recently) a very erratic timetable. I'm confident that with a reduction in journey time from 100mph EMUs and a full hourly timetable usage would increase. You only have to look at the state of the A1079 from Beverley to York and consider the performance of parking in York to realise a good bit of advertising for parkway at somewhere between Hessle and Eastrington should be very successful.

 

[Nym]

2tph to York it is then

And trust me, I used to near enough live on the A1079, I know how bad that can get, and the roundabout for the caravan factory hasn't helped!

And as for parkway stations, I always think they've missed a trick building one near the bypass at York. Where the current P&R and Tesco is.

Although I also don't think it would be too stupid to run a 2nd tph slow to Selby via Castleford, although theres no stations between Castleford and Selby so it wouldn't be that slow.

Is it just me that can invisage 4tph+ either side of Selby?

1tph York Fast
1tph York via Sherburn
1tph Leeds Slow via South Milford
1tph Leeds via Castleford (EMU, diversionary routes electrified)
1tp2h (Roughly) Doncaster (Hull Trains) Although an additional NT Shuttle between these would be nice.
9t2ph Hull (2tph fast TPE 2tph Slow(er) Off York 1tp2h off KX)

 

[northwichcat]

Been reported in a few places that the DfT have asked NR to look at extending the wires from York onto the TPE branches as under the current announced plan there would be a change of trains at Leeds (for Hull services) or York (for Middlesbrough or Scarborough services).

Not necessarily.

If Scarborough is deemed non-economically viable to electrify the Blackpool-York service is set to be extended to Scarborough to still have a direct service between Leeds, York and Scarborough.

If more bits aren't electrified then it doesn't mean only EMUs will operate between Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds despite a lot of people objections to diesel services operating mainly under the wires.

 

[Jonny]

If electrification enables something with the performance of the 185s (which have to keep to lower/loco speed limits) but a lighter axle load so that it can use the DMU-enhanced speeds, then it could speed things up and work out well.

 

[Class377/5]

Not necessarily.

If Scarborough is deemed non-economically viable to electrify the Blackpool-York service is set to be extended to Scarborough to still have a direct service between Leeds, York and Scarborough.

If more bits aren't electrified then it doesn't mean only EMUs will operate between Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds despite a lot of people objections to diesel services operating mainly under the wires.

Simple fact is currently we know nothing for sure. But I was talking about the TPE services, seeing as they mentioned Manchester to Leeds electric services with time savings, this would TPE services. Never mentioned it would only ever been EMU's.

Hell by the time this is done TPE may be a sub brand of Northern franchise.

 

[PhilipW]

This is worth a read
http://humbertransport.blogspot.com/2011/12/last-month-it-was-announced-that.html
All good stuff, makes a lot of sense

 

[IanXC]

This is worth a read
http://humbertransport.blogspot.com/2011/12/last-month-it-was-announced-that.html
All good stuff, makes a lot of sense

It does actually, I particularly like the idea of enhancing "the York-Pontefract-Sheffield service to act as replacement service for Sherburn". I wonder if there is a way, maybe starting south of Sheffield to use this to take pressure off services via Leeds.

2tph to York it is then

And trust me, I used to near enough live on the A1079, I know how bad that can get, and the roundabout for the caravan factory hasn't helped!

And as for parkway stations, I always think they've missed a trick building one near the bypass at York. Where the current P&R and Tesco is.

Although I also don't think it would be too stupid to run a 2nd tph slow to Selby via Castleford, although theres no stations between Castleford and Selby so it wouldn't be that slow.

Is it just me that can invisage 4tph+ either side of Selby?

1tph York Fast
1tph York via Sherburn
1tph Leeds Slow via South Milford
1tph Leeds via Castleford (EMU, diversionary routes electrified)
1tp2h (Roughly) Doncaster (Hull Trains) Although an additional NT Shuttle between these would be nice.
9t2ph Hull (2tph fast TPE 2tph Slow(er) Off York 1tp2h off KX)

Ah you know all about the A1079 then! I can see that service pattern actually, I think Hull has a lot of suppressed demand, so hopefully the sparks effect will work well!

 

[GingerSte]

This is worth a read
http://humbertransport.blogspot.com/2011/12/last-month-it-was-announced-that.html
All good stuff, makes a lot of sense

Makes a lot of sense for me too. Assuming Leeds-York is electrified (not taking is as certain until the boys in orange are finished ), I can see the day coming where London-Hull is fully two-hourly, and EC run one of their hourly services through Hambleton to Leeds and then Bradford Forster Square.

I would also add that (if I remember correctly) the stretch of line between Micklefield and Hull (apart from maybe the bit around and to the West of Selby) is not particularly intensive when it comes to overbridges, ie bridges over the railway. A quick look at Multimap suggests that there are only 19 overbridges, and one of these is the Humber Bridge. This matters because one of the larger costs in electrification is replacing bridges which would clash with the OHLE. The lower the number of bridges, the lower the cost (and the higher the benefit cost ratio). I mention the Humber Bridge because I think that is so much higher than the railway that this wouldn't be an issue for that particular bridge.

However, I'm going to have to get a bit controversial here. We don't have the trained manpower to do all these electrification schemes that the government keep announcing (IMO). We don't have the experience of recently completed projects, and a "big bang" of projects is not good for the price. If we were to announce a strategy with a rolling program of electrification (eg, we'll have a team do Man-Leeds, then Leeds-York, then Micklefield-Hull, and then stagger the introduction of electric trains to suit the electrified lines) then the steady stream of work would lead to lower prices.

 

[Nym]

However, I'm going to have to get a bit controversial here. We don't have the trained manpower to do all these electrification schemes that the government keep announcing (IMO). We don't have the experience of recently completed projects, and a "big bang" of projects is not good for the price. If we were to announce a strategy with a rolling program of electrification (eg, we'll have a team do Man-Leeds, then Leeds-York, then Micklefield-Hull, and then stagger the introduction of electric trains to suit the electrified lines) then the steady stream of work would lead to lower prices.

This is true that slower is cheaper than big bang, but... Factor in the cost of new Diesel Rolling Stock, that when the rolling programme is done will be utterly useless (in the eyes of ROSCOs)

 

[IanXC]

I would also add that (if I remember correctly) the stretch of line between Micklefield and Hull (apart from maybe the bit around and to the West of Selby) is not particularly intensive when it comes to overbridges, ie bridges over the railway. A quick look at Multimap suggests that there are only 19 overbridges, and one of these is the Humber Bridge. This matters because one of the larger costs in electrification is replacing bridges which would clash with the OHLE. The lower the number of bridges, the lower the cost (and the higher the benefit cost ratio). I mention the Humber Bridge because I think that is so much higher than the railway that this wouldn't be an issue for that particular bridge.

Very much so. I have in my mind that a couple of years ago some work was done on bridges between Gilberdyke and the junction at Hessle Road (route to the Docks) for freight clearances - surely these bridges are therefore already at the appropriate height. And yes you're right the Humber Bridge is much too high to be a problem.

 

[GingerSte]

This is true that slower is cheaper than big bang, but... Factor in the cost of new Diesel Rolling Stock, that when the rolling programme is done will be utterly useless (in the eyes of ROSCOs)

I wasn't aware that new diesel units would be required in the short term. Surely the existing units would suffice, with gradual replacement by electric as OHLE sections come online?

Very much so. I have in my mind that a couple of years ago some work was done on bridges between Gilberdyke and the junction at Hessle Road (route to the Docks) for freight clearances - surely these bridges are therefore already at the appropriate height. And yes you're right the Humber Bridge is much too high to be a problem.

I wasn't aware of that either (It's been a while since I last ventured that way), but this suggests that the cost could be relatively low!

Edited to add

One possible spanner in the works: there seems to be a lot of level crossing on this section of line, which would scupper attempts at speed increases and reduce the benefits. Replacing a large number of these with bridges would cost a fortune!

 

[bluenoxid]

Like a Leeds-York stopper with everything else non stop?

Yes but I was thinking about running a Leeds to Hull (extending the Selby terminator) as a stopper and speeding up Hull to Doncaster.

Hull - York is certainly a beneficiary

An option for Sherburn in Elmet and other stations in the area would be to extend either the Wakefield or Leeds service from Knottingley to York. Yes, all of the stations would lose a Hull connection but they still retain York and gain either Leeds or Wakefield.


A second option if Scarborough is not electrified would be to run a shuttle from Castleford to Haxby.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is worth a read
http://humbertransport.blogspot.com/2011/12/last-month-it-was-announced-that.html
All good stuff, makes a lot of sense

Well you'd hope if someone in power read that, that it would be added after manchester york. We can but hope.

Very thought provoking. And i think upping sheffield york via pontefract service frequency to bi hourly with good advertising could work very well.

 

[tbtc]

i think upping sheffield york via pontefract service frequency to bi hourly with good advertising could work very well

You could even use this increase to replace some of the current Sheffield - Rotherham - Bolton OD - Wakefield - Leeds services with more Doncaster - Leeds stoppers.

e.g. maintain an hourly stopper from Sheffield to Moorthorpe (probably no spare capacity at the north end of Sheffield for more services), which becomes a bi-hourly Leeds service and a bi-hourly York service, replaced with more EMUs on Doncaster - Leeds (which would give more capacity etc).

If the Hambleton electrification means fewer KX - Leeds services via Wakefield (due to some running via Hambleton/ Garforth) then that would free up the paths between Doncaster and South Elmsall?

 

[Waverley125]

I think the benefits for Hull-Leeds are very clear

from my point of view, the optimum plan would be to operate a three-tier service i.e. Leeds-Hull (Selby only), Leeds-Hull (Selby, Howden, Brough, Hessle) and Leeds-Hull (all shacks, extension of existing Leeds-Selby stopper) as well as making the Leeds-Selby stopper half-hourly (doing the same to York would bring Cross Gates, East Garforth & Micklefield up to 4tph into Leeds)

In addition you could run half-hourly Hull-York (one fast, one slow, the fast potentially going beyond York-to Harrogate if the Hgate line is wired-i.e. Hessle, Brough, Howden, Selby, York, Knaresborough, Harrogate).

Plus redcued costs on Temple Hirst Junction-Doncaster, bringing Hull onto the ECML properly (and IMO with it an hourly service to London, allowing services for the north to be sped up, potentially by running Peterborough-York non-stop).

 

[34D]

Yes but I was thinking about running a Leeds to Hull (extending the Selby terminator) as a stopper and speeding up Hull to Doncaster.

Hull - York is certainly a beneficiary

An option for Sherburn in Elmet and other stations in the area would be to extend either the Wakefield or Leeds service from Knottingley to York. Yes, all of the stations would lose a Hull connection but they still retain York and gain either Leeds or Wakefield.


A second option if Scarborough is not electrified would be to run a shuttle from Castleford to Haxby.

Some interesting ideas here. Though don't forget that of course Sherburn could have a couple of York-Sherburn-Selby-Hull diesel under the wires per day (hopefully timed to be convenient to passengers).

 

[Anvil1984]

I'd increase the York - Sheffield services to run one train per two hours (will need linespeed increase between Sherburn and Moorthorpe though) but can't see why Church Fenton (after Yorl - Manchester electrification) to Gascoigne Wood (after Leeds to Hull wiring) wouldn't be done. O.k theres only 1 train per hour but it would be another diversion in case anything happened between York and Hambleton. The potential York to Hulls could divert that way instead of being stranded at York / Selby and even the ECML services could go down Sherburn and then round past Gascoigne too Hambleton South.

This is all pie in the sky and theory of course

 

[balne-wonderer]

There is loads of level crossings from Micklefield to Hull though. Would that not mean the wires would have to be mounted higher so as they would clear the highest road vehicles?

Extra expense?

 

[Nym]

Not really that much more expensive, I'm sure someone will have exacting figures, but all you need is some taller posts...