Hull - Selby Electrification 'Rejected'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,452
Does this belong in Transpennine?
Found this on the the Yorkshire Post web site and have also seen it on the Local BBC Humberside page.

PLANS TO electrify Yorkshire’s railway network have suffered another blow after the Government quietly scrapped the upgrading of the line between Selby and Hull. ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads Rail Minister Paul Maynard has told MPs along the route that passengers will experience improvements to services using the line without the need for electrification. ‘Betrayal’ over Yorkshire rail electrification The minister pointed to the recent announcement that First Hull Trains is to invest in trains which can operate under diesel and electric power. The Government had repeatedly trumpeted its plans to upgrade the Selby to Hull line and First Hull Trains had offered a bridging loan to help meet the cost. Hull North MP Diana Johnson said: “It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government has turned down Hull line electrification despite private money being available from First Hull Trains to help meet the cost. “There appears to be no problem finding money for the Garden Bridge in London from Government but they are not willing to invest in Hull rail electrification. “I hope the Northern Powerhouse Minister, an East Yorkshire MP, will be able to get this decision overturned.”

The decision to scrap the Selby-to-Hull electrification is the latest in a string of setbacks for plans to upgrade Yorkshire’s rail network. Challenged by Yorkshire MPs earlier this month, the Rail Minister refused to commit the Government to meet its own target of completing electrification of the Midland Mainline by 2023. The scheme to upgrade the line, which connects Sheffield to London, was originally due to be completed by 2020 but last year the date was revised after ministers were forced to admit their rail electrification plans were in trouble. The electrification of the trans-Pennine route was also put back from 2019 to 2022 but doubts have also been raised about that revised target.

In his letter to MPs, Mr Maynard points to First Hull Trains’s decision to spend £60m on ‘bi-mode’ trains which can operate on both diesel and electric power. Mr Maynard said the Azuma trains soon to be brought into service by Virgin Trains would cut journey times to London while Arrival Rail North will introduce “new or refurbished trains” on services connecting Hull to Doncaster and Sheffield. The minister said the promised loan would have been repayable by the Government when the upgrade was complete, making the project “fully publicly funded”. Passengers in areas where electrification work had gone ahead had experienced “months of either complete line closure or mid-week nights and weekend closure”. “He added: “Given the number of passenger benefits already being delivered without electrification, there is almost no further benefit to justify further publicly funded investment and the disruption electrification would bring.”
Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/anger-as-ministers-shelve-yorkshire-rail-upgrade-plans-1-8242509
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
4,706
Location
Leeds
I thought the only thing the government had ever agreed to on Hull electrification was to fund it to GRIP 3.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,132
Location
Mold, Clwyd
A necessary precursor to electrification would have been resignalling - some of the route is still semaphore I think.
I can well imagine NR has postponed this, along with several other resignalling schemes.
 
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
161
A necessary precursor to electrification would have been resignalling - some of the route is still semaphore I think.
I can well imagine NR has postponed this, along with several other resignalling schemes.
The contract for resignalling has been awarded and I'm told work has begun with completion in Spring 2018.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
14,439
Location
Manchester
BBC News are reporting that the Government has rejected the proposal to electrifiy the line between Hull and Selby, saying that the disruption of doing so outweighs the benefits. Hull Trains are yet to comment. I'm shocked if this is accurate and not just confusion over it being delayed and the disruption would be too great during UK City of Culture Year.

Edit: I think that is correct, the Department for Transport are quoted as saying their view is that this electrification is 'unnecessary'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-38004362

Plans to electrify the rail line between Hull and Selby have been thrown out by the government, which says the disruption would outweigh any benefits.
First Hull Trains first proposed a fast-track electrification of the 70 miles (112km) of track in 2013.
The plan would have guaranteed faster journey times between Hull and other cities in the North as well as London.
Labour MP for Hull North, Diana Johnson, said she was "very angry" at the decision.
"If they are really sincere about the 'Northern Powerhouse' then Hull has to be included in infrastructure investment," she said.
 
Last edited:

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
7,213
Surely won't make as much of a difference as it would have previously, what with the bi-mode Class 802s coming into service with both Hull Trains and TransPennine.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
14,439
Location
Manchester
Well it means that diesel-powered traction will be needed for Hull - York and Hull - Manchester for another generation too, which seems quite disappointing.
 

Lurpi

Member
Joined
13 Jul 2015
Messages
77
Sounds like FirstGroup made a mistake last year when they decided to replace the original plan, which would have seen their project company borrow the money to finance the wiring and pay it back over the long term, with a plan to have the loan bought out by Network Rail, leading to this 'publicly funded' jibe by Paul Maynard.

I am worried that the government now thinks bi-modes are the answer to everything. Has anybody explained to them that they cause more wear and tear than electrics?
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,231
Location
Sunny South Lancs
I agree it's most disappointing. Hull seems to get overlooked all the time, even by people in the north. Its population of over 300,000 makes it bigger than Swansea or Plymouth but because it's so far from other urban areas and is so often dismissed as just an old fishing port that its value as an economic generator is overlooked by many.
 

Lurpi

Member
Joined
13 Jul 2015
Messages
77
"Short term" bi modes are cheaper. Thats the clincher! Plus bi modes cant operate on electric where the ohle isnt 25k, food for thought....

Remember TPEs 13 loco hauled sets? Whats to say replacing the 68's with 88's isnt on the cards.....
That's beside the point. Short term, diesels are also cheaper than electrifying. It's not about the short term.

How many places where "the ohle isn't 25k[v]" on the national rail network are there, beyond a tiny bit used by the Tyne and Wear Metro? (I'll save you the trouble: zero.)
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Remember TPEs 13 loco hauled sets? Whats to say replacing the 68's with 88's isnt on the cards.....
I thought TPE did not plan to send the LHCS formations to Hull - is that speculation or has something changed, gimmie?
TPE's stock is going to be split in to 3 groups:

WCML services - Civities

North TPE Express services - Bi-modes and loco-hauled

North TPE semi-fasts (including Hull) and South TPE - refurbished 185s

The franchise agreement does include the option of 7 or more additional EMUs (not bi-modes) arriving in 2022 and some 185s being withdrawn. If Hull isn't wired and bi-modes are needed for Middlesbrough/Scarborough will TPE take up the option of additional EMUs or just keep 185s on semi-fasts?
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
2,803
Location
Back Cab
Initially newcastle-liverpool but will move to airport-scarborough/middlesbrough. 185s remain on the hull semi-fasts and south route, while liv-edb ECML and airport-newcastle get the bi modes
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
TPE will run 2tph to Liverpool via Chat Moss - one will definitely be Edinburgh via York and the other definitely won't be the second Newcastle service so could be either Scarborough or Middlesbrough, with the other going to the Airport via the Ordsall Chord.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
2,803
Location
Back Cab
The industry is very much short-termism. Franchises loaded at the start with big bang projects then sit back and watch the fares roll in, or worse no growth do nothing and sit back....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As foe the OHLE, that "little bit" prevents 25k reaching sunderland so no electrics via the coast or newcastle-sunderland any time soon. There is a possibility sunderland will be readded to TPE but thats probably hearsay at this time
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
848
What "Disruption" would there be - surely it's mostly plain line that would be relatively simple to wire?

So a "Red Herring" of disruption with the real reason being they don't want to spend money modernising railways and don't give a toss about a city of 300.000 because it's in the north!

Is this not an ominous indication of the attitude to Rail by the collection of incompetents and mountebanks that now pass for a UK Government?
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
2,803
Location
Back Cab
I am worried that the government now thinks bi-modes are the answer to everything. Has anybody explained to them that they cause more wear and tear than electrics?
"Short term" bi modes are cheaper. Thats the clincher! Plus bi modes cant operate on electric where the ohle isnt 25k, food for thought....

Remember TPEs 13 loco hauled sets? Whats to say replacing the 68's with 88's isnt on the cards.....
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
What "Disruption" would there be - surely it's mostly plain line that would be relatively simple to wire?
There's going to be disruption to wire any line. It was mooted a swing bridge is an added complication for that route.

Hull to Selby made 7th place on the electrification taskforce list of priorities with a weighted score of 70/100: http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf so it is perhaps harder to justify at present to other lines. Of course it should be remembered that those are just lines in the North so it will likely be further down a national list.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,132
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Because Network Rail have spent the CP5 money on GW electrification and there's no more until 2019 (and a long list of other projects waiting).
Over the last 7 years or so the government (all shades) has authorised a huge amount of rail investment, but the delivery by NR has been pitiful.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
848
I'm not saying there would be no disruption.

It's just the "Mood Music" I'm talking about.

Previously wouldn't the announcement have been along the lines of "Fully committed to taking this forward at a future date" style rather than just outright rejection with an easily seen through/lame excuse of "disruption"?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
23,950
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
What "Disruption" would there be - surely it's mostly plain line that would be relatively simple to wire?

So a "Red Herring" of disruption with the real reason being they don't want to spend money modernising railways and don't give a toss about a city of 300.000 because it's in the north!

Is this not an ominous indication of the attitude to Rail by the collection of incompetents and mountebanks that now pass for a UK Government?
yeah the conspiracy theory! More likely it is that the money that is available is better spent elsewhere in the country. Consider that money is now direct tax players money from central government. Someone, somewhere ,has to decide if the money for electrifying the line to Hull can be better spent on the NHS or the police or schools. The reclassification of NR has led to a lot of hard choices that NR as a quasi private company didn't have to make.

Because Network Rail have spent the CP5 money on GW electrification and there's no more until 2019 (and a long list of other projects waiting).
Over the last 7 years or so the government (all shades) has authorised a huge amount of rail investment, but the delivery by NR has been pitiful.
Or, more likely, lots of improvements have been made and projects delivered but that doesn't suit agendas so gets overlooked. Post fact world and all that........
 
Last edited:

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
848
yeah the conspiracy theory! More likely it is that the money that is available is better spent elsewhere in the country.
Electrifying a relatively simple 70 mile railway to a City of 300,000 and a major seaport to boot?

A fairly obvious no-brainer to me.

And then coming up with the risible reason for not doing it of "Disruption".

Only in the UK:lol:
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Because Network Rail have spent the CP5 money on GW electrification and there's no more until 2019 (and a long list of other projects waiting).
Over the last 7 years or so the government (all shades) has authorised a huge amount of rail investment, but the delivery by NR has been pitiful.
Agreed. With North West electrification, GW electrification and Thameslink all being projects which the coalition government's spending review didn't axe, the next stage should have been to come up with realistic timescales for those projects and looking at how they will work in conjunction with each other e.g. when will 319s be freed up compared to when wires will be ready to use. However, Patrick McLoughlin just kept announcing more and more projects and kept saying about all the investment they were making, when he had no real idea when any of the projects would be delivered. Apparently Network Rail never committed to a North TPE date originally but DfT decided that meant December 2018.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
848
If they'd said something along the lines of:

"Yes this is a sound project and we are committed to it, however with so many projects on the go just now resources are limited and we can not go ahead with this at the moment but will take measures which ensure the project can proceed when resources become available etc etc"

Then that would have at least been something.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Government is citing road improvements in the area as justification for not funding electrification: https://twitter.com/sarah_politics/status/798916349737115649

They really are showing signs of regressing to the "let's pave the country" road mania of the '80s, sadly.
So basically what they are saying when you cut out all the flannel is;

We are not going to modernise the Railway into your city of 300,000 - not now - not ever - but we are improving the roads - so why not stop using the Trains and use your car instead!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
23,950
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
Electrifying a relatively simple 70 mile railway to a City of 300,000 and a major seaport to boot?

A fairly obvious no-brainer to me.

And then coming up with the risible reason for not doing it of "Disruption".

Only in the UK:lol:

it might be a no brainer to you but that city of 300000 has about 4 jobs and is stuck out on a limb in the middle of nowhere. It feels isolated and detached from the rest of the country.


The freight that does come out of there will run off the wires quite quickly. In any event Hull doesn't even appear in the top 10 busiest ports in the UK. Tees & Hartlepooh are 3rd. Perhaps the money for Hull would be better spent there? Seems a no brainer to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they'd said something along the lines of:

"Yes this is a sound project and we are committed to it, however with so many projects on the go just now resources are limited and we can not go ahead with this at the moment but will take measures which ensure the project can proceed when resources become available etc etc"

Then that would have at least been something.
You assume the project is sound - it might not be
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,855
Location
Redcar
it might be a no brainer to you but that city of 300000 has about 4 jobs and is stuck out on a limb in the middle of nowhere. It feels isolated and detached from the rest of the country.
So perhaps improving its connectivity by investing in its railway infrastructure might be a good idea then?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Perhaps the questions to ask are:

- How many DMUs running in and out of Hull at peak times are officially overcrowded (allowing for the 35% standing figure)?
- How much will journey times to Leeds and York be improved by electrification?
- Are there any pathing problems in the Hull area which electrification will help with?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,375
Location
Scotland
If the service gets better does it matter by what fuel source?
I agree. It's disappointing that they are postponing/cancelling the electrification of the line but there are new, shiny, faster trains on the way and resignalling to make the line more efficient - it's only us railway nerds who care how they are powered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top