Hull - Selby Electrification 'Rejected'

[pemma]

Regarding phasing out diesel it wasn't that long ago the government made an incorrect estimate about when we would run out of diesel. I think they predicted 40-60 years sooner than it is now predicted to happen

 

[eisenach]

Looking at a map of European railways showing electrified lines, it is astonishing how few routes are still to be electrified.

And those that are still operated by diesels are being electrified more and more.

And yet, in the UK we cant even make a case for electrifying what would pass for being an important main line in Europe.

Someone said Hull is too far from anywhere to make it worthwhile!
Too far away, for crying out loud!
It's a city of 300000 plus people, 50 miles from a concentration of large towns and cities and some people think it is out in the desert somewhere.
The line should have ben electrified 50 years ago.

It is amazing that when virtually every developed Nation has mainly electrified lines we can always find some excuse not to do it!

This time it's bi-modes.
Because we cant even deliver the paltry schemes already approved without huge delay and cost, we're having to order hundreds of antediluvian monstrosities that will be trundling around our system, spewing out fumes and noise for the next 30 years.

As a concept to allow through running to a few bits of unelectrified track, they may have a roll: but ours are going to be running on odd bits of electrification with much of the mileage done on diesel.

Well we are certainly cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world in more ways than one!

Bravo !

 

[najaB]

I didn't follow the US election as closely as some, there has been test cricket on after all, but I'm pretty sure Drumpf never mentioned Selby.

Indeed he did not. However he's declared global warming to be a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, vowed not to ratify the Paris accords, promised to repeal clean air legislation that 'hinder' American manufacturers and promised to revive the American coal industry.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nonsense
This UK Government in promoting HS2 is clearly promoting a project that will extend beyond the next UK General Election.
Yes an incoming Government in 2020 could wreck it at vast cost!
You clearly stated that no Government commits to infrastructure projects that extend beyond the life of that Government.
Hinkley Point C must be a figment of my imagination therefore.

Nevertheless, governments try not to commit beyond the end of a parliament.
Network Rail's funding is in 5-year chunks, and CP5 was £38 billion ending in 2019, with £11 billion of enhancement projects of which £5 billion is electrification.
Parliament has not voted on anything for NR beyond then.
HS2 and Crossrail are not part of the NR settlement (although the NR bits are), and have cross-party support so are carried forward between parliaments.

The Bowe Report about Network Rail financing recommended large rolling projects like electrification be taken out of the CP process and treated like Crossrail, but nothing has changed yet.
So ministers can't commit to the content of CP6.
In fact the next step is for NR to come up with its wish list for CP6 to start the negotiation with ORR/DfT.
That's what I would call a tough job just now.

 

[superkev]

Looks to me like the government has lost faith in network rail and its underperforming contractors.
K

 

[D365]

Looks to me like the government has lost faith in network rail and its underperforming contractors.

Despite the fact that they've had to build up a supply chain again from almost nil this decade...

 

[Lurpi]

There's a certain amount of uninformed speculation on this thread suggesting that the Hull electrification project had no business case, so let's put the record straight. The DfT looked at this and found that the scheme would have a benefit:cost ratio on the local economy of between 4:1 and 5:1, which falls into the 'very high' end by their appraisal.

And it's been noted on this forum before that swing bridges are not a barrier to wiring. Everyone was very relaxed about that swing bridge until the cancellation announcement.

 

[westv]

How much will the bi-modes cut off the journey time to London with HullTrains?
How would the time reduction with full electrification compare?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a certain amount of uninformed speculation on this thread suggesting that the Hull electrification project had no business case, so let's put the record straight. The DfT looked at this and found that the scheme would have a benefit:cost ratio on the local economy of between 4:1 and 5:1, which falls into the 'very high' end by their appraisal.

Nobody believes those BCRs now (if they did then), and bi-mode operation kills it off.
How many DMUs will be replaced if it was wired (assuming HT and TPE are running bi-modes)?
Time to look at it again when the TP wires reach Selby.

 

[pemma]

The BCR for the local economy is part of the overall picture. It's like recommending a restaurant based on the dessert menu only.

 

[Grimsby town]

I don't think anybody is complaining that the Hull Line can't be electrified this very moment, people are more worried by the explanations given and that the government is suggesting that diesel powered trains can provide the same benefits as electric ones. This sets a frightening precedent, not only for Hull, but for the whole electrification programme in the UK.

Lets look at the Hull line. I assume the BCR doesn't take into account the 2nd Leeds train each hour which has been committed to by Northern, so there's an immediate boost. People complain BCR is flawed until the cows come home, it's currently the way infrastructure decisions are made, so electrifying Hull makes sense from this point of view.

Now to the stock that could be replaced by electrification. There's a firm commitment to 802's on the London service but no such commitment for them on the Manchester service. Therefore it can be assumed that 3 trains per hour will be pure diesel, Manchester, Leeds and York. So lets say 5 DMU's are needed for Manchester, 3 for Leeds and 3 for York and add in one spare for York / Leeds and one for Manchester. From my 'bag of a fag packet' I make that 13 DMU's saved. That's a sizeable number for what is effectively 30 miles of simple double track to be electified with very little possibility of seeing cost overruns.

So once the Transpennine route is done, Hull really seems to be a no brainer to me.

 

[pemma]

I don't think anybody is complaining that the Hull Line can't be electrified this very moment, people are more worried by the explanations given and that the government is suggesting that diesel powered trains can provide the same benefits as electric ones. This sets a frightening precedent, not only for Hull, but for the whole electrification programme in the UK.

Lets look at the Hull line. I assume the BCR doesn't take into account the 2nd Leeds train each hour which has been committed to by Northern, so there's an immediate boost. People complain BCR is flawed until the cows come home, it's currently the way infrastructure decisions are made, so electrifying Hull makes sense from this point of view.

Now to the stock that could be replaced by electrification. There's a firm commitment to 802's on the London service but no such commitment for them on the Manchester service. Therefore it can be assumed that 3 trains per hour will be pure diesel, Manchester, Leeds and York. So lets say 5 DMU's are needed for Manchester, 3 for Leeds and 3 for York and add in one spare for York / Leeds and one for Manchester. From my 'bag of a fag packet' I make that 13 DMU's saved. That's a sizeable number for what is effectively 30 miles of simple double track to be electified with very little possibility of seeing cost overruns.

So once the Transpennine route is done, Hull really seems to be a no brainer to me.

It's all very well saying Hull is a no brainer but the same could be said about other routes. For instance, let's consider Trafford Park to Liverpool South Parkway - most services will be eventually be pairs of DMUs and wiring that will mean 6 local diagrams and 3 semi-fast diagrams can be switched to EMUs - so up to 18 DMUs freed up and a stepping stone for freeing up more DMUs if Hazel Grove-Sheffield is electrified as well. The Rail North report identified higher economic benefits for wiring Trafford Park to Liverpool South Parkway over Selby to Hull, so you could say it's a no brainer to drop Hull-Selby in favour of wiring Trafford Park to Liverpool South Parkway first. Even that route is number 2 on a list of potential projects in the North, it probably wouldn't have second place on a national list.

 

[lejog]

I don't think anybody is complaining that the Hull Line can't be electrified this very moment, people are more worried by the explanations given and that the government is suggesting that diesel powered trains can provide the same benefits as electric ones. This sets a frightening precedent, not only for Hull, but for the whole electrification programme in the UK.

Lets look at the Hull line. I assume the BCR doesn't take into account the 2nd Leeds train each hour which has been committed to by Northern, so there's an immediate boost. People complain BCR is flawed until the cows come home, it's currently the way infrastructure decisions are made, so electrifying Hull makes sense from this point of view.

Now to the stock that could be replaced by electrification. There's a firm commitment to 802's on the London service but no such commitment for them on the Manchester service. Therefore it can be assumed that 3 trains per hour will be pure diesel, Manchester, Leeds and York. So lets say 5 DMU's are needed for Manchester, 3 for Leeds and 3 for York and add in one spare for York / Leeds and one for Manchester. From my 'bag of a fag packet' I make that 13 DMU's saved. That's a sizeable number for what is effectively 30 miles of simple double track to be electified with very little possibility of seeing cost overruns.

Isn't the new Leeds service a through service from Bridlington?

AFAIK the future of the Manchester service is TBD after Leeds-Manchester electrification.

So once the Transpennine route is done, Hull really seems to be a no brainer to me.

I suggest you look at the Rail North Electrification Task Force report posted earlier by jcollins, which included DMU replacement as one of key factors when calculating electrification priorities. If Selby-Hull is a "no-brainer", then what of the six higher scoring lines?

 

[pemma]

I suggest you look at the Rail North Electrification Task Force report posted earlier by jcollins, which included DMU replacement as one of key factors when calculating electrification priorities. If Selby-Hull is a "no-brainer", then what of the six higher scoring lines?

I get the impression some people want to pretend that list doesn't exist. While most people will accept Calder Valley and the Warrington Central line as being lines with a good business case for electrification, some don't want to accept that their local line is lower on the list than the Southport-Atherton-Salford, Mid-Cheshire, Harrogate and Northallerton-Middlesbrough which all appeared much higher in the list than expected. I recall at the time it was published some people were moaning that Harrogate only finished sixth due to Andrew Jones' position.

 

[Grimsby town]

Isn't the new Leeds service a through service from Bridlington?

AFAIK the future of the Manchester service is TBD after Leeds-Manchester electrification.



I suggest you look at the Rail North Electrification Task Force report posted earlier by jcollins, which included DMU replacement as one of key factors when calculating electrification priorities. If Selby-Hull is a "no-brainer", then what of the six higher scoring lines?

5 higher scoring lines as in that report the Harrogate Line scores exactly the same. Northallerton to Middlesborough has 1 train per hour currently. This could be quite easily converted to bi mode. The Hull transpennine could also be transferred to bi mode but there would be a higher percentage of the journey not under the wires compared to Middlesborough therefore the business case for bi-modes will be worse.

The Calder Valley Line will be incredibly hard to electrify. Certain areas are very remote and I imagine a lot of work will have to be done during the day as I can't see night shifts being safe. Also nearly every major destination on the Calder Valley (Leeds, Huddersdfield, Bradford, Manchester, Preston, Blackpool) already has planned electrification works.

I agree entierly with the Warrington Line and Southport line, not so sure about the Stockport to Chester line though but I can't say I know much about the line. I don't see why one electrification team can't be in West doing those lines and another in the east doing the Hull and Harrogate lines. As for the Bridlington service this could carry on running to Sheffield or Doncaster, its hardly a barrier to electrification.

 

[lejog]

I get the impression some people want to pretend that list doesn't exist. While most people will accept Calder Valley and the Warrington Central line as being lines with a good business case for electrification, some don't want to accept that their local line is lower on the list than the Southport-Atherton-Salford, Mid-Cheshire, Harrogate and Northallerton-Middlesbrough which all appeared much higher in the list than expected. I recall at the time it was published some people were moaning that Harrogate only finished sixth due to Andrew Jones' position.

I think the Task Force did a very good job, its selection criteria were far more advanced than Network Rail's usual reliance on internal operational considerations.

And while my local Calder Valley line did come top, it certainly would drop down a few places if the exercise were repeated after the new franchise award and the introduction of 195s and longer trains - but I'd still argue its the right way to do things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

5 higher scoring lines as in that report the Harrogate Line scores exactly the same. Northallerton to Middlesborough has 1 train per hour currently. This could be quite easily converted to bi mode. The Hull transpennine could also be transferred to bi mode but there would be a higher percentage of the journey not under the wires compared to Middlesborough therefore the business case for bi-modes will be worse.

The Calder Valley Line will be incredibly hard to electrify. Certain areas are very remote and I imagine a lot of work will have to be done during the day as I can't see night shifts being safe. Also nearly every major destination on the Calder Valley (Leeds, Huddersdfield, Bradford, Manchester, Preston, Blackpool) already has planned electrification works.

I agree entierly with the Warrington Line and Southport line, not so sure about the Stockport to Chester line though but I can't say I know much about the line. I don't see why one electrification team can't be in West doing those lines and another in the east doing the Hull and Harrogate lines. As for the Bridlington service this could carry on running to Sheffield or Doncaster, its hardly a barrier to electrification.

I'm afraid that hardly presents a coherent approach to the problem.

..... some don't want to accept that their local line is lower on the list than .....

What that man said.

 

[pemma]

Northallerton to Middlesborough has 1 train per hour currently. This could be quite easily converted to bi mode. The Hull transpennine could also be transferred to bi mode but there would be a higher percentage of the journey not under the wires compared to Middlesborough therefore the business case for bi-modes will be worse.

North TPE will likely need to retain some bi-modes or diesels regardless to be able to cover diversions during overnight and weekend engineering works.

The TPE bi-modes are being acquired so that capacity improvements happen pre-electrification and so there's something to be able to run through trains to Middlesbrough and Scarborough post-electrification. Freeing up Middlesbrough bi-modes doesn't mean they have go on to Hull services if the business case is poor for using them on those services.

not so sure about the Stockport to Chester line though but I can't say I know much about the line.

The problem with this line is the trains between Mid-Cheshire and Manchester were diverted via Stockport when Metrolink phase 1 got approved. That is a longer route and is now very congested due to improvements to other services such as those between Manchester and London. This means the train times are very slow. For instance, by road Knutsford to Manchester is 19 miles but by train the services take 40-50 minutes for a direct train and longer if you catch one of the peak time extras which involve a change at Stockport. There has also been a lot of passenger growth in the past 10 years and some stations have more than double the level of usage they used to get. There has also been a lot of additional freight introduced on the line partly due to the amount of rubbish Greater Manchester is sending to Runcorn to be incinerated.

A couple of years ago TfGM dismissed the idea of tram-trains beyond Altrincham to Mid-Cheshire but said alternative heavy rail options should be explored instead. It was apparently them and freight operators who sold in the case of electrifying the Mid-Cheshire line.

I don't see why one electrification team can't be in West doing those lines and another in the east doing the Hull and Harrogate lines.

There isn't an infinite pot of money which is why some CP5 schemes like Manchester to York have been deferred to CP6 because then there isn't an overspend in CP5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And while my local Calder Valley line did come top, it certainly would drop down a few places if the exercise were repeated after the new franchise award and the introduction of 195s and longer trains - but I'd still argue its the right way to do things.

I'm not so sure with so many Calder Valley services which will run beyond Victoria and the 195s could be used to help replace 150s or other Sprinters.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm afraid that hardly presents a coherent approach to the problem.

So what is a coherent approach to the problem? Hull is not my local route and I accept that Cleethorpes to Doncaster is a lower priority (although not below Goole to Knottingley as that report states). I'm trying to think about this as objectively as possible and the Hull line is simple to electrify and will save at least 2 DMU's per hour.

The TPE bi-modes are being acquired so that capacity improvements happen pre-electrification and so there's something to be able to run through trains to Middlesbrough and Scarborough post-electrification. Freeing up Middlesbrough bi-modes doesn't mean they have go on to Hull services if the business case is poor for using them on those services.

I think you miss understood what I meant. I don't think Northallerton to Middlesborough should be electrified for the sake of one 1tph when the route could be run by class 88's.

 

[lejog]

So what is a coherent approach to the problem?

- One that doesn't rely on the sole, horribly inward looking metric of diesels per hour replaced, I suggest you read p7-8 of the report and the reasoning behind the scoring used. This (in my view totally correctly) relegated diesels per hour replaced to only 20% of the score. With the likes of the Northern Hub / HS2 / HS3 you'll see far more emphasis on the the economic benefits of agglomeration effects and other similar criteria.
- One that doesn't rule out a well-scoring line for totally spurious reasons (the Calder Valley remote and unsafe at night:roll::roll::roll:, coming from someone from Grimsby - miles from any centres of population - thats a bit rich) and then blows the governments budget by suggesting that all other lines in the list down to the one personally favoured are electrified simultaneously.

A coherent approach would be to develop more detailed business cases for all the higher-scoring lines and see what the results are. The methodology used by the Task Force was by necessity rough and ready.

 

[pemma]

I think you miss understood what I meant. I don't think Northallerton to Middlesborough should be electrified for the sake of one 1tph when the route could be run by class 88's.

Or maybe those 88s could be used for the freight services on the Middlesbrough route? There are 48 booked freight paths through Thornaby today compared to 13 booked freight paths through Brough, so there's obviously a lot of freight more which can switch to electric on the Middlesbrough route and diesel freight trains take up a lot of paths, hence why there's a section on the benefits of switching freight to electric in the report. It's not just about releasing DMUs for cascade - you could buy 25 x 2 car 195s for the same price as electrifying Hull-Selby and the passengers on routes other than Selby-Hull would probably prefer a batch of new 195s than Sprinters freed up be electrification.

I don't think the long term plan is to use loco-hauled on Middlesbrough services. The loco-hauled internal specification is similar to the specification for Manchester Airport/Liverpool to Scotland via Preston services, while the bi-mode specification is to cram in some extra seats and not bother with as many tables - suggesting as things stand their long term use will involve running on the branches to Middlesbrough and Scarborough where they will pick up more local passengers.

 

[adrock1976]

Was this the same task force report that saw Hazel Grove - Buxton to suddenly rocket up the list of the order of electrification projects?

If so, I would be in favour of that proposal, as it could extend the present day Preston (presently starting from/terminating at Blackpool to compensate for the missing Preston - BPN section of the Liverpool Lime Street limited stop service) further along the line to Buxton, so as to create a 30 minute frequency along the common section of the route.

 

[7griffinjack]

As for the Bridlington service this could carry on running to Sheffield or Doncaster, its hardly a barrier to electrification.

This will be a Bridlington - Hull - Leeds service Northern is planning to operate. Not sure why it would then head to Sheffield or Doncaster? This isn't the existing Yorkshire Coast Line - Sheffield via Goole services

 

[Grimsby town]

- One that doesn't rely on the sole, horribly inward looking metric of diesels per hour replaced, I suggest you read p7-8 of the report and the reasoning behind the scoring used. This (in my view totally correctly) relegated diesels per hour replaced to only 20% of the score. With the likes of the Northern Hub / HS2 / HS3 you'll see far more emphasis on the the economic benefits of agglomeration effects and other similar criteria.
- One that doesn't rule out a well-scoring line for totally spurious reasons (the Calder Valley remote and unsafe at night:roll::roll::roll:, coming from someone from Grimsby - miles from any centres of population - thats a bit rich) and then blows the governments budget by suggesting that all other lines in the list down to the one personally favoured are electrified simultaneously.

A coherent approach would be to develop more detailed business cases for all the higher-scoring lines and see what the results are. The methodology used by the Task Force was by necessity rough and ready.

I don't rule the Calder Valley Line out completely at all. I'm simply saying given that it is a duplicate of another electric line (Transpennine) and NR are currently having difficulty electrifying lines which is causing cost overruns , it would make more sense to electrify lines that are unlikely to pose much of an engineering challenge.

Not being able to electrify at night is hardly a spurious reason. Neither are weather conditions on the route. They all lead to uncertainty in costs and time which increases the risk of the project. Do you really think that the electrification programme needs more risk given what has happened over the last month. The next projects committed to, should be simple to engineer therefore showing politicians and the public that lines can be electrified on time and on budget. Whether this is the Hull line or another line, I'm not fussy but I can't say I know of line that would be simpler to electrify.

 

[Class 170101]

The Selby swingbridge shouldn't be difficult. Trowse Swingbridge at Norwich has been wired nearly 30 years.

The Calder Valley will need blockades to wire due to the Pennine tunnels. I would be surprised if it happened any other way.

Bi-modes will only get you so far because they need fuel, this will eventually get too expensive. Power stations are more efficient than the combustion engine.

 

[Starmill]

Given recent political developments on the other side of the Atlantic... The way I see it what's the point bailing out the water when there's someone else running around making larger holes?

One way or the other we made commitments we ought not now go back on, which only takes us down to the level of the populists. However, there was at least some doubt about how we were going to make them anyway and transport is only a portion of our energy consumption. We can still do better, we must do better and we will do better.

 

[Lurpi]

Nobody believes those BCRs now (if they did then), and bi-mode operation kills it off.
How many DMUs will be replaced if it was wired (assuming HT and TPE are running bi-modes)?
Time to look at it again when the TP wires reach Selby.

Oh no, we shouldn't believe experts should we, silly me I forgot. :roll:

On a more serious note, I had totally neglected the much bigger piece of evidence for the robustness of the electrification project, namely the fact that FirstGroup was prepared to finance it purely on the basis that it would make a financial return from running electric instead of diesel trains on the line. That's without even getting into BCRs.

Obviously if they are going to get a bi-mode fleet, that changes everything but in the absence of FirstGroup's financial model for the electrification project, we can't just write it off when we aren't in possession of the figures. What we can say with certainty is that their track access costs, energy costs and leasing costs will be higher with bi-modes than with electric trains - and the first one of those will probably be higher than diesels too, given that a 5-car Class 800 weighs 300 tonnes and a First Hull Trains Class 180 weighs about 253 tonnes. If anything, the AT300s supplied for Hull Trains will probably tend to be heavier with their bigger fuel tanks.

 

[pemma]

Oh no, we shouldn't believe experts should we, silly me I forgot. :roll:.

A genuine problem with BCRs is if Network Rail haven't allowed for funding the scheme in the current control period then it won't get funded whatever the BCR is found to be. Then by the time the option of doing the work can be looked at Network Rail can decide the report is out-of-date and refuse to look in to it until they are provided with an up-to-date report, unless it's a scheme they were backing.

 

[lejog]

I don't rule the Calder Valley Line out completely at all. I'm simply saying given that it is a duplicate of another electric line (Transpennine) and NR are currently having difficulty electrifying lines which is causing cost overruns , it would make more sense to electrify lines that are unlikely to pose much of an engineering challenge.

Not being able to electrify at night is hardly a spurious reason. Neither are weather conditions on the route. They all lead to uncertainty in costs and time which increases the risk of the project. Do you really think that the electrification programme needs more risk given what has happened over the last month. The next projects committed to, should be simple to engineer therefore showing politicians and the public that lines can be electrified on time and on budget. Whether this is the Hull line or another line, I'm not fussy but I can't say I know of line that would be simpler to electrify.

More spurious rubbish. I can assure you that Network Rail carry out extensive works at night on the Calder Valley line, including a couple of years ago keeping the whole town of Hebden Bridge awake with loud engineering work for three consecutive nights.

There are both ongoing and planned upgrades to the line - line speed improvements, capacity improvements (including platform lengthening) and resignalling. I've never heard anyone claim that the alleged "remoteness" of the line :roll: or weather conditions :roll: or an alleged inability to work at night increases the risk or cost of any engineering work on the line. The exact opposite in fact, costings I've seen have been based on the time-honoured principle of taking actual costs of similar projects elsewhere.

I've never seen any business case for electrification that includes a negative allowance for "duplication" of routes. The route serves a different market from the Standedge route, as even Beeching acknowledged.

Now if you had said that the high number of tunnels may add significantly to costs/risks you would have had a point (depending on your view of future rolling stock capabilities). If you had said that the possibility of HS3/NPR/whatever its called today following a northern alignment between Manchester and Leeds would have a profound effect on the business case, not necessarily positive, that's a valid point.

But all these can only be answered by preparing a more detailed business case/ more detailed costs for each of the candidate lines identified by the report (including a remoteness/bad weather factor in the costs for the Calder Valley line if necessary :roll. Then of course the costs need to be compared against the budget available.

With so many unknowns in this process, I don't think it worthwhile to speculate on the results.

 

[najaB]

One way or the other we made commitments we ought not now go back on, which only takes us down to the level of the populists. However, there was at least some doubt about how we were going to make them anyway and transport is only a portion of our energy consumption. We can still do better, we must do better and we will do better.

I know. I'm just incredibly disheartened by the rejection of common sense and basic human dignity by such a large minority of the US electorate.

I'm left wondering what's the point?

 

[Ploughman]

More spurious rubbish. I can assure you that Network Rail carry out extensive works at night on the Calder Valley line, including a couple of years ago keeping the whole town of Hebden Bridge awake with loud engineering work for three consecutive nights.

There are both ongoing and planned upgrades to the line - line speed improvements, capacity improvements (including platform lengthening) and resignalling. I've never heard anyone claim that the alleged "remoteness" of the line :roll: or weather conditions :roll: or an alleged inability to work at night increases the risk or cost of any engineering work on the line. The exact opposite in fact, costings I've seen have been based on the time-honoured principle of taking actual costs of similar projects elsewhere.


With so many unknowns in this process, I don't think it worthwhile to speculate on the results.

Having been involved with track renewals on this line over a number of years I can state that each year in the regular possession period a number of renewals would take place.
I forget which period in the year it was but works would take place from approx Midnight Saturday to approx 05.00 Monday for about 6 weeks.
Then when the Standedge route was shut for the same reasons, usually around October, the Calder Valley became the divert route.

The remainder of the year being divided up into periods when the various divert routes each had a maintenance period but no more than 2 diversions used to be permitted on the full TP route from Liverpool to Newcastle.

Things may have changed in the 5 years since I retired though.