Hull - Selby Electrification 'Rejected'

[lincolnshire]

One of the biggest problems at the Hull end of the line is that the MP,s for Hull are all Labour and the MP,s for East riding the area round Hull are all Conservative and then you get exactly the same problem with the councillors running Hull are all Labour and East Riding is run by the Conservatives.

If they would only get themselves organised and forget politics for a while and stand up for the area as a combined force and put the case for electrification of the line to the Minister. Push there case as too why it should be electrified for very little cost as compared with some of the North West area,s been electrifed. All that is required is a few bridges on the route as compared with having to rebore tunnels out etc. also it a nice and straight run for most of the way with out any tight bends.

If the signalling gets renewed? then it should be to the standard for electrified railway or will it be also on the back burner due to lack of money?

We will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[pemma]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by that. When Network Rail did an electrification RUS a few years back they looked at Hazel Grove-Buxton but their general view was lines which don't have 2tph in each direction don't usually have a good business case for electrification.

By the time the Rail North report had been published the ITT for the Northern franchise had been released so they were aware of the extra services proposed for lines like Buxton, Harrogate, Atherton, Calder Valley and Mid-Cheshire.

The report placed Buxton-Hazel Grove in 11th place, the area it did badly in was 'Economic: SEP' where it scored 0. However, the report recommended the top 12 routes for electrification. It's worth noting 12th place is Warrington-Chester and that was considered as a stand-alone scheme so if Chester-Llandundo/Holyhead is considered a viable scheme that would likely improve the score for Warrington-Chester significantly.

 

[DarloRich]

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

is this to be your little catch phrase? It was wrong in the other thread you posted it in. It is wrong here.

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

And discovered that the fragmented railway industry in this country wasn't very good at keeping records of where things like power cables live!

But then we live in a post fact world now................

Personally I think it does when you consider the pollution, Britain's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and the whole life costs of the trains and infrastructure. That's in addition to the diesel running under the wires between Selby and Manchester.

It seems likely that our interest in climate change will reduce following the success of the Trump/Farage axis!

Additionally, it's fallacious to say there's no structure for a government to commit to infrastructure that goes beyond the current Parliament, as they have done with Crossrail, Heathrow, HS2 and to some extent, Hinkley Point.

Indeed they can - via primary legislation designed to fund infrastructure of critical national importance. Is Selby - Hull of critical national import?

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.

Sadly for you it isnt nonsense - as above: Is Selby - Hull of critical national importance that it requires primary legislation to support its continued funding?

You will note that funding for Selby - Hull will come through the settlement for NR rather than via central government funding which is a big difference in regards to binding successors.

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.

A line serving the 3rd busiest port in the country? Look at the freight paths out of Teesside and compare them with Hull. Port of Hull inst even in the top 10 busiest UK ports.

 

[D365]

And discovered that the fragmented railway industry in this country wasn't very good at keeping records of where things like power cables live!

But then we live in a post fact world now................



It seems likely that our interest in climate change will reduce following the success of the Trump/Farage axis!

You know how it goes these days, the experts are always wrong

 

[HSTEd]

With the ever escalating proliferation of bi-modes all electrification projects will have to have sufficient traffic density over them such that all significant sections can support electrification independently.

The network effect is well and truly dead.

 

[DarloRich]

You know how it goes these days, the experts are always wrong

We don't need experts - Especially ones who know anything about business case development or electrification or civil engineering..............

 

[adrock1976]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. When Network Rail did an electrification RUS a few years back they looked at Hazel Grove-Buxton but their general view was lines which don't have 2tph in each direction don't usually have a good business case for electrification.

By the time the Rail North report had been published the ITT for the Northern franchise had been released so they were aware of the extra services proposed for lines like Buxton, Harrogate, Atherton, Calder Valley and Mid-Cheshire.

The report placed Buxton-Hazel Grove in 11th place, the area it did badly in was 'Economic: SEP' where it scored 0. However, the report recommended the top 12 routes for electrification. It's worth noting 12th place is Warrington-Chester and that was considered as a stand-alone scheme so if Chester-Llandundo/Holyhead is considered a viable scheme that would likely improve the score for Warrington-Chester significantly.

What I mentioned in my previous post is what you have mentioned above.

Thanks very much for clarifying that for me.

Are any of the proposals still going to go ahead once the Blackpool and TPE projects are eventually completed?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Are any of the proposals still going to go ahead once the Blackpool and TPE projects are eventually completed?

I think there is a lot of speculation at this point and very few really know. I think we need to wait for a RUS refresh - but we don't even really need that. What will be telling is the HLOS statement in March 2017? I believe?

I personally believe it may not be full steam ahead but more like a steady rolling smallish program a la Scotland. Chunks here and chunks there. The more projects that are brought in on time and on or under budget the more likely it will grow. I would like to see Felixtowe - Nuneaton- Birm NS - but would be absolutely gobsmacked if it were to happen in my lifetime (I am 59 and in good health).

Perhaps we need a friendly bets thread - who bets what that certain projects get approved in the March 2017 HLOS for 2019-2024.

 

[snowball]

Are any of the proposals still going to go ahead once the Blackpool and TPE projects are eventually completed?

Completion of TPE is 6 years in the future. Any predictions so far ahead in these uncertain times are very dubious. However I think there will be a continuing electrification programme, including in the north.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm trying to think about this as objectively as possible and the Hull line is simple to electrify

I'm not sure how you know that. Flat and straight doesn't always equal cheap.
The Chat Moss route passes over several peat bogs and required special strengthening and deeper piles to support the OHL.
It still has a low speed restriction at Astley.
I don't know the Selby-Hull line very well, but poor ground would not be a surprise in the Humber flood plain.
Problems like this afflict the line via Scunthorpe too.
North of Ely, the OHL masts are sinking because of the poor ground and inadequate original installation.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm not sure how you know that. Flat and straight doesn't always equal cheap.
The Chat Moss route passes over several peat bogs and required special strengthening and deeper piles to support the OHL.
It still has a low speed restriction at Astley.
I don't know the Selby-Hull line very well, but poor ground would not be a surprise in the Humber flood plain.
Problems like this afflict the line via Scunthorpe too.
North of Ely, the OHL masts are sinking because of the poor ground and inadequate original installation.

I'm no engineer so there is an element of guesswork but these are the reasons I think it will be cheap to electrify:

Straight and Flat

The linespeed is 75-90mph unlike the Scunthorpe line which is 55mph so it must be relatively stable

Lack of bridges and tunnels and those that exsist generally have high enough clearance

Some of the line used to be 4 track so room exsists for OHL without additional land purchases and imagine the old trackbed is stable groound.


Someone may be able to disprove this with better knowledge.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm no engineer so there is an element of guesswork but these are the reasons I think it will be cheap to electrify:

Straight and Flat

The linespeed is 75-90mph unlike the Scunthorpe line which is 55mph so it must be relatively stable

Lack of bridges and tunnels and those that exsist generally have high enough clearance

Some of the line used to be 4 track so room exsists for OHL without additional land purchases and imagine the old trackbed is stable groound.


Someone may be able to disprove this with better knowledge.

The chat moss is now 75-90 but that still needed specalist foundations. And it wasnt easy or cheap. Hull line must be worse for ground conditions as the 185s have a speed restriction due to weight. Never assume an old trackbed is stable ground, some of the current ones aren't!

Lack of bridges is a plus side though. And as had been said, Selby swing bridge especially as its low speed, will not be a problem.

 

[Mollman]

I'm no engineer so there is an element of guesswork but these are the reasons I think it will be cheap to electrify:

Straight and Flat

The linespeed is 75-90mph unlike the Scunthorpe line which is 55mph so it must be relatively stable

Lack of bridges and tunnels and those that exsist generally have high enough clearance

Some of the line used to be 4 track so room exsists for OHL without additional land purchases and imagine the old trackbed is stable groound.


Someone may be able to disprove this with better knowledge.

I'd hope to see line speed raised to 100mph in some places and the reinstatement of loops on bits of old 4-track sections as part of electrification. The lack of bridges is not always a good thing as level crossings are out of fashion so line speed may continue to be restricted.

 

[pemma]

Never assume an old trackbed is stable ground, some of the current ones aren't!

Indeed, especially lines in former mining areas. Even the WCML in the Winsford area is in an area at risk of subsidence.

 

[Ploughman]

If you take a look at Gilberdyke S Box, if it is still standing, that has a tilt backwards due to settlement.

 

[snowball]

Near Sandbach station the Crewe-Manchester line is supported on an embankment that consists largely of hollow concrete pipe sections laid transversely. Every few years the stick some new ones in as the old ones have sunk due to historical salt extraction.

 

[Spod]

So the electrification teams are busy and budget is finite. Could this be resurrected by NPR which has the aim of improving frequency and journey time between Leeds and Hull?
Surely if they can contemplate a new line between Leeds and Manchester, electrifying the existing ones between the core northern cities should be on the cards?

 

[QueensCurve]

If you take a look at Gilberdyke S Box, if it is still standing, that has a tilt backwards due to settlement.

The OHLE foundations were substantial concrete blocks on which the masts could be adjusted upwards for that reason.

 

[lincolnshire]

If you take a look at Gilberdyke S Box, if it is still standing, that has a tilt backwards due to settlement.

Are you sure you mean Gilberdyke? as I never noticed the tilt.

Was you thinking of Broomfleet which does have a pronounced list and steel work to help hold it up.

The route from Hull to Selby doesn,t suffer from sinking like some areas do.
The line hasn,t needed rebuiding like a section on Thorne South to Crowle on the south bank did due to subsidance with been built on peat in that area.

Its just the old faithfull excuse its only Hull at the end of the line attitude they will get what there given and this time there getting no wires. If the MP,s and councillors from Hull and surrounding area got together and was all singing from the same hymn sheet and battle the cause it might get done.

 

[37201xoIM]

So the electrification teams are busy and budget is finite. Could this be resurrected by NPR which has the aim of improving frequency and journey time between Leeds and Hull?
Surely if they can contemplate a new line between Leeds and Manchester, electrifying the existing ones between the core northern cities should be on the cards?

Indeed.

By the way, as someone who was on the Northern Electrification Taskforce working group which produced "Northern Sparks", can I correct a small misapprehension in a couple of otherwise quite well-informed comments on that report?

Several people have talked about line X being in position Y in the rankings, 2 places above line Z... and so on. While I'm not surprised people have done that, that was definitely not the intention: quite deliberately NETF split the results into three tiers, in order to avoid exactly this sort of thing happening. The scoring matrix, while sound, was never intended to be used with such precision - so such comparisons are spurious accuracy. Ultimately the decision was taken to include the scores in the final report, I think in the interests of openness, though I'm not 100% sure that was the right decision.

The point of Northern Sparks is/was that the Tier 1 routes (including most of those discussed above such as Hull, Harrogate and Calder), while not exactly "no-brainers" (because costs and delivery issues were not in NETF's scope), are routes that should be looked at in more detail as a matter of priority, including feasibility and business case. Yes, not all would be delivered at the same time (of course!) but the intention wasn't that the specific score would be used as the basis to prioritise as between Tier 1 schemes.

By comparison, Tier 2 is made up of ones you'd starting looking more closely at once Tier 1 have been delivered, and Tier 3 schemes are really about the long-term scenario of a Swiss-style 100% electric railway.

In that spirit, I'd echo the comments of those who have expressed dismay at the purported decision about Hull, and don't find the arguments about "bi-modal" traction killing the strategic (or economic) case at all persuasive: there are myriad routes on which one could meaningfully redeploy the trains involved.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

By the way, as someone who was on the Northern Electrification Taskforce working group which produced "Northern Sparks" ----

are routes that should be looked at in more detail as a matter of priority, including feasibility and business case. Yes, not all would be delivered at the same time (of course!) but the intention wasn't that the specific score would be used as the basis to prioritise as between Tier 1 schemes.

If it were me - since Calder Valley was so high up - I would actually do a small portion and make a start. Preston-Colne (yes I know Nelson-Colne was in Tier 2) that way you could run a service- break it up into bite size chunks, if on budget and on-time do the next bit- Nelson - Yorkshire -etc.

 

[snowball]

Thanks 37201 for those remarks. It's always interesting to hear from an intsider.

Meanwhile I hope figures in Rail North have been making it clear to the DfT that the Hull decision is hard to reconcile with the government's noises about Northern Powerhouse Rail.

 

[Class 170101]

In that spirit, I'd echo the comments of those who have expressed dismay at the purported decision about Hull, and don't find the arguments about "bi-modal" traction killing the strategic (or economic) case at all persuasive: there are myriad routes on which one could meaningfully redeploy the trains involved.

However could bi-mode traction be politically persuasive to Grayling and other Tories to take the short term politically expedient view and kill off 'expensive' electrification? We know NR have under budgeted in a big way on Great Western (a public sector body) and that the private sector apparently does not with its traction orders?

 

[najaB]

We know NR have under budgeted in a big way on Great Western...

Do 'we' know that? What I know is that reality on (and in) the ground didn't match the projections. Had the S&T cabling matched the documentation they would be a lot further forward at a lot lower cost.

 

[Class 170101]

Do 'we' know that? What I know is that reality on (and in) the ground didn't match the projections. Had the S&T cabling matched the documentation they would be a lot further forward at a lot lower cost.

Well we know that it was £894m (I think I got that figure right) and its now projected to be £2.8bn. Thats a large gap if nothing else.

Not convinced entirely about the cables in that I didn't think the HOPS train was meeting the targets even where the cabling was / is known?

 

[Mikey C]

However could bi-mode traction be politically persuasive to Grayling and other Tories to take the short term politically expedient view and kill off 'expensive' electrification? We know NR have under budgeted in a big way on Great Western (a public sector body) and that the private sector apparently does not with its traction orders?

Surely the reality is more

a) electrification is proving a LOT more expensive than originally planned
b) electrification is proving to be a slower process than originally planned

Thus, with limited budgets and existing programmes being delayed, realistic timetables need to be incorporated. Many of these programmes are still an aspiration, but are delayed to a significant extent, needing alternative solutions for the immediate future

 

[37201xoIM]

Meanwhile I hope figures in Rail North have been making it clear to the DfT that the Hull decision is hard to reconcile with the government's noises about Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Absolutely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the reality is more

a) electrification is proving a LOT more expensive than originally planned
b) electrification is proving to be a slower process than originally planned

Thus, with limited budgets and existing programmes being delayed, realistic timetables need to be incorporated. Many of these programmes are still an aspiration, but are delayed to a significant extent, needing alternative solutions for the immediate future

Both of these comments imply, though, accepting that electrification does cost that much - as indeed central government de facto have too. I'd argued that £2.8bn is simply unacceptable as it bears no relationship to Planet Earth. More specifically, many other European countries are continuing to electrify, and while I stand to be corrected, I'm not aware of anywhere which is coming up with outturn costs that are even on the same page. Nobody has said to NR: "This is just not on: you cannot work like this. What is driving those costs and what makes you different from your European peers?"

Hendy failed to ask these questions: again just accepted the costs (and to a large extent the programme too) that NR came up with, and rescheduled / cut scope.

Apologies if this is topic drift for this thread.

 

[lincolnshire]

Think it would also help if all the M.P.s from either party and the councillors form Hull and East Riding got together and banged the drum for the area and kept on to the transport minster and pushed for the electrification it might get done and it might be at the expense of somewhere else.
The electrification plan seems to have been done like some other jobs are as a desktop exercise as against any input from people who know the local geography of the area.

 

[pemma]

Think it would also help if all the M.P.s from either party and the councillors form Hull and East Riding got together and banged the drum for the area and kept on to the transport minster and pushed for the electrification it might get done and it might be at the expense of somewhere else.
The electrification plan seems to have been done like some other jobs are as a desktop exercise as against any input from people who know the local geography of the area.

Have any additional services been promised for Hull which can only be implemented post-electrification? If not then it makes sense that it's lower priority than Manchester-York, Manchester-Bolton-Preston, Thames Valley etc. where electrification is needed to allow additional services.

While Hull is much larger than Windermere I get the impression that the primary reason for electrification for both is to free up diesel trains for other routes. It was originally to allow electric services between Hull and London but First have ordered bi-modes so the wires aren't as imperative now.

 

[HSTEd]

£2.8bn for Great Western is getting towards the point where they could have built a HSL from Maidenhead (and the end of the already committed electrification) much of the way to Cardiff.