Hull - Selby Electrification 'Rejected'

[ainsworth74]

How will electric trains provide better connectivity than diesel or bi mode trains?

or

If the service gets better does it matter by what fuel source?

Well every time we've stuck wires up on a route the sparks effect has been quite dramatic in terms of increased usage and quality of service (a cursory look at West Yorkshire dramatically demonstrates that). No reason to suspect that something similar wouldn't happen here. Plus there are all the other advantages of electrification that have been discussed ad infinitum.

Perhaps Hull isn't a priority what with the state of the rest of the CP5 work but to simply rule it out completely seems very short sighted. By all means lets kick it out into the long grass of CP6/7 but to cancel it entirely?

 

[DarloRich]

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?

and does the investment needed to rectify those issues generate a return on that investment within a reasonable time.

and is there another project that offers a higher benefit and/or a greater return within a shorter timeframe
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well every time we've stuck wires up on a route the sparks effect has been quite dramatic in terms of increased usage and quality of service (a cursory look at West Yorkshire dramatically demonstrates that). No reason to suspect that something similar wouldn't happen here. Plus there are all the other advantages of electrification that have been discussed ad infinitum.

Perhaps Hull isn't a priority what with the state of the rest of the CP5 work but to simply rule it out completely seems very short sighted. By all means lets kick it out into the long grass of CP6/7 but to cancel it entirely?

agreed - but would a timetable revolution delivered by new trains serving more destinations more often not deliver the same effect?

 

[ainsworth74]

agreed - but would a timetable revolution delivered by new trains serving more destinations more often not deliver the same effect?

Is it going to be a revolutionary timetable there aren't all that many new destinations are there? We're get some bi-modes sure but otherwise its still going to be a DMU fleet providing the bulk of the service to nearly all the same destinations.

 

[pemma]

Well every time we've stuck wires up on a route the sparks effect has been quite dramatic in terms of increased usage and quality of service (a cursory look at West Yorkshire dramatically demonstrates that).

Electrification is a huge investment meaning only lines with potential for growth get electrified. Look at Manchester to Liverpool the semi-fasts on the CLC line were very overcrowded (as diesel services) and it was identified that faster services could run between the two cities on the Chat Moss line (as electric services.)

It's funny how dramatic growth that happens as a result of electrification and subsequent service/rolling stock improvements is called 'sparks effect' yet when the same thing happens without electrification, service or rolling stock improvements everyone scratches their heads and calls it 'unprecedented growth.' If the Buxton and Mid-Cheshire lines had been electrified in 2004 and seen the same level of growth they've seen in the past 10 years without electrification I'm sure they would be used as case studies to highlight how effective electrification is.

 

[DarloRich]

Is it going to be a revolutionary timetable there aren't all that many new destinations are there? We're get some bi-modes sure but otherwise its still going to be a DMU fleet providing the bulk of the service to nearly all the same destinations.

I don't know. I assumed the new trains would come with a better timetable.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

- How many DMUs running in and out of Hull at peak times are officially overcrowded (allowing for the 35% standing figure)?

I have personally seen the sole Hull - Manchester Airport train leave full, standing and with passengers rejected on a number of occasions. The early morning Hull - Sheffield trains are often fairly full as far as Doncaster as well

Coming back, i have found it is the late evening Leeds - Hull services that are full and standing. Just before I had my operation which laid me up for a while, the poor TPE guard couldn't do his revenue duties until late into the journey because people where sitting in the aisles!

Incidentally, this was posted on twitter

Radio Humberside Hull Electricification Rejection Letter

 

[kylemore]

OK modernising the Railway to a city of 300,000 is a dreadful idea, my mistake.

However nobody has addressed the fact of the Government using investment in roads as an excuse not to invest in the railway.

The only logic of that is that they are inviting people to abandon Rail for Road, is that a good idea?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

The only logic of that is that they are inviting people to abandon Rail for Road, is that a good idea?

No - we know what happens when road use is encouraged over rail

 

[class26]

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.

Perhaps thats all the more reason to give it a boost ? Sparks effect and all that ?

 

[1179_Clee2]

Electrification is a huge investment meaning only lines with potential for growth get electrified. Look at Manchester to Liverpool the semi-fasts on the CLC line were very overcrowded (as diesel services) and it was identified that faster services could run between the two cities on the Chat Moss line (as electric services.)

It's funny how dramatic growth that happens as a result of electrification and subsequent service/rolling stock improvements is called 'sparks effect' yet when the same thing happens without electrification, service or rolling stock improvements everyone scratches their heads and calls it 'unprecedented growth.' If the Buxton and Mid-Cheshire lines had been electrified in 2004 and seen the same level of growth they've seen in the past 10 years without electrification I'm sure they would be used as case studies to highlight how effective electrification is.

The problem is nothing to do with how big a town or city is, it is geography or to put it more bluntly the North South divide.
You have projects like Selby to Hull being scrapped, but Henley on Thames is only deferred so WILL happen.
How can anybody give priority to Henley on Thames over the City of Kingston upon Hull?

 

[westv]

Hull seems to get overlooked all the time, even by people in the north.

I wonder if part of the problem is that the East Riding is predominantly in Conservative control whereas a lot of the main northern areas are Labour controlled?

 

[a_c_skinner]

Last summer I stood on Selby station wondering two things:

Why is Selby such an important place in the rail system? Trains terminate and restart there for no reason obvious to me and hence why was it ever a good plan to electrify to there and not to Hull. Nice enough place, but why do trains turn round there?

Secondly I stood at the Hull end of the platform and wondered if the swing bridge might be tricky to wire.

 

[tbtc]

A couple of comments.

Firstly, Governments can't bind their successors - public spending tends to only be agreed for the short/ medium term.

Secondly, some are throwing toys out of the pram because there are no current plans to electrify a line that there was never a commitment to electrifying? Did anyone really think we'd see a commitment to wires in Hull when the previously committed scheme to wire to Sheffield may take until the mid 2020s? Where were the resources to electrify to Hull, if no resources are spare to do the MML?

Thirdly, Hull Trains were always going to need 802s (or something bi-mode), given the need to serve Beverley - so I wouldn't read too much into them ordering trains capable of running without electrification.

Fourthly, whilst Hull is a reasonably sized place (257,000 according to Wiki, rather than the 300,000 quoted on here), there's nowhere that big that near it. Heavy rail isn't necessarily about the size of one place, it's about having nearby places to connect it to. To the west, Leeds is an hour away, there's no rail link south over the Humber to Lincolnshire, there's nowhere of any size to the east (just the north sea) and Doncaster isn't that large. So whilst Hull's size is impressive, it's too far away from other cities to have huge commuter flows. I can understand why other places have better cases.

Fifthly - is Micklefield - Selby even guaranteed to be wired any time soon?

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

I agree (though part of the "overlooking" that I've been guilty of is because people from Hull can be very selective about whether they are "Yorkshire" or not - keen to be independent so can't always complain if they aren't always included).

But, Swansea and Plymouth aren't going to see electrification in the next few years either, so it's not like Hull is the only one being left unwired.

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"?

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?

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!

I'm sensing you are angry?

Maybe you could make a case that Hull is one city guaranteed to see brand new trains in the next few years (195s on the extended Northern service to Chesterfield, 802s on the Beverley - London service), rather than any "anti-northern agenda" stuff?

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

Partly because Governments never commit to long term spending (how could they, given the length of parliments) and partly because it will allow a future Government to announce this as "new" spending.

No conspiracy.

OK modernising the Railway to a city of 300,000 is a dreadful idea, my mistake

The only logic of that is that they are inviting people to abandon Rail for Road, is that a good idea?

Well, rail isn't going to be much use to connect Hull to many of the nearest local places of any size (Scunthorpe, Grimsby, Cleethorpes), whereas roads can.

Rail isn't always the answer to every single problem.

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

 

[snowball]

Last summer I stood on Selby station wondering two things:

Why is Selby such an important place in the rail system? Trains terminate and restart there for no reason obvious to me and hence why was it ever a good plan to electrify to there and not to Hull. Nice enough place, but why do trains turn round there?

For one thing it used to be on the ECML.
Also maybe because it's the first major town east of Leeds.
Also maybe because there's a definite thinning out of the population after Selby.

Secondly I stood at the Hull end of the platform and wondered if the swing bridge might be tricky to wire.

Rigid overhead conductors would be used. Apparently the height of the cabin over the bridge was raised during a refurb in the 1980s, to allow for electrification. There's already an electrified swing bridge at Trowse, Norwich, though that one is single track and apparently hasn't been swung recently.

 

[westv]

Fourthly, whilst Hull is a reasonably sized place (257,000 according to Wiki, rather than the 300,000 quoted on here)

Have you fallen into the old trap of only including the Hull council area?

 

[kylemore]

A couple of comments.

Firstly, Governments can't bind their successors - public spending tends to only be agreed for the short/ medium term.

Partly because Governments never commit to long term spending (how could they, given the length of parliments) and partly because it will allow a future Government to announce this as "new" spending.

Er HS2?

 

[DarloRich]

Er HS2?

er Hybrid bill

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why is Selby such an important place in the rail system? Trains terminate and restart there for no reason obvious to me and hence why was it ever a good plan to electrify to there and not to Hull. Nice enough place, but why do trains turn round there?

Two factors help the Selby business case.
One is that wiring from Micklefield to the ECML allows East Coast services to reach Leeds from the east, and even to run in a circular fashion north of Doncaster.
East Coast operators want to do that to avoid congestion west of Leeds (more paths).
That gets you to Hambleton Jn (7 miles).
Northern also want to run through electric trains across Leeds, and Selby is a good turnround point, only 3.5 miles further.
York-Selby (-Doncaster) can also go electric.
Hull is too far, and has to make its own business case beyond Selby.

 

[doa46231]

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!

 

[Starmill]

If the service gets better does it matter by what fuel source?

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.

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.

 

[class26]

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!

Its always possible to find a reason NOT to do something.
Having said that I suspect that over the next few years the pressure to remove diesel as a fuel from cities is going to increase hugely and so electrification of such lines as Hull etc will eventually get done
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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!

Its always possible to find a reason NOT to do something. Having said that i suspect that in coming years the pressure to remove diesel as an energy source is going to become huge so such lines as Hull will get dome eventually

 

[QueensCurve]

The contract for resignalling has been awarded and I'm told work has begun with completion in Spring 2018.

Some modern signalling systems are incompatible with elelectrification, but why would semaphore signals have to be replaced?

 

[swt_passenger]

Some modern signalling systems are incompatible with elelectrification, but why would semaphore signals have to be replaced?

At least one reason is that the semaphore arms could be almost invisible to drivers in amongst the OHLE.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some modern signalling systems are incompatible with elelectrification, but why would semaphore signals have to be replaced?

I can't remember the last time I saw semaphore signals in OHLE territory.
Maybe there are still some in the sidings at Willesden.
The Woodhead route certainly had them at one time.
There were plenty in 3rd rail land, of course.

 

[najaB]

Personally I think it does when you consider the pollution, Britain's commitment to reducing carbon emissions...

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?

 

[HSTEd]

With bi-modes on the way there was never any real business case for electrifying to Hull. The network effect is well and truly dead.
And now reality sets in about how much the talk of a "rolling electrification programme" was actually worth. Nothing.

 

[a_c_skinner]

"Given recent political developments on the other side of the Atlantic..."

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

 

[kylemore]

er Hybrid bill

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.

 

[Mikey C]

Its always possible to find a reason NOT to do something.
Having said that I suspect that over the next few years the pressure to remove diesel as a fuel from cities is going to increase hugely and so electrification of such lines as Hull etc will eventually get done
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Its always possible to find a reason NOT to do something. Having said that i suspect that in coming years the pressure to remove diesel as an energy source is going to become huge so such lines as Hull will get dome eventually

CO2 emissions won't be a major issue, most of our electricity comes from fossil fuel anyway

Diesel NOx emissions are far more important now, though with Hull having much of its old stock replaced that will help a bit, and I imagine Hull's air gets scoured by the North Sea so less of an issue than central London or Birmingham!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I thought First were paying, so why cut it?
It's a bargain, Hull is a big city and deserved electric lines more than Corby does!