TP Upgrade - how would you sequence?

[GRALISTAIR]

I did not want to clutter up the main TP Upgrade thread with speculation and hence why I started this thread. We all have our own ideas but in light of the announcement of July 23rd 2020 by our buddy Grant the SoS Transport, how would you proceed? I will start. I admit I have my crayons out!

1) Church Fenton - Colton --- work already started on site.
2) Leeds to Huddersfield - consultations in full progress with 4 tracking over the Heaton Lodge to Ravensthorpe section. Looks extremely likely to go ahead
3) Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge (I personally would get one awkward structure out of the way, the tunnel and do to Heyrod Gride Feeder).
3b) - Possibly the fill ins to Guide Bridge etc
3c) - Castlefield Corridor (well I can hope ! )
4) Me personally I would do Leeds- Selby (and then rolling programme to Hull) and fill in from Micklefield to Church Fenton.
5) The middle bit !

There are variations on the theme with bimodes as the Calder Valley could be done before the middle bit. Calder Valley is diversionary and so can not happen at same time.

 

[edwin_m]

NPR have stated a preference for doing Leeds-Hull first. I suspect this is because the infrastructure isn't too difficult (with the possible exception of Selby swing bridge) so it's a quick win. Whether they still have any clout after this week's events (or indeed had any before) is not yet clear.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

NPR have stated a preference for doing Leeds-Hull first. I suspect this is because the infrastructure isn't too difficult (with the possible exception of Selby swing bridge) so it's a quick win. Whether they still have any clout after this week's events (or indeed had any before) is not yet clear.

I have no problem with Leeds-Selby-Hull (first) and then obviously the little infill Church Fenton- Micklefield

 

[Halish Railway]

3) Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge (I personally would get one awkward structure out of the way, the tunnel and do to Heyrod Gride Feeder).
3b) - Possibly the fill ins to Guide Bridge etc

4) Me personally I would do Leeds- Selby (and then rolling programme to Hull) and fill in from Micklefield to Church Fenton.

Just a quick query - Has the Manchester to Stalybridge scheme been moved from the Northwest electrification program (initially Phase 5 of the works) to the TPRU program due to some of the works pivotal to TPRU such as the realignment of the Miles Platting curve and the remodelling of Stalybridge’s Southern throat? Apart from the aforementioned work, is there anything more to do aside from electrification as to the best of my knowledge, all of the significant works such as bridge redecking, line speed improvements, the realignment of track at Ashton and resignalling have already taken place.

Also, Micklefield to Selby electrification is definitely part of TPRU as shown of this map from the PWI lecture. It makes sense as they can put a unit with better performance on the stopping service to Selby.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Just a quick query - Has the Manchester to Stalybridge scheme been moved from the Northwest electrification program (initially Phase 5 of the works) to the TPRU program due to some of the works pivotal to TPRU such as the realignment of the Miles Platting curve and the remodelling of Stalybridge’s Southern throat?

To answer your question honestly - I have not got a freaking clue sorry. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can answer.

 

[SuperNova]

Miles Platting is due to take place sometime next year. As for Stalybridge remodel - I guess that will come out in December with the integrated rail plan and this new Northern Transport Acceleration Council

 

[Anvil1984]

Also, Micklefield to Selby electrification is definitely part of TPRU as shown of this map from the PWI lecture. It makes sense as they can put a unit with better performance on the stopping service to Selby.
View attachment 81149

Just to be a little pedantic the Leeds to Selby stopping service has been changed to make up the Hull - Halifax service (except on a Sunday and a couple of peak trains). Not disagreeing with you that it should be done, just pointing out the change of service

 

[Philip Phlopp]

To answer your question honestly - I have not got a freaking clue sorry. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can answer.

Stalybridge to Victoria electrification is now part of the TransPennine Route Upgrade, it is that program, rather than the North West Electrification Program that will now be responsible for the erection of catenary between Stalybridge and Victoria.

It previously formed Phase 5 of the North West Electrification Program, when the assumption was that there would be full electrification of the route to Leeds/York. The role of Phase 5 was primarily to get the electricity supply from the feeder installed at Heyrod to the rest of the electrification via Ordsall Lane ATS, using conventional OLE. That the conventional OLE installed would save 8 miles of electrification for the TransPennine Route Upgrade was, at the time, a win-win.

In short, the 'Great Extension Lead' is Phase 5 NWEP, the catenary between Stalybridge and Victoria piled next to it will be TPRU.

 

[NoMorePacers]

I have no problem with Leeds-Selby-Hull (first) and then obviously the little infill Church Fenton- Micklefield

Oh, that'd be great. I'm probably being biased but I do think doing Leeds-York/Hull would be a good idea (I'd bundle Hull in as part of TPRU anyway - it makes no sense stopping at Selby now there's only a handful of trains a day that terminate there, excluding Sundays). Plus the forum cliché of using 365s could actually be a meritable idea.

 

[Halish Railway]

It’s likely though that a pre-Dec 2019 timetable will be adopted that will see that local stopping services terminate at Selby, perhaps with a 2tph fast service between Leeds and Hull in addition, satisfying a long term TfN goal, how they’ll find the paths to do this I don’t know - I’ll reference the PWI lecture again, but 6tph was planned between Manchester and York, 4tph fast with a 62 minute journey time and 2tph semi-fast and 92.5 PPM! I’ll wait and see if they can actually do this.

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't see the point of just doing Leeds to Selby unless electrification of Selby to Hull follows immediately.
So:
1. Leeds - Church Fenton - Colton Jn /York.
2. Manchester Victoria & Guide Bridge to Stalybridge.
3. Leeds to Huddersfield (so that electric "shuttles" can continue until they complete possibly the hardest bit):
4. Huddersfield to Stalybridge. Then:
5. Micklefield - Seby - Hull.
And as an early follow-on, I would add:
6a. Darlington - Middlesbrough - Saltburn
6b. Northallerton - Eaglescliffe
And also upgrade the power supplies north of Newcastle so that "diesel mode" can be eliminated.

I would also hope that Calder Valley electrification would follow, to eliminate the need for diesel power ( or replacement buses) when TP diversions are necessary due to engineering work.

 

[geoffk]

Miles Platting is due to take place sometime next year. As for Stalybridge remodel - I guess that will come out in December with the integrated rail plan and this new Northern Transport Acceleration Council

Stalybridge remodel - I seem to remember we had one of those in 2012, costing £20m+. That was mainly to remodel the junction to recognise the line to Guide Bridge as the main line!

 

[NoMorePacers]

I don't see the point of just doing Leeds to Selby unless electrification of Selby to Hull follows immediately.

Hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Stalybridge remodel - I seem to remember we had one of those in 2012, costing £20m+. That was mainly to remodel the junction to recognise the line to Guide Bridge as the main line!

And now it’s not, sadly. No idea if a remodel would achieve anything, however, as you can be quite flexible.

 

[Halish Railway]

I don't see the point of just doing Leeds to Selby unless electrification of Selby to Hull follows immediately.

The only real reason that Selby has been lumped into TPRU is so that the Leeds to Selby stopping service can swap to electric traction (by the time that electrification is done the through running of the stopping service to Hull might be replaced with an additional Leeds to Hull express service). What must be bared in mind is that the climb from Leeds to the summit of Garforth Moor is quite considerable (I’d imagine that it may get as steep as 1 in 100), so switching from a Sprinter to an EMU will allow the stopping train to get out of the way of an express train several minutes quicker.

A quick look on RTT shows that a 331 can do Leeds to Outwood two minutes faster than a Sprinter, a route which features a climb all the way to Ardsley Tunnel.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The only real reason that Selby has been lumped into TPRU is so that the Leeds to Selby stopping service can swap to electric traction (by the time that electrification is done the through running of the stopping service to Hull might be replaced with an additional Leeds to Hull express service). What must be bared in mind is that the climb from Leeds to the summit of Garforth Moor is quite considerable (I’d imagine that it may get as steep as 1 in 100), so switching from a Sprinter to an EMU will allow the stopping train to get out of the way of an express train several minutes quicker.

A quick look on realtime trains shows that a 185 with EMU-esque performance can do Leeds to Garforth in 10 minutes with a one minute stop at Cross Gates, whereas a Sprinter does the same journey in 12 minutes.

But they’ve lumped the Selby stopper in with a Halifax additional (?) haven’t they? Reality is they’ll need to match it to another electric service - you don’t want a dodgy flat crossing move at Leeds West, so anything towards Bradford and Ilkley is out; leaving Doncaster. Through connections then are effectively Selby and Garforth to Wakefield at a paltry hourly frequency. Or go back to a Leeds terminator. Or make TP run an electric Huddersfield - Selby.

All of it sounds like a planning nightmare.

 

[Halish Railway]

But they’ve lumped the Selby stopper in with a Halifax additional (?) haven’t they? Reality is they’ll need to match it to another electric service - you don’t want a dodgy flat crossing move at Leeds West, so anything towards Bradford and Ilkley is out; leaving Doncaster. Through connections then are effectively Selby and Garforth to Wakefield at a paltry hourly frequency. Or go back to a Leeds terminator. Or make TP run an electric Huddersfield - Selby.

All of it sounds like a planning nightmare.

I think that most of the stops east of Leeds should be taken out of the Halifax to Hull service, similar to what’s happened to the York to Blackpool service as that service currently has to balance long distance passengers with commuters, a combination that isn’t helped by running end door stock. Having the stopper terminate at Selby allows Northern to run a train which is far more suited to its job than the current 158s.

On the topic of the stopping services, I don’t see any need for them to go across Leeds as it just adds more variables that can go wrong, something that should be avoided on a congested railway.

As for finding the paths to do all of this, what could be done is that the odd Hull Dairycoates to Rhylstone freight train could be diverted via Castleford and the planned 1tp2h Harrogate to KX service could revert to going via Wakefield.

 

[SuperNova]

Perhaps what many are forgetting with Selby-Hull electrification, is the swing bridge. Any electrification beyond Selby is going to require major changes.

More important is the connection between York and Manchester. Get that sorted first.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Back in the day , I thought we had it sorted following a high level meeting with the DfT and the passenger operators.

Stage 1 - Huddersfield - Leeds - York / Selby (giving cross Leeds EMU operations , albeit requiring some major recasts and a policy that could have been fine tuned

Stage 2 - (in sections) - and the harder bit via Diggle , towards Guide Bridge / Stalybridge to join up with the Victoria - Stalybridge add on to the Chat Moss.

We went home from York in a positive mood , however this was 2012 , so not much really happemed. Did try though.

 

[B Box]

Gascoigne Wood East to Sherburn in Elmet and Church Fenton also has mileage as ECML diversion and York-Selby-Hull electric route.

Also ECML York-Hambleton North to East – Selby.

 

[YorksLad12]

I would do any infills which provide a definite improvement in services. Normally I'd go for Leeds to York (in point-to-point terms rather than the actual work) but that only benefits some (two?) of the TPE services and none of Northern's, XC's or LNER's one journey per day.

But if the whole of York - Leeds - Huddersfield was electric you could combine the current TPE Huddersfield-Leeds stopper and Northern Leeds-York shuttle using a 4-car 331 or similar. If it wasn't electric throughout you'd have to use a 3-car 185 or 5-car bi-mode 802. So the sequencing needs to work with proposed services. I also take the point though that doing some smaller projects first allows things to be ramped up for the larger one.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Perhaps what many are forgetting with Selby-Hull electrification, is the swing bridge. Any electrification beyond Selby is going to require major changes.

They managed it with Trowse Swing Bridge in Norwich in the 80s - I don't see how Selby is any different to that.