Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates, CP6

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,798
From what I read on Railway Gazette, it is not going to be full electrification, with weasel word promises about it being a future ambition. The part that will not be electrified is the part that could bring the greatest performance increases, now there will be heavier trains with weaker acceleration on diesel.

The problem is that not much was done on the gap in the middle in the Grayling years hence it will take time to catch up to the same stage as the bits on either side.

The gap in the middle as very few /or no stops hence acceleration doesn't matter that much.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,798
To be able to run extra trains you need to sort out the capacity constraint first.
Who said anything about extra trains in the scope for TRU at the Manchester end? I suspect that is the bit Bald Rick and I are struggling with?

Castlefield corridor etc. is a separate item...

Longer trains, faster journeys and less time lost per stop are the main aims.
 
Last edited:

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
218
Location
West Yorkshire
The problem is that not much was done on the gap in the middle in the Grayling years hence it will take time to catch up to the same stage as the bits on either side.

The gap in the middle as very few /or no stops hence acceleration doesn't matter that much.
Two stations at either end, plus four intermediate stations.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,243
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
But the Upgrade and associated work can only have maximum effect when or if Central Manchester is sorted out. That should have been done yonks ago
Every incremental improvement is good.

The Modern Railways interpretation
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,432
Disappointed in the announcement, either someone mistakenly added a 0 to the figure last week or they pulled back from what they were originally going to announce as it was supposed to be a package of TPU and other things.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,895
Between Leeds and Manchester. Via all routes. (and to allow the broken promises for enhancements from 2015 to be fixed)
The problem is you can't terminate enough services at Victoria, someone unfortunately built a bloody great big arena where a half-dozen platforms were previously situated.

Which means running them through towards Salford. If we assume the Castlefield Corridor is magically resolved, the next question to answer is where do you send all of the additional services from Leeds/York/Newcastle/Hull. Manchester Airport, Liverpool, Blackpool (North or South), Chester ?
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,243
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
And everyone, especially the DfT, will be keen to avoid another Ordsall Chord which although magnificent infrastructure made the Castlefield corridor even worse for congestion.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
2,317
Location
Sheffield
And everyone, especially the DfT, will be keen to avoid another Ordsall Chord which although magnificent infrastructure made the Castlefield corridor even worse for congestion.
But Ordsall (itself delayed) was part of a package of measures to deliver improvements, including Platforms 15/16 to relieve the Castlefield issue and the much smaller Hope Valley Scheme due to be operational in December 2018 but delayed until 2023. I'll not upset myelf by digging out all the leaflets and links I have about all of that.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
19,378
Location
Nottingham
Why don't they just redouble and electrify the stockport to stalybridge line and divert trains through there in case there's delays in the manchester area.
In relation to scheduled services by that route: people want to go to Manchester and Liverpool not Stockport and beyond, and because the line through Stockport is full anyway.

In relation to diversions: because they are so rare that it's hard to justify, and because again there's no way of dealing with them in Stockport. Some could possibly get to Piccadilly from Guide Bridge, but the others would have to be turned back at Stalybridge or Guide Bridge.

It might get electrified eventually, but for freight rather than passenger.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,243
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
But Ordsall (itself delayed) was part of a package of measures to deliver improvements, including Platforms 15/16 to relieve the Castlefield issue and the much smaller Hope Valley Scheme due to be operational in December 2018 but delayed until 2023. I'll not upset myelf by digging out all the leaflets and links I have about all of that.
I don't doubt a word you have said but they will want to try and ensure that if it gets built and the other packages it doesn't create problems elsewhere.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,798
I don't doubt a word you have said but they will want to try and ensure that if it gets built and the other packages it doesn't create problems elsewhere.
Doing the minimum to the track work between the Chord and Victoria didn't help the delays in the area. If they had included more with the Chord works then there would be fewer Victoria issues currently.The previous Castlefield corridor iteration would have left many outstanding issues causing plenty of problems a danger of treating stuff in isolation as many small issues and not looking at the overall picture.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
1,668
From what I read on Railway Gazette, it is not going to be full electrification, with weasel word promises about it being a future ambition. The part that will not be electrified is the part that could bring the greatest performance increases, now there will be heavier trains with weaker acceleration on diesel.
Which will be able to divert via alternate routes during engineering and other disruption, resulting in a minimum amount of bustitution. Those alternatives, Hebden Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate, and Castleford, are a long way from all being electrified. Long may hybrids continue on the route, for the passengers’ sake.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
476
Location
Leeds
Which will be able to divert via alternate routes during engineering and other disruption, resulting in a minimum amount of bustitution. Those alternatives, Hebden Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate, and Castleford, are a long way from all being electrified. Long may hybrids continue on the route, for the passengers’ sake.
True but I do think they should get on with the core route Manchester to York instead of this piecemeal approach, it would enabler all the stoppers to go full electric and the Newcastle/Edinburgh services to go full electric also, you would likely still use Bi-modes on the other services. I'm sure the concern for many will be 3 to 4 years of a shambolic service and we have only done some of it and then only the Bi-modes and maybe some stoppers over part of the route will be able to make use of it, then another 3 or 4 years of a shambolic service maybe at some point in the future to do the rest of it.

I think what it does show that those hoping for a large scale resumption of electrification and the so called levelling up in the North are likely to be substancially disappointed.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
1,668
True but I do think they should get on with the core route Manchester to York instead of this piecemeal approach, it would enabler all the stoppers to go full electric and the Newcastle/Edinburgh services to go full electric also, you would likely still use Bi-modes on the other services. I'm sure the concern for many will be 3 to 4 years of a shambolic service and we have only done some of it and then only the Bi-modes and maybe some stoppers over part of the route will be able to make use of it, then another 3 or 4 years of a shambolic service maybe at some point in the future to do the rest of it.

I think what it does show that those hoping for a large scale resumption of electrification and the so called levelling up in the North are likely to be substancially disappointed.
There's little different being done on the ground to what's often done, with different contracts for different sections, the difference is it's being publicised in that way. I suspect that's entirely to prevent someone coming along and kiboshing the whole thing if problems occur in one area and not others by reducing the headline costs into smaller, more palatable chunks. I suspect some of the more ambitious parts, like the flyover at Ravensthorpe, wouldn't have got as far as they have now. Even the issue at Mossley might be enough to bring the whole matter into doubt in the right circumstances. Even if something does get cancelled, it's better to have 75% of the route done than 0%.
 

jfollows

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
794
Location
Wilmslow
From what I read on Railway Gazette, it is not going to be full electrification, with weasel word promises about it being a future ambition. The part that will not be electrified is the part that could bring the greatest performance increases, now there will be heavier trains with weaker acceleration on diesel.

Would anyone be able to quote the full text, I'm not registered and therefore can't read this article myself?

Thanks to everyone posting here to expand and clarify on what was a dreadfully unclear (deliberately) announcement with very little substance.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,798
precisely.
And also far easier to push for sign off on the last 25% later as well.

Some bits will be technically harder than others needing lots more design and optioneering
Some bits will be more disruptive than other
Some bits will be much quicker to complete than others.

Hence there would probably be a 4-5 year range in completion dates between the first and last section even if all were approved now. Hence the Bi-modes allow each section to be used as it becomes available.

Unlike many previous scheme there is less pressure from electric only new stock being ordered and delivered. Flexing delivery date not cost to hit a deadline will be the name of the game.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,895
Even if something does get cancelled, it's better to have 75% of the route done than 0%.
I don't disagree, but it could risk making the remaining 25% too expensive to justify, especially if the 25% already being avoided is being avoided because it's too difficult and thus expensive (which it is, under the auspices of 'not value for money').

There are to be all manner of closures for engineering works for the 75%, with (I think) Christmas and Easter blockades (which will be fun, given the Manchester Airport services). That gives you generous access windows for other route clearance works on the remaining 25%. If you have to justify additional closures at a later date for the remaining 25%, that could make things more complicated.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
2,394
I don't disagree, but it could risk making the remaining 25% too expensive to justify, especially if the 25% already being avoided is being avoided because it's too difficult and thus expensive (which it is, under the auspices of 'not value for money').

There are to be all manner of closures for engineering works for the 75%, with (I think) Christmas and Easter blockades (which will be fun, given the Manchester Airport services). That gives you generous access windows for other route clearance works on the remaining 25%. If you have to justify additional closures at a later date for the remaining 25%, that could make things more complicated.
So do the blockades mid year rather than when people will be jetting away, but over lots of weekends.

Possibly even a week in August, but not over the Bank Holiday weekend.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,798
Would anyone be able to quote the full text, I'm not registered and therefore can't read this article myself?

Thanks to everyone posting here to expand and clarify on what was a dreadfully unclear (deliberately) announcement with very little substance.
It is basically a rehash of the DfT announcement here:

Which is basically green lighting the scope of work in NR's July 2019 TRU consultation which was based on the Grayling do the minimum vision.
(see https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...plan/key-projects/transpennine-route-upgrade/)
Rail Gazette added a few bits of detail from the NR documents with only this additional content for their article:

"The funding covers design and enabling works for the first stage of Network Rail’s Transpennine Route Upgrade programme, including partial electrification at 25 kV 50 Hz, an additional through platform at Huddersfield and 13 km of four-tracking. The two extra tracks are intended to help reduce journey times and improve performance by enabling express trains to overtake stopping services.

Industry leaders had criticised DfT’s initial proposal to only electrify parts of the route, retaining diesel operation on the more difficult central section across the Pennines including the 5·2 km Standedge tunnel. However, Shapps said ‘most of the line will be electrified, and our ambition is to go further. Full electrification, digital signalling, more multi-tracking and improved freight capacity are now under consideration as part of an Integrated Rail Plan due to report in December.’"


This week DfT approved the minimum Grayling scope, the next step is to get more approved in December.
 

Top