Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates, CP6

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
14,172
Why has no-one re-examined the merits of electrifying Hambleton Junction to Leeds? A decision made 36 years ago should not be the last word on the subject.
Perhaps they have, and found that the engineers, operator sand economists in 1984 were correct? Perhaps they have done that for lots of proposals around the country ?

But you will rarely if ever see a press release that says ‘rail company has done an initial investigation into project (x) and found it has no case’.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

adamedwards

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
396
Location
Hatfield, Herts
Hambleton to Leeds is only useful for a train heading from Doncaster to Leeds. Aside from Sunday diversions, I'm not aware of any train that goes that way. You'd need a half hourly service 7 days per week to make the case for wiring. The scheme years ago was about diverting the London to Leeds trains so they did a loop, pausing only at Leeds for a few minutes. That would be fine, except Wakefield would then loose half it's service as alternate trains would go the other way around. I guess that loss of revenue killed the idea.

Hambleton will get wired once the case is made for Leeds to Selby and on to Hull.
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
127
The case for electrification depends on a route's having lots of traffic and for enough of that traffic actually to go over to electric haulage. The growth of long distance sprinter and cross country runs and the problems of locomotive changes for passenger and freight (yes it was taking twenty minutes or so..) reduced markedly the use of the wires, particularly after privatisation. The Electrification RUS (2009) Fig 3.7, p26 showed just how much diesel operation took place under the wires.

My view is that the strongest case is for the urban commuter routes; these are relatively short, costly to run, intensively used and usually have the terminals etc already wired. Then, only the inter-urban gaps need be filled. Bi-modes where they exist improve usage and also allow partial wiring at least to start with.

One service nett per hour, is not going to bring on the wires.

WAO
 

neilboo

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2018
Messages
211
I forgot to post this pic from last week, showing the ground work at Miles Platting.
This shot taken from a Manchester-bound 68033.
 

Attachments

fflint

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
110
From today's Railway Herald 24 September :

http://railwayherald.com/magazine/preview/703

In July, the DfT committed to £589million of funding for the design andenabling works to allow the firststage of the Transpennine Route
Upgrade (TRU) programme.This programme covers work to beundertaken between 2019 and 2029,during Control Periods 6 and 7. A core
set of projects, known as Group 1, willbe undertaken first, and these coverthe lines from Manchester Victoria andGuide Bridge to Stalybridge, Huddersfieldto Ravensthorpe and Ravensthorpe toLeeds, with each section being electrified. Additional lines and junction works east ofHuddersfield will provide additional capacity.
A final decision on the rest of the routewill be undertaken next year, to allowadditional work to be carried out on freightcapacity. The final decision will also includewhether to adopt full route electrificationand digital signalling. The DfT says: “Thereis ambition to develop proposals for fullelectrification of the entire Manchester-York TRU route in the next phase, andwe have challenged Network Rail todeliver this at a cost which is affordable.The results of this work will inform ourupdated business case next year.”The additional work, which includes lookingat enhancing the number of paths for freight
services over the Pennines and loading gaugeenhancements is, according to the DfT, beingtaken forward as a joint project looking atboth the core Transpennine route, and alsothe Calder Valley and Copy Pit summit routes.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,685
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I'm not sure if this is different from various announcements made earlier this year. The money is certainly the same.
Although it's the first specific mention of electrification of Victoria-Stalybridge and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge (which hasn't figured in announcements for several years).
Are we sure they've got it right?
It's very easy to get the scope wrong in these carefully-crafted DfT/NR statements.
"Ambition to develop proposals for full electrification" means there will be gaps.
In some areas, particularly west of Huddersfield, the money also only covers design, it's not the letting of contracts for the actual work.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
11,761
Location
Another planet...
I'm not sure if this is different from various announcements made earlier this year. The money is certainly the same.
Although it's the first specific mention of electrification of Victoria-Stalybridge and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge (which hasn't figured in announcements for several years).
Are we sure they've got it right?
It's very easy to get the scope wrong in these carefully-crafted DfT/NR statements.
"Ambition to develop proposals for full electrification" means there will be gaps.
In some areas, particularly west of Huddersfield, the money also only covers design, it's not the letting of contracts for the actual work.
At least wiring Guide Bridge to Stalybridge is included in this latest round- that was a section with a big question mark over it in this thread.

The "Grayling Gap" however, for however long it lasts, will reduce the total number of diesel movements able to be switched to electric.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,903
At least wiring Guide Bridge to Stalybridge is included in this latest round- that was a section with a big question mark over it in this thread.

The "Grayling Gap" however, for however long it lasts, will reduce the total number of diesel movements able to be switched to electric.
Full electrification was an inevitability based on the schedules desired on the TransPennine core - but post COVID, the desired schedules may be unnecessary and thus full electrification may be avoidable for another couple of years.
 

jonesy3001

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2009
Messages
2,460
Location
West Yorkshire
At least wiring Guide Bridge to Stalybridge is included in this latest round- that was a section with a big question mark over it in this thread.

The "Grayling Gap" however, for however long it lasts, will reduce the total number of diesel movements able to be switched to electric.
Does that mean the Phillips park junction to ashburys also or is that where they'll do the run off for the overheads
 

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
219
Location
West Yorkshire
I'm not sure if this is different from various announcements made earlier this year. The money is certainly the same.
Although it's the first specific mention of electrification of Victoria-Stalybridge and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge (which hasn't figured in announcements for several years).
Are we sure they've got it right?
It's very easy to get the scope wrong in these carefully-crafted DfT/NR statements.
"Ambition to develop proposals for full electrification" means there will be gaps.
In some areas, particularly west of Huddersfield, the money also only covers design, it's not the letting of contracts for the actual work.
It looks like it's derived from a DfT press release around the end of July.

It's something of a masterpiece in using lots of words whilst not actually saying anything new or enlightening.

The real decisions about the scope of and funding for TRU are still to be taken, which is disappointing given that electrification Manchester-Leeds-York was announced in the 2011 Autumn Statement.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,254
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
Does that mean the Phillips park junction to ashburys also or is that where they'll do the run off for the overheads
My bet would be they do longish overruns then they can come back later to the DafT and day there is only a short distance to do and the difficult bit of the junctions has already been done so it is an easy win fill in later.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,903
My bet would be they do longish overruns then they can come back later to the DafT and day there is only a short distance to do and the difficult bit of the junctions has already been done so it is an easy win fill in later.
It's a tightrope between trying to get enough wiring done and elements in the right place beyond (say) a junction to make the next project attractive by being that little bit more affordable, and doing too much on the current project and causing it to be reprofiled.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,254
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
It's a tightrope between trying to get enough wiring done and elements in the right place beyond (say) a junction to make the next project attractive by being that little bit more affordable, and doing too much on the current project and causing it to be reprofiled.
Oh I dont doubt it but lets say Leeds - Selby gets approved, they would be crazy not to do a quick half mile overlap towards York to help with the next phase of TPU . I am of course talking about Micklefield to Church Fenton infill at a later date.
 

Ianno87

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
9,028
Oh I dont doubt it but lets say Leeds - Selby gets approved, they would be crazy not to do a quick half mile overlap towards York to help with the next phase of TPU . I am of course talking about Micklefield to Church Fenton infill at a later date.
Although in that case there would be very little logic in leaving any of Micklefield-CF to a later project, being a short stretch of busy main line without any particularly significant engineering features.

You'd probably argue doing to whole lot anyway due to the driver workload of switching Electric to Diesel and back again within such a short distance (e.g risk of dewirements) and the wear/tear of oly eunning the diesel engines for such a short period.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,254
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
Although in that case there would be very little logic in leaving any of Micklefield-CF to a later project, being a short stretch of busy main line without any particularly significant engineering features.

You'd probably argue doing to whole lot anyway due to the driver workload of switching Electric to Diesel and back again within such a short distance (e.g risk of dewirements) and the wear/tear of oly eunning the diesel engines for such a short period.
Again I totally agree but since when have DafT and treasury been logical? Us enthusiasts need to think like a politician. They also get two announcements rather than 1. God I wish I was Prime Minister for just a while.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
14,172
Oh I dont doubt it but lets say Leeds - Selby gets approved, they would be crazy not to do a quick half mile overlap towards York to help with the next phase of TPU . I am of course talking about Micklefield to Church Fenton infill at a later date.
Surely it would be the other way round. I can’t see Leeds - Selby being done before Leeds - Church Fenton.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
6,179
Full electrification was an inevitability based on the schedules desired on the TransPennine core - but post COVID, the desired schedules may be unnecessary and thus full electrification may be avoidable for another couple of years.
But surely now is the time to do it when demands is less and fewer people are affected by the engineering works. Wasn't the plan for blockades too? Highly disruptive but if done now then fewer people will be affected during construction.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,903
But surely now is the time to do it when demands is less and fewer people are affected by the engineering works. Wasn't the plan for blockades too? Highly disruptive but if done now then fewer people will be affected during construction.
The electrification works are several years away, even for the section between Colton Junction and Church Fenton, they'll be taking place in late 2021 through to early 2022 (from memory). It's also worth noting that COVID restrictions slow down engineering works too.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
14,172
But surely now is the time to do it when demands is less and fewer people are affected by the engineering works. Wasn't the plan for blockades too? Highly disruptive but if done now then fewer people will be affected during construction.
You can’t build something that’s not designed!
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,685
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The real decisions about the scope of and funding for TRU are still to be taken, which is disappointing given that electrification Manchester-Leeds-York was announced in the 2011 Autumn Statement.
And they're not going to be in this year's Autumn Statement, as there won't be one.
We can only hope for a one-off announcement.
However the Chancellor is a bit busy just now.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,676
You've misunderstood my point. Since 1984 the railway industry has looked again and again at various possible projects, Manchester to Leeds being a prominent example. Why has no-one re-examined the merits of electrifying Hambleton Junction to Leeds? A decision made 36 years ago should not be the last word on the subject.
When the Selby diversionary route (Templehirst to Colton) was built in the early 1980s the double track connection at Hambleton to the Hull To Leeds route provoked controversy among the people of Wakefield that this might become the standard route from Leeds to Kings X and that therefore they would lose out.

BR were hasty to reassure that this was not the case. Any move for a regular service on the Hambleton route would be needed to justify electrification.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
4,929
Location
ECM1 79m 34ch
Off topic, but my understanding is that the GWML electrification was designed. It just wasn't buildable as designed .....
The design range of steelwork etc was complete, but the specific design of the cross-sections and layouts for the structures was still in progress when construction began AIUI.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
2,903
The design range of steelwork etc was complete, but the specific design of the cross-sections and layouts for the structures was still in progress when construction began AIUI.
We didn't know what we were going to find when piling, of course, which rather buggered that all up.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
19,382
Location
Nottingham
BR were hasty to reassure that this was not the case. Any move for a regular service on the Hambleton route would be needed to justify electrification.
Last I heard, TfN wanted to prioritise electrification of Leeds to Hull as the first stage of NPR. I think this is because it's a relatively easy section to do without much interface to things that haven't been planned/agreed yet, and for the political benefits of doing something for Hull where there hasn't been much rail investment recently.
 

Top