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
You might need to explain that, because I don’t follow.
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
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.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.
£589m to ‘kickstart’ Transpennine Route Upgrade
UK: The allocation of £589m to 'kickstart' the enhancement of the trans-Pennine main line between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester was announced by Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps on July 23, along with details of a Northern Transport Acceleration Council which is to be formed ...www.railwaygazette.com
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?To be able to run extra trains you need to sort out the capacity constraint first.
Extra trains between where and where?To be able to run extra trains you need to sort out the capacity constraint first.
Two stations at either end, plus four intermediate stations.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.
Apologies, assumed the map was an official one!Oops, sorry.
View attachment 81130
It also shows Wigan to Bolton, again not proceeding in any official capacity.Apologies, assumed the map was an official one!
Every incremental improvement is good.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
Between Leeds and Manchester. Via all routes. (and to allow the broken promises for enhancements from 2015 to be fixed)
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
. Even if something does get cancelled, it's better to have 75% of the route done than 0%.
Would anyone be able to quote the full text, I'm not registered and therefore can't read this article myself?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.
£589m to ‘kickstart’ Transpennine Route Upgrade
UK: The allocation of £589m to 'kickstart' the enhancement of the trans-Pennine main line between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester was announced by Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps on July 23, along with details of a Northern Transport Acceleration Council which is to be formed ...www.railwaygazette.com
And also far easier to push for sign off on the last 25% later as well.precisely.
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.
So do the blockades mid year rather than when people will be jetting away, but over lots of weekends.
It is basically a rehash of the DfT announcement here: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.