GRALISTAIR
Established Member
And a new pattern of service- Leeds to Edinburgh and Glasgow all electric
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- Start date
And a new pattern of service- Leeds to Edinburgh and Glasgow all electric
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Agreed. We have 2 years of wiring projects confirmed TP electrification would extend that by upto 3 more. We can't afford to stop electrifying full stop. One project at a time would keep the skills base.
When did that change? The patterns could be altered to allow EMUs to terminate at Huddersfield. If the line is going to be electrified in stages its the obvious terminus for EMU services from Leeds, especially if only for a while. 769s would work too but DMUs would defy the point of electrifying any of it.
Your probably right but Leeds - Huddersfield should a priority over anything near Manchester. There are other upgrades possible at the western end and the bit out of Leeds and through Morley is a bigger bottleneck.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Because of the class 802 stock ordered by TPE? I can't imagine you want to order bi-mode stock that not only has electric & diesel traction, but carrying batteries for the Grayling Gaps, and of course there's the loco hauled units which are starting with the 68s. They all might as well carry some hydrogen tanks and a steam bolier just in case.....
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Because of the class 802 stock ordered by TPE? I can't imagine you want to order bi-mode stock that not only has electric & diesel traction, but carrying batteries for the Grayling Gaps, and of course there's the loco hauled units which are starting with the 68s. They all might as well carry some hydrogen tanks and a steam bolier just in case.....
I love it - first we had the "Save the Goring Gap" on GWML - now we have the "Grayling Gaps "-- you will have to apply for a registered TM
Because of the class 802 stock ordered by TPE? I can't imagine you want to order bi-mode stock that not only has electric & diesel traction, but carrying batteries for the Grayling Gaps, and of course there's the loco hauled units which are starting with the 68s. They all might as well carry some hydrogen tanks and a steam bolier just in case.....
And these couldn't be cascaded elsewhere where the GG's are bigger or even as they are today, such as X-country?
Bantamzen
Established Member
Well technically yes, but are you really suggesting that TPE ditch the 802/2s in favour of yet another new order with battery as opposed to diesel? And then with that in mind, what about the longer runs off wires such as Scarborough, Middlesbrough & Hull? Given that the recharge cycle could be limited on a partially wired North TP, there could be issues storing enough power to look after the power requirements on long unwired sections, let alone passenger facilities, WiFi, USB sockets.
Grayling's suggestion is a typical politician's response, not fully thought through and looking for what appears the cheapest option. But cheapest doesn't always mean best or even suitable, and more often than not the cheapest up front price doesn't equate to the best running costs. This whole concept that electrification has suddenly got so widely expensive that it is having to be ruled out is not about the procurement or engineering costs. It is to do with repeatedly badly managed public projects, where stakeholders display little or no understanding of what they are trying to achieve, and so rely ever more increasingly on external contractors to set the final costs. Add to this mix a constant stream of over zealous & often completely avoidable bureaucracy, and suddenly everything is delayed and running way over budget. Its a sorry tale repeated across the public sector (I can't say why I know this, you'll just have to believe me). Many of these problems do not come from the engineering, they come from Whitehall.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Trust me - I believe you !
Grayling is probably assuming TP electrification will cost multiples of its budget and take twice as long as expected. In the context of NRs disasterous delivery of other schemes its reasonable to only fund part of the scheme and leave options open. Hopefully some TP electrification will be announced this year and start after Blackpool is wired in December 2018.
The requirement for a 15min frequency clockface 4tph fast Leeds to Manchester service will not allow for Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers even if they are EMUs rather than DMUs. A fast service takes 19/20mins, a stopper currently takes 39/40 mins (and West Yorkshire want to build another station at White Rose Centre). There is no way a stopping service will fit into a 15minute window between fasts. Thats one reason why 3 skip-stop services (2 TPE, 1 Northern Brighouse) are replacing 2 stoppers next May, to reduce the difference in journey times and (supposedly) to allow movement towards a clockface timetable for Huddersfield and Leeds, not the stopping statons of course.
The obvious answer is four tracking and I understand that is why Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe four tracking is an option for the upgrade project.
The problem is that infrastructure improvements will give the required improvements in journey times, not electrification. Likewise, infrastructure improvements give the required capacity, not electrification. The business case for electrification is not that good.
Quite what Grayling/DfT will do, I have absolutely no idea.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Blackpool looks on schedule to complete May 2018.
What I expect then is Man Vic to Miles Platting and also Lostock - Wigan - THEN continue with TPE complete with Grayling Gaps
It is a mess. My prefered solution would be a new route between Leeds and Huddersfield which Lord Adonis estimated at £2-2.7bn and reducing journey time by 10 minutes. A quick win (achievable by 2022) of 4 tracking Huddersfield to Greenfield was estimated at a bit over £300m, which would add capacity but not reduce journey time. Finally a tunnel from west of Diggle to North of Ashton (near M60) estimated at £1.7bn and reducing journey time by 6 minutes. In total that is £4-4.7bn reducing journey time by 16 minutes and basically 4 tracking the entire route (with the exisiting route acting as the slow tracks). More realistically, 4 tracking Greenfield to Ravensthorpe and reusing the viaduct into Leeds station was estimated at £750m but would still leave bottlenecks into both cities.
Electrification would help meet the first target of 40 minutes. An EMU or electric locomotive would climb the hills faster than their diesel equivalents. Whether its neccessary depends on what can be done without CPOs, TWAs and billions of spending. I am not entirely convinced that 8 minutes can be cut from journey times using only NR land and the new stock which will be slower under diesel power than 185s.
Your right, North West Sparks says Blackpool May 2018 and Victoria to Miles Platting area December 2018. I would prefer Lostock - Wigan to be done after Miles Platting because I am confident the government will eventually bow to pressure over TP electrification but there is no guarantee Lostock - Wigan will be wired. Unless some funding agreement is done with Greater Manchester CA I am sure the government will be tempted to drop the project because it does not deliver a major goal.
'Most' isn't entirely a helpful description imo:
1tph Leeds-Dewsbury-Huddersfield
1tph Leeds-Bradford-Huddersfield
1tph Leeds-Dewsbury-Brighouse-Manchester Victoria
That said, the Leeds-Dewsbury-Huddersfield will shortly be transferred to TPE.
Leeds-Huddersfield is the most complicated section to upgrade of the whole Manchester Vic-York route upgrade with two major junctions to remodel, 4 tracking Huddersfield-Ravensthorpe with new 4 platform station at Mirfield and long tunnel at Morley, closely followed by Marsh Lane-Micklefield 4-tracking. Man Vic-Stalybridge wiring will have to wait until Miles Platting Junction is remodelled so wires cannot reach Stalybridge soon.
daodao
Established Member
There used to be another relief line from Leeds to Huddersfield. The former LNWR Leeds new line was opened in 1900 and closed in the 1950s. I was reminded of it last Sunday when visiting a cemetery near Gildersome - the embankment of this former line still survives overlooking the cemetery. A small section was re-utilised to provide an underpass to enable Huddersfield to Leeds trains to avoid crossing the ex L&Y Sowerby Bridge-Wakefield main line near Mirfield.
Could any of its formation be reused as an alternative route, given that Manchester-Leeds traffic has mushroomed since the 1960s and early 1970s when I used to travel on this route? Or is a cheaper alternative longer (but more infrequent) services? Longer (9 or even 12 coach) trains could run York-Liverpool Lime St every 30 minutes calling at principal stations only (Leeds, Huddersfield and M/c Victoria) to cater for the bulk of the traffic, with an hourly extension to Newcastle.
Last edited:
It may be the most complicated section but it is also the biggest bottleneck therefore should be upgraded early in the project.
The £2bn estimate I quoted relied on using some of the old trackbed while £2.7bn was the cost if none of it was useable. 9 coaches would require platform extensions at Huddersfield, Stalybridge and Manchester Airport while 12 coaches would require extensions at all stations served.
Bantamzen
Established Member
No it isn't reasonable though, it is up to the government and DfT to take a long hard look at what went wrong and put it right. This is the second major problem with public projects, fear. When one or more projects run over budget and over timescales, the wrong assumptions are often made. So for example they might look at the North West & Great Western projects and say we planned for £xxx,xxx & xx days per mile but in these two they doubled (I'm only using this as an example). Therefore DfT might recommend that future projects be budget for closer to the end result, rather than based on analysis looking at the things that went right & wrong because they are fearful of being wrong again.
The chances are that with a properly managed project, and with all red tape properly addressed and interpreted, that the cost of future projects won't be as much as the cost of the previous ones. Contractors, engineers, designers etc will all have valuable feedback that can make the cost far lower than the panicked estimations, but if DfT is anything like the rest of the public sector these will be ignored either because there are not understood, or that civil servants simply don't want to take a risk. So future projects seem ever more costly, and as a result start to fall by the wayside whilst many within & without the industry try to understand why the UK has become so bad at these projects, whilst the many parts of the world carry on with far lower costs. This ladies and gentlemen is one of the reasons why public finances are so hard to control.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The CP5 dominos have fallen - no new work will start before April 2019, when CP6 money becomes available.
Even then, infrastructure enhancements will be treated differently, outside the CP process.
Grayling is already going in this direction with his digital signalling announcement.
I think it will take a monumental effort to get electrification restarted on the ground, starting with some successes from the current delayed schemes.
I'm afraid you've made a fundamental error in interpreting Arup's figures
The costs were back-of-fag packet figures, with costs based on comparison with then current NR estimates, which have escalated since. NPR/HS3 are of course currently working on hopefully more accurate costs/timings as upgrading the route is one of the three options for the Manchester-Leeds route, I'd rather wait to see what they say, sometime early next year.
Well that's the problem, straight electrification provided a ZERO decrease in the existing Manchester to Leeds journey time and only 2 minutes on Leeds to York, due to the "high performance of Class 185s". The source for this is the project status video that GRALISTAIR posted. Why do you say the new stock will be slower than 185s under diesel power? It will be expensive for TPE if this is significantly so, since their franchise requires:
Fair comment! I suspect that, much like Gralistair has suggested, the Standedge GG will actually be much longer, something like Stalybridge to Huddersfield area (not least as one proposal initially put forward for NPR proposed bypassing this part of the line).
I do think that next electrification schemes need to be scaled back to simpler routes possibly focussing on commuter routes where they are the key thing to make a capacity difference (not the case on whole TPE) to allow NR and supply chain to learn how to control costs before scaling up size and complexity.
Bantamzen
Established Member
And this is what is so depressing about public project management in this country, no joined up thinking whatsoever. Let's just say that there is no time gain with electric units (which BTW I am sceptical of, no matter how well / over powered the 185s may be electrics must still be quicker off their toes from stations / stops), this isn't the only issue. Generally speaking electric trains are more cost effective to run, and have longer expected life-spans so TOCs / ROSCOs get more revenue for their investment & can (and should in theory) pass this saving back. Plus let us not forget that this all came out around the same time that the government announced it's initial plans to ban new diesel road vehicles after a certain date. It just shows how really disjointed government policy is right now.
Frankly, and leaning on 30+ years in the public sector, this all sounds like more excuse making. A couple of projects have gone over budget and Ministers & civil servants are falling over themselves to redeem themselves (and their careers), so are looking for cheap fixes to complex problems. It has the look and feel of the Pacer solution in the 1980s, we can no longer afford the full solution so let's put in a "temporary" fix until more money becomes available. Then temporary becomes permanent until the situation becomes urgent, and rushed solutions are needed costing way more than the original permanent solution. For me it is all so depressingly familiar, the camels moan the train moves on....
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I love it - first we had the "Save the Goring Gap" on GWML - now we have the "Grayling Gaps "-- you will have to apply for a registered TM
You may or may not believe that one of the gaps in question is between Grayling's ears.
I really don't think you'd go all the way to Greenfield. The four-track formation would have to stop south of Diggle Junction where the former Micklehurst route diverged (and before anyone asks there is no way that could ever be re-opened). This would allow four-track as far the divergence of a tunnel towards Ashton, which would presumably cross the valley south-west of the Diggle built-up area and dive under Harrop Edge.
From there towards Greenfield is the Saddleworth viaduct, not sure if listed but a major local landmark. Then the line sits on a ledge in the hillside where widening would leave a major scar on the landscape. It's possible that loops might be created where the former Delph branch ran alongside and perhaps where the various sidings west of Greenfield were, but I'm not sure how much use these would be.
Bantamzen
Established Member
The problem with the North TP is that there are effectively commuter flows along the entire length. So for the cross Pennines section there are flows fro Huddersfield and intermediate stations to Leeds, some flows towards Manchester but also flows between Manchester & Leeds. It might make some sense to target the Huddersfield-Leeds section as a priory for wiring because of the large population centres between the two, it leaves you with a quandary not only how best to serve west of Huddersfield if you cut back some to terminate there, but also given the limited capacity at Huddersfield how you would terminate 5 car 397s (assuming they were the preferred choice of EMU). There's only 3 platforms that could accommodate them, and two of those will be in regular use which is probably why TPEs plan is to run the skip-stoppers through Huddersfield rather than stop them there. Frankly for the nature of route, TPE isnt probably the natural choice for operating stoppers. Its really only the limited capacity of the line that has led to this choice.
So I understand where you are coming from, but frankly still feel that the entire route, including Standedge needs to be sparked to best resolve the issues no or only partial electrification would leave. Scaling back only leaves other problems, and probably come with their own costs which might be better applied to the preferred solution.
Funding could be found for next year if Grayling decides it is politically helpful. If not then hopefully the teams working on Manchester to Blackpool switch to GWR and MML in May rather than be disbanded.
They are the best estimates available and I am aware they are not as accurate if put together but the 4 tracking parts do not reduce journey time anyway and the two new line options are at opposite ends of the route so the 16 minute figure should be approximately correct.
There was a lengthy discussion in another thread a few months ago about their power to weight ratios etc under diesel traction which came to the conclusion that they won't be able to match a 185. If they only stop once then under 50 minutes would be possible. I would love for this to be proved wrong though!
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I think I must be making an error too. I accept they may be back of fag packet calcs , but on page 48 section 6. 3.3 - there are some absolutely eye watering numbers.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I don't think it works like that.
The GW delays are more from the lack of resignalling in Bristol/Oxford than shortage of wirers.
Contractors also tend to own the design for their patches.
The hiatus on Manchester-Preston was largely down to switching contractors mid-stream.
Scotland offers some prospects for continuity for a year or two.
All depends on how badly the Tories need to suck up to the electorate to keep going, which may depend on how long they can keep up any pretence of party unity over their way of trying to do the absurd Brexit.
If we're talking about restoring the quadruple tracks that did exist and not going off railway-owned land, might that not extend journey-time. The way the alignment of the junction at Thornhill was improved involved going down to three lines on the Calder Valley route. The way speeds were increased so significantly west of Huddersfield by the former Eastern Region (who did so much more with their section of the route than the London Midland did with its) was by using the space of the four-track formation to get a faster alignment for the remaining two tracks. And in any case, if tracks were put back, would the inspectorate require full modern clearances for any restored work, which might not be possible within the bounds of the present railway estate?
A lot of people seem to be saying that the various express bi-modes now being acquired will not have the power/weight ratios that present-day diesels of Classes 185, 220, etc have and so will be inferior in performance to modern stock. Does anyone have the actual details at their fingertips? (For example, I've seen it said that whereas a bi-mode might match an HST on the MML, it would be no match at all for a 222 and so could not deliver the times that apply today.)
Perhaps a small section of the Micklehurst line might be reactivated to allow slow traffic to be diverted that way through new stations at Upper Mill and Greenfield, then regain the current formation via a new link across the valley before Mossley. The existing station at Greenfield would close with the tracks becoming the dedicated fast lines which diverge from the old formation near Grasscroft to a new Ashton-under-Lyne Bypass route.
Attachments
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If you wanted to terminate longish trains from Leeds at Huddersfield the best way would probably be to build a turnback siding somewhere on the former four-track towards Marsden. Or if that is also to be reinstated then put one alongside the Penistone line.
Interesting thought as ever, but this section would be the hardest bit of the Micklehurst line to reinstate. In Uppermill (one word by the way) housing has been built up to both sides of it leaving only a narrow path, and although I think the line of the viaduct across Greenfield is still clear I doubt the locals would be too happy seeing it re-appear.
That is a good point. I guess it will depend on what options there are to increase line speeds on other parts of the line to componsate and in how many parts was the current two track alignment chosen out of expediency rather than being the only fast choice. 4 tracking isn't yet neccessary, 2 or 3 passing loops would add significant capacity. I can't see how the governments long term target of 30 minutes is remotely achievable without significant tunneling at both ends of the route. Its very clear that 40 minutes and extra capacity can only be achieved by pushing the existing line to its limits.
Dare I even ask, what is the current journey time of a diverted express train on the Caldervale line? Could an express train ever achieve Leeds to Victoria in 40 minutes without billions of spending? Probably not I guess but it is possible it would reduce the capacity issue.