What stock will Doncaster to Cleethorpes get then...

[fowler9]

ind of makes you wonder why we didn't electrify our network at the same time most of the reat of Europe was. I know it is more complicated, easier said than done.

 

[dstrat]

Whilst the 170 fiasco is relevant and enough cause for concern, it is not actually what has caused the rioting. It's the attempt at forward planning by the DfT to give Humberside some sort of post electrification service long before authorisation of either the Hope Valley or Sheffield-Doncaster schemes let alone the actual hardware being in place.

Which in turn, surely adds fuel to the fire for a 'split' of Doncaster to Cleethorpes from its current progression to Sheffield and beyond.

The cynic in me tells me that this is the first step to possibly the long term degradation of the current service. Electrification is a maybe for the next unwritten 'Control Period' of works. But that is the future, the unknown.

What we do know is that Clee, Grimsby and perhaps Scunthorpe have the very real prospect of losing any meaningful service other than those who have no option but to go by rail - if the pacer extension occurs. The local press around here have been harping on about electrification, spurred on as a supposed positive for the area from local government whilst ignoring the massive, massive white elephant in the room.

I totally agree David that this predicament is a case in point of how the railways have been mismanaged through time, suffering chronic underinvestment in certain areas and as such seen now with the DfT trying to fight fires.

Sure it may be great for somewhere else to get some relief, however it will be a sad day for this area and it could be the first step to fuel a progressive withdraw of rail services from this area.

 

[Beveridges]

Bring back the 31's and mk2 stock that used to run between Manchester and Sheffield/Cleethorpes many years ago. That would be an improvement on any stock thats runs at present between the Towns

Yes

Not as powerful as a 185 but much better in every other way.

 

[David Barrett]

Which in turn, surely adds fuel to the fire for a 'split' of Doncaster to Cleethorpes from its current progression to Sheffield and beyond.

The cynic in me tells me that this is the first step to possibly the long term degradation of the current service. Electrification is a maybe for the next unwritten 'Control Period' of works. But that is the future, the unknown.

What we do know is that Clee, Grimsby and perhaps Scunthorpe have the very real prospect of losing any meaningful service other than those who have no option but to go by rail - if the pacer extension occurs. The local press around here have been harping on about electrification, spurred on as a supposed positive for the area from local government whilst ignoring the massive, massive white elephant in the room.

I totally agree David that this predicament is a case in point of how the railways have been mismanaged through time, suffering chronic underinvestment in certain areas and as such seen now with the DfT trying to fight fires.

Sure it may be great for somewhere else to get some relief, however it will be a sad day for this area and it could be the first step to fuel a progressive withdraw of rail services from this area.

On the nail perhaps, the consultation document says no closures during the life of the next franchise but why say that? Further in there is a statement about stakeholders having to make a choice between older trains or a reduced service with much more expensive new ones, Hobson's choice really between a useable service frequency operated by unuseable trains or an unuseable service level provided by useable trains.

I do think that this is the start of what many politicians and DfT officials still believe to be the execution of some unfinished business of the 1960s; namely the reduction of the railway to a mythical/viable*** 7000 mile core and the lower specification for some of the more peripheral sections away from this core is part of a softening up process designed to lead people into the acceptance of the bright exciting rubber tyred future.


*** read as applicable.

 

[tbtc]

It's all well and good saying that cutting back the Cleethorpes service to Doncaster is for the greater good but this leaves Cleethorpes with services to Barton, Newark and Doncaster. Hardly thriving metropolises

I think that there are two options:

1. Cleethorpes' service to Manchester Airport is replaced by a roughly hourly 158 as far as Sheffield (and Hull's Sheffield service is extended through the Hope Valley to Manchester - e.g. the two "fast" services on the Thorne - Doncaster - Sheffield route switch)
2. The hourly Sheffield - Meadowhall - Doncaster - Scunthorpe service is extended to Cleethorpes in place of the TPE service so that there's just one train an hour from Doncaster to Scunthorpe

Option one would be better, I think that option one is more likely - I can't see Cleethorpes/ Grimsby losing their direct service to Meadowhall/ Sheffield.

I know that some contributors to this thread won't want *either* of these options (and would prefer the status quo), but I think that the idea of "Greater Grimsby" losing all services beyond the ECML is unrealistic.

Exactly! More Pacers for Cleethorpes I say, then they can match West Coast resorts like Southport that already suffer a 142 plague!! In fact if Northern took over where TPE left, you just cannot rule out a 142 appearance at Cleethorpes..

Off topic, but do Pacers ever do the Barton line? I know its normally 153 operated.

I think that Pacers do work to Cleethorpes on the Saturday "Brigg" services, but it's been a while since I've seen one of those in Sheffield.

If more 170s are needed, get a new DMU order in sharp for other areas with 170s, cascade and refurb these and fit new cabs and gangways as needed.↲

I don't think we'll see any new (pure) DMUs ordered for another decade. We'll get some bi-mode trains, but if CP6 sees sensible electrification to fill in the gaps between CP5 schemes (like Hope Valley, Sheffield to Doncaster...) then we'll have enough "modern" DMUs to run all unelectrified routes after 2024, meaning we can withdraw all 1980s DMUs.

Why build new DMUs today when they'll only be needed for a third of their thirtyish year lifespan?

Seriously....the DfT say there is not heavily loaded services between Clee and Grimsby. Have they not travelled on some Saturdays when a 2 car 170 is laid on and it is standing room only from Scunthorpe onwards ????

I'm sure that there are some services where a two coach DMU isn't enough capacity for everyone to have a seat, but there are plenty of routes like this that see daily capacity problems

That is fair enough. It still is damning on the DfT for knowing these issues have existed presumably for a fair while and yet orders for new stock have remained at the low that they have.

Reshuffling stock around the network really doesn't get to the crux of the problem that needs to be sorted.

The thousand-ish miles of CP5 electrification, plus the hundreds of coaches freed up by Thameslink/ Crossrail plus IEP... this is going to be the biggest leap forward we've seen for a generation

As much as I like to have a good moan about the DfT both as a customer and as a consultant who uses their budgets, growth has come as a bit of a surprise to everyone, coupled with the biggest cuts to government spending in a generation, coupled with poorly considered franchise terms that may have seemed a good idea a decade ago, but not now...

We are on the brink of a big revolution, 1000's of new units for the South East, GWML & ECML will push old stock around the rest of the network, most won't be happy with what cast offs are allocated to their route, but gradually the situation will move into a more positive situation, with EMU's from the south displacing major DMU's routes in the north, other DMU services being strengthened or provided with better stock, making way for further electrification as new fleets come to the regions - which they will - it's a fantastic future ahead, it's just a pig that it's taking so long :-/

Agreed.

It's a shame that we were in the position that we were in, but we are taking a good route out of it - sadly most of the reactions on here have been sniffy ones about "London cast-offs", rather than appreciating the large capacity increases that we are going to see overall

post electrification dreams we are told, it will not likely be acceptable to operate diesel under the wires so the Sheffield-Cleethorpes express option is probably a non starter

I think it'll still happen - maybe with a 158 rather than a 185, probably not running west of Sheffield, but us folk in South Yorkshire would be most upset to lose our link to Sheffield On Sea!

There will still be diesels operating under the wires in future, in the way that the suggestion of Scarborough to Blackpool will run under wires from York to Leeds (and Preston to Blackpool)...

...it's just that we'll see some services rejigged in line with the electrification map (just like Scarborough to Manchester being chopped since it'd be under the wires for 75% of the route).

I think a difficult question for the DfT in terms of Cleethorpes is, if the electric spine is such a great idea for freight, why isn't electrification of a line which sees such a large proportion of UK railfreight on the agenda?

Interesting point, Ian.

The cynic in me thinks that freight was a nice way of "selling" the electrification plans in "middle England" (freight is vastly outnumbered by passenger services, and there's no guarantee that FOCs will switch to electric - especially when they'd need various yards/ sidings etc to be wired too) - it looks nice and green to wire lines in the name of freight, even if we don't think it'll mean many freight trains give up their 66s.

Hopefully by the end of CP5, enough routes will be electrified to release enough DMUs to cover shortage of stock on non electrified routes due to unprecedented growth but it will be a rough ride (Pacers) for many beyond non compliant 2020.

We don't want to newbuild DMUs when electrification is the way forward. We need to electrify routes that will release the maximum number of diesel units as fast as possible and not pratt about with panels of MPs deciding which route justifies upgrading.

Agreed

ind of makes you wonder why we didn't electrify our network at the same time most of the reat of Europe was. I know it is more complicated, easier said than done.

Ideally we would have - we've never had much of a long term plan, sadly. But I think that we are doing the right thing now (it just means cutting some long established links, like Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport).

I do think that this is the start of what many politicians and DfT officials still believe to be the execution of some unfinished business of the 1960s; namely the reduction of the railway to a mythical/viable*** 7000 mile core and the lower specification for some of the more peripheral sections away from this core is part of a softening up process designed to lead people into the acceptance of the bright exciting rubber tyred future.


*** read as applicable.

I think that you are wrong, possibly scaremongering - if there's no political will to close basket case stations (Teesside Airport) or basket case lines (Stockport to Stalybridge) then I can't ever imagine somewhere with a six figure population like Greater Grimsby being downgraded to a bus service.

I'm not saying that Grimsby/ Cleethorpes will see a better service than today's baseline (e.g. it'll probably lose its 185s, it'll probably lose most/all of its Manchester services), but it won't be consigned to just a rail replacement bus service.

 

[David Barrett]

I think

Off topic, but do Pacers ever do the Barton line? I know its normally 153 operated.

I think that Pacers do work to Cleethorpes on the Saturday "Brigg" services, but it's been a while since I've seen one of those in Sheffield.

I think that you are wrong, possibly scaremongering - if there's no political will to close basket case stations (Teesside Airport) or basket case lines (Stockport to Stalybridge) then I can't ever imagine somewhere with a six figure population like Greater Grimsby being downgraded to a bus service.

I'm not saying that Grimsby/ Cleethorpes will see a better service than today's baseline (e.g. it'll probably lose its 185s, it'll probably lose most/all of its Manchester services), but it won't be consigned to just a rail replacement bus service.

Other than 170s & 185s TP Cleethorpes crews only sign 153s as far as I know so that precludes anything else from the branch. Brigg is generally 14xxx units although you never know as it does throw up the odd 150 or 153, infact last summer seemed to produce 153s quite regularly.

Certianly not scaremongering and I most sincerely hope that I am wrong although I sometimes wonder about certain services operating below a particular frequency and without any or very much other traffic to bear some of the overheads, I think that they will be closely examined over the life of the forthcoming franchise period. There may not, on the face of things, be the political will for closures right now, although again I sometimes wonder, but every so often the issue re-surfaces. As it happens I'm not too concerned about the longer term prospects for Grimsby being deprived of this particular train service, after all it is the one which has been developed compared with the Lincoln and Retford routes, but there are a number of others about which I would be.

The extension of the stoppers as wrtten could always be a straw man designed to be knocked down, then we lose the Manchesters, gain the Sheffield option and everybody breathes a sigh of relief and goes away thinking that it could have been worse.

 

[Boothby97]

Retaining a semi-fast to Sheffield shouldn't have any impact on passenger numbers from Cleethorpes/Grimsby. If we only had a shuttle to Doncaster passenger numbers are likely to fall, then there is less chance of electrification through to Cleethorpes as it wouldn't be justifiable.

It would be quite ironic, that if the Scunthorpe-Sheffield-Lincoln service were to be extended to Cleethorpes, then North East Lincolnshire would finally get an hourly service to Lincoln (albeit not very attractive for passengers travelling to Lincoln).

 

[David Barrett]

It would be quite ironic, that if the Scunthorpe-Sheffield-Lincoln service were to be extended to Cleethorpes, then North East Lincolnshire would finally get an hourly service to Lincoln (albeit not very attractive for passengers travelling to Lincoln).

Perhaps there might be an enthusiast market for that one, "The complete railtour in half a day"!

 

[Boothby97]

Perhaps there might be an enthusiast market for that one, "The complete railtour in half a day"!

Hmm, on a Pacer. No thanks

 

[David Barrett]

"You take the high road,
I'll take the low road,
And I'll get tae Lincoln afore ye".

 

[Bevan Price]

In some ways, the proposals are a partial reversion to an earlier situation. In the 1980s, some of the Manchester - Sheffield services were extended to either Hull or Cleethorpes.

 

[David Barrett]

Commencing with the 1979 timetable the through Hull-Manchester/Liverpool DMU workings were replaced with a Hull-Leeds service connecting into more frequent locomotive hauled Newcastle-Liverpool trains. The DMU jobs were worked by four car class 123/124 combinations and included a revised south service based on an hourly frequency between Manchester Piccadilly and Doncaster with most running onwards from there to Hull and four to/from Cleethorpes, the rest being Cleethorpes-Doncaster workings with three Scunthorpe-Doncaster shorts, two of which were withdrawn later that year during a fuel shortage.

The better comparision would be with the service of the late 1980s when from around the introduction of class 150s a basic Sheffield/Cleethorpes hourly service operated with the Manchesters continuing as before until around 1990 when the four, by then Cl31 & four Mk. IIa vacuum braked carriages running through to Liverpool, was cut back to one return trip per day followed a couple of years later by the, eventually, hourly 158 worked service between Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

My thought would be a Sheffield - Doncaster fast service where by at Doncaster the unit splits the front set runs fast to Thorne North then Goole after which its selected stations to Hull. Rear set calls at every station en route to Scunthorpe after which fast to Cleethorpes. The units to use should be 2x 158, unless we can scrounge the class 166's off one of the southern based operators, after all they are cleared for the Yorkshire Coast Line so why not for the North Lincolnshire network.

EMT could run a peak service from Cleethorpes to Doncaster (which then goes forward to Lincoln via Finningley), the same in the evening.

 

[David Barrett]

My thought would be a Sheffield - Doncaster fast service where by at Doncaster the unit splits the front set runs fast to Thorne North then Goole after which its selected stations to Hull. Rear set calls at every station en route to Scunthorpe after which fast to Cleethorpes. The units to use should be 2x 158, unless we can scrounge the class 166's off one of the southern based operators, after all they are cleared for the Yorkshire Coast Line so why not for the North Lincolnshire network.

EMT could run a peak service from Cleethorpes to Doncaster (which then goes forward to Lincoln via Finningley), the same in the evening.

I don't think that Network Rail would want the sort of platform occupancy that dividing and joining at Doncaster would entail. The standard allowances for planning purposes as far as I can recall are 6 miniutes for coupling and 5 miniutes for dividing in addition to the time taken for the first unit away to clear the sections ahead as they both would be running the same way. Commercially we would be talking about an additional 20 miniutes or so with such a scheme on a journey between Cleethorpes/Grimsby/Habrough/Barnetby/Scunthorpe and Sheffield in addition to any connectional time for onward journeys via the Hope Valley.

My solution would be to leave well alone and in the event of a split at Sheffield then a broadly similar patten as now remains West thereof. Why have EMT to operate just a peak service when they alone on the one hand or just Northern on the other could run the lot anyway?

 

[dstrat]

Retaining a semi-fast to Sheffield shouldn't have any impact on passenger numbers from Cleethorpes/Grimsby. If we only had a shuttle to Doncaster passenger numbers are likely to fall, then there is less chance of electrification through to Cleethorpes as it wouldn't be justifiable.

Are you sure? I would suggest a journey time of upwards from 1hr 30mins for a most stations stopper just to Doncaster from Grimsby would put a lot of people off who have the alternative of a car.

 

[Boothby97]

Are you sure? I would suggest a journey time of upwards from 1hr 30mins for a most stations stopper just to Doncaster from Grimsby would put a lot of people off who have the alternative of a car.

Exactly, that's my point :roll:. An extension of the stopping service, or a shuttle just Doncaster would have an affect.
The only way to keep passenger numbers at there current levels, would be to retain an hourly semi-fast (i.e. Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Habrough, Barnetby, Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Meadowhall and Sheffield).

 

[Grimsby town]

I got on the 9:34 out of Grimsby on Sunday morning and the train was full with a couple of people standing. I got off at Barnetby luckily as the train would have been rather uncomfortable after Scunthorpe.

The only way that a 2 car 158 is going to be suitable is if the train is cut back to Doncaster and demand subdued by increased price or if there's a meaningful service provided on the Lincoln or Brigg lines.

If the service is cut at Doncaster then I think providing an hourly service on the Lincoln line and basic weekday service on the Brigg Line is only fair. Perhaps with a couple of Doncaster Trains extending to London .

 

[dstrat]

I still don't think a 2 car service would cut it on weekends - most of the travellers from Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe appear to be going to Doncaster, Meadowhall or Sheffield. If any 'relief' was provided by an enhanced service along the Brigg line, this would not serve Doncaster or Meadowhall. This is in addition to the journey being half hour longer to Sheffield via the Brigg line.

If the DfT force a 2-car solution onto the South Transpennine line there is going to be a problem. If this is done by extending the Doncaster-Scunthorpe service with 2 cars it is going to be attrocious.

 

[David Barrett]

If the extension of the stoppers is involved then the Brigg line could, even in its present form, be slightly quicker and even more so if the pathing difficulties are resolved, not that this is any recommendation of course.