Why isn’t Hull being electrified under the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade?

[Transilien]

Hull seems to be a no-brainier for electrification being a city and having direct London trains that run under wires most of the way. After TPRU, this will be true for TPE trains as well so why is Hull been excluded from the scope of the project?

 

[A S Leib]

I think electrification was promised in 2023 but without any work being started; as far as I can tell, the government line is to wait for the spending review.

As for why Leeds, Doncaster (if not Sheffield) and York to Hull, wasn't started years ago, my *guess* would be a mixture of hoping for alternative decarbonisation solutions and cost (especially after GWML electrification was scaled back).

I also think it's a line which wouldn't remove tonnes of diesel services on its own for its length if it were electrified. The Hull Trains and LNER services are already bi-mode so electrification doesn't remove diesel services from the ECML from those two, and most of the Northern services carry on unelectrified lines to Bridlington / Scarborough or Halifax. Without more electrification elsewhere, the 60 miles from Micklefield / Doncaster to Hull would only mean that some bi-mode services become fully electric, unless Northern gets bi-modes or more routes are electrified. I don't think that Hull shouldn't be electrified; I'm less sure if it's a particularly beneficial one to do so without splitting services, extending to Scarborough / Halifax or getting Northern bi-mode.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think electrification was promised in 2023 but without any work being started; as far as I can tell, the government line is to wait for the spending review.

As for why Leeds, Doncaster (if not Sheffield) and York to Hull, wasn't started years ago, my *guess* would be a mixture of hoping for alternative decarbonisation solutions and cost (especially after GWML electrification was scaled back).

I also think it's a line which wouldn't remove tonnes of diesel services on its own for its length if it were electrified. The Hull Trains and LNER services are already bi-mode so electrification doesn't remove diesel services from the ECML from those two, and most of the Northern services carry on unelectrified lines to Bridlington / Scarborough or Halifax. Without more electrification elsewhere, the 60 miles from Micklefield / Doncaster to Hull would only mean that some bi-mode services become fully electric, unless Northern gets bi-modes or more routes are electrified. I don't think that Hull shouldn't be electrified; I'm less sure if it's a particularly beneficial one to do so without splitting services, extending to Scarborough / Halifax or getting Northern bi-mode.

I don't see the need for York—Bridlington trains ... from York, it is as quick to get a direct bus to Beverley or Driffield as it is the circuitous train via Hull, and for Bridlington it is considerably quicker to get a train via Seamer. So severing the York—Bridlington trains at Hull would allow electric trains to take over the York to Hull services. Even if the services did continue as a through route, electrifying to Hull should bring them within range for a battery bi-mode. It may also bring the Halifax to Hull trains within range for a battery bi-mode, or at least lay the groundwork for when the Calder Valley line is electrified, which must be on the cards before too much longer.

There would also be merit for TPX's own sake. At the moment, they have enough bi-modes to run the Scarborough and Teesside routes through to Manchester/Liverpool – and the business case for electrifying York to Scarborough and/or Northallerton to Redcar will be a lot weaker than Leeds/York to Hull. So by wiring up that route, they would then only need pure electrics for the Newcastle and Hull services, which would be cheaper than buying more bi-modes.

 

[WAO]

Hull wiring has the same problem as Swansea: not enough services would actually use it. London services are quite thin and TPE is yet to appear. Sheffield services are a generation or two away, electrically. Then there is York and Scarborough...

That's not to say electrification doesn't have some advantages; it is cheaper per mile run than either Diesel or batteries at scale. You just need a lot of train miles converted.

WAO

 

[Iskra]

In the age of the bi-mode, I don’t think wiring to Hull is a massive priority.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In the age of the bi-mode, I don’t think wiring to Hull is a massive priority.

When bi-modes first became the "go-to" solution, some of us warned that they would be used as an excuse by those in charge of the purse strings to not electrify routes in full... and here we are!

 

[Nottingham59]

How many trains per hour are there on the line between Gilberdyke and Hull?

 

[mike57]

Hull would become the end of an electrified route to London and Leeds, but most services would still be diesel. Assuming it was electrified from Leeds and Selby, and the section from Selby to the ECML was also electrified, then Hull trains could be all electric (but then some service currently run on to Beverley, which is a much better rail head for those of us in the north part of the East Riding), but they have fairly new bi-mode 802s anyway, and the TPE route from Manchester is still years off being fully electrified. Scarborough - Sheffield services would still be diesel, as would local services from Bridlington and Doncaster.

Much as it dismays me to say it, being one of my connecting points for longer distance journeys, it doesn't warrant the expenditure. If the sort of money that would be needed could be found then there would be other far more worthy contenders, for example really crack on with the full TPE route, and the Calder valley route, and get these wired up quickly.

 

[Iskra]

When bi-modes first became the "go-to" solution, some of us warned that they would be used as an excuse by those in charge of the purse strings to not electrify routes in full... and here we are!

Hull is a bit of a special case though, with no clear primary route out of York/Leeds, Goole or Selby. Doing just one of those on its own would be fairly pointless and all of them is unlikely in the current financial climate. There are many higher priority routes where full electrification would allow more trains to run on electric only.

 

[WAO]

Battery trains might still need wires at Hull Paragon, with enough power to give fast charging. It would then be cheap to wire some miles further, to allow the BEMU's to accelerate/decelerate from the wires, extending battery range.

Batteries will require more electrification.

WAO

 

[stevieinselby]

Hull would become the end of an electrified route to London and Leeds, but most services would still be diesel. Assuming it was electrified from Leeds and Selby, and the section from Selby to the ECML was also electrified, then Hull trains could be all electric (but then some service currently run on to Beverley, which is a much better rail head for those of us in the north part of the East Riding), but they have fairly new bi-mode 802s anyway, and the TPE route from Manchester is still years off being fully electrified. Scarborough - Sheffield services would still be diesel, as would local services from Bridlington and Doncaster.

Full electrification of the TransPennine core is years off and it's already underway. Even if work was started tomorrow on preparing the line to Hull for electrification, why do you think it would be finished appreciably before Leeds to Manchester? If we want to have it wired up 10 years from now, we need to start planning today!

Much as it dismays me to say it, being one of my connecting points for longer distance journeys, it doesn't warrant the expenditure. If the sort of money that would be needed could be found then there would be other far more worthy contenders, for example really crack on with the full TPE route, and the Calder valley route, and get these wired up quickly.

Hull to Leeds trains run onto the Calder Valley route.
Electrifying from Hull to Micklefield, plus Hambleton North and the route through Sherburn-in-Elmet, would allow the line to be used by bi-mode HT services in electric mode (0.5tph), plus fully electric trains (once those projects are complete) running Hull to York (1tph), Hull to Manchester (1tph) and Hull to Halifax (1tph). If 3.5tph running electric isn't enough to justify wiring the route then what is? Having a couple of diesels running a few miles under the wires to Gilberdyke before they turn off for Goole is neither here nor there.

 

[Nottingham59]

If 3.5tph running electric isn't enough to justify wiring the route then what is?

Electrification is not financially justified with only 3.5tph (though there may be other justifications.) Especially on a flat route with most trains being fast or semi-fast, so not needing to accelerate away from minor stations.

And anyway, the economic case for electrifying Manchester - Leeds, aiming for 8 or 9tph, is much stronger.

 

[Peterthegreat]

How many trains per hour are there on the line between Gilberdyke and Hull?

Five or six.
Two to/from Doncaster
Two to/from Leeds
One to/from York
Plus Hull Trains.

 

[A S Leib]

If 3.5tph running electric isn't enough to justify wiring the route then what is?

For comparison, there's 5 tph in each direction between Marylebone and High Wycombe, and 4 tph between Stourbridge and Birmingham. I'm not sure if there's anywhere with more frequent services which isn't already electrified or planned to be electrified apart from short sections (e.g. Sheffield to Meadowhall) or a long way from other electrified lines (Exeter – Newton Abbot has ~5 tph but won't be electrified before Bristol / Newbury – Exeter).

 

[stevieinselby]

For comparison, there's 5 tph in each direction between Marylebone and High Wycombe, and 4 tph between Stourbridge and Birmingham. I'm not sure if there's anywhere with more frequent services which isn't already electrified or planned to be electrified apart from short sections (e.g. Sheffield to Meadowhall) or a long way from other electrified lines (Exeter – Newton Abbot has ~5 tph but won't be electrified before Bristol / Newbury – Exeter).

The big difference with those examples is the amount that you would have to wire up serving much lower frequencies in order to get all of those trains to benefit. Unless you're also going all the way from High Wycombe to Oxford and to Birmingham or you get a lot of new bi-modes, you're not going to get 5tph running electric between Marylebone and High Wycombe. Likewise, Exeter to Newton Abbot needs the whole of the Riviera Line wired or bi-moded to get to 4tph electric on that section, and XCountry as well to get to 5tph. Whereas Hull to Selby wouldn't need many low-frequency miles done on top of other projects that are already underway (Transpennine core) or no brainers (Calder Valley) in order to get 3.5tph running electric.

 

[Ploughman]

Five or six.
Two to/from Doncaster
Two to/from Leeds
One to/from York
Plus Hull Trains.

Any freight traffic in those figures?

 

[Tom-Foolery]

Selby.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Any freight traffic in those figures?

No. All passenger trains.

 

[Grumpy]

On the positive side there aren’t many bridges to deal with

 

[mike57]

If we want to have it wired up 10 years from now

I doubt even the full York - Leeds - Manchester route will be finished 10 years from now judging by current progress...

The bigger issue is finding a way of delivering electrification quickly, within budget and at an affordable cost.

The issues are not technological, its about project structure and delivery. The letting of 'fixed price' contracts is fine, but we all know the game, bid low, and then 'grow' the job through changes to scope. Every minor change then generates a raft of paper work beyond the design documents, this requires an army of people to manage, and the whole thing mushrooms encouraged by the project managers as this is how they recover the 'margin', it also adds time as that part of the job will probably be on hold while the additional costs are agreed. The whole job quickly gets bogged down.

An 'in house' delivery team can work far more efficently, with minor changes/issues being dealt with by the on site engineering team with a minimal impact on cost and the revised design being implimented almost immediately.

I have seen both approaches in other industries, and unless you are buying standard off the shelf hardware with no bespoke content or installation requirement the 'fixed price' approach is very fraught.

 

[Chester1]

I doubt even the full York - Leeds - Manchester route will be finished 10 years from now judging by current progress...

The bigger issue is finding a way of delivering electrification quickly, within budget and at an affordable cost.

The issues are not technological, its about project structure and delivery. The letting of 'fixed price' contracts is fine, but we all know the game, bid low, and then 'grow' the job through changes to scope. Every minor change then generates a raft of paper work beyond the design documents, this requires an army of people to manage, and the whole thing mushrooms encouraged by the project managers as this is how they recover the 'margin', it also adds time as that part of the job will probably be on hold while the additional costs are agreed. The whole job quickly gets bogged down.

An 'in house' delivery team can work far more efficently, with minor changes/issues being dealt with by the on site engineering team with a minimal impact on cost and the revised design being implimented almost immediately.

I have seen both approaches in other industries, and unless you are buying standard off the shelf hardware with no bespoke content or installation requirement the 'fixed price' approach is very fraught.

This.

As enthusiasts we have a tendency to say let's wire X line but while it is multi decade struggle to wire the most important routes, secondary ones are highly unlikely to be done.

 

[Class15]

Electrification is not financially justified with only 3.5tph

Weaver Junction to Glasgow?

 

[HSTEd]

Weaver Junction to Glasgow?

Unfortunately the costs of today and the costs of an integrated railway fifty years ago are not remotely comparable.

I am skeptical there will additional substantial 25kV electrification outside projects already committed.

 

[Ploughman]

No. All passenger trains.

So how much freight is there, what is it and what sections of the route are used?

 

[mike57]

So how much freight is there

RTT shows ~35 freight paths per day at Brough, but I think a lot of them are unused. I am not quite sure how to interpret the RTT data but I reckon you are looking at around 6 actual freight trains per day at the Hull end, and similar numbers at Selby.

 

[westv]

When bi-modes first became the "go-to" solution, some of us warned that they would be used as an excuse by those in charge of the purse strings to not electrify routes in full... and here we are!

I thought they were brought in because electrification had been rejected at the time even though First had a plan to fund some of it. That's how I remember it anyway.

 

[Killingworth]

Piecemeal elecrification might consider Paragon to Brough where all passenger trains stop before/after diverging towards Doncaster, Leeds and York. With bimodes and batteries that might help meet some of the green, economic and practical criteria.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't get the argument that the line is too thinly used to justify it. Two trains an hour from Leeds, plus the various London and York services add up to a reasonable usage for the wires.

One might even see a better frequency between York and Hull at some point.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought they were brought in because electrification had been rejected at the time even though First had a plan to fund some of it. That's how I remember it anyway.

The GWR/LNER IEP fleets (800/801) were intended to be mainly straight EMUs (for Bristol/Oxford/Swansea/Leeds/Edinburgh) with some bi-modes for off-wire services (West Country/Carmarthen/Worcester/Hull/Lincoln/Skipton/Aberdeen/Inverness).
When the GW project was cancelled before completion the GWR EMUs were converted to bi-modes.
FirstGroup bought the 802 bi-mode fleet for West Country/TPE/HT services.

Micklefield-Selby-Hull was planned for wiring at least twice - once in the 2012 HLOS (as part of the TP scheme), and again when FirstGroup offered to fund it.
At some point Hull was re-included in the future NPR scheme, but that is hot air now, especially since HS2 East was cancelled.
I think Micklefield-Hambleton (ECML)-Selby is still a possibility, in order to improve capacity through Leeds from the east.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I don't get the argument that the line is too thinly used to justify it. Two trains an hour from Leeds, plus the various London and York services add up to a reasonable usage for the wires.

As I see it, the logic is

• We can't electrify this well-used line because other, busier lines aren't electrified and it would make us look silly the business case is poor.
• We can't electrify those lines because they're too busy, so electrification would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive.