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

[The exile]

Transit Matters says that 1tph with 8 cars is sufficient to justify electrification on return on investment grounds.

See: https://transitmatters.org/s/Regional-Rail-Electrification-Final.pdf

Although some of the other comments about UK schemes do rather detract from the credibility of this report (not to mention the corollary of it's pointing out that various costly measures of UK electrification schemes do not apply to the US).
1 tph might well provide a reasonable rate of return on a short section of infill consisting of plain line with no clearance issues and no requirement for additional electrical supply infrastructure (though I doubt it) but how many of those do we have?

 

[stevieinselby]

Transit Matters says that 1tph with 8 cars is sufficient to justify electrification on return on investment grounds.

See: https://transitmatters.org/s/Regional-Rail-Electrification-Final.pdf

All the Chiltern lines, Didcot-Coventry, East West rail, Manchester-Leeds, Reading-Basingstoke, Manchester-Sheffield, Hull, the freight priority list and anything in the Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds suburban networks that isn’t currently electrified should be done with a rolling programme starting with the places where the ROI is highest.

The priority will depend on how many trains can easily use the electrification – preferably (1) lines that have bi-mode trains already, (b) lines where the electrification would cover entire services, or (iii) lines where the existing stock needs replacing and so is likely to be upgraded to bi-mode in the near future.

Manchester to Sheffield is a tricky one, because 2 of the 3 hourly services continue a long way beyond that core section, on lines that have low usage and don't come anywhere near the 8 vehicles per hour threshold.
Likewise, the Oxford to Aynho and Leamington to Coventry sections of your Didcot—Coventry route wouldn't be on the list until such time as XCountry is ready to upgrade its fleet or it completes a freight route.

The Chiltern mainline should be a no-brainer – 5tph to High Wycombe, 4tph to Bicester, then 2tph to each of Oxford and Birmingham. The Oxford branch would tie in with East-West Rail, and when you reach Birmingham you can then justify the Snow Hill Lines to Stratford and Worcester. You're looking at a minimum of about 16 vehicles per hour to High Wycombe and that's only because Chiltern is short of stock, it ought to be at least 20.

 

[Killingworth]

Manchester to Sheffield is a tricky one, because 2 of the 3 hourly services continue a long way beyond that core section, on lines that have low usage and don't come anywhere near the 8 vehicles per hour threshold.

Liverpool - Sheffield is, at first sight, a sensible electrification project. Sheffield - Chesterfield - Nottingham should be wired and Sheffield - Doncaster looks sensible infill.

But some form of bi-modes are the only likely solution for routes that go a long way beyond wires. If we're using bi-modes more complex sections like the Manchester - Sheffield route must be low down the priority list - Chinley Tunnel, Cowburn Tunnel, Totley Tunnel plus sensitive Peak Park scenery add significant cost. Let's get fully electrified all the way into reconfigured Sheffield first.

If Doncaster - Hull is electrified Sheffield - Doncaster should be too. Or vice versa.

 

[A S Leib]

If Doncaster - Hull is electrified Sheffield - Doncaster should be too

How long do the more direct Sheffield – Leeds routes stay unelectrified if that happens?

 

[MatthewHutton]

The priority will depend on how many trains can easily use the electrification – preferably (1) lines that have bi-mode trains already, (b) lines where the electrification would cover entire services, or (iii) lines where the existing stock needs replacing and so is likely to be upgraded to bi-mode in the near future.

Manchester to Sheffield is a tricky one, because 2 of the 3 hourly services continue a long way beyond that core section, on lines that have low usage and don't come anywhere near the 8 vehicles per hour threshold.
Likewise, the Oxford to Aynho and Leamington to Coventry sections of your Didcot—Coventry route wouldn't be on the list until such time as XCountry is ready to upgrade its fleet or it completes a freight route.

The Chiltern mainline should be a no-brainer – 5tph to High Wycombe, 4tph to Bicester, then 2tph to each of Oxford and Birmingham. The Oxford branch would tie in with East-West Rail, and when you reach Birmingham you can then justify the Snow Hill Lines to Stratford and Worcester. You're looking at a minimum of about 16 vehicles per hour to High Wycombe and that's only because Chiltern is short of stock, it ought to be at least 20.

Do not forget that London Penzance and uses bi modes off wires beyond Newbury and London Inverness uses them beyond Stirling and that really is super far.

Also with Didcot Coventry, Oxford-Ayhuo (and Princes Risborough-Aylesbury) has to be done for depot access reasons along with the Chiltern Mainline, and Didcot-Oxford meets the criteria, so that just leaves Leamington-Coventry and Basingstoke-Reading, and if you do both then you can fully electrify the Bournemouth Manchester cross country services.

 

[stevieinselby]

How long do the more direct Sheffield – Leeds routes stay unelectrified if that happens?

The problem is the tendrils.

The most frequent routes covered by Leeds to Sheffield trains (2tph each) are:
- via Wakefield Westgate and Barnsley
- via Moorthorpe
with a further 1tph:
- via Castleford and Barnsley

It may be that if the Castleford area was prioritised for increased frequency and electrification that that route could effectively be bundled with the other Barnsley services for wiring to Sheffield.
But
of the trains that run via Westgate and Barnsley, one continues to Lincoln and the other to Nottingham
of the trains that run via Moorthorpe, one is an XC service running the length of the country

Even when the Midland Mainline is electrified to Sheffield, the Nottingham service still runs 25 miles from Clay Cross along lines that wouldn't (as far as I know) otherwise be electrified – and none of the nearly 50 miles out to Lincoln will be either. So you're either wiring long distances for one 3-car train per hour, or you're getting new bi-modes for those routes (replacing nearly new trains), or you're severing the through services at Nottingham. None of those are particularly good options, so it probably wouldn't be a priority corridor.

Do not forget that London Penzance and uses bi modes off wires beyond Newbury and London Inverness uses them beyond Stirling and that really is super far.

Not sure what the relevance of that is? I would definitely be looking to electrify the mainline from Newbury to Penzance fairly high up the list – but my point was more that unless you are already using bi-modes or looking to replace the current knackered stock on a line then you don't want partial electrification of a service. Sure, we often can shuffle trains around, but in a lot of cases it would be a lot more straightforward to prioritise a different route for electrification rather than cascade stock in order to get bi-modes (which shouldn't be seen as the first preference).

Also with Didcot Coventry, Oxford-Ayhuo (and Princes Risborough-Aylesbury) has to be done for depot access reasons along with the Chiltern Mainline, and Didcot-Oxford meets the criteria, so that just leaves Leamington-Coventry and Basingstoke-Reading, and if you do both then you can fully electrify the Bournemouth Manchester cross country services.

Fair point about depot access, that wasn't something I was aware of.
Yes, XC Bournemouth to Manchester could potentially use pure electric trains then, if we can find any suitable dual-voltage models – something based on the Javelins maybe?
Except that at the moment, XC trains at Manchester swap between the two branches – a train comes in from Bournemouth and forms the next train to the West Country, and vice versa – so if only one of the routes was electrified then you would need an extra train set in play to run the same diagrams.

 

[Zomboid]

point about depot access, that wasn't something I was aware of.
Yes, XC Bournemouth to Manchester could potentially use pure electric trains then, if we can find any suitable dual-voltage models – something based on the Javelins maybe

It's something of an oversimplification, but it shouldn't be impossible to add 3rd rail to any modern electric train, as they all take 25kV and rectify it to around 750V DC anyway, to feed into the 3 phase inverter.
And new diagrams wouldn't be a show stopper, necessarily.
Personally I would look to add the DC to an 810 or a 200kmh Flirt, based on what's currently running around, which would then be able work anywhere on the XC network. Though should this ever happen it'll no doubt be a future generation of technology.

 

[YorksLad12]

The problem is the tendrils.

The most frequent routes covered by Leeds to Sheffield trains (2tph each) are:
- via Wakefield Westgate and Barnsley
- via Moorthorpe
with a further 1tph:
- via Castleford and Barnsley

It may be that if the Castleford area was prioritised for increased frequency and electrification that that route could effectively be bundled with the other Barnsley services for wiring to Sheffield.
But
of the trains that run via Westgate and Barnsley, one continues to Lincoln and the other to Nottingham
of the trains that run via Moorthorpe, one is an XC service running the length of the country

Don't forget that we're getting the fast Northern service via Moorthorpe in December (only ten years after it was announced). Electrifying from Moorthorpe to Sheffield would make two wholly electric services per hour.

The via Barnsley route is awkward; Penistone services would still be diesel, and the only reason to wire Castleford would be if TRU wired from Ravensthorpe via Castleford to Church Fenton to act as a diversionary routes (as well as the existing stopper, which might end up with Northern at some point.

That said: splitting "electrification" into big projects (TRU, MML) and in-fill projects, bidding separately for funding, might be an idea.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Don't forget that we're getting the fast Northern service via Moorthorpe in December (only ten years after it was announced). Electrifying from Moorthorpe to Sheffield would make two wholly electric services per hour.

The via Barnsley route is awkward; Penistone services would still be diesel, and the only reason to wire Castleford would be if TRU wired from Ravensthorpe via Castleford to Church Fenton to act as a diversionary routes (as well as the existing stopper, which might end up with Northern at some point.

That said: splitting "electrification" into big projects (TRU, MML) and in-fill projects, bidding separately for funding, might be an idea.

I think a lot of people think that to get value for money you need a rolling programme to do, say, 100 miles a year and keep going until it’s all done or it’s not worth the cost benefit.

And actually when you run out there is the 3rd rail network to convert. So a fair amount of work in total.

 

[stevieinselby]

Don't forget that we're getting the fast Northern service via Moorthorpe in December (only ten years after it was announced). Electrifying from Moorthorpe to Sheffield would make two wholly electric services per hour.

It wasn't so much that I had forgotten that, as I don't think I ever knew it. But yes, if that is going ahead the wiring the route from Moorthorpe to Sheffield would make sense.

That said: splitting "electrification" into big projects (TRU, MML) and in-fill projects, bidding separately for funding, might be an idea.

NOOOOO! Discrete projects bidding for funding is the least efficient way of doing it!
An ongoing rolling programme is the way to go. Yes, there will need to be a priority order for it, but that's the kind of thing that it is far better for a directing mind to work out what is going to be the most strategically useful order.

 

[Technologist]

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!

Battery trains mean that electrifications business case is getting progressively worse over time. Aside from a few locations to make sure that all routes have at least 20-30% of their distance under wires there isn't a strong economic drive to electrify any new track.

We might even get to a point where certain sections of electrified track are taken down when it comes time to replace major components. I suspect that in the long term we will also see a move away from OHL as the endless progression of power electronics will get us to a point where we have higher voltage 3rd rail in 20m segments which are only activated when a train is above.

 

[YorksLad12]

I think a lot of people think that to get value for money you need a rolling programme to do, say, 100 miles a year and keep going until it’s all done or it’s not worth the cost benefit.

NOOOOO! Discrete projects bidding for funding is the least efficient way of doing it!
An ongoing rolling programme is the way to go. Yes, there will need to be a priority order for it, but that's the kind of thing that it is far better for a directing mind to work out what is going to be the most strategically useful order.

I was thinking of both! Big projects and a rolling infill programme.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Battery trains mean that electrifications business case is getting progressively worse over time. Aside from a few locations to make sure that all routes have at least 20-30% of their distance under wires there isn't a strong economic drive to electrify any new track.

We might even get to a point where certain sections of electrified track are taken down when it comes time to replace major components. I suspect that in the long term we will also see a move away from OHL as the endless progression of power electronics will get us to a point where we have higher voltage 3rd rail in 20m segments which are only activated when a train is above.

Except that every other country with a decent rail system has large amounts of electrification - especially on routes where they care about performance. Even in Britain 70% of our trains are fully electric.

 

[Grimsby town]

Battery trains mean that electrifications business case is getting progressively worse over time. Aside from a few locations to make sure that all routes have at least 20-30% of their distance under wires there isn't a strong economic drive to electrify any new track.

We might even get to a point where certain sections of electrified track are taken down when it comes time to replace major components. I suspect that in the long term we will also see a move away from OHL as the endless progression of power electronics will get us to a point where we have higher voltage 3rd rail in 20m segments which are only activated when a train is above.

There's still significant advantages to electrification though. OHLE is going to last a few decades meaning reduced size and cost of batteries and reduced weight of vehicles. On heavily used lines, highspeed lines, and freight lines, OHL will continue to be essential. The UK doesn't have many lightly used electrified lines, so it's unlikely that there'll be a move a way from OHL anytime soon.

In terms of lines like Hull-Leeds and Sheffield to Wakfield Westgate/Doncaster, battery and bimode trains likely improve the business case of electrification. Electrifying both those lines will allow services like Bridlington to Sheffield to switch to battery or bimodes for example. Northern have committed to purchasing battery trains and electrification of Hull-Leeds is very unlikely to be finished before the battery trains in service. Therefore, any case for electrification will consider battery trains and mean that Hull-Leeds allows electrification of every service out of Hull possibly excluding services on the Scarborough line and Sheffield services if Sheffield isn't electrified first.