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

[Trainbike46]

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.

When and under what conditions did FirstGroup offer to fund wiring that route? And why was it rejected?

 

[mike57]

Two trains an hour from Leeds, plus the various London and York services

One of those Leeds services carries on to Halifax, so either, wire up Leeds Halifax, or its Bi Modes again. Hull trains have a fleet of relatively new Bi Modes, and would benefit straight away, but might opt to keep Bi Modes, they are one of the few operators that actually try and run a service when engineering works closes the ECML. Until the TPE electrification is completed tTPE services will still be Bi Modes. Hull - York start from Bridlington, which is unlikely to feature in any electrification plans in the foreseeable future. You could split the service in Hull, but that would probably be unpopular with passengers. I assume frieght would remain deisel hauled. In an ideal world there would be wide scale electrification across the whole region, just leaving diesel operation on those lines that are say 1 tph each way or less, but unfortunately the money is just not there, and I dont think the public would stand for tax rises to pay for electrification.

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.

Bi Modes really have let the DfT off the hook with respect to electrification. Prior to the availability of Bi Modes (Forget class 88, and going back in time class 73/74 as they were/are pretty much 'last mile solutions') if you were electrifying you had to do the whole route. Now you get away with half a job.

To be honest I see electrification to Hull as being low down the list of priorities, Finishing MML, GWML and TPE has to be the first priority, and at current progress thats many years away. Given the current economic conditions that finish date is also getting further away at each new piece of bad news.

If your main concern is CO2 reduction then eliminating diesel under wires has to be the 'lowest hanging fruit'.

 

[Clarence Yard]

When and under what conditions did FirstGroup offer to fund wiring that route? And why was it rejected?

NR never liked the idea of someone else being responsible for designing and doing the work (Amey) so NR played it long and discussed it to death, thereby losing the interest of Amey.

The DfT did not like the idea of HT gaining an income from anybody else using the wires either and preferred NR to build it under their control.

So, after months of talking, it got nowhere. Not invented here syndrome.

 

[geoffk]

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.

One of the reason for high costs is the stop-go nature of the investment. We don't need to look further than Scotland to see the benefits of a rolling programme.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Indeed. There seems to be no concept of relatively "easy" wins for electrification - a category the Windermere branch would fall into.

One of those Leeds services carries on to Halifax, so either, wire up Leeds Halifax, or its Bi Modes again. Hull trains have a fleet of relatively new Bi Modes, and would benefit straight away, but might opt to keep Bi Modes, they are one of the few operators that actually try and run a service when engineering works closes the ECML. Until the TPE electrification is completed tTPE services will still be Bi Modes. Hull - York start from Bridlington, which is unlikely to feature in any electrification plans in the foreseeable future. You could split the service in Hull, but that would probably be unpopular with passengers. I assume frieght would remain deisel hauled. In an ideal world there would be wide scale electrification across the whole region, just leaving diesel operation on those lines that are say 1 tph each way or less, but unfortunately the money is just not there, and I dont think the public would stand for tax rises to pay for electrification.



Bi Modes really have let the DfT off the hook with respect to electrification. Prior to the availability of Bi Modes (Forget class 88, and going back in time class 73/74 as they were/are pretty much 'last mile solutions') if you were electrifying you had to do the whole route. Now you get away with half a job.

To be honest I see electrification to Hull as being low down the list of priorities, Finishing MML, GWML and TPE has to be the first priority, and at current progress thats many years away. Given the current economic conditions that finish date is also getting further away at each new piece of bad news.

If your main concern is CO2 reduction then eliminating diesel under wires has to be the 'lowest hanging fruit'.

Ah, I'd forgotten about the Halifax connection. Are there many passengers making the connection across Leeds I wonder ?

Alternatively, perhaps the service could be combined with the Huddersfield via Dewsbury stopper instead ?

 

[HSTEd]

One of the reason for high costs is the stop-go nature of the investment. We don't need to look further than Scotland to see the benefits of a rolling programme.

Unless costs can be driven down to levels which seem entirely unrealistic, even using Scottish norms as a target, I don't think there is enough suitable track to justify a long term rolling programme.

If the programme takes ten years to deliver measurable cost reductions as recent proposals have suggested, we will have no further need for electrification by the time the savings can be delivered!

There are probably only a couple thousand kilometres of track that need electrification given current battery technology.

 

[mike57]

Are there many passengers making the connection across Leeds I wonder

Not really a representative sample but I know of one person who travels regularly to Chester and prefers to change at Halifax, same platform connection, rather than Leeds. Says its far more convenient.

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

Quite. There are 3.5tph between Hull and Selby, which in any sensible world would all be running electric over this line:
- 1tph Transpennine, which will be electrified from Micklefield onwards so not much more connectivity needed to enable the service to be run by pure electrics
- 1tph Northern to Halifax, the Calder Valley definitely ought to be in line for electrification, as one of the most heavily used unelectrified lines in the country
- 1tph Northern to York, only short connectors needed at Hambleton North and Sherburn-in-Elmet and (by severing the service from Bridlington at Hull, which I can't see inconveniencing many people, in my experience very few passengers travel through) then the route is fully electrified
- 0.5tph Hull Trains, these trains are already bi-mode capable

One of those Leeds services carries on to Halifax, so either, wire up Leeds Halifax, or its Bi Modes again. Hull trains have a fleet of relatively new Bi Modes, and would benefit straight away, but might opt to keep Bi Modes, they are one of the few operators that actually try and run a service when engineering works closes the ECML. Until the TPE electrification is completed tTPE services will still be Bi Modes. Hull - York start from Bridlington, which is unlikely to feature in any electrification plans in the foreseeable future. You could split the service in Hull, but that would probably be unpopular with passengers. I assume frieght would remain deisel hauled. In an ideal world there would be wide scale electrification across the whole region, just leaving diesel operation on those lines that are say 1 tph each way or less, but unfortunately the money is just not there, and I dont think the public would stand for tax rises to pay for electrification.

Hull Trains would need to keep bi-modes if they're going to continue to serve Beverley with 2 trains a day.
This wouldn't be completed before the Transpennine Core, so by the time it would be done the route through would be fully electrified. But either way, if TPX are using bi-mode trains, like Hull Trains, they'll still be able to make use of the electrification, so does it matter if the trains aren't switched out for pure electrics?
I doubt that many people use the train between York and Bridlington via Hull – it's quicker to change at Seamer than use the "direct" service, and it is barely quicker than the bus for Beverley or Driffield – so no great loss by severing it at Hull.

To be honest I see electrification to Hull as being low down the list of priorities, Finishing MML, GWML and TPE has to be the first priority, and at current progress thats many years away. Given the current economic conditions that finish date is also getting further away at each new piece of bad news.

This should be considered to be part of the Transpennine Express project. Sure, it's further down the list than wiring up York to Manchester, but it should follow straight on from that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless costs can be driven down to levels which seem entirely unrealistic, even using Scottish norms as a target

Iwouldnt use that as a benchmark. Flippin’ expensive!

 

[HSTEd]

Iwouldnt use that as a benchmark. Flippin’ expensive!

Unfortunately, there seems to be little chance of electrification costs returning to anything approaching the BR era (even in real terms).

If the rolling programme in Scotland is the best we can do, I can't see the case for a great deal more electrification.

 

[mike57]

I doubt that many people use the train between York and Bridlington via Hull

A lot more people than you would think, and dont forget Driffield and Beverley, reasons: Competetively priced Northern advance tickets (£26 for return travel today v £32, and £20 for midweek travel in two weeks). Change at Seamer can be miserable, particularly if you miss a connection or if the weather is bad, no heated waiting area, no undercover proper seating, just bus shelters with bum rests. Past unreliability of TPE also colours peoples decisions, even although over the past 12 months things have been much better. In the past during the various TPE meltdowns people were stranded for up to 3 hours there, and this was all over the local papers and local social media.

 

[Halifaxlad]

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.

Except that it does remove the need to run diesels as those bi-modes you refer to are diesel bi-modes. Yes they have pantographs to enable them to use the wires but still electrification to Hull would remove this diesel mileage whilst removing the need to train drivers for a different type of train that isnt pure electric!

 

[zwk500]

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

Well Selby Swing bridge on it's own might well be pain enough (unless it can be/is fixed in position), but lack of bridges often means lots of level crossings, which can be just as bad for electrification schemes.

(FWIW I think Micklefield/Church Fenton-Hambleton (+ Curves)-Selby (+ Triangle and Temple Hirst)-Hull should have been programmed in as a committed follow-on after the primary TRU was completed).

 

[Halifaxlad]

Bi Modes really have let the DfT off the hook with respect to electrification. Prior to the availability of Bi Modes (Forget class 88, and going back in time class 73/74 as they were/are pretty much 'last mile solutions') if you were electrifying you had to do the whole route. Now you get away with half a job.

Percisely, nicely put too.

To be honest I see electrification to Hull as being low down the list of priorities, Finishing MML, GWML and TPE has to be the first priority, and at current progress thats many years away. Given the current economic conditions that finish date is also getting further away at each new piece of bad news.

If your main concern is CO2 reduction then eliminating diesel under wires has to be the 'lowest hanging fruit'.

I think if you are to justify electrification these days then the best way to do it is by how many kilometers of diesel running it would eliminate.

 

[zwk500]

I think if you are to justify electrification these days then the best way to do it is by how many kilometers of diesel running it would eliminate.

Passenger-km is the one I'd go for, because you don't electrify for the operational benefit of the railway nowadays, you electrify for the wider economy to grow from it. Although I wouldn't just limit the benefits of electrification to people on the train, but also the people who have to live/work/pass next to the train. Reducing particulate concentration on busy diesel lines has quite significant wider socio-economic benefits (not least to the organisations with a legal liability for air quality).

 

[stevieinselby]

Bi Modes really have let the DfT off the hook with respect to electrification. Prior to the availability of Bi Modes (Forget class 88, and going back in time class 73/74 as they were/are pretty much 'last mile solutions') if you were electrifying you had to do the whole route. Now you get away with half a job.

Yes and no. In the old days, you often did just get "half a job".
- The East Coast Mainline was only electrified as far as Leeds and Edinburgh (latterly with extensions to Skipton/Bradford and Glasgow). That meant that for nearly 30 years, about a third of Intercity East Coast trains out of Kings Cross were diesels, running under the wires from London to Doncaster, Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh for the sake of a small portion of the route that was not wired (or not wired to standard, in the case of Skipton/Bradford). That was solved by bi-modes.
- For 20 years, Weymouth was served by EMUs that had to be hauled by a diesel loco from Bournemouth because that's as far as the electrification went at the time.

While bi-modes allow DfT to get away with only doing partial electrification of a route, in many cases that is a route that probably wouldn't have been electrified at all otherwise. There are 12 mainline trains per hour out of Paddington that now run on electric, but only 4 of them run on electric for their full journey. How many of those trains would still be pumping diesel smoke into the trainshed at Paddington if the wires needed to run all the way to Swansea, Penzance, Hereford and every other branch of the Great Western network? If the Valley Lines had to wire up every tunnel, every complex junction, all the difficult bits of track that are being left unwired, do you think the network would be being electrified at all – and if it was, what would have been the cost, both to the public purse, and the opportunity cost of other schemes not progressed?

 

[Ploughman]

Wiring of Leeds - Hambleton to the ECML was being considered under 1992 Leeds NW Electrification.

 

[DelW]

For 20 years, Weymouth was served by EMUs that had to be hauled by a diesel loco from Bournemouth because that's as far as the electrification went at the time.

Apologies for being slightly pedantic, since this doesn't affect the general thrust of your argument, but no EMUs were diesel hauled to or from Weymouth. From Bournemouth the Weymouth services were formed of unpowered trailer sets (4TC) hauled by class 33 diesels. The EMUs (4REP) hauled (actually pushed) the 4TCs from Waterloo to Bournemouth, and were detached there. Returning from Weymouth the trailer sets were pushed by cl33s as far as Bournemouth, where a 4REP was attached to the front to haul them back to London.

It was a slick and well thought out scheme, and, crucially, there were no redundant traction packages being hauled over sections where they couldn't be used. All the traction kit was used at maximum availability.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well Selby Swing bridge on it's own might well be pain enough (unless it can be/is fixed in position), but lack of bridges often means lots of level crossings, which can be just as bad for electrification schemes.

(FWIW I think Micklefield/Church Fenton-Hambleton (+ Curves)-Selby (+ Triangle and Temple Hirst)-Hull should have been programmed in as a committed follow-on after the primary TRU was completed).

Selby swing bridge shouldn't be a show-stopper if the political will is there to get the job done. Trowse swing bridge seems to work okay with wires, and there are several in the Netherlands. It complicates matters a little, sure- but it's less of a problem than a tunnel with tight clearances would be.

 

[zwk500]

Selby swing bridge shouldn't be a show-stopper if the political will is there to get the job done. Trowse swing bridge seems to work okay with wires, and there are several in the Netherlands. It complicates matters a little, sure- but it's less of a problem than a tunnel with tight clearances would be.

AIUI Trowse is essentially fixed in position nowadays, not sure if that has anything to do with the arrangements for the wires though or just the mechanism to actually swing it. Also the Netherlands has several swing bridges without wires where trains coast through as well as bridges with wires.
Moveable bridges with wires aren't a technical impossibility, but they do drive up the cost, which for Hull is going to be a reasonably sensitive element of the project.

 

[Backroom_boy]

One of the reason for high costs is the stop-go nature of the investment. We don't need to look further than Scotland to see the benefits of a rolling programme.

Is that rolling programme still happening?

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI Trowse is essentially fixed in position nowadays, not sure if that has anything to do with the arrangements for the wires though or just the mechanism to actually swing it. Also the Netherlands has several swing bridges without wires where trains coast through as well as bridges with wires.
Moveable bridges with wires aren't a technical impossibility, but they do drive up the cost, which for Hull is going to be a reasonably sensitive element of the project.

Trowse - fixed because of the mechanism rather than the wires. Although I have swung the bridge

Albeit there are no Overhead wires on the Trowse Bridge anyway, it is conductor beam.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Selby swing bridge shouldn't be a show-stopper if the political will is there to get the job done. Trowse swing bridge seems to work okay with wires, and there are several in the Netherlands. It complicates matters a little, sure- but it's less of a problem than a tunnel with tight clearances would be.

It could always be bypassed if a line was built next to the A63 running South of Selby.

At the end of it I suspect Hull will get wired simply to demonstrate that its not being left out as no-doubt billions will end up being spent for whatever happens between Liverpool & Manchester.

 

[stevieinselby]

It could always be bypassed if a line was built next to the A63 running South of Selby.

At the end of it I suspect Hull will get wired simply to demonstrate that its not being left out as no-doubt billions will end up being spent for whatever happens between Liverpool & Manchester.

Selby station is in the top 30% of busiest stations in GB and is well located for the town centre. Neither building a new bypass line and missing out Selby on TPX and HT services, nor relocating the station to an edge-of-town location for all services, would be a remotely acceptable or sensible option.
If Trowse Swing Bridge could be electrified then there's no reason why the same technology can't be used for Selby.

 

[zwk500]

It could always be bypassed if a line was built next to the A63 running South of Selby.

Bypassing Selby would not make any sense, especially if the line would need to maintain navigational clearances and so be rather expensive.

At the end of it I suspect Hull will get wired simply to demonstrate that its not being left out as no-doubt billions will end up being spent for whatever happens between Liverpool & Manchester.

I am sceptical that such a political decision would be made. Hull does not have the same clout as Leeds or Manchester.
Hull will only be wired if it is shown to be beneficial to the public purse. I remain hopeful that the sparks effect for Hull will give good benefits and it will make the case.

 

[Zomboid]

If Trowse Swing Bridge could be electrified then there's no reason why the same technology can't be used for Selby

With modern traction they could just have a gap over the swing bridge and use batteries for anything that can't just coast. I'm not sure about that kind of thing on trunk routes, but with the best will in the world, Selby to Hull isn't one of those.

I'd expect that the line will get to the top of the pile at some point, but now we have bi modes and are starting to use batteries it won't be urgent.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Selby station is in the top 30% of busiest stations in GB and is well located for the town centre. Neither building a new bypass line and missing out Selby on TPX and HT services, nor relocating the station to an edge-of-town location for all services, would be a remotely acceptable or sensible option.
If Trowse Swing Bridge could be electrified then there's no reason why the same technology can't be used for Selby.

I don't think I ever suggested not having TPE & Northern services bypass selby and I certainly didnt suggest relocating the station!

Bypassing Selby would not make any sense, especially if the line would need to maintain navigational clearances and so be rather expensive.

I am sceptical that such a political decision would be made. Hull does not have the same clout as Leeds or Manchester.
Hull will only be wired if it is shown to be beneficial to the public purse. I remain hopeful that the sparks effect for Hull will give good benefits and it will make the case.

By ommission of investment in the East could give rise to claims of neglect.

 

[zwk500]

By ommission of investment in the East could give rise to claims of neglect.

So could many places, but they don't have the required political (electoral) clout to get politicians approving the level of investment an electrification scheme would require without having the normal case in place. It's not an especially 'swing' area, nor is it worth that many seats. Might get a couple of minor road upgrades or a station refurb programme for purely political reasons, but not the level of rebuild that comes with electrification.

However, my gut feeling is that Hull is a big enough place and the benefit of electrifying to Hull once both the ECML and TRU are done would be enough that the proposal would have a fairly good strategic, economic, and financial case.

 

[stevieinselby]

I don't think I ever suggested not having TPE & Northern services bypass selby and I certainly didnt suggest relocating the station!

So what would you achieve with "It could always be bypassed if a line was built next to the A63 running South of Selby" if you didn't then divert any services onto the new line?

 

[MatthewHutton]

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.

Transit Matters says that 1tph with 8 cars is sufficient to justify electrification on return on investment grounds. Perhaps in Britain with our small clearance you would need to go to 2tph.

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.