Fantasy: My transpennine electrification/upgrade ideas

[Stats]

CP4 has now been updated to include TPE electrification. This confirms that the scope of the project is to electrify to Hull, but not Middlesborough. The full scope is

• Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge Junction;
• Guide Bridge West Junction to Copley Hill East Junction via Huddersfield;
• Neville Hill West Junction to Colton Junction;
• Micklefield Junction to Selby Station;
• Ashburys West Junction to Philips Park Junction/Baguley Fold Junction;
• Guide Bridge Station Junction to Heaton Norris Junction;
• Selby Station to Hulll; and
• a number of further add-on options will be examined/costed up in addition to those noted above.

 

[Viscount702]

Is there a link you can post to the updated CP4.
Thank you

 

[Stats]

Document published 10 April 2012 on http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/deliveryplan/Control-Period-4/Delivery-Plan-update-2012/

 

[Waverley125]

I would have thought Selby-Temple Hirst Junc. would be one of the first to be examined, given that it would allow through electric running to London, and as such probably form the basis for incorporation of Hull services into the EC Franchise. Also Gilberdyke-Doncaster and Northallerton-Middlesbrough.

 

[Anvil1984]

Hopefully the addon options will include the Hambleton Jn (North and South) connecting the TPE route to the ECML and the few miles from Church Fenton - Gascoigne Wood so all the York - Hull services can go EMU too

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think you can read into this (yet) a commitment to electrify Micklefield-Selby-Hull, merely to include it in the CP4 planning/costing work.
The same applies to the extra lines around Manchester (Guide Bridge-Heaton Norris etc).
It is of course better than being left out!
Nothing said about Standedge tunnels.
There are some key planning dates in May 2012, no doubt in time for the HLOS negotiating round later this year.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is one particular station not so very far from Leeds which has had a dramatic passenger usage increase over recent years which has not been granted a service capacity increase on the Leeds to Huddersfield line. Trains are often seen passing non-stop through this station.

I refer to Cottingley, that has seen the Churwell New Village development increase its catchment area. Have Northern ever taken that into account with the knowledge of the greatly improved passenger loadings? Should operational re-timetabling be considered to allow them to tap into the passenger market?

 

[Viscount702]

What I have also noted in the document is that Platforms 1 & 2 at Victoria are no longer to be wired. They seem to have sneaked this in the main body and not listed it as a change.

The inclusion subject to the comments in the post above of the lines around Manchester (Guide Bridge etc) are welcome. In fact I think Guide Bridge- Stalybridge would have been a must in any event in light of the proposed planned service changes. The addition of Ashburys West to Philips Park/Baguley is sensible and one I was hoping to see.

Heaton Norris to Guide Bridge is something I would also have hoped for but didn't expect to see nevertheless to complete the picture I think Denton Junction to Ashton Moss north Junction should also have been in included but it isn't which I find very odd and it does leave an odd Gap.

 

[John55]

I don't think you can read into this (yet) a commitment to electrify Micklefield-Selby-Hull, merely to include it in the CP4 planning/costing work.
The same applies to the extra lines around Manchester (Guide Bridge-Heaton Norris etc).
It is of course better than being left out!
Nothing said about Standedge tunnels.
There are some key planning dates in May 2012, no doubt in time for the HLOS negotiating round later this year.

I think you are correct. The work item is described as "Our obligation, to be confirmed by DfT, is to develop the scope of works described below to completion of GRIP Stage 2." with a milestone of June 2012. This I would interpret as - when we know how much it will really cost the DfT will decide how much they want to pay for.

 

[PhilipW]

I don't think you can read into this (yet) a commitment to electrify Micklefield-Selby-Hull, merely to include it in the CP4 planning/costing work.
The same applies to the extra lines around Manchester (Guide Bridge-Heaton Norris etc).
It is of course better than being left out!
Nothing said about Standedge tunnels.
There are some key planning dates in May 2012, no doubt in time for the HLOS negotiating round later this year.

True, no definite commitment yet, but I think it almost a dead certainty that Leeds-Hull will be electrified. It would be stupid not too. Once that is committed, the Selby-Doncaster link to allow electric Hull-KX trains becomes a no-brainer too.

The dominoes fall one by one.

 

[aylesbury]

Would KX Hull electrics be viable ,as didnt the HST,s fail to make money ?

 

[John55]

There is one particular station not so very far from Leeds which has had a dramatic passenger usage increase over recent years which has not been granted a service capacity increase on the Leeds to Huddersfield line. Trains are often seen passing non-stop through this station.

I refer to Cottingley, that has seen the Churwell New Village development increase its catchment area. Have Northern ever taken that into account with the knowledge of the greatly improved passenger loadings? Should operational re-timetabling be considered to allow them to tap into the passenger market?

With a service of 23 trains per day in each direction (hourly with several extras am/pm peak) there are 6 passengers per train on average. If that is greatly increased then the traffic before must have been pretty poor!.

 

[HSTEd]

Would KX Hull electrics be viable ,as didnt the HST,s fail to make money ?

Well electrics would have a better chance than HSTs.

 

[ainsworth74]

Would KX Hull electrics be viable ,as didnt the HST,s fail to make money ?

Well Hull Trains haven't gone bust yet so one would assume that they would be just as viable with wires as it is currently with diesels.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would KX Hull electrics be viable ,as didnt the HST,s fail to make money ?

My preferred option would be to see the bi-hourly KX-Newark stoppers extended to Hull (Perhaps not all of them, but a two hourly London service doesn't sound excessive to me): Yeah it would still require an additional set or two, but it would only require the extension of an existing service, rather than incurring all the additional costs of introducing an entirely new service.

 

[ainsworth74]

My preferred option would be to see the bi-hourly KX-Newark stoppers extended to Hull (Perhaps not all of them, but a two hourly London service doesn't sound excessive to me)

That would royally mess up Hull Trains business plan me thinks (as well as leave Hull with about 10+ services per day to/from London).

 

[sprinterguy]

That would royally mess up Hull Trains business plan me thinks (as well as leave Hull with about 10+ services per day to/from London).

I would rather see London to Hull services incorporated into the East Coast franchise as part of the franchise commitment than in the hands of a small open access operator. And I did say that not every London to Newark service needs to be extended through to Hull: Even if you used every Newark path that currently operates, you would have the existing 07:00 departure from Hull, then one at about 10:30 (Becoming the 11:54 departure from Newark), then 12:30, 14:30 and 16:30.

In the northbound direction you would have departures from the Cross at 10:08, 12:08, 14:08, 16:08 and 17:19 (the existing service).

And a service every four hours could probably work using only some of the Newark paths: Departing from Hull for London at 07:00, 10:30, 14:30 plus a new service at 18:30, and leaving Kings Cross for Hull at 10:08, 14:08, 17:19 and a new service at 19:19 or 20:08. I haven't looked into whether this would work from a diagramming perspective (layovers and the like) though.

 

[HSTEd]

We should not hold off including an electric Hull service into future East Coast franchises just to protect the business of an open access operator.

They exist to provide the services that the regular franchises can't or won't, not fight them for the services.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

I don't think you can read into this (yet) a commitment to electrify Micklefield-Selby-Hull, merely to include it in the CP4 planning/costing work.
The same applies to the extra lines around Manchester (Guide Bridge-Heaton Norris etc).
It is of course better than being left out!
Nothing said about Standedge tunnels.
There are some key planning dates in May 2012, no doubt in time for the HLOS negotiating round later this year.

Forgive my ignorance; but surely the Standedge Tunnels would have to be electrified, if TPE were looking at increasing line speed, frequency etc?

 

[ainsworth74]

I would rather see London to Hull services incorporated into the East Coast franchise as part of the franchise commitment than in the hands of a small open access operator.

We should not hold off including an electric Hull service into future East Coast franchises just to protect the business of an open access operator.

Don't get me wrong I also think that in the long term Hull Trains should be incorporated into the ICEC franchise as I think the service has demonstrated that there is demand for such services and it seems like the arrival of wires would be a good time to do that. In fact HT have access rights until 2016 so it would perhaps be possible to give an extension out to 2018/2019 at which point it might make sense to absorb the service into the ICEC franchise.

My point about it royally messing up HT was more that if those Newarks were to be extended without also rolling the HT services into the ICEC franchise then HT would struggle to survive.

 

[PhilipW]

Forgive my ignorance; but surely the Standedge Tunnels would have to be electrified, if TPE were looking at increasing line speed, frequency etc?

The current Standedge tunnels will be included as part of the Manchester to Leeds electrification. I think the comment was about re-instating the other two tunnels which is part of the Northern Hub proposals. If reopened this would then provide a 4-track railway for 5 miles throught the Pennines from Diggle to Marsden. If re-opened then naturally they will be electrified too.

No decision has been taken yet whether to re-instate the other tunnels. Some think that it may not be necessary if the line is electrified. Others think it will still be advantagous and will increase capacity and flexibility.

One advantage of 4-tracking under the Pennines will be that 2 tracks can always be open both during electrification and during maintenence of the tunnels thereafter.

As to what the decision will be, who knows ? We will see.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

The current Standedge tunnels will be included as part of the Manchester to Leeds electrification. I think the comment was about re-instating the other two tunnels which is part of the Northern Hub proposals. If reopened this would then provide a 4-track railway for 5 miles throught the Pennines from Diggle to Marsden. If re-opened then naturally they will be electrified too.

No decision has been taken yet whether to re-instate the other tunnels. Some think that it may not be necessary if the line is electrified. Others think it will still be advantagous and will increase capacity and flexibility.

One advantage of 4-tracking under the Pennines will be that 2 tracks can always be open both during electrification and during maintenence of the tunnels thereafter.

As to what the decision will be, who knows ? We will see.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

 

[IanXC]

Would KX Hull electrics be viable ,as didnt the HST,s fail to make money ?

I seem to recall reading recently that Hull Trains has now turned a profit.

 

[Grimsby town]

I seem to recall reading recently that Hull Trains has now turned a profit.

They have been for quite a few years even with the 180s braking down every 10 seconds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Forgive my ignorance; but surely the Standedge Tunnels would have to be electrified, if TPE were looking at increasing line speed, frequency etc?

Yes sorry to confuse, my point was about the mooted reopening of the old bores to provide 4-tracking along with electrification.

 

[WatcherZero]

Theyve removed electrification of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria

Deal Street Jns – Manchester Victoria East Jn (MVE1/MVM) including all 6 platforms 3 to 6 at Manchester Victoria;

Though could have been moved to Transpennine Electrification 'including all running lines and crossovers'.

Interesting assumption

the provision of one additional traction power supply point at Stalybridge will be sufficient to cover the route between Guide Bridge West Junction and Copley Hill East Junction, assuming the route is also fed from the Leeds direction, and no additional feeder stations are required east of Leeds;

Also says that Bolton-Preston electrification will require a new feeding point in the vicinity of Lostock, previously its been said the existing supply points had enough spare capacity.

Doesnt include a timeline for TPE but has been previously bandied about that while work may start during the next Control Period it wont be completed to 2023/4 ish.

 

[Anvil1984]

My interpretation was that it (the platform 1 and 2 wiring) isnt being done as part of the North West Electrification where it was previously but being done as part of the TPE plans

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Erm... you mean like the Northern Hub proposal plans to do?.

I was not aware that Manchester Piccadilly was losing many of its services from what is proposed in the Northern Hub proposals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With a service of 23 trains per day in each direction (hourly with several extras am/pm peak) there are 6 passengers per train on average. If that is greatly increased then the traffic before must have been pretty poor!.

A service that is only "hourly", as you state, for most of the day, is not likely to appeal to many prospective passengers when compared to the buses. Hence the loading figures you quote. This is the point that I was endeavouring to make.

Cottingley railway station has still tripled its usage over a period of some recent years and is deserving of a better frequency of service, which will "sell itself" to future intending passenger flows.

I would ask that you refer to the Northern Rail timetable 36 to see what extra services are provided from Leeds to Morley, Batley, Dewsbury, Mirfield and Brighouse on that section of line and you will see many "blanks" against Cottingley. These are the services that people on Cottingley station see passing through non-stop.

 

[John55]

I was not aware that Manchester Piccadilly was losing many of its services from what is proposed in the Northern Hub proposals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


A service that is only "hourly", as you state, for most of the day, is not likely to appeal to many prospective passengers when compared to the buses. Hence the loading figures you quote. This is the point that I was endeavouring to make.

Cottingley railway station has still tripled its usage over a period of some recent years and is deserving of a better frequency of service, which will "sell itself" to future intending passenger flows.

I would ask that you refer to the Northern Rail timetable 36 to see what extra services are provided from Leeds to Morley, Batley, Dewsbury, Mirfield and Brighouse on that section of line and you will see many "blanks" against Cottingley. These are the services that people on Cottingley station see passing through non-stop.

All stations in the area seem to have seem much growth in the last 10 years so I don't think Cottingley is particularly remarkable. Nearly all the other stations you mention have 3 times as many passengers as Cottingley except Dewsbury which has 16 times as many.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

All stations in the area seem to have seem much growth in the last 10 years so I don't think Cottingley is particularly remarkable. Nearly all the other stations you mention have 3 times as many passengers as Cottingley except Dewsbury which has 16 times as many.

Maybe that is because twice as many trains stop at these other stations, apart from Dewsbury, where 3 times as many trains stop.

I would assume passengers are far more likely to wait for a train if they have a maximum of 29 minutes to wait rather than 59 as at Cottingley.