Electrification Taskforce Final Report

[DarloRich]

I imagine it's more about wanting to eventually wire up Darlington to Saltburn. Unless you run a diesel shuttle (with wires up on the ECML and to Saltburn it'll be an island as well) then you need to do out to Bishop. Plus there's the Hitachi plant nearby and some (admittedly limited) rail freight opportunities.

Broadly I'm with you in that I'll be flabbergasted if half of what proposed gets done in the timescale suggested but lets not do ourselves down unnecessarily

you can add in Saltburn and the Durham Coast line - it still doesn't make much financial sense. I would LOVE to be able to bang the drum for my area ( and as a former user of North Road i would love decent trains down there & some investment) but it just doesn't make much sense!

Passenger numbers aren't to that high and freight is almost eliminated and i think You and i both know the chances of ever getting any freight out of the sites at Newton Aycliffe are about nil. it will all go our by road considering the location near the A1M

If the battery train trials are successful that could be an option for the Bishop Auckland branch - presumably it would still be wired at least as far as to Newton Aycliffe to give access to the Hitachi plant. A return trip under the wires from Newton Aycliffe to Saltburn & back would hopefully be long enough to charge the battery

That is quite a way - you would need a decent battery.

It's included as Bishop Auckland to Saltburn, which makes more sense really.

I have to say, it's amusing to see how negative certain people are being: clearly their "common sense" has all the answers, and not the people who've put together a report (with data) :roll:

No, sorry, but it makes no sense! Please explain why you think it makes any sense. While your on you could work out where the money will come from to fund all of this.

It may be amusing for you but it is the truth based on real life practicalities and commercial understanding.

 

[northwichcat]

The freight line from Northenden to Hazel Grove connects to the Hope Valley line, not the Buxton line. I guess it could be considered for infill following Hope Valley electrification, along with the freight line from Chinley to Peak Forest and Tunstead, plus Earles Sidings at Hope.

I was meaning the route freight trains take to get between the Mid-Cheshire line and Buxton lines on their journeys from the Buxton area to the Northwich area. Given the task force have recommended both the Buxton and Mid-Cheshire lines for electrification, there's a missing section required for those freight trains to switch.

 

[WatcherZero]

New link since its been reuploaded after the 'official' launch.

http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/_mediavault/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cheshire & Warrington's Subregional Transport Strategy doesn't mention Mid-Cheshire line electrification so interesting that Rail North have come up with it. The Subregional Transport Strategy does include line speed improvements, linking the line to the Airport spur and running passenger traffic on the Middlewich branch: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.u...egy - 160215- Stage 1 Report- Draft Final.pdf

If you check the list of schemes in the baseline review it gives more details for individual schemes, in this case It says the promoters for mid Cheshire line were TfGM and the Freight Operators Association.

In regards to the Cyan line you also see the linked schemes within Chester-Stockport (20) the package is listed, so looking up 63 SANDBACH TO NORTHWICH (MIDDLEWICH BRANCH) its again promoted by the Freight Operators Association with <5tpd freight and the comment the freight industry considers it a priority scheme. However the particular line doesn't appear in any of the tiers so its possible its been delinked and orphaned not one of the prioritised.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No, sorry, but it makes no sense! Please explain why you think it makes any sense. While your on you could work out where the money will come from to fund all of this.

It may be amusing for you but it is the truth based on real life practicalities and commercial understanding.

Because there's financial data to back it up! According to them, it makes considerably more sense than many other lines on that list - it's actually near the top of tier 2.

What you're forgetting is a few things:

a) Lines are not isolated. Having a small island of diesel units is less than helpful and unreasonably expensive, as is having a small island of BMUs, too, in case you think those are a better solution. It makes sense to fill in that short stretch for that purpose.

b) The line is used for more than just passenger workings. Does it really make sense to run things for 95% of their journey on diesel under the wires for this stretch of unelectrified track, or to have a diesel loco on hand (again, a single unit not in a fleet would be needlessly expensive) when you can just wire up this short stretch?

You can't consider these things in isolation as you're doing. You might think it makes no financial sense, but you have to consider it in the context of the railway as a whole. That's why "common sense" (i.e. what seems obvious to you) fails in the face of the actual data.

 

[DarloRich]

Because there's financial data to back it up! According to them, it makes considerably more sense than many other lines on that list - it's actually near the top of tier 2.

What you're forgetting is a few things:

I'm not - really. It may be near the top of tier two but it wont happen.

a) Lines are not isolated. Having a small island of diesel units is less than helpful and unreasonably expensive, as is having a small island of BMUs, too, in case you think those are a better solution. It makes sense to fill in that short stretch for that purpose.

Agreed in principle - i just dont think that the costs if not electrifying this line (and others on the original list) added to the operational costs of a diesel line outweigh the costs of the investment required in electrification.

b) The line is used for more than just passenger workings. Does it really make sense to run things for 95% of their journey on diesel under the wires for this stretch of unelectrified track, or to have a diesel loco on hand (again, a single unit not in a fleet would be needlessly expensive) when you can just wire up this short stretch?

There are very few non passenger workings between Darlington and Bishop Auckland (2 this week - one NR test train, one light engine, none next week)

There are 2 or 3 non passenger workings a day on the section between Darlington and Allens West, one of which is the High Out Put Train running our of Tyne Yard which cant practically be hauled by electric

There are more on the section from Easglescliffe to Tees Yard/Boro/Teesport and of course a few onwards to Skelton and Skinningrove but i do not think there is enough to justify the cost of electrification when the majority of the services run off the grid at both ends into private sidings and/or travel via Yarm and Northallerton to the ECML

The proposals for freight generation are woolly at best, especially on the Bishop section. I can not see the new developments at Heighington generating the kind of service requirement envisaged as they benefit from easy access to the motorway network. The local authorities wont put too many restrictions on use as they want/NEED the jobs generated. I cant see them, for instance, mandating rail use to move the finished product. Also I dont think that the Hitachi plant is enough of a justification for the added expense, unless they want to pay a large sum towards the costs of course!

You can't consider these things in isolation as you're doing. You might think it makes no financial sense, but you have to consider it in the context of the railway as a whole. That's why "common sense" (i.e. what seems obvious to you) fails in the face of the actual data.

That is EXACTLY my point. i am NOT considering this scheme in isolation. I am considering the whole set of proposals against the wider network and considering the financial challenges NR will face in trying to secure funding for core works in the next Control Period let alone schemes like this.

I am using this line to illustrate my point as I know the most about it. As a local i would love to champion these sort of schemes but they have the potential to waste vast sums of money that could do good elsewhere.

 

[Philip]

I was meaning the route freight trains take to get between the Mid-Cheshire line and Buxton lines on their journeys from the Buxton area to the Northwich area. Given the task force have recommended both the Buxton and Mid-Cheshire lines for electrification, there's a missing section required for those freight trains to switch.

Which route do you mean? The only other route in the Buxton area is through Dove Holes tunnel and unless the Buxton and Matlock Railway (the Midland) reopens throughout I can't see this one being done. The only connection between the current Buxton line and the Chester line is by reversing at Stockport.

 

[Greybeard33]

I was meaning the route freight trains take to get between the Mid-Cheshire line and Buxton lines on their journeys from the Buxton area to the Northwich area. Given the task force have recommended both the Buxton and Mid-Cheshire lines for electrification, there's a missing section required for those freight trains to switch.

Which route do you mean? The only other route in the Buxton area is through Dove Holes tunnel and unless the Buxton and Matlock Railway (the Midland) reopens throughout I can't see this one being done. The only connection between the current Buxton line and the Chester line is by reversing at Stockport.

Yes, there are no scheduled freight services at all on the ex-LNWR Hazel Grove to Buxton line, which is the one proposed for electrification in Tier 1. It has been used in the past for diversions, but a double reversal is required at Buxton when coming from the Great Rocks line. All the freight trains to the Mid-Cheshire from the quarries near Buxton use the ex-MML, now freight only, via Peak Forest to Chinley. This line is not proposed for electrification in the report.

 

[deltic08]

you can add in Saltburn and the Durham Coast line - it still doesn't make much financial sense. I would LOVE to be able to bang the drum for my area ( and as a former user of North Road i would love decent trains down there & some investment) but it just doesn't make much sense!

Passenger numbers aren't to that high and freight is almost eliminated and i think You and i both know the chances of ever getting any freight out of the sites at Newton Aycliffe are about nil. it will all go our by road considering the location near the A1M



That is quite a way - you would need a decent battery.



No, sorry, but it makes no sense! Please explain why you think it makes any sense. While your on you could work out where the money will come from to fund all of this.

It may be amusing for you but it is the truth based on real life practicalities and commercial understanding.

Where is the money coming from for HS2 or Thameslink or Crossrail? BCR for HS2 now down to 0.6 so not even paying its way. If that proposal goes ahead, a few million to electrify a short mostly single track branchline should proceed to eliminate a diesel island.

Hitachi will be turning out new electric trains on the branch at Newton Aycliffe so should be able to deliver them straight from the factory under power.

 

[DarloRich]

Where is the money coming from for HS2 or Thameslink or Crossrail? BCR for HS2 now down to 0.6 so not even paying its way. If that proposal goes ahead, a few million to electrify a short mostly single track branchline should proceed to eliminate a diesel island.

Hitachi will be turning out new electric trains on the branch at Newton Aycliffe so should be able to deliver them straight from the factory under power.

they are from different funding streams and you know it!

Funny that Hitachi dont seem to concerned about he lack of wires at this stage............

 

[158756]

Sounds good, but let's wait ten years and see if even half of tier 1 has got on to the drawing board.

Wasn't 2tph the absolute minimum for electrification a few years ago on short local trains. And now their number one scheme includes significant lengths of route with less. Despite massive increases in the costs and timescales of electrification? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[snowball]

The report's prioritisation is based only on benefits. Before any schemes can move to construction there will have to be a prioritisation based on both costs and benefits.

Maybe the forthcoming NR Electrification Refresh will begin that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Bishop Auckland line, 1 service every 2 hours but says it passes Merchant Park and Merchant Park 2 offering rail freight opportunities and I may be wrong but isn't that the location of the Hitachi plant too?

However you could say the same about every other business / industrial park in the country and yet very few have a rail connection. And even those that do have only got it in order to obtain development grants from the Government.

The Hitachi plant is indeed in that area but there is every chance that by the time Network Rail got round to wiring up the route the production lines and the factory will have been closed.

 

[TrickyHex]

On the upside, at least we have a report which has the goal of having all lines wired eventually. Lets hope eventually isnt too far off!

Whilst the adoption of a weighting framework to rank the services provides some semblance of a structured approach, such scoring systems can yield strange results and it would be interesting to know if any work was done in terms of sensitivity analysis of changing the weighting values. Changing these values can often lead to very different outcomes.

In terms of the eye openers, it seems surprising that Manchester Sheffield is well down the list considering this should be a vital link in what is being marketed as the Northern Powerhouse. North Lincolnshire (Grimsby / Scunthorpe) and Barrow also come off badly in terms of sizeable places which one would have thought ought to have performed better. The Tyne Valley line which has 2 / 4 trains per hour at its eastern end also appears to fare badly in relative terms against say Manchester Clitheroe which is basically hourly, although soon to have a proportion of the service running under the wires between Bolton and Manchester. (I may be biased here as Tyne Valley is my local line!).

In terms of political eye openers, Durham, Northumberland and Cumbria seem under represented on the body presenting the report.

In the end, lets hope the industry does get back up to speed and this is the start of a proper rolling programme rather than the wasteful start stop practice of the past.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On the upside, at least we have a report which has the goal of having all lines wired eventually. Lets hope eventually isnt too far off!

In the end, lets hope the industry does get back up to speed and this is the start of a proper rolling programme rather than the wasteful start stop practice of the past.

10/10 -exactly my sentiments - and hopefully nothing affected by whichever government is in power.

Whilst the adoption of a weighting framework to rank the services provides some semblance of a structured approach, such scoring systems can yield strange results and it would be interesting to know if any work was done in terms of sensitivity analysis of changing the weighting values. Changing these values can often lead to very different outcomes.

Yes - I sort of understand the logic of Burnley -Colne being later and done with B'Pool Sth -K'Ham - but logic and commonsense says - at least do Burnley -Colne whilst doing the Calder Valley as that was top of the list.

In terms of the eye openers, it seems surprising that Manchester Sheffield is well down the list considering this should be a vital link in what is being marketed as the Northern Powerhouse.

Clitheroe

Yes inclusion of Clitheroe which has only reopened in recent years and Man-Sheff way down were the surprises for me.

 

[WatcherZero]

The industry Rolling Stock Plan seems to agree with the sentiment, 95% of stock electric by 2044.

 

[Darren R]

Yes - I sort of understand the logic of Burnley -Colne being later and done with B'Pool Sth -K'Ham - but logic and commonsense says - at least do Burnley -Colne whilst doing the Calder Valley as that was top of the list.

Yes inclusion of Clitheroe which has only reopened in recent years and Man-Sheff way down were the surprises for me.

The Clitheroe line reopened in May 1994 - it's not that recent!

I thought the report was well researched, methodical and logical in its conclusions - much to my surprise, I must admit! - although that is if we ignore the Tier 3 proposals, much of which is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the proposals in Tiers 1 and 2 chime with what a lot of members of this Forum have been advocating on various threads for some time! How can we therefore disagree?

I too was a little surprised at the relatively low priority given to Manchester to Sheffield. However, if you read the report it does make it clear that amongst the factors they have taken into consideration is how many DMUs will be released and through-working under the proposed wires by diesels. Electrifying the Hope Valley route is fairly pointless until we are in a situation whereby the through services which use the line could also go over to electric operation. Electrifying from Crewe/Warrington to Chester is given relatively low priority for much the same reason. If the Welsh Assembly were to agree to funding along the North Wales Coast beyond Chester, then the report acknowledges that this would push lines to Chester much further up the list.

Regarding the inclusion of the Clitheroe Line, I must first disclose an interest since this my local line. Yes, at the moment it is only a basic off-peak hourly service, but that is to change to half-hourly by 2017 under the terms of the ITT for the next Northern franchise (at least as far as Blackburn.) Since the service will be running under the wires south of Bolton, electrifying the Southport and Clitheroe lines in the next tranche is logical and would remove all remaining DMUs from the Bolton-Manchester Corridor.

Stations north of Blackburn to Clitheroe last year got a combined usage of over 566,000; add-in Darwen to Hall I' Th' Wood and that takes it to almost 1.5 million - and that's not including Blackburn station usage.

 

[muddythefish]

If you're electrifying Bolton - Clitheroe doesn't Preston - Colne also make sense ?

 

[Darren R]

If you're electrifying Bolton - Clitheroe doesn't Preston - Colne also make sense ?

Preston to the Calder Valley is proposed. In some ways, yes it does therefore make sense to also include Rose Grove to Colne. But I use these trains, and they are rarely particularly busy between Burnley Central and Colne. It might be difficult to make a good business case; as an add-on scheme it would depend on cost.

 

[northwichcat]

In terms of the eye openers, it seems surprising that Manchester Sheffield is well down the list considering this should be a vital link in what is being marketed as the Northern Powerhouse.

Issue here could be the two services linking Manchester and Sheffield are Man Airport-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Norwich. DfT proposed changing both of those and there was widespread uproar. It's likely Doncaster-Cleethorpes has a much poorer case for electrification than Hazel Grove-Doncaster.

 

[TrickyHex]

Issue here could be the two services linking Manchester and Sheffield are Man Airport-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Norwich. DfT proposed changing both of those and there was widespread uproar. It's likely Doncaster-Cleethorpes has a much poorer case for electrification than Hazel Grove-Doncaster.

In this case, we are back to the curse of the through service, whereby Sheffield Manchester is held hostage by the unelectrified lines beyond Sheffield. Has the proposal to split the Liverpool Norwich services at Nottingham now been dropped?

Moving on to the North East, when one looks at the maps in the report, it would appear all or the vast majority of services to Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield (accepting the issues above) will be electric. Newcastle stands out as a bit of an anomaly here. I know we have the Metro which I suspect other northern cities would die for but harking back to the Tyne Valley Line, there is a lot of through running onwards to Sunderland and Teeside over lines which are now classed as tier 2. Even wiring the 2 or so miles to the Metrocentre would contribute to releasing diesel units.

On a related issue, does anyone know if consideration has ever been given to running passenger services over the frieght line between Ferryhill and Stockton. This would appear to be a much faster route for a service from Newcastle to Middlesbrough than via the coast. (I can hear the screams from the Wearsiders already!)

Finally, a further oddity appears to count all of the Whitby branch as tier 3. In view of a much more substantial service operating as far as Nunthorpe, I would have thought getting the wires that far would be a tier 2 project.

 

[northwichcat]

In this case, we are back to the curse of the through service, whereby Sheffield Manchester is held hostage by the unelectrified lines beyond Sheffield. Has the proposal to split the Liverpool Norwich services at Nottingham now been dropped?

Service is to remain as it is at least until when the next EMT franchise is let. Although, the main reason for proposing the split and including Liverpool-Nottingham in the TPE franchise was so that 6 car 185s could be used on Liverpool-Nottingham services from December 2018 after Manchester-Selby/York went electric. However, it now looks likely that TPE electrification has been delayed by at least 2 years.

 

[edwin_m]

If the Northern franchise goes for a bi-mode and it proves to be reliable and economical, then it is a potential game-changer for some of these routes. A bi-mode optimised for inter-regional services could in time take over Liverpool-Norwich and Manchester-Cleethorpes and therefore help to make the case for Hope Valley electrification. As people have pointed out here in the past, it might have the opposite effect in some cases, as it will no longer be necessary to electrify a whole route to avoid diesel under the wires on part of it.

 

[Haydn1971]

I now see how the priority has been decided... Take a look at the make up if the task force board !

How the hell can Harrogate, Clitheroe abd Buxton be a greater priority that Sheffield-Manchester ? For that matter how can Whitby be on the same level as Sheffield-Manchester ? These guys need a boot up the backside !

 

[jimm]

I now see how the priority has been decided... Take a look at the make up if the task force board !

How the hell can Harrogate, Clitheroe abd Buxton be a greater priority that Sheffield-Manchester ? For that matter how can Whitby be on the same level as Sheffield-Manchester ? These guys need a boot up the backside !

They were looking at the big picture - which you don't seem able to. Big picture is eliminating pockets of diesel working that would be left if you didn't wire places like those you list, or heavy use of a route by services operating far beyond the area they were asked to look at.

Eg: Most Clitheroe services run through to and from Manchester. No wires equals compulsory change of train at Blackburn and diesels needed for a short shuttle. Buxton is a fairly inexpensive add-on, basically just stringing up wires on the running lines from Hazel Grove. Do all the other Tier 1 schemes and there would be precious little diesel working left at Leeds except Harrogate services if you didn't wire that route - a route where the stations come thick and fast and electric traction would come in very handy.

Like Crewe-Chester, discussed back up the thread, Sheffield-Manchester has other factors to consider, such as all the freight from the Peak District and inter-regional passenger services to and from destinations well out of the area the task force was asked to look at, so was probably best left to Network Rail's national electrification study, which is due out this month.

And Class 158s, 185s and the freight operators' 66s are hardly on their last legs, so there is rather less benefit from wiring Sheffield-Manchester in the short term in terms of replacing Pacers and displacing Sprinters to replace Pacers or removing elderly locos.

As far as I can see, the task force has done a pretty good job of setting out sensible priorities for the way ahead.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

They were looking at the big picture .

As far as I can see, the task force has done a pretty good job of setting out sensible priorities for the way ahead.

On balance and after giving the whole report 2-3 readings and much thought, I tend to agree with you.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

They were looking at the big picture - which you don't seem able to. Big picture is eliminating pockets of diesel working that would be left if you didn't wire places like those you list, or heavy use of a route by services operating far beyond the area they were asked to look at.

Eg: Most Clitheroe services run through to and from Manchester. No wires equals compulsory change of train at Blackburn and diesels needed for a short shuttle. Buxton is a fairly inexpensive add-on, basically just stringing up wires on the running lines from Hazel Grove. Do all the other Tier 1 schemes and there would be precious little diesel working left at Leeds except Harrogate services if you didn't wire that route - a route where the stations come thick and fast and electric traction would come in very handy.

Like Crewe-Chester, discussed back up the thread, Sheffield-Manchester has other factors to consider, such as all the freight from the Peak District and inter-regional passenger services to and from destinations well out of the area the task force was asked to look at, so was probably best left to Network Rail's national electrification study, which is due out this month.

And Class 158s, 185s and the freight operators' 66s are hardly on their last legs, so there is rather less benefit from wiring Sheffield-Manchester in the short term in terms of replacing Pacers and displacing Sprinters to replace Pacers or removing elderly locos.

As far as I can see, the task force has done a pretty good job of setting out sensible priorities for the way ahead.

Agreed having had time to read the report in full they have identified the routes and services that should be top priority (Calder valley, Selby-Hull and Northallerton-Middlesbrough) as addons to TPE electrification. Inclusion of the Mid-Cheshire line in tier 1 did surprise me but I suppose that links to plans to extend the airport spur and allow through running (hopefully something else that will be developed in CP6).

 

[Stats]

On a related issue, does anyone know if consideration has ever been given to running passenger services over the frieght line between Ferryhill and Stockton. This would appear to be a much faster route for a service from Newcastle to Middlesbrough than via the coast. (I can hear the screams from the Wearsiders already!)

Yes, as part of a Tyne Tees Connectivity Study in 2006, and which was followed up by a detailed study in 2007 to look at reopening the Leamside Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TyneTees_Express

 

[northwichcat]

Inclusion of the Mid-Cheshire line in tier 1 did surprise me

It even surprised the local rail user's group. The chairman of which has found the reason for giving Mid-Cheshire line tier 1 status is

This line has many of the characteristics which make electrification attractive, including frequent stops and significant peak period crowding. It also links substantial areas of housing with the key business centre of Manchester, operating alongside already congested roads, and so the agglomeration benefits flowing from the faster acceleration of electric trains are much higher than might be the case elsewhere.

but I suppose that links to plans to extend the airport spur and allow through running (hopefully something else that will be developed in CP6).

It would give two potential electrified destinations beyond Manchester Airport
1. Chester via Northwich
2. Liverpool via Northwich and Runcorn.

Well there is a third but I don't see there being a Somewhere-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Northwich-Wigan and beyond service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I now see how the priority has been decided... Take a look at the make up if the task force board !

The voting share for Rail North is based on passenger miles for that district. I'm not sure what it is for the group as a whole but for the Cheshire & Potteries group it's

• Cheshire East 2.1%
• Warrington 1.2%
• Cheshire West & Chester 1.1%
• Stoke 0.8%
• Staffordshire 0.1%

So if the vote of the Cheshire East representative is more powerful than the votes of the Cheshire West & Chester, Stoke and Staffordshire representatives combined.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It even surprised the local rail user's group.

The local authorities for the line (Cheshire East and West) don't seem to have been represented on the task force, either.
The proposals weren't supposed to second-guess possible infrastructure projects like an extended Airport line.

 

[northwichcat]

The local authorities for the line (Cheshire East and West) don't seem to have been represented on the task force, either.

As I mentioned previously electrification of the Mid-Cheshire line wasn't included in Cheshire & Warrington LEP's local transport priorities. As Watcherzero pointed out it's TfGM and the Freight Operators Association who recommended the line for electrification. TfGM did previously say they thought heavy rail improvements would provide better value for money than tram-trains running beyond Altrincham.

Strangely the baseline study says:

This route links the Bank of America Strategic site to Booths Hall, Knutsford in the Cheshire
Science Corridor and provides connections to Chester and Manchester Universities.

Nothing about the Barclays workers or school/college pupils who use the train on a daily basis and total a few hundred daily journeys between them.