modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,440
Now that transpennine electrification has been delayed is it time to take stock and look at a slightly different way of achieving a high speed network?
I realise what follows is a long post, but I think this is an important debate that needs to be had now.
The current HS2 Y provides an imperfect solution for both Sheffield and the East Midlands, with stations outside the centre. Add a 20 min transfer from this place, plus the inconvenience of a change, and you have a less than satisfactory solution.
Transpennine electrification still leaves you with a relatively slow route and without the grade separation of a new line. Many of the current problems are caused by resilience issues not lack of electrification. Yes there is some interplay. However, arguably more urgent than electrification through the core are passing loops, 4 track sections and better signalling with shorter headways, and critically, longer trains.
I question the decision to put 5 transpennine an hour through the core rather than 4 longer trains because of the lack of resilience which seems to result in almost daily problems.
Longer term, a new trans-pennine line is the real solution, but electrification of the current line plus the expense of an imperfect Leeds limb of the Y make this investment harder to fund.
Would it be better to switch to a new HS2 solution, as follows, to provide tangible improvements quickly and huge improvements over time:
Change 1: the long term solution- Change the route of HS2 and deliver a better solution for the East Midlands using an existing but upgraded route which retains trains which make it to the city centres.
1a. Switch the Y so that the Leeds branch comes off at Manchester airport and across to a delta junction near Barnsley to Leeds and Sheffield. This also provides a new transpennine line (HS3) for the transpennine core, to both Leeds and Sheffield.
The Government would need to commit to starting the HS2/3 section at the same time as phase 1 of HS2 to ensure it is believed.
Sheffield trains could run on classic lines into the existing station, getting rid of the Meadowhall problem. Leeds trains would be high speed into Leeds and to an East Coast connection.
This would also provide a section of track that would provide very fast Leeds to Sheffield services and would offer the opportunity to speed up all cross country services that run via Sheffield, although in time some would run via Manchester instead (for instance a new Newcastle - York - Leeds - Manchester Airport - Crewe - Birmingham service)
1b. At the same time, or even sooner, deliver a substantial package of improvements, including electrification, to speed up and add capacity to the Midland Mainline, with savings of at least 30 mins on the Nottingham to London time. This would arguably be better for Nottingham, Derby and Leicester than being served by HS2 by a parkway station at Totton. I travel this route regularly and would much rather have a train that is a bit slower but direct. The Midland Main Line has less capacity issues that the East Coast or West Coast which makes this a serious proposition.
1c. Compensate Leeds for a slightly slower HS2 time to London by funding a series of more local improvements, such as electrification of the Harrogate line, meaningful tram-train lines (for instance to the airport), capacity improvements for the Aire Valley, series of city train stations (for instance Quarry Hill/Marsh Lane and Armley) and a much improved city system (whether the now proposed trolleybus scheme or a tram system or both). The total benefits of this package plus a high speed transpennine solution (including a fast connection to the north's main airport which is far more useful to cross Northern trains than it is to London bound trains ) might easily outweigh losing a little bit on the London journey time. These improvements could be funded now to speed up overall benefits to Leeds and Yorkshire, providing some jam much earlier than HS2 or HS3.
1d there is another possible change, to link Manchester to Liverpool by a similarly high speed line, or hugely upgraded Manchester to Liverpool via Newton le Willows or via Warrington area. London to Liverpool trains could leave the HS2 West Coast connector to join this line at or near Warrington (depending upon which line you connect to). It would be interesting to see what the journey time would be on this line v the journey via Runcorn. Might not be worth it but if it is quicker - would solve the Liverpool problem. Also, if you go via the Warrington Central route you could build a small loop and a stop at Liverpool Airport.
The stopping pattern of the high speed transpennine line could therefore be:
Northern: Liverpool - Liverpool Airport - Manchester Airport - Leeds - York - Newcastle
Southern: Liverpool - Liverpool Airport - Manchester - Manchester Airport - Sheffield
Scarborough, Middlesborough, Sunderland, Darlington, Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Stalybridge, Warrington etc would all be served by semi-fast inter-regionals that cater well for their commuter traffic. Some more changes might be required into the high speed network (but not in all cases by any means) at principal stations but the overall journey times would be quicker as a result and the trains would have more space for commuters with long distance passengers switching to the high speed network. These intermediate stations in the core would continue to benefit from the improvements made in 2 below.
Change 2 - Bring forward an immediate package of improvements for the existing transpennine core line, aimed at improving resilience and immediately increase capacity, including:
- signalling improvements to reduce headways;
- passing loops, so that existing local trains do not slow trains down and to provide capacity for additional local services that have been pushed out by transpennine. Particularly immediately east of Leeds Station, between Cooper Bridge and Huddersfield, and some facilities between Standedge and Manchester Victoria)
- projects to improve line speeds and therefore journey times, particularly for the post-northern hub route (fast Liverpool to Victoria and then to Stalybridge);
- find or fund additional rolling stock for immediate deployment, for instance:
/ make sure everything that can be electric on the west side is, for instance Blackpool to Manchester Airport, even if using cascaded stock from elsewhere;
/ find some trains to loco haul for Liverpool to Newcastle and Liverpool to Scarborough express services, for instance the old Gatwick Express trains
/ place an order now for Hitachi 7 coach bi-modes to replace the above diesel loco hailed as soon as possible. They would be able to run at full speed on the East Coast section, and under the wires to Leeds (with a short electrification from the East Coast line to Neville Hill), then diesel to Stalybridge, then electric to Liverpool. Also order to include purely electric hitachi trains for Manchester to Scotland transpennine route. Existing 350s cascaded onto NW electric routes (for instance Manchester Airport to Blackpool).
A cascade and new rolling stock order plan as follows:
- An acknowledgement that Northern is taking one for the national team by having to run a wide range of often old stock rather than uniform fleets as at Southern, London Overground, East Coast, West Coast etc and so ensuring maintenance is properly funded until we get to a uniform fleet and younger age, i.e. acknowledging that running old diesels and different train types is expensive and this is not the fault of the fare paying passenger - it is the Government that has imposed this position to suit its cascade plans.
- Spare 185's from above plan to form min 6 coach trains on most transpennine services (and all peak services).
- IF and only if Vivarail concept is proven, it is applied strategically on a few lines to release stock to other routes:
/ Windermere branch (yes it will mean a change at Oxenholme, but you could have a more regular service as well)
/ Whitby line
/ Leeds to Horsforth shuttle (which I don't think goes above 60) (but you would have to be super confident of it not breaking down on Leeds approaches)
/ possibly, but only possibly, the Huddersfield to Sheffield line. Arguably like speeds need improving on this line to above 60.
/ some of the Castleford/Knottingley routes, pending transfer to tram train operation, but again need to be super confident of it not breaking down across Leeds approaches.
- any others?
- new diesels in franchise requirement to go to inter-regional services that will not realistically be electrified until battery or bi-mode technology is so good that will be the solution but where 185 type door arrangement is good for quicker loading (eg York to Blackpool, probably Caldervale, Southport to Manchester etc) with refurbished 150's etc to metro and local services. 3 or 4 coach trains the norm on most routes. Very few 2 carriage trains.
- 158s see out the rest of their life on routes into East Midlands (Leeds -Nottingham) and quieter express routes (Leeds - Carlisle, Newcastle - Carlisle). 158s plus the new diesel stock become the inter-regional stock.
- pacers retired by 2020.
- a few routes switch to tram train by 2020, especially on Yorkshire side (Harrogate line branch to Leeds Airport, Castleford/Knottingley services, etc). New tram-train stock. Displaced stock goes to strengthen remaining heavy rail local services. New electric stock for Harrogate line.
- order placed fairly soon to replace all 150's and similar by 2022 they will be 40 years old then and so well ready for replacement even after mid-life extensions, especially as steel bodied) and 319s by 2025. Whether replacements are electric of further diesels will depend upon new service patterns with opening of Northern Hub. Hopefully, some diesels can be replaced with electrics. All capable of metro services (high capacity, 185 style door configuration). The lack of metro style diesel stock with this door arrangement is a real pain at the moment and definitely increases dwell times, but this plan would solve that problem reasonably quickly.
- order placed for new electric transpennine stock to meet opening of new HS2 Leeds to Manchester limb. 185s go to replace 158's. By 2030 they will be 40 years old, with a decent overhaul they should make that.
This is not to say that I don't think electrification of the core transpennine route is not important, but with limited resources, is this a better way of delivering the actual improvements required in the right order and getting some improvements funded now? If you change the Y you might actually release enough funds to crack on with electrification anyway but that is down to numbers I suspect and needs to be worked out.
I am less interested in exact numbers of units required for this plan than thoughts on the plan itself as a strategic solution to getting the most out of the investment money available.
I think this plan gives both a mostly electrified metro service for each of Liverpool (already well served), Manchester and Leeds, an electrified core high speed transpennine route, with good airport access and a sensible rolling stock strategy to 2030. It also provides a better London solution for Sheffield and the East Midlands.
I have not covered freight opportunities here, but I do like the Chunnel style suggestions to take lorries off the M62 and and into Chunnel style lorry carriers and would hope the above could incorporate this idea.
I realise what follows is a long post, but I think this is an important debate that needs to be had now.
The current HS2 Y provides an imperfect solution for both Sheffield and the East Midlands, with stations outside the centre. Add a 20 min transfer from this place, plus the inconvenience of a change, and you have a less than satisfactory solution.
Transpennine electrification still leaves you with a relatively slow route and without the grade separation of a new line. Many of the current problems are caused by resilience issues not lack of electrification. Yes there is some interplay. However, arguably more urgent than electrification through the core are passing loops, 4 track sections and better signalling with shorter headways, and critically, longer trains.
I question the decision to put 5 transpennine an hour through the core rather than 4 longer trains because of the lack of resilience which seems to result in almost daily problems.
Longer term, a new trans-pennine line is the real solution, but electrification of the current line plus the expense of an imperfect Leeds limb of the Y make this investment harder to fund.
Would it be better to switch to a new HS2 solution, as follows, to provide tangible improvements quickly and huge improvements over time:
Change 1: the long term solution- Change the route of HS2 and deliver a better solution for the East Midlands using an existing but upgraded route which retains trains which make it to the city centres.
1a. Switch the Y so that the Leeds branch comes off at Manchester airport and across to a delta junction near Barnsley to Leeds and Sheffield. This also provides a new transpennine line (HS3) for the transpennine core, to both Leeds and Sheffield.
The Government would need to commit to starting the HS2/3 section at the same time as phase 1 of HS2 to ensure it is believed.
Sheffield trains could run on classic lines into the existing station, getting rid of the Meadowhall problem. Leeds trains would be high speed into Leeds and to an East Coast connection.
This would also provide a section of track that would provide very fast Leeds to Sheffield services and would offer the opportunity to speed up all cross country services that run via Sheffield, although in time some would run via Manchester instead (for instance a new Newcastle - York - Leeds - Manchester Airport - Crewe - Birmingham service)
1b. At the same time, or even sooner, deliver a substantial package of improvements, including electrification, to speed up and add capacity to the Midland Mainline, with savings of at least 30 mins on the Nottingham to London time. This would arguably be better for Nottingham, Derby and Leicester than being served by HS2 by a parkway station at Totton. I travel this route regularly and would much rather have a train that is a bit slower but direct. The Midland Main Line has less capacity issues that the East Coast or West Coast which makes this a serious proposition.
1c. Compensate Leeds for a slightly slower HS2 time to London by funding a series of more local improvements, such as electrification of the Harrogate line, meaningful tram-train lines (for instance to the airport), capacity improvements for the Aire Valley, series of city train stations (for instance Quarry Hill/Marsh Lane and Armley) and a much improved city system (whether the now proposed trolleybus scheme or a tram system or both). The total benefits of this package plus a high speed transpennine solution (including a fast connection to the north's main airport which is far more useful to cross Northern trains than it is to London bound trains ) might easily outweigh losing a little bit on the London journey time. These improvements could be funded now to speed up overall benefits to Leeds and Yorkshire, providing some jam much earlier than HS2 or HS3.
1d there is another possible change, to link Manchester to Liverpool by a similarly high speed line, or hugely upgraded Manchester to Liverpool via Newton le Willows or via Warrington area. London to Liverpool trains could leave the HS2 West Coast connector to join this line at or near Warrington (depending upon which line you connect to). It would be interesting to see what the journey time would be on this line v the journey via Runcorn. Might not be worth it but if it is quicker - would solve the Liverpool problem. Also, if you go via the Warrington Central route you could build a small loop and a stop at Liverpool Airport.
The stopping pattern of the high speed transpennine line could therefore be:
Northern: Liverpool - Liverpool Airport - Manchester Airport - Leeds - York - Newcastle
Southern: Liverpool - Liverpool Airport - Manchester - Manchester Airport - Sheffield
Scarborough, Middlesborough, Sunderland, Darlington, Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Stalybridge, Warrington etc would all be served by semi-fast inter-regionals that cater well for their commuter traffic. Some more changes might be required into the high speed network (but not in all cases by any means) at principal stations but the overall journey times would be quicker as a result and the trains would have more space for commuters with long distance passengers switching to the high speed network. These intermediate stations in the core would continue to benefit from the improvements made in 2 below.
Change 2 - Bring forward an immediate package of improvements for the existing transpennine core line, aimed at improving resilience and immediately increase capacity, including:
- signalling improvements to reduce headways;
- passing loops, so that existing local trains do not slow trains down and to provide capacity for additional local services that have been pushed out by transpennine. Particularly immediately east of Leeds Station, between Cooper Bridge and Huddersfield, and some facilities between Standedge and Manchester Victoria)
- projects to improve line speeds and therefore journey times, particularly for the post-northern hub route (fast Liverpool to Victoria and then to Stalybridge);
- find or fund additional rolling stock for immediate deployment, for instance:
/ make sure everything that can be electric on the west side is, for instance Blackpool to Manchester Airport, even if using cascaded stock from elsewhere;
/ find some trains to loco haul for Liverpool to Newcastle and Liverpool to Scarborough express services, for instance the old Gatwick Express trains
/ place an order now for Hitachi 7 coach bi-modes to replace the above diesel loco hailed as soon as possible. They would be able to run at full speed on the East Coast section, and under the wires to Leeds (with a short electrification from the East Coast line to Neville Hill), then diesel to Stalybridge, then electric to Liverpool. Also order to include purely electric hitachi trains for Manchester to Scotland transpennine route. Existing 350s cascaded onto NW electric routes (for instance Manchester Airport to Blackpool).
A cascade and new rolling stock order plan as follows:
- An acknowledgement that Northern is taking one for the national team by having to run a wide range of often old stock rather than uniform fleets as at Southern, London Overground, East Coast, West Coast etc and so ensuring maintenance is properly funded until we get to a uniform fleet and younger age, i.e. acknowledging that running old diesels and different train types is expensive and this is not the fault of the fare paying passenger - it is the Government that has imposed this position to suit its cascade plans.
- Spare 185's from above plan to form min 6 coach trains on most transpennine services (and all peak services).
- IF and only if Vivarail concept is proven, it is applied strategically on a few lines to release stock to other routes:
/ Windermere branch (yes it will mean a change at Oxenholme, but you could have a more regular service as well)
/ Whitby line
/ Leeds to Horsforth shuttle (which I don't think goes above 60) (but you would have to be super confident of it not breaking down on Leeds approaches)
/ possibly, but only possibly, the Huddersfield to Sheffield line. Arguably like speeds need improving on this line to above 60.
/ some of the Castleford/Knottingley routes, pending transfer to tram train operation, but again need to be super confident of it not breaking down across Leeds approaches.
- any others?
- new diesels in franchise requirement to go to inter-regional services that will not realistically be electrified until battery or bi-mode technology is so good that will be the solution but where 185 type door arrangement is good for quicker loading (eg York to Blackpool, probably Caldervale, Southport to Manchester etc) with refurbished 150's etc to metro and local services. 3 or 4 coach trains the norm on most routes. Very few 2 carriage trains.
- 158s see out the rest of their life on routes into East Midlands (Leeds -Nottingham) and quieter express routes (Leeds - Carlisle, Newcastle - Carlisle). 158s plus the new diesel stock become the inter-regional stock.
- pacers retired by 2020.
- a few routes switch to tram train by 2020, especially on Yorkshire side (Harrogate line branch to Leeds Airport, Castleford/Knottingley services, etc). New tram-train stock. Displaced stock goes to strengthen remaining heavy rail local services. New electric stock for Harrogate line.
- order placed fairly soon to replace all 150's and similar by 2022 they will be 40 years old then and so well ready for replacement even after mid-life extensions, especially as steel bodied) and 319s by 2025. Whether replacements are electric of further diesels will depend upon new service patterns with opening of Northern Hub. Hopefully, some diesels can be replaced with electrics. All capable of metro services (high capacity, 185 style door configuration). The lack of metro style diesel stock with this door arrangement is a real pain at the moment and definitely increases dwell times, but this plan would solve that problem reasonably quickly.
- order placed for new electric transpennine stock to meet opening of new HS2 Leeds to Manchester limb. 185s go to replace 158's. By 2030 they will be 40 years old, with a decent overhaul they should make that.
This is not to say that I don't think electrification of the core transpennine route is not important, but with limited resources, is this a better way of delivering the actual improvements required in the right order and getting some improvements funded now? If you change the Y you might actually release enough funds to crack on with electrification anyway but that is down to numbers I suspect and needs to be worked out.
I am less interested in exact numbers of units required for this plan than thoughts on the plan itself as a strategic solution to getting the most out of the investment money available.
I think this plan gives both a mostly electrified metro service for each of Liverpool (already well served), Manchester and Leeds, an electrified core high speed transpennine route, with good airport access and a sensible rolling stock strategy to 2030. It also provides a better London solution for Sheffield and the East Midlands.
I have not covered freight opportunities here, but I do like the Chunnel style suggestions to take lorries off the M62 and and into Chunnel style lorry carriers and would hope the above could incorporate this idea.
