Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[GRALISTAIR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGnTgdWfh4

PWI lecture - good chunk on this -well worth a view. It is in the pinned thread but covers a lot of your questions. It includes the by now famous statement - " don't need to go fast, just avoid going slow".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Provide 4 tracks at points to allow overtaking. e.g. Crossgates, Mirfield and west towards Huddersfield, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Diggle -- Heaton Lodge to Ravensthorpe is definitely on the cards but of course not signed off on by the SoS
Signaling improvements to allow line speed to be increased to the maximum allowed by the alignment - already happening in the Ashton Moss area -been quite a few photos etc and blockades happened (ing)

Open one or both of the old Standedge tunnels to allow more capacity - I am sure options have been put in front of the SoS

Junction improvements -already happening and more will too

Rolling stock maximum speed and acceleration to suit improved route. As was pointed out by the speaker in the above presentation, this is not as easy as the 185 is already quite a high performing unit

Would 90mph be achievable over much of the route, certainly could get 125mph between York and Church Fenton. No - but you get most benefit from speeding up the very slow sections- remember you don't need to go fast, just avoid going slow.

So what could be done given the will and the money. If you could get down to 35-38mins Leeds - Manchester - one of my favourite sayings- anything is possible with enough time and money and political will

HS3 seems a very expensive proposition and it is years away anyway. The thing with incremental improvements they begin to deliver straight away. I absolutely totally agree

 

[CdBrux]

I think that, in certain places, if you re-instate a 3rd or 4th track you may have to change the alignment in such a way that you actually end up with a slower speed than today, or at least slower than what it could be upgraded to today

 

[Chester1]

I think that, in certain places, if you re-instate a 3rd or 4th track you may have to change the alignment in such a way that you actually end up with a slower speed than today, or at least slower than what it could be upgraded to today

Its before my time but wasn't of the reasons for reducing to 2 tracks to increase line speed? I am far from convinced that improvements will be much more than a reduction of the express journey time from 48-50 minutes to ~40 minutes and a couple of ~800m passing loops. The long term solution is a massive rebuild of the Calder Valley route.

 

[CdBrux]

The long term solution is a massive rebuild of the Calder Valley route.

Which is essentially what NPR (HS3) is looking like, although as a predominantly new build line

 

[Chester1]

Which is essentially what NPR (HS3) is looking like, although as a predominantly new build line

I know and I support it. I think it basically needs a Littleborough to Halifax tunnel and some major works in Bradford and Leeds but otherwise upgrading the existing route would be enough to have a 30 minute Manchester to Leeds journey time. Unlike the Standedge route, sections of the Calder Valley route can be closed for a year or so for a Bicester style upgrades. For instance services could be cut back to Bradford Interchange with a coach running to Leeds and some services diverted. At another time Halifax to Bradford Interchange could close and services diverted with a Halifax to Bradford coach. None of this is ideal but its a lot more practical than the sort of work required to reduce Standedge route to under 30 minutes. If just the CP6 upgrades take place the North will not have anything close to the East-West connections as it has North-South. 40 minutes would still pretty pathetic for the distance. The Northern Powerhouse idea only works if its quick enough to get between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield as it is to cross mega cities like London.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I know and I support it. I think it basically needs a Littleborough to Halifax tunnel and some major works in Bradford and Leeds but otherwise upgrading the existing route would be enough to have a 30 minute Manchester to Leeds journey time. Unlike the Standedge route, sections of the Calder Valley route can be closed for a year or so for a Bicester style upgrades. For instance services could be cut back to Bradford Interchange with a coach running to Leeds and some services diverted. At another time Halifax to Bradford Interchange could close and services diverted with a Halifax to Bradford coach. None of this is ideal but its a lot more practical than the sort of work required to reduce Standedge route to under 30 minutes. If just the CP6 upgrades take place the North will not have anything close to the East-West connections as it has North-South. 40 minutes would still pretty pathetic for the distance. The Northern Powerhouse idea only works if its quick enough to get between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield as it is to cross mega cities like London.

Agree with all you say but Calder Valley can not have this disruption (IMHO) until TPE upgrade via Standedge is complete and Preston - Manchester. Then also do Preston - Blackburn -Copy Pit etc - all as recommended in the Northern Sparks Report

Northern Sparks Final Report and others
http://www.railnorth.org/electrification/

 

[Chester1]

Agree with all you say but Calder Valley can not have this disruption (IMHO) until TPE upgrade via Standedge is complete and Preston - Manchester. Then also do Preston - Blackburn -Copy Pit etc - all as recommended in the Northern Sparks Report

Northern Sparks Final Report and others
http://www.railnorth.org/electrification/

I think the NPR target is 2033 to match HS2 phase 2b. The current Standedge target is 2022, while that will no doubt slip again there should be plenty of time to finish it and then do any closures of Calder Valley route. Construction of new sections wouldn't need to wait until Standedge upgrade has been completed.

 

[twpsaesneg]

The two main tunnels are presumably Standedge and Morley. I fail to see why wiring tunnels has suddenly become an unsurmountable obstacle. The existing 25kV electrified system includes probably 10s of kms of tunnels in total which were never presented as insuperable obstacles in the past. Including the approaches to Euston, King's Cross, Liverpool Street and St. Pancras, Kilsby, Stoke, both routes through Central Glasgow etc etc. The Severn Tunnel was one of the first things to be dealt with on the GW scheme. If the railway industry is failing to challenge Grayling and the DfT on this it is nothing short of political cowardice.

Nothing is insurmountable given enough money. However the DfT hold the purse of money. The industry has put options forwards and its now up to the DfT to decide what they want to pay for.

The whole way funding for OLE projects is changing, with the DfT now wanting a much more mature level of design and estimate before opening the purse to more funding. GL/RT1210 compliance put new challenges into the frame. I think within the industry there was a kind of assumption that it would still be OK and the UK special case would still exist in some form, but then suddenly it didn't. The industry has moved to counter this, with novel technology being trialled to try and justify us back to using lower electrical clearances which will bring costs down, but probably too late for TRU to take full advantage.

The DfT also got stung with a possibly over-optimistic view of the true cost of OLE projectsi in GWEP and MML, we now know the real costs and future schemes should be able to keep within budgets.

I hope that we get back to more electrification at sensible clearances which we know work and keep those and other costs down. It's been a hard lesson for the industry as a whole and I think we are starting to claw our way back out.

 

[rebmcr]

I think the NPR target is 2033 to match HS2 phase 2b.

Indeed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-43430263

Plans for an upgrade to Manchester Piccadilly to fit in HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) include a "grand entrance" and underground platforms.

 

[AndrewE]

I think that, in certain places, if you re-instate a 3rd or 4th track you may have to change the alignment in such a way that you actually end up with a slower speed than today, or at least slower than what it could be upgraded to today

Its before my time but wasn't of the reasons for reducing to 2 tracks to increase line speed? I am far from convinced that improvements will be much more than a reduction of the express journey time from 48-50 minutes to ~40 minutes and a couple of ~800m passing loops. The long term solution is a massive rebuild of the Calder Valley route.

...except that modern rolling stock generally has a much higher power-to-weight ratio than what was around then, so recovering from speed restrictions on curves that have had to lose their "straightening out" (even uphill) shouldn't be such a problem. We also have smarter civil engineering (e.g. gabions)to support steeper embankment or cutting sides within the same boundary.

 

[jyte]

If you're talking about a rebuild (but not a new line) you could go down the TGV route - the up and down matters less than the side to side (aka build a straight route with steeper gradients). From looking at a topographical map of the Calder valley, that's not exactly an option though.

 

[mike57]

I think that, in certain places, if you re-instate a 3rd or 4th track you may have to change the alignment in such a way that you actually end up with a slower speed than today, or at least slower than what it could be upgraded to today

I think that is the case with Huddersfield - Standedge tunnel, but why 4 track the whole lot, Slaithwaite station appears to be roughly in the middle of the formation, so just have two platforms set back, and two fast lines through the middle so that fast trains can overtake stoppers and leave the rest of the section as it is. How much was the speed increased by when 4 tracks were reduced to 2, currently I think its 85mph eastbound, not sure about westbound, but even 185's never seem to achieve anything like 85 westbound at this point. The problem isnt just timetable journey time, its unreliability, I use the route at least once a week and lateness is frequently caused by/exacerbated by following a stopping train. Currently reliability is poor, being 10 mins late into Seamer happens regularly, and 20-25 mins late is frequent, and thats even before we get into the delay repay zone. And this is even with the timetable padding at York and Leeds westbound.

 

[Ploughman]

With the proposed 4 tracking at Cross Gates.
Would the existing formation be wide enough to extend from Cross Gates as far as Neville Hill and match into the existing 4 track through the deep cutting / Tunnel to the end of the viaduct?
I know that at the Selby Rd Bridge there is a disused trackbed on the UP side, not sure about the DN side.

 

[unslet]

Cross Gates to Neville Hill used to be 4 tracks throughout until the late 1960s.

 

[Chester1]

...except that modern rolling stock generally has a much higher power-to-weight ratio than what was around then, so recovering from speed restrictions on curves that have had to lose their "straightening out" (even uphill) shouldn't be such a problem. We also have smarter civil engineering (e.g. gabions)to support steeper embankment or cutting sides within the same boundary.

That makes sense but it will always be a case of trying to adapt a low speed victorian line into a 21st century intercity line. A reduction to 40 minutes would be good but it won't be enough to meet political or public expectations. It shouldn't be seen as more than the interim solution to cross north rail links.

I think that is the case with Huddersfield - Standedge tunnel, but why 4 track the whole lot, Slaithwaite station appears to be roughly in the middle of the formation, so just have two platforms set back, and two fast lines through the middle so that fast trains can overtake stoppers and leave the rest of the section as it is. How much was the speed increased by when 4 tracks were reduced to 2, currently I think its 85mph eastbound, not sure about westbound, but even 185's never seem to achieve anything like 85 westbound at this point. The problem isnt just timetable journey time, its unreliability, I use the route at least once a week and lateness is frequently caused by/exacerbated by following a stopping train. Currently reliability is poor, being 10 mins late into Seamer happens regularly, and 20-25 mins late is frequent, and thats even before we get into the delay repay zone. And this is even with the timetable padding at York and Leeds westbound.

The replacement of all stops services with skip stop services should make a big difference to reliability. Passing loops and 4 tracking is needed too.

 

[Senex]

A reduction to 40 minutes would be good but it won't be enough to meet political or public expectations.

What would be good enough to meet political or public expectations? A regular and reliable 40 minutes would certainly be a major step forward, but it represents an average speed of only a little over 60 mph between Manchester and Leeds, the two principal centres needing to be linked. Even 30 minutes is only about 80 mph, which is not wonderful by the standards of modern high-speed railways. Given the way things are today, isn't it all about how much money there is (or rather, how much any particular government chooses to make available) and what improvements can be got for that money, and how soon? The bird-in-the-hand of the regular and reliable 40 minutes by 2022 sounds a much better bet than a bird-in-the-bush for 2033 (or later, and only if successive governments do not change their minds).

 

[Chester1]

What would be good enough to meet political or public expectations? A regular and reliable 40 minutes would certainly be a major step forward, but it represents an average speed of only a little over 60 mph between Manchester and Leeds, the two principal centres needing to be linked. Even 30 minutes is only about 80 mph, which is not wonderful by the standards of modern high-speed railways. Given the way things are today, isn't it all about how much money there is (or rather, how much any particular government chooses to make available) and what improvements can be got for that money, and how soon? The bird-in-the-hand of the regular and reliable 40 minutes by 2022 sounds a much better bet than a bird-in-the-bush for 2033 (or later, and only if successive governments do not change their minds).

I am not advocating stopping this upgrade just stating pessimism on what will actually be achieved. I think the long term goal should be Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield comfortably under an hour of each other with at least 4tph express. That would essentially be a high speed metro service across the north.

 

[IanXC]

Given the way things are today, isn't it all about how much money there is (or rather, how much any particular government chooses to make available) and what improvements can be got for that money, and how soon? The bird-in-the-hand of the regular and reliable 40 minutes by 2022 sounds a much better bet than a bird-in-the-bush for 2033 (or later, and only if successive governments do not change their minds).

Absolutely. If there is any push back on accepting the £3bn lined up for TRU, then you can bet that the Treasury will have no hesitation in going along with it. And that will be an entirely separate decision to those relating to a new high speed route.

 

[Class 170101]

Cross Gates to Neville Hill used to be 4 tracks throughout until the late 1960s.

But it won't be as simple as putting the missing track back in situ, the standards of spacing between tracks has widened since the 1960s for safety reasons and also would the curves around Neville Hill been eased to permit higher speeds past there?

 

[HowardGWR]

What is the TLA TRU please?

 

[CdBrux]

Transpennine Route Upgrade

 

[mike57]

That makes sense but it will always be a case of trying to adapt a low speed victorian line into a 21st century intercity line. A reduction to 40 minutes would be good but it won't be enough to meet political or public expectations. It shouldn't be seen as more than the interim solution to cross north rail links.



The replacement of all stops services with skip stop services should make a big difference to reliability. Passing loops and 4 tracking is needed too.

Yes but passengers don't want a skip stop service, there are already questions being asked in Hull as to why the Hull - Manchester journey time is actually getting slower (Look North earlier in the week, Hull MP asking questions)

My own solution to current problems with TPE North would be:
4tph fast Leeds - Manchester, only stop Huddersfield, Eastern end 1 tph Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Hull, Trains to York all fast, no Garforth/Crossgates stops. Western end 2 Airport, 1 Liverpool, 1 Man Ox Road assuming they go via Man Vic, with Liverpool service being the one from Newcastle.
1 tph Semi Fast York - Man Pic, calling Garforth Leeds Dewsbury Huddersfield, Stalybridge
1tph Leeds Man Pic All stations Leeds - Stalybridge then Man Pic via Guide Bridge

All trains to be minimum 6 carriages on core route

I cant see the benefit of having more services to Newcastle run by TPE, or even extending them to Edinburgh, at least until the core route has a decent service, and I cant see the need for 2 tph Man Vic Liverpool via Chat Moss, at least the current service via Warrington serves some useful places along the way (Man Pic, Liverpool S P for Liverpool airport, Warrington) Lea Green and Newton seem relatively small and with minimal connection opertunities

 

[Crossforth]

Yes but passengers don't want a skip stop service, there are already questions being asked in Hull as to why the Hull - Manchester journey time is actually getting slower (Look North earlier in the week, Hull MP asking questions)

My own solution to current problems with TPE North would be:
4tph fast Leeds - Manchester, only stop Huddersfield, Eastern end 1 tph Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Hull, Trains to York all fast, no Garforth/Crossgates stops. Western end 2 Airport, 1 Liverpool, 1 Man Ox Road assuming they go via Man Vic, with Liverpool service being the one from Newcastle.
1 tph Semi Fast York - Man Pic, calling Garforth Leeds Dewsbury Huddersfield, Stalybridge
1tph Leeds Man Pic All stations Leeds - Stalybridge then Man Pic via Guide Bridge

All trains to be minimum 6 carriages on core route

I cant see the benefit of having more services to Newcastle run by TPE, or even extending them to Edinburgh, at least until the core route has a decent service, and I cant see the need for 2 tph Man Vic Liverpool via Chat Moss, at least the current service via Warrington serves some useful places along the way (Man Pic, Liverpool S P for Liverpool airport, Warrington) Lea Green and Newton seem relatively small and with minimal connection opertunities

The benefit to Newcastle is the direct connection to Manchester Airport. It is a very well used service

 

[TBirdFrank]

Why oh Why oh Why is it impossible to see Guide Bridge with its vast former sidings area as an M60 Junction 23 Parkway?

Pop a motel and a car maintenance facility alongside what could easily be a 1,500 space car park and the capacity to serve the whole East Manchester market becomes a no brainer - but will NR/TfGM / Northern / TPE see it? Apparently not in my lifetime. It took them seventeen full years to do part of what I made available to them and it was instantly oversubscribed.

Making part of the market go west to the city centre to go east is just crazy but that is what is being forced on us in five weeks time. There is a constructive solution but the rail blinded can't seem to see it.

 

[Chester1]

Yes but passengers don't want a skip stop service, there are already questions being asked in Hull as to why the Hull - Manchester journey time is actually getting slower (Look North earlier in the week, Hull MP asking questions)

My own solution to current problems with TPE North would be:
4tph fast Leeds - Manchester, only stop Huddersfield, Eastern end 1 tph Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Hull, Trains to York all fast, no Garforth/Crossgates stops. Western end 2 Airport, 1 Liverpool, 1 Man Ox Road assuming they go via Man Vic, with Liverpool service being the one from Newcastle.
1 tph Semi Fast York - Man Pic, calling Garforth Leeds Dewsbury Huddersfield, Stalybridge
1tph Leeds Man Pic All stations Leeds - Stalybridge then Man Pic via Guide Bridge

All trains to be minimum 6 carriages on core route

I cant see the benefit of having more services to Newcastle run by TPE, or even extending them to Edinburgh, at least until the core route has a decent service, and I cant see the need for 2 tph Man Vic Liverpool via Chat Moss, at least the current service via Warrington serves some useful places along the way (Man Pic, Liverpool S P for Liverpool airport, Warrington) Lea Green and Newton seem relatively small and with minimal connection opertunities

Its not surprising a local MP has complained and at this late stage it doesn’t mean anything. I am not sure why Hull and not Scarborough got the semi fast service terminating at Piccadilly though. Hull is a much more important place outside of the holiday season.

The reason why both Liverpool services will go via Chat Moss is that it is much faster at 34 minutes to Victoria with one stop. I guess it could be replaced with an EMU service though. Newton-Le-Willows provides some connections and Lea Green is for St Helens.

 

[Spartacus]

Its not surprising a local MP has complained and at this late stage it doesn’t mean anything. I am not sure why Hull and not Scarborough got the semi fast service terminating at Piccadilly though. Hull is a much more important place outside of the holiday season.

My guess is that Hull has the M62 and 2 lane A63, while Scarborough has the largely 1 lane A64 has something to do with it, but also when what I've seen more passengers to and from Selby/Hull change or get off at Leeds that those from York/Scarborough do. Really though, the difference in time between Hull and Piccadilly before and after the timetable change isn't all that great, only about 5 minutes, that's less than the margin of error I'd possibly be able to give you for doing the journey by car.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why oh Why oh Why is it impossible to see Guide Bridge with its vast former sidings area as an M60 Junction 23 Parkway?

Pop a motel and a car maintenance facility alongside what could easily be a 1,500 space car park and the capacity to serve the whole East Manchester market becomes a no brainer - but will NR/TfGM / Northern / TPE see it? Apparently not in my lifetime. It took them seventeen full years to do part of what I made available to them and it was instantly oversubscribed.

Making part of the market go west to the city centre to go east is just crazy but that is what is being forced on us in five weeks time. There is a constructive solution but the rail blinded can't seem to see it.

But whom would such a scheme serve? Its not exactly the most populated areas, and it is well served by a number of stations and routes. If you are thinking passengers might arrive from further east across the Pennines then I suspect that the operators would rather attract them to board closer to their starting point than drive to some parkway way out on the eastern edge of Manchester.

As for the diversion of one Liverpool bound services through Victoria rather than Piccadilly, this removes two awkward moves an hour across the eastern throat, thereby reducing congestion there. And Manchester doesn't lose out as it will gain at least 3 Victoria to Piccadilly moves each way every hour.

 

[Buspilot]

Clearly the member from Baildon does not have a decent knowledge of the other side of the hill and it's problems.

Just a few facts: the area is well populated and whilst served by a number of stations, they all in the main lack one basic thing...car parking spaces. So the area may be "well served by a number of stations and routes" but the access to these with the lack of parking and continually reducing local bus services to access these does cause a problem. The motorways and main roads in the area are extremely congested. The suggestion of a park and ride/train facility at Guide Bridge is therefore made with merit.
The recent suggestion of extending Metrolink from Ashton to Stalybridge, whilst a wonderful thought, will come up against the lack of parking and local bus services as well. The area around Stalybridge Station/town centre already lacks car parking capacity as similarly does Ashton, where the Council are building on former town centre car parks.

 

[rich r]

The guard told me the other week that the Manchester to Hull service would be 6 coach permanently soon. When it's only 3 it's sometimes very difficult to get on at Leeds at commuter peak time.

Personally I use the TPE service from Leeds to Selby because it fits with the times I go to and leave work, and significantly faster and more comfortable (even standing) than the Northern 14x or 15x alternative.