Further Electrification in the North West - Details announced

[PhilipW]

Slipped into the Chancellor's Pre-Budget statement to parliament today was the news that the government has authorised two further electrification schemes

-- Manchester to Preston (Euxton junction) via Chorley
-- Liverpool (Huyton junction) to Wigan via St Helens

Just the headlines were given. An detailed statement from the DfT will follow.

Excellent news as both are logical follow-on schemes from the previously announced Liverpool to Manchester scheme via Chat Moss.

Well done Lord Adonis for getting this approved.

 

[ukrob]

Slipped into the Chancellor's Pre-Budget statement to parliament today was the news that the government has authorised two further electrification schemes

-- Manchester to Preston (Euxton junction) via Chorley
-- Liverpool (Huyton junction) to Wigan via St Helens

Just the headlines were given. An detailed statement from the DfT will follow.

Excellent news as both are logical follow-on schemes from the previously announced Liverpool to Manchester scheme via Chat Moss.

Well done Lord Adonis for getting this approved.

I don't believe that was said at all.

"Work is now underway on Crossrail, the Thameslink project, and from
this month, the upgrade of the M1. All this work will continue. So
will the rail electrification programmes for the Great Western Main
Line and the North West announced in July.

I can tell the House today that I have also given the go-ahead to
further plans for rail electrification between Liverpool, Manchester
and Preston. The SoS for Transport will announce further details
shortly."

^^
is what was said.

Where did you get your info from? Has is been announced since the PBR?

 

[Failed Unit]

Slipped into the Chancellor's Pre-Budget statement to parliament today was the news that the government has authorised two further electrification schemes

-- Manchester to Preston (Euxton junction) via Chorley
-- Liverpool (Huyton junction) to Wigan via St Helens

Just the headlines were given. An detailed statement from the DfT will follow.

Excellent news as both are logical follow-on schemes from the previously announced Liverpool to Manchester scheme via Chat Moss.

Well done Lord Adonis for getting this approved.

Hopefully that will get rid of a few pacers and hopefully stop Bolton losing out its services to / from Scotland. Stills needs to get to Blackpool in my opinion to remove a few more pacers from the network!

 

[PhilipW]

OK, what you quoted is what the Chancellor did say. I note the words "further plans". With the Chat Moss scheme already announced, what else can he be referring to other that what I said.

Yes, I accept I have fleshed out the details a bit. That is just a logical interpretation of what was said. We both await the DfT statement with some anticipation.

 

[ukrob]

OK, what you quoted is what the Chancellor did say. I note the words "further plans". With the Chat Moss scheme already announced, what else can he be referring to other that what I said.

Yes, I accept I have fleshed out the details a bit. That is just a logical interpretation of what was said. We both await the DfT statement with some anticipation.

Liverpool to Wigan (Huyton to Springs Branch) is the only part which has not already been announced - possibly jumping the gun saying the Chorley route will be electrified when Manchester - Preston is already announced.

 

[4SRKT]

Slipped into the Chancellor's Pre-Budget statement to parliament today was the news that the government has authorised two further electrification schemes

-- Manchester to Preston (Euxton junction) via Chorley
-- Liverpool (Huyton junction) to Wigan via St Helens

Just the headlines were given. An detailed statement from the DfT will follow.

Excellent news as both are logical follow-on schemes from the previously announced Liverpool to Manchester scheme via Chat Moss.

Well done Lord Adonis for getting this approved.

Not so much 'excellent news as both are logical follow ons........', as 'just as well because without this the previous announcement made no sense whatsoever'.

 

[PhilipW]

Well it looks as if Chorley will be disappointed if the schemes to be announced are not as listed above.

http://www.chorleycitizen.co.uk/news/4785988.Government_set_to_announce_Chorley_railway_to_be_electrified/

It appears now as if we will have to wait until next week for the official DfT announcement.

The brief Commons statement did refer to "plans" rather than "plan" implying "more than one" and Manchester, Liverpool and Manchester were all mentioned.

I still reckon that the two schemes mentioned are the most obvious.

Once announced, I hope that paves the way for Lord Adonis to then issue his promised revised Rolling Stock plan.

 

[ukrob]

Indeed they are the most obvious.

I just think it was jumping the gun a bit telling people that the routes had officially been announced when in fact it is just guesswork

It does seem very odd electrifying both routes from Manchester to Preston when only one TPH currently uses them (the TPE Man-Scotland with the 350s once electrified)? Are there any other services which would be entirely under the wires?

 

[Old Timer]

Are you sure it is not just scheme development and scoping planning ?

There is an awful lot of preparatory work to be done before any firm plans can be prepared for approval.

It sounds very much to me like he has just used weasel words to hide what is simply advanced planning. Back to smoke and mirrors again.

NEVER take any Labour Ministers words at face value.

 

[PhilipW]

I judge Andrew Adonis by his actions. So far I consider that he has been an excellent Transport minister. I believe he is the 11th Transport minister since Labour came to power in 1997. It is just a pity that he has come along so late in the day.

We will await the official DfT statement and see.

 

[Pumbaa]

NEVER take any Labour Ministers words at face value.

The same could be said about any member of parliament Particularly so the Conservatives.

 

[Swift-Deere]

About time that liverpool to Wigan was Electrified,
can't wait to get rid of those dreadful sprinters (don't mind pacers they've got spirit great fun to ride withe no suspension lol)

 

[PhilipW]

It is also worth noting that with the current Chat Moss route electrification, both Network Rail and Northern want the wires extended through Victoria to Stalybridge. The reason is entirely operational as there is more capacity at Stalybridge than Victoria to turn trains around. Those of you with a better knowledge of Stalybridge than me will know if that is true or not.

Additionally Network Rail also have a plan to wire up the short section from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge so that the Hadfield line stoppers can be routed to Stalybridge so freeing paths for the Hadfield/Glossop trains to run run fast to beyond Guide Bridge.

All this seems entirely sensible. I would not be surprised if this was mentioned in the DfT announcement next week as well.

Indeed if the wires do get to Stalybridge then, as Tesco say, "Every little helps" in the big push to get the wires extended over the Pennines to Leeds at some point in the future.

 

[Lampshade]

It would make sense to extend the wires to Stalybridge given there are no terminating services at Victoria from Liverpool, the only Northern services running into Vic from Liverpool via Chat Moss terminate at... Stalybridge. It would therefore make much more sense to wire Victoria - Stalybridge to avoid changing trains and leaving a 319? sat at Victoria doing naff all. They'll also have to wire up to Newton Heath TMD.

However, I'm not sure of there being more capacity at SYB, there is a bay platform for terminating services and various crossovers to the west of the station; so yes, there's more capacity for turning trains around at SYB than MCV, on the grounds that MCV has pretty much zero capacity to begin with, two trains often occupy a single through platform, effectively using it as two end on bay platforms.

 

[4SRKT]

In short, it makes no sense to electrify any of it, unless they're going to electrify all of it. Which they're not. So they should leave well alone because the timetable will necessarily become disjointed as a result of partial electrification, which isn't in anyone's interest, either from a service or operational POV.

 

[PhilipW]

In short, it makes no sense to electrify any of it, unless they're going to electrify all of it. Which they're not..

It is never going to be possible to electrify everything all at once under any government or in any economic circumstances. That's life.

If we want our railways to be electrified, which I think we nearly all do on this forum, then doing it in logical incremental steps seems like the only way forward.

If confirmed next week, I think the electrification of the three sides of the Liverpool - Manchester - Preston triangle (with possibly the Stalybridge extension) is a very sensible and logical scheme.

Once achieved, there will then be some more logical extensions to pursue in order to reduce DMU usage further; Preston-Blackpool and Oxenholme-Windermere spring to mind. So we begin to have a comprehensive electrified network.

Whatever political party we may support, electrification has been off the agenda in the last 20 years. How astonishingly refreshing it is now to have a Minister of Transport who is actively pushing it. Yesterday's announcement, even if just in headline format, was a very pleasant surprise. I was not expecting that at all.

 

[4SRKT]

It is never going to be possible to electrify everything all at once under any government or in any economic circumstances. That's life.

If we want our railways to be electrified, which I think we nearly all do on this forum, then doing it in logical incremental steps seems like the only way forward.

If confirmed next week, I think the electrification of the three sides of the Liverpool - Manchester - Preston triangle (with possibly the Stalybridge extension) is a very sensible and logical scheme.

Once achieved, there will then be some more logical extensions to pursue in order to reduce DMU usage further; Preston-Blackpool and Oxenholme-Windermere spring to mind. So we begin to have a comprehensive electrified network.

Whatever political party we may support, electrification has been off the agenda in the last 20 years. How astonishingly refreshing it is now to have a Minister of Transport who is actively pushing it. Yesterday's announcement, even if just in headline format, was a very pleasant surprise. I was not expecting that at all.

Blackpool North would have to be included in the first triangle scheme you mentioned, otherwise it doesn't make sense. Stalybridge is not going to happen, unless maybe the NTP route gets done, which equally shouldn't be done unless you're prepared to electrify to Scarborough and Hull, which I imagine any economist would baulk at.

At this risk of doing the railway enthusiast equivalent of farting in church, I don't necessarily believe that electrification is the way forward, and never have. Are Mk IVs better than Mk IIIs? No. Can HSTS keep the timings run by 91s? Near enough as makes no difference. The benefits of electrification of the ECML were in the signalling improvements and reallignments, so that HSTs can run as though they were electrics. This could have been done without the huge cost of electrification. The disbenefits on the other hand are chaos every time there are high winds, or huge disruption when engineering works need to happen.

Electrification should be applied to logical extensions of existing electrified self-contained systems only (such as Ashford > Ore). A piecemeal approach shows the despressing lack of forward thinking that is only too obvious in the railways over the past generation or two, and the 'Green' debate creates the false idea that electrification for electrification's sake is always a good thing. Kind of feels like we should be grateful if anyone spends any money at all on the railway, even if it's being spent misguidedly to electrify a line that only one train an hour can use throughout its length, rather than pointing out that this may, in fact, be crazy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've now become an RPI, whatever that may mean. After my last post, maybe that should be RIP!

 

[gordonthemoron]

Ain't it strange how OHLE wires don't routinely come down in other countries

 

[philjo]

Ain't it strange how OHLE wires don't routinely come down in other countries

I was in France last year when the OHLE came down on one of the TGV lines, causing major disruption out of Paris on a Friday afternoon/evening.
It was the main item on the French TV news as it was such a rare event.
The French Transport Minister demanded a full report to be placed on his desk by first thing Monday morning & also threatened the SNCF head engineer responsible for the OHLE with the sack for this event.

 

[Lampshade]

I don't understand why Preston - Liverpool should be electrified as it's only 1tph in each direction whereas Preston - Manchester is 4tph in each direction that are almost always rammed. The solution should be to electrify Manchester - Preston so TPE can run using the 350s and Northern can possibly make Preston - Hazel Grove a 323 service.

 

[Geezertronic]

I don't understand why Preston - Liverpool should be electrified as it's only 1tph in each direction whereas Preston - Manchester is 4tph in each direction that are almost always rammed. The solution should be to electrify Manchester - Preston so TPE can run using the 350s and Northern can possibly make Preston - Hazel Grove a 323 service.

Is it not for WCML diversionary purposes?

 

[ukrob]

I don't understand why Preston - Liverpool should be electrified as it's only 1tph in each direction whereas Preston - Manchester is 4tph in each direction that are almost always rammed. The solution should be to electrify Manchester - Preston so TPE can run using the 350s and Northern can possibly make Preston - Hazel Grove a 323 service.

Liverpool - Wigan is three TPH (the RUS calls for four). Wigan - Preston is already electric.

Manchester - Preston is already announced, via Newton-le-Willows, so the Chorley route is duplication.

Edit: 'via Newton' is bad wording on my part. I mean using the Chat Moss route to the WCML.

 

[brompton rail]

It is also worth noting that with the current Chat Moss route electrification, both Network Rail and Northern want the wires extended through Victoria to Stalybridge.

Additionally Network Rail also have a plan to wire up the short section from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge so that the Hadfield line stoppers can be routed to Stalybridge so freeing paths for the Hadfield/Glossop trains to run run fast to beyond Guide Bridge.

All this seems entirely sensible. I would not be surprised if this was mentioned in the DfT announcement next week as well.

Indeed if the wires do get to Stalybridge then, as Tesco say, "Every little helps" in the big push to get the wires extended over the Pennines to Leeds at some point in the future.

Can't quite see how Glossop / Hadfield trains could go Victoria, Stalybridge, Guide Bridge and then to Glossop etc - 2 reversals.

Yes I can see the aim of wires to Stalybridge is to make Trans Pennine North a little more feasible.

HOWEVER, given the Pre Budget Report and the subsequent massive cuts after the election (same with whoever gets in) I can't see any of this happening, and I mean any of it .... no HSL, no electrification, no Hitachi Super Express train (hopefully!) and no new DMU / EMU (except SE England)!!) stock. Crossrail is likely to be delayed too. The media tells us Capital cuts and all of these need capital. Sorry to be gloomy

 

[PhilipW]

Can't quite see how Glossop / Hadfield trains could go Victoria, Stalybridge, Guide Bridge and then to Glossop etc - 2 reversals.

To clarify, the plan is:
The stopping trains at Ardwick, Ashburys, Gorton, Fairfield and Guide Bridge are then routed to Stalybridge as their final stop.

The Hadfield/Glossop trains can then run fast to either Guide Bridge or Flowery Field as first stop.
----

As to affordability of any Electrification after the election, whether it be Labour or Tory returned, the money is borrowed against Network Rail's asset base which Network Rail eventually gets back over 30/40 years. So the borrowing is not directly on the Government's books. Call it a trick of accounting if you wish, there is little point in arguing about it, but it is a mechanism of getting investment done. The Scottish government will be doing the same for the Glasgow-Edinburgh electrification. It would be ironic if the Westminster government cancelled England's electrification whilst the Scottish government carried on with electrification there. The monies come from the same pot.

 

[Aictos]

Ain't it strange how OHLE wires don't routinely come down in other countries

The difference between the OHL on the WCML and the ECML is the OHL supports on the ECML are shared between all 4 tracks as is the case at say St Neots as opposed to seperate OHL supports for each track as it is on the WCML.

So while any problem on the WCML means trains can still run on the unaffected lines, it completely screws the job up on the ECML.

I'm sure other members can give a more detailed reply but that's the basic idea of the differences between the two very different standards used for OHL on the WCML and ECML.

I just hope that they don't electrify on the cheap ala ECML.

Still, if the above work in the North West did get completed, how many DMUs would be cascaded away to be replaced by EMUs?

 

[Old Timer]

Ain't it strange how OHLE wires don't routinely come down in other countries

They do come down abroad and for similar reasons to why they come down here.

The difference is that in some Countries you have alternative routes available, plus the signalling permits bi-directional running, plus the interval between the lines is much greater and thus trains may well be able to run whilst repairs are carried out.

Many Countries have wiring trains ready to roll, the UK does not.

I would also suggest that unless you live in a Country abroad. or you have specifically very good current information you will not here of OHL incidents abroad.

 

[CosherB]

I judge Andrew Adonis by his actions. So far I consider that he has been an excellent Transport minister. I believe he is the 11th Transport minister since Labour came to power in 1997. It is just a pity that he has come along so late in the day.

I agree, but putting my 'cynical' hat on (which experience has taught me always to do where politicitions are concerned) maybe it's because he's come late in NL's day that his excellent proposals get government backing. It encourages the voters, and that's great for Brown with an upcoming election! He knows he'll never actually have to deliver these electrification schemes! And as for HS2 - not a snowball in hell's chance.

After the election, whoever wins, what's the betting they'll be binned as non-affordable?

 

[Old Timer]

One of the many downsides with piecemeal electrification is that in the longer term it can be horrendously expensive, unless the WHOLE scheme is properly scoped and built to a long term plan.

This is something Network Rail never does.

Feeder stations should be placed at the optimal distance along the route but apartial electrification will either result in power being drawn in from the end of route FS or a new FS being built to supply the new section of route. That invariably will not necessarily be in the optimal location and will later either require upgrade or removal elsewhere. Alternatively a further non-optimal FS may be built further along.

Signalling circuits neeed to be modified and double rail track circuits converted to single rail operation. This requires signalling design which is cheaper when done for a full scheme rather than a small part scheme.

As far as the track layout is concerned, the ideal is to install newer switches which will be longer than the existing.

The downside is that the length of the switch determins the positioning of the OHL structures in that area, and thus the span lengths. If the electrification is done using existing infrastructure then when it is upgraded, the OHL will require adjustment probably over several spans on either side. Again this raises designs costs which could be avoided.

The most cost effective way of proceeding is to select a route and then undertake a long term planned upgrade, in the way that for example The Midland was electrified to Bedford.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The most cost effective way of proceeding is to select a route and then undertake a long term planned upgrade . . .

Oh?
Do you mean, for example, as an element of a strategy for the progressive implementation of a planned long-term development - or some equally unprecedented and unlikely application of reason?

and while I'm on, I did mean to report one of your previous posts in this thread to the moderators for its outrageous allegation:

It sounds very much to me like he has just used weasel words to hide what is simply advanced planning. Back to smoke and mirrors again.

The phrase "back to" quite clearly asserts that there has been a period of scrutiny, transparency and accountability during the current term of government - which is a complete falsification of the facts! A retraction would be appropriate

 

[Old Timer]

Oh?
Do you mean, for example, as an element of a strategy for the progressive implementation of a planned long-term development - or some equally unprecedented and unlikely application of reason?

Afraid so, old chap.

Works elsewhere in the modern world except for the UK (Scotland excepted of course !).