More 802s and CLC wiring vs TPE North electrification

[Philip]

Would it potentially be more cost effective for the government to shelve the Stalybridge to Leeds electrification project and instead prioritize the CLC Manchester to Liverpool electrification, whilst also ordering/buying enough 802s on behalf of TPE to operate all of the current services across the Standedge line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it potentially be more cost effective for the government to shelve the Stalybridge to Leeds electrification project and instead prioritize the CLC Manchester to Liverpool electrification, whilst also ordering/buying enough 802s on behalf of TPE to operate all of the current services across the Standedge line?

Before electrifying the CLC (which would be a great benefit) you would need to answer the question of whether you want to put 25kV up or whether you would want a Merseyrail-Metrolink solution.

 

[Purple Orange]

Would it potentially be more cost effective for the government to shelve the Stalybridge to Leeds electrification project and instead prioritize the CLC Manchester to Liverpool electrification, whilst also ordering/buying enough 802s on behalf of TPE to operate all of the current services across the Standedge line?

The short answer is no, because you’re still faced with the issue of electrification of both lines, and as @Bletchleyite said, the CLC could be used for merseyrail & metrolink operations. Completing the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade will deliver

• 4 fast tph
• 2 semi-fast tph
• 2 stopping tph
• Plus the stoppers that terminate at Stalybridge.

You’re not going to get that on the CLC without investing in infrastructure too and arguably that service pattern is not right for the CLC either.

 

[yorksrob]

I think Standedge needs to come first. As well as being higher up the ranking in mainline terms, its geography means that you will get more benefit from electric traction going over the hills.

CLC should come soon after though (particularly if it heads off a tram\merseyrail "buffers in the middle of Warrington Central" bodge job).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think Standedge needs to come first. As well as being higher up the ranking in mainline terms, its geography means that you will get more benefit from electric traction going over the hills.

CLC should come soon after though (particularly if it heads off a tram\merseyrail "buffers in the middle of Warrington Central" bodge job).

To be honest, the idea of the eastern half of the CLC being handed off to Metrolink and their bouncy trams is a bit worrying. The existing Metrolink routes are probably at the upper limit of what's suitable for such vehicles purely from a passenger comfort point of view. Likewise the idea of replacing the Glossop/Hadfield line with Tram-trains strikes me as immensely negative, but that's off-topic here.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Would it potentially be more cost effective for the government to shelve the Stalybridge to Leeds electrification project and instead prioritize the CLC Manchester to Liverpool electrification, whilst also ordering/buying enough 802s on behalf of TPE to operate all of the current services across the Standedge line?

Is cost effectiveness all we should be considering? Surely the issues of connectivity, 'levelling up', climate change and so on are more nuanced than that.

Can I ask if you are an accountant by the way?

 

[nr758123]

The OP has started threads making suggestions for several routes around Manchester and I was wondering when he would get around to looking at mine.

Though it appears to consists merely of questioning whether Standedge route electrification should be ditched in favour of a completely unrelated route elsewhere.

The short answer is no. The long answer is also no.

It was announced something like 10 years ago, and at the time it was claimed that electrification would remove the need to reopen the disused Standedge tunnel bores because electrification would provide the same benefits. I recall a Northern manager at a public meeting extolling the benefits of electrification thus: "it flattens the hill".

So in addition to the benefits in terms of the number of trains which could be converted to electric traction and the performance benefits on a steeply graded route, Network Rail and the DfT have had 10 years in which to do preparatory design work. I have to assume that those ten years have not all been wasted, the engineering challenges have all been identified, solutions found and design work done. It's necessary, and by now it should be ready to proceed. It stands on its own merits without any need to compare it to a different route.

 

[Purple Orange]

To be honest, the idea of the eastern half of the CLC being handed off to Metrolink and their bouncy trams is a bit worrying. The existing Metrolink routes are probably at the upper limit of what's suitable for such vehicles purely from a passenger comfort point of view. Likewise the idea of replacing the Glossop/Hadfield line with Tram-trains strikes me as immensely negative, but that's off-topic here.

It wouldn't be actual trams running on that line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It wouldn't be actual trams running on that line.

Well no, it'd be tram-trains... but outside of us transport nerds if it looks like a tram and works like a tram, then it'll ride like a tram and most people will call it a tram.

They're the right solution for certain situations, but neither the CLC nor the Hadfield/Glossop lines are the right place for them. They'd be a significant downgrade from the 195s and 323s that presently run those services.

 

[yorksrob]

To be honest, the idea of the eastern half of the CLC being handed off to Metrolink and their bouncy trams is a bit worrying. The existing Metrolink routes are probably at the upper limit of what's suitable for such vehicles purely from a passenger comfort point of view. Likewise the idea of replacing the Glossop/Hadfield line with Tram-trains strikes me as immensely negative, but that's off-topic here.

Off topic but quite right !

 

[Purple Orange]

Well no, it'd be tram-trains... but outside of us transport nerds if it looks like a tram and works like a tram, then it'll ride like a tram and most people will call it a tram.

They're the right solution for certain situations, but neither the CLC nor the Hadfield/Glossop lines are the right place for them. They'd be a significant downgrade from the 195s and 323s that presently run those services.

I doubt that the CLC would be converted to Metrolink and have tram-trains, as there is no capacity through St Peters Sq. For the CLC to be converted to metrolink, I’d argue that it would need to be running in to the proposed metro tunnel under Manchester city centre. The consequence is that it would not be a tram or a tram-train running on the line.

 

[Philip]

I'm not an accountant to answer a question further up. However, cost is important as well as practicality and both of these are quite big obstacles for the electrification of this particular line. For what is a reasonably short stretch, would the benefit of saving money on a costly project outweigh the negative of continuing to run as diesel on the line (albeit with a bi-mode train)? DfT, as I say, would order enough 802s for TPE to use for all services on the line and so there's be no instances of a diesel train running under wires - this in itself would be a major improvement.

 

[tbtc]

It seems an odd "either - or" - the CLC is nothing to do with the main Transpennine line these days (since the West Yorkshire - Merseyside services went over to Chat Moss) - so it's not as if electrifying the CLC would make any difference to the main Transpennine axis

I'd certainly be in favour of electrification of the CLC at some stage - it's already wired at both ends, the time penalty of DMUs making frequent stops means that the timetable has to be built around the two "stoppers" being carefully flighted around the two "semi fasts" (although the "semi fasts" are overtaken by the Chat Moss services in terms of Lime Street - Pic/Vic timings)

I just don't see what "spending lots of money on one infrastructure project AND spending lots of money on brand new trains" rather than "spending lots of money on one infrastructure project" helps things - especially as the CLC electrification would only be a "local" benefit (whilst the TPE electrification would have benefits across t'North)

If you could order loads more 802s then... great... I'm not against it in principle, but... what does it solve? Noisy 68s to Cleethorpes instead, and thirsty 185s too... where?

 

[Philip]

It seems an odd "either - or" - the CLC is nothing to do with the main Transpennine line these days (since the West Yorkshire - Merseyside services went over to Chat Moss) - so it's not as if electrifying the CLC would make any difference to the main Transpennine axis

I'd certainly be in favour of electrification of the CLC at some stage - it's already wired at both ends, the time penalty of DMUs making frequent stops means that the timetable has to be built around the two "stoppers" being carefully flighted around the two "semi fasts" (although the "semi fasts" are overtaken by the Chat Moss services in terms of Lime Street - Pic/Vic timings)

I just don't see what "spending lots of money on one infrastructure project AND spending lots of money on brand new trains" rather than "spending lots of money on one infrastructure project" helps things - especially as the CLC electrification would only be a "local" benefit (whilst the TPE electrification would have benefits across t'North)

If you could order loads more 802s then... great... I'm not against it in principle, but... what does it solve? Noisy 68s to Cleethorpes instead, and thirsty 185s too... where?

On the latter points, surely noise level isn't a factor in where certain trains are deployed? Class 185s themselves are quite noisy and speaking of which, I doubt demand for them would be low if they went off lease.

 

[Starmill]

On the latter points, surely noise level isn't a factor in where certain trains are deployed? Class 185s themselves are quite noisy and speaking of which, I doubt demand for them would be low if they went off lease.

It's definitely a factor. It's often critical in stabling or maintainence locations. Barrow-in-Furness and Scarborough are recent examples of cases where locomotive noise and emissions were a nuisance to railway neighbours.

 

[AM9]

Before electrifying the CLC (which would be a great benefit) you would need to answer the question of whether you want to put 25kV up or whether you would want a Merseyrail-Metrolink solution.

Plus of course there's the problem of getting approval for well over track 50 miles of virgin 3rd rail electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus of course there's the problem of getting approval for well over track 50 miles of virgin 3rd rail electrification.

Merseyrail could well consider doing it on battery power - plenty of time down from Southport to charge up.

 

[AM9]

Merseyrail could well consider doing it on battery power - plenty of time down from Southport to charge up.

So what is the gauranteed range with nearly fully charged batteries? It would need to be 27 miles plus twelve stations stops assuming no other signal cautions/stops.

 

[507020]

So what is the gauranteed range with nearly fully charged batteries? It would need to be 27 miles plus twelve stations stops assuming no other signal cautions/stops.

If they don’t do battery they could do 750V DC overhead throughout and the same wires could be used by M5000s at the Manchester end, but there shouldn’t be any discussion about removing either cross-Warrington or through Liverpool - Manchester services from the CLC line. What would be wrong with 777s running the service all the way from Liverpool Central or Southport to a tunnel underneath Manchester, being better than M5000s.

 

[AM9]

If they don’t do battery they could do 750V DC overhead throughout and the same wires could be used by M5000s at the Manchester end, but there shouldn’t be any discussion about removing either cross-Warrington or through Liverpool - Manchester services from the CLC line. What would be wrong with 777s running the service all the way from Liverpool Central or Southport to a tunnel underneath Manchester, being better than M5000s.

I don't know because I've only done the length of the CLC in an EMT 158 and a Northern 195. 25Kv would be far better as:
a) That's what exists at both ends of the line, - one day that would interfere with any electrification schemes for EMR, Northern or even TfW services, plus the route's potential for diversionary paths. 750DC would limit speeds to tram levels.
b) SOP to MCO is about 55 miles, - with about 15 miles running through urban areas. That's more than the LU Central Line (46 miles) of which 30 miles is through much denser urban areas.