Discussion regarding electric train provision on newly electrified Transpennine Route

[superkev]

Moderator note: Split from

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Well it was suggested in the Manchester - Liverpool Electrification thread that we have a seperate Transpennine thread. Now I know that Manchester - Stalybridge is actually part of the Northern Hub project , but to me, haulage bashing Peaks in the 1970s-1980s - Liverpool-Newcastle was classed as...

www.railforums.co.uk

With past train procurements not going well, I'm beginning to doubt that Northern or TPE will have any new electric trains in time to use the new wires.

K

 

[Roger B]

WIth past train procurements not going well im beginning to doubt to Northen/ TPE will have any new electric trains in time to use the new wires.
K

350/2s to the rescue - as well as retaining some 323s?

 

[swt_passenger]

WIth past train procurements not going well im beginning to doubt to Northen/ TPE will have any new electric trains in time to use the new wires.
K

Don't TPE have 802s in use on the route already? I know they’ll need more, but they can already use the wires for a subset of services.

 

[edwin_m]

The future timetable will rely on faster trains overtaking slower ones on the four-track section then the remaining two-track between Ravensthorpe and Leeds being short enough that a stopper can get through it before the next fast catches it up. I wonder if that needs EMU performance on the stoppers to work properly.

 

[fishwomp]

[..]
WIth past train procurements not going well im beginning to doubt to Northen/ TPE will have any new electric trains in time to use the new wires.

Old electric trains would be fine..

At this point though, TPU is going well enough that they ought to get going - 2 yrs ish is about right for lead time IIRC .

FWIW..
Compare the history
- HS2 line still chopping and changing and about 14 years before it opens - and yet has a contract for rolling stock signed 2+ years ago that now needed varying (£££) because of all the changes so far..
- GWR electrification - IEP specified (sigh) and ordered, long before GWR electrification turned into an omnishambles. Depots ended up getting largely built for wires, that aren't 'wired' (Maliphant), rolling stock with wrong engine characteristics, and a performance penalty for the amount of diesel hours they'll run for.

.. vs

- Leeds - Doncaster locals first ran with 307s until the 321s were procured,
- Leeds/Bradford to Skipton and Ilkley had (IIRC) 308s until the 333s arrived (_5_ years later)

both of those were because the government was hard up. That was how life was in the 1990s - and it wasn't a bad outcome - the lines got electrified and the rolling stock had more capacity than the pacers they replaced.. the old stock was comfortable - and then the rest of the money was found. Expensive rolling stock wasn't laid up in the sidings waiting for the electrification to be completed..

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Old electric trains would be fine..

Although if ETCS is installed as part of TRU they would need to be upgraded for it.

 

[edwin_m]

Although if ETCS is installed as part of TRU they would need to be upgraded for it.

More likely ETCS would be postponed. There doesn't seem much point in getting the route electrified with conventional signalling then taking the signals out a few years later.

 

[zwk500]

More likely ETCS would be postponed. There doesn't seem much point in getting the route electrified with conventional signalling then taking the signals out a few years later.

ETCS Rollout on Transpennine Route Upgrade

Hi all, Recently just got the results back from an FOI from Network Rail about the specifics and timelines for ETCS rollout across the TRU. Thought it might be of interest to some! https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ertms_timeline_and_data_as_part It includes a map of where ETCS will be...

www.railforums.co.uk

This post gives some timescales from NR, not necessarily still the latest of course! Mid- to late-2030s for ETCS implementation on TRU.

 

[quantinghome]

The future timetable will rely on faster trains overtaking slower ones on the four-track section then the remaining two-track between Ravensthorpe and Leeds being short enough that a stopper can get through it before the next fast catches it up. I wonder if that needs EMU performance on the stoppers to work properly.

Based on RTT it looks like the stoppers are around 9-10 minutes slower than the fast trains between Leeds and Ravensthorpe. The future timetable has 4 fasts per hour, which would ideally be every 15 minutes. At a guess, the stopper would leaves 3 minutes after the fast and need to be onto the four-track section 3 minutes before the next fast. So the stoppers must be no more than 9 minutes slower than the fasts, which is around the current difference, although I guess it would be better for reliability if they were a couple of minutes quicker than that.

It may be more complicated than that though. AFAIK on that stretch there will be 2 stoppers to Huddersfield, 2 semi-fasts and 1 stopper through Brighouse per hour. Fitting these 5 slower trains between 4 fast trains means there will be at least one instance of two slower trains between two fasts. I doubt even EMU acceleration would be enough in that case - either the fasts would need to move from an exact 15-minute interval service, or stopping trains skip some stations. And the Brighouse service won't be an EMU - unless Northern crack on and get some hybrids.

 

[Nottingham59]

Based on RTT it looks like the stoppers are around 9-10 minutes slower than the fast trains between Leeds and Ravensthorpe. The future timetable has 4 fasts per hour, which would ideally be every 15 minutes. At a guess, the stopper would leaves 3 minutes after the fast and need to be onto the four-track section 3 minutes before the next fast. So the stoppers must be no more than 9 minutes slower than the fasts, which is around the current difference, although I guess it would be better for reliability if they were a couple of minutes quicker than that.

So how many minutes would be saved if the stoppers had electric acceleration? If that reduces the stopping discrepancy from 9 to 6 minutes, then there is scope for two stoppers between every fast.

 

[quantinghome]

So how many minutes would be saved if the stoppers had electric acceleration? If that reduces the stopping discrepancy from 9 to 6 minutes, then there is scope for two stoppers between every fast.

I'm sure there are people better qualified than me to reply to this - but I do note there are 4 stations between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, so if you wanted to limit the time lost by the stoppers to 6 minutes that would be 1.5 minutes per stop, which sounds pretty tight.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm sure there are people better qualified than me to reply to this - but I do note there are 4 stations between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, so if you wanted to limit the time lost by the stoppers to 6 minutes that would be 1.5 minutes per stop, which sounds pretty tight.

So either the Brighouse train will have to run fast (or semi-fast) between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, or the four fasts would have to run at not-exactly 15 minute intervals. Maybe speculation for another thread

 

[edwin_m]

So either the Brighouse train will have to run fast (or semi-fast) between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, or the four fasts would have to run at not-exactly 15 minute intervals. Maybe speculation for another thread

Does one or more of the future fasts stop at Dewsbury? That would create a slightly longer interval where two other trains might fit.

 

[LittleAH]

Does one or more of the future fasts stop at Dewsbury? That would create a slightly longer interval where two other trains might fit.

Nope. Only the semi-fasts and stoppers will call there

 

[Tim_UK]

So either the Brighouse train will have to run fast (or semi-fast) between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, or the four fasts would have to run at not-exactly 15 minute intervals. Maybe speculation for another thread

I suspect Mirfield will just become the natural interchange for the stopper services. Because everything will be a same or opposite platform interchange.

Brighouse (or any Calder Valley) to Wakefield - just change at Mirfield.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

With past train procurements not going well im beginning to doubt to Northen/ TPE will have any new electric trains in time to use the new wires.

I wouldn't say no to Northern gaining some class 377's which have the pantographs (3775xx?). From my observations so far with the upgrade is that the infamous Batley bump has gone, the site of the new Ravensthorpe railway station is gradually being levelled out and Mirfield platform 3 has seen some of the older BR era signage (this platform for ... other platform for...) being swapped for temporary cheapo plastic replacements which screams this platform will soon be closing and platform 2 will finally come into use.

Probably not mentioned but Batley is the second railway station in West Yorkshire to be Weaverised, I do wonder if the entrance totem has been swapped out for the NSE style Weaver Network sign?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2026 ==

So either the Brighouse train will have to run fast (or semi-fast) between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, or the four fasts would have to run at not-exactly 15 minute intervals. Maybe speculation for another thread

Quite positively it'll call at Morley, Batley, Dewsbury and Mirfield just as it does now. I'm guessing a rolling stock change is very much possible with the 195's taking over as they're already cleared for Brighouse.

 

[Ploughman]

And freight fits in where?

 

[zwk500]

And freight fits in where?

via Wakefield and Holbeck, one imagines. As they largely do now.

 

[superkev]

All this talk of future services made me think after the wires are live to Hudds of all stops through emus between Huddersfield - York and Skipton - York.
K

 

[pokemonsuper9]

All this talk of future services made me think after the wires are live to Hudds of all stops through emus between Huddersfield - York and Skipton - York.
K

I wouldn't be too surprised if we see Manchester Piccadilly - York stopper EMUs, joining the Piccadlly - Huddersfield, Huddersfield - Leeds and Leeds - York services into one.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All this talk of future services made me think after the wires are live to Hudds of all stops through emus between Huddersfield - York and Skipton - York.
K

Any particular reason you'd do Skipton to York? I'm not sure it's a great move to potentially disrupt the "triangle" by introducing an additional risk factor. I'd be keeping everything that goes up Airedale or Wharfedale as-is, being largely segregated into the Wellington bays at Leeds.

 

[D365]

Although if ETCS is installed as part of TRU they would need to be upgraded for it.

Happily, the fitment of ETCS is an option for the Class 350/2 fleet.

 

[stevieinselby]

All this talk of future services made me think after the wires are live to Hudds of all stops through emus between Huddersfield - York and Skipton - York.

No plans for more through services across Leeds, and for good reason.

Airedale/Wharfedale trains use the west-facing bay platforms, which they can access with minimal conflicts to other train movements.
Terminating services from York via Garforth use the east-facing bay platform.
Connecting these services up would increase conflicts in the station approach, and put more pressure on the through platforms.
The small number of people wanting to make cross-Leeds services will have a choice of about 6tph fast from York to Leeds (one of which will likely overtake that same stopping service once the line through Cross Gates is quad-tracked) so it's not difficult to make the onward connections.

Huddersfield to York is even less necessary, because end-to-end journeys are catered for by fast Transpennine services, so linking the slow services would just be for passengers travelling from York and Garforth to the smaller towns along the way, which is going to be small beer and again far better catered for by changing at Leeds. Again, linking them together would massively complicate pathing through Leeds and along the mainline either side.

Far better to keep the services separate, and have the small number of passengers wanting to make cross-Leeds journeys change onto frequent fast trains.

 

[Halifaxlad]

350/2s to the rescue - as well as retaining some 323s?

Imagine if Northern ran 350's as 8 car trains then the public would certainly feel and notice a transformative change when their train arrives!

 

[quantinghome]

No plans for more through services across Leeds, and for good reason.

Airedale/Wharfedale trains use the west-facing bay platforms, which they can access with minimal conflicts to other train movements.
Terminating services from York via Garforth use the east-facing bay platform.
Connecting these services up would increase conflicts in the station approach, and put more pressure on the through platforms.
The small number of people wanting to make cross-Leeds services will have a choice of about 6tph fast from York to Leeds (one of which will likely overtake that same stopping service once the line through Cross Gates is quad-tracked) so it's not difficult to make the onward connections.

Huddersfield to York is even less necessary, because end-to-end journeys are catered for by fast Transpennine services, so linking the slow services would just be for passengers travelling from York and Garforth to the smaller towns along the way, which is going to be small beer and again far better catered for by changing at Leeds. Again, linking them together would massively complicate pathing through Leeds and along the mainline either side.

Far better to keep the services separate, and have the small number of passengers wanting to make cross-Leeds journeys change onto frequent fast trains.

This is the most detailed info I can find for the post-TRU local service east of Leeds. It excludes non-stop trains, but includes the 'semi-fast' TPE trains from Manchester to Hull. Apart from that the only through trains are going to Calder Valley, as is the case today. Connection at Leeds may remain tricky at some of the stations with a lower number of stopping services, but there probably aren't the number of through passengers to justify it. Platform constraints at Leeds would be a justification perhaps.

 

[Dspatula]

So either the Brighouse train will have to run fast (or semi-fast) between Leeds and Ravensthorpe, or the four fasts would have to run at not-exactly 15 minute intervals. Maybe speculation for another thread

Seeing as this is a speculation thread now, I think the best you could do stopper wise would be a saving of about 30 seconds per stop which gives something like this;



I'm guessing at minimum 3 minute headways tolerance and my semi-fast is going to struggle to stay ahead of the express if it has to do Thorpe Park and even harder to pull coming towards Leeds.

 

[stevieinselby]

This is the most detailed info I can find for the post-TRU local service east of Leeds. It excludes non-stop trains, but includes the 'semi-fast' TPE trains from Manchester to Hull. Apart from that the only through trains are going to Calder Valley, as is the case today. Connection at Leeds may remain tricky at some of the stations with a lower number of stopping services, but there probably aren't the number of through passengers to justify it. Platform constraints at Leeds would be a justification perhaps.

Platform constraints are strongly against more through running. Leeds has 2 east-facing bays and 10 west-facing bays, and 7+ through platforms – it's a lot easier to terminate these trains at Leeds where they can use the bay platforms rather than taking up paths on the through platforms that are needed for through trains plus LNER terminators.

 

[quantinghome]

Platform constraints are strongly against more through running. Leeds has 2 east-facing bays and 10 west-facing bays, and 7+ through platforms – it's a lot easier to terminate these trains at Leeds where they can use the bay platforms rather than taking up paths on the through platforms that are needed for through trains plus LNER terminators.

One of the arguments for a new East Leeds Parkway station (originally a relocated Micklefield, now Thorpe Park) was to free up west-facing bays at Leeds by running more through services. Presumably that's no longer the rationale.

 

[HSTEd]

The provision of high acceleration multiple units might lead to meaningful timetable improvements, and I think brand new stock is unlikely to be a major cost driver in the scheme.

Even with the extra trackwork, the TPE is not a four track railway, so stopper performance is very important.

 

[zwk500]

I'm guessing at minimum 3 minute headways tolerance

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that, The latest TPRs have the new Headways. 2.5/3 following non-stop, but a lot of 4-5 minute headways following stoppers.


[Tables of the new headways between Diggle Jn and Whitehall Jn in each direction]

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/operational-rules/Operational%20Rules/TPR%20documents/TPR%202027/V4/TPR%202027%20V4%20LNE.pdf