Electrification: should more future proofing be done?

[Leedslad_]

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

Never really understand why they don't do this as standard (ie wire an entire station than half).

Firstly it surely adds very little extra disruption and relatively little cost versus coming back to do it at some future date.

Secondly it surely adds resilience so that if say a train broke down at one platform then the train could at least pull into another platform rather than being stuck.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Never really understand why they don't do this as standard (ie wire an entire station than half).

Firstly it surely adds very little extra disruption and relatively little cost versus coming back to do it at some future date.

Secondly it surely adds resilience so that if say a train broke down at one platform then the train could at least pull into another platform rather than being stuck.

In fairness, I think the chances of the Church Fenton to Selby/Castleford line being electrified are infinitely small.

 

[Leedslad_]

I'd say Micklefield to Selby has half a chance of being electrified and it would then be a relatively cheap/easy short stretch to include Selby to York via CF?...

 

[zwk500]

Secondly it surely adds resilience so that if say a train broke down at one platform then the train could at least pull into another platform rather than being stuck.

At Church Fenton this benefit is essentially non-existent because Platform 3 is the only platform with access to either route, and the signalling for platforms 1 and 2 means you can't reverse, nor can you shunt at the south end. The only situations in which the flexibility could be used would be if Platform 3 is blocked, but trains will need to be diesel if routed into Platforms 1 to continue towards Sherburn, or if Platform 2 was blocked but that can only be approached by diesel trains anyway.

Wiring beyond Church Fenton North Jn is enough to make any future onwards electrification simple enough to tie in. I think it is a bit of an oversight to not signal for the reversals and shunt moves at Church Fenton but equally the station is a terrible place to be turfing out trains onto coaches. The curve is such that getting access from Leeds to Platforms 1 and 2 was always going to be more effort than it'd be worth.

In fairness, I think the chances of the Church Fenton to Selby/Castleford line being electrified are infinitely small.

I think Church Fenton to Gascoigne Wood has half a chance as part of Micklefield to Selby/Hull but the chances for that are fairly low given BEMU advances.

 

[fishwomp]

I think Church Fenton to Gascoigne Wood has half a chance as part of Micklefield to Selby/Hull but the chances for that are fairly low given BEMU advances.

In that area I'd say the first add-in should be to Hambleton Jct - 7 miles, for the operational flexibility it gives Leeds-London.

 

[zwk500]

In that area I'd say the first add-in should be to Hambleton Jct - 7 miles, for the operational flexibility it gives Leeds-London.

I expect in a world of increasing Bi-Modes and BEMUs the case to wire purely for operational flexibility is going to get incredibly thin.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

To be fair, Micklefield to Selby would allow another path for the supply from Hambleton jnc towards Leeds, would allow the ECML to be switched off without affecting TPML

 

[Revaulx]

Gone. Took a trip to The West Riding in Dewsbury yesterday and couldn't see it from two crowded trains. Also the crossover has been lifted into position on the end of Huddersfield viaduct.

Yes the fast lines have been extended a fair way onto the viaduct. Lots of work going on along the formation east of Deighton this morning.