North TPE electrification

[table38]

I suppose I'll have to update my avatar once the knitting goes up.

I wonder how they will do the wires through the platform since we got our new glass roof on Platform 1.

 

[Nym]

Wouldn't they have a problem sailing through the Standedge Tunnels...and they are also somewhat too wide and high for the Huddersfield Narrow Canal tunnel.

The're not that bad, but the're too small to fit anything but this new LM American aircraft on, can't fit tactical bombers, or small transport aircraft on it, so we've baught somthing that can't do what the old one can...

And don't get me wrong, I'm in a good mood about this, but it needs to reach Hull and Middlesbrough to be worth it, and then continue with the same team around the North when it's finished, working on the ECML diversionary route via Pontefract, Castleton to Leeds and Glassgaughton to TPE's diversionary routes and an ECML diversion is sorted, then onto the Harrogate Loop, and then start working down to Sheffeild to Meet the Midland Mainline, and then onwards through the Hope Valley.

 

[sonorguy]

The're not that bad, but the're too small to fit anything but this new LM American aircraft on, can't fit tactical bombers, or small transport aircraft on it, so we've baught somthing that can't do what the old one can...

Off topic but the RN hasn't had a carrier that could land a 'small' transport plane on it since, well, ever. The US only ever landed one C130 Hercules on a flight deck then decided they weren't going to repeat the experience. There aren't any smaller transport planes than that sort of size held or even considered by the RAF. Transport planes are not what carriers are for.

Carrier support nowadays is more about providing CAS with missiles and 500-1000lbs bomb weights, as seen in modern conflicts and the old Harriers and whatever we get to replace them are more than capable of doing that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone else see this as a way to get a large order of new units to Bombardier?

Only if they succeed in the tendering process and provide the best kit for the job at a realistic price. Otherwise no as HMG aren't about to break all the EU tendering law in existence to satisfy the demands of what is after all, a non-British owned company.

 

[4SRKT]

Not quite sure why there is some less-than-enthusiastic views on the TPE electrification by some contributors on here. It si absolutely great news surely, and news than many on here have been advocating for years, and often even thinking would never happen

Now we are beginning to have an electrified network at last with all the existing schemes being linked up. In time other schemes are bound to follow, but I think Network Rail has its plate full at the moment.

And it may help Bombardier too. Why the snide comments about that. That's good too.

Cheer up. This is a good day for the railways in Britain.

It's only great news if Hull and Middlesbrough are brought in, otherwise it's a step backwards as everything will go to Newcastle or terminate at York. We hardly need any more services between York and Newcastle. The current TPE network is very good (except for train lengths of course), linking the main centres of the North well. Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Hull, with combined populations well over half a million, will/could just become branch lines off a core Liverpool/Manchester > York/Newcastle route.

Re. Bombardier, yes of course that would be great news.

 

[PhilipW]

It's only great news if Hull and Middlesbrough are brought in, otherwise it's a step backwards as everything will go to Newcastle or terminate at York.

Re. Bombardier, yes of course that would be great news.

As indeed I suspect that they will. That will be for another announcement in due time.

Let Network Rail get on with what they have at the moment. They have a completely full plate with 3 sets of Electrification in hand:
- Scotland
- Lancashire triangle and TPE
- GWML

In about 18 months to 2 years I would expect an announcement of TPE extensions to Hull and Middlesbrough then, just before the election, there will be an announcement on the Midland MainLine which could start around 2019 when the TPE Electrification had finished. The network jigsaw then fits together rather nicely. That is what I would do too if I was in charge.

So, yes, today's announcement is good news. It is also the first visible sign of an understandable Pacer replacement program with lots of new EMUs for TPE displacing lots of 185s which in turn can be cascaded to send lots of old DMUs off to the scrapheap.

It all makes sense.

 

[Nym]

Philip, yep, just need more of it before 2019, or about 50 DMUs, although the valleys could cover that...

 

[Schnellzug]

Off topic but the RN hasn't had a carrier that could land a 'small' transport plane on it since, well, ever. The US only ever landed one C130 Hercules on a flight deck then decided they weren't going to repeat the experience. There aren't any smaller transport planes than that sort of size held or even considered by the RAF. Transport planes are not what carriers are for.

Carrier support nowadays is more about providing CAS with missiles and 500-1000lbs bomb weights, as seen in modern conflicts and the old Harriers and whatever we get to replace them are more than capable of doing that.

This may be wandering into naval territory, but seeing that the main task for which warships would be useful nowadays (as indeed has been the case throughout history) is protection of trade, e.g. protection from Piracy and the like, i think small escort carriers capable of handling V/STOL aircraft and helicopters would be by far the most useful thing.

Only if they succeed in the tendering process and provide the best kit for the job at a realistic price. Otherwise no as HMG aren't about to break all the EU tendering law in existence to satisfy the demands of what is after all, a non-British owned company.

Yes, it does amuse me when I see Bombardier referred to as a "british company". It has a danger of leading to what you might call the British Leyland Effect; insisting that everyone has to Buy British (made), regardless of whether it could be provided less expensively, more quickly and of better quality elsewhere. (See also the Modernisation Plan, when even equipment from foreign manufacturers had to be built in Britain, with sometimes unfortunate consequences, e.g. the NBL Warships.) Protectionism is always counterproductive in the long run.

 

[Zoe]

just need more of it before 2019, or about 50 DMUs, although the valleys could cover that...

Pacers can remain in service throughout 2019, it isn't until 1 January 2020 that they will no longer be allowed in service.

 

[snail]

And don't get me wrong, I'm in a good mood about this, but it needs to reach Hull and Middlesbrough to be worth it, and then continue with the same team around the North when it's finished, working on the ECML diversionary route via Pontefract, Castleton to Leeds and Glassgaughton to TPE's diversionary routes and an ECML diversion is sorted, then onto the Harrogate Loop, and then start working down to Sheffeild to Meet the Midland Mainline, and then onwards through the Hope Valley.

It seems to me there are two camps commenting here. Those who are happy with what is on offer because it's better than what we have now, and those who will never be satisfied until their pipedreams are fulfilled and every inch of the network is electrified and all the old lines reopened.

 

[Schnellzug]

And there's the camp that takes the view that, as with all Government projects, we shall see if it is actually done, since whatever Governments promise is meaningless. & if it is, how quickly the first shambles occurs when the Wires come down, because the Government ordered it to be done as cheaply as possible.

 

[507 001]

And it may help Bombardier too. Why the snide comments about that. That's good too.

Cheer up. This is a good day for the railways in Britain.

Because everything they build falls apart? Give me a Desiro any day!

But yes, a good day for the railways!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Haxby needs a bridge, and a station (I don't know the area, so I'm not sure if that is practical).

You are going back over 80 years since Haxby had a station. The station was closed in September 1930. Quite a few years ago, York City Council saw this station re-opening as a possibility in its 2001 local transport plan but matters were always put "on hold" until public finances were available. Network Rail in 2006 gave "provisional" support for this to happen, but again nothing has been forthcoming yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It seems to me there are two camps commenting here. Those who are happy with what is on offer because it's better than what we have now, and those who will never be satisfied until their pipedreams are fulfilled and every inch of the network is electrified and all the old lines reopened.

It is always thus so on most transport forums.

 

[4SRKT]

It seems to me there are two camps commenting here. Those who are happy with what is on offer because it's better than what we have now, and those who will never be satisfied until their pipedreams are fulfilled and every inch of the network is electrified and all the old lines reopened.

I'm not in either camp. I don't care whether the line is electrified or not as I don't see anything wonderful about electric trains per se. However, if the electrification degrades the service to significant population centres at the same time as improving it to places that already have more than adequate connectivity to the rest of the network, then I don't think it IS better than what we have now and I'd rather it didn't happen.

At least when the trains were loco-hauled it wouldn't have mattered as you could just have reengined at York or Leeds for Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Hull. This is one situation where multiple unit operation is not more flexible.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm all for wiring routes with a regular service on them, don't get me wrong, but if I were wiring to Wakefield Kirkgate then I'd consider doing the other lines through there that have a busier service

It's a fair point but it seems to contradict what you were saying about Buxton to Hazel Grove the other day.

Calder Vale justifies electrification more than Wakefield-Huddersfield as a diversionary electric TPE route but Wakefield-Huddersfield would be much cheaper and quicker to do.

II would want Stockport to Stalybridge electrifying as it would be more direct via Macclesfield than via Warrington Bank Quay.

I've just remembered there was a suggestion of a new EMU depot at Guide Bridge to take the 323s from Longsight plus additional EMUs, as well as the new depot at Allerton.

Add to this the fact that the Stockport viaduct is at maximum capacity and ECS movements for units used on Hazel Grove/Buxton/Chester services go via the Denton line. It may mean that the Denton line does need to be electrified to get stock moved in and out of a depot at Guide Bridge, otherwise there might have to be DMUs used on completely electrified routes because there are no paths for ECS movements over the Stockport viaduct.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've just remembered there was a suggestion of a new EMU depot at Guide Bridge to take the 323s from Longsight plus additional EMUs, as well as the new depot at Allerton.

I raised the matter of the Guide Bridge depot proposal some months ago in a thread, having heard some railway staff discussing it on a train that I was on, and asked on the thread at that time had anyone else heard of it, but no-one had at that time. On the basis that everything comes to those who wait, where did you hear about it?

What exactly happened to the site that Reddish depot once occupied?

 

[table38]

What exactly happened to the site that Reddish depot once occupied?

Google Maps suggests they are busy building houses on it.

I've been musing about suggesting the "single wire" catenary for the fill-in electrification (eg. Stockport/Guide Bridge/Staly) like what is used at Trafford Park, but I don't know how much cheaper it would be, nor what other limitations there are - presumably speed?

 

[swt_passenger]

Anyone else see this as a way to get a large order of new units to Bombardier?

Only if they meet ALL the bid requirements.

 

[northwichcat]

On the basis that everything comes to those who wait, where did you hear about it?

I honestly can't remember.

 

[swt_passenger]

I raised the matter of the Guide Bridge depot proposal some months ago in a thread, having heard some railway staff discussing it on a train that I was on, and asked on the thread at that time had anyone else heard of it, but no-one had at that time. On the basis that everything comes to those who wait, where did you hear about it?

In the CP4 enhancement plan (original version Mar 2009, and in eight subsequent updates until Jun 2011) there are plans for additional DMU depot facilites at Guide Bridge. The relevant project is 'Route 20 - Stabling for Northern'

Sometime between June 2011 and now (the Oct 2011 version) they've dropped the section aout Guide Bridge completely - because the increase in units has been seriously reduced since the HLOS plans.

The Delivery Plan states the assumption that rolling stock provision and the consequent operational plan would be contractualised between DfT and Northern Rail by July 2009. In reality a much reduced initial agreement has been finalised and uncertainty remains as to what more may be agreed. Having already purchased the Allerton depot facility we will continue with the works required to ready it for operation...

The number of additional vehicles to be provided to Northern Rail is defined in their Operational Plan. Northern Rail has agreed that Allerton Depot will provide the required additional stabling...

 

[Schnellzug]

I'm not in either camp. I don't care whether the line is electrified or not as I don't see anything wonderful about electric trains per se. However, if the electrification degrades the service to significant population centres at the same time as improving it to places that already have more than adequate connectivity to the rest of the network, then I don't think it IS better than what we have now and I'd rather it didn't happen.

At least when the trains were loco-hauled it wouldn't have mattered as you could just have reengined at York or Leeds for Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Hull. This is one situation where multiple unit operation is not more flexible.

And added to all that, I think you could legitimately ask, would it enhance reliability? Regardless of what people may piously talk about it being "Green" (and again, like I always say, the Electricity has go to come from somewhere, and would it mean more use of Fossil fuels?), I think just as, if not rather more, important in most people's books than how much quicker it would be is would it be more reliable? And i'm afraid that this seems to be a question that everyone who so enthusiastically supports Electrification rarely seem to want to answer. We know, it seems to be an indisputable fact, that wires do come down rather regularly, on some routes more than others, because they were done as cheaply as possible. And given that the sole philosophy behind the thinking of the CameronCoalition is cutting everything in sight, would reliability be given priority in the design and construction, or Cheapness?

 

[Batman]

Well it would be good news if they did announce it. But it could do with including middlsborough as well. Realistically anyway. Scarbrough definitely won't be included but it doesnt need to be, i have a friend in malton who says 90% of people travelling from beyond york get off at york and leeds so a service loss to manchester isnt really a big deal at all... There are worse places to change trains than york or leeds.
It would be very interesting if middlsborough got an XC service though might help middlsborough rail services having a long distance service calling there again. You never know with these things.

And it would appear getting past 2000 posts has slipped my attention... ah well.

The only thing about XC running to Middlesborough would be what would happen to the local stations.

Could it be possilbe that the XC service will run non-stop from York to Middlesborough and FTPE would use some of their remaining 185's to run an hourly York to Middlesborough shuttle service with stops at Thirsk and Northallerton?

Is there enough free capacity on the ECML for that?

 

[4SRKT]

Presumably XC would just call at Thirsk, Northallerton and Thornaby? Or the Thirsk stop could transfer to the Newcastle TPE. I would imagine most Thirsk traffic is to and from York anyway.

 

[sprinterguy]

Presumably XC would just call at Thirsk, Northallerton and Thornaby? Or the Thirsk stop could transfer to the Newcastle TPE. I would imagine most Thirsk traffic is to and from York anyway.

Eaglescliffe would be a much bigger market to serve than Thornaby.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only thing about XC running to Middlesborough would be what would happen to the local stations.

Could it be possilbe that the XC service will run non-stop from York to Middlesborough and FTPE would use some of their remaining 185's to run an hourly York to Middlesborough shuttle service with stops at Thirsk and Northallerton?

Is there enough free capacity on the ECML for that?

If the XC service ran fast from Northallerton to York, it could still utilise the same path on the fast lines as it currently does running to/from Newcastle.

If you were to introduce a Middlesborough to York stoping service (as I think someone should) to give a half hourly service between the two places, then you'd need to find an additional path on the slow lines. I think it'd be achievable.

 

[ainsworth74]

Presumably XC would just call at Thirsk, Northallerton and Thornaby?

That would leave Yarm with no service at all unless someone introduces an extra service on the line.

 

[Batman]

That would leave Yarm with no service at all unless someone introduces an extra service on the line.

Thats what I was thinking about.

If there aren't cappacity issues on the ECML, the the XC service should run non stop from York to Middlesborough.

There should be an hourly York to Middlesborough service opperated by 185's stopping at Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Egglescliffe, Thornaby and Middlesborough.

This would provide 3tph at Thirst and Northallerton, since both the EMU trans pennine service to/from Newcastle would stop there and passengers from Thornaby, Egglescliffe and Yarm could change at Northallerton for Leeds and Manchester services, although I guess there isn't much of a market.

Alternativly Northallerton and Thirst would only get 2tph if one Newcastle train runs fast from York to Darlington. I think this is more likely because 1 of the 2 transpennine EMU's an hour to Newcastle will be acting as a replacement for the XC service thats been diverted to Teesside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And theres also the issue about Doncaster.

The current Reading - Newcastle XC service runs via Doncaster instead of Leeds.

So what would the prefered option be?

1) Divert this service via Leeds so that Doncaster loses it's XC service altogether.

2) Force Middlesborough passengers to change at York for trains to Leeds.

I'd probably go for option 2 because Middlesborough will then be getting 2 tph to York and there will still be 4tph from Leeds to York (possibly as many as 7 tph is some of the semi fasts from Manchester terminate at York instead of Leeds). And York isn't really a bad station for changing at.

 

[HSTEd]

I would hope for a second pair of Platforms at Northallerton so TPE trains can stop using that flat junction but I suppose thats a pipe dream.

 

[northwichcat]

XC used to serve local stations between Macclesfield and Stoke before an all day Manchester-Stoke stopper was introduced in 2008.

 

[sprinterguy]

If you were to introduce a Middlesborough to York stoping service (as I think someone should) to give a half hourly service between the two places, then you'd need to find an additional path on the slow lines. I think it'd be achievable.

Wait a minute, no you wouldn't, you could operate it with exactly the same paths as there already are: The Middlesborough XC service could run in the path on the fast lines of the current Newcastle XC service, and the Middlesborough local service could run in the path on the slow lines currently used by the Middlesborough TPE service, providing that they work out alright in terms of time apart from each other.

 

[tbtc]

But with the wires up and other associated improvements, presumably these timings will be down to sub 30 mins, in which case one unit on each would be ok.

It'd be tight though, you'd be running quite a risk unless the journey time is well under half an hour.

Not quite sure why there is some less-than-enthusiastic views on the TPE electrification by some contributors on here. It si absolutely great news surely, and news than many on here have been advocating for years, and often even thinking would never happen

Now we are beginning to have an electrified network at last with all the existing schemes being linked up. In time other schemes are bound to follow, but I think Network Rail has its plate full at the moment.

And it may help Bombardier too. Why the snide comments about that. That's good too.

Cheer up. This is a good day for the railways in Britain.

Its good news, but we don't know the details yet - the devil is in the detail.

The Manchester - Leeds line has been announced, but very little will be "saved" by just wiring this (unless you chop all long distance services over the Transpennine route).

Really, it only makes sense if you wire Leeds - York and Leeds - Hull, but we've not seen confirmation of that yet, hence some of the reaction. Doing York - Middlesbrough/ Scarborough too would be nice, but is unlikely. And then there's the list of "freight only"/ "diversion" routes that are getting mentioned, as people dust down their "wishlists".

So we are somewhere in the middle at the moment, waiting to hear whether the necessary bits will also get wired (Leeds - York, for example), whether the "nice to have" bits will get wired and whether "every line in northern England" will get wired...

The note of caution that I will sound is that we only have eight years to replace Pacers, so I think that electrification programmes should be focussed on this. For the cost of 100 miles of transpennine electrification you could wire a lot of the Valley Lines and "save" more DMUs.

Good news, yes, but lets see what it really means...

 

[sprinterguy]

And theres also the issue about Doncaster.

The current Reading - Newcastle XC service runs via Doncaster instead of Leeds.

So what would the prefered option be?

1) Divert this service via Leeds so that Doncaster loses it's XC service altogether.

2) Force Middlesborough passengers to change at York for trains to Leeds.

I'd probably go for option 2 because Middlesborough will then be getting 2 tph to York and there will still be 4tph from Leeds to York (possibly as many as 7 tph is some of the semi fasts from Manchester terminate at York instead of Leeds). And York isn't really a bad station for changing at.

I'd also rather see option 2 because, admitting a degree of self interest here, I like being able to get from Birmingham to Newcastle in basically 3 hours rather than closer to three and a half if all the Crosscountry services were routed via Leeds.