Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review

[LNW-GW Joint]

They're only reflecting the known DfT bias.
It's all about the business case and the scale of subsidies.
In my view it is the recession which is finally hitting the franchise contracts as they come up for renewal.

 

[northwichcat]

It goes on to say the 387s are the likely units for FGW, after initial use on Thameslink.

I forgot about that ITT but it sounds like it's no further than the one which would have given Northern new DMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Didnt help that another article in the magazine was basically arguing there will be no more growth in the regions, only in London so its not worth investing in the rail network outside London. Modern Rail seems to be becoming more and more London centric, screw the regions in its attitudes. Wouldnt be surprised if the magazine was based in the rural home counties or something.

Modern Rail might be interested to know that The Hut Group who turn over £150m in revenue per annum are looking at moving from their current headquarters in Rudheath, Northwich possibly to Birmingham. The reason for that is they say the transport infrastructure in the area won't be able to cope if they expand as much as their forecasts predict. Their site is right next to the Northwich to Crewe railway line which has no passenger services and Network Rail aren't convinced that there's justification for providing a passenger service. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my view it is the recession which is finally hitting the franchise contracts as they come up for renewal.

From the lack of investment in the Northern, FGW and ATW franchises over the past 10 years you'd think we were in recession in 2004 and have been ever since opposed to an economic downturn starting in 2008 which included a short period where the country was in recession.

However, if you look at passenger growth over the past 10 years and considered fares have risen above inflation most years then there's little excuse for blaming a lack of investment on the economy.

 

[HSTEd]

The job of the private operators is to make money for shareholders.... full stop.

They have no other responsibilities.

 

[fgwrich]

Implication of everything being more 319's available for the North rather than also being required for GW but we are going to take away your diesels from already overcrowded services in the mean time and you may not get any electrics to operate the 700 extra services Northern Hub is designed to provide.

Didnt help that another article in the magazine was basically arguing there will be no more growth in the regions, only in London so its not worth investing in the rail network outside London. Modern Rail seems to be becoming more and more London centric, screw the regions in its attitudes. Wouldnt be surprised if the magazine was based in the rural home counties or something.

I wouldn't say it's becoming too London centric (although the number of articles about London and Crossrail does seem to be increasing), as they've done a good few large sections on GW and ATW in the recent past.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The job of the private operators is to make money for shareholders.... full stop.

They have no other responsibilities.

The franchise contracts say differently... They are contracted to provide a minimum amount of passenger services. That is their job too.

 

[Bald Rick]

The franchise contracts say differently... They are contracted to provide a minimum amount of passenger services. That is their job too.

And do it safely. The law says that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it is actually based in Kent. The major contributors don't seem London focused but the magazine certainly does.

But that's probably because 70%+ of the railway's business is London focused.

The editor is based in Kent, but then that's where he lives.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And do it safely. The law says that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But that's probably because 70%+ of the railway's business is London focused.

The editor is based in Kent, but then that's where he lives.

I don't think it is a problem, they do more than enough focus pieces on the North of England for me to be happy. Like you say The railways are central to London hence the bias.... Its bias geographically certainly but in terms of passengers it probably isn't!

 

[Class83]

If this is true then I can see northern Tory MPs who tend to have smaller majorities than those in Oxfordshire and generally represent the suburban areas served by TPE being less than happy about this the year before an election. Particularly as they'll have been relying on HS2/Northern Hub as a way of showing some interest in the regional economy.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If this is true then I can see northern Tory MPs who tend to have smaller majorities than those in Oxfordshire and generally represent the suburban areas served by TPE being less than happy about this the year before an election. Particularly as they'll have been relying on HS2/Northern Hub as a way of showing some interest in the regional economy.

Indeed. My own local MP (Jason McCartney, Con, Colne Valley, maj. 4,837) and my parents' local MP (Simon Reevell, Con, Dewsbury, maj. 1,526) will both no doubt be inundated with letters from constituents concerned about possible cuts to their rail services- albeit in the name of growth rather than shrinkage: I've voiced concern on here before about the side-effects of the 6tph plan for TPE North for places such as Slaithwaite, Marsden, and Mirfield.

I Suppose it doesn't help that constituency boundaries have been drawn and re-drawn so many times that particularly in my parents' case, they are far remote from Dewsbury itself- though the rural nature of their area (Denby Dale) may possibly be where Mr. Reevell draws much of his support! :roll:

 

[YorkshireBear]

Indeed. My own local MP (Jason McCartney, Con, Colne Valley, maj. 4,837) and my parents' local MP (Simon Reevell, Con, Dewsbury, maj. 1,526) will both no doubt be inundated with letters from constituents concerned about possible cuts to their rail services- albeit in the name of growth rather than shrinkage: I've voiced concern on here before about the side-effects of the 6tph plan for TPE North for places such as Slaithwaite, Marsden, and Mirfield.

I Suppose it doesn't help that constituency boundaries have been drawn and re-drawn so many times that particularly in my parents' case, they are far remote from Dewsbury itself- though the rural nature of their area (Denby Dale) may possibly be where Mr. Reevell draws much of his support! :roll:

Slaightwaite and Marsden will get a temporary cut in Local services but maintain the same TPH to Manchester and Huddersfield. Post electrification the stopper returns, to Piccadilly instead though.

Mirfield will see an increase as they are proposing an increase in local services via Dewsbury using electric traction with better acceleration profiles.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Slaithwaite and Marsden will get a temporary cut in Local services but maintain the same TPH to Manchester and Huddersfield. Post electrification the stopper returns, to Piccadilly instead though.

Mirfield will see an increase as they are proposing an increase in local services via Dewsbury using electric traction with better acceleration profiles.

The bit I've bolded is, IIRC, "subject to a satisfactory business case", which given how often we're reminded on here how much subsidy Northern recieves, is not a situation where I'm counting my chickens!

 

[YorkshireBear]

The bit I've bolded is, IIRC, "subject to a satisfactory business case", which given how often we're reminded on here how much subsidy Northern recieves, is not a situation where I'm counting my chickens!

Didn't realise that was still the case... I cannot see it not being reinstated. Otherwise you are going to be limiting two of the TPE services to 4 cars to fit platforms permanently and also increasing overcrowding on those services...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Didn't realise that was still the case... I cannot see it not being reinstated. Otherwise you are going to be limiting two of the TPE services to 4 cars to fit platforms permanently and also increasing overcrowding on those services...

And that's assuming the platforms in question get extended TO 4-car length- If the temporary switch to 2 semi-fasts per hour picking up the local stops was happening this May, the only TPE stock that could call at 'Slawit' would be a single 170!

 

[YorkshireBear]

And that's assuming the platforms in question get extended TO 4-car length- If the temporary switch to 2 semi-fasts per hour picking up the local stops was happening this May, the only TPE stock that could call at 'Slawit' would be a single 170!

*Shakes head in dismay at the situation*

One has to wonder if the loss of the 170s is related to what i perceive as delays to Ordsall curve. Therefore delaying the 6tph till after electrification so not requiring extra diesel stock?

Cynical of me? Or just hit the nail on the head?

 

[jimm]

I don't think they would draw many passengers in the peak from the FGW service, but if the fares are priced lower than FGW I can see the 170s winning over more FGW passengers in the Off-Peak and at Weekends where much more of the Oxford fast service is provided by Turbos. The Off-Peak passengers will probably be less bothered about a slightly longer journey time too, if it meant a cheaper fare.

Well if you're prepared to travel using advances, then Chiltern are going to struggle to get much lower than can be done now on FGW off-peak - £5 one way. Get one of those each way and you are paying less than the M40 coaches. A lot of people seem to have some notion that FGW will just lay down and let Chiltern walk all over them - but as you can see, they are already competing head-on with the coaches and they will be ready for Chiltern too. And Chiltern know this, which is why the new parkway station is key to their plans - and the finances of the project, as they have to stump up enhanced access charges to pay for the money borrowed to pay for it.

If Marylebone has the underground connection or is nearer to the destination than Paddington, then I can see the Chiltern service being used. However, when it comes to underground connections and with Crossrail coming to Paddington soon as well, I cannot see many passengers using the train.

Marylebone and underground connections? Bit of a contradiction in terms there. And before anyone pipes up about Baker Street, yes, you can walk there but it is not part of the same station and on a day like today, it is a rather wet walk. I certainly agree about the impact of Crossrail on onward journey options from Paddington, plus electrification and new rolling stock should widen the time margin between the two routes to about 15 minutes.

 

[158722]

I did wonder whether this would be the case too, given that it would eliminate 2 car units and standardise the fleet a little more to create more 3 cars than 4s.

Does anyone have a rough estimate as to how many 170s could be freed from London Midland as a result of the chase line electrification - due around 2016/2017 but given how quickly projects like this can actually be done where resources and minds are put into things (some of the Scottish electrification projects for example) I would estimate that it could be done quicker or be completed before it's 2017 date. Could this free up LMs 6 3 car /6s? (that would still leave them with 17 2 car 170/5s and 27 172s).

My run through diagrams and such on the original post highlights that LM should be able to divest themselves of all of their 150s and 153s once the Chase line is wired, although that would entail platforms on the Bedford-Bletchley line being lengthened to cope with 170s. My thoughts were that eliminating the two micro fleets with LM would be the way forward with them retaining only the 170s and 172s with the 153s to EMT or NOR, the 150s off to GW.

 

[northwichcat]

My run through diagrams and such on the original post highlights that LM should be able to divest themselves of all of their 150s and 153s once the Chase line is wired, although that would entail platforms on the Bedford-Bletchley line being lengthened to cope with 170s.

The 172s have SDO so could be used on Bedford to Bletchley despite being longer than some platforms. Isn't Bedford to Bletchley down to be electrified to prevent it being a diesel island once the MML is electrified?

 

[158722]

The 172s have SDO so could be used on Bedford to Bletchley despite being longer than some platforms. Isn't Bedford to Bletchley down to be electrified to prevent it being a diesel island once the MML is electrified?

Indeed on both counts. Any use of 170s or 172s would seem likely to be short lived, given the plans for the east-West railway or whatever it is being called, so platform extensions along with the wiring look on the cards.

 

[northwichcat]

Slaightwaite and Marsden will get a temporary cut in Local services but maintain the same TPH to Manchester and Huddersfield. Post electrification the stopper returns, to Piccadilly instead though.

Mirfield will see an increase as they are proposing an increase in local services via Dewsbury using electric traction with better acceleration profiles.

Network Rail have carried out consultation on the withdrawal of the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper with a half-hourly semi-fast from Piccadilly providing the replacement service. The results they got back were most people weren't bothered whether their service goes to Victoria or Piccadilly as long as they retain a direct Manchester service. While the Marsden and Slaithwaite users seem happier with the idea of a direct service to Leeds rather than a direct service to nearby villages.

The reason for the proposed withdrawal of the stopper is to fit in 6 Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds services every hour. Network Rail have said if there is demand then a Piccadilly-Hudersfield electric stopper can be introduced post North TPE electrification alongside the semi-fasts but until North TPE electrification 6 passenger trains per hour between Manchester and Huddersfield is the most that can be fitted in.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed on both counts. Any use of 170s or 172s would seem likely to be short lived, given the plans for the east-West railway or whatever it is being called, so platform extensions along with the wiring look on the cards.

If you look at the recent magazine chat on east-west, you find that NR has put the Bletchley-Bedford section on the back burner.
The electrification priority is apparently Oxford-Bletchley (-WCML).
The line has many level crossings and poor connections to the MML at the Bedford end, which have to be resolved first.
So it may have to soldier on with diesels for quite a while.

 

[northwichcat]

And that's assuming the platforms in question get extended TO 4-car length- If the temporary switch to 2 semi-fasts per hour picking up the local stops was happening this May, the only TPE stock that could call at 'Slawit' would be a single 170!

The HLOS assumes the semi-fasts will be the existing Manchester-Hull service and a new Manchester-Selby service which will run half an hour after the Hull service. I think Manchester-Selby may be able to switch to electric traction faster than Manchester Airport-York but the Manchester-Hull service is the one that's proposed to remain as a through diesel service in the short term.

Network Rail's platform lengthening program for CP5 would allow for either a 333 to run the Manchester-Selby service or a pair of 2 car 170s to run the Manchester-Hull service or both. I'm not sure which was envisaged.

 

[158722]

If you look at the recent magazine chat on east-west, you find that NR has put the Bletchley-Bedford section on the back burner.
The electrification priority is apparently Oxford-Bletchley (-WCML).
The line has many level crossings and poor connections to the MML at the Bedford end, which have to be resolved first.
So it may have to soldier on with diesels for quite a while.

Interesting, hadn't picked up on that one, but not a surprise that slippage will happen with many of the plans announced. Turbostars of whatever kind for a while longer then...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Interesting, hadn't picked up on that one, but not a surprise that slippage will happen with many of the plans announced. Turbostars of whatever kind for a while longer then...

The article stated that the Marston Vale line would probably be one of the last parts of the electric spine to be wired towards the back end of CP5 maybe even extending into early CP6, due to the previously mentioned issues in the Bedford area plus any further extensions of the East-West rail link towards Cambridge to plan for.

 

[Class 170101]

Summer 2014; EGIP Scotland
Event; Glasgow QS-Cumbernauld, Motherwell-Cumbernauld & Glasgow C-Whifflet wired
Effect; 6x DMU released, but retained by FSR for Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup events then potentially 3x class 158 to replace Fife loco haul turn from March 2015 (End of current franchise). EMUs available from existing slack within FSR fleet.
Issues; Possible that FSR could release up to 3x class 158 in March 2015, but may be retained for Borders line re-opening in Dec 2015.

The 158s are almost certainly staying in Scotland post the electrification scheme noted above. It is likely they will be used in the interim to provide capacity between Dingwall and Inverness due to Kessock Bridge Closure as well as for the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup as noted.
http://trafficscotland.org/news/story.aspx?id=10352
EDIT They will also be needed for the extra Glasgow Queen Street to Oban services starting this summer
see here

There's the doubling of Oban services: http://opentraintimes.com/location/OBAN/2014-05-21/0000-2359

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The HLOS assumes the semi-fasts will be the existing Manchester-Hull service and a new Manchester-Selby service which will run half an hour after the Hull service. I think Manchester-Selby may be able to switch to electric traction faster than Manchester Airport-York but the Manchester-Hull service is the one that's proposed to remain as a through diesel service in the short term.

Network Rail's platform lengthening program for CP5 would allow for either a 333 to run the Manchester-Selby service or a pair of 2 car 170s to run the Manchester-Hull service or both. I'm not sure which was envisaged.

Isn't the HLOS almost out of date in this respect? It appears the Government may be looking at Hull Trains proposals to wire from Selby to Hull. If an announcement is made in the forthcoming Budget then it seems unlikely that the Hull to Manchester service would remain a diesel service indeed the same could be said for EC Kings Cross to Hull Service.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/MPs-...rt-Secretary/story-20697582-detail/story.html

 

[YorkshireBear]

No decision has been made yet therefore the HLOs is in date. And to be fair to the HLOS it is unlikely that the service pattern will change if Hull is electrified. All that is likely to change is that the Hull-Manchester service will become electric and the Hull-London services won't require bi-modes.

Selby will still have a TPE service terminated at it. The reason for this is they do not want to send more trains to York as capacity is a bit of an issue for terminating trains (two TPE already terminating there in the HLOS) But they need another Manchester-Leeds service. There is no capacity to terminate at Leeds therefore Selby gets wired as an ECML link and also to allow a convenient place to turn round Leeds through services.


Welcome to the forum.

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't the HLOS almost out of date in this respect? It appears the Government may be looking at Hull Trains proposals to wire from Selby to Hull. If an announcement is made in the forthcoming Budget then it seems unlikely that the Hull to Manchester service would remain a diesel service indeed the same could be said for EC Kings Cross to Hull Service.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/MPs-...rt-Secretary/story-20697582-detail/story.html

6tph on North TPE is due to happen at the December 2016 timetable change. Electric services between Manchester and York are set to happen at the December 2018 timetable change. If Hull is electrified it'll likely happen after April 2019 and the HLOS is for Control Period 5 which means the changes will happen between April 2014 and April 2019, so the HLOS is still correct even if post-Hull electrification Hull gets 2tph to Manchester. Maybe the reasoning for the one remaining diesel service on North TPE going to Hull and not Middlesbrough or Scarborough was that Hull was the mostly likely to be electrified all along?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Selby will still have a TPE service terminated at it. The reason for this is they do not want to send more trains to York as capacity is a bit of an issue for terminating trains (two TPE already terminating there in the HLOS) But they need another Manchester-Leeds service. There is no capacity to terminate at Leeds therefore Selby gets wired as an ECML link and also to allow a convenient place to turn round Leeds through services.

With only rarely using on the Leeds-Selby-Hull line I've not taken as much interest in why Selby was picked as the terminus. Has it been confirmed that Selby-Leeds will get an additional service or could we see the Calder Vale diesel services no longer continuing to Selby once Stalybridge-Selby gets electrified?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn't the HLOS almost out of date in this respect?

No decision has been made yet therefore the HLOs is in date. And to be fair to the HLOS it is unlikely that the service pattern will change if Hull is electrified. All that is likely to change is that the Hull-Manchester service will become electric and the Hull-London services won't require bi-modes.

Selby will still have a TPE service terminated at it. The reason for this is they do not want to send more trains to York as capacity is a bit of an issue for terminating trains (two TPE already terminating there in the HLOS) But they need another Manchester-Leeds service. There is no capacity to terminate at Leeds therefore Selby gets wired as an ECML link and also to allow a convenient place to turn round Leeds through services.
Welcome to the forum.

The 2012 HLOS document is of "Illustrative Options", aimed at firming up Network Rail's CP5 infrastructure plans.

Inclusion of a train service or an infrastructure scheme in the Department’s illustrative options does not guarantee it will be delivered;

I shouldn't think any specific service pattern is guaranteed until there is a franchise agreement to deliver it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The 2012 HLOS document is of "Illustrative Options", aimed at firming up Network Rail's CP5 infrastructure plans.


I shouldn't think any specific service pattern is guaranteed until there is a franchise agreement to deliver it.

The TPE part is slightly more set in stone. Basically unless the new franchise comes in with something radically better it will be given to the next TOC. And if First retain it, this will be the service pattern is it has been pretty much developed by them and NR.

 

[northwichcat]

The 2012 HLOS document is of "Illustrative Options", aimed at firming up Network Rail's CP5 infrastructure plans.

I shouldn't think any specific service pattern is guaranteed until there is a franchise agreement to deliver it.

The North TPE ones are at an advanced stage though. The Ordsall Chord and Manchester-Selby/York electrification has been committed to. Network Rail have included platform lengthening at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield in their CP5 plans and have undertaken extensive consultation on replacing the Huddersfield-Victoria stoppers with semi-fasts. While First TransPennine Express will make some of the proposals in the illustrative options in a few weeks time:
* They'll be a direct Liverpool-Newcastle express service via Chat Moss.
* Half the Airport-York services won't continue beyond York. Obviously at this stage they can't run via the Ordsall Chord and Victoria and splitting the Middlesbrough service at York pre-electrification will cause complaints without being able to justify the decision.
* The Manchester-Hull service will additionally call at Stalybridge.

I do agree that there are proposals in the HLOS which could change but I don't think the North TPE ones are likely to change.

 

[IanXC]

6tph on North TPE is due to happen at the December 2016 timetable change. Electric services between Manchester and York are set to happen at the December 2018 timetable change. If Hull is electrified it'll likely happen after April 2019 and the HLOS is for Control Period 5 which means the changes will happen between April 2014 and April 2019, so the HLOS is still correct even if post-Hull electrification Hull gets 2tph to Manchester. Maybe the reasoning for the one remaining diesel service on North TPE going to Hull and not Middlesbrough or Scarborough was that Hull was the mostly likely to be electrified all along?

I think more to the point is that Hull's urban area has a population of over 570k (compared to Middlesbrough at 138k, or Scarborough at 50k) and that while it seems to be politically unacceptable for Middlesbrough or Scarborough not to have a direct services to Leeds, it seems to be equally unacceptable for Hull not to have a service to Manchester (interestingly there is little call for it to go to the Airport...).

This is me indulging in some speculation, however if when considering the service plan you assume that ultimately Hull would be electrified, there is then a good case for extending the Selby to Hull too. You've then got eastern termini of 2tph Newcastle, 2tph York and 2tph Hull.

I have to say I'm not sure you can be as certain as to say "If Hull is electrified it'll likely happen after April 2019". If Hull Trains proposal is approved soon (ie in the Budget), then the delivery plan sees electric services starting at around the turn of 2016/2017. NR LNE are also considering bringing the committed east of Leeds work forward, perhaps to as early as to allow electric services Leeds to Selby, before to York!

With only rarely using on the Leeds-Selby-Hull line I've not taken as much interest in why Selby was picked as the terminus. Has it been confirmed that Selby-Leeds will get an additional service or could we see the Calder Vale diesel services no longer continuing to Selby once Stalybridge-Selby gets electrified?

For the moment Selby was chosen because Network Rail London North Eastern have prioritised providing diversionary routes for the East Coast franchise. Specifically allowing electric trains to reach Leeds via Hambleton South, Hambleton East, Micklefield and Crossgates. Once you add as far as the Hambleton Junctions, Selby isn't really that far and gives time benefits for the stoppers in this busy section.

As far as I have seen there is nothing to say that the TP terminator for Selby will replace anything else, and I would have thought it'd be a bit odd for it to turn into an all stops at Leeds, but we will see.