Freight Electrification for North Scrapped

[furnessvale]

but while my comment about Thati is deliberately factious that is exactly what you and others are asking the government to do. You are asking them to spend lots of our money on a wish. What if they feel that money can be better used by the INDUSTRY (?) in a different way? What if they think the money is better spent on a new motorway? There is only so much money available and the government must spend it int the way they think is best.

As I have now said several times: I think this is a debate about nice to haves. I am more worried about the must haves which are also at risk.

I am not asking the government for anything. On the other hand, the railfreight industry, with the backing of hard facts, and other industries like ports, who again have hard facts, ARE asking government.

 

[mwmbwls]

As I have now said several times: I think this is a debate about nice to haves. I am more worried about the must haves which are also at risk.

I do not recognise the technical term "nice" in ranking desirability. I was trained to apply MOSCOW consensus prioritisation as in:
M - Must contain this feature/element
o
S - Should contain……..etc.
C - Could contain.……...etc.
o
W - Would like to contain......etc.

So what do you consider are the top three musts and top two shoulds?

 

[DarloRich]

I do not recognise the technical term "nice" in ranking desirability. I was trained to apply MOSCOW consensus prioritisation as in:
M - Must contain this feature/element
o
S - Should contain……..etc.
C - Could contain.……...etc.
o
W - Would like to contain......etc.

So what do you consider are the top three musts and top two shoulds?

Apologies - I dumbed it down a bit for the masses.

My must haves will be very wide but are limited to what has been suggested as possible which therefore excludes wiring to Hull or Boro:

1. Electrify entire Transpennine route (via Huddersfield) between Manchester (both Piccadilly & Victoria) and York to a minimum modern standard required to improve passenger services. This assumes the sections between York and Newcastle & Manchester and Liverpool already have required OHLE.
   1a)Use OHLE materials that reach only a minimum modern base standard ( rather than gold platted) accepting potential future issues
2. Procure and introduce a new fleet of electric trains specified to take advantage of a new electrification and to be of a sensible size and layout offering more seats and faster journeys more often. This will also require new depot & staff infrastructure and facilities.
3. Enhance infrastructure to support new fleet & deliver enhanced service ( platform lengths, easing curves, new signalling, relay track to better standard etc etc)

Should haves:

1. Complete rebore of troublesome tunnels to modern dimensions ( may add to must haves dependent on cost implications) AND CPO of troublesome properties close to the railway line if mitigating factors can not be agreed (Mosely?) . I am happy to add this is hard, expensive, unpopular and disruptive work
2. Electrification of branch lines to Hull and Middlesbrough / further electrification of the Leeds suburban network / electrification of suitable diversion routes

 

[Mordac]

No, £2billion. Simon Dodd MP DUP leader in the Commons, admitted on television today they have spent £1.5billion of it already.

The DUP didn't get any money, neither £2 billion or £1 billion. The government (including local governments) of Northern Ireland did. In case you haven't noticed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently not sitting, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service is acting in a caretaker capacity, so the DUP had no involvement in spending this money.

Everyone wants their MPs to lobby for improvements in their area, but apparently Northern Ireland MPs are the only ones not allowed to do this.

 

[takno]

I do not recognise the technical term "nice" in ranking desirability. I was trained to apply MOSCOW consensus prioritisation as in:
M - Must contain this feature/element
o
S - Should contain……..etc.
C - Could contain.……...etc.
o
W - Would like to contain......etc.

So what do you consider are the top three musts and top two shoulds?

MOSCOW is one ranking technique, but it's not an especially good one for most purposes. It generally just prioritizes the "shoulds" and "coulds" of the shoutiest people in any given meeting and builds a totally false consensus. The point of all these techniques in any case is to comprehensively gather feedback. How is telling people off on a forum and trying to bounce them into using your tool supposed to do that?

 

[Aictos]

Apologies - I dumbed it down a bit for the masses.

My must haves will be very wide but are limited to what has been suggested as possible which therefore excludes wiring to Hull or Boro:

1. Electrify entire Transpennine route (via Huddersfield) between Manchester (both Piccadilly & Victoria) and York to a minimum modern standard required to improve passenger services. This assumes the sections between York and Newcastle & Manchester and Liverpool already have required OHLE.
   1a)Use OHLE materials that reach only a minimum modern base standard ( rather than gold platted) accepting potential future issues

My only concern doing it this way is that some accountant will take your suggestion in hand and wire up the route as cheaply as possible ala East Coast Main Line style with vast distances between headspans so if one line has OHL damage it affects all lines rather unlike the West Coast Main Line where the OHL is line independent so a issue on one line shouldn't affect neighbouring lines within reason.

But you are right in saying that the entire TransPennine route via Huddersfield ought to be wired up as should perhaps the alternative route via Hebden Bridge as well which also improves the chances of OHL between Colne and Blackpool South but also the short distance between Hebden Bridge and Preston itself

It also helps keep a EMU service running between Manchester and Leeds when the route via Huddersfield is not available as you can divert via Hebden Bridge instead.

I'm not saying wire up every line but the main line via Huddersfield and the diversionary route via Hebden Bridge should certainly be looked at.

 

[matacaster]

Apologies - I dumbed it down a bit for the masses.

My must haves will be very wide but are limited to what has been suggested as possible which therefore excludes wiring to Hull or Boro:

1. Electrify entire Transpennine route (via Huddersfield) between Manchester (both Piccadilly & Victoria) and York to a minimum modern standard required to improve passenger services. This assumes the sections between York and Newcastle & Manchester and Liverpool already have required OHLE.
   1a)Use OHLE materials that reach only a minimum modern base standard ( rather than gold platted) accepting potential future issues
2. Procure and introduce a new fleet of electric trains specified to take advantage of a new electrification and to be of a sensible size and layout offering more seats and faster journeys more often. This will also require new depot & staff infrastructure and facilities.
3. Enhance infrastructure to support new fleet & deliver enhanced service ( platform lengths, easing curves, new signalling, relay track to better standard etc etc)

Should haves:

1. Complete rebore of troublesome tunnels to modern dimensions ( may add to must haves dependent on cost implications) AND CPO of troublesome properties close to the railway line if mitigating factors can not be agreed (Mosely?) . I am happy to add this is hard, expensive, unpopular and disruptive work
2. Electrification of branch lines to Hull and Middlesbrough / further electrification of the Leeds suburban network / electrification of suitable diversion routes

The wind over the pennines is often rather strong, so i'd be inclined to beef up the catenary of the most exposed parts, which are probably not that extensive.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The wind over the pennines is often rather strong, so i'd be inclined to beef up the catenary of the most exposed parts, which are probably not that extensive.

Similar to the northern fells over Shap etc on the WCML?

 

[AndrewE]

Similar to the northern fells over Shap etc on the WCML?

North of Preston BR learnt the hard way after repeated dewirements and put in lots of extra supports.
Anyway, the transpennine lines are underground past the highest bits! (In reality it's often crossing side-valleys on embankments that produces the fiercest blasts though.)

 

[DarloRich]

The wind over the pennines is often rather strong, so i'd be inclined to beef up the catenary of the most exposed parts, which are probably not that extensive.

agreed - my point is to go for the base standard rather than some super standard. Just engineer it. Don't over engineer it!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

North of Preston BR learnt the hard way after repeated dewirements and put in lots of extra supports.
Anyway, the transpennine lines are underground past the highest bits! (In reality it's often crossing side-valleys on embankments that produces the fiercest blasts though.)

agreed - my point is to go for the base standard rather than some super standard. Just engineer it. Don't over engineer it!

Basically no headspans - TTCs or STCs at sensible spacing.

 

[Meole]

The last thing an intensive electrified passenger service between Leeds and Manchester needs is freight slowing the service, diesel freight overnight is fine but during the day keep freight on the road.

 

[takno]

The last thing an intensive electrified passenger service between Leeds and Manchester needs is freight slowing the service, diesel freight overnight is fine but during the day keep freight on the road.

The whole point of electrified freight is that it should largely be able to keep within passenger schedules. The transpennine route isn't 125mph railway and nothing runs non stop. Running diesel freight overnight just adds noise pollution to the atmospheric pollution, as well as getting in the way of engineering possessions. Finally, you have perhaps a 4-5 hour window in the night when there aren't many passenger trains running on the network, which isn't long enough to do a bunch of the flows. Are you suggesting they get partway through the journey and then sit around in a loop waiting for the next night?

 

[Aictos]

The whole point of electrified freight is that it should largely be able to keep within passenger schedules. The transpennine route isn't 125mph railway and nothing runs non stop. Running diesel freight overnight just adds noise pollution to the atmospheric pollution, as well as getting in the way of engineering possessions. Finally, you have perhaps a 4-5 hour window in the night when there aren't many passenger trains running on the network, which isn't long enough to do a bunch of the flows. Are you suggesting they get partway through the journey and then sit around in a loop waiting for the next night?

Indeed and as has been pointed out by the industry, the M62 is busy enough as it is which is why they wanted to expand the rail freight part of the industry not to mention this Government has set goals to become more eco-friendly which seems like lip service more and more.

But electrified freight or not, it meant to keep within passenger schedules which is why you have freight in daytime heading up and down the Hertford Loop as a example or even up and down the Northampton Loop as another example.

As to the TransPennine routes, they go nowhere near 125mph and of course as @takno has stated nothing runs non stop unless you count the various semi fast services.

You also have the issue of overnight engineering possessions which 1. Is certainly not long enough for the amount of freight that is intended to move by rail but also more importantly means much needed maintenance simply won't get done as there won't be enough time to do it - Hatfield or Potters Bar anyone?

As to freight doing half their journey overnight then just sitting around all day in some loop/siding/yard, obvious someone has forgotten that some rail freight is time critical so can't just sit around in the middle of nowhere waiting for nightfall plus you have the driver hours to think of.

Shall we suggest that the road transport lobby tell its members that they are not to clog our roads in the day with their HGVs and only transport freight at night? As that is more or less what is being suggested, that would get laughed out in seconds!

As to freight electrification until such a time comes that more services CAN be electrically hauled then we should be doing everything possible to increase rail haulage within reason of course most importantly using the Victorian infrastructure to the best that it can cope with.

 

[deltic08]

The DUP didn't get any money, neither £2 billion or £1 billion. The government (including local governments) of Northern Ireland did. In case you haven't noticed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently not sitting, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service is acting in a caretaker capacity, so the DUP had no involvement in spending this money.

Everyone wants their MPs to lobby for improvements in their area, but apparently Northern Ireland MPs are the only ones not allowed to do this.

You are just hair splitting here.
It is still money that you otherwise would not have had.

 

[deltic08]

Basically no headspans - TTCs or STCs at sensible spacing.

Nothing wrong with headspans if maintained properly and put closer together to reduce oscillations in the wind.

 

[Aictos]

Nothing wrong with headspans if maintained properly and put closer together to reduce oscillations in the wind.

But there is for example in my post above I explained why headspans are not as good as you may think they are:

Take the East Coast Main Line for example, when the Down Slow at St Neots in 2016 had the OHL brought down by a pair of Class 365s you had nothing that could run on the other lines at all.

If TTCs or STCs at sensible spacing were actually used then traffic could use the other 3 lines to operate some sort of service as these lines would not be affected.

Headspans are fine for depots and stations such as Kings Cross, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Edinburgh etc but for stations that are exposed such as St Neots, Huntingdon etc not so much.

This is why the West Coast Main Line was engineered better because one line OHL issue doesn't mean it will automatically affect the other lines OHL and that's not over engineering the OHL, its just being sensible.

This is why Network Rail instead of following your suggestion in the Connington area are actually replacing them with TTCs or STCs - I can't remember which but you can follow updates in this thread.

 

[Mordac]

You are just hair splitting here.
It is still money that you otherwise would not have had.

It is. But it was not, in any sense, given to the DUP. It was given to Northern Ireland. The DUP just secured the funding. But saying £1 billion pounds for infrastructure and services in Northern Ireland can't raise faux online outrage as well as £1 billion to the DUP.

 

[furnessvale]

The last thing an intensive electrified passenger service between Leeds and Manchester needs is freight slowing the service, diesel freight overnight is fine but during the day keep freight on the road.

You are Andrew Adonis and I claim my £5!

 

[Aictos]

You are Andrew Adonis and I claim my £5!

I say more Grayling!

 

[furnessvale]

I say more Grayling!

For all his faults, Grayling has never stated his desire to transfer freight from rail to road, even though some of his actions may result in that.

On the other hand Lord Adonis has publicly stated his desire to transfer freight from rail to road.

 

[6Gman]

It may have been said but it isn't necessarily true.

For example, there are a number of freight trains daily from Manchester to Runcorn which is a distance well below the oft quoted 150 miles or whatever. There are other such examples.

But aren't they conditioned by planning requirements?

 

[furnessvale]

But aren't they conditioned by planning requirements?

Most of the planning restraints on the Runcorn plant were removed. Manchester has dispatched its rubbish by rail for some years to various locations such as Appley Bridge, Scunthorpe and now Runcorn. It does demonstrate that if you set your stall out properly you CAN use railfreight.

 

[Legolash2o]

I've rather it be done in stages with electrification last.

1. Faster passenger speeds (track straightening etc..)
2. Upgrade gauge to at least W10 (preferably W12) leaving room for electrification. Extra tracks and/or loops
3. Electrification

Number 2 would have to be done before 3 anyway so might as well see the benefit sooner rather than later. Also, if number 3 gets cancelled due to funding/political conflicts, then at least we have improvements for both passenger and freight. It just surprised me that even in 2018, the gauge cannot even take standard containers, let alone the increasing use of high-cube containers.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I've rather it be done in stages with electrification last.

1. Faster passenger speeds (track straightening etc..)
2. Upgrade gauge to at least W10 (preferably W12) leaving room for electrification. Extra tracks and/or loops
3. Electrification

Number 2 would have to be done before 3 anyway so might as well see the benefit sooner rather than later. Also, if number 3 gets cancelled due to funding/political conflicts, then at least we have improvements for both passenger and freight. It just surprised me that even in 2018, the gauge cannot even take standard containers, let alone the increasing use of high-cube containers.

An eminently sensible approach

 

[Mogster]

At Oxford Road tonight the westbound container train was pulled by 2 electric 86s. Never seen that before.

 

[HSTEd]

Take the East Coast Main Line for example, when the Down Slow at St Neots in 2016 had the OHL brought down by a pair of Class 365s you had nothing that could run on the other lines at all.

If TTCs or STCs at sensible spacing were actually used then traffic could use the other 3 lines to operate some sort of service as these lines would not be affected.

They are not going to let any repairs take place without closing the adjacent lines, you will also have to make sure no debris is fouling any of the other lines and the other lines equipment was not damaged by wiring and debris tangling up.

Headspans are fine for depots and stations such as Kings Cross, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Edinburgh etc but for stations that are exposed such as St Neots, Huntingdon etc not so much.

And yet the ECML functions quite well if we are honest.

This is why the West Coast Main Line was engineered better because one line OHL issue doesn't mean it will automatically affect the other lines OHL and that's not over engineering the OHL, its just being sensible.

Come back when you can do the WCML style job for the ECML style price tag.

This is why Network Rail instead of following your suggestion in the Connington area are actually replacing them with TTCs or STCs - I can't remember which but you can follow updates in this thread.

That is a project that was approved when NR had unlimited money.
I expect all such similar projects to be binned rather soon.

 

[Legolash2o]

Does anyone see hydrogen trains being used along the corridor?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I really do not think hydrogen trains can provide the power density for hauling freight. A true expert may be able to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Legolash2o]

Find an interesting article:

Hydrogen is able to match the performance of diesel because of its high energy density and it is the fuel of choice for longer journeys and heavier loads, with a range of up to 800km and top speed of 140km/h

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/hydrogen-powered-trains/51960/