North TPE electrification

[tbtc]

There's not likely to be TransPennine Express franchise by the time electrification is complete.

I suggested Huddersfield-Wakefield because it's a short stretch and another service can switch to a EMU if it's done (assuming the Grand Tour is split.)

The frustrating thing with the Huddersfield - Wakefield service is that its just too long for one unit, but a waste having two units on it (hence tagging it on to the Selby - Leeds and Leeds - Brighouse - Huddersfield services).

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 (e.g. Sheffield - Barnsley - Kirkgate - Leeds is three/hour if you include the Castieford "triangle"). Makes more sense to do more.

 

[swt_passenger]

Stockton to Ferryhill (approximately half way between Darlington and Durham) via, erm, Stillington. Not a hope in hell of it being electrified as part of TPE, or of any other scheme in my lifetime, if you ask me.

Exactly. It can't be used as a diversionary route now, so won't even be under consideration for wires.

 

[tbtc]

Stockton to Ferryhill (approximately half way between Darlington and Durham) via, erm, Stillington. Not a hope in hell of it being electrified as part of TPE, or of any other scheme in my lifetime, if you ask me.

Ah, thanks! The only suggestion on Google Maps was further south near Thirsk, which confused me!

Nope, no chance of wiring that (if Saltburn - Darlo isn't a good enough case, despite its half hourly service then a freight line stands no chance, sorry).

 

[northwichcat]

The frustrating thing with the Huddersfield - Wakefield service is that its just too long for one unit, but a waste having two units on it (hence tagging it on to the Selby - Leeds and Leeds - Brighouse - Huddersfield services).

You could could have diagrams to include both Huddersfield-Wakefield and Huddersfield-Leeds via Dewsbury stoppers using the same units.

Both the Chester-Manchester via Altrincham and Buxton-Manchester services effectively waste a unit each at off-peak times. If they only used Sprinters on the Chester-Manchester via Altrincham service then a logical solution would be to interwork the diagrams to avoid that problem.

 

[Red Dragon]

It is.

Up and running infrastructure is the kind of thing that pension funds love, there's a secure income, they are fairly safe, they can invest for the long term at a stable/ unspectacular rate. A lot of pension funds are invested in shopping centres etc for similar reasons. Investing in the HS1 infrastructure (after it was up and running) was a fairly safe bet.

However putting pension scheme money into brand new projects is another story, thats the kind of speculation (given uncertain costs etc) that doesn't suit pension funds.

Fair enough if the Government are giving them guarantees - it could be a pretty cheap way of getting round Government borrowing restrictions - but its odd if they are speculating money on uncertain projects.

I agree, you're right, the risks during construction are very different to those when a PFI scheme is up and running.

Historically PFI jobs are re-financed once the scheme becomes operational, as the cost of finance drops significantly once the construction risks are out of the way. The banks don't like construction risks as they lack the skill to assess the risk. For example Second Severn Crossing, which had massive risks during the construction phase (the second highest tidal range in the world) was re-financed at the end of the construction phase to great effect, and so was Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.

As I recall Ashford International was underwritten by the government "Golden Share" from BR because of the impending Privatisation of BR. In other words it was underwritten by the government (Conservative at the time).

Not sure about the in house resources within NR these day, more "consultants" will be needed perhaps.

Interesting times. Look forward to seeing the detail.

Just watching the Panorama prog. on BBC re the pitfalls of PFI !

 

[IanXC]

Just holdeth thy horses on 'Hull and Middlesbrough Not Being Wired' We don't know what is being done yet, if it's the Network Rail plan, it does include Hull.

Given that the project will need to provide a suitable rate of return to its investors I would suspect that inclusion of Hull, and hence greater usage of the infrastructure would improve the return.

Add Micklefield-Hull, Temple Hirst-Selby and Doncaster-Gilberdyke. That has the added advantage of freeing up a lot of 180s from Hull Trains. I reckon that this would be far more likely than the old Midland lines, at least until they do the MML (whenever that is).

I'm not sure Doncaster-Gilberdyke would be a good candidate. London services go via Selby, and services on Doncaster-Gilberdyke are usually the Hull-Sheffield service, often ultimately going to Bridlington/Scarborough.

Mickelfield-Hull and Temple Hirst-Selby would enable the hourly Hull-York (plus the extra Selby-Yorks), 8 per day London services and the hourly Hull-Manchester (hopefully increased to 2tph) to go over the electric traction. This would (I think) be all of the services between Gilberdyke and Selby.

What might do the deal for Hull is the possibility of electric freight to Hull docks...

However putting pension scheme money into brand new projects is another story, thats the kind of speculation (given uncertain costs etc) that doesn't suit pension funds.

Fair enough if the Government are giving them guarantees - it could be a pretty cheap way of getting round Government borrowing restrictions - but its odd if they are speculating money on uncertain projects.

I suspect that the £5bn of Government money will go to covering potential cost overruns.

 

[Whistler40145]

What are the risks of using Pension Fund monies for financing major projects?

 

[Red Dragon]

What are the risks of using Pension Fund monies for financing major projects?

Tim, it's not so much the risks of using Pension Fund monies, but the risks to the Pension Fund in lending their money.

It very much depends who takes the risks on these projects, and at what cost.

It's thought the government might act as a guarantor to the lenders in order to get the contract finance at a reasonable rate, and avoid the big profits taken out of the schemes when they are re-financed at the end of the construction stage.

 

[Whistler40145]

I understand Red Dragon.

Thanks for your answer.

 

[tbtc]

You could could have diagrams to include both Huddersfield-Wakefield and Huddersfield-Leeds via Dewsbury stoppers using the same units.

Both the Chester-Manchester via Altrincham and Buxton-Manchester services effectively waste a unit each at off-peak times. If they only used Sprinters on the Chester-Manchester via Altrincham service then a logical solution would be to interwork the diagrams to avoid that problem.

True.

Whilst the Grand Tour is often criticised (inc by me!) it seems to be the most efficient way of using DMUs. A Leeds - Huddersfield - Wakefield service would probably make a lot of sense. Huddersfield - Leeds is too long for just one unit (36 mins), and Huddersfield - Westgate is just too long for one unit (33 mins), but three units could cover the two services with a reasonable layover at each end. Yeah, the figures add up nicely.

 

[Red Dragon]

"Thanks for your answer."

I was heavily involved in major schemes in my former life, both at concession company level, and construction company level, at various times.

 

[tbtc]

Tim, it's not so much the risks of using Pension Fund monies, but the risks to the Pension Fund in lending their money.

It very much depends who takes the risks on these projects, and at what cost.

It's thought the government might act as a guarantor to the lenders in order to get the contract finance at a reasonable rate, and avoid the big profits taken out of the schemes when they are re-financed at the end of the construction stage.

There was a big argument in the '80s when it was found that the Miners pension funds were being used to invest in South African funds. IIRC the courts decided that the purpose of the pension fund was to maximise return for members (in the long run), even if the Mining unions were antiapartheid.

Its not for pension schemes to risk money constructing railway lines (look at the Edinburgh trams to realise how quickly things can go over budget), but if the Government can give them guarantees then its quite a clever way of "state borrowing" that won't show up on the national debt - the kind of wheeze I bet Gordon Brown wish he'd thought of.

 

[Whistler40145]

If Huddersfield to Leeds via Wakefield Kirkgate & the spur between Wakefield Westgate & Kirkgate were electrified then a Leeds to Leeds service could run via both Wakefield stations.

 

[CosherB]

So - was there such an announcement? Nothing on the news.

 

[johnnychips]

So - was there such an announcement? Nothing on the news.

Just been on Look North (Leeds). Alan Whitehouse pointed out it would decrease journey times Leeds-Man to 45 mins, at 6tph, but new 185s would be replaced by second-hand rolling stock from down south.

 

[OxtedL]

There was definitely an announcement, but you had to look hard for evidence of it. It's buried deep in the BBC News website for instance... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15920729

 

[swt_passenger]

Or on the No10 website:

The Government is supporting Network Rail in electrifying the Transpennine route between Manchester and Leeds. The decision to electrify the route starting next year will, in conjunction with the Ordsall Chord, cut journey times between Liverpool and Newcastle by 45 minutes, improve reliability, and attract new private investment in the North of England.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/infrastructure-investment/

 

[snail]

David Cameron was featured on both Manchester local news programmes tonight visiting the Northern depot at Newton Heath, but the BBC and other news websites appear not to mention it. Odd.

 

[Nym]

Wonder what the chances of getting some nice linespeed increases would be, 90/100 where possible...

Leeds - York could have 100 without too much issue, as could Leeds - Kingston upon Hull, 100 all the way, sub 45mins to Leeds from Paragon Interchange... not that this would mean I could get home quicker or anything...

 

[HSTEd]

Wonder what the chances of getting some nice linespeed increases would be, 90/100 where possible...

Leeds - York could have 100 without too much issue, as could Leeds - Kingston upon Hull, 100 all the way, sub 45mins to Leeds from Paragon Interchange... not that this would mean I could get home quicker or anything...

Selby - Hull almost looks straight enough for 140mph but that would likely require moving the platforms at the local stations onto refuge loops.....

Two-class Cl395s on the TPE-North post electrification anyone?

 

[Class377/5]

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

 

[Lampshade]

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

Well replacement of 185s by 379s would be fantastic, although it'll no doubt mean replacement of 365s by 379s and move the old stuff north :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

Well replacement of 185s by 379s would be fantastic, although it'll no doubt mean replacement of 365s by 379s and move the old stuff north :roll:

Surely the Cl365s should stay put until IEP arrives, assuming it does?

But then sense never really governed the privatised railway.

 

[Class377/5]

Well replacement of 185s by 379s would be fantastic, although it'll no doubt mean replacement of 365s by 379s and move the old stuff north :roll:

The 365 will be running on the GN side post new stock and IEP. Maybe not in the same numbers as now unless the DfT change their minds and decide to mess around with stock big time.

New batch of 379's is possible tho I doubt it. Bombardier will be pushing for new Adventra units as there won't be the need to be backwards compatable like the Southern possible order. The 37x class is now old hat now Adventra is ready to be ordered.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

True.

Whilst the Grand Tour is often criticised (inc by me!) it seems to be the most efficient way of using DMUs. A Leeds - Huddersfield - Wakefield service would probably make a lot of sense. Huddersfield - Leeds is too long for just one unit (36 mins), and Huddersfield - Westgate is just too long for one unit (33 mins), but three units could cover the two services with a reasonable layover at each end. Yeah, the figures add up nicely.

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.

 

[Nym]

SO yet again, the're not selling what the customer wants, but what they want to build, backwards thinking anyone? Bet they wouldn't build any future orders in Derby anyway.

Considering one very small modification will allow the 350, 380 or Desiro City units to be able to haul and interwork with 185s, I'd pick the Siemens unit any day, it just feels a better quality product, and has a higher public opinion for who I speak to with the 185 series compared to the 17x series. Christ people that I talk to prefer EMT Refurbed 158s to 17x units on XC or LM. (Myself included, Siemens make better units).

Why can't the TPE Electrified routes just have 380s? We like new stock here too and brand spanking new units will do wonders for public opinion and get ridership through the roof. (Same goes for NT's routes, but a good hard refurb would work there too)

 

[Schnellzug]

So the idiot Cameron has come up with something useful for once?

(Hypothetical question; how much of the network wouldn't they be able to afford to electrifi for the amount they're spending on the Government's current Ego Project, the mega-aircraft carriers (current estimated date for fuill operational status ~ 2030). Or for that matter, the Olympics.)

 

[Nym]

The aircraft carriers (that are wrong anyway IMO) would cost more money not to build now.

Olympics, don't get me started, we could have proberbly electrified every line that sees more than 1tph by 2035 for the amount the're spending on that!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The aircraft carriers (that are wrong anyway IMO) would cost more money not to build now.

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.

 

[PhilipW]

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.