North TPE electrification

[tbtc]

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.

That sounds easiest - just swap the "Leeds - Newcastle" bit of XC with the "Leeds - Middlesbrough" bit of TPE, no new paths/units needed.

Middlesbrough retains its link to Leeds, the Edinburgh XC traffic is now on the "via Doncaster" service (extended north of the Border) that is roughly 15 minutes faster.

Leeds - Newcastle is now part of a half-hourly Manchester - Newcastle EMU service (rather than two different TOCs).

 

[Batman]

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.

No, because there will be a second TPE tph to Newcastle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the corrent services that opperate between York and Northallerton are;

2tph EC - 1 to Edinburgh, 1 to Newcaslte.

2tph XC - 1 to Glasgow, 1 to Newcastle.

2tph FTPE - 1 to Newcastle, 1 to Middlesborough.

So 6tph in total.

Under the proposal there will be 7 tph between York and Northallerton as follows;

2tph EC - as present.

2tph XC - 1 to Edinburgh, 1 to Newcastle.

3tph FTPE - 2 to Newcastle and the York - Middlesborough stopper.

So an extra parth will be required.

So whole reason why this problem came up is the removal of Scraborough and Middlesborough from the main FTPE network because of electrification and the need to provide a service at local stations between Middlesborough and Northallerton.

 

[4SRKT]

Well, obviously I forgot about Yarm. It would just get the XC workings.

Are paths really much of an issue on the 4-track section of the ECML between York and Northallerton? I seriously doubt it, especially on the slows.

 

[LE Greys]

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.

I agree with that, and it's not all that difficult compared with some of the other huge costs involved. I'd also want a platform on the up goods loop at Darlington, and not a closure of the loop like they did as Swindon, so that goods trains can still use it. Still, that would require a big, new footbridge and lots of facilities, so it's less likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That sounds easiest - just swap the "Leeds - Newcastle" bit of XC with the "Leeds - Middlesbrough" bit of TPE, no new paths/units needed.

Middlesbrough retains its link to Leeds, the Edinburgh XC traffic is now on the "via Doncaster" service (extended north of the Border) that is roughly 15 minutes faster.

Leeds - Newcastle is now part of a half-hourly Manchester - Newcastle EMU service (rather than two different TOCs).

That sounds quite convenient, I like it.

 

[tbtc]

That sounds quite convenient, I like it

It would mean no additional trains needed, it would speed up the Birmingham - Edinburgh journey and it would allow Middlesbrough to retain its Leeds link.

Bad news if you live in Sheffield (as a second Newcastle service an hour is probably of more use than a service to Teesside), but I'm trying not to be selfish

 

[northwichcat]

Work will start in 2014 judging by the financials on page 49: http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/autumn_statement.pdf

It does only mention Manchester-Leeds but does mention electrification as a benefit for the North East, as well as for Yorkshire and the North West

 

[philjo]

New stations for Kirkstall Forge & Apperley Bridge also approved.
an EMU stopping service from Bradford FS to York could operate to create an East-West Leeds "crossrail"

 

[ainsworth74]

Table 3.C (Page 46) of the National Infrastructure Plan mentions North Trans Pennine electrification rather than just Manchester - Leeds, so it does seem like the wires will be going onto Hull/Middlesbrough at least.

 

[Statto]

Imo, it's short sighted that the Liverpool-Manchester via Warrington line isn't included in the Electrification programme as well as the line via Chat Moss, Warrington branch is heaving most of the day, also a handy diversion if the Chat Moss route is off, & vice versa.

 

[Nym]

But not accessable from the future TPE network without a reversal at Oxford Road, and the path will be used to provide an additional semi fast terminating at Manchester Aiport or Piccadilly, meaning less national passengers on the local route, kind of like what is happening with Bolton.

 

[northwichcat]

But not accessable from the future TPE network without a reversal at Oxford Road

Statto mentioned it as a diversion. During engineering works now Liverpool TPE services divert via Victoria and Newton-le-Willows instead of via Piccadilly and Warrington Central. In the future the reverse will be true if they electrify the Warrington line and if they don't they will need to use more replacement buses during engineering works.

 

[dickdarlington]

I agree with that, and it's not all that difficult compared with some of the other huge costs involved. I'd also want a platform on the up goods loop at Darlington, and not a closure of the loop like they did as Swindon, so that goods trains can still use it. Still, that would require a big, new footbridge and lots of facilities, so it's less likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That sounds quite convenient, I like it.

If they ever proceed with the Tees Valley Metro (which lets face it they won't). I believe that they are going to build new terminating platforms here to avoid the Darlington-Saltburn trains having to cross the mainline.

If there was any money for this though, I would seriously alter the entire layout of Darlington station, retaining only the original parts of the engine shed, moving the station west so it straddles the fast lines, with bay platforms on the far west side for terminating services (perhaps a bay platform for Bish services too under the existing engine shed). And then convert under the existing eastern side of the station into parking and office space.

But this isn't really for this thread. I just carried on typing.

 

[Statto]

Statto mentioned it as a diversion. During engineering works now services Liverpool TPE services divert via Victoria and Newton-le-Willows instead of via Piccadilly and Warrington Central. In the future the reverse will be true if they electrify the Warrington line and if they don't they will need to use more replacement buses during engineering works.

My feeling is that the line via Warrington as well as Chat Moss should be electrified, not doing so is short sighted.

 

[PhilipW]

My feeling is that the line via Warrington as well as Chat Moss should be electrified, not doing so is short sighted.

It probably will be in the long run. I rather think that Network Rail have their hands full at the moment doing what is already announced. The decisions have been made, let's see Network Rail deliver them.

 

[Nym]

And the CLC will become an inter-reigonal link important to Warrington, Liverpool, Manchester and Salford, where as the Chat Moss is of National importance as part of the TPE network from Newcastle to Liverpool and Manchester to Scotland, therefore given priority.

 

[PR1Berske]

Geek that I am - if Apperley Bridge is built, there's enough three letter codes free to allocate to it


Kirkstall Forge could be KIS (KIR already taken)


Now, back to the proper discussion

 

[MidnightFlyer]

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

Just Congleton I think once every two hours. No calls were made at any point at Kidsgrove or Longport.

 

[WatcherZero]

I wonder if this is just a case of the following logic....

We are electrifying Liverpool-Victoria, but thats difficult on terminating services.
So we extend the electification to Stalybridge so they can turnaround there.
If we are extending it to Stalybridge why not extend it all the way to Leeds.

£270m budget for North TPE makes this by length by far the most expensive electrification scheme.

 

[Nym]

Sandledge Tunnels WatcherZero, and that includes getting all the way to Hull and Middlesbrough.

 

[Eagle]

Also notice that this strengthens (ever so slightly, but every little helps) the case for letting Bombardier convert the Voyagers to bimode.

Offtopic but look at standard-hour Voyager services:

Birmingham–Glasgow/Edinburgh: 100% under wires.
London–Chester (pan down at Crewe): 88% under wires.
London–Holyhead (pan down at Crewe): 60% under wires.
Bournemouth–Manchester (pan up at Coventry): 39% under wires (assuming dual voltage isn't possible)
Southampton/Reading–Newcastle (pan up at Doncaster): 32%/37% under wires
Bristol–Manchester (pan up at Birmingham): 48% under wires
Plymouth–Edinburgh/Glasgow:

(pan up at York pre-electrification): 36%/43% under wires
(pan up at Wakefield post-electrification): 42%/49% under wires​

 

[tbtc]

Also notice that this strengthens (ever so slightly, but every little helps) the case for letting Bombardier convert the Voyagers to bimode.

Offtopic but look at standard-hour Voyager services:

Birmingham–Glasgow/Edinburgh: 100% under wires.
London–Chester (pan down at Crewe): 88% under wires.
London–Holyhead (pan down at Crewe): 60% under wires.
Bournemouth–Manchester (pan up at Coventry): 39% under wires (assuming dual voltage isn't possible)
Southampton/Reading–Newcastle (pan up at Doncaster): 32%/37% under wires
Bristol–Manchester (pan up at Birmingham): 48% under wires
Plymouth–Edinburgh/Glasgow:

(pan up at York pre-electrification): 36%/43% under wires
(pan up at Wakefield post-electrification): 42%/49% under wires​

Interesting figures, but are you forgetting that Reading - Oxford will be electrified too? Or are you saying that you wouldn't bother putting the pantograph up for such a short section?

 

[Eagle]

Or are you saying that you wouldn't bother putting the pantograph up for such a short section?

Indeed I am (although I think it was a mistake not to extend the Thames Valley electrification to Banbury and Basingstoke so all the Thames Turbos can be cascaded). I'm also not bothering raising the pantograph for Bristol Temple Meads–Parkway

 

[tbtc]

Indeed I am (although I think it was a mistake not to extend the Thames Valley electrification to Banbury and Basingstoke so all the Thames Turbos can be cascaded). I'm also not bothering raising the pantograph for Bristol Temple Meads–Parkway

...or Barnt Green to Birmingham New Street

 

[HSTEd]

Also notice that this strengthens (ever so slightly, but every little helps) the case for letting Bombardier convert the Voyagers to bimode.

Offtopic but look at standard-hour Voyager services:

Birmingham–Glasgow/Edinburgh: 100% under wires.
London–Chester (pan down at Crewe): 88% under wires.
London–Holyhead (pan down at Crewe): 60% under wires.
Bournemouth–Manchester (pan up at Coventry): 39% under wires (assuming dual voltage isn't possible)
Southampton/Reading–Newcastle (pan up at Doncaster): 32%/37% under wires
Bristol–Manchester (pan up at Birmingham): 48% under wires
Plymouth–Edinburgh/Glasgow:

(pan up at York pre-electrification): 36%/43% under wires
(pan up at Wakefield post-electrification): 42%/49% under wires​

No Pan up at Wakefield to Leeds? Isnt that roughly half an hour of electric running you are throwing away there?

 

[OxtedL]

If you dawdle a bit, Wakefield Westgate is maybe 15 minutes from Leeds. Timing in the power change, then putting the pan down again at Leeds and back up at York would be a bit wasteful, but with any luck Leeds to York will be pushed for as an early part of North TP for the flexibility it would bring to the ECML generally.

 

[calc7]

No Pan up at Wakefield to Leeds? Isnt that roughly half an hour of electric running you are throwing away there?

Often done it in 10-11 mins, especially when going out of Leeds.

 

[Nym]

Need I mention that the only inconvenience is starting and stopping generators, could just have all the generator idle for the time under wires if it's a short time, then fire up properly to generate when the wires end...

 

[Batman]

I've state on other threads before that when the MML is electrified, Sheffield to South Kirby junction needs to be electrified as well, so that XC services can pan up at Derby.

 

[HSTEd]

I've state on other threads before that when the MML is electrified, Sheffield to South Kirby junction needs to be electrified as well, so that XC services can pan up at Derby.

If Sheffield-Leeds was to be completely electrified we could see a third tph being put in to Leeds from London, the times probably couldn't come close to competing but you never know.

 

[Batman]

If Sheffield-Leeds was to be completely electrified we could see a third tph being put in to Leeds from London, the times probably couldn't come close to competing but you never know.

I never thoguht about that. And you'd give Leicester, Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway a direct train to Yorkshire.

I still think MML electrification should have taken priority over Trans Pennine.

So does this now make it almost certain that the MML will be the next big electrification project to be announced, possible in the 2015 spending review?