North TPE electrification

[Statto]

If Hull to Leeds is Electrified then Selby to Temple Hirst junction on the ECML should be wired as well, which is not far & would allow Electric Locos to Hull on the ECML from London.

 

[Nym]

And t'other bits would allow Hull - York to be EMU operated, be quicker, and actually competative against road... A1079. Hourly to York isn't too much to ask for is it?

 

[4SRKT]

Walking is competitive with the A1079 at some times of day.

 

[Nym]

I have been known to drive to Howden and across on the A63/M62 to avoid the A1079 before now (Although I was going from Easingwold to Welton so it's kind of illogical to go on the A1079 for that route.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

And t'other bits would allow Hull - York to be EMU operated, be quicker, and actually competative against road... A1079. Hourly to York isn't too much to ask for is it?

Indeed, quite a poor service at present AFAIC. Need an hourly semi-fast York-Hull and a two-hourly stopper, or something along those lines.

 

[Nym]

Yes, it's pretty poor, and pretty slow, and a lot of people in Hull travel to York...

I think it's over an hour at the moment, and I bet that could be gotten down to an hour using Hambleton Junction instead of the Sherburn Route.

Or just hourly via Selby and straight onto the ECML, any extras via the other route I forgot the name of that may or may not be electrified, I have seen both possiblities in draft plans by Network Rail.

Anyway, any stoppers by that route be DMUs terminating at Selby, most services will run the basic...

Hull, Brough, Gilberdyke, Howden, Selby, York

With some making extra stops at Eastrington, and Wressle, every two hours proberbly, although for an EMU it isn't much of a time penalty so possibly pushing that up to Hourly.

Depending on if the route to Sherburn in Elmet gets electrified or not, if not, direct to York all the time, hourly, an additional DMU running a shuttle between Selby and York via Shurburn in Elmet.

An alternative could be a big re-cast of services, with all stoppers being sent via Selby (onwards to York, Doncaster or Leeds) and semi fasts via Thorne.

So that the services off Hull would then look like...

1tph Bridlington slow (off Doncaster) (Cott, Bev, Sometimes Arram, Hutton C, Driff, Naff, Brid)
1tph Bridlington (Scarbrough) semi fast (Cott, Beverley, Driff, Brid)
These form:
1tph Doncaster (Brough, Gilberdyke, Goole, Thorne, Hatfeild & Stainforth, Kirk Sandall (dropping some stops, keeping some in peak hors))
1tph Sheffeild (As is now)

1tph York Fast (Brough, Gilberdyke, Howden, Selby, York)
1tph York Slow (Hessle, Ferriby, Brough, Broomfleet, Gilberdyke, Eastrington, Howden, Wressle, Selby, (If electrified) Sherburn in Elmet, Church Fenton, Ukself, York. (If not York.

If Sherburn route isn't electrified, a diesel shuttle on that as required.

York slow would cover most of the stopping journies as it is operated by an EMU, this could instead be diverted to run to Doncaster to keep the links to Doncaster further up the line, and provide additional capacity there, possibly in the opersite hours to the Hull Trains services between Selby and Doncaster.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Unless Warrington Bank Quay to Chester is electrified, which isn't a long stretch. While 2tph on Chester-Warrington-Manchester is proposed in the Manchester Hub I think if Warrington to Chester is electrified the Llandudno service will need to either be cut at Chester or diverted semi-fast via the Mid-Cheshire line to improve the cost:benefit ratio of electrifying Warrington to Chester.

More likely the extra Chester via Warrington will stay diesel and originate on the Calder Valley route (eg from Bradford, or perhaps Blackburn via Burnley/Todmorden).

 

[Nym]

I'm supprised no-one has looked at this document for Network Rail's definition of 'North Transpennine Electrification' yet...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ation strategy/networkrus_electrification.pdf

Every single option includes Hull, Options Alpha 10.1a - d

Hull is always on
Middlesbrough is next priority
Scarbrough is low prioroty

Btw...

Manchester - Liverpool via Chat Moss was costed at £100mil IIRC, with the via Bolton extension and via St Helens to Wigan costed at an additional £100mil, this includes the Farnworth Tunnels...

The distance from Leeds to Victoria is comparable to via Bolton and via St Helns extensions, factor in Sandlege tunnels and the core is about £120 - £140mil working it out on the back of a fag packet

Up to York isn't too expensive as it can proberbly use the same substations as Leeds and the ECML, so thats only another £30mil

Extending to Hull is plain line with very few structure changes so thats about £50mil, similar for getting to Middlesbrough...

So working this out on the back of a fag packet, I recon it definately includes Hull, since that allows >2tph OP for definate to move to Electric Traction over the whole route.

Leeds - Selby 1tph
York / Doncaster (London) - Selby - Hull >1tph
TPE to Hull 1tph

Middlesbrough is a trickey one, it depends on where the're attributing parts of the budget, but I recon you could get it all in under £270mil, and I also get the feeling that NR has been told, "You have £270mil for this project, do what you can as your best with this amount of money..." Rather than a costing to £270mil.
So if NR decide that the Sherburn ECML diversion and curves, and the route to Castleford / Pontefract and diversions for the TPE core (that would mean 3tph NT moving to Electric from Diesel) then so be it, Middlesbrough looses out, but as some have pointed out, can remain to be served by XC...

 

[PhilipW]

... but that document is what Network Rail wants. That may or may not be the same as what the Government has just authorised.

Until we have clear statement from the DfT, nobody will know.

 

[tbtc]

... but that document is what Network Rail wants. That may or may not be the same as what the Government has just authorised.

Until we have clear statement from the DfT, nobody will know.

True.

The Government have announced the funding for this - its not a Network Rail decision, its not a DFT decision (it may or may not have taken them by surprise)... looking at previous proposals (or RUS documents) is no guide to what is on the table here - this appears to be a "political" decision rather than a "railway" decision.

 

[YorkshireBear]

But as Nym says.... they said north transpennine electrification. News reports say leeds to manchester because as has been discussed who in public know what north transpennine entails. So if the government have told network rail they can do north transpennine and network rails definition of north transpennine includes a minimum of hull then surely hull is included.

And to add to that Nym's maths maes perfect sense to include at least hull. As he says 270million is easily enough considering the lines in question.

One question, is there any swing bridges on the leeds hull line?

 

[Nym]

But as Nym says.... they said north transpennine electrification. News reports say leeds to manchester because as has been discussed who in public know what north transpennine entails. So if the government have told network rail they can do north transpennine and network rails definition of north transpennine includes a minimum of hull then surely hull is included.

And to add to that Nym's maths maes perfect sense to include at least hull. As he says 270million is easily enough considering the lines in question.

One question, is there any swing bridges on the leeds hull line?

Yes, at Selby... and yes, it will present a small issue, but not one that can't be overcome...

It will proberbly mean a slew of the OHL and some pretty serious earthing of the bridge structure, and isolation of the current return path to prevent damage to the bridge structure, and the bridge's main bearingsets.

But tbh, no worse than trying to earth the signal gantries on the Castlefeild Viaduct, or any other series of metal bridges on the Network, the only additional problem is the fact that the bridge swings...

Although that can be overcome by the use of some controlled VCBs, an isoated circuit for the bridge, isolated return paths, and fitting all the tensioning equipment to the bridge its'elf with a traction bar at the handover point, rather than OHL Cables.

 

[Eagle]

Yes, at Selby... and yes, it will present a small issue, but not one that can't be overcome...

Yeah, look at the one in Norwich, for instance.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes, at Selby... and yes, it will present a small issue, but not one that can't be overcome...

It will proberbly mean a slew of the OHL and some pretty serious earthing of the bridge structure, and isolation of the current return path to prevent damage to the bridge structure, and the bridge's main bearingsets.

But tbh, no worse than trying to earth the signal gantries on the Castlefeild Viaduct, or any other series of metal bridges on the Network, the only additional problem is the fact that the bridge swings...

Although that can be overcome by the use of some controlled VCBs, an isoated circuit for the bridge, isolated return paths, and fitting all the tensioning equipment to the bridge its'elf with a traction bar at the handover point, rather than OHL Cables.

Well there we go Thanks for that, i and like you say no more difficult than a lot of things that are already done. And get some stock that isnt speed limited (ala 185s) so that hull can get more than 2 carriges an hour to leeds.

 

[Nym]

Well, some linespeed increases to 90/100 on the whole length I know for a fact would get a lot of peeps out of their cars, and Leeds E Parkway will be helping that as well...

And if we can get York sub 50mins, then it would be a rather big help aswell, as would making it 1 or 2tph...

There is a lot of passenger potential in Hull being wasted by not having 2tph on routes like Leeds and York, if these where improved to bring into line with the other inter-reigonals out of Paragon Interchange it would be rather helpful.

Currently 2tph to Bridlington and Doncaster, if we add in York and Leeds to that then passenger flows will improve, as would time reductions.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well, some linespeed increases to 90/100 on the whole length I know for a fact would get a lot of peeps out of their cars, and Leeds E Parkway will be helping that as well...

And if we can get York sub 50mins, then it would be a rather big help aswell, as would making it 1 or 2tph...

There is a lot of passenger potential in Hull being wasted by not having 2tph on routes like Leeds and York, if these where improved to bring into line with the other inter-reigonals out of Paragon Interchange it would be rather helpful.

Currently 2tph to Bridlington and Doncaster, if we add in York and Leeds to that then passenger flows will improve, as would time reductions.

Ive always thought that too, infact i thought about Doncaster as i started reading your post. York should be at least 1tph but i am not entirely sure where i would put calling points. This is where 2tph one stopping one limited stop helps.
I also think the same should be said of Leeds Hull.

 

[Nym]

Yep, I would extend one of the semi fasts across the pennines to Hull and the other to Leeds East Parkway, running principal stations such as Garforth, Leeds E Parkway, Selby, Howden, Brough, Gilberdyke, Hull.

The other running onto York, making the stops that the current York - Blackpool does, speeding that one up to run to Scarbrough, also calling at Leeds E Parkway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Leeds east parkway is that planned at micklefield?

 

[Nym]

Beleive so, it's planned to have access from the A1 and M1...

So my best logic places the station at...

The A656 between East Garforth and Miklefield...

Easy Access to the M1 and A1(M)N at M1J47 Aberford Road, and acess via the A63 to the A1(M)J42 via the old A1, now classed as A63, but still D2APDG with grade seperated junctions flattened. If the're serious about making this a large parkway station, some South facing slips at the A63 roundabout (former A1/A63 N Junction) onto the the A1(M) wouldn't go amis, although it's a pretty decent stretch of D2AP between there and the A1(M) Link Road at Junction 42, but if they want a serious parkway, it needs at least 4tph and an insanely large car park, if you think it's too big, make it bigger, and buy a whole sodding feild and gravel it as an overflow. If it really worked you'll want to upgrade the A63 Selby Road to D2 throughout between the Old A1/A63 and M1. Good access from all directions and good signage, free parking and frequent electric services (and a conflict free way to terminate many services, I'm thinking 4 track through with a central island, with bays a'la centre so it doesn't conflict to terminate, facility to terminate 260m long trains... )

Oh, and D2 the A656 between the A63 and M1...

If it works, it will really work, and if you can have 24hr services, or close to it, all the better and everyone going into Leeds from the North, East and possibly even South will use it if it's viable, so make it viable!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm supprised no-one has looked at this document for Network Rail's definition of 'North Transpennine Electrification' yet...
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ation strategy/networkrus_electrification.pdf

That document is fine as far as it goes, but it's 2 years old.
A better source is the NR IIP CP5 plan published in October.

The detail is in the "Supporting Document - Proposed Enhancements".
But when you find it the North TP item (p88) shows the unfeasible amount of £7-9m as the CP5 spend.
The might be because the delivery was intended to be in CP6 (post-2019), and this might just be the development spend in CP5.

There is an interesting list of assumptions (eg Northern Hub approval, Victoria-Stalybridge done by the NW scheme, high output delivery etc).

From this I'd say the approved scheme includes York but not Hull/Middlesbrough.

Worryingly, on p133 of the main document it says the costings in the Electrification Strategy RUS (for all schemes) were too low and they are still trying to get the costs down.

 

[Whistler40145]

Should the Freight only line between Philips Park & Ashburys be upgraded to passenger standards & electrified for use if other lines are closed for engineering works?

 

[Nym]

Yes..

Hadfeild & Glossop services could then be diverted to Victoria, as well as all the other E Manc Services.

 

[tbtc]

Yes..

Hadfeild & Glossop services could then be diverted to Victoria, as well as all the other E Manc Services.

Having the six East Manchester services an hour (2x Glossop, 2x Rose Hill Marple, 2x New Mills Central) serve Victoria would balance out the east/west split at Victoria, so would save the need to extend services from the Bolton/Chat Moss to Rochdale/Stalybridge.

 

[Nym]

Yeah, but in normal service it would be a pain having everything going to Victoria...

Realistically speaking, (if you split the platforms into pairs)

With bays you're going to be at capacity with current service levels and TPE,
6tph Windsor
4tph Cord
4tph Chat Moss 6tph with extra Wigan services.
Now if that's all we're going to see then thats fine, Vic can cope...
2tph Windsor sent past Rochdale as Leeds via Brighouse and Blackburn via Todmorden
2tph Cord sent to Leeds via Halifax
2tph Cord sent to Leeds via Diggle
2tph Chat sent to Leeds via Diggle
2tph Chat Liverpool Slow sent to Leeds Semi Fast via Diggle

Leaves 4tph from Windsor Bridge and 2tph from Wigan to send onwards to Ashburys or Stalybridge.

But... if you have more running into victoria, with realistic levels of service from the West being...

8tph to 10tph Windsor (6tph Bolton, 2tph Atherton, 2tph Leigh)
8tph Chat Moss (2tph Liverpool Fast, 2tph Liverpool Slow, 2tph Chester, 2tph Wigan)
4tph Cord

Adding bays means that 6tph can use them from the Chat Moss, leaving 4tph and 10tph in the through platforms, the Semi Fast cross pennines coming from Bolton EMU services.
South Platforms:
2tph Liverpool - Diggle
2tph Cord - Diggle
2tph Cord - Todmorden
North Platforms:
2tph Windsor (Atherton) - Todmorden slow (Leeds via Brighouse and BB via Curve)
2tph Windsor (Bolton EMU) - Diggle Semi Fast
Bays (Using GS route to Chat Moss):
2tph Wigan
2tph Chester
2tph Liverpool Slow
Any additional charter services etc, unless the're running out via Rochdale, then it will need jamming in elsewhere.

Leaves 4tph to 6tph from Windsor Bridge to find somewhere for, 2tph Rochdale (DMUs) and 2tph Stalybridge (EMUs or DMUs) seems entirely sensible.

 

[Gareth]

Yes..

Hadfeild & Glossop services could then be diverted to Victoria, as well as all the other E Manc Services.

I've heard rumours that they want the EMT service from Norwich to Liverpool to ultimately go via that chord, meaning that most, if not all fast services into Liverpool from the east of Manchester will go via Victoria and Chat Moss. Not sure how likely that is. In a way, it makes sense that all the trains call the same main station in Manchester, as splitting them between Victoria and Piccadilly also splits the frequency and how long you'll wait for a train. The downside with all this is how accessible Liverpool Airport is going to be when so many fasts are diverted away from Liverpool South Parkway. It is a concern and I'm not sure what the solution might be.

 

[OxtedL]

Bear in mind that you may well have heard these rumours here or elsewhere on the internet.

EDIT: By which I mean they may not even have come from anywhere other than someone's head.

 

[Nym]

At the moment, my thoughts are that when the 185s are displaced by the TPE electrification, that the CLC services would be...

Buxton - Liverpool L St via CLC
And keep the Liverpool - Norwich running that way via Stockport,

 

[HSTEd]

Like I said earlier, Id like two crossovers from the fasts to the slows immediately south of Northallerton station and the conversion of the freight only station avoiders to passenger lines complete with a pair of new platforms, thus allowing the removal of the flat junction from use.

Ofcourse that would just be pie in the sky

EDIT: There wouldn't be a massively increased maintenance bill as compared to now as the new pointwork for the new crossovers would likely be partially offset by removing the pointwork for the flat junction and plain lining it, although that might not be the best option as far as flexibility is concerned.

 

[tbtc]

Yeah, but in normal service it would be a pain having everything going to Victoria...

Realistically speaking, (if you split the platforms into pairs)

With bays you're going to be at capacity with current service levels and TPE,
6tph Windsor
4tph Cord
4tph Chat Moss 6tph with extra Wigan services.
Now if that's all we're going to see then thats fine, Vic can cope...
2tph Windsor sent past Rochdale as Leeds via Brighouse and Blackburn via Todmorden
2tph Cord sent to Leeds via Halifax
2tph Cord sent to Leeds via Diggle
2tph Chat sent to Leeds via Diggle
2tph Chat Liverpool Slow sent to Leeds Semi Fast via Diggle

Leaves 4tph from Windsor Bridge and 2tph from Wigan to send onwards to Ashburys or Stalybridge.

But... if you have more running into victoria, with realistic levels of service from the West being...

8tph to 10tph Windsor (6tph Bolton, 2tph Atherton, 2tph Leigh)
8tph Chat Moss (2tph Liverpool Fast, 2tph Liverpool Slow, 2tph Chester, 2tph Wigan)
4tph Cord

Adding bays means that 6tph can use them from the Chat Moss, leaving 4tph and 10tph in the through platforms, the Semi Fast cross pennines coming from Bolton EMU services.
South Platforms:
2tph Liverpool - Diggle
2tph Cord - Diggle
2tph Cord - Todmorden
North Platforms:
2tph Windsor (Atherton) - Todmorden slow (Leeds via Brighouse and BB via Curve)
2tph Windsor (Bolton EMU) - Diggle Semi Fast
Bays (Using GS route to Chat Moss):
2tph Wigan
2tph Chester
2tph Liverpool Slow
Any additional charter services etc, unless the're running out via Rochdale, then it will need jamming in elsewhere.

Leaves 4tph to 6tph from Windsor Bridge to find somewhere for, 2tph Rochdale (DMUs) and 2tph Stalybridge (EMUs or DMUs) seems entirely sensible.

Your "realistic" plan involves the assumption that tens of millions of pounds will be spent giving Leigh a half hourly train service.

 

[PR1Berske]

What price Leigh Metrolink.....?