pacer replacement & West Yorks electrification?

[Waverley125]

so we all know the pacers aren't DDA compliant and have to be off the rails by 2019, leaving a big order for urban non-standard DMUs to be made in the next few years with, at current distributions, a spread right across the country.

Or, here's a better idea.

Cascade the entire 150 fleet away from Northern to a split between FGW & ATW, where the rest of the 150s are, leaving the 14xs all back in and around Leeds. Concentrate the 155s on the Leeds-Morecambe and other longer distance services.

Then, instead of replacing the pacers with DMUs, wire the lines they currently work (i.e. most Leeds suburban lines) & replace with the due-for-cascade/retirement 31x EMU series from Scotland, London & Anglia.

Leeds gets better infrastructure & better trains.
The southwest gets better trains.
Money is saved.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, this offers endless possibilities to fill in many of the gaps in the Lancashire Triangle electrification. What were your costings estimate for your total electrification and infrastructural plan?

I can well imagine the Manchester Victoria - Hag Fold - Wigan Wallgate - Southport line users, in particular, being delighted to obtain the benefit of your proposals.

You should liaise with tbtc who will have some very definate views on the Pacer replacement requirements of Sheffield and all points east of the Pennines.

I am sure that forum members in the North-East and in South Wales(subject to WAG policy) will be queing up with their proposals for this new electrification scheme.

 

[tbtc]

Apart from the Harrogate services there really aren't many 150s in Leeds - they are more common on Lancashire services.

Much as I'd love more electrification in Yorkshire (we've had none since privatisation, and none planned), there are better candidates (Cardiff Valleys etc) if you want to scrap Pacers - the routes in Yorkshire are generally less frequent at the ends, so would need a lot more electrifying (to replace the same number of Pacers).

Nice ideal, but I'm out.

 

[Anvil1984]

150s ony usually on Harrogates and half of the Selby / Leeds - Man Vic jobs, becoming more common on Sheffields though. Some lines can be done but only as part of grander schemes (MML, TPE wiring). Could get more value from infilling the gaps the North West wiring is currently leaving out

 

[WatcherZero]

Not brand spanking new, but cascades of Sprinters from electrification elsewhere is an improvement.

 

[Lampshade]

The only route self-contained enough to warrant electrification is Sheffield - Leeds via Moorthorpe. Leeds - Huddersfield is useless without electrifying Huddersfield - Guide Bridge; Leeds - Bradford Interchange is useless without electrifying the Calder Valley.

Harrogate Line is possible.

 

[Dewedin]

I will echo what Lampshade says. Most un-electrified lines out of Leeds have inter-regional services that aren't 'contained' so electrification would be ineffective. However I believe the Harrogate line to York aswell as the direct York line would be good candidates.

 

[tbtc]

The only route self-contained enough to warrant electrification is Sheffield - Leeds via Moorthorpe. Leeds - Huddersfield is useless without electrifying Huddersfield - Guide Bridge; Leeds - Bradford Interchange is useless without electrifying the Calder Valley.

Harrogate Line is possible.

I agree.

Whilst I know its tempting to demand better services for your local lines, I have to be realistic and say that further electrification in Lancashire (Bolton - Southport, Guide Bridge - Rose Hill Marple, Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester) would be better for releasing Pacers.

To electrify in Yorkshire would only make sense if you are doing the TPE North or MML (apart from the self contained Harrogate line, which I agree ought to be done).

 

[Dewedin]

Wouldn't the direct York line be a good candidate though? East Coast could run 225s that way for diversions or new services then.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To electrify in Yorkshire would only make sense if you are doing the TPE North or MML (apart from the self contained Harrogate line, which I agree ought to be done).

Whatever happened to the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce TOC and their grand plan to extend the Piccadilly(?) line northwards to Harrogate, with plenty of LU stock to run the service....or am I stretching the truth just a little

Did you note that I put you forward as the arbiter for all lines east of the Pennines. What you don't know about rail requirements there isn't worth knowing.

 

[anthony263]

Whatever happened to the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce TOC and their grand plan to extend the Piccadilly line northwards to Harrogate, with plenty of LU stock to run the service....or am I stretching the truth just a little

Did you note that I put you forward as the arbiter for all lines east of the Pennines. What you don't know about rail requirements there isn't worth knowing.

I think it was the district line not the piccadilly line lol, i must admit that proposal has gone very quiet .

 

[WatcherZero]

Someone explained to them just how much electrification cost and that they couldnt start a new third rail network...

 

[tbtc]

Wouldn't the direct York line be a good candidate though? East Coast could run 225s that way for diversions or new services then.

Doing York - Leeds wouldn't be that much use for every day services unless you are also doing TPE North (or XC) electrification. This is the problem - so many routes in Yorkshire are longer distance and sprawling that there's not a lot of neat fits for wiring.

And, at the moment I think that wiring 20 miles of line just for diversionary purposes would be a luxury, when doing that length of line elsewhere could free up a few DMUs.

Also, if you want to wire something to improve the East Coast 225s then Hambleton - Leeds would be a much bigger improvement and help the bottle neck at Wakefield (sending East Coast services in a loop from London to London via Doncaster - Wakefield - Leeds - Hambleton - Doncaster)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whatever happened to the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce TOC and their grand plan to extend the Piccadilly line northwards to Harrogate, with plenty of LU stock to run the service....or am I stretching the truth just a little

I think it worked - they came up with their daft idea, it got people talking about improving services to Harrogate, it cost nothing to suggest but put their cause on the news agenda.

It would never work and has a thousand flaws, but modern PR seems to be as much about "saying something quirky to get attention" and not "having a serious costed idea".

Did you note that I put you forward as the arbiter for all lines east of the Pennines. What you don't know about rail requirements there isn't worth knowing.

::blushes::

Seriously though, the whole subject is a real mess - I'd love to be able to suggest that all our local lines here are done, but (apart from Harrogate) I have to put the War Of The Roses to one side and support Lancashire electrification as a bigger priority.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think it was the district line not the piccadilly line lol, i must admit that proposal has gone very quiet .

It hasn't if you could see the FoI requests I can see. I will be writing an article about it over the Bank Holiday weekend with the issues and the likelihood and although it is not stupid, it has some very serious hurdles to overcome.

 

[deltabravo]

Whatever happened to the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce TOC and their grand plan to extend the Piccadilly line northwards to Harrogate, with plenty of LU stock to run the service....or am I stretching the truth just a little

http://www.harrogatechamber.org/harrogateline.htm

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Harrogate proposals aren't a bad idea?

 

[tom1649]

I think it was the district line not the piccadilly line lol, i must admit that proposal has gone very quiet .

There is an article on it in the new 'Rail' magazine which comes out on Wednesday.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://www.harrogatechamber.org/harrogateline.htm

I am well aware of this document and was a contributor to the recent thread on the matter. Sometimes gentle sarcasm mixed with a little humour can be a better way to respond to something so utterly preposterous as this particular project than making your real feelings on the matter known.

If you have time to refer back to the original thread, a reading of the comments from forum members would let you know their feelings, in addition to those in response to the postings on this thread. I cannot now recall if the original thread included a poll for members to use.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Am I the only one who thinks that the Harrogate proposals aren't a bad idea?

No, there are a few more on this forum.....but nowhere near the number who take the opposite view.

 

[150222]

What about the calder valley? It is fairly self contained and if tpe north was done it would still act as a diversion. Electrify tpe north and selby to manchester victoria and wakefield to huddersfield to halifax and mirfield to sowerby bridge. Scope to do hebden bridge and colne to preston pending lancs electrification.

 

[northwichcat]

Cascade the entire 150 fleet away from Northern to a split between FGW & ATW, where the rest of the 150s are, leaving the 14xs all back in and around Leeds. Concentrate the 155s on the Leeds-Morecambe and other longer distance services.

Then, instead of replacing the pacers with DMUs, wire the lines they currently work (i.e. most Leeds suburban lines) & replace with the due-for-cascade/retirement 31x EMU series from Scotland, London & Anglia.

Leeds gets better infrastructure & better trains.
The southwest gets better trains.
Money is saved.

I'm not sure I understand your plan at all.

After the LM cascade Northern will have 58 x 150s which only a very small number of go near Leeds. FGW will have 8 x 143s and no 142s. ATW will retain 15 x 142s and 15 x 143s.

There's literally only around 5 x 319s that will be spare after North West and Thames Valley electrification.

A draft electrification RUS was drawn up which looked at a lot of lines. Most of these were rejected on the basis that only 1tph in each direction would utilise the wires so it would be non-economically viable to electrify - Buxton to Hazel Grove was an example of this.

Like I've pointed in other threads there's a shortage of people skilled in electrification work, training more people will take time and the current people who are trained/being trained are already engaged on projects until close to when DDA kicks in.

The first of the Thameslink cascade is overdue by 2 years already, so once Manchester to Newton-le-Willows is done I can see the possibly of other lines being delayed as there will be no EMUs to run under them if they are done to time.

The best option, in my opinion, is to place a brand new order of around 80 x 4 car 380s for Northern. The 380s could replace the 321s, 322s, 323s and run all the newly electrified routes. Then cascade the 323s to LM and the 321/2s to NXEA for extra capacity.

Create new electrification programs for the Bristol and Cardiff commuter lines and put the refurbished 319s on to those routes after electrification, as well as Thames Valley.

Then it would only be Northern who need to order new DMUs as Pacer replacement.

Oh no, how silly of me, the North of England only ever gets small orders of new trains and there's me talking of orders of around 320 new carriages.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Scope to do Hebden Bridge and Colne to Preston, pending Lancs electrification.

The Todmorden Chord proposal would dovetail nicely into this and you then could have Manchester Victoria -Accrington- Blackburn electric services.

 

[bluenoxid]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Harrogate proposals aren't a bad idea?

No you are not but the project has a number of concerns.

Rail will have a report in it as one of the bods behind it has had a close working relationship with them for a number of years. I will be very interested to read it on Wednesday.

Blackburn is unlikely to benefit from Todmorden Curve as the current preferred plans are Burnley or Accrington as places to terminate. SELRAP's over optimistic budget only stretches to getting 4tph to Rose Grove, with more required to ensure trains reach Blackburn and beyond.

Blackburns only hope is a loop extension on the route to Bolton. Apart from that, rail is not going to do much for them and fares are only going to get higher.

 

[NXEA!]

If there were any line in Yorkshire that deserves electrification, it would be the Harrogate Line through to York. So this is what I would do: Give Siemens the 10 car contract for the Windsor lines instead of Porterbrook, which makes the 8 460's spare. I would re-wire these and convert them to AC (costly I know), and put them on Heathrow Express services. The 8 460's would cover all the Express diagrams as there are 14 332's which mainly operate in pairs during the day. Then, I would cascade the 14 332's (after purchase from BA) to Neville Hill to join the 333's to share duties on the triangle, and on the newly electrified Harrogate line. I'm not sure of the diagrams on the Harrogate line, but I'm guessing half-hourly to Leeds and hourly to York is around 6 units? Someone please say. Then, these 332's would release the small fleet of 321/322's, and these would go to NXEA or FCC for strengthening. The benefits are that the Harrogate line gets electrified, Neville Hill has a uniform electric fleet, the 460's are used on duties they are suited for, a few diesel units are freed up for strengthening, and NXEA/FCC gets extra capacity.

 

[bluenoxid]

In all honesty, there are few lines in West Yorkshire now that would provide a suitable return. Electrification to Horsforth and Selby are probably the best capacity releasers with other trains sped up. Other lines would require a significant recast or a massive increase in passenger numbers. Personally, I think Harrogate to York is going to be a tougher nut to justify but its numbers are good for OHLE and there are no traffic relief schemes planned.

The NW offers more scope to release DMU's until the MML is electrified for the Northern region.

 

[anthony263]

I agree that maybe the governement should order Northern a fleet of brand new emu's with the class 319's being kept by FGW for the Reading, Thames valley area's as well as the Cardiff - Bristol TM stopping service. pPrhaps a fleet of class 377's which would keep derby going

Too be honest maybe the government should extend the 3rd rail over the unelectrified parts of the north downs line and use some of the class 319's on that route, that would free up some more class 165/166 dmu's to go too other parts of the FGW network as well as some to Northern, Chiltern and Arriva trains wales.

I think another idea would be to do the Salisbury - Romsey - Eastleigh/Southampton central route as that would free up to 6 class 158/159 dmu's some of which could go to East Midlands trains.

As for the proposal to use D stock on the harrogate line sounds good on papaer but would it really be pratical as you would hvae to spend a lot of money installing toilets on the D stock. That said however they are good unit's, i am surprised no one has suggested using this idea on the Cardiff valley lines electrification .

 

[spionkop64]

As previously mentioned NH-Colton Jn would be a great benefit for diversions. The obvious add would be Micklefield-Hambleton and the short leg to Selby.

Shorten the Blackpool-York and Wakefield-Selby trains to Leeds, with possible savings in DMUs. Extend the half hourly BDQ-LDS electrics to York and Selby accordingly. Have Scotrail got anymore EMUs knocking about?

I'll get me coat...

 

[swt_passenger]

Someone explained to them just how much electrification cost and that they couldnt start a new third rail network...

Don't disagree on the cost bit, but if you read any of the previous stuff on the subject you'd realise that they can have a new third rail network, by using shrouded bottom contact conductor rail as per the DLR, and that's exactly what they are proposing.

 

[tbtc]

If there were any line in Yorkshire that deserves electrification, it would be the Harrogate Line through to York. So this is what I would do: Give Siemens the 10 car contract for the Windsor lines instead of Porterbrook, which makes the 8 460's spare. I would re-wire these and convert them to AC (costly I know), and put them on Heathrow Express services. The 8 460's would cover all the Express diagrams as there are 14 332's which mainly operate in pairs during the day. Then, I would cascade the 14 332's (after purchase from BA) to Neville Hill to join the 333's to share duties on the triangle, and on the newly electrified Harrogate line. I'm not sure of the diagrams on the Harrogate line, but I'm guessing half-hourly to Leeds and hourly to York is around 6 units? Someone please say. Then, these 332's would release the small fleet of 321/322's, and these would go to NXEA or FCC for strengthening. The benefits are that the Harrogate line gets electrified, Neville Hill has a uniform electric fleet, the 460's are used on duties they are suited for, a few diesel units are freed up for strengthening, and NXEA/FCC gets extra capacity.

To be blunt, I can't argue with any of that, I think it'd benefit a few different areas of the country and mean that there was a much simpler fleet arrangement too.

Yeah, the whole thing makes sense, just a shame about the 460s not being built dual voltage (which would make your scheme cheaper)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about the calder valley? It is fairly self contained and if tpe north was done it would still act as a diversion. Electrify tpe north and selby to manchester victoria and wakefield to huddersfield to halifax and mirfield to sowerby bridge. Scope to do hebden bridge and colne to preston pending lancs electrification.

I had an idea for this a while ago which I remember discussing with Paul Sidorczuk.

The idea was basically:

• Strip the "Grand Tour" back to a Bradford - Huddersfield - Wakefield service
• Strip the Leeds - Selby service into a stand alone route (no running through to Manchester etc)
• Divert the York - Blackpool service via Dewsbury/ Brighouse (instead of Bradford/ Halifax), to swap with the Leeds - Brighouse - Manchester service
• You then have four trains an hour from Leeds to Bradford, three from Bradford to Rochdale and four from Rochdale to Manchester. Convert this into four an hour from Leeds to Manchester (via Bradford/ Rochdale) at the cost of a unit or two and you have a frequent enough service to justify electrification.

There are downsides, of course, there always are (unless you have money for dozens more trains/ paths...). But there's then the potential for EMUs running Leeds - Blackpool via Rochdale/ Manchester Victoria/ Bolton, or various other new routes.

However, unless you are going to start trimming some other services then electrification is going to be hard to justify. For example, if the cost of electrification of Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - York was that Scarborough and Hull lost their TPE service (and made do with DMUs as far as Leeds), would you accept this? What if it meant missing Middlesbrough off the TPE map too? Where do you draw the line?

Electrifying routes and then continuing to run DMUs on them long distance undermines the case for electrification (hence me being against reintroducing Manchester - Windermere services unless the Windermere branch is wired).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Blackburn is unlikely to benefit from Todmorden Curve as the current preferred plans are Burnley or Accrington as places to terminate. SELRAP's over optimistic budget only stretches to getting 4tph to Rose Grove, with more required to ensure trains reach Blackburn and beyond.

Blackburns only hope is a loop extension on the route to Bolton. Apart from that, rail is not going to do much for them and fares are only going to get higher.

I brought Blackburn into the equation solely to reflect matters on the "Bruntwood Chairman" thread that is running concurrently with this thread on the same forum where he says links between Blackburn and Manchester on the current route are not good.

150222 on an earlier posting on this thread had commented at the end of his posting where electrification was concerned, that Hebden Bridge and Colne could benefit from an electrified line to Preston and it was basing my ideas upon that particular submission, where Blackburn would obviously be served on the Preston line electrification so discussed, that I brought up the matter of the Todmorden Chord as being an electrified line section leading to an electrified Blackburn to Manchester Victoria service.

This is the reasoning behind my submission for an electrified Blackburn to Manchester service via Accrington, Todmorden and Rochdale. It is to supplement the existing Blackburn - Bolton - Manchester service, which has too many infrastructural problerms to be the subject of line service improvements. Perhaps the Bruntwood Chairman might consider these alternatives....and arrange part-funding for them, if he is so concerned.

Perhaps I should train my mind not to run ideas on two seperate threads concurrently, even if I can see an obvious linkage between them.

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't disagree on the cost bit, but if you read any of the previous stuff on the subject you'd realise that they can have a new third rail network, by using shrouded bottom contact conductor rail as per the DLR, and that's exactly what they are proposing.

Its policy by Government/NR that new third rail networks cant be setup and must be Overhead for compatibility with other services. Any new third rail line no matter the contact type would be refused permission. They want to avoid unnecesary incompatibilities.