Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Philip Phlopp]

Bidders on the TransPennine ITT will be a bit annoyed - I'd imagine some work will have been put into looking into EMU's for the fleet late in the franchise, which won't be required now.

It depends on what bidders were planning for rolling stock and where the freeze on the scheme leaves new stock procurement - the franchise ITT (now a bit redundant) points to 125mph capable electric multiple units, and there's only one 125mph capable electric multiple unit in production at present - the Hitachi AT300/IEP (though there are various other Alstom, Bombardier and Hitachi designs available).

One option available to bidders is to order AT300 units in bi-mode configuration and when TP electrification completes, even if it is 2025, they can be converted to electric only operation, retaining some units in bi-mode configuration for services to Hull*, Scarborough and Middlesbrough.

* That's in the unlikely event of Hull not being wired by the revised TP electrification completion date.

 

[muddythefish]

Doesn't really matter anyway because it's been canned.

Is this really true ?

 

[TheKnightWho]

So much for the Northern Powerhouse. More like the North-West only.

 

[WatcherZero]

Bidders on the TransPennine ITT will be a bit annoyed - I'd imagine some work will have been put into looking into EMU's for the fleet late in the franchise, which won't be required now.

Though further improves the business case for the bi mode stock.

 

[Stats]

In Prime Minister's Questions it sounded like TransPennine Electrification was suspended.

I've had a scan of Hansard and couldn't find any reference to rail in the North except for a question on Alliance Rail's Cleethorpes application. Can you remember what was said?

There was an answer to a written question on TPE electrification yesterday

Q Asked by Jonathan Reynolds(Stalybridge and Hyde)
Asked on: 01 June 2015
Department for TransportFirst Transpennine Express665
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made on electrification of the TransPennine rail line; and what the likely completion date is.

A Answered by: Andrew Jones
Answered on: 09 June 2015
Network Rail has been developing the scheme to electrify the route between Manchester and York since 2011. Network Rail has recently concluded that more work will be needed than previously planned. This is in order to accommodate the expected growth in train services, deliver the significant improvement in journey times needed to generate economic growth, and provide the best possible performance and capacity on this line. Network Rail has been working with the Department to ensure that this work will be planned as efficiently as possible, and we cannot clarify the completion date until the planning is completed.

 

[ironstone11]

In Prime Minister's Questions it sounded like TransPennine Electrification was suspended.

This is what was said in PM questions, today June 10, 2015:-

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con):

If northern Lincolnshire is to obtain maximum benefit from the northern powerhouse initiative, further improvements to transport connections will be required. One such improvement would be a direct rail service to London King’s Cross from the Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Scunthorpe area. Alliance Rail has submitted an application to the rail regulator, and it has been with the regulator for more than a year. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that an early decision is made?
The Prime Minister:

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of direct connectivity between his constituency and London. We are investing at least £6.4 billion in Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire in this Parliament for that very reason, and I can reassure him that we are listening. Only late last year, the Transport Secretary announced that we would be retaining the direct connection between Cleethorpes and Manchester airport, which is something that my hon. Friend has been campaigning for, and I will look very closely at what he has said today.

No reference to traction, electric or otherwise and no direct reference to TPE.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm of the opinion that this is positive news, because someone appears to have realised that electrification alone is a bit short term - there's going to be a lot of historic issues on cross Pennine routes, the Ordsall Curve deals with some, but various issues will remain, short platforms, slow sections due to timing clashes, poor rolling stock etc - The electrification wasn't helping the "secondary" routes like TPE South and Calder Valley either...

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm of the opinion that this is positive news, because someone appears to have realised that electrification alone is a bit short term - there's going to be a lot of historic issues on cross Pennine routes, the Ordsall Curve deals with some, but various issues will remain, short platforms, slow sections due to timing clashes, poor rolling stock etc - The electrification wasn't helping the "secondary" routes like TPE South and Calder Valley either...

Tony Miles of Modern Railways writing on wnxx yesterday has suggested that much of the delay follows TOC requests for more infrastructure improvements to be done prior to wiring, rather than having to rework the OHLE around platform and layout changes once it is up.

Apparently the TOCs are happy with the way ahead, the fact it defers some expenditure for the DfT is an accidental benefit...

 

[The Snap]

Is this really true ?

Yes. It's been postponed indefinitely pending an NR review of scope and programme, as the last 3 pages of this thread have discussed at length.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think we need to be careful about semantics here.
At a local level it may well appear cancelled (ie planned work removed and teams disbanded), but the HLOS CP5 requirement for NR to deliver TP North electrification remains.
I doubt very much that the DfT has changed its mind on implementing the TP project, the question is "which project".

 

[HowardGWR]

I think we need to be careful about semantics here.
At a local level it may well appear cancelled (ie planned work removed and teams disbanded), but the HLOS CP5 requirement for NR to deliver TP North electrification remains.
I doubt very much that the DfT has changed its mind on implementing the TP project, the question is "which project".

Perhaps 'what scope of project' would be a more positive term. I wondered whether you thought there was a possibility of TP being shunted for some project somewhere else? I think that would be a sensational development if true.

 

[lejog]

Yes. It's been cancelled indefinitely pending an NR review of scope and programme, as the last 3 pages of this thread have discussed at length.

It has been delayed, but surely there's no question of cancellation at the moment is there? Cancellation means completely stopped - although that may be one possible outcome of the review.

 

[The Snap]

It has been delayed, but surely there's no question of cancellation at the moment is there? Cancellation means completely stopped - although that may be one possible outcome of the review.

Cancelled was the wrong word. Postponed would be more fitting. My apologies!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Perhaps 'what scope of project' would be a more positive term. I wondered whether you thought there was a possibility of TP being shunted for some project somewhere else? I think that would be a sensational development if true.

NR's problems seem to stem from a lack of skilled resource to design and manage electrification and resignalling projects.
Once TP was deemed to need resignalling it joined the log-jam of projects needing these skills.
Meanwhile, MML electrification was "shovel-ready" and is going ahead.
The delay to the Ordsall Chord project (not of NR's making) won't have helped, as that is a key part of the wider Northern Hub plan.

Meanwhile, the "HS2/3" steamroller (not directly involving NR) is coming down the track with the DfT wanting to push on quickly with designing a new network.
It seems a recipe for trouble if they can't sort out the underlying TP plan.

 

[quantinghome]

NR's problems seem to stem from a lack of skilled resource to design and manage electrification and resignalling projects.
Once TP was deemed to need resignalling it joined the log-jam of projects needing these skills.
Meanwhile, MML electrification was "shovel-ready" and is going ahead.
The delay to the Ordsall Chord project (not of NR's making) won't have helped, as that is a key part of the wider Northern Hub plan.

Meanwhile, the "HS2/3" steamroller (not directly involving NR) is coming down the track with the DfT wanting to push on quickly with designing a new network.
It seems a recipe for trouble if they can't sort out the underlying TP plan.

Would I be right in thinking that electrifying and resignalling an existing operational line is significantly more challenging and complex than for a new line? Although superficially the same work, they may actually require different technical and project management skills and therefore not cause as much of a resourcing clash as it may first appear.

 

[snowball]

I wondered whether you thought there was a possibility of TP being shunted for some project somewhere else? I think that would be a sensational development if true.

There were claims a couple of months ago that TP was being slowed to increase the chances of GW being completed on schedule.

 

[The Snap]

Would I be right in thinking that electrifying and resignalling an existing operational line is significantly more challenging and complex than for a new line? Although superficially the same work, they may actually require different technical and project management skills and therefore not cause as much of a resourcing clash as it may first appear.

You are correct. Re-signalling and electrifying an operational railway is far more complex and challenging than building an new railway from fresh. Obviously building a new railway has it's own challenges (Crossrail is an example, and HS2 will be a future one) that the operational railway may not have, but carrying out work on the operational railway is very complex. While the engineering principals remain the same, the main difference between the two, of course, is trying to re-signal and install OLE whilst the railway operates around you!

Skill set wise, there are certainly transferable skills between the two, but I would consider building a new railway to be a civil engineering construction project where that knowledge of railway operations is less key. To successfully carry out significant infrastructure upgrades on the operational railway, you need that civil engineering knowledge as well as knowledge of the operational railway and how it works, and how to carry out work on or around the operational railway. There is so much to consider before you even think about starting works on the ground.

 

[The Ham]

Does the postponing of the TP electrification make it more likely that HS3 is a new route, if so could that be part of the reason for the review?

In that, for example, why spend £x million electrifying a route when for 65% more you can have a brand new electrified line with an average journey time of 33% less than the old electrified route, double the train lengths and future proofed to allow double decked trains to run on it at a future date if needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it also make it perhaps more likely that a large new order of DMUs, or perhaps even bi-modes, might be on the horizon, for both TPE and Northern?

 

[The Snap]

Does the postponing of the TP electrification make it more likely that HS3 is a new route, if so could that be part of the reason for the review?

In that, for example, why spend £x million electrifying a route when for 65% more you can have a brand new electrified line with an average journey time of 33% less than the old electrified route, double the train lengths and future proofed to allow double decked trains to run on it at a future date if needed.

I don't know, but you'd like to think it is being considered. I think you're right, HS3 could be an underlying reason for the postponement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know, but you'd like to think it is being considered. I think you're right, HS3 could be an underlying reason for the postponement.

But HS3 would not be built *instead of* the old route, it would be built *as well* as it. Why keep local services on diesel?

 

[HSTEd]

They would only do this if it was being axed.
They are just delaying the news until they can find something to bury it under.

 

[Greybeard33]

It would be amusing (not) if the Calder Valley scheme started up before the Standedge route was done!

I'm of the opinion that this is positive news, because someone appears to have realised that electrification alone is a bit short term - there's going to be a lot of historic issues on cross Pennine routes, the Ordsall Curve deals with some, but various issues will remain, short platforms, slow sections due to timing clashes, poor rolling stock etc - The electrification wasn't helping the "secondary" routes like TPE South and Calder Valley either...

How would the difficulty/cost of electrifying the Calder Valley line compare with that of the Diggle line? From casual observation it appears to me that many of the bridges on the Calder Valley already have good clearance, and the tunnels are relatively short. Also there are not the interdependencies on capacity/linespeed improvements and 'HS3' issues that have contributed to the delay to the Transpennine scheme.

Having recently endured a crush-loaded 2-car 155 from Bradford Interchange in the evening peak (some passengers forced to stand as far as Todmorden), I am sure that regular commuters would be overjoyed at the capacity and frequency improvements that electrification could bring to this line. I think it has the potential to repeat the success of the Airedale and Wharfedale electrification in the 1990s.

Politically, fast-tracking Calder Valley electrification could be a vote-winner in W Yorkshire, serving as a counterweight to the investment in the Lancashire NW Triangle, and might partially "sweeten the pill" of the delay to the Diggle scheme.

 

[stockport1]

But HS3 would not be built *instead of* the old route, it would be built *as well* as it. Why keep local services on diesel?

it all points to me to mean that this upgrade IS HS3 when it happens. NR are probably determining how much 4 tracking tunnel reopening and station rebuilding is required to meet their scope.

 

[Haydn1971]

But HS3 would not be built *instead of* the old route, it would be built *as well* as it. Why keep local services on diesel?

True, what I'm getting at is that HS3, if on a new line, will impact on the service needs of the existing line if it becomes a "local line" - you don't need as much sub-station supply for 4 car 100mph EMU's running low frequency as you would for a 140mph capable 10 car EMU running also at 100mph on the same line at a greater frequency. You also wouldn't need to upgrade the comms/signals to as higher level if the existing line becomes a local lower frequency line.

 

[misterredmist]

It just shows how 3rd world the TP Lines are , how many Western European rail networks have major cities connected with what are 3 carriage long glorified rail buses??? It is depressing to get on such trains, that have often been full to bursting, they are not comfortable, not at all what travel on a modern railway should be......

TP travel is the "steerage" class of our railways , it's Jurassic, and needs consigning to history...fast....

There are many reasons why we have had a shortage of investment since WW2 , it was easier for continental nations to re-develop as they'd a lot more war damage and obliterated cities than the UK and could rebuild a lot of infrastructure "from new" - however, there's no doubt if this had been a "London Area" issue, this would have been resolved years ago. Also, we have just been poor at investing in our public transport and at the same time charging more than anyone else for it.....

So I can accept a delay if they are going to do a proper job on the line, or better still, bore a new one......here's hoping

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just shows how 3rd world the TP Lines are , how many Western European rail networks have major cities connected with what are 3 carriage long glorified rail buses??? It is depressing to get on such trains, that have often been full to bursting, they are not comfortable, not at all what travel on a modern railway should be......

I think they're comfortable enough. There are just roughly half the number of them that there need to be.

 

[northwichcat]

Does it also make it perhaps more likely that a large new order of DMUs, or perhaps even bi-modes, might be on the horizon, for both TPE and Northern?

The Northern ITT specifies a minimum of 120 new vehicles. I suspect when the order is placed they'll be an option for an add-on as big as the original order, as that seems to be a common trend for new orders recently and then it'll allow flexibility without having to go through a tendering process again.

 

[Haydn1971]

TP travel is the "steerage" class of our railways , it's Jurassic, and needs consigning to history...fast....

That's a tad melodramatic, yes, there's Pacers and older Sprinters on the Cross Pennine routes, but to be fair, the EMT 158's and TPE 185's are not steerage class at all - more capacity is needed, 2 fast trains per hour linking Manchester and Sheffield is scandalous, the frequency between Manchester and Leeds via Huddersfield is better with decent but not capacious enough units and to be fair, Calder Valley is the poor relative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a tad melodramatic, yes, there's Pacers and older Sprinters on the Cross Pennine routes, but to be fair, the EMT 158's and TPE 185's are not steerage class at all - more capacity is needed, 2 fast trains per hour linking Manchester and Sheffield is scandalous

I don't agree at all. Two trains per hour fast and one slow is a more than adequate service. The problem is that the fast ones should be at least 6x23m/8x20m, and the slow ones 4x23m/5x20m, to provide adequate capacity. Up the frequency too much and it'll get unreliable.