Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[edwin_m]

Whether HS3 is the new route or the existing route, if the existing route is being electrified at all then about 90% of the work would be the same - effectively re-signalling and electrifying the existing tracks where changing them is unnecessary or impossible. Differences between high and low speed/capacity are negligible unless speeds over 100mph are being considered, which would be impossible on most of the existing Transpennine route.

I think this is more about recognising shortages of money/resources and deferring spend, with the possibility of some smallish cost savings if the work is re-scoped once the nature of HS3 becomes clearer.

I still can't see a new built of DMUs happening for TPE - we will still have a surplus of high-spec DMUs after electrification is complete even if electrification goes back a few years. Some 22x or even cascaded HSTs could be deployed if necessary - they aren't ideal for the route but would do as a stopgap for a few years.

Bi-modes for TPE are possible I guess, especially if Northern buys some for their 120 new vehicles (as I think is fairly likely). These would allow electric running west of Stalybridge and north of York, and in the longer term could serve any TPE destinations that aren't electrified.

 

[northwichcat]

I still can't see a new built of DMUs happening for TPE - we will still have a surplus of high-spec DMUs after electrification is complete even if electrification goes back a few years. Some 22x or even cascaded HSTs could be deployed if necessary - they aren't ideal for the route but would do as a stopgap for a few years.

Bi-modes for TPE are possible I guess, especially if Northern buys some for their 120 new vehicles (as I think is fairly likely). These would allow electric running west of Stalybridge and north of York, and in the longer term could serve any TPE destinations that aren't electrified.

Based on what Tony Miles and a couple of other unnamed insiders have posted on the web DfT want the next TPE franchise to be seen more as an Intercity franchise and have more Intercity style rolling stock.

222s would be a way of making that happen during the next franchise even without electrification. Although, personally I think the 222s should be reformed in to more consistent formations and have the provision of First Class accommodation reduced if that was to happen.

Although, a question to ask if North TPE electrification doesn't go ahead during the next franchise what about Manchester Airport to Scotland? That route needs more capacity even if bidders don't take up the option for portion working to allow Liverpool/Blackpool to Scotland services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Although, a question to ask if North TPE electrification doesn't go ahead during the next franchise what about Manchester Airport to Scotland? That route needs more capacity even if bidders don't take up the option for portion working to allow Liverpool/Blackpool to Scotland services.

They could piggyback onto new fleets of express EMUs ordered by the next franchises coming up - East Anglia (Norwich services) and East Midlands (Sheffield services).
Unless they went for IEPs, the current TPE bidders aren't likely to get a handful of EMUs of a new design.

 

[northwichcat]

The could piggyback onto new fleets of express EMUs ordered by the next franchises coming up - East Anglia (Norwich services) and East Midlands (Sheffield services).

Do we actually know if new orders will be placed?

Cascaded Electrostars have been touted for Corby-London, while there are a number of 225s being freed up on the ECML which could be found alternative homes.

 

[edwin_m]

Do we actually know if new orders will be placed?

Cascaded Electrostars have been touted for Corby-London, while there are a number of 225s being freed up on the ECML which could be found alternative homes.

No we don't. It will be up to DfT writing the specifications for the next franchises in each case, and to the respective bidders in what they propose.

Electrostars or similar would be suitable for Corby and maybe even stopping services to Leicester. North of Leicester, and probably Norwich, need something faster than 110mph, which means new build unless someone comes up with a demon upgrade. The Transpennine requirement is similar but in each case there would be a debate around door layout.

 

[IanXC]

Given the works undertaken already, and the noises NR LNE route have been making about Colton Junction-Neville Hill-Hambleton Junction-(Selby-Temple Hirst-Hull), I wonder if this area is likely to proceed as quickly as was originally mooted?

I suppose it comes down to the extent that said upgrades would be in this area.

The other question is whether the Hull Trains electrification timetable slips on this too? Last I heard, structures work 2016, no work 2017 (City of Culture), main electrification works 2018...

 

[Haydn1971]

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.

Seriously Neil ? Off peak perhaps, but in peak, the 3x 23m TPE service is bursting and the 4x 23m EMT service is busy - a single 6x 23m service would not be enough. Plus, neither the TPE nor EMT service are what I'd like to call "fast". But having said that, having stops along the way suits me as I currently catch the EMT from Dore to Manchester because of the free parking at Dore in preference to the £15 a day robbery at Sheffield !

Edit ! Just noticed you said "two" fast per hour

 

[misterredmist]

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.

Well , I think for "inter city" services, noisy, tight 3 carriage DMU's , on journeys as far as Liverpool - MCR - Leeds - Newcastle are a poor effort indeed and better stock could have been procured ..... the remainder of your post I totally concur with...

 

[po8crg]

Biggest problem with the 185s is that they're 3-carriage. They mostly run around in pairs, and if they were fixed-formation six or even 7/8 carriage, I think they'd be fine.

The actual units are pretty decent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Biggest problem with the 185s is that they're 3-carriage. They mostly run around in pairs

They don't. If they did, there'd be far less of an issue (though I do think it would have been better if they had been gangwayed for such use).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Edit ! Just noticed you said "two" fast per hour

Yep, that'd be 16x23m per hour. I think that would suffice and would be more punctual and reliable than adding in more TPH but leaving them at 3-car.

 

[northwichcat]

Biggest problem with the 185s is that they're 3-carriage. They mostly run around in pairs, and if they were fixed-formation six or even 7/8 carriage, I think they'd be fine.

The actual units are pretty decent.

Actually most 185 diagrams are 3 car, only the very busy services get 6 cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Off peak perhaps, but in peak, the 3x 23m TPE service is bursting and the 4x 23m EMT service is busy - a single 6x 23m service would not be enough.

I think off-peak loadings can be very different between services. I've been on off-peak 4 car 158s with very few spare seats and 3 car 185s with more passengers than seats but then I've also been on 3 car 185s with spare seats.

 

[Haydn1971]

I think off-peak loadings can be very different between services. I've been on off-peak 4 car 158s with very few spare seats and 3 car 185s with more passengers than seats but then I've also been on 3 car 185s with spare seats.

That's definitely my experience of the services on the Sheffield-Manchester run - I've often got on the train with ample seat in my carriage - although I tend to walk to a specific door on exit at Dore (first out of the car park avoids a long wait) and it's clear that loading is very different between carriages - some rammed, some lightly loaded.

 

[po8crg]

They don't. If they did, there'd be far less of an issue (though I do think it would have been better if they had been gangwayed for such use).

Meh, sorry, that was supposed to be "they're mostly OK when they run around in pairs".

 

[edwin_m]

That's definitely my experience of the services on the Sheffield-Manchester run - I've often got on the train with ample seat in my carriage - although I tend to walk to a specific door on exit at Dore (first out of the car park avoids a long wait) and it's clear that loading is very different between carriages - some rammed, some lightly loaded.

All the reservations on the EMT services are in coach A and B, because that is normally the unit that works beyond Nottingham and they can't or won't let the system allocate reservations east of there to C or D. This means that on off-peak trains C and D are usually pretty empty, but in the peaks they are probably fuller than A and B because of the commuters without reservations who know to head to that part of the train.

 

[6Gman]

Biggest problem with the 185s is that they're 3-carriage. They mostly run around in pairs, and if they were fixed-formation six or even 7/8 carriage, I think they'd be fine.

I wonder what that would have cost?

 

[Haydn1971]

All the reservations on the EMT services are in coach A and B, because that is normally the unit that works beyond Nottingham and they can't or won't let the system allocate reservations east of there to C or D. This means that on off-peak trains C and D are usually pretty empty, but in the peaks they are probably fuller than A and B because of the commuters without reservations who know to head to that part of the train.

Hmm... You've not been of this train recently have you ? The A-D thing is always a mess

 

[edwin_m]

Hmm... You've not been of this train recently have you ? The A-D thing is always a mess

I normally travel Nottingham to Manchester and back two to four times a month, though I haven't done so for the past four or five weeks. I usually set out later than you probably do though.

 

[aylesbury]

The word seems to be that this electrification is on the back burner due to costs ,is this the dead hand of the DFT ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The word seems to be that this electrification is on the back burner due to costs ,is this the dead hand of the DFT ?

If I know British politics, the dead hand of the treasury more like,

 

[Senex]

But how interesting that it's TPE that is delayed indefinitely, not MML (as far as we know to date) -- civil servants against the North (and perhaps even the so-called Northern Powerhouse) once again?

Or is it, as was said above, that the Midland project was "shovel ready" whereas Manchester-Leeds was not? If that is indeed the case, what have Network Rail been doing since Trans-Pennine electrification was announced at the end of 2011? Why was it possible to get the Midland "shovel ready" whilst apparently not even working out what should be done on Trans-Pennine? London-orientated priorities again?

(Not that I have anything at all against the Midland -- it should have been wired years ago, and given the cost-benefit reports at the time should have been chosen ahead of the GW. I wonder how far that choice was political, to keep Welsh Labour happy.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The word seems to be that this electrification is on the back burner due to costs ,is this the dead hand of the DFT ?

No, it's the incompetence of Network Rail.
They can't deliver the capacity promised (6tph) without major infrastructure upgrades which were not planned/costed.
It doesn't appear to be the electrification project per se, but basically the signalling (and maybe station capacity) is inadequate for the planned service.
They only discovered this after problems with the current 5tph service.
It is also evident that NR cannot deliver as many electrification projects in parallel as they promised in CP5, because of a skills shortage.
If anything DfT has showered NR with money for these schemes and wants them to go faster (Northern Powerhouse etc).

 

[Olaf]

But how interesting that it's TPE that is delayed indefinitely, not MML (as far as we know to date) -- civil servants against the North (and perhaps even the so-called Northern Powerhouse) once again?

Or is it, as was said above, that the Midland project was "shovel ready" whereas Manchester-Leeds was not? If that is indeed the case, what have Network Rail been doing since Trans-Pennine electrification was announced at the end of 2011? Why was it possible to get the Midland "shovel ready" whilst apparently not even working out what should be done on Trans-Pennine? London-orientated priorities again?

(Not that I have anything at all against the Midland -- it should have been wired years ago, and given the cost-benefit reports at the time should have been chosen ahead of the GW. I wonder how far that choice was political, to keep Welsh Labour happy.)

The impact on the TPE project is nothing to do with politics except for those that want to portray it that way. There a number of technical and financing topics that have undermined the original case for the project.

 

[northwichcat]

No, it's the incompetence of Network Rail.
They can't deliver the capacity promised (6tph) without major infrastructure upgrades which were not planned/costed.
It doesn't appear to be the electrification project per se, but basically the signalling (and maybe station capacity) is inadequate for the planned service.
They only discovered this after problems with the current 5tph service.

6tph between Manchester and Huddersfield was always based on having a total of 6 trains, not 6 fast trains and the stopper but four fast trains and 2 semi-fasts in total.

However, Network Rail said post-electrification it would be possible to have a Piccadilly-Huddersfield service on top of the 6tph without any other infrastructure changes.

Also, it appears the stopper between Huddersfield and Leeds via Dewsbury will also be replaced by the semi-fasts which wasn't the original plan and will effectively mean the semi-fast services will become regional stoppers.

 

[Class377/5]

No, it's the incompetence of Network Rail.
They can't deliver the capacity promised (6tph) without major infrastructure upgrades which were not planned/costed.
It doesn't appear to be the electrification project per se, but basically the signalling (and maybe station capacity) is inadequate for the planned service.
They only discovered this after problems with the current 5tph service.
It is also evident that NR cannot deliver as many electrification projects in parallel as they promised in CP5, because of a skills shortage.
If anything DfT has showered NR with money for these schemes and wants them to go faster (Northern Powerhouse etc).

Actually the delay to TP wiring is because of industry wide realisation that simply wiring the route isn't going to create best use of money. Feedback to NR is look at increasing line speeds moving track wire once know your going to do rather than put the wires up then have to replace if all a few years to improve line.

It's very sensible planning where got work what you want then pan how to achieve that before building it than the approach on some projects where build then decide.

 

[Senex]

Actually the delay to TP wiring is because of industry wide realisation that simply wiring the route isn't going to create best use of money. Feedback to NR is look at increasing line speeds moving track wire once know your going to do rather than put the wires up then have to replace if all a few years to improve line.

It's very sensible planning where got work what you want then pan how to achieve that before building it than the approach on some projects where build then decide.

Absolutely, but what has the industry been doing during the three-and-a-half years since the announcement of trans-Pennine electrification? Surely there has been plenty of time what sort of a service is wanted and then what sort of infrastructure is required to deliver that service reliably day in and day out (and not just in ideal conditions with everything functioning perfectly).

I haven't checked, but I wonder how long it took our Victorian predecessors to get the Acts for the Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Leeds railways in the 1840s and then actually build them from scratch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
PS Just to shew how long some of the ideas for route improvement have been around, there's an article in RAIL written fifteen years ago by Philip Haigh (No. 383, 17 May 2000, pp38-41), which sets out some quite detailed planning, some of which has already been carried out, some done in a de-specced form, and much just not done.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Now that we are no longer in the final stages of a run up to a General Election, I wonder if a certain right honourable Member of Parliament for Tatton will soon make another statement about the Northern Powerhouse and how scurrilous rumours about any delay to Transpennine Electrification will be totally refuted....:roll:

 

[muddythefish]

Northern Powerhouse is nothing more than an election gimmick coined by Gideon to weaken the Labour vote in the north. It is meaningless without the significant investment (ie, tens of billions of pounds) that the south and London in particular has enjoyed for decades. Now that the election is over and the chancellor is back in austerity cuts mode the north it seems is expendable - again.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Now that we are no longer in the final stages of a run up to a General Election, I wonder if a certain right honourable Member of Parliament for Tatton will soon make another statement about the Northern Powerhouse and how scurrilous rumours about any delay to Transpennine Electrification will be totally refuted....:roll:

What do you want him to do, Paul?
He (and the DfT) must be very frustrated with Network Rail (or "the rail industry") at its inability to deliver when all the money and encouragement is there.
The whole idea of the electrification push is to invest with low-cost money and get public infrastructure projects going while the economy is moribund.
You and I have been around long enough to know that the money tap can be turned off very quickly.

It's certainly necessary to get the project spec right first, before you start digging.
But NR has already had 3.5 years to sort it out, and RUSs, service specs and Northern Hub visions have been in place for some time.

There are maybe two reasons to let NR off the hook:
- they might have run out of money (because of overruns elsewhere) - but how can they start up MML then?
- DfT might have changed its requirements (increased service spec, or maybe for HS3 reasons)

 

[Olaf]

Northern Powerhouse is nothing more than an election gimmick coined by Gideon to weaken the Labour vote in the north. It is meaningless without the significant investment (ie, tens of billions of pounds) that the south and London in particular has enjoyed for decades. Now that the election is over and the chancellor is back in austerity cuts mode the north it seems is expendable - again.

Rumour has it (well more than a rumour) that he nicked it from Labour and got away with because Labour was too slow at deciding exactly what their policy under that banner was going to be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually the delay to TP wiring is because of industry wide realisation that simply wiring the route isn't going to create best use of money. Feedback to NR is look at increasing line speeds moving track wire once know your going to do rather than put the wires up then have to replace if all a few years to improve line.

It's very sensible planning where got work what you want then pan how to achieve that before building it than the approach on some projects where build then decide.

I think 'HS3' threw in another unknown to complicate matters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What do you want him to do, Paul?
He (and the DfT) must be very frustrated with Network Rail (or "the rail industry") at its inability to deliver when all the money and encouragement is there.
The whole idea of the electrification push is to invest with low-cost money and get public infrastructure projects going while the economy is moribund.
You and I have been around long enough to know that the money tap can be turned off very quickly.

It's certainly necessary to get the project spec right first, before you start digging.
But NR has already had 3.5 years to sort it out, and RUSs, service specs and Northern Hub visions have been in place for some time.

There are maybe two reasons to let NR off the hook:
- they might have run out of money (because of overruns elsewhere) - but how can they start up MML then?
- DfT might have changed its requirements (increased service spec, or maybe for HS3 reasons)

Nothing came of the last ditch talks on Greece yesterday, so as of Monday morning we may well be heading for the second part of the financial crash; if that happens (it will eventually) there will need to be another review of what will be possible with any available budget.

 

[northwichcat]

Now that we are no longer in the final stages of a run up to a General Election, I wonder if a certain right honourable Member of Parliament for Tatton will soon make another statement about the Northern Powerhouse and how scurrilous rumours about any delay to Transpennine Electrification will be totally refuted....:roll:

If the Labour/Lib Dem MPs want to push for an answer from Osborne they'll have the chance on Wednesday. David Cameron's away in Europe and has delegated his PMQs responsibility to Osborne for this week.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rumour has it (well more than a rumour) that he nicked it from Labour and got away with because Labour was too slow at deciding exactly what their policy under that banner was going to be.

John Prescott did claim a much faster rail route between Hull and Liverpool was a project he had been working on.

I think 'HS3' threw in another unknown to complicate matters.

I'm pleased to see you use inverted commas around HS3. Given there would be no running at over 125mph I think TransPennine Mainline would be more appropriate given it'll be more like the Midland Mainline than HS1 or HS2.