Northern Powerhouse? Unlikely if this is true.

[jonny777]

It appears that the media obsession with Brexit is maybe deemed a good time to ensure rail links in the north subject to DfT's bad planning decisions. 

 

From The Guardian  (apologies for the strange photo/video inclusions, they seem difficult to erase):-

 

The transport secretary is seriously considering a recommendation to spend almost £3bn on a “flawed” and “detrimental” rail upgrade in the north of England that will do nothing to improve reliability or air pollution on a slow and delay-plagued line, sources have told the Guardian.

 

In recent briefings, Department for Transport officials have told stakeholders that its Board Investment and Commercial Committee (BICC) has recommended to Chris Grayling that the 76-mile TransPennine route between Leeds and Manchester should not be fully electrified.

 

If the plan is put in place, tunnels will not be made big enough to carry modern freight trains and not enough additional track will be laid to allow fast trains to overtake slow services. “It will be a downgrade of another downgrade,” according to the shadow rail minister, Rachael Maskell, who said shewas passed information from “well-placed” sources.

 

 

 

Read more

“Reliability and capacity has been taken off the table,” she said, accusing Grayling of “ruining all of the TransPennine ambition.”

 

 

 

If Grayling follows the advice, critics warn it would undermine the government’s oft-stated claim that the £2.9bn upgrade would “deliver faster, longer, more frequent and more reliable services across the north of England, from Newcastle, Hull and York towards Manchester and Liverpool via Leeds”.

Millions of passengers use the key northern route across the Pennines and passenger numbers are expected to double over the next 20 years. Demand for northern freight transport is also expected to increase, particularly if Brexit pushes ships away from the Dover crossing and up to ports on the Humber and in north-east England.

Maskell said: “[Grayling’s option] is seriously flawed. It is seriously detrimental, to the northern economy and to the ports, not having the option to transport freight across the country by rail. It is also detrimental to passengers at a time when reliability has hardly been on people’s lips.” New, longer trains would be introduced but without the infrastructure to ensure they ran on time, she added.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 If Chris Grayling’s plans go ahead, freight will continue to be transported by roads, adding to the already congested motorways. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

 

The core of the route between Stalybridge in Greater Manchester and Huddersfield in West Yorkshire will now not be electrified, along with 12 miles east of Leeds, according to the Rail Freight Group, which said the Department of Transport’s committee had made the recommendation to Grayling.

Trains using the route will have to be “bi-modal”, switching to environmentally unfriendly diesel engines during key, hilly sections .

The advice contradicts recommendations from Transport for the North (TfN), a statutory body set up to advise the government. In September, it asked the DfT for assurance that “any upgrades are environmentally sustainable and do not have a negative impact on air quality”. It also demanded provision for freight, with the option to transport containers by rail, which is currently not possible because the tunnels are too low.

The Guardian understands the DfT did not respond to the letter and that the TfN board met on Thursday and repeatedly asked a senior DfT official if it was true that Grayling preferred the one upgrade option TfN specifically asked him not to choose, without receiving a satisfactory answer.

Barry White, TfN’s chief executive, suggested he was not ready to give in without a fight. “We continue to seek the journey time improvements, capacity, reliability and freight access that were first set out. We must push for the best solution for the north and will continue to do so,” he said. “This major investment must secure sustained improvement in our railway that delivers on ambitions.”

Mike Hogg of the Rail Freight Group said that if Grayling’s plans went ahead, freight would continue to be transported by road, adding to the already congested motorways and increasing air pollution. “It means that the members of our trade body won’t have the opportunity to put containers on railway wagons and take them over the Pennines. They can’t now, because of capacity and height clearance, and they aren’t going to be able to in the future either. It will go by road, on the M62 instead,” he said.

He said he had known since 18 November that the line was not going to be electrified fully and waas not going to be able to take freight, ignoring the business case made by shippers, port groups and rail hauliers for better freight lines across the Pennines. “We are disappointed and frustrated at the recommendation made by the Department of Transport’s BIC committee and apparently accepted by Chris Grayling,” he said.

Warnings of 'anger and outrage' if Transpennine electrification axed

 

 

Read more

Just six freight trains a day run along the TransPennine mainline, but the freight industry submitted plans to increase that to 48 trains a day, six days a week, according to Hogg. He said that very significant investments had been made by major ports at Liverpool, in the Humber and in the north-east for the handling and transfer to rail of containers brought in by sea and that demand for rail freight was likely to continue to rise at 6% per year.

The fastest passenger trains between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds take 58 minutes. The proposed upgrade would shave between seven and eight minutes off the journey time, according to Hogg. Commuters from Ashford in Kent can get to Stratford International in east London in half an hour, despite the journey being 10 miles longer.

In response to questions from the Guardian about which sections of the TransPennine route would be electrified and whether it would be able to carry freight, a DfT spokeswoman said claims from Maskell and the Rail Freight Group were “completely unfounded”.

She declined to set out the specific plan for TransPennine, saying instead: “The first phase of the upgrade, starting in the spring, will be the biggest investment in our existing railway in the next five years. The department will continue to work with stakeholders to determine how best to deliver all phases of the upgrade.”

 

 

[APOLLO]

More money for London then.

 

Brit15

[Enterprisingwestern]

It's a shame in the past nobody ever thought of building an all weather electrified line over the Pennines!

 

Mike.

[Gibbo675]

It's a shame in the past nobody ever thought of building an all weather electrified line over the Pennines!

 

Mike.

Hi Mike,

 

The reason for that would be because politicians are;

 

"WOODenHEADs"

 

Gibbo.

[62613]

As I recall, We were supposed to have an electrified line from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge by the start of the new timetable this month. I'm not sure but some Northern stoppers started running through from Stalybridge to Wigan from the start of the last timetable. The upgrade to Stalybridge Station was to allow an increase in capacity.

[62613]

Hi Mike,

 

The reason for that would be because politicians are;

 

"WOODenHEADs"

 

Gibbo.

More likely our unelected bureaucrats, no? There has been a pro-road bias in the DafT and its predecessors for a very long time

[Clearwater]

The reality is that for rail to be competitive against road for transport of goods, the journey needs to be sufficiently long and the cargo sufficiently heavy. Don’t forget, that even if you transport cargo from the coast to an inland rail head, you’ll still need to load it onto a truck for the last leg of the journey. Therefore, you’ve got to get sufficient saving on the journey to make that additional handling worthwhile. That’s aside from the issue of train path availability, gauging clearances for high cube boxes, the taking of risk of filling a block train (you don’t have that risk on an individual truck) etc etc. You also have to consider what the shipping lines do and how their calling points.

 

On the gauging issue, I seem to recall Woodhead was fairly narrow bore? I may be wrong. If it is narrow bore, then the costs of widening it to be able to accommodate container boxes would likely be no less than building a new tunnel. It’s a romantic idea to reopen it but one that I suspect may not be practical.

[APOLLO]

Yes, forget the North again. 

 

A romantic idea to have decent train services oooop 'ere !!!!!!!

 

And our roads are virtually gridlocked up here these days also too many goods vehicles !!!.

 

Peed off Brit15

[Clearwater]

Yes, forget the North again.

 

A romantic idea to have decent train services oooop 'ere !!!!!!!

 

And our roads are virtually gridlocked up here these days also too many goods vehicles !!!.

 

Peed off Brit15

That’s a quite a misrepresentation of my comment... my comment is that a reopening of disused infrastructure might prove more expensive than building new infrastructure. Nowhere did I say that the north does not need improved transport links. It’s more a question about putting in place infrastructure that’s fit for today’s purpose.

[Gibbo675]

More likely our unelected bureaucrats, no? There has been a pro-road bias in the DafT and its predecessors for a very long time

How correct you are, point taken.

 

To be fair the elected twerps are no more the opposing faces of the same bent coin which is indeed represents permanent government.

 

Does this explain the system ?

 

 

Pip, Pip,

 

Gibbo.

[APOLLO]

Nothing personal to yourself Clearwater, I was representing the thoughts and deeds of our Lords and masters down in London.

 

A reopened Woodhead would be very much appreciated by many - too late now the National grid use the "new" tunnel for it's HV cables. A complete lack of forward thinking. For large containers / freight a rebuilt single Standedge bore would suffice, with the remaining double track bore for passenger use - all electrified of course. The remaining single bore for emergency access. There is still a 4 track formation down to well past Huddersfield. Morley tunnel may be a problem - but not insurmountable.

 

Bi modes - from what I read on these threads another disaster from those decision makers in London.

 

Ah well, time to take the Whippet out for some ratting on't slag heaps---- where's my flat cap & clogs  !!!!!!!

 

Brit15

Edited December 8, 2018 by APOLLO

[31A]

The reality is that for rail to be competitive against road for transport of goods, the journey needs to be sufficiently long and the cargo sufficiently heavy. Don’t forget, that even if you transport cargo from the coast to an inland rail head, you’ll still need to load it onto a truck for the last leg of the journey. Therefore, you’ve got to get sufficient saving on the journey to make that additional handling worthwhile. That’s aside from the issue of train path availability, gauging clearances for high cube boxes, the taking of risk of filling a block train (you don’t have that risk on an individual truck) etc etc. You also have to consider what the shipping lines do and how their calling points.

 

On the gauging issue, I seem to recall Woodhead was fairly narrow bore? I may be wrong. If it is narrow bore, then the costs of widening it to be able to accommodate container boxes would likely be no less than building a new tunnel. It’s a romantic idea to reopen it but one that I suspect may not be practical.

 

 

Port of Liverpool have shown themselves to be keen to increase the amount of traffic to / from there by rail, even to the extent of supporting the Skipton-Colne reopening proposals for imported biomass to Drax, but I would have thought a properly upgraded route through Huddersfield would have been more sensible as well as being beneficial to a greater variety of users.

 

The original Woodhead tunnels were very narrow single track bores, but as far as I know the new one opened for the electrification in the 1950s didn't have any loading gauge issues?

[lmsforever]

I doubt that the UK will ever be ready for the future given the DFT, Parliament, Local Authorities meddling and blocking all projects because of their self importance and complete lack of understanding about planning for the future. 

[Steamport Southport]

It's in The Guardian though....

 

Nothing to see here.

 

 

 

Jason

[E3109]

That’s a quite a misrepresentation of my comment... my comment is that a reopening of disused infrastructure might prove more expensive than building new infrastructure. Nowhere did I say that the north does not need improved transport links. It’s more a question about putting in place infrastructure that’s fit for today’s purpose.

Misrepresented or no, BR's own figures at the time claimed either £1m or £2m loss per year, can't recall which. It was BS of course, that route paid for itself but when the bean counters ring fenced the route they applied the usual 'repainting soon-to-be-abolished signal boxes' tried and tested method of adding cost to the MSW in order to make it a loss maker on paper.

For example they were still fitting 76s with MW in the late 1970s (a big job) and there was scaffolding round the Reddish boiler house chimney for remedial work in October 1980, around the time that BR's intentions were announced.

 

Rumour has it that once the closure was announced, NS approached BR to purchase a number of air braked 76s to work a new freight route, these locos were costed into the electrification and legend has it that BR refused to acknowledge NS's requests although they did allow them to buy redundant spares from 9C.

To this day, the Dutch route I refer to is not electrified.

 

Let's not forget that those engines were pretty much the most reliable that BR had, and all that with minimum maintenance. But if The Suits say they are life-expired, then life-expired they must be.

 

You must also consider that the OLE was 'worn out' because as we all know, thicker DC contact wire wears out much quicker than thinner AC contact wire... As 'demonstrated' by Picc to Hadfield and Glossop, obviously...

 

My overall point being, even if all these allegations were true, which they weren't, it would STILL have been cheaper to run it at a 'loss' until now, than to reopen it now.

[62613]

Nothing personal to yourself Clearwater, I was representing the thoughts and deeds of our Lords and masters down in London.

 

A reopened Woodhead would be very much appreciated by many - too late now the National grid use the "new" tunnel for it's HV cables. A complete lack of forward thinking. For large containers / freight a rebuilt single Standedge bore would suffice, with the remaining double track bore for passenger use - all electrified of course. The remaining single bore for emergency access. There is still a 4 track formation down to well past Huddersfield. Morley tunnel may be a problem - but not insurmountable.

 

Bi modes - from what I read on these threads another disaster from those decision makers in London.

 

Ah well, time to take the Whippet out for some ratting on't slag heaps---- where's my flat cap & clogs  !!!!!!!

 

Brit15

Huddersfield tunnel was a quoted problem as well; there is apparently either a water or sewage main running close to one or other of the tunnel entrances. Suspect the through lines in the station, or at least one, would have to be reinstated, to increase capacity.

[The Johnster]

Let me see if I've got this right; be patient, I'm a South Walian with only a passing familiarity for the area and it's problems.  A mountain range divides two heavily industrialised areas both with big ports serving them.  It's not the highest mountain range even in England, but it's sides are bl**dy steep, there's no easy way across, and the weather is mostly awful except when it's raining!  Road provision across the mountains is at capacity and subject to closure during winter because of weather conditions.  There are, and/or were, several rail routes through the mountains, but all of these feature either single bore tunnels, or double track ones that are very close to water mains, sewage, canals and other obstructions, so none of the rail routes can be easily upgraded for either large container traffic or electrification, both of which are essential components of the viability of any such scheme.

 

Two rail routes have been abandoned, and one of the tunnels, twin single bores, has been used for power cables.

 

Grim oop north, isn't it!  Answer to one problem might be 3rd rail in the tunnels and Class 92 haulage, though this feels like a bit of a retrograde step.  Is there really such a demand for container traffic here, as the existing tunnels still in use are adequate for all other traffic?

Edited December 8, 2018 by The Johnster

[APOLLO]

Back from ratting - wind blew away mi cap an't clogs are leaking,  th'whippets geet a cough as well !!

 

Lots of sewer, water, gas, electricity, telecoms etc had to be diverted in many locations (at stations mainly) for Crossrail - evidently not enough to curtail that project. Where there is a will there is a way !!!

 

The Severn tunnel has recently been electrified with a novel system also. Gone a bit rusty recently though !! (can we do nowt reet these days !!).

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/severn-tunnel-electrification-system-rusted-after-two-years/10032760.article

 

Brit15

[E3109]

I suppose, the nutshell answer would be "politicians are rarely the railway's friend" (with a handful of honourable exceptions no doubt).

 

Does anyone know if anything ever came out regarding the MSW closure?

Ex Guide Bridge men I work(ed) with over the years have told me on many occasions that it wasn't a Tory or Labour thing, just that it was the Master Plan for many years and often linked to the M67 extension across the Pennines.

 

I do wonder if an FOI Request is in order, 30 year rule maybe.

[Steamport Southport]

 

Grim oop north, isn't it!  Answer to one problem might be 3rd rail in the tunnels and Class 92 haulage, though this feels like a bit of a retrograde step.  Is there really such a demand for container traffic here, as the existing tunnels still in use are adequate for all other traffic?

 

Third Rail is useless for anything other than Suburban routes. I also think that it's banned apart from extensions to existing routes.

 

All they really need is Bimodal and I believe that is already in hand.

 

 

The real answer is the article is talking out of it's ars@. 

 

 

 

As part of Northern's fleet renewal, Allerton's allocation will change. From 2020, it will be allocated Class 195, Class 319, Class 331 and Class 769 units. Allerton's current allocation of Class 156 units is to transfer to Newton Heath, where they will replace Class 142 Pacer units, which are to be withdrawn.

 

 

From Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allerton_TMD

 

They are also currently trialling Class 68s and Mark Fives on the TPEs. But don't let the facts get in the way of an agenda.

 

 

 

Jason

[Dava]

The age of the beancounter is back with a vengeance given the massive cost over-runs on GWML electrification, Crossrail and forecast on HS2. The industry and the excessive upfront and management costs are partly responsible here.

 

So HM Treasury is crawling all over all major rail investments and demanding costs are taken out no matter if that results in suboptimal and inflexible results. So MML and other electrification projects cancelled or scaled back, the same is happening to the 'Northern Outhouse' and HS2 phase 2 will only be built if hugely scaled back in cost & scope. Effective removal of the extra freight container capacity from the TPE project is an example of this foolish decision-making.

 

The fact that DfT is incapable and Grayling evidently a clown does not help of course. We are ending up with a rail system which risks being far from fit for the future, not only in the North but many other routes also.

[APOLLO]

The Woodhead route closure is very well documented. The Kybosh was National grid requisitioning the "New" tunnel several years ago.

 

Current (!!!) electrification is a managerial disaster. The first new lines, Liverpool - Manchester & Liverpool - St Helens - Wigan were done very well indeed (though a tad late). The ongoing very late Manchester - Bolton - Preston work is a joke at the moment. The Preston - Blackpool bit was given to a different contractor and was done very quickly and very well. I had a run up to Blackpool on a 319 last week (to visit Tower models). Impressed.

 

Read somewhere (on here - GW electrification works ?) that many expensive masts etc made for a section now not to be electrified have been scrapped !! What a farce.

 

Brit15

[E3109]

Clearwater regarding Woodhead Tunnel 3, it was reputed to be the only Pennine bore to be capable of taking 9'6" containers at that time.

 

Moving forward, I'd love to see MSW reopened in my lifetime but sadly I don't think that will happen, at least not in the near future.

If it were to reopen the sensible route would be to bore the old tunnels out into one, to dimensions exceeding UIC standards.

 

Would love to see this, but won't be holding my breath.

Edited December 8, 2018 by E3109

[Zomboid]

Bimode is suitable for short trips off the end of the wires (in a TPE sense, that could be something like Scarborough), but it's a dreadful idea as an excuse to not electrify a trunk route properly (GWML and Manchester - Leeds).

[The Johnster]

If scrapping them is cheaper than storing them, then clearly that's the correct thing to do.  My current understanding is that no extension of 750V top contact 3rd rail will be authorised on health and safety grounds, which apparently do not apply to LU.  

 

Politicians are friends of railways that will get them votes, and then change tack when they are voted in and the costs are presented to them.  It is not apparently fully understood in the UK that a railway capable of meeting the economy's needs costs what it costs, though European nations have a better handle on this.  The voting classes and their representatives have deep historical mistrust of railways, rooted in the Hudson bubble of the 1840s and the Overend Gurney collapse, and want a Pullman service for mileage rates.  Historical accidents from Tay Bridge to Ladbroke Grove by way of Armagh and Harrow have highlighted failures to invest properly, but the lessons are usually forgotten in about a decade.  No wonder the public trust neither the industry or the government's handling of it, and Grayling spins faster than Stephenson's body in it's grave; nothing he says can be taken at face value if only because he wants it to be taken at only face value.

 

Skilled professional politician he may be, but I can't imagine a worse figure in terms of inspiring trust or confidence; I am certainly not about to take much heed of a man who states that electrified Paddington-Cardiff service will be the fastest ever when it is only the same as the nationalised BR 1977 HST timings which he has conveniently omitted to mention; he hasn't actually lied, of course, but this is hardly being truthful either.

 

I doubt anything much will be done in the foreseeable future about the North of England's rail network; the money will not exist until the will to make it exists, and let's be honest, folks, it's a miracle that the truncated GW electrification is going ahead as far as Cardiff and Bristol, only half a century after all the bridges between Cardiff and Newport were raised by 4 courses of bricks in expectation of it's immediate progress.  This has emptied the piggy for now.  

 

But don't be fooled, the piggy is only what the Treasury says it is.

Edited December 8, 2018 by The Johnster