Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[phil-b259]

NR are actually being quite clever here...

 

The inhabitants of the DfT are  firmly of the opinion that bi-modes are the future while the massive cost overuns on the GWML still loam large in their minds - and as such large scale electrification plans will not get approved.

 

However the DfT are prepared to sanction smaller scale enhancements / capacity increases - so what NR have done is present the works between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe primarily as putting in extra track and grade separation. Electrification is being presented as a secondary benefit of the scheme - a sort of 'while we are in the area / 'in for a penny in for a pound' type of thing  even though the need for a new feeder the Huddesfield end will not come cheap.

 

The clever thing about doing electrification this way (small byte sized chunks) is it means that electrification west of Huddersfield at some stage becomes easier as some of the basic enabling works will have already been done.

 

The downside of this approach though is that because the electrification is piggybacking on a more extensive capacity enhancement project, the same tactic cannot be used for sensible infill schemes like Leeds - York for which there are no large capacity enhancing infrastructure plans yet.

 

[woodenhead]

27 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

NR are actually being quite clever here...

 

The inhabitants of the DfT are  firmly of the opinion that bi-modes are the future while the massive cost overuns on the GWML still loam large in their minds - and as such large scale electrification plans will not get approved.

 

However the DfT are prepared to sanction smaller scale enhancements / capacity increases - so what NR have done is present the works between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe primarily as putting in extra track and grade separation. Electrification is being presented as a secondary benefit of the scheme - a sort of 'while we are in the area / 'in for a penny in for a pound' type of thing  even though the need for a new feeder the Huddesfield end will not come cheap.

 

The clever thing about doing electrification this way (small byte sized chunks) is it means that electrification west of Huddersfield at some stage becomes easier as some of the basic enabling works will have already been done.

 

The downside of this approach though is that because the electrification is piggybacking on a more extensive capacity enhancement project, the same tactic cannot be used for sensible infill schemes like Leeds - York for which there are no large capacity enhancing infrastructure plans yet.

 

No, but the case for infill becomes more compelling when the gap is small - would this then become an electrified diversionary route for Doncaster-York - Since wiring of the Chat Moss route and now Horwich there are a lot of diversions through Manchester off the WCML making life easier for passengers and NR when it comes to planned engineering work.

 

Potentially the sticky wiring will be the route from Stalybridge to Huddersfield, but with bi-modes really it is a business case than can wait a little longer now whilst still getting the benefit of knitting on the rest of the route.

[Zomboid]

It could be the what the beginning of a rolling programme of electrification looks like. A bit here, an infill there, and suddenly a previously large project becomes another infill...

[woodenhead]

17 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It could be the what the beginning of a rolling programme of electrification looks like. A bit here, an infill there, and suddenly a previously large project becomes another infill...

it's a lot less risky than the original let's wire the GWML, MML and do lots of stuff in the Northwest plus Standedge and lets do it all at the same time with little expertise built up but we don't want it like the ECML but we need it cheap.

[Zomboid]

Let's see what happens, but it's probably what should have been planned years ago.

 

Whilst bi-modes are a poor excuse for not wiring into Bristol, since we've got them they do at least allow more bite size electrification.

[GordonC]

Could we get to a point where rather than continuous wiring that only sections with steep gradients or possibly starting away from statons gets wired up and the sections between of easy running are left as diesel only?

[mikejames]

I thought at least part of the point of electrification

is to get away from using carbon based fuels.

I'm aware you then have to generate the electricity

but at least you then have the choice of 'how'

mike james

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

it's a lot less risky than the original let's wire the GWML, MML and do lots of stuff in the Northwest plus Standedge and lets do it all at the same time with little expertise built up but we don't want it like the ECML but we need it cheap.

 

Not to mention also wiring the two remaining unelectrified routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other bits of Scotland too !

 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, 62613 said:

Does seem a strange way to go about it!. What sort of win could be had by electrifying from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge?

 

 

None - the DfT are firmly wedded to the idea that further electrification is not necessary in an age of bi-modes (and, batteries, hydrogen, bionic duckweed, etc as time goes on).

 

The key to getting electrification done in the short term is to piggyback on a capacity enhancement project which the DfT will find it harder to veto.

 

For example the electrification from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge would allow the extension of electric services eastwards from Victoria and stop them clogging up the through platforms there thus allowing more through services.

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, mikejames said:

I thought at least part of the point of electrification

is to get away from using carbon based fuels.

I'm aware you then have to generate the electricity

but at least you then have the choice of 'how'

mike james

 

The brains in the DfT reckon you can get 'get away from Carbon based fuels by using batteries and Hydrogen - electrification is therefore not necessary in their eyes.

 

Of course it helps that train based solutions will have to be paid for by the private sector whereas electrification has to be Government funded.

 

We all know that the current party in power thinks state  investment = bad, private investment = good.....

Edited August 21, 2019 by phil-b259

[SHMD]

27 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

None - the DfT are firmly wedded to the idea that further electrification is not necessary in an age of bi-modes (and, batteries, hydrogen, bionic duckweed, etc as time goes on).

 

The key to getting electrification done in the short term is to piggyback on a capacity enhancement project which the DfT will find it harder to veto.

 

For example the electrification from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge would allow the extension of electric services eastwards from Victoria and stop them clogging up the through platforms there thus allowing more through services.

 

 

Indeed, the capacity increases at Stalybridge (more platforms, higher speed junction, automated signalling, etc) were justified by the "need" to help alleviate the 1980s crated bottleneck at Manchester Victoria.

 

 

Kev.

 

[woodenhead]

27 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The brains in the DfT reckon you can get 'get away from Carbon based fuels by using batteries and Hydrogen - electrification is therefore not necessary in their eyes.

 

Of course it helps that train based solutions will have to be paid for by the private sector whereas electrification has to be Government funded.

 

We all know that the current party in power thinks state  investment = bad, private investment = good.....

Maybe though this is a better idea - rather than the goverment dictate where we end up with the IEP and a botched scheme on the GWML - letting the private sector find alternatives that suit challenging circumstances means the railway transforms.

 

DRS using electro-diesel 88s isn't a bad idea

Battery trains saving on wiring isn't a bad idea

Re-engineering old trains into new ones isn't a bad idea

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Maybe though this is a better idea - rather than the goverment dictate where we end up with the IEP and a botched scheme on the GWML - letting the private sector find alternatives that suit challenging circumstances means the railway transforms.

 

DRS using electro-diesel 88s isn't a bad idea

Battery trains saving on wiring isn't a bad idea

Re-engineering old trains into new ones isn't a bad idea

 

Electrifying heavily used lines (particularly ones with steep gradients) isn't a bad idea either!

 

As has been noted many times the problem with recent electrification is the Government instructed NR to do too much, too fast and with al UK electrification based skills having been decimated by Government inaction for over two decades. Recent reports suggest that after a bad start, costs are now heading back down to more sensible levels due to NR and contractors learning from past mistakes.

 

Mainlines like the GWML (and the MML) were earmarked for electrification by British Rail, it was only the HM Treasury's hatred of funding rail projects if at all possible which held BR back - and were the UK to follow best European practice both would have been electrified well before now. Its something of an embarrassment that well into the 2000s Paddington and the excellently restored St Pancras are blighted by diesel fumes from long distance services.

 

Thus having spent lots of money building up the electrification skills base from scratch again it is foolish in the extreme to repeat past mistakes - there should be a continuing stream of small to medium sized schemes coming through to maintain the kills / knowledge, something that will continue to bring down the overall costs of undertaking schemes as engineers continue to refine their crat in the longer term.

 

Electrification of the principle Trans-Pennine routes (or all of them eventually if you follow the example of the Scottish Government) therefore remains a sound idea regardless of well battery / hydrogen / bi-mode trains perform.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

I am sure full electrification of the Standedge route followed by Manchester-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds then Hope Valley (with MML) will come.

 

Bi-modes are fine for Standedge in the short term, heavy freight will continue to be diesel hauled for a long time to come I think so the urgency for dealing with gradients through electrification isn't there.

 

[phil-b259]

32 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

Bi-modes are fine for Standedge in the short term, heavy freight will continue to be diesel hauled for a long time to come I think so the urgency for dealing with gradients through electrification isn't there.

 

 

However you much and disguise it, the laws of physic dictate that pure electric traction will always have better acceleration than a bi-mode as the power in the overhead line is  instantly there when required while diesel engines take time to ramp up their output in response to a grater demand.

 

Electric traction comes into its best when you have frequent stops or steep gradients - or indeed both! - as is the case for services over the Pennines.

 

True the advanced engine management software on the 800s and the performance of modern engines means the gap is smaller than it was - but not to the extent that the performance gap can be dismissed as lightly as you imply.

 

What has harmed the Trans-Pennine business case for electrification to a degree is new trains as traditionally this was cited as one of the benefits of electrification. That said the adoption of bi-mode 800s and loco hauled coaching stock doesn't close the door quite as firmly as a pure diesel solution would have done.

 

However none of this will be of any relevance if the UKs electrification is allowed to wither away again because the Politicians think it is 'unnecessary' and pretending that its all OK because we have bi-modes, batteries (and potentially hydrogen) power is falling into that trap (however good they may be in the short term)

 

 

[Titan]

One problem that the government might be sleepwalking in to is that it won't be long before there is a significant number of electric cars on the road.  The railway will start to lose it's environmental credentials if it is diesel train v renewable recharged electric car...

[Edwin_m]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The downside of this approach though is that because the electrification is piggybacking on a more extensive capacity enhancement project, the same tactic cannot be used for sensible infill schemes like Leeds - York for which there are no large capacity enhancing infrastructure plans yet.

Northern Powerhouse Rail, if it happens, is talking about making drastic changes to Leeds-York, such as four-tracking between Leeds and Neville Hill and possibly even jumping onto the last bit of HS2 towards Church Fenton.  This would involve big changes to the existing route which would be more difficult and costly if it had already been electrified.  So it's probably not worth spending money on the existing route until it's known whether it would be affected or in part replaced by these more radical measures (and today's announcement on HS2 probably pushes back the date when that will be known).  

 

While NPR also proposes a completely new route between Manchester and Leeds, the situation here is a little different.  The NPR proposal is via Bradford so wouldn't directly affect anything between Huddersfield and Dewsbury.  There is still a risk of these enhancements being cancelled as unnecessary if the government suddenly goes forward with NPR - on the other hand if NPR doesn't go ahead enhancing the Huddersfield route is the only option left on the table.  

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

One problem that the government might be sleepwalking in to is that it won't be long before there is a significant number of electric cars on the road.  The railway will start to lose it's environmental credentials if it is diesel train v renewable recharged electric car...

 

The only thing is cars are very inefficient users of space!

 

Even if having electric cars solves the emissions problems, unless you are going to start demolishing large chunks of our current cities to create new arterial roads and massive car parks then congestion will remain.

 

This is one of the things the Anti HS2 brigade tend to forget - unless there is a radical shift in the UKs economy which means people go back to living within walking distance of their workplace then the need to travel is on an upward trajectory. Yes electric cars will make life better for city dwellers as they won't be subjected to as much air pollution but it won't solve congestion.

 

Consequently railways, especially electrified ones will still have a role to play.

 

 

[Titan]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The only thing is cars are very inefficient users of space!

 

Even if having electric cars solves the emissions problems, unless you are going to start demolishing large chunks of our current cities to create new arterial roads and massive car parks then congestion will remain.

 

This is one of the things the Anti HS2 brigade tend to forget - unless there is a radical shift in the UKs economy which means people go back to living within walking distance of their workplace then the need to travel is on an upward trajectory. Yes electric cars will make life better for city dwellers as they won't be subjected to as much air pollution but it won't solve congestion.

 

Consequently railways, especially electrified ones will still have a role to play.

 

 

 

Indeed.  But with so much emphasis on environment and emissions, if the railways are perceived as being dirty, old fashioned and inefficient they will start losing to road.  It took the railways a long time to recover from the last time that happened.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

Indeed.  But with so much emphasis on environment and emissions, if the railways are perceived as being dirty, old fashioned and inefficient they will start losing to road.  It took the railways a long time to recover from the last time that happened.

It's certainly a risk.  I wonder how much CO2 is saved per public pound spent on electrifying railways versus the various subsidies directed at electric cars.  

[peanuts]

13 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Reading the press release I see you're right, it is Leeds to Huddersfield that'll be electrified. Which should allow some local trains to change to electric.

 

That'll need a new feeder station, I'd have thought. But it is a sensible sized project. Huddersfield to Manchester and Leeds to the ECML would be logical follow ons, which no doubt won't get consideration until about 2044.

could they not run  a cable from the feeder at Heyrod as they do to Manvic currently   ? distances are not dissimilar especially if the wires make it all the way to Marsden which would make operational sense  

[Zomboid]

I'm sure it's a possible solution. Maybe even a good one given that Heyrod is there and won't be anywhere near capacity.

 

I mean, in a sane world you wouldn't electrify half of a major interurban route and stick the feeder station slap bang in the middle of the part you're not electrifying, but we live in the UK in 2019...

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, Titan said:

One problem that the government might be sleepwalking in to is that it won't be long before there is a significant number of electric cars on the road.  The railway will start to lose it's environmental credentials if it is diesel train v renewable recharged electric car...

 

Electric cars aren't, when considered as a whole system, as great as people think from an environmental perspective.

 

The manufacturing of the batteries has an environmental cost (the energy to make them as well as the destructive nature of most mining of materials these days), and the building and maintaining of roads has a significant environmental cost (where one would guess the cost for rail would be lower as less space and hence material is needed).

[Edwin_m]

11 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Electric cars aren't, when considered as a whole system, as great as people think from an environmental perspective.

 

The manufacturing of the batteries has an environmental cost (the energy to make them as well as the destructive nature of most mining of materials these days), and the building and maintaining of roads has a significant environmental cost (where one would guess the cost for rail would be lower as less space and hence material is needed).

There's also particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear.  Compared to an equivalent fossil-fuelled car an electric one may have less brake wear due to using regeneration, but more tyre wear as the battery makes it heavier.  

[jamie92208]

Regarding feeder stations, IIRC, it was stated much earlier in this thread, a couple of years ago, that Heyrod was designed to feed the Leeds to Stalybridge section and is I think sized for freight as well as passenger.  There was also talk of an extra feeder station in the Church Fenton/York area that would allow feed to the route from both ends.  The feeder to Man Vic has had to be put in because the electrification to Stalybridge from there was caught up in the infamous pause and cancellation of the Tarns Pennine Scheme.  However by then the contracts for Heyrod were already in place.   There are some pictures of the main switchgear/transformer units being moved into Heyrod earlier in this thread and they were BIG units.  

 

I agree that only doing Leeds Huddersfield will not allow much more all electric working but it will at least deal with one of the two long tunnels on the route, namely Morley, which is just under half the length of Standedge.   I will await further developments with interest.

 

Jamie