Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[woodenhead]

Wiring a line because it's a potential diversionary route isn't a good enough reason any longer, there needs to be a sponsor, trains and a return on investment.

 

Leeds to Colton will come with Leeds to Huddersfield and that will lead to Huddersfield to Stalybridge.

 

Only then will they look at wiring Middlesbrough and Scarborough 

[newbryford]

5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Wiring a line because it's a potential diversionary route isn't a good enough reason any longer, there needs to be a sponsor, trains and a return on investment.

 

Leeds to Colton will come with Leeds to Huddersfield and that will lead to Huddersfield to Stalybridge.

 

Only then will they look at wiring Middlesbrough and Scarborough 

 

Quite - but it (Leeds-Colton) should've been in BR days..............

[mdvle]

40 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Quite - but it (Leeds-Colton) should've been in BR days..............

 

But BR also had an abundance of diesel locos and staff to allow for the dragging of electric trains on diversionary routes.

[Zomboid]

6 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Quite - but it (Leeds-Colton) should've been in BR days..............

It's not surprising that it wasn't, the ECML scheme was a real bare bones job. It's an obvious infill now that TPE have electric trains, so it'll probably come along in the medium term. Doing Leeds to Huddersfield will emphasise that, as the result will be the 802s doing the hokey cokey with their diesel engines/ pantographs across the core TP route.

[Mallard60022]

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Wiring a line because it's a potential diversionary route isn't a good enough reason any longer, there needs to be a sponsor, trains and a return on investment.

 

Leeds to Colton will come with Leeds to Huddersfield and that will lead to Huddersfield to Stalybridge.

 

Only then will they look at wiring Middlesbrough and Scarborough 

Apologies, I am back to drop in a suggestion. 'They' could, of course, make the York Scarborough section a 'second' separate train journey (change at York; plenty of existing services so maybe just increase those ?). TPE services simply then starting at or coming through York from Darlo/Newcastle? With the greatest of respect to Scarborough...…………….and as for Middlesborough, would that not be the same, or is the 'Borough' route more of a 'main line'? 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Mallard60022

[APOLLO]

What a dogs breakfast our railways are becoming.

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Apologies, I am back to drop in a suggestion. 'They' could, of course, make the York Scarborough section a 'second' separate train journey (change at York; plenty of existing services so maybe just increase those ?). TPE services simply then starting at or coming through York from Darlo/Newcastle? With the greatest of respect to Scarborough...…………….and as for Middlesborough, would that not be the same, or is the 'Borough' route more of a 'main line'? 

It might make a day out to Scarborough slightly less attractive if you had to change trains and of course it was decided in the franchise that TPE would provide through services as BR did in the past on trans pennine trains.

 

I seem to recall trains through Thornaby to Middlesbrough were an early franchise route in the 1990s, did BR ever run Trans Pennine trains that way,   The Northallerton - Eaglescliffe route only went back to passenger trains in 1996 and that may be when trans Pennine services began going to Middlesbrough.  It used to be you got a train to Darlington and then a local to Thornaby etc.

 

TPE do a few interesting routes like Hull, Cleethorpes, Middlesbroughand Scarborough - would we want those towns to lose good quality long distance services, it might seem a backward step.

 

 

[Zomboid]

For longish distance travel, people want direct trains. Enforcing a change at York will just reduce the number of people who catch the train to Scarborough.

Might be a different story if the route was served every 10 minutes, which is why metro services do fine with lots of changing lines, but that has an unlikely feel...

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Quite - but it (Leeds-Colton) should've been in BR days..............

 

Please remember that HM Treasury would only provide finance for the London - Newcastle electrification!

 

The decision to continue the wires further on to Edinburgh had to be financed from within the Boards existing budget settlement - which means costs had to be cut wherever possible - and not wiring a diversionary route (that would see no regular electric services) was part of that.

 

Lest people forget, the Kidsgrove to Crewe link (very handy for diversions) had to be left out following HM Treasury demands to cut costs back in the 1960s, so its out as if the ECML is an isolated case. It finally got wired as part of the Railtrack inspired 'WCML Modernisation' to assist with regular diversions while other bits of the WCML were undergoing significant works.

[GordonC]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Please remember that HM Treasury would only provide finance for the London - Newcastle electrification!

 

The decision to continue the wires further on to Edinburgh had to be financed from within the Boards existing budget settlement - which means costs had to be cut wherever possible - and not wiring a diversionary route (that would see no regular electric services) was part of that.

 

Lest people forget, the Kidsgrove to Crewe link (very handy for diversions) had to be left out following HM Treasury demands to cut costs back in the 1960s, so its out as if the ECML is an isolated case. It finally got wired as part of the Railtrack inspired 'WCML Modernisation' to assist with regular diversions while other bits of the WCML were undergoing significant works.

 

I'd also have suggested the routes from Manchester/Liverpool north onto the WCML were a bit of a missing link too. Electrifying the Chat Moss line opened up all kinds of options for running electric services

 

[caradoc]

14 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

But wasn't the electrification of the ECML carried out under BR's tenure?

 

So not a fault of privatisation, but cost cutting at the time?

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

 

And the fact that then, and still today, nearly all trains between Leeds and York have parts of their journeys on non-electrified routes.

[Mallard60022]

50 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It might make a day out to Scarborough slightly less attractive if you had to change trains and of course it was decided in the franchise that TPE would provide through services as BR did in the past on trans pennine trains.

 

I seem to recall trains through Thornaby to Middlesbrough were an early franchise route in the 1990s, did BR ever run Trans Pennine trains that way,   The Northallerton - Eaglescliffe route only went back to passenger trains in 1996 and that may be when trans Pennine services began going to Middlesbrough.  It used to be you got a train to Darlington and then a local to Thornaby etc.

 

TPE do a few interesting routes like Hull, Cleethorpes, Middlesbroughand Scarborough - would we want those towns to lose good quality long distance services, it might seem a backward step.

 

 

Cleethorpes east of Donny, except in the (Easter?) summer holidays, is not that busy with passengers from west of Donny in my experience. Long distance commuters (are there many?) could easily be contained on another shuttle service and allow TPE to do more journeys from Donny to the Airport. Don't know about Scarborough; TPE should have looked at their passengers profiles and if there are hardly any TPE passengers extending to that route then they may renegotiate, especially if they offer better and more frequent services from York? Middlesborough area...…….. I no nuffink.

Hull TPE services...definitely yes.

However, what do I know about this sort of stuff?

P 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Mallard60022

[Zomboid]

There's maybe discussions to be had about that kind of thing, but isn't the Cleethorpes route remaining 185 operated? The rest of the TPE network is going to be heavily upgraded with the new trains, but I don't think anything much will be happening on the Southern route.

[iands]

From personal experience/observation, the Scaborough/Malton - Leeds usage is fairly and consistent throughout the day (and not just holidaymakers). I imagine that necessitating a change mid-journey at York would definitely pi$$ a lot of people off with what would be seen as a retrograde step. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by iands
correct spelling mistake

[Mike Storey]

What electrification of the Scarborough route would mean is that the new stations at Strensall and Haxby would be viable, without affecting overall journey times. Those two alone would increase the branch patronage by around 25%, and they could almost certainly be paid for via Section 12 (mostly Developer funded).

[iands]

52 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

What electrification of the Scarborough route would mean is that the new stations at Strensall and Haxby would be viable, without affecting overall journey times. Those two alone would increase the branch patronage by around 25%, and they could almost certainly be paid for via Section 12 (mostly Developer funded).

People have been trying to re-open those two stations for donkeys years, without obvious success, to it seems, other reasons that just "electrification" would not solve. Sad to say, it will be a good few years yet before Strensall and/or Haxby are reopened, even if electrification happened.  

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, iands said:

People have been trying to re-open those two stations for donkeys years, without obvious success, to it seems, other reasons that just "electrification" would not solve. Sad to say, it will be a good few years yet before Strensall and/or Haxby are reopened, even if electrification happened.  

 

Key reason was the additional set needed. With electrification and an increase in set lengths anyway, the improved acceleration would obviate any operational reasons.

[iands]

18 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Key reason was the additional set needed. With electrification and an increase in set lengths anyway, the improved acceleration would obviate any operational reasons.

I was referring less to Rolling Stock and/or Rail Infrastructure issues, more along the lines of land/access now both Haxby and Strensall have increased significantly over the last 20 years or so.

[Mike Storey]

17 minutes ago, iands said:

I was referring less to Rolling Stock and/or Rail Infrastructure issues, more along the lines of land/access now both Haxby and Strensall have increased significantly over the last 20 years or so.

 

Only problem at Haxby was room for a car park. I know, I worked on the proposal when at York in the 1990's. The increased development strengthens the case for both. It is NYCC that has kyboshed anything more than a prelim study.

[4630]

A further round of public consultations are (were, as they're currently postponed due to the Coronavirus pandemic) taking place to show phase 2 of Network Rail's proposals for improving the section of the railway between Huddersfield and Westtown (Dewsbury).

 

Details are available here.

 

It's worth scrolling down to the links showing the proposed designs in far more detail along the route.

Edited March 24, 2020 by 4630
For clarity

[jamie92208]

Thanks for that some interezting stuff and more detail than in the previous circulation.  It's interezting that there is no mention of how they are going to deal with the bridge at the weat end of Huddersfield that forms the intrance to the tunnel.  I was told that a low sewer under that bridge was one of the 6 most difficult structures on the route to modify. Even if electrification  stopped at Huddersfield there would be need for some run on of the wires under the bridge.

 

Jamie

 

 

 

 

[4630]

26 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Thanks for that some interezting stuff and more detail than in the previous circulation.  It's interezting that there is no mention of how they are going to deal with the bridge at the weat end of Huddersfield that forms the intrance to the tunnel.  I was told that a low sewer under that bridge was one of the 6 most difficult structures on the route to modify. Even if electrification  stopped at Huddersfield there would be need for some run on of the wires under the bridge.

 

Jamie

 

 

This was on the Huddersfield pdf, Jamie;

 

1. and 2. Gledholt Tunnels and Huddersfield Tunnels

The railway passes under Springwood to the west
of Huddersfield Station through the Gledholt and Huddersfield Tunnels. As part of the scheme, we
are proposing to install overhead line equipment forelectrification, as well as renewing track and drainage within the tunnels.

To deliver this work, we will need to do it while there
are no trains running, meaning we will need to close the lines through the tunnels. We are aiming to minimise disruption by undertaking this work at the same time as other work in the area, ultimately reducing the amount of time the railway is closed to passengers. Exact timings of the work are yet to be confirmed.

 

 

 

As they're proposing to close the line whilst the work is being undertaken, I'd taken from that that Network Rail are planning to go for something like slab track with associated drainage to give them sufficient clearance for the OLE.

 

There is some interesting detail in the Phase 2 proposals.  It's a shame that the face-to-face consultations are postponed as I'd have liked a chat with NR about some of their proposals. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by 4630
to aid clarity

[4630]

Time to resurrect this thread as there's been an announcement today from Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

 

This is not the announcement (yet) for the full TransPennine Route Upgrade (TPU) scheme but, hopefully at least, the funding does start to move the project forward.  It's probably a case of 'one step forward'.

 

The press release is here.

 

I imagine that a further press release or statement will come from Network Rail in due course.

 

[Barry O]

good news .. when are they starting? and when will they get rid of the north end of Leeds station bottleneck?

 

Bad news.. another layer of "talking" rather than getting on with it...

 

Baz

[Mike Storey]

12 hours ago, 4630 said:

Time to resurrect this thread as there's been an announcement today from Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

 

This is not the announcement (yet) for the full TransPennine Route Upgrade (TPU) scheme but, hopefully at least, the funding does start to move the project forward.  It's probably a case of 'one step forward'.

 

The press release is here.

 

I imagine that a further press release or statement will come from Network Rail in due course.

 

 

This is primarily approval of the NR Upgrade scheme advocated in the summer of 2019. Why has it taken this long to approve what is essentially, a minor fettling scheme, adding electrification only on the easy bits, with a bit of 4 track reinstatement?

 

The Acceleration Council just seems to be, yet another, layer of decision makers over and above the Northern Powerhouse and Transport (for the) North bodies set up only a year or two ago. Is it just to accommodate those councils who refused to join, or who were denied access to, Northern Powerhouse?

 

As for the announcement of a decision about a decision to settle the Northern Powerhouse project, for the end of this year, that is only a mere 15 months later than advertised. And it is holding up HS2 Phase 2B.

 

I have never been impressed with Mr Shapps, and am even less so now.