Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[APOLLO]

How about adding.....

More fuel efficient

Diesel fuel is increasingly costly

Lower CO² emissions (putting aside the argument about moving CO² production to the power stations etc.)

Reduced track wear & therefore maintenance

Lower maintenance costs incurred with the loco or MU

Quieter for the surrounding environment

and in the case of underfloor diesel engines, electric traction is much quieter for the passengers

 

 

All true, but well more than 50% of trains passing my house, just north of Wigan on the WCML are diesel. Most freights, Liverpool - Preston DMU, Voyagers Birmingham - Glasgow / Edinburgh (100% electrified route). The class 66 diesel hauled freights are alot quieter than the Pendolino's too.

 

As to the tunnels on the standedge route (don't forget Morley either - a fairly long one), I remember reading about the early LNER Woodhead electrification plans - apparently they where going to electrify the OLD Woodhead tunnels. Tunnel condition, not clearance dictated otherwise post WW2. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

In my opinion THE main reason for electrification of any route is energy driven. As oilfields deplete over time, and oil is ever more costly / politically sensitive, it makes sense to electrify. The whole main line network needs converting over time, say the next 20 years or so.

 

Electrified railways are the future.

 

Brit15

[Edwin_m]

Electric trains have better acceleration than diesels so the speed restrictions are less of a problem. I think most of the ones mentioned by Coachmann will remain but they will have less effect on the journey time. However capacity could become a serious issue.

 

I took a look at the remains of the Friezland loop not so long ago and the results can be summarised in two words "forget it". All five (?) viaducts, all the underbridges and most of the earthworks have gone, the short tunnel south of Greenfield is buried and the formation is built over in several places. So reopening that isn't really an option.

 

The maximum practicable train length via Standedge is probably 8 cars (of 20m stock) dictated by the platforms at Huddersfield which would be difficult to lengthen and where all trains would probably still have to call. Given the amount of overcrowding now, and the extra demand generated by faster journeys, you're probably looking at all trains being made up to that length at the busiest times from the start of electric services. Further growth will require more trains above the four fasts per hour today (the RUS proposes a fifth).

 

Five trains per hour, with similar speed profiles, isn't a lot but the difficulty then becomes fitting the slower locals and freight in the gaps. You could remove the local and stop each fast at a couple of minor stations but then you're back into train length issues as most of them have much shorter platforms. The remodelled Stalybridge will have three through platforms, allowing fast trains to overtake slower ones, but that does no more than restore the situation of today when the local only mixes with the Transpennines east of Stalybridge. Electric locals and (less likely) electric freight would also help reduce the difference in speed, but the shortish loops at Diggle and Marsden are unlikely to be enough especially if freight increases. DRS has just started running a Transpennine intermodal freight, which I assume goes via Standege, and this is a sign that rail is getting more competitive for the relatively short distances involved.

 

Putting track back at least one of the Standedge single bores has been suggested as the easiest way of providing a long loop, has the advantage of being level so looped freights can get moving more quickly, and would also help keep the trains running if one of the tunnels is under maintenance. Alternatively it should be possible to find somewhere on the former four-track section either at Diggle or between Marsden and Huddersfield.

 

Freight could also be diverted via Calder Valley and Brighouse, which has gentler gradients but is now has four passenger trains per hour in parts. It has no loops at present but several former four-track sections that might be reinstated, and it would require gauge enhancement as it is more restrictive than Standedge now (Standedge is W8 now but would probably be W10/W12 after electrification, don't recall the gauge on Calder Valley).

Edited December 2, 2011 by Edwin_m

[The Stationmaster]

With modern units platform length needn't necessarily be a problem as SDO (Selective Door Opening) is not a technically insurmountable problem. Operationally long trains can present other problems but that's a different matter.

[Edwin_m]

With modern units platform length needn't necessarily be a problem as SDO (Selective Door Opening) is not a technically insurmountable problem. Operationally long trains can present other problems but that's a different matter.

I think those other problems might arise at Huddersfield. With a tunnel one end and a viaduct the other, trains longer than 8 cars will be standing on the pointwork.

[woodenhead]

These 319 units look way to much like a 150 to please the passengers who have to ride in them IMHO

 

But way better than 142s, I would hope the 319s would displace 150s who in turn would displace the 142s.

[The Stationmaster]

I think those other problems might arise at Huddersfield. With a tunnel one end and a viaduct the other, trains longer than 8 cars will be standing on the pointwork.

No doubt but then how long were the Trans-Pennines and the loco hauleds they replaced? It's a very long time since I travelled across there on a loco hauled train but I don't recall it as being noticeably short (you can tell how long ago from the fact that the first train we travelled on that day had 9017 as the assistant engine up to Talerddig summit and the second train was from Welshpool to Whitchurch via Oswestry).

[Glorious NSE]

...and in the case of Desiro EMU's you get that rather cute "Woo Woo Wibbly Woo Woo Wibbly......." space age noise as they pull away.

 

[Godders]

Yeh Larry, what did the Romans do for us?

How about adding.....

More fuel efficient

Diesel fuel is increasingly costly

Lower CO² emissions (putting aside the argument about moving CO² production to the power stations etc.)

Reduced track wear & therefore maintenance

Lower maintenance costs incurred with the loco or MU

Quieter for the surrounding environment

and in the case of underfloor diesel engines, electric traction is much quieter for the passengers

 

...and in the case of Desiro EMU's you get that rather cute "Woo Woo Wibbly Woo Woo Wibbly......." space age noise as they pull away.

 

The rest of your point may be a reasonable argument, but I'm not qualified to say.

 

.

 

I think some of your arguments are valid.

 

 

More fuel efficient - agreed

Diesel fuel is increasingly costly - so is electrical energy

Lower CO² emissions (putting aside the argument about moving CO² production to the power stations etc.) - how can this be put aside, because it suits your argument

Reduced track wear & therefore maintenance - agreed

Lower maintenance costs incurred with the loco or MU - probably but modern diesel traction is also good

Quieter for the surrounding environment - bit subjective - I live half a mile from the London - Brighton line and can hear quite clearly EMUs rattling through I don't here the 66s

and in the case of underfloor diesel engines, electric traction is much quieter for the passengers - agreed

 

...and in the case of Desiro EMU's you get that rather cute "Woo Woo Wibbly Woo Woo Wibbly......." space age noise as they pull away. - This may be so but I like to hear a diesel turbo winding up.(Unfortunately it's difficult to describe apart from Whoooooooooooooooo...................)

 

However, the capital expenditure and consequent interest must surely be more higher than any savings from running costs. And don't even think about PPP financed by PFI

 

Cheers Godders

[Glorious NSE]

 

 

Diesel fuel is increasingly costly - so is electrical energy

 

 

But one of those we (should!) have some control over, the other is dependant on overseas sources....

 

Lower CO² emissions (putting aside the argument about moving CO² production to the power stations etc.) - how can this be put aside, because it suits your argument

 

I would suggest it needs to be put aside as it depends very much on what produces the electricity. Plug your electric train into a nuclear power station and your electric train is near carbon free...

 

Even a coal fired power station ought to be generating power more efficiently and polluting less than running the equivalent number of underfloor diesel engines!

 

However, the capital expenditure and consequent interest must surely be more higher than any savings from running costs. And don't even think about PPP financed by PFI

 

Not sure I agree there....there's multiple savings and they do add up and multiply.

 

The document just linked to in another place on here in regard to the MML electrification reckons a 45% saving in energy costs, a 33% saving in train maintainence, an 18% saving in leasing costs and an 11% saving in track maintainence costs for example on an ongoing basis...

Edited December 2, 2011 by Glorious NSE

[Ron Ron Ron]

Thanks Martyn, you've just saved me 10 minutes compiling a reply.

 

Could I also add that nobody is going to fund new passenger diesel stock beyond what is currently being produced, unless government takes a firm hand and dips into its own pocket. Except there's almost nowt left in there and they'd come under a hail of Green bullets if they did.

[SHMD]

I must say I agree, the true benefits of electrification are:-

Fuel efficiency,

better acceleration,

image,

political,

quieter,

cleaner (locally anyway),

etc, etc.

 

But don’t expect a drastic improvement in timings, after all most stuff comes down the other side at max as it is anyway without a clean wonderful!

 

Kev.

 

(But looking forward to it anyway.)

(Must take loads of photos before the mess arrives!)

(One footbridge, in Heyrod, was replace 10 years, or so ago, and that was raised to allow the wires under. The other 3 bridges in Heyrod will require work though!)

[SHMD]

As a regular user of the Stalybridge to Manchester route(s), I'm also quite frightenened that the through services will cease to stop at Stalybridge relegating Stalybridge to local traffic only.

 

Kev.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....I'm also quite frightenened that the through services will cease to stop at Stalybridge relegating Stalybridge to local traffic only.

Surely they only need to pick up there ?

[coachmann]

I must say I agree, the true benefits of electrification are:-

Fuel efficiency,

better acceleration,

image,

political,

quieter,

cleaner (locally anyway),

etc, etc.

Taking the North West, all these applied at the time Woodhead was wired up and when trolleybuses hit Manchester and Ashon-U-Lyne. History tells us ideals and politics often lead to expensive follies that Joe Public has to pay for. If the speed-restricted line is to remain the same as it has for the past 160 years, then all that will happen is one form of traction will be replaced by another. The supposed benefits of electrification will barely be felt but this won't matter if it is part of a politically planned move away from oil that has absolutely nothing to do with the environment.

[Edwin_m]

No doubt but then how long were the Trans-Pennines and the loco hauleds they replaced?

 

The DMUs were five-car (six originally) and didn't run in multiple I think - there are people who know far more about these than I do who can give better info! But yes a quick scan of the Jenkins and Quayle book shows nine-car loco-hauled formations in 1979 and 1982 and a couple of ten-cars from earlier than that.

 

However I'd contend that there were fewer trains using the conflicting routes at Huddersfield at that time, and with slower schedules in those days I guess these formations would have stopped twice at Huddersfield or people would have walked through the train. I don't think SDO of a 12-car unit at an 8-car platform would wash, especially if the units in question were 319s without through gangways. And before anyone mentions it Crossrail plan to do something similar, but they will have wide gangways right through their units, and even so a lot of people think they are daft to try it.

 

Another reason not to go to 12-car is that this would be too big for the demand north of York, where some of the platforms served by TPE are even shorter (like Chester-le-Street at 5 cars).

 

In other news, a couple of on-line trade mags have confirmed Alan's statement that the scheme goes through to York, but no mention of Hull, Scarborough or Middlesbrough. Then again one of these reports claimed the electrification would start from Guide Bridge not Victoria, thus nulllifying the reason for the newly-authorised Ordsall Curve.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Edwin_m

[Glorious NSE]

part of a politically planned move away from oil that has absolutely nothing to do with the environment.

 

Personal opinion?

There's lots of talk of global warming - many folk are convinced, many seem unconvinced (either way, this probably isn't the place to delve into it).

 

But irrespective of that argument pollution isn't a good thing, it never has been. Less of it is a good thing in my book, as is less reliance on the availability of oil from the Middle East to move people around the UK...

[coachmann]

I said :

The supposed benefits of electrification will barely be felt but this won't matter if it is part of a politically planned move away from oil that has absolutely nothing to do with the environment.

The key word was 'if' and I was not intending going down the environmental road just as I was not intending going down the electric versus diesel road earlier. Your last paragraph better sums up my thought processes.

[bigd]

The DMUs were five-car (six originally) and didn't run in multiple I think - there are people who know far more about these than I do who can give better info! But yes a quick scan of the Jenkins and Quayle book shows nine-car loco-hauled formations in 1979 and 1982 and a couple of ten-cars from earlier than that. .

 

I remember catching a train to Liverpool composed of a 6 car blue/grey transpennine, with a 2 car blue dmu tacked on the back. The ride in the dmu at the rear got a bit lively once past 70mph!

Edited December 2, 2011 by bigd

[woodenhead]

Then again one of these reports claimed the electrification would start from Guide Bridge not Victoria, thus nulllifying the reason for the newly-authorised Ordsall Curve.

 

They're probably referring to the 2009 RUS document which pre-dates the Ordsall Curve so expected all services to go via Piccadilly only, still makes interesting reading and it states Calder Valley wiring makes for a diversionary route and also refers to the benefits of wiring to Hull and Middlesbrough.

 

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf

Edited December 2, 2011 by woodenhead

[DerekEm8]

In the 1980's, up to 'sprinterisation' the Loco hauled Trans-Pennines were 6 coaches plus a bogie brake. (for mail and parcels- whatever happened to those?) They did shortly before the changeover occaisonally shrink to 4 + brake but i think that was a devious move by BR to get people ready for the 156/158 'revolution' that was following behind.

[woodenhead]

As it's being paid for by Pension funds and Chinese investors, perhaps the Treasury aren't that bothered and it will be for Network Rail to raise the income from track charges and savings to fund repayment

[Edwin_m]

As it's being paid for by Pension funds and Chinese investors, perhaps the Treasury aren't that bothered and it will be for Network Rail to raise the income from track charges and savings to fund repayment

In which case the only government involvement is to make an announcement and to take the credit? Surely not

 

I can't see how getting pension funds to invest is any different from PFI or the Network Rail asset base, and last I heard we were trying to get away from these. Perhaps a pinch of salt is in order regarding whether any of this will actually happen?

[woodenhead]

Despite all the hoo hah about PFI from the Government, it is still the tool of choice I was reading about this only last week and it's frightening how many new PFI schemes had been signed in the past year.

 

The Government has nothing available to spend, it would have to rob Peter to pay Paul - they are attracting long term investments from the private sector - lets face it Europe is in a mess and our railways must look attractive as numbers are still going up so it has to be a safe investment. I think as long the the Government maintains the confidence of the markets it will be able to raise finance which in turn generates jobs which raises tax revenue and so endeth my political slant on this.

[62613]

Electric trains have better acceleration than diesels so the speed restrictions are less of a problem. I think most of the ones mentioned by Coachmann will remain but they will have less effect on the journey time. However capacity could become a serious issue.

 

I took a look at the remains of the Friezland loop not so long ago and the results can be summarised in two words "forget it". All five (?) viaducts, all the underbridges and most of the earthworks have gone, the short tunnel south of Greenfield is buried and the formation is built over in several places. So reopening that isn't really an option.

 

The maximum practicable train length via Standedge is probably 8 cars (of 20m stock) dictated by the platforms at Huddersfield which would be difficult to lengthen and where all trains would probably still have to call. Given the amount of overcrowding now, and the extra demand generated by faster journeys, you're probably looking at all trains being made up to that length at the busiest times from the start of electric services. Further growth will require more trains above the four fasts per hour today (the RUS proposes a fifth).

 

Five trains per hour, with similar speed profiles, isn't a lot but the difficulty then becomes fitting the slower locals and freight in the gaps. You could remove the local and stop each fast at a couple of minor stations but then you're back into train length issues as most of them have much shorter platforms. The remodelled Stalybridge will have three through platforms, allowing fast trains to overtake slower ones, but that does no more than restore the situation of today when the local only mixes with the Transpennines east of Stalybridge. Electric locals and (less likely) electric freight would also help reduce the difference in speed, but the shortish loops at Diggle and Marsden are unlikely to be enough especially if freight increases. DRS has just started running a Transpennine intermodal freight, which I assume goes via Standege, and this is a sign that rail is getting more competitive for the relatively short distances involved.

 

Putting track back at least one of the Standedge single bores has been suggested as the easiest way of providing a long loop, has the advantage of being level so looped freights can get moving more quickly, and would also help keep the trains running if one of the tunnels is under maintenance. Alternatively it should be possible to find somewhere on the former four-track section either at Diggle or between Marsden and Huddersfield.

 

Freight could also be diverted via Calder Valley and Brighouse, which has gentler gradients but is now has four passenger trains per hour in parts. It has no loops at present but several former four-track sections that might be reinstated, and it would require gauge enhancement as it is more restrictive than Standedge now (Standedge is W8 now but would probably be W10/W12 after electrification, don't recall the gauge on Calder Valley).

 

In the 60s, the Regular loading over Standedge was 12 coaches for the Liverpool/ Newcastles, plus usually a class 45/46 Peak. According to Rail magazine, work is in progress at the moment to raise linespeed between Stalybridge and Diggle to 75mph. The spped restriction over the canal tunnel has already gone, I'm fairly sure of that. The linespeed in the Colne Valley is 85mph, due to the fact that when the line was de-quadrified (ugh!) the surviving twin tracks were slewed to ease the curves.

[Alan76]

I think you should set aside all the arguments about whether this is a good thing for the railway industry or its passengers. This is an intensely political thing and it is all about getting people back into work so they pay taxes rather than claim benefits. Someone at DfT has seen a quick win here - the supply chain for the Lancashire traiangle will have been set up, the electrification trains and other equipment bought and the specialist teams recruited and well used to working with each other. So you get a bargain basement price compared with starting from scratch. The practical effect on the railway is a side issue. So, Class 319s will get tickled up to make them more akin to the 185s, though, as the excellent Railway Eye site remarked last week, all this is going to leave the 319s covering more ground than Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve. Particularly given that the replacement Thameslink trains still have to be ordered (we're approaching 1,000 days without a an order for new trains being placed by the way). The really interesting issue now is what happens to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough. DfT has told Network Rail to look at the business case for wiring them up. They'll report back by next July. Hull and Middlesbrough might get through on the basis that, with a few tweaks, you can get wider network benefits, but Scarborough? Cue a row....

 

Alan