Manchester - Stalybridge Electrification

[lejog]

100mph limit is not realistic between Manchester and Leeds without significant tunneling which may as well be much faster. Looking through Lord Adonis report from last year 40 minutes seems to be a realistic target for the services while avoiding the need to wait for TWAs and CPOs. A 802 could probably get very close to it without further work if it was given a clear run. Adonis list highlighted multiple 4 tracking options plus reopening the viaduct into Leeds to reduce congestion approaching the station. A few moderate line speed improvements and much less congestion should be enough to have a 40 minute journey time for services that only stop once. If or when the route is electrified journey time could drop to maybe 35 minutes? The Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds should hopefully drop to 75 (33+3+39) minutes by the end of the franchise maybe lower with further work between Liverpool and Manchester.

Have you watched the presentation linked to by Gralistair in post #12? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGnTgdWfh4 38mins in a diagram shows speeds of 80 to 100mph possible between Manchester and Leeds through linespeed upgrades (although cost unspecified) which should reduce the current 49min journey time close to the 40min target.

However the presentation also confirmed what was rumoured at the time the electrification project was paused, that straight electrification costs had risen to £650m and produced a zero reduction in journey times, due to the "difficulty" of 185s being high performance DMUs. Will electrification of the realigned line give any improved journey time with the planned new stock? Frankly I doubt it would and certainly not enough to provide the basis of a business case.

Certainly it seems possible what was reported to be said at another seminar may be true, especially if electrification costs have now escalated over £1bn.

Latest I heard this week is that if target times of 40 minute to Leeds and 62 minutes to York from Manchester can be achieved by diesel traction then there will be no wires saving £1.3b.

 

[Greybeard33]

Have you watched the presentation linked to by Gralistair in post #12? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGnTgdWfh4 38mins in a diagram shows speeds of 80 to 100mph possible between Manchester and Leeds through linespeed upgrades (although cost unspecified) which should reduce the current 49min journey time close to the 40min target.

However the presentation also confirmed what was rumoured at the time the electrification project was paused, that straight electrification costs had risen to £650m and produced a zero reduction in journey times, due to the "difficulty" of 185s being high performance DMUs. Will electrification of the realigned line give any improved journey time with the planned new stock? Frankly I doubt it would and certainly not enough to provide the basis of a business case.

Certainly it seems possible what was reported to be said at another seminar may be true, especially if electrification costs have now escalated over £1bn.

Do we yet know if TPE's new LHCS, when diesel hauled, will be able to match the hill climbing performance of the 185s? Likewise the 802s, when operating off the wires? If not, the rolling stock "improvements" might also improve the case for electrification!

 

[edwin_m]

Do we yet know if TPE's new LHCS, when diesel hauled, will be able to match the hill climbing performance of the 185s? Likewise the 802s, when operating off the wires? If not, the rolling stock "improvements" might also improve the case for electrification!

I would guess both are slightly slower than the 185s between Stalybridge and Leeds with the same infrastructure and stopping patterns, with the LHCS being slower than the 802s. However the infrastructure improvements probably cancel this pit, and the extra stops that the 185s will make are likely to bring the end-to-end times quite close.

 

[lejog]

Do we yet know if TPE's new LHCS, when diesel hauled, will be able to match the hill climbing performance of the 185s? Likewise the 802s, when operating off the wires? If not, the rolling stock "improvements" might also improve the case for electrification!

Well, if that's the case, we'll see journey time increases when the 185s are replaced by this inferior stock and then be paying £650m to £1.3bn to claw the journey times back! Not much basis for a business case there I fear.

I'm afraid I was less impressed by the presentation than some other posters, having also discovered such wonderful news that TPE are providing new services on the Calder Valley line via both Brighouse and Bradford (can't wait!). Also that Northern are buying 195s for their stopping services from Huddersfield to Wakefield, Bradford and Leeds (Leeds???). That would presumably be all the 195s displaced from the Calder Valley lines by the new TPE services. :roll:

 

[Chester1]

Well, if that's the case, we'll see journey time increases when the 185s are replaced by this inferior stock and then be paying £650m to £1.3bn to claw the journey times back! Not much basis for a business case there I fear.

I'm afraid I was less impressed by the presentation than some other posters, having also discovered such wonderful news that TPE are providing new services on the Calder Valley line via both Brighouse and Bradford (can't wait!). Also that Northern are buying 195s for their stopping services from Huddersfield to Wakefield, Bradford and Leeds (Leeds???). That would presumably be all the 195s displaced from the Calder Valley lines by the new TPE services. :roll:

I would be surprised if Edwin_m is correct for the reason you have mentioned. If the new trains were slower than 185s then new stock would have been bought for South TP instead and its 185s used to boost capacity on North TP.

 

[IanXC]

Do we yet know if TPE's new LHCS, when diesel hauled, will be able to match the hill climbing performance of the 185s? Likewise the 802s, when operating off the wires? If not, the rolling stock "improvements" might also improve the case for electrification!

I think the only thing we know for sure is that Class 68s with longer, older rakes, easily keep to time on Chiltern.

I'm afraid I was less impressed by the presentation than some other posters, having also discovered such wonderful news that TPE are providing new services on the Calder Valley line via both Brighouse and Bradford (can't wait!). Also that Northern are buying 195s for their stopping services from Huddersfield to Wakefield, Bradford and Leeds (Leeds???). That would presumably be all the 195s displaced from the Calder Valley lines by the new TPE services. :roll:

Yes I thought that was quite poor, I think what we actually had was 'transpennine' ie small 't' and that the subsequent inaccuracies lead from that.

 

[edwin_m]

I would be surprised if Edwin_m is correct for the reason you have mentioned. If the new trains were slower than 185s then new stock would have been bought for South TP instead and its 185s used to boost capacity on North TP.

Class 185:
10.3kW/tonne
50% of weight on powered axles.

Class 800/1 on diesel (can't find data for 802):
7kW/tonne (assuming engines at full rating)
60% of weight on powered axles

Class 68 plus five Mk5 coaches:
9.3kW/tonne
29% of weight on powered axles

I rest my case.

 

[Chester1]

Class 185:
10.3kW/tonne
50% of weight on powered axles.

Class 800/1 on diesel (can't find data for 802):
7kW/tonne (assuming engines at full rating)
60% of weight on powered axles

Class 68 plus five Mk5 coaches:
9.3kW/tonne
29% of weight on powered axles

I rest my case.

Aren't there reduced line speeds for 185s because of their weight. There is negligible difference between a 185 and a 158 on South TP. It would be absurd for the Hull service to be faster than Newcastle/Edinburgh between Manchester and Leeds!

 

[Greybeard33]

I would be surprised if Edwin_m is correct for the reason you have mentioned. If the new trains were slower than 185s then new stock would have been bought for South TP instead and its 185s used to boost capacity on North TP.

Remember that TPE's rolling stock plan was based on the assumption, specified in the 2015 franchise ITT, that North TPE would be electrified by, or soon after, 2020. On this assumption, the 68s could have been an interim solution, to be replaced by 88s once the wires were up. According to Wikipedia, a 88 (under the wires) has a power output of 4MW, versus 2.8MW for a 68. TPE would not have won the franchise if its bid had proposed keeping North TPE 185-operated after electrification.

Once the wires were up between Manchester and York, the LHCS sets (hauled by 88s) could have worked the Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the bi-modes going to Middlesbrough and Scarborough (and using the juice over the hills).

 

[Chester1]

Remember that TPE's rolling stock plan was based on the assumption, specified in the 2015 franchise ITT, that North TPE would be electrified by, or soon after, 2020. On this assumption, the 68s could have been an interim solution, to be replaced by 88s once the wires were up. According to Wikipedia, a 88 (under the wires) has a power output of 4MW, versus 2.8MW for a 68. TPE would not have won the franchise if its bid had proposed keeping North TPE 185-operated after electrification.

Once the wires were up between Manchester and York, the LHCS sets (hauled by 88s) could have worked the Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the bi-modes going to Middlesbrough and Scarborough (and using the juice over the hills).

If the TP electrification is going to be delayed for several years then it sounds like there needs to be major shake up to put all 185s on Northern TP. The Mark Vs and 802s are too long for all of South TP route but they would be good between Manchester and Sheffield. Perhaps the best solution would be for TPE to have their wish and takeover Liverpool-Nottingham and use 6 of the loco hauled Mark V sets on this service and use the 22 spare 185s doubled up on Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough. They would be supplemented by 2 sets, leaving 5 out of the 13 loco hauled Mark 5 sets for spares and for extra services. That would free up a dozen or so EMT 158s for cascading. While 185s are not ideal for TPE they are adequate for skip stop, Hull, Scarborough and Middlesborough and Cleethorpes services. Time is more important for these routes and comfort for Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow services. It does make the decision to focus journey time improvements on line speed rather than electrification a little odd to say the least.

 

[edwin_m]

Aren't there reduced line speeds for 185s because of their weight. There is negligible difference between a 185 and a 158 on South TP. It would be absurd for the Hull service to be faster than Newcastle/Edinburgh between Manchester and Leeds!

There are on South TP - or more correctly there are higher differential speeds that 158s can use but 185s can't. As far as I know there are none on North TP. If they put the loco-hauled sets on South TP they would also not be able to use the higher speeds, but I guess it's possible 802s might be allowed to.

 

[Foggycorner]

Why when this is a thread about Manchester to Stalybridge electrification INFRASTRUCTURE and the progress of works thereof has the last 3 pages been filled with waffle guesses and dreams about the transpenine beyond stalybridge which should be in the correct thread
get back on track or get off

 

[Chester1]

Why when this is a thread about Manchester to Stalybridge electrification INFRASTRUCTURE and the progress of works thereof has the last 3 pages been filled with waffle guesses and dreams about the transpenine beyond stalybridge which should be in the correct thread
get back on track or get off

Because forum threads like conversations have the tenancy to go off topic. The moderators can split the thread if they like.

The business case for electrification to Stalybridge is reliant on transpennine electrification and the changes to the latter seem to have nearly killed the former.

 

[lejog]

Why when this is a thread about Manchester to Stalybridge electrification INFRASTRUCTURE and the progress of works thereof has the last 3 pages been filled with waffle guesses and dreams about the transpenine beyond stalybridge which should be in the correct thread
get back on track or get off

I agree most of the discussion should be in the old Transpennine Electrification thread retitled Transpennine Route Upgrade/Electrification, but then again shouldn't this thread be retitled Victoria to Miles Platting electrification? Stalybridge electrification now seems to be as much waffle and dreams as the rest of the route.

 

[snowball]

Latest pictures from Ashton posted on SSC by Ashtonian:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=141175484&postcount=3593

and by ashtonphil:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=141181437&postcount=3594

 

[Foggycorner]

Thank you snowball for the pictures links bringing us progress at Ashton U L
Is it me or does that mechanical distant look a bit lost and out of place amidst the upgrading of the civil engineering works

 

[snowball]

From the Northern Programme Twitter feed, described as the new Turner Lane bridge, but looks more like half of it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEn5hjUXYAAQRv3.jpg

 

[Hophead]

I agree most of the discussion should be in the old Transpennine Electrification thread retitled Transpennine Route Upgrade/Electrification, but then again shouldn't this thread be retitled Victoria to Miles Platting electrification? Stalybridge electrification now seems to be as much waffle and dreams as the rest of the route.

Stalybridge seems the obvious place to terminate a couple (per hour) of the shortly to be increased electric services from north and west of Manchester.

 

[snowball]

Stalybridge seems the obvious place to terminate a couple (per hour) of the shortly to be increased electric services from north and west of Manchester.

NR agreed until recently but now seem to have been caught short for funds, at least for the remainder of CP5, perhaps for longer.

 

[Chester1]

Stalybridge seems the obvious place to terminate a couple (per hour) of the shortly to be increased electric services from north and west of Manchester.

NR agreed until recently but now seem to have been caught short for funds, at least for the remainder of CP5, perhaps for longer.

The clearance works have all been completed so once track upgrades have been completed it would be a straightforward work to do. Out of all the electrification projects hanging in the balance it is one of the most likely to be done during CP6. There is not the demand yet to make it necessary to extend services through to Stalybridge.

 

[Greybeard33]

The clearance works have all been completed so once track upgrades have been completed it would be a straightforward work to do. Out of all the electrification projects hanging in the balance it is one of the most likely to be done during CP6. There is not the demand yet to make it necessary to extend services through to Stalybridge.

The Northern timetable plan for May 2018 includes a DMU shuttle between Stalybridge and Victoria. Once the wires are up the Preston to Victoria EMU service can be extended to Stalybridge instead. That will reduce costs, increase capacity and enable that DMU to be redeployed to strengthen another diagram.

 

[lejog]

Stalybridge seems the obvious place to terminate a couple (per hour) of the shortly to be increased electric services from north and west of Manchester.

And how is this infrastructure related???? Perhaps you might like to get back on track:roll: Of course discussion of rolling stock and infrastructure cannot be unlinked.

Under the franchise agreement, Northern did indeed have a commitment to run 2tph from Stalybridge to the North West, expressed as x tpd to Salford Crescent. However under the proposed Northern May 2018 timetable there will be one tph from Stalybridge to the North West (presumably a 319 flex) and an hourly Victoria to Stalybridge shuttle (either Northern have found a spare DMU somewhere or its another 319 flex).

The DfT bore the risk of delays to electrification (i.e had to pay for a solution) under the Northern contract and the solution obviously in part is to pay for the 319 flexes, another is to change the train service requirements. TPE bear the risk of delays to electrification in their contract, which is presumably why they went for bimodes/LHCS.

But now that the problem is out of the way, there is no imperative on the DfT to pay out for Stalybridge electrification at this time, especially with overspent budgets and spiralling costs.

With IIRC the "increased electric services" to Victoria amounting to 1 EMU ph from Blackpool, then even electrifiction to Miles Platting may be unnecessary at the moment.

 

[lejog]

The clearance works have all been completed so once track upgrades have been completed it would be a straightforward work to do. Out of all the electrification projects hanging in the balance it is one of the most likely to be done during CP6. There is not the demand yet to make it necessary to extend services through to Stalybridge.

According to the youtube presentation discussed earlier, NR are working to a plan of completing both infrastructure and electrification of the transpennine route by December 2022. Since significant linespeed (sorry permissible speed) improvements seem to be planned at Miles Platting and west of Stalybridge, just as the rest of the route, I would be surprised if Stalybridge was planned any earlier than this.

Of course I'd be amazed if these plans ever get the go ahead, but thats a different discussion.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With IIRC the "increased electric services" to Victoria amounting to 1 EMU ph from Blackpool, then even electrifiction to Miles Platting may be unnecessary at the moment.

There will be one less EMU to the west next year with the diversion of the Chat Moss stopper to the Airport.
But by 2019 we should have TPE 802s using the wires west of Victoria.

 

[IanXC]

The Northern timetable plan for May 2018 includes a DMU shuttle between Stalybridge and Victoria. Once the wires are up the Preston to Victoria EMU service can be extended to Stalybridge instead. That will reduce costs, increase capacity and enable that DMU to be redeployed to strengthen another diagram.

This was something I wondered when I heard of this shuttle, but I'm told there is no suitable service from any origin at Victoria that could be extended to take this path.

If we assume electrification to Stalybridge then it would be safe to assume this was intended to be an EMU, perhaps effectively a hot spare that could be used to cover a failure, with it being coverable by a diesel.

Whether the apparent lack of wires to Stalybridge was known when this timetable was devised we can only guess at!

 

[deltic08]

Was anyone else from here at that seminar, and if so, is there any of the detail they feel free to pass on? It sounds as though the speeds being cited were different from those in the document referenced to us by Gralistair that I mentioned in post #20. There it is 80 Stalybridge to Diggle (with a dip to 70 in the middle), 100 through the tunnel, and then 90/95 down to Huddersfield (with a very short dip to 85 between the 90 and the 95). After Huddersfield it goes up to 100 to Dewsbury, with no dip at Heaton Lodge — which implies quite a major change there. There's no 125 except between Church Fenton and York.

I can't see the logic in increasing speed from 85 to 100mph in the tunnel only a few yards over three miles when there is a 40mph speed limit at the east end. That will allow less than two miles at 100mph in either direction.

 

[deltic08]

That is my understanding too. I think the Dft spokesman may be wrong. And talked about 125mph for TPE in terms of units that can now use it on the ECML.

From what i understand once you get above 100 mph the position of stopping trains pretty much becomes untenable so they don't see value for money.

As he is the person at the DfT with responsibility for upgrading speed between Manchester and Leeds I hardly think he is likely to get it wrong and I am not that stupid in thinking he was talking about Church Fenton-York at 125mph or trains capable of that speed operated by TPE.

 

[deltic08]

On the same general subject, I'm sure I seem to recall that when the Leeds layout was modernised it was originally intended for speeds of 25 both in and out, but now it is 25 out but 15 in on all routes, with a significant loss of seconds as a result. Is my memory playing tricks with me?

Is it only 15mph into west end bay platforms where it is downhill towards the buffer stops? Entry from the east is 25mph all routes even into the two bays.

 

[Senex]

Is it only 15mph into west end bay platforms where it is downhill towards the buffer stops? Entry from the east is 25mph all routes even into the two bays.

Unless I'm misinterpreting, this seems to indicate 15 in on all the through lines as well as on those bays.

At Marsden it seems the aim is 55 instead of 45, but certainly if entry to the tunnel is 80 and exit is 55 there won't be much actual 100 inside it!

 

[lejog]

As he is the person at the DfT with responsibility for upgrading speed between Manchester and Leeds I hardly think he is likely to get it wrong and I am not that stupid in thinking he was talking about Church Fenton-York at 125mph or trains capable of that speed operated by TPE.

It may be that the DfT and NR are describing different options. At the NR presentation in March the attached was described the "potential linespeed for the route", but you can see that it is in fact labelled "speed profile PO5". No doubt there are other profiles at other prices - single option selection is apparently not due until December.