Logic of Trans-Pennine Electrification ?

[corfield]

As I understand it (as a Southerner now, but former resident of the North West), Liverpool to Manchester is being wired already, with the Manchester to Leeds TPML(North) route due to be also done.

Given TPEs routes are as follows: Liverpool-Scarborough, Manchester Airport-Newcastle/Sunderland, Manchester-Hull; the only one that could be converted to EMU is the Manc Apt – Newcastle one. 185/170s will have to remain to cover the others as the destinations are all off the wires. I don’t know what the Northern frequency down the TPML(N) corridor is but I thought most services came from various branches & connections and similarly involve off-the-wires sections so won’t be able to go EMU either.

What really is the point of electrifying a route when only a minority of the services on it will be able to take advantage and be converted ? it doesn't really help cascading either. It just seems a lot of money and effort to not take all the benefit if you had used it on an end to end route as is usually the case with electrification schemes.

What, assuming there is something (which I do assume !), am I missing?

The next phase seems to be the MML which leaves the TPML hanging – wouldn't it be better to complete the TPML and branches (which are also shared with the ECML) leaving diesels on the Midland (since the 222s are young and if more branches in Yorks/NE were converted, bi-mode IEPs could replace HSTs on the MML with EC being an all electric affair as it really should be). Or just refurb the HSTs ala S.West plans (since even the two would only require a small part of the current fleet so taking “the best” is still possible).

Are we trying to do it all partially at once, rather than doing each bit properly in turn? And wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to just continue electrifying the TPML spurs/branches rather than start the entire process again on the MML to then come back 5-10 years later and pick up the TPML again ?


On another topic, I'm assuming one impact of HS2 (reason for doing !) is that further speed/major capacity improvements to the WCML, ECML and MML are moot since they now exist a) to handle long distance high speed traffic until HS2 opens and as such need to be left undisrupted to do that and b) when it does open, will be more about slower, short-medium distance and freight services so 140mph and all that will be irrelevant ?

The implication from that is that IEP, for ECML/MML high speed, high capacity service is more an interim solution and thus could be relaxed a bit spec wise.

[Although haven't we been here before with "uber solution" APT and "interim" HST... remind me what happened and which endured....]

 

[northwichcat]

The TPE routes will be revised. The expected eventual new service pattern is:

1/2 hourly Liverpool-Newcastle via Chat Moss and Victoria (express)
1/2 hourly Airport-York via the new Ordsall Chord (express)
1/2 hourly Piccadilly-Leeds/Selby (semi-fast)

To give a total of 4tph from Piccadilly to Leeds via Huddersfield and 4tph from Victoria to Leeds via Huddersfield.

There is the possibly of a diesel service from Manchester to Hull being retained instead of one of the above, which could then switch to electric with future possible Selby-Hull electrification. However, Scarborough and Middlesbrough look unlikely to retain Manchester services at the moment.

But yes it is perhaps a surprise if they are wiring York-Leeds-Manchester to not do Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool as well.

 

[sprinterguy]

Given TPEs routes are as follows: Liverpool-Scarborough, Manchester Airport-Newcastle/Sunderland, Manchester-Hull; the only one that could be converted to EMU is the Manc Apt – Newcastle one.

Just a small, incidental, note; Sunderland hasn’t been served by a Transpennine Express service since 2004, which at the time originated at Liverpool as a bi-hourly extension of the hourly Liverpool to Newcastle service, which has since been altered to originate at Manchester Airport.

Moving back on topic, Northern operate Leeds to Huddersfield and Huddersfield to Manchester local services that will be able to take advantage of electrification, and will most certainly benefit from the additional capacity offered by longer electric trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Moving back on topic, Northern operate Leeds to Huddersfield and Huddersfield to Manchester local services that will be able to take advantage of electrification, and will most certainly benefit from the additional capacity offered by longer electric trains.

The way it's looking is the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will be withdrawn once the Ordsall Chord opens to allow 6tph on North TPE. Network Rail have, however, said due to electric trains having better acceleration a path could be freed up for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper if there is demand for it to run alongside the semi-fasts.

 

[hwl]

...
Are we trying to do it all partially at once, rather than doing each bit properly in turn? And wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to just continue electrifying the TPML spurs/branches rather than start the entire process again on the MML to then come back 5-10 years later and pick up the TPML again ?

As J Collins notes they are altering the service patterns.

Doing it the way they are doing it will mean that the BCRs for electrifying the branches and infill in CP6 onwards will make continued electrification much easier to justify. I.e. come up with a scheme to electrify main route "now" leaving as many bits with sensible BCRs for later.
Each area will have already experienced some recent "sparks" effect so councils and PTEs might be more cooperative?

 

[sprinterguy]

The way it's looking is the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will be withdrawn once the Ordsall Chord opens to allow 6tph on North TPE. Network Rail have, however, said due to electric trains having better acceleration a path could be freed up for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper if there is demand for it to run alongside the semi-fasts.

I had a feeling that I had heard something to this effect: Will the Semi-fasts be picking up the local stops currently covered by the Northern services (In essence meaning that a local stopping service continues, particularly given that there may well no longer be a dedicated Transpennine franchise at that stage), then, even if there is some degree of skip-stop practice introduced?

 

[30907]

But yes it is perhaps a surprise if they are wiring York-Leeds-Manchester to not do Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool as well.

Except that the CLC route would not be served by TP services under the proposals - doing so would require a reversal at Oxford Rd or more services across the throat at Picc. No doubt the CLC will get done as infill sometime...

 

[43074]

What will happen to Middlesbrough & Hull when the new TPE service is introduced with electrification? Scarborough will be part of Blackpool North to York, but it is less clear for the other two. I assume we will see fill-in electrification to Hull in the near future.

 

[northwichcat]

I had a feeling that I had heard something to this effect: Will the Semi-fasts be picking up the local stops currently covered by the Northern services (In essence meaning that a local stopping service continues, particularly given that there may well no longer be a dedicated Transpennine franchise at that stage), then, even if there is some degree of skip-stop practice introduced?

The semi-fasts will do Stalybridge and Dewsbury calls and call at 2 out of Slaithwaite, Marsden, Greenfield and Mossley. Passenger surveys have been undertaken and mostly passengers have been favourable of the changes (local passengers will obviously get a new direct Leeds service and a Piccadilly service instead of a Victoria service.) I'm not sure if calling patterns have been decided on e.g. will it be Slaithwaite and Marsden served by one service followed by Greenfield and Mossley on the next service.

Ashton will very likely get a replacement service in the form of an additional Victoria-Stalybridge service every hour.

The four TPE services every hour serving Victoria are set to only call at Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Except that the CLC route would not be served by TP services under the proposals - doing so would require a reversal at Oxford Rd or more services across the throat at Picc. No doubt the CLC will get done as infill sometime...

Under the current plans a designated TPE franchise operator (as it is currently) will probably have Virgin's view of needing some diesel units or locos to use on the new electric routes in the event of diversionary routes being utilised. If Northern and TPE are reorganised then that should help reduce the chance of a franchise operator saying they need to use diesels.

Currently EMT and TPE both divert via Chat Moss if all of Warrington line is closed. If it's just Warrington/South Parkway-Liverpool closed then one usually terminates short and the other diverts.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As I understand it (as a Southerner now, but former resident of the North West), Liverpool to Manchester is being wired already, with the Manchester to Leeds TPML(North) route due to be also done.

Given TPEs routes are as follows: Liverpool-Scarborough, Manchester Airport-Newcastle/Sunderland, Manchester-Hull; the only one that could be converted to EMU is the Manc Apt – Newcastle one. 185/170s will have to remain to cover the others as the destinations are all off the wires. I don’t know what the Northern frequency down the TPML(N) corridor is but I thought most services came from various branches & connections and similarly involve off-the-wires sections so won’t be able to go EMU either.

What really is the point of electrifying a route when only a minority of the services on it will be able to take advantage and be converted ? it doesn't really help cascading either. It just seems a lot of money and effort to not take all the benefit if you had used it on an end to end route as is usually the case with electrification schemes.

What, assuming there is something (which I do assume !), am I missing?

The next phase seems to be the MML which leaves the TPML hanging – wouldn't it be better to complete the TPML and branches (which are also shared with the ECML) leaving diesels on the Midland (since the 222s are young and if more branches in Yorks/NE were converted, bi-mode IEPs could replace HSTs on the MML with EC being an all electric affair as it really should be). Or just refurb the HSTs ala S.West plans (since even the two would only require a small part of the current fleet so taking “the best” is still possible).

Are we trying to do it all partially at once, rather than doing each bit properly in turn? And wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to just continue electrifying the TPML spurs/branches rather than start the entire process again on the MML to then come back 5-10 years later and pick up the TPML again ?


On another topic, I'm assuming one impact of HS2 (reason for doing !) is that further speed/major capacity improvements to the WCML, ECML and MML are moot since they now exist a) to handle long distance high speed traffic until HS2 opens and as such need to be left undisrupted to do that and b) when it does open, will be more about slower, short-medium distance and freight services so 140mph and all that will be irrelevant ?

The implication from that is that IEP, for ECML/MML high speed, high capacity service is more an interim solution and thus could be relaxed a bit spec wise.

[Although haven't we been here before with "uber solution" APT and "interim" HST... remind me what happened and which endured....]

Firstly, what has been announced now may not be the end. Often small schemes are added onto large schemes which just cover the core. Such as adding the branches of GWML, adding Swansea and Cardiff Valleys. Or adding Leeds NW and cambridge to ECML...
First Hull Trains want Hull to be done and may be willing to stump up some cash, Scarbrough will not be done and most likely become a shuttle and middlsborough well i dont really want to comment.
On top of that they are changing the network slightly, with services moving over the electrified routes.

Secondly, in general the current principal is to get the core routes done (york to manc, GWML and the MML) to make the infills case improve drastically. W

The infills come in CP6 so there will be no going away and coming back at extra expense.

 

[tbtc]

We know that the current service pattern will change at least once (as jcollins has pointed out), so I wouldn't worry too much about only a handful of EMUs running through Huddersfield.

Also, we need to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that because (say) Scarborough has a direct service to Liverpool there's any significant demand between the two. If some of the eastern places lose direct services to western termini then I doubt a huge number of people will be inconvenienced.

The main markets from Middlesbrough/ Scarborough are York/ Leeds, so as long as these are maintained then that's the main thing.

You could even argue that running the Scarborough service to Blackpool North may be more beneficial as it'll provide a direct link from the Calder Valley and Blackpool to Scarborough which may mean more tourists (not that Scarborough is *just* a tourist town, of course, don't mean to sound patronising).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is certainly a political element to the electrification plans, going back to Andrew Adonis's initial approval of GW and Liverpool-Manchester.
He wanted meaningful schemes which would kick-start the electrification process, but with limited Treasury money.
GW satisfied the Thames Valley, west country and Wales (and came at the key point of HST replacement), Liv-Man satisfied the north-west and the PTEs.
Left to itself NR would have wired the MML (claiming it had the best business case), but the East Mids didn't cut it politically.

However, the main Liv-Man route was the CLC, and there is still head-scratching about why the Chat Moss route was preferred.
Probably because it fits in more easily with Northern Hub and the NW/TP extensions we now have.
Warrington, in particular, can feel aggrieved at being left out.

But they had to start somewhere, to break the gordian knot of no new wires in the north-west for 40 years.
Hopefully, lots of good things will flow from it.

 

[northwichcat]

However, the main Liv-Man route was the CLC, and there is still head-scratching about why the Chat Moss route was preferred.

Initially (before Huddersfield, Bolton and Blackpool were included) Chat Moss was seen as an diversionary WCML route that was unelectrified. For instance, Scotland-Birmingham/London trains could go via Manchester if Wigan-Crewe was closed using fully electrified track and Liverpool-London trains could use it if Acton Bridge-Liverpool was closed again using fully electrified track.

However, given the unelectrified bit of the CLC between Liverpool South Parkway and Trafford Park gets 2 stoppers and a TPE service every hour currently it seems to be a high enough frequency to have justified being included as part of North TPE electrification.

 

[rebmcr]

the unelectrified bit of the CLC between Liverpool South Parkway and Trafford Park gets 2 stoppers and a TPE service every hour currently

And the EMT every hour.

it seems to be a high enough frequency to have justified being included as part of North TPE electrification.

The TPE service is moving to the Chat Moss though.

 

[scarby]

Also, we need to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that because (say) Scarborough has a direct service to Liverpool there's any significant demand between the two. If some of the eastern places lose direct services to western termini then I doubt a huge number of people will be inconvenienced.

The main markets from Middlesbrough/ Scarborough are York/ Leeds, so as long as these are maintained then that's the main thing.

I would prefer a half-hourly service Scarborough-York. This requires just 4 units to shuttle back and forth.

Those who would lose most from this would be anyone who commutes Scarborough-Leeds.

The pay-off would be a much-welcomed increase in frequency, which this double track throughout route can easily accommodate. One train an hour is quite poor and not a great incentive for people to ditch the car.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And the EMT every hour.



The TPE service is moving to the Chat Moss though.

The EMT service will stay on the CLC route. It's also possible (maybe even likely) that the Northern (or 'Greater Northern' including TPE) franchisee will wish to add an additional semi-fast along the CLC though: there should be enough diesel vehicles cascaded from those routes wired to allow this, even allowing for lengthening on various diesel routes.

 

[northwichcat]

And the EMT every hour.

The TPE service is moving to the Chat Moss though.

I was meaning there would have been 3tph in each direction that could have switched to electric on the CLC if the CLC had been put forward for electrification instead of or as well as Chat Moss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The EMT service will stay on the CLC route. It's also possible (maybe even likely) that the Northern (or 'Greater Northern' including TPE) franchisee will wish to add an additional semi-fast along the CLC though: there should be enough diesel vehicles cascaded from those routes wired to allow this, even allowing for lengthening on various diesel routes.

There's possibly going to be more trains coming from the Sheffield direction to Manchester and beyond.

Liverpool-Norwich may be re-routed to avoid Sheffield with a replacement Sheffield-Manchester and Sheffield-Nottingham service (not necessarily joined up.)

Also Network Rail have been looking at options for portion working for Sheffield-Manchester and beyond services.

 

[tbtc]

There is certainly a political element to the electrification plans, going back to Andrew Adonis's initial approval of GW and Liverpool-Manchester.
He wanted meaningful schemes which would kick-start the electrification process, but with limited Treasury money.
GW satisfied the Thames Valley, west country and Wales (and came at the key point of HST replacement), Liv-Man satisfied the north-west and the PTEs.
Left to itself NR would have wired the MML (claiming it had the best business case), but the East Mids didn't cut it politically.

I think that's a fair summary - Adonis seemed to want the biggest "bang" for his money, rather than the best thing for the railway.

However, the main Liv-Man route was the CLC, and there is still head-scratching about why the Chat Moss route was preferred.
Probably because it fits in more easily with Northern Hub and the NW/TP extensions we now have.
Warrington, in particular, can feel aggrieved at being left out.

But they had to start somewhere, to break the gordian knot of no new wires in the north-west for 40 years.
Hopefully, lots of good things will flow from it.

given the unelectrified bit of the CLC between Liverpool South Parkway and Trafford Park gets 2 stoppers and a TPE service every hour currently it seems to be a high enough frequency to have justified being included as part of North TPE electrification.

The CLC has to be one of the first things on the list for CP6 - both ends are wired, it can sustain at least four trains an hour, the "stoppers" would be self contained under the wires, EMUs would allow stoppers to fit better between faster services (e.g. more capacity)...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would prefer a half-hourly service Scarborough-York. This requires just 4 units to shuttle back and forth.

Those who would lose most from this would be anyone who commutes Scarborough-Leeds.

The pay-off would be a much-welcomed increase in frequency, which this double track throughout route can easily accommodate. One train an hour is quite poor and not a great incentive for people to ditch the car.

I suppose at least a stand alone shuttle would be self contained from the platforms in the north eastern corner of York station, so not contaminated by delays on the ECML

 

[Bevan Price]

The EMT service will stay on the CLC route. It's also possible (maybe even likely) that the Northern (or 'Greater Northern' including TPE) franchisee will wish to add an additional semi-fast along the CLC though: there should be enough diesel vehicles cascaded from those routes wired to allow this, even allowing for lengthening on various diesel routes.

Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Liverpool - Manchester Airport service may revert to the CLC route, when the current electrification works are complete.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Chat moss was chosen for electrification first because of the link to the west coast main line at Newton le willows and earlstown already being electrified and so the work could take advantage of feeder stations already in the area, thereby bringing the initial costs of the work down. This also enables the Scottish TPE trains to switch to electric traction far earlier in the scheme than Bolton would have allowed, which at first announcement was not going to be wired. It was all a ploy to make the original announcement look good until further plans were confirmed and announced!

 

[IanXC]

I would prefer a half-hourly service Scarborough-York. This requires just 4 units to shuttle back and forth.

I haven't looked at this in detail, but I suspect that with layover time the Hull services have in Scarborough it ought to be possible to interwork them, and potentially reduce the unit requirement to 3 for such a shuttle.

More broadly we have to think about what the East Coast franchise will do with its 12(ish) daily IEP bimode diagrams. I suspect these may replace the TPE service to Middlesborough, and maybe even bi hourly to Scarborough.

I suspect Hull may well be wired at the same time as TP North. It seems that the relevant parties are keen, and the cost ought to be relatively low, from what I have heard I suspect the DfT want the industry to find the cash for it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Liverpool - Manchester Airport service may revert to the CLC route, when the current electrification works are complete.

I'd have thought the Liverpool-MIA service would stay on Chat Moss, as it would be able to switch to electric traction- surely it would make more sense for CLC services to serve other un-electrified destinations at the Eastern end?

 

[northwichcat]

I'd have thought the Liverpool-MIA service would stay on Chat Moss, as it would be able to switch to electric traction- surely it would make more sense for CLC services to serve other un-electrified destinations at the Eastern end?

Short term (up until Ordsall Chord opens) it probably will as TPE are to continue to run Liverpool-Warrington-Scarborough alongside Liverpool-Victoria-Newcastle. Although, I don't think there are any firm plans for that service long term.

Also note with the delays to Thameslink only a limited number of EMUs will be available for Northern to take on - the 317/7s (minus 2 that are becoming spot hire units to show off 2 types of possible refurbishment) and up to 8 indirectly freed up EMUs from the Southern order for 40 EMU carriages in 5 car formation.

 

[D365]

Also note with the delays to Thameslink only a limited number of EMUs will be available for Northern to take on - the 317/7s (minus 2 that are becoming spot hire units to show off 2 types of possible refurbishment) and up to 8 indirectly freed up EMUs from the Southern order for 40 EMU carriages in 5 car formation.

No, only 317722 is prototyping the rebuild; two carriages will be refurbished with a 'metro' layout with the other two remaining in 317/7 specification. At least 8 317/7s are available. Would the further 8 be 319s 'freed' from Thameslink? Replaced by 377/2s which are replaced on WLL by the add-on DV 377/6s (or /7s I hear).

 

[corfield]

Thanks for the informative replies - I've a much better understanding of the services now and it seems that the effort will be more useful than it appeared to me. I assume at some point a Trans-Pennine Electric Express procurement will be needed, tied in with LM 350 replacement.

I agree doing to Hull would be beneficial for TP as well as EC services, this is perhaps the best example of what I was getting at in terms of completing the TPML and getting max benefit from the effort before switching to do something else (MML as programmed).


Yorkshirebear. I dont know if you read my post or its just that you like sounding off at half an opportunity, but I'll bother to read yours when you can point out where I said a) electrification of the MML didnt have a point and b) where I said the existing mainlines would decline (as opposed to changing focus).

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I sincerely hope TPE do not get a fleet of 350's. as much as electric stock is needed a 4 car 350 at 20m per carriage has just 17 more seats than a 3 car 185 at 23m per carriage. What TPE need is 4 or better still 5 car trains with a 110 mph design service speed (not merely an upgrade and flog its tits off) that will happily keep up with pendolino, 225 sets, voyagers and IEC's with body style akin to and work in multiple with 185's. luggage rack by each set of doors and perhaps a small buffet counter. But then I am thinking common sense here...


But as far as I am concerned LM can keep their 350's!

 

[tbtc]

I assume at some point a Trans-Pennine Electric Express procurement will be needed, tied in with LM 350 replacement

There's a whole load of "middle distance" EMUs going to be required thanks to the electrification over the rest of the decade. For example Swansea - Bristol, Glasgow - Edinburgh. Plus a chance for some current EMU services to be upgraded to something more suitable (like Liverpool - Birmingham). Hopefully we'll see one big class to suit these markets.

 

[corfield]

The TPE 350s, they will run Manc Apt to Scotland. But is Liverpool also to have a direct service ? And how do they split Glasgow/Edinburgh ?

I recall readimg before about portion working out of Preston, so can I infer they will join say a Liv and Manc originating 350 (or 185 at present) at Preston then go to either Glasgow or Edinburgh, or alternate NW originating services between the 2 scottish destinations ?

To my mind the NW to Scotland route should be Pendos under aegis of WC, but of course such portion options wouldnt work then - hence asking exactly gow the service is done.

Could you run baby pendos in multiple, and presumably they would have to be 5 car due to length ? Is a 5 car viable ?

 

[northwichcat]

The TPE 350s, they will run Manc Apt to Scotland. But is Liverpool also to have a direct service ? And how do they split Glasgow/Edinburgh ?

Not initially. The new timetable will be roughly one Glasgow train every 2 hours and one Edinburgh train every 2 hours. Liverpool portions are a few years off yet and aren't 100% certain to go ahead.

 

[tbtc]

To my mind the NW to Scotland route should be Pendos under aegis of WC, but of course such portion options wouldnt work then - hence asking exactly gow the service is done.

Could you run baby pendos in multiple, and presumably they would have to be 5 car due to length ? Is a 5 car viable ?

I don't know whether a ten coach one (i.e. doubled up) could stop at every intermediate station (bearing in mind that the current TPE service tends to pick up the Penrith/ Lockerbie etc stops to speed up the logner distance WCML services), but a five coach one may not have any/many more seats than a four coach 350 (when you take into account the "crumple zone" etc).