Was any reusable work done for Hull electrification - it was looked at both for Transpennine and a private Hull Trains deal wasn’t it?
Hull trains didn’t do much work. AIUI NPR have studied it though. Hence why it was announced!
Was any reusable work done for Hull electrification - it was looked at both for Transpennine and a private Hull Trains deal wasn’t it?
True up to a point. Privatisation wasn't even a real idea until Major became PM in 1990. So 16 years of sitting on hands right there. And in the end NWEP was only authorised when it was realised that the Thameslink project was going to displace a large number of serviceable EMUs and Adonis/Labour didn't think early scrapping was a good idea. And that had a knock-on effect of reducing the size of a proposed purchase of DMUs (mostly for GW & Northern) which then spooked the leasecos who suspected that any future DMUs would have short lives so their lease rates would have to be higher. Such are the nonsenses which arise from the lack of a coherent long-term strategy for electrification (and almost anything else rail-related).Sure, but rail privatisation has a lot to do with the electrification time lag. British Rail steadily electrified as much as it could afford in a logical order, but privatisation put long term rail investment planning on hold for 20 years. At least Manchester/Liverpool/Blackpool got done and showed Northern politicians what they should be wishing for.
All electrification schemes involve route upgrades of some kind, which won't have been considered in yesterday's announcements.
I expect for York-Leeds and Manchester-Huddersfield to be built and for the Government to quietly drop Dewsbury-Huddersfield, along with any new station shown in the Network North proposal.
If you look closely you will see two things:
1. The word could is used a lot
2. All the projects are subject to a business case. None of them are guaranteed. In fact I would say very few will have a positive BCR. For example Leamside has already been dropped.
Certainly as far as Selby was seriously looked at.Does Sheffield-Hull have to be via Goole - it could be Doncaster-Selby (which would make more sense so London trains could use it)? Northern battery bimodes could then do Hull-Goole-Doncaster
Was any reusable work done for Hull electrification - it was looked at both for Transpennine and a private Hull Trains deal wasn’t it?
No reason to go to dewsbury when the route is diverted from Huddersfield to Bradford to Leeds via a bypass along the M62 is my guess.Why would they quietly drop part of TRU which is also part of NPHR ?
I think your jumping to conclusions, just because Bradford is now to get a direct fast service to Manchester via Huddersfield doesn't mean all Leeds to Manchester services are going to be rerouted via Bradford!No reason to go to dewsbury when the route is diverted from Huddersfield to Bradford to Leeds via a bypass along the M62 is my guess.
Plus considering the state of the works at Temple Meads, electrification surely can't begin for several more years until all that's out of the way.The document doesn't commit to anything specific in the Bristol area. The commitment is:
It then continues with some ideas on projects they might like to spend money on:
There's no indication of costs for any of the above, or what the priorities of the West of England Combined Authority would be.
Rishi doesn't smoke and is looking to ban that soon, so it might have been written on a tiny Post-It noteIf you look closely you will see two things:
1. The word could is used a lot
2. All the projects are subject to a business case. None of them are guaranteed. In fact I would say very few will have a positive BCR. For example Leamside has already been dropped.
They announced some projects that are already complete.
And the money is not available, its money that would be borrowed for HS2. So what we have is a commitment to look at a number of schemes and, if the BCR is positive, borrow a load of money to build them.
It's all been done on the back of a fag packet.
Because it is over-budget and the Tories are cutting funding wherever they an for what they call "short term gains."Why would they quietly drop part of TRU which is also part of NPHR ?
Given that Bristol East Jn and the Filton 4-tracking has already been done, what's left to do at TM?Plus considering the state of the works at Temple Meads, electrification surely can't begin for several more years until all that's out of the way.
Well, the trainshed has been full of scaffolding since January 2021 for a start and progress seems to be slow…Given that Bristol East Jn and the Filton 4-tracking has already been done, what's left to do at TM?
Are there any bridges still to lift on the route via Bath?
Welcome to the forum by the way.
Huddersfield to Bradford to Leeds, even assuming it is practicable, would be slower than existing timings.No reason to go to dewsbury when the route is diverted from Huddersfield to Bradford to Leeds via a bypass along the M62 is my guess.
There was a recent local newspaper article (can't find it now) that suggested the roof works at Bristol Temple Meads won't be fully finished until January 2026, but that may include parts outside the train shed, or final completion.Well, the trainshed has been full of scaffolding since January 2021 for a start and progress seems to be slow…
Welcome to the forum. Your first post I see. I think a huge amount of work has already been done at Temple Meads. So it could be done in 3 years or less possibly.Plus considering the state of the works at Temple Meads, electrification surely can't begin for several more years until all that's out of the way.
There are indeed many mast foundations. There was a depot at Saltford from which the piledriving operation was based. Hence the Saltford - Keynsham area has many foundations already in situ.I think all the bridge works and lowering track through tunnels is already done. There are already some masts erected for couple of miles west of Chippenham. From memory some masts foundations exist too (without masts).
Very reasonably they'll be waiting for authorisation from the DfT to start work - which won't come from a conference speech in which no timescales were mentioned. It could still be years coming.Ironically the line between Bath and Bristol is closed this weekend for Network Rail drainage works, but presumably Network Rail are not responsive enough to mobilise for doing extra work and resuming electrification mast preparation
Remember the 40 new hospitals promised by Boris Johnson which then had to be turned into any new building at any hospital to try to get to 40? I sadly do not believe any of these lists of anything we can think of. Afterall, if they were such good projects, the current government have had 13 years to do them.
I was really hoping to see Windermere on the list, but I assume left off as that's a LibDem seat (Tim Farron) so not useful for votes.
The 1B suggested might get you upto the Welsh borderI have to admit I'm particularly thrilled at the proposal for the Holyhead line being wired up although I do think the length of Sunak's big list sounds more idealistic than realistic.
If you look closely you will see two things:
1. The word could is used a lot
2. All the projects are subject to a business case. None of them are guaranteed. In fact I would say very few will have a positive BCR. For example Leamside has already been dropped.
I too noticed the word "could" cropping up everywhere. (It is used 15 times.) The reference to business cases is in footnote 40 at the bottom of page 24:Whereabouts does it indicate this ?
I think "cynical" would be a more appropriate word than "idealistic".I have to admit I'm particularly thrilled at the proposal for the Holyhead line being wired up although I do think the length of Sunak's big list sounds more idealistic than realistic.
Trudy Harrison isn't standing for the next election, so perhaps it could fall the other way.Windermere is moving to Copeland constituency at next election iirc, which is held by Tory Trudy Harrison.
It’s more useful than Rishi realised….
British Rail intended to wire Blackpool to Manchester following on from the Weaver to Glasgow scheme in 1974. What put the kibosh on it for decades was the cost of the Farnworth Tunnel works.The North West electrification (Liverpool/Manchester/Preston/Blackpool) was a no-brainer in-fill scheme and was a natural follow-on from completion of the WCML, in 1974!
North Wales Coast electrification makes little sense without extension to both Warrington and Crewe. That forked tongue will add cost and probably put the kibosh on the whole project.And a whole new fleet of bi modes as Chester to Warrington isn't included, with a large number of 197's becoming surplus. As I say, does that look like a joined up plan to you?
Source for that?Sunak secretly announced singling of North Wales Main Line!
Surely it makes absolutly NO SENCE without extension to Warrington and CreweBritish Rail intended to wire Blackpool to Manchester following on from the Weaver to Glasgow scheme in 1974. What put the kibosh on it for decades was the cost of the Farnworth Tunnel works.
North Wales Coast electrification makes little sense without extension to both Warrington and Crewe. That forked tongue will add cost and probably put the kibosh on the whole project.
Source for that?
It was a bitter joke that it was the only way £1bn was going to get close to electrifying all the way to Holyhead. So far as I know he has not announced that.Source for that?
it says in the document:Surely it makes absolutly NO SENCE without extension to Warrington and Crewe
Surely not!. Its almost like they made it all up.
I have to admit I'm particularly thrilled at the proposal for the Holyhead line being wired up although I do think the length of Sunak's big list sounds more idealistic than realistic.
I think "cynical" would be a more appropriate word than "idealistic".
No need, after a brief dalliance with the LDs Harrogate is once again a fairly safe Tory seat!If it was just a random list of schemes then surely the Harrogate line that already has a positive BCR would have been included!