Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[The Ham]

I seem to recall that the 185s (or is it XC units?) normally run with one engine out as an economy measure, or, as it was described "because the timetable can still be achieved with it out, so look how green we are being". But surely, you could have a sharper timetable if you ran to full power? I cite that as an example of where the railway seems to adopt a very conservative attitude these days, and has seemed to forget the mantra that every minute saved improves the attractiveness of the service and thus revenue (and more modal shift, which presumably gains more energy saving than any due to driving economies).

As a bit of a digression, a relative (no interest in trains) who has recently moved from a Central Line commute to using the new Elizabeth line stock out of Paddington commented how the acceleration is really impressive, but the braking into stations is painfully slow compared with what he was used to, with the train crawling into the platforms. And how disappointing that felt for brand new trains. I gather in contrast the new Class 701s will have the facility to stop automatically to give a consistent (and hopefully fast) approach into the station. Whilst I'm not suggesting that would be appropriate for TPE services, it feels more of a positive step than simply accepting the status quo, and then layering on more degrees of caution as the years go by.

You don't really want to be timetabling trains so that they are running as fast as they can go, therefore whilst normally trains can run with an engine out they still have the option of running all engines is the train is running late to make up lost time.

 

[Spartacus]

I seem to recall that the 185s (or is it XC units?) normally run with one engine out as an economy measure, or, as it was described "because the timetable can still be achieved with it out, so look how green we are being". But surely, you could have a sharper timetable if you ran to full power? I cite that as an example of where the railway seems to adopt a very conservative attitude these days, and has seemed to forget the mantra that every minute saved improves the attractiveness of the service and thus revenue (and more modal shift, which presumably gains more energy saving than any due to driving economies).

The 185s aren’t ever timetabled to be running on 2 engines, but it’s perfectly possible to achieve 3 engine timings on 2 (some drivers went OTT initially and would lose twhile running on 3 would have no performance improvement as pushing hard will do nothing to improve the line speed in areas where it’s low (or limited for 185s), increase platform capacity, move stoppers out of the way, or make it easier to path them around faster trains.

All you’ll wind up doing is being held outside a station or junction waiting the correct path, catching the stopper and tootling along behind it for longer, or get held for a bit longer waiting for an East Coast or XC to thunder through at 125, all while burning a bit more fuel. Additionally, slow running, or being held waiting a platform gives passengers a bad impression, they moan they’re ‘late again’ even if you ultimately arrive right time, or even early!

Now, to try and keep on topic, just the work between Huddersfield and Dewsbury will improve 3 of the 4 issues there, which increasing the performance of the TPE trains themselves never could, platforms at Huddersfield, catching up stoppers, and conflicts at Thornhill LNW/Mirfield East Jns.

 

[Purple Orange]

IIRC, before the last big change there was an hourly Leeds-Hudderfield-Piccadilly service that took 49 minutes. Most took nearer 55, whether to Pic or Vic, and it's about 65 now to Pic via Vic from Leeds. A huge time reduction to 30 minutes would be impossible for TRU but I'd settle for a straight 45 minutes to either Pic or Vic with one stop, or 50 minutes with a couple (or a few minutes less).

The journey time from Piccadilly to Leeds via Victoria is not comparable because any NPR service would be heading straight to Huddersfield from Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

I know it’s only 5 minutes difference, but I suspect that if full electrification and line speed improvements have been implemented, a 45 min journey will be deemed unacceptable, thus a new line or more likely a bypass will be pushed ahead. If full electrification and line speed improvements delivered 40 minute journey times, then I think the DfT will settle for that.

 

[Glenn1969]

TFN are already talking about integration of HS2 with NPR. I disagree with Bald Rick about "at least" 20 years. I'm more optimistic and think mid 2030s if COVID hasn't changed the picture. But even that is 15 years away so I will be 65 before it opens

 

[YorksLad12]

The journey time from Piccadilly to Leeds via Victoria is not comparable because any NPR service would be heading straight to Huddersfield from Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

I know it’s only 5 minutes difference, but I suspect that if full electrification and line speed improvements have been implemented, a 45 min journey will be deemed unacceptable, thus a new line or more likely a bypass will be pushed ahead. If full electrification and line speed improvements delivered 40 minute journey times, then I think the DfT will settle for that.

I might have been expressing myself clumsily; on TRU alone I'd be happy with a regular 45-minute journey times to Pic or Vic, accepting that anything much below that would have to be NPR. The Huddersfield-Ravensthorpe interventions will go some way towards that by separating out fasts from semi-fasts and stoppers, electrification and new stock will bring a bit as well. It does depend on what happens as well between Ravensthorpe and Leeds, and west of Huddersfield to Stalybridge. But I remain optimistic

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The journey time from Piccadilly to Leeds via Victoria is not comparable because any NPR service would be heading straight to Huddersfield from Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

The NPR aspirations include Bradford which your assumption does not.
At one point there was an illustrative HS2/NPR route which went underground at Piccadilly and emerged at Miles Platting (via a possible second station at Victoria).
You could then choose your eastward route.
An underground route would be expensive, but it gives better routing options and avoids all those pesky Nimbys, as in the Chilterns.

 

[Bald Rick]

I disagree with Bald Rick about "at least" 20 years. I'm more optimistic and think mid 2030s

You are of course free to disagree!

The reason I said ‘at least 20 yesrs’ Is that, as others have said, a broad route corridor has yet to be confirmed, let alone detailed routeing. Even if a decision on a corridor was taken tomorrow* it would be 2-3 years work before a hybrid bill could be introduced to Parliament. Then 3 years in Parliament. Then another 4 years from Royal Assent to the start of tunnelling (same timings as HS2). So with s decision tomorrow, that’s 10 years before we start boring a 40km(?) tunnel under the Pennines, through some extremely variable geology. And remember, when building underground railways, the tunnelling is the quick and easy bit.

An underground route would be expensive, but it gives better routing options and avoids all those pesky Nimbys, as in the Chilterns.

It won’t avoid the NIMBYs where’s it isn’t in tunnel nor where the headhouses for the ventilation / emergency access shafts will come up.

* And then we have the crux of it. Aligning 20 or so local authorities to one vision of what the scope of Northern Powerhouse Rail is must be one of the most difficult jobs on the railway. How is that decision going to be taken? Who takes it? And who is go8ng to give Huddersfield** the bad news?

** or Bradford. But it will surely be Huddersfield.

 

[Purple Orange]

The NPR aspirations include Bradford which your assumption does not.
At one point there was an illustrative HS2/NPR route which went underground at Piccadilly and emerged at Miles Platting (via a possible second station at Victoria).
You could then choose your eastward route.
An underground route would be expensive, but it gives better routing options and avoids all those pesky Nimbys, as in the Chilterns.

This depends whether we will actually see a completely new line from Manchester to Leeds ever materialise. To be honest I very much doubt we will ever see a new line via Bradford. It was also aspiration for there to be an underground station at Piccadilly, but we now know Manchester Piccadilly will be a surface station requiring a reversal for Liverpool-Leeds-NE services (there might only be 2 of these per hour). Given the IRP brief is partly to reduce cost, I can’t see them adding capital spend with a tunnel beneath central Manchester.

The first section for NPR to be built will also likely be Liverpool & Warrington to the Manchester HS2 junction, leaving a period of NPR services travelling on the existing line via Huddersfield. Therefore it begs the question about how much the current TRU scheme can improve journey times and then what more needs to be done to get journey times to sub 40 minutes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This depends whether we will actually see a completely new line from Manchester to Leeds ever materialise. To be honest I very much doubt we will ever see a new line via Bradford. It was also aspiration for there to be an underground station at Piccadilly, but we now know Manchester Piccadilly will be a surface station requiring a reversal for Liverpool-Leeds-NE services (there might only be 2 of these per hour). Given the IRP brief is partly to reduce cost, I can’t see them adding capital spend with a tunnel beneath central Manchester.

We don't actually know that.
This week's HS2 document specifically says no NPR route decision has been taken (surface or underground), although the surface/reversal option has been outlined.

 

[Purple Orange]

We don't actually know that.
This week's HS2 document specifically says no NPR route decision has been taken (surface or underground), although the surface/reversal option has been outlined.

Do you think there will be a decision taken to build an underground station under Manchester? Or that the IRP will recommend something completely at odds with what has been recommended by HS2? If they do, and indecision continues, I'd bet phase 2b from Crewe will be cancelled (or paused indefinitely).

 

[Ianno87]

We don't actually know that.
This week's HS2 document specifically says no NPR route decision has been taken (surface or underground), although the surface/reversal option has been outlined.

Do you think there will be a decision taken to build an underground station under Manchester? Or that the IRP will recommend something completely at odds with what has been recommended by HS2? If they do, and indecision continues, I'd bet phase 2b from Crewe will be cancelled (or paused indefinitely).

The option of an underground station is certainly still up for grabs. But the cost difference versus a surface station is going to require some very, very strong justification beyond simply the benefit of avoiding a reversal in a terminus station (of which there are a heap of operational precedents).

 

[Senex]

* And then we have the crux of it. Aligning 20 or so local authorities to one vision of what the scope of Northern Powerhouse Rail is must be one of the most difficult jobs on the railway. How is that decision going to be taken? Who takes it? And who is go8ng to give Huddersfield** the bad news?

** or Bradford. But it will surely be Huddersfield.

A proper regional government (or more likely two, one either side of the Pennines) might be able to come up with a decision, but to get 20 or so local authorities to agree on a single route sounds like a Sisyphean task indeed!

As for the eventual bad news, doesn't it rather depend on whether central government's desire for social engineering to help Bradford eventually weighs more strongly than the wish to provide a better NW-NE connection and in particular a much better connection between two of England's half dozen principal cities? If the latter, the surely it's Huddersfield that wins out in the end, even if the station it ends up with is more reminiscent of Swiss Alpine engineering that anything we've seen so far in this country (and not served by every train).

Do I hear faint echoes of the Direct Railways controversies of the 1830s and 1840s?

 

[Meerkat]

A proper regional government (or more likely two, one either side of the Pennines) might be able to come up with a decision, but to get 20 or so local authorities to agree on a single route sounds like a Sisyphean task indeed!

As for the eventual bad news, doesn't it rather depend on whether central government's desire for social engineering to help Bradford eventually weighs more strongly than the wish to provide a better NW-NE connection and in particular a much better connection between two of England's half dozen principal cities? If the latter, the surely it's Huddersfield that wins out in the end, even if the station it ends up with is more reminiscent of Swiss Alpine engineering that anything we've seen so far in this country (and not served by every train).

Do I hear faint echoes of the Direct Railways controversies of the 1830s and 1840s?

That raises a big question. An NPR station is going to be very expensive and disruptive - could Huddersfield ever justify that, even if the route went vaguely that way?
Whereas Bradford and surrounding area does justify that (and could probably demolish the required area without nearly as much fuss).

 

[SuperNova]

TFN are already talking about integration of HS2 with NPR. I disagree with Bald Rick about "at least" 20 years. I'm more optimistic and think mid 2030s if COVID hasn't changed the picture. But even that is 15 years away so I will be 65 before it opens

I think Bald Rick has summed this up perfectly showing the boxes that must be ticked for this type of infrastructure project to even start any work. And that's with HS3 which has no designs, no agreed route & if's but's and maybe's surrounding HS2's Eastern leg which severely impacts their ideal rail connectivity.

I'd add that TfN are also completely delusional, coming out with statements that they expect to see spades in the ground by the middle of this decade. A colleague of mine summed this up well stating TfN are nothing more than a lobby group these days with the sole initiative of maintaining relevance. Not a cat in hells chance, in my humble opinion, of HS3 being anywhere near spades in the ground for at least 10 at a minimum and the reality is HS3 as they want probably won't be built until nearer 2050.

So we have TRU, and if full electrification along with capacity line speed enhancements can get the journey times down from around 50 mins to below 40, when TfN's ideal is a clock face timetable (which TPE did kind of run before Covid) that takes 30 mins between Manchester and Leeds, then would an entire new line that is mainly tunnels be required between Leeds and Manchester just to service Bradford? For me, that's a no.

I also think with the confirmation that the HS2 station won't be a through station, now with 6 platforms, it looks more likely and makes more sense to link in with TRU, with the possibility of building new infrastructure west of Huddersfield to achieve greater capacity and speed. There' was work done on looking at how to increase line speed on this route with new infrastructure from memory, I seem to remember a new tunnel from Stalybridge to Marsden/Slaithwaite being one of the options? I may have got my locations wrong. Doing this would certainly be more cost efficient.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you think there will be a decision taken to build an underground station under Manchester?

The prospect of an underground station in Manchester hasn’t, as far as I’m aware, been suggested by either the HS2 or NPR teams. It has been suggested by architects and engineering consultants, which is effectively just professional crayoning. Of course, a through station is still possible until a decision is taken, but given that a multi platform underground station would delay HS2 by about 10 years* and chuck in about £5-£10bn of extra cost, I think we all know what the answer would be.

* as all the development work and previous consultation is essentially binned, so it’s back to the start; plus building a station that size underground has never been done in this country would be an enormous challenge, and take much longer.

 

[Starmill]

The journey time from Piccadilly to Leeds via Victoria is not comparable because any NPR service would be heading straight to Huddersfield from Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

The standard time between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds via Guide Bridge with one stop in the May 2014 - May 2018 timetable was 48 minutes with a 185.

 

[WestRiding]

It seems odd that all this work will go ahead now, given the railway has lost its passengers.

 

[Ianno87]

It seems odd that all this work will go ahead now, given the railway has lost its passengers.

Well, given this is infrastructure designed to last 100+ years, I'd like to think a few passengers will have come back by then.

 

[Purple Orange]

The prospect of an underground station in Manchester hasn’t, as far as I’m aware, been suggested by either the HS2 or NPR teams. It has been suggested by architects and engineering consultants, which is effectively just professional crayoning. Of course, a through station is still possible until a decision is taken, but given that a multi platform underground station would delay HS2 by about 10 years* and chuck in about £5-£10bn of extra cost, I think we all know what the answer would be.

* as all the development work and previous consultation is essentially binned, so it’s back to the start; plus building a station that size underground has never been done in this country would be an enormous challenge, and take much longer.

That, as well as what @Starmill and @SuperNova said, to my mind makes an underground through station option completely redundant. It’s nothing more than a paragraph in the “other options considered” along with “do nothing” in a business case built for a terminal station.

The standard time between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds via Guide Bridge with one stop in the May 2014 - May 2018 timetable was 48 minutes with a 185.

Which goes to support the idea that TRU across the whole line could achieve adequate journey times given frequency is already there. For Bradford it might be best to only electrify through Rochdale & Manchester, and east to Leeds.

 

[Killingworth]

The prospect of an underground station in Manchester hasn’t, as far as I’m aware, been suggested by either the HS2 or NPR teams. It has been suggested by architects and engineering consultants, which is effectively just professional crayoning. Of course, a through station is still possible until a decision is taken, but given that a multi platform underground station would delay HS2 by about 10 years* and chuck in about £5-£10bn of extra cost, I think we all know what the answer would be.

* as all the development work and previous consultation is essentially binned, so it’s back to the start; plus building a station that size underground has never been done in this country would be an enormous challenge, and take much longer.

I'd love to be able to see the project planning process for Stonehenge! 100 years ago the Swiss did well to drive a tunnel up and through the Eiger to Jungfraujoch, a location with a human population of zero. That has been a success - just to go up a mountain and come back down again.

But my mind is drifting. Major projects in this country tend to run into the problems of democracy. I and my group want to do it, you and your group don't. After much consultation, public inquiries and lobbying I get my way and it's decided it will be done. But then it's far too expensive and you've won. However a third way is identified. I get half of what I wanted and you get half. The money gets spent and in 10 years time we can't understand why the whole job wasn't done properly in the first place. Another 20 years later it's finally done in full having cost 10 times what it would have cost at the start - and kept irritating the local populace for 30 years instead of 10.

I remain convinced that the long term best solution is a tunnelled express network beneath the centre of Manchester out to the edges of the built up area. The Romerike Tunnel in Oslo is over 9 miles long from the city centre to the outskirts. It went 3 times over budget, proving such projects can go wrong anywhere, but it gives impressively fast journey times into the city from the airport.

Bite the bullet and go for it. Lines leading in from all points of the compass leaving the surface tracks for more local services. Once the underground box, wheel or circuit is built it will be marvelled at how we managed without it.

 

[Class 170101]

Which goes to support the idea that TRU across the whole line could achieve adequate journey times given frequency is already there. For Bradford it might be best to only electrify through Rochdale & Manchester, and east to Leeds.

If you do that you might as well fill in the links between Halifax and Mirfield via Brighouse too.

 

[YorksLad12]

IIRC, before the last big change there was an hourly Leeds-Hudderfield-Piccadilly service that took 49 minutes. Most took nearer 55, whether to Pic or Vic, and it's about 65 now to Pic via Vic from Leeds. A huge time reduction to 30 minutes would be impossible for TRU but I'd settle for a straight 45 minutes to either Pic or Vic with one stop, or 50 minutes with a couple (or a few minutes less).

The standard time between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds via Guide Bridge with one stop in the May 2014 - May 2018 timetable was 48 minutes with a 185.

Rats. Out by one minute

I'd add that TfN are also completely delusional, coming out with statements that they expect to see spades in the ground by the middle of this decade. A colleague of mine summed this up well stating TfN are nothing more than a lobby group these days with the sole initiative of maintaining relevance.

They always have been a lobbying group, even after becoming the UK's first sub-national transport body. They have some money to do some things but not enough money to do the big things. They co-managed the TPE and former Northern franchises but that was only because they absorbed Rail North Ltd.

 

[The Ham]

I'd love to be able to see the project planning process for Stonehenge! 100 years ago the Swiss did well to drive a tunnel up and through the Eiger to Jungfraujoch, a location with a human population of zero. That has been a success - just to go up a mountain and come back down again.

But my mind is drifting. Major projects in this country tend to run into the problems of democracy. I and my group want to do it, you and your group don't. After much consultation, public inquiries and lobbying I get my way and it's decided it will be done. But then it's far too expensive and you've won. However a third way is identified. I get half of what I wanted and you get half. The money gets spent and in 10 years time we can't understand why the whole job wasn't done properly in the first place. Another 20 years later it's finally done in full having cost 10 times what it would have cost at the start - and kept irritating the local populace for 30 years instead of 10.

I remain convinced that the long term best solution is a tunnelled express network beneath the centre of Manchester out to the edges of the built up area. The Romerike Tunnel in Oslo is over 9 miles long from the city centre to the outskirts. It went 3 times over budget, proving such projects can go wrong anywhere, but it gives impressively fast journey times into the city from the airport.

Bite the bullet and go for it. Lines leading in from all points of the compass leaving the surface tracks for more local services. Once the underground box, wheel or circuit is built it will be marvelled at how we managed without it.

If you were going for really big you could build the platforms mid point between Piccadilly and Victoria with travelators bridging the ~500m gap at each end. Ideally with more to give access from other areas and to give access to the middle of the platforms too.

You could then have multiple surface access points and you'd be able to use the travelators to get around the central area of Manchester.

They wouldn't be quick, but with no waiting time there's a chance that they would be quicker for short journeys (i.e. you probably would go Piccadilly Victoria on them but would use them to go one or two tram stops).

It would reduce the number of surface rail services, reduce a little the capacity demands on the trams, reduce the walk distances from rail to many locations, make public transport the go to option for more people, etc.

Yes it would cost a lot. However if you could reduce the need for car parks in the city and increase the attractiveness of the area for development it's possible that you could increase tax takes (i.e. council tax, stamp duty, business rates, etc. - not from them being higher just from there being more).

At the interchange between walkways you could have double level public realm spaces with shops, cafes, green space and maybe even children's play equipment.

Such hubs could create the outdoor space which many missed when they were in lockdown in their flats.

The new station would cater for the medium and long distance services (XC, TPE, HS2, Avanti), however the capacity it created would likely be used up rather rapidly by increasing frequencies of the shorter distances services and services with a local calling pattern.

It would likely justify the TPU and NPR (whatever the maximum of that which people think we need) and could even require more capacity to be provided as rail use increases (i.e. looking more like Central London in terms of the use of cars for transport).

 

[MarkRedon]

If you were going for really big you could build the platforms mid point between Piccadilly and Victoria with travelators bridging the ~500m gap at each end. Ideally with more to give access from other areas and to give access to the middle of the platforms too.

...

It would likely justify the TPU and NPR (whatever the maximum of that which people think we need) and could even require more capacity to be provided as rail use increases (i.e. looking more like Central London in terms of the use of cars for transport).

Cf. Stuttgart 21, initiated 1994, opening 2025, somewhat over-budget, mildly over-ambitious? And definitely Speculation.

 

[takno]

If you were going for really big you could build the platforms mid point between Piccadilly and Victoria with travelators bridging the ~500m gap at each end. Ideally with more to give access from other areas and to give access to the middle of the platforms too.

You could then have multiple surface access points and you'd be able to use the travelators to get around the central area of Manchester.

They wouldn't be quick, but with no waiting time there's a chance that they would be quicker for short journeys (i.e. you probably would go Piccadilly Victoria on them but would use them to go one or two tram stops).

It would reduce the number of surface rail services, reduce a little the capacity demands on the trams, reduce the walk distances from rail to many locations, make public transport the go to option for more people, etc.

Yes it would cost a lot. However if you could reduce the need for car parks in the city and increase the attractiveness of the area for development it's possible that you could increase tax takes (i.e. council tax, stamp duty, business rates, etc. - not from them being higher just from there being more).

At the interchange between walkways you could have double level public realm spaces with shops, cafes, green space and maybe even children's play equipment.

Such hubs could create the outdoor space which many missed when they were in lockdown in their flats.

The new station would cater for the medium and long distance services (XC, TPE, HS2, Avanti), however the capacity it created would likely be used up rather rapidly by increasing frequencies of the shorter distances services and services with a local calling pattern.

It would likely justify the TPU and NPR (whatever the maximum of that which people think we need) and could even require more capacity to be provided as rail use increases (i.e. looking more like Central London in terms of the use of cars for transport).

Sounds pretty dystopian tbh. In spite of the rain we mostly as a nation and species prefer to be out in the light rather than scurrying around dark subterranean passages.

 

[Killingworth]

Sounds pretty dystopian tbh. In spite of the rain we mostly as a nation and species prefer to be out in the light rather than scurrying around dark subterranean passages.

I recall the dingy brown, narrow and overcrowded passageways beneath Kings Cross and St Pancras 50 years ago. They're a lot brighter now, and those more recently built are more spacious. With our expanding populations we can build both up and down to make best use of urban space.

 

[Senex]

I recall the dingy brown, narrow and overcrowded passageways beneath Kings Cross and St Pancras 50 years ago. They're a lot brighter now, and those more recently built are more spacious. With our expanding populations we can build both up and down to make best use of urban space.

They're certainly bigger and brighter, but the distances to be walked have increased massively and this is not now an easy interchange for anyone with even slightly restricted mobility — it feels more like an airport (think Piccadilly Line to Terminal 2 at Heathrow) than a railway interchange.

 

[anorack 1]

Look what has been done at London Bridge. Compered with the cheap poly tunnel at Victoria and half the station still a mess. Its amazing what a lot of money can do.

 

[The Ham]

Sounds pretty dystopian tbh. In spite of the rain we mostly as a nation and species prefer to be out in the light rather than scurrying around dark subterranean passages.

I was thinking more along the lines of shopping centres where they manage double level shopping whilst still letting in reasonable amounts of light, maybe it wouldn't manage it as well, as there might be the need to cover over sections for roads and buildings, but certainly not thinking the lower levels on sci-fi films where no sunlight ever reaches.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was thinking more along the lines of shopping centres where they manage double level shopping whilst still letting in reasonable amounts of light, maybe it wouldn't manage it as well, as there might be the need to cover over sections for roads and buildings, but certainly not thinking the lower levels on sci-fi films where no sunlight ever reaches.

But if you're designing to let natural light in, where is the advantage of going underground? You can't build above without blocking out the light.