Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Bantamzen]

I'm fussed about it... Standedge tunnel is borderline poisonous already - just with the current services. Double the length of the existing Diesel trains and/or increase the frequency and it will be completely unacceptable. Wire the railway from Manchester to Leeds ASAP! Even if it uses the existing layouts and old locos and stock it would give the capacity upgrade needed whether or not it is any faster.

I don't understand why Standedge is seen as an obstacle anyway... There are multiple bores that will allow the wiring of successive lines without impacting on those in use, none are unusually small - and it seems that extra tracks through it/them are planned or under consideration so wiring them in turn would not be wasted investment..

It shouldn't be tricky, after all its hardly the first tunnel to be proposed for wiring. Sadly however Grayling has got it in his head that he can shave a bit off the budget by leaving it unwired and using Bi-Modes through it. Of course what he ignores, pollution aside for a moment, is the extra cost in having to fire up diesel engines on every service, and of course ensuring that current and future operators have Bi-modes (assuming that any of the rest of the section gets wired) available to them which of course will be more expensive to procure than all electric units. Basically he is deferring the cost into the future, and probably adding considerably to it as well.

Other in other words it is a kop-out. Electrification is hardly a dark art, and even if we have lost the engineering skills (which I highly doubt) we can always call on the engineers across the Channel and beyond surely? The problem here lies with the project management, that is where the skill base has been lost and why so many public projects go way off budget and timescales.

 

[Senex]

It shouldn't be tricky, after all its hardly the first tunnel to be proposed for wiring.

I've asked here before why this particular tunnel is seen as so difficult. After all, it's quite a late tunnel and built to the proper BoT requirements, so there shouldn't be any of the clearance problems of some of the very early tunnels that have been dealt with. Is this one a matter of some people like Grayling desperately in search of an obstacle?

Other in other words it is a kop-out. Electrification is hardly a dark art, and even if we have lost the engineering skills (which I highly doubt) we can always call on the engineers across the Channel and beyond surely? The problem here lies with the project management, that is where the skill base has been lost and why so many public projects go way off budget and timescales.

Indeed. Why is it that we always seem to make such a meal of electrification in this country when it just gets done by our European neighbours -- not only without such a fuss but also at a significantly faster pace?

 

[fflint]

Because Britons know better than Jonny Foreigner

 

[Senex]

Because Britons know better than Jonny Foreigner

If only we had a "Like" button here!:grin::grin::grin:

 

[MarkyT]

With bimodes, it still makes most sense to maximise their running distance under the wires, so their fuel supplies are conserved, fewer engine switching operations take place and engines experience fewer power hours. Electrification makes most sense in dense busy urban areas, and on densely trafficked main trunk lines, particularly where significant hills and tunnels feature. Transpennine scores highly on all of these counts and yet with a risk now of stirring up potential aesthetic concerns and costs Mr Graying has praised the bimode solution's lack of 'ugly' gantries. Tell that to residents near the line who will have to endure the continued noise and emissions of diesels every 5 minutes. Yes, bimodes are useful to provide through service to more lightly used off-grid branches at network extremities that may never be electrified, but that doesn't mean the trunk routes that carry the majority of the accumulated vehicle distance covered shouldn't still be electrified. I hope the department, in stating it will consider each electrification project on its merits from now on, takes such matters into consideration, or are they on an ill advised crusade against electrification in principle at the moment. I'm not holding out much hope when the SoS claims non electrification avoids the need to disrupt traffic through Standedge Tunnel while wires are installed. There's an option there to fully refurbish and electrify the unused bores 'offline' alongside working track with little or no disruption to existing traffic. The traffic can be transferred to the rebuilt bores when complete and then, if desired, the current bore could also be rebuilt and electrified to increase the number of operational tracks for a decent length of dynamic loop including Marsden station. A three track layout might be extended all the way from Diggle to Huddersfield with the centre bi-directional connected to the outer tracks by fast parallel left hand crossovers between each station. Reinstatement of four tracks on this section is probably not realistic today taking into account modern clearances and cost constraints, but three might be a good compromise, giving some flexible overtaking and refuge capability. Three tracks is good for maintenance too, allowing one track at a time to be closed for engineering access at quieter times, while all traffic can be accommodated on the remaining two.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Because Britons know better than Jonny Foreigner

If only we had a "Like" button here!:grin::grin::grin:

Yep - thinking the same myself

With bimodes, it still makes most sense to maximise their running distance under the wires, so their fuel supplies are conserved, fewer engine switching operations take place and engines experience fewer power hours. ---- I'm not holding out much hope when the SoS claims non electrification avoids the need to disrupt traffic through Standedge Tunnel while wires are installed. There's an option there to fully refurbish and electrify the unused bores 'offline' alongside working track with little or no disruption to existing traffic. The traffic can be transferred to the rebuilt bores when complete and then, if desired, the current bore could also be rebuilt and electrified to increase the number of operational tracks for a decent length of dynamic loop including Marsden station. A three track layout might be extended all the way from Diggle to Huddersfield with the centre bi-directional connected to the outer tracks by fast parallel left hand crossovers between each station. Reinstatement of four tracks on this section is probably not realistic today taking into account modern clearances and cost constraints, but three might be a good compromise, giving some flexible overtaking and refuge capability. Three tracks is good for maintenance too, allowing one track at a time to be closed for engineering access at quieter times, while all traffic can be accommodated on the remaining two.

Some great points in my opinion

 

[Ploughman]

Has it actually been stated that Standedge Tunnel was not going to be wired?
Or is it just an assumption?

 

[MarkyT]

Has it actually been stated that Standedge Tunnel was not going to be wired?
Or is it just an assumption?

In a mainstream TV news interview, with my own ears, I heard the SoS use the example of Standedge Tunnel as a place where disruption could be avoided by non-continuous electrification. I don't have a reference, sorry.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's what Google threw up on the matter ...

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/chris-grayling-hits-back-claims-north-south-transport-divide/

But he said bi-mode diesel and electric trains could provide solutions and he questioned whether it was worth closing the Standedge tunnel beneath the Pennines to electrify the line.

 

[Ploughman]

So nothing concrete then?
And as for closing the line to electrify the tunnel the same could be said about every piece of railway.
A possession will be needed whatever for any work to take place.

 

[AndrewE]

So nothing concrete then?
And as for closing the line to electrify the tunnel the same could be said about every piece of railway.
A possession will be needed whatever for any work to take place.

Not at all, not many lines have a parallel alignment (physically separated from the operating railway) that can be relaid and wired with no risks while trains continue running on the current lines. Keep up please!

(the approach ramps each side are a different kettle of fish of course...)

 

[Ploughman]

Oh I am up to date and very familiar with the layout of the tunnels, probably more so than most on here, having been involved in relaying the current tracks over the years.

Relaying in the single bores has been talked of for years, will it happen this time round?
Don't think I will bet on them being reopened in full.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Oh I am up to date and very familiar with the layout of the tunnels, probably more so than most on here, having been involved in relaying the current tracks over the years.

Relaying in the single bores has been talked of for years, will it happen this time round?
Don't think I will bet on them being reopened in full.

One of the unused bores is currently used as emergency access to the double bore and the adjacent canal tunnel. Reactivation of that bore could pose a problem but the second single bore doesn't have that issue- though it may need more work to make it suitable for use again. Relaying 4 tracks for any substantial length would probably affect linespeeds, as when the route was rationalised in the 1980s the extra room was used to ease curves in places.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One of the unused bores is currently used as emergency access to the double bore and the adjacent canal tunnel. Reactivation of that bore could pose a problem but the second single bore doesn't have that issue- though it may need more work to make it suitable for use again. Relaying 4 tracks for any substantial length would probably affect linespeeds, as when the route was rationalised in the 1980s the extra room was used to ease curves in places.

Anyway, I think the point is, it would not be nearly as disruptive as Farnworth Tunnel

 

[swissrailpassion]

It wasn't too difficult to do Farnworth or the Severn Tunnel. It's time journalists woke up to the flannel coming from NR and the DfT and exposed them as incompetent.

 

[snowball]

Has it actually been stated that Standedge Tunnel was not going to be wired?
Or is it just an assumption?

It seems to be based largely on something Grayling appears to have said in the Financial Times on either July 20th or 21st. Unfortunately the FT behind a paywall. (July 20th was the day he cancelled Swansea, MML and Windermere.)

 

[Chester1]

It seems to be based largely on something Grayling appears to have said in the Financial Times on either July 20th or 21st. Unfortunately the FT behind a paywall. (July 20th was the day he cancelled Swansea, MML and Windermere.)

He has also said it recently. I think he is keeping his options open and a section will be announced by the end of the year but plans for the rest of the route will be kept vauge. As this thread shows there are many things not in the public domain and we aren't in a position to predict with confidence what will happen. Maybe Grayling mentions Standedge because the plan is to start at one end of the line, then do the other end and then the middle bit last if costs have stayed reasonable?

 

[snowball]

GRIP 3 on the whole scheme is supposed to be completed by the end of the year but I don't know whether the report on it will necessarily be published.

 

[Olaf]

It seems to be based largely on something Grayling appears to have said in the Financial Times on either July 20th or 21st. Unfortunately the FT behind a paywall. (July 20th was the day he cancelled Swansea, MML and Windermere.)

These are the relevant details of the article:

U-turn on rail schemes hits Northern Powerhouse plan
https://www.ft.com/content/522c0f8e-6e0f-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa
- 2017-07-21

...
But on a visit to Manchester Mr Grayling said: “We don’t need to electrify all of every route. There are places that are built in Victorian times where it is very difficult to put up electric cables. “If there are bits of the Transpennine network that are complicated to do and we have a bi-mode train we can say, ‘Here is a section we can have a diesel’. We will be electrifying Transpennine but we can do it in a smarter way.”
...
But Mr Grayling said the use of bi-mode trains would still cut journey times and improve passenger comfort.
...

 

[Olaf]

He has also said it recently. I think he is keeping his options open and a section will be announced by the end of the year but plans for the rest of the route will be kept vauge. As this thread shows there are many things not in the public domain and we aren't in a position to predict with confidence what will happen. Maybe Grayling mentions Standedge because the plan is to start at one end of the line, then do the other end and then the middle bit last if costs have stayed reasonable?

It is vague, because Network Rail has been asked to review it's proposals in connection with alternative schemes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

He has also said it recently. I think he is keeping his options open and a section will be announced by the end of the year but plans for the rest of the route will be kept vauge. As this thread shows there are many things not in the public domain and we aren't in a position to predict with confidence what will happen. Maybe Grayling mentions Standedge because the plan is to start at one end of the line, then do the other end and then the middle bit last if costs have stayed reasonable?

Which would be my approach anyway and I am chief cheer leader for electrification. Personally I would do Leeds - York and Selby first - must free up some DMUs surely plus a diversionary route and new journey opportunities. Then Miles Platting area to Stalybridge Grid feeder plus all the bits for Northern Powerhouse. Then the middle bit. As said though - not much in the public domain and all speculation at this point.

 

[IanXC]

Which would be my approach anyway and I am chief cheer leader for electrification. Personally I would do Leeds - York and Selby first - must free up some DMUs surely plus a diversionary route and new journey opportunities. Then Miles Platting area to Stalybridge Grid feeder plus all the bits for Northern Powerhouse. Then the middle bit. As said though - not much in the public domain and all speculation at this point.

Agreed. These two schemes ought to stand on their own two feet anyway. The Garforth corridor in particular is getting more and more congested, and short of an incredibly expensive 4 tracking project, electric traction for the stoppers appears to be something that would make a difference to this issue.

 

[Mollman]

Which would be my approach anyway and I am chief cheer leader for electrification. Personally I would do Leeds - York and Selby first - must free up some DMUs surely plus a diversionary route and new journey opportunities. Then Miles Platting area to Stalybridge Grid feeder plus all the bits for Northern Powerhouse. Then the middle bit. As said though - not much in the public domain and all speculation at this point.

That's a sensible idea, however Grayling's idea seems to be not phases but 'we shall do this bit but never that bit'.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That's a sensible idea, however Grayling's idea seems to be not phases but 'we shall do this bit but never that bit'.

Never is a long time and a dangerous word- and yes - before it is pointed out - A WEEK is a long time in politics.

 

[Olaf]

As said though - not much in the public domain and all speculation at this point.

TfN is finalising it's objectives, so details will not become clear probably until early next year. TfN will publish it's finalised proposal before the end of this year, then the TfN/ORR/DfT/Treasury will look at what will get funding.

In the meantime there is this:

TfN - Initial Integrated Rail Report Strategic Transport Plan Evidence Base
http://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-Initial-Integrated-Rail-Report.pdf
- 2017-06-07

 

[snowball]

Press release

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...supports-partnership-for-britains-prosperity/

As the industry launches its plan to Partner for Britain’s Prosperity, Network Rail has awarded contracts to two Alliances ahead of future rail enhancements on the Transpennine Route between York and Manchester.


The Transpennine Route Upgrade aims to deliver faster, longer, more frequent and more reliable services across the north of England, from Newcastle, Hull and York towards Manchester and Liverpool via Leeds.

Network Rail and the Alliances are working collaboratively from the earliest stages on the development of potential infrastructure options for the Transpennine Route Upgrade and will submit these options to the Department for Transport (DfT) for consideration in December of this year.

This programme is part of the Great North Rail Project, a huge part of Britain’s Railway Upgrade Plan, and demonstrates the rail industry working as one on the plan to deliver upgrades and enhancements that will benefit passengers, communities and economies across the Pennines.

Paul McKeown, Director of Route Sponsorship for Network Rail’s London North Eastern and East Midlands route, said: “We are focussed on developing the potential infrastructure enhancements that will lead to faster, more frequent and more reliable train services across the north and will submit these to the Department for Transport at the end of the year.”

Tim Ketteringham, Alliance Manager, West of Leeds, said: “The Transpennine Route Upgrade is a major programme of rail improvement that will have a real and lasting impact on people and communities in the North of England for generations to come: connecting towns and cities, improving journey times and supporting economic growth. I am thrilled to be part of the Alliance of companies that is working together as one team to deliver this step change in rail travel.”

Neil Lindley, Alliance Manager, East of Leeds said “This is a key milestone for transportation development in the North of England. Complex multi-disciplinary projects such as this require the knowledge and diverse skillset brought through alliancing, especially in the early stages of design development. We look forward to working alongside the West of Leeds Alliance, TOCs, FOCs and other major stakeholders to improve transport links and provide local communities with faster and more frequent rail services; transforming the north for years to come.”

An alliance between Network Rail, Amey, BAM Nuttall and Arup has been awarded a contract to design infrastructure options for the route, covering upgrades to civils, track, railway systems and electrification West of Leeds.

This follows on from the wider rail enhancements on the East of Leeds part of the Transpennine Route between York and Leeds which was awarded in October 2014 to an Alliance between Network Rail, VolkerRail, J. Murphy and Sons and Siemens.

 

[lejog]

And a (highly) provisional budget of £3.1bn for Manchester to York upgrades in CP6 is being planned by Network Rail, at least.

Network Rail is planning to spend £3.1bn upgrading the TransPennine route from 2019 to 2024, aside from any Government commitment to a larger upgrade under the Northern Powerhouse Rail banner.

Rob McIntosh, managing director for Network Rail's London, North Eastern and East Midlands route, told members of the All Party Parliamentary Rail Group that he was 'busy working' out what the Government’s recent Statement of Funds Available (SoFA) for Control Period 6 (CP6) means but praised ministers for investing in the network despite the challenges it faces.

His presentation indicated that spending on the Transpennine Route Upgrade, which includes cutting journey times between Manchester and York and 'electrification options', is forecast to be £3.1bn out of a total CP6 enhancements budget for the route of £4.5bn.

He told the meeting that Network Rail was ‘working very closely with the Department [for Transport] on how they might approach the TransPennine conundrum’ – an apparent reference to concerns that geography makes it difficult to cut journey times significantly through infrastructure improvements.

A Network Rail spokesperson stressed that the figure was for the infrastructure operator’s financial planning purposes and not a funded value. He pointed out that enhancements in CP6 will be funded differently from CP5 (2014-19) and funding granted on a project-to-project basis rather than as part of an overall funding settlement.

https://transport-network.co.uk/Network-Rail-planning-31bn-TransPennine-upgrade-in-CP6/14571

 

[snowball]

I don't normally read the "Traction & Rolling Stock" or "Allocations, Diagrams and Timetables" subforums very thoroughly, but somebody said in one or other of them in the last day or two that Network Rail has passed its proposals for the North Trans-Pennine upgrade to DfT. Presumably this means the awaited GRIP 3 has been completed.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, rumours were indeed abounding that that had happened.

 

[WatcherZero]

Were some indications before that after being passed to government they might be publically published this month but now hearing january.