With nothing better to do on last night's 2330 KGX-Leeds, I was reading 
an interview in GNER's 'Livewire' mag with their engineering manager 
Tony Brown.

Towards the end of interview he says:

"GNER and Network Rail are also working together on the planned 
electrification of track between Leeds and Hambleton Junction. As well 
as enabling us to run more train services, this will provide a 
diversionary route for trains between York and Doncaster for the first 
time. This means trains could continue running even if there is a major 
problem on the main line."

This isn't right is it?  How's a Class 91 going to get from Hambleton to 
York under wires if the ECML's closed?

Mark Morton wrote:

> With nothing better to do on last night's 2330 KGX-Leeds, I was reading 
> an interview in GNER's 'Livewire' mag with their engineering manager 
> Tony Brown.
> 
> Towards the end of interview he says:
> 
> "GNER and Network Rail are also working together on the planned 
> electrification of track between Leeds and Hambleton Junction. As well 
> as enabling us to run more train services, this will provide a 
> diversionary route for trains between York and Doncaster for the first 
> time. This means trains could continue running even if there is a major 
> problem on the main line."
> 
> This isn't right is it?  How's a Class 91 going to get from Hambleton to 
> York under wires if the ECML's closed?


I assume he means if there is work between Hambleton and Doncaster. 
There were major engineering works in this area a couple of months ago 
with GNER running HSTs from Leeds north and pax having to transfer to 
electric stock at Leeds for the southern part of the journey. Major 
inconvenience, especially if you have luggage, kids, are 
infirm/disabled, etc.

"Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
news:dd9sqj$5fp$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...

> Mark Morton wrote:
> > This isn't right is it?  How's a Class 91 going to get from Hambleton to
> > York under wires if the ECML's closed?
>
> I assume he means if there is work between Hambleton and Doncaster.
> There were major engineering works in this area a couple of months ago
> with GNER running HSTs from Leeds north and pax having to transfer to
> electric stock at Leeds for the southern part of the journey. Major
> inconvenience, especially if you have luggage, kids, are
> infirm/disabled, etc.


I wonder whether he really meant a diversionary route between Leeds and
Doncaster.  There is already a route via the S&K which, although it requires
diesel haulage, I should have thought would be faster and more practical
than reversing somewhere in the vicinity of Hambleton then running via Leeds
and Wakefield over the same line that is so congested as to need Hambleton
to be electrified in the first place.

Roger

> I wonder whether he really meant a diversionary route between Leeds and
> Doncaster.  There is already a route via the S&K which, although it requires
> diesel haulage, I should have thought would be faster and more practical
> than reversing somewhere in the vicinity of Hambleton then running via Leeds
> and Wakefield over the same line that is so congested as to need Hambleton
> to be electrified in the first place.
> 
> Roger
> 


Given the article was on electrification of the line from Leeds to 
Hambleton, which would provide a completely electrified "York bypass", I 
would err on the side of what I said before. And it's probably worth 
pointing out that most GNER services are electic rather than HST :)
Of course, I could be wrong :)

"Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
news:dda0l3$6rn$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...

> Given the article was on electrification of the line from Leeds to
> Hambleton, which would provide a completely electrified "York bypass", I
> would err on the side of what I said before. And it's probably worth
> pointing out that most GNER services are electic rather than HST :)
> Of course, I could be wrong :)


I agree it would provide an electrified route but it definitely would not be
the first diversionary route between York and Doncaster as the article
claims.

I am not even sure it would be a very good route. Assuming 10 minutes from
York to Hambleton, 10 to reverse (presumably with a handsignalman unless a
signalled route is provided), 20 into Leeds plus 30 to Doncaster, that makes
70 minutes in total.  How does that compare with putting a 67 on the front
and using the S&K?

Roger

> I agree it would provide an electrified route but it definitely would not be
> the first diversionary route between York and Doncaster as the article
> claims.
> 
> I am not even sure it would be a very good route. Assuming 10 minutes from
> York to Hambleton, 10 to reverse (presumably with a handsignalman unless a
> signalled route is provided), 20 into Leeds plus 30 to Doncaster, that makes
> 70 minutes in total.  How does that compare with putting a 67 on the front
> and using the S&K?
> 
> Roger
> 
> 


Hmm... Am I thinking of the wrong line here? Isn't the line they're on 
about electrifying the one TPX use from York to Leeds via Church Fenton? 
In which case, there is no reversing needed. You join the electrics at 
Leeds and head to Doncaster via Wakefield Westgate.

"Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
news:dda5op$8p1$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...

> Hmm... Am I thinking of the wrong line here? Isn't the line they're on
> about electrifying the one TPX use from York to Leeds via Church Fenton?
> In which case, there is no reversing needed. You join the electrics at
> Leeds and head to Doncaster via Wakefield Westgate.


Yes, I think you are.  Hambleton Junction is the west-south chord which
allows a train to get from the Leeds-Selby line towards Doncaster.  Overall,
electrifying from Neville Hill to Colton Junction via Church Fenton would
probably be a lot more useful than what has been proposed so far.

Roger

Roger H. Bennett wrote:


> "Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
> news:dda5op$8p1$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
> 
>>Hmm... Am I thinking of the wrong line here? Isn't the line they're on
>>about electrifying the one TPX use from York to Leeds via Church Fenton?
>>In which case, there is no reversing needed. You join the electrics at
>>Leeds and head to Doncaster via Wakefield Westgate.
> 
> 
> Yes, I think you are.  Hambleton Junction is the west-south chord which
> allows a train to get from the Leeds-Selby line towards Doncaster.  Overall,
> electrifying from Neville Hill to Colton Junction via Church Fenton would
> probably be a lot more useful than what has been proposed so far.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 


So looking at 
http://bueker.net/trainspotting/maps/central-england-area/central-england-area.gif
it would be the dark green line (i.e. non-electrified freight only) 
about an inch west of Selby (when views at 1024x768 pixels)

"Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
news:dda7d8$9g7$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...

> So looking at
>

http://bueker.net/trainspotting/maps/central-england-area/central-england-area.gif

> it would be the dark green line (i.e. non-electrified freight only)
> about an inch west of Selby (when views at 1024x768 pixels)


That's the one.

Roger

Roger H. Bennett wrote:


> "Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
> news:dda7d8$9g7$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
> 
>>So looking at
>>
> 
> http://bueker.net/trainspotting/maps/central-england-area/central-england-area.gif
> 
>>it would be the dark green line (i.e. non-electrified freight only)
>>about an inch west of Selby (when views at 1024x768 pixels)
> 
> 
> That's the one.
> 
> Roger
> 


Hmmm... That does seem a slightly bizzare idea. Unless the Wakefield 
line is too busy to take diverted services. Personally, I would say to 
do what I thought they were doing and electrify the line from 
York->Leeds via Church Fenton.

"Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
news:dda943$a56$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...

> Hmmm... That does seem a slightly bizzare idea. Unless the Wakefield
> line is too busy to take diverted services.


That was the reason they gave for the proposal, so that they could increase
services to Leeds despite the congestion on the Leeds-Wakefield line.


> Personally, I would say to
> do what I thought they were doing and electrify the line from
> York->Leeds via Church Fenton.


So would just about everybody else.

Roger.

Roger H. Bennett wrote:

> "Neil Shaw"  wrote in message
> news:dda943$a56$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
> > Hmmm... That does seem a slightly bizzare idea. Unless the Wakefield
> > line is too busy to take diverted services.

> That was the reason they gave for the proposal, so that they could increase
> services to Leeds despite the congestion on the Leeds-Wakefield line.

> > Personally, I would say to
> > do what I thought they were doing and electrify the line from
> > York->Leeds via Church Fenton.

> So would just about everybody else.


I can think of one advantage to GNER of doing this, it means they can
run rush-hour trains out of Leeds that way, thus not going to Wakefield
and hence not being packed full and standing of people on cheap WYMetro
tickets.  So it's not really about improving the railway, it's about
revenue protection and dumping the cheap pax on the local operators'
pacers, sprinters, and 321s.

Be interesting to see how they tweak the timetable to do this one.  I'm
surprised GNER have never tried to get Selby back into their "patch".

Roger H. Bennett wrote:

> How does that compare with putting a 67 on the front and using the S&K?


The S&K would take a while as there isn't a connection at Moorthorpe
and Swinton requires a reversal.

Is it not possible to use the line via Askern? (I don't know what this
line is called). Nothing ever seems to go this way whenever
York-Doncaster is closed, is there a clearance issue? This is the line
the York-Doncaster freight trains take.

"Yorkie"  wrote in message
news:1123609977.374475.115850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Roger H. Bennett wrote:
> > How does that compare with putting a 67 on the front and using the S&K?
>
> The S&K would take a while as there isn't a connection at Moorthorpe
> and Swinton requires a reversal.
>
> Is it not possible to use the line via Askern? (I don't know what this
> line is called). Nothing ever seems to go this way whenever
> York-Doncaster is closed, is there a clearance issue? This is the line
> the York-Doncaster freight trains take.


Oops - that's the one I meant.  In my defence I will point out that it is
the same line between Knottingley and Church Fenton. :-(

Roger

On 9 Aug 2005 10:52:57 -0700, "Yorkie"  wrote:


>
>Roger H. Bennett wrote:
>> How does that compare with putting a 67 on the front and using the S&K?
>
>The S&K would take a while as there isn't a connection at Moorthorpe
>and Swinton requires a reversal.
>
>Is it not possible to use the line via Askern? (I don't know what this
>line is called). Nothing ever seems to go this way whenever
>York-Doncaster is closed, is there a clearance issue? This is the line
>the York-Doncaster freight trains take.


I was on a GNER HST which used that route, 3 or 4 years ago. This was
after I criticised them in this group for bustituting where there were
obvious diversionary routes. This may or may not have been
coincidental.

I've always known it as the Askern Branch, BTW.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Neil Shaw wrote:


> Hmmm... That does seem a slightly bizzare idea. Unless the Wakefield 
> line is too busy to take diverted services. Personally, I would say to 
> do what I thought they were doing and electrify the line from 
> York->Leeds via Church Fenton.


The reason for the proposed electrification is to provide extra
capacity for London <-> Leeds services, avoiding the congested western
approach to Leeds station.

The possibility of diverting York trains is entirely incidental to the
proposal, and is a side-effect of dubious utility.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Thing is though, the eastern approaches aren't much better when it
comes to congestion - it's double with no loops all the way in from
Hambleton (except for a short stretch near Neville Hill), and it
already carries 1 Virgin, 4 TPX fast and 2 Northern stoppers each way
every hour (plus freight) on the core Micklefield to Leeds stretch -
that's more than the line via Wakefield Westgate currently carries.