Call to electrify rail line to York (From York Press)

Most of the transpennine trains run through Leeds and on to York and beyond.
It would make no sense to leave a "gap" in the electrified network as diesel powered trains would still predominate.
I think that someone has simply misunderstood the information "leak".

Oaklands Resident sums it up. It makes little sense to electrify just to Leeds. Few Transpenine trains start at Leeds. The electrification must come to Colton Junction, and preferably on the Selby line too as far as Hambleton Junction - thereby giving diversionary routes for London Services. Also, Leeds Station is FULL! Electric trains could not be turned at Leeds, there is no Platform space. The solution is to run them through to York (at least) and turn them there. (Skipton services too could run through to York, benefitting both towns). Bring it on.

If you read the BBC North Yorkshire Website, they are anyway.

Not only does the Leeds-York line need to be electrified, the Manchester-Liverpool section should be done as well, and possibly Leeds-Hull as well, creating a network of faster services right across the North.

If the money is there to improve transport links between York and Leeds, it would be of far greater benefit to far more people if the A64 between the Bramham and Seacroft roundabouts was upgraded to a dual carriageway than upgrading the railway would be.

The best way to avoid the jams is to take the new dual carriageway (A63) from the M1 at Temple Newsam straight into Leeds City Centre.(It emerges at the City Bus station). Dual cariageway all the way and not many motorists seem to have found it yet. But far better to use the train even now.

The Chancellors statement today refers (at para 1.97) to improvements for the North East of England (as well as Yorkshire) as "Electrification of the Transpennine Express".
So the intention is clearly to link Manchester to York (and then, using the existing electrified link, to Newcastle)

Absolute win, if it goes through to the North-South line at York.

However, the words in the speech were (quoted from Telegraph website); "We will electrify the transpennine express between Manchester and Leeds, build the Manchester Airport and Crewe link roads and work with Merseyside to turn the vision of the Atlantic Gateway into reality."

That looks like "to Leeds" to me, unfortunately.

Guy Fawkes wrote:
If the money is there to improve transport links between York and Leeds, it would be of far greater benefit to far more people if the A64 between the Bramham and Seacroft roundabouts was upgraded to a dual carriageway than upgrading the railway would be.

......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users. Short term thinking on a grand scale.....

......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.

At least it would actually increase the overall transport capacity. Nowhere does this article explain why changing the way the trains are powered would achieve that. And even if changing the trains from diesel to electric did increase the total capacity, how long would it be before the railway would become bunged up with more train users?

In the autumn statement earlier today, we were told that regulated rail fares are going to rise by 6% (which I presume means that the unregulated ones are going to rise by somewhere between double and triple that). Yet it is proposed to invest more in a form of transport that only the very wealthy or public sector workers travelling on expenses can afford to use at all. Taking into account all the costs of car use (depreciation, insurance, petrol, road tax and maintenance), I estimate that if I started commuting by train my total commuting costs would increase by about a third. Pouring more of our tax money into an insanely expensive, inflexible, inefficient form of transport, invented for the needs of the nineteenth century and essentially obsolete in the twenty-first, is going to impede the economy, not help to grow it.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.

At least it would actually increase the overall transport capacity. Nowhere does this article explain why changing the way the trains are powered would achieve that. And even if changing the trains from diesel to electric did increase the total capacity, how long would it be before the railway would become bunged up with more train users?

In the autumn statement earlier today, we were told that regulated rail fares are going to rise by 6% (which I presume means that the unregulated ones are going to rise by somewhere between double and triple that). Yet it is proposed to invest more in a form of transport that only the very wealthy or public sector workers travelling on expenses can afford to use at all. Taking into account all the costs of car use (depreciation, insurance, petrol, road tax and maintenance), I estimate that if I started commuting by train my total commuting costs would increase by about a third. Pouring more of our tax money into an insanely expensive, inflexible, inefficient form of transport, invented for the needs of the nineteenth century and essentially obsolete in the twenty-first, is going to impede the economy, not help to grow it.

I do so enjoy pedalling past urban traffic jams....and taking my bike by train to distant places...but I always have a return ticket.

"And even if changing the trains from diesel to electric did increase the total capacity ...". This happens in 2 main ways, (1) better track utilisation by faster trains where each trainset can make more hourneys, and (2) electric have less downtime for maintenance or breakdown than diesel.

Terminating electrification less than 20 miles from electrified ECML at Colton Junction is just daft.

All sound good to me,money permitting.On another point can anyone explain why there was never a station in the Dringhouses area.It has been on that main line to Leeds and Manchester since the lines were first put down.

All sound good to me,money permitting.On another point can anyone explain why there was never a station in the Dringhouses area.It has been on that main line to Leeds and Manchester since the lines were first put down.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.

At least it would actually increase the overall transport capacity. Nowhere does this article explain why changing the way the trains are powered would achieve that. And even if changing the trains from diesel to electric did increase the total capacity, how long would it be before the railway would become bunged up with more train users? In the autumn statement earlier today, we were told that regulated rail fares are going to rise by 6% (which I presume means that the unregulated ones are going to rise by somewhere between double and triple that). Yet it is proposed to invest more in a form of transport that only the very wealthy or public sector workers travelling on expenses can afford to use at all. Taking into account all the costs of car use (depreciation, insurance, petrol, road tax and maintenance), I estimate that if I started commuting by train my total commuting costs would increase by about a third. Pouring more of our tax money into an insanely expensive, inflexible, inefficient form of transport, invented for the needs of the nineteenth century and essentially obsolete in the twenty-first, is going to impede the economy, not help to grow it.

Tell that to the thousands of commuters who travel into London via train or the tube on a daily basis! What do you think would happen if every commuter throughout the UK travelled by car? Gridlock!!
.
An integrated transport policy with investment in both roads and rail is what's called for. With ever increasing petrol prices and more damage being done to the climate by pollution from cars, faster and greener modes of transport need to be invested in.

but I always have a return ticket.”


yea. but and a big but

YOU dont pay for it
as an ex br employee you DONT pay
so dont start spoutin yer credentials on here ,
I do so enjoy pedalling past urban traffic jams....not in yer flipin big smelly burs you don,t

Jaytea wrote:
Oaklands Resident sums it up. It makes little sense to electrify just to Leeds. Few Transpenine trains start at Leeds. The electrification must come to Colton Junction, and preferably on the Selby line too as far as Hambleton Junction - thereby giving diversionary routes for London Services. Also, Leeds Station is FULL! Electric trains could not be turned at Leeds, there is no Platform space. The solution is to run them through to York (at least) and turn them there. (Skipton services too could run through to York, benefitting both towns). Bring it on.

Additionally having Skipton trains coming to York (at least one per hour) would also give greater flexibility in services. Westbound from York, there is a slot at about 15 minutes past each hour whereby a fast train can overtake the Blackpool service as it travels between Ulleskelf and Church Fenton - and in so doing would fill the 30 minute void between the 57 minute and the 27 minute Transpennine services going fast to Leeds. I suppose it could call at Cross Gates if needs be.

If the whole route is electrified then brand new trains should be sourced. by time work is complete, the demand on trains will be more than a 4 coach train can sustain.

pedalling paul wrote:

Guy Fawkes wrote:

......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.

At least it would actually increase the overall transport capacity. Nowhere does this article explain why changing the way the trains are powered would achieve that. And even if changing the trains from diesel to electric did increase the total capacity, how long would it be before the railway would become bunged up with more train users? In the autumn statement earlier today, we were told that regulated rail fares are going to rise by 6% (which I presume means that the unregulated ones are going to rise by somewhere between double and triple that). Yet it is proposed to invest more in a form of transport that only the very wealthy or public sector workers travelling on expenses can afford to use at all. Taking into account all the costs of car use (depreciation, insurance, petrol, road tax and maintenance), I estimate that if I started commuting by train my total commuting costs would increase by about a third. Pouring more of our tax money into an insanely expensive, inflexible, inefficient form of transport, invented for the needs of the nineteenth century and essentially obsolete in the twenty-first, is going to impede the economy, not help to grow it.

I do so enjoy pedalling past urban traffic jams....and taking my bike by train to distant places...but I always have a return ticket.

pity...

The BBC says:

"Parts of the Leeds to York track which have not yet been electrified will also be upgraded, meaning the journey from York to Manchester would also be quicker."

The Leeds to Selby line was built (over 160) years ago with bridges designed to span 4 tracks. All those stopping trains mess up the schedules - they should quadruple the track to Micklefield as well as electrify it to Colton and Hambleton Junctions. York to Leeds is 25 miles - that's 12 minutes at 125mph.