Call to electrify rail line to York

THE electrification of the railway line between Manchester and Leeds would be a boost to York’s economy, and now city leaders are pushing for the investment to be continued to York.

Chancellor George Osborne was expected to announce today that the electrification of the Leeds to Manchester line will go ahead as one of 40 key infrastructure projects in a £25 billion investment programme to get Britain’s economy back up and running.

Coun James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “The electrification of TransPennine rail link would be welcome news for York’s growing economy. I hope the Autumn Announcement today will include this scheme as one of many which will receive government funding, but I am pushing for electrification from Manchester to York, not just to Leeds. This would bring greater benefits to the north of England with better connections to the North East.”

Susie Cawood, head of York and North Yorkshire Chamber, said any electrification would shorten journey times. She said: “The Chamber has been lobbying for electrification for some time. The Network Rail proposals were for the line to be electrified from Manchester to York, via Leeds, so if that does happen it will shave about 20 minutes off the journey and is absolutely something we would welcome.

“If it improves the connectivity across the Pennines, it’s going to open up markets for those not already doing business over the Pennines and anything that makes York more accessible to the rest of the country has to be welcome.”

Network Rail announced in its Initial Industry Plan, published in September, that electrification of the of the North TransPennine routes, currently operated by First TransPennine Express, was being considered. Details of the final plans are yet to be announced.

A spokesman for First TransPennine Express said: “It would be very good news and would enable train operators to cut journey times and run more services.”

A spokeswoman for Network Rail said: “Clearly news of further rail investment is great news for passengers and for our supply chain, with tangible benefits for rail users and more jobs being created through the extra work it would create.”

Neil McLean, chairman of the Leeds City Region LEP board, said faster journeys between Leeds and Manchester had to be good for the northern economy as a whole. A 20-minute reduction in journey times is estimated to be worth £6.7 billion to the economy at 2009 prices.

York Press: The Press - Comment

Electrifying hope

CHANCELLOR George Osborne is expected to announce today that the railway line between Leeds and Manchester will be electrified, as part of a £25 billion investment programme designed to boost the economy.

This would undoubtedly reduce travel time from York to Manchester Airport, and would be good news for local businesses and holidaymakers alike.

It would be even better, however, if the electrification were extended as far as York. City of York Council leader James Alexander is calling for exactly that. He has our full backing.

York Press: What do you think? - Click to comment

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:49am Tue 29 Nov 11

Oaklands Resident says...

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".
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

11:18am Tue 29 Nov 11

Jaytea says...

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.
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. Jaytea

11:58am Tue 29 Nov 11

KAT1965 says...

If you read the BBC North Yorkshire Website, they are anyway.
If you read the BBC North Yorkshire Website, they are anyway. KAT1965

12:22pm Tue 29 Nov 11

Zetkin says...

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.
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. Zetkin

2:35pm Tue 29 Nov 11

Guy Fawkes says...

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.
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. Guy Fawkes

2:45pm Tue 29 Nov 11

Jaytea says...

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 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. Jaytea

3:02pm Tue 29 Nov 11

LibDem says...

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)
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) LibDem

3:27pm Tue 29 Nov 11

TheYorkRose says...

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.
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. TheYorkRose

3:49pm Tue 29 Nov 11

pedalling paul says...

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.....
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]......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..... pedalling paul

4:21pm Tue 29 Nov 11

Guy Fawkes says...

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

5:19pm Tue 29 Nov 11

pedalling paul says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.[/quote] 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.[/p][/quote]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. pedalling paul

5:20pm Tue 29 Nov 11

old_geezer says...

"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.
"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. old_geezer

6:15pm Tue 29 Nov 11

sunnysteve says...

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. sunnysteve

6:15pm Tue 29 Nov 11

sunnysteve says...

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. sunnysteve

10:19pm Tue 29 Nov 11

shiftywillow says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.[/quote] 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.[/p][/quote]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. shiftywillow

11:45pm Tue 29 Nov 11

piaggio says...

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
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 piaggio

2:49am Wed 30 Nov 11

Magicman! says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Jaytea[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Magicman!

10:40am Wed 30 Nov 11

Big Bad Wolf says...

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...
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]......and how many or how few months would it be before a dualled road became bunged up with more car users.[/quote] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]pity... Big Bad Wolf

1:24pm Wed 30 Nov 11

Malcolm says...

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 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." Malcolm

6:04pm Wed 30 Nov 11

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

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.
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. Ignatius Lumpopo

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree