RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Infrastructure & Stations

Click to visit us on Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23rd January 2013, 21:26   #151
lancastrian
Member
 
Join Date: 2 Jan 2010
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRainhill View Post
Some detail on plans for Huyton and Roby, from the Rail Services Committee of Merseytravel (July 2012).

Report

Appendix

It's surprising how much is planned to be done as part of the electrification.
I was catching up with posts that I had missed and came across yours. I would the plans and explanations very interesting. Having looked at the plans one question leapt to my mind. While I am delighted to see the re-quadrupling of the line here is to be applauded, why only this short bit, surely it would have made far more sense to re-quadruple the line all the way from Edgehill through to Huyton Junction, separating the St. Helen's - Wigan services on the northern pair of tracks and the Manchester services on the southern pair of tracks, this would stop any trains crossing each others paths, which to me always causes time penalties.

I would be interested to hear other views.
lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored links - Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 23rd January 2013, 22:41   #152
SteveRainhill
Member
 
Join Date: 6 Jan 2013
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancastrian View Post
I was catching up with posts that I had missed and came across yours. I would the plans and explanations very interesting. Having looked at the plans one question leapt to my mind. While I am delighted to see the re-quadrupling of the line here is to be applauded, why only this short bit, surely it would have made far more sense to re-quadruple the line all the way from Edgehill through to Huyton Junction, separating the St. Helen's - Wigan services on the northern pair of tracks and the Manchester services on the southern pair of tracks, this would stop any trains crossing each others paths, which to me always causes time penalties.

I would be interested to hear other views.
The idea is of course to allow fast Manchester trains (4 per hour under the Northern Hub) to overtake slow ones. I suppose the pathing calculations showed that this short stretch of four-tracking, given that it contains two stations that will detain the local trains, will be enough. That is fortunate, since to go further would mean expensive work on the road infrastructure at the end of the M62 (the Rocket) and new platforms, or loops, at two stations. Almost all of the needed alignment is still available (even the old platforms are still in place at Huyton and Roby), which makes this intervention a lot cheaper.

On crossing moves see some of the preceding posts.

What continues to puzzle me is why a lot of the work is being done under the electrification, several years earlier than the Northern Hub when the capacity will be needed. Or, if it is cheaper to do it now, why not all of it is being done.
SteveRainhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 14:23   #153
8A Rail
Member
 
8A Rail's Avatar
 
Join Date: 6 Dec 2012
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancastrian View Post
I was catching up with posts that I had missed and came across yours. I would the plans and explanations very interesting. Having looked at the plans one question leapt to my mind. While I am delighted to see the re-quadrupling of the line here is to be applauded, why only this short bit, surely it would have made far more sense to re-quadruple the line all the way from Edgehill through to Huyton Junction, separating the St. Helen's - Wigan services on the northern pair of tracks and the Manchester services on the southern pair of tracks, this would stop any trains crossing each others paths, which to me always causes time penalties.
I would be interested to hear other views.
Simply it is no longer physically possible anymore, it is really simple at that.

To explain further, without MAJOR infrastructure work with the end of the M62 and slip roads as well, along with the widening of the concrete bridge that straddles the two lines just after Broadgreen Station, it is not possible, To further complicate matters, although you could still have four tracks in Olive Mount Cutting, your next obsacle is Wavertree Technology Park Station which is built on the previous slow lines trackbed, along with the extension of the embankment between there and Bootle Bch Junction which provides the foundations for the Technology buildings already there. So as you may appreciate to shift all the above in the present & future economic climate's is just about impossible. HTH?

What Network Rail are proposing is a compromise, which is better than nothing and still will help with the movement of the trains on that section.
__________________
Doug (8A Rail)
www.8arail.co.uk
8A Rail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 22:52   #154
lancastrian
Member
 
Join Date: 2 Jan 2010
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8A Rail View Post
Simply it is no longer physically possible anymore, it is really simple at that.

To explain further, without MAJOR infrastructure work with the end of the M62 and slip roads as well, along with the widening of the concrete bridge that straddles the two lines just after Broadgreen Station, it is not possible, To further complicate matters, although you could still have four tracks in Olive Mount Cutting, your next obsacle is Wavertree Technology Park Station which is built on the previous slow lines trackbed, along with the extension of the embankment between there and Bootle Bch Junction which provides the foundations for the Technology buildings already there. So as you may appreciate to shift all the above in the present & future economic climate's is just about impossible. HTH?

What Network Rail are proposing is a compromise, which is better than nothing and still will help with the movement of the trains on that section.
OK, that answers my question. It has been many years since I travelled this line, and all four tracks were still there, although possibly not in use (1970's).

Regarding the M62 bridge and slip roads. I seem to remember having read somewhere that if the Railway needed to reinstate lines that had been blocked by the building of a motorway/road bridge that the Highways Agency had to rebuild it at a cost to them, not to the railways. Is that true? If so why could it not be done, but if it is not true, question answered.

I just thought it would have made sense to try and increase the capacity as well as possible at this time rather than having to do it again later. Although having watched Network Rail, and before them BR, it seems to be standard procedure. Build something as cheap as possible, then when usage get way in excess of predictions (usually in the first year) spend 3 - 4 times as much to put in all the things you should have done at the start.

Rant over.
lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 10:06   #155
HSTEd
Established Member
 
Join Date: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 5,497
Default

"Gold Plating" is expensive and what happens when the project doesn't generate enormous increases in traffic as predicted?

The idea of getting a ramshackle service going first and then seeing how it goes is fundamentally a good one.
HSTEd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 14:53   #156
AndyLandy
Established Member
 
AndyLandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 30 Oct 2011
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSTEd View Post
"Gold Plating" is expensive and what happens when the project doesn't generate enormous increases in traffic as predicted?

The idea of getting a ramshackle service going first and then seeing how it goes is fundamentally a good one.
I'm not entirely convinced on that one. If you can cost-effectively build in futureproofing during a project, even though it's out-of-scope now, it should be taken seriously. So, when you do clearance works anywhere on the railway, making sure they're done in a way such that OLE can be retro-fitted is a good idea.
__________________
Classes travelled on so far in 2013: 150, 158, 221, 350, 377, 390, 444, 456
Classes travelled on in 2012: 142, 150, 221, 350, 377, 378, 390, 444, 450, 994.
AndyLandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 22:40   #157
Holly
Cheshire Lass
Member
 
Join Date: 20 May 2011
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancastrian View Post
... Network Rail, and before them BR, it seems to be standard procedure. Build something as cheap as possible, then when usage get way in excess of predictions (usually in the first year) spend 3 - 4 times as much to put in all the things you should have done at the start....
HS2 is a good example of that.
Everything I have read suggests they plan on making this new construction "just the right size" loading gauge.

Which means it is certain to be too small at some future date.
Instead of making it Chunnel sized from day one at relatively little extra cost.

No....., it's cut costs to the bone - and to hell with future proofing.
Holly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 20:10   #158
Chris125
Established Member
 
Chris125's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 1,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly View Post
HS2 is a good example of that.
Everything I have read suggests they plan on making this new construction "just the right size" loading gauge.

Which means it is certain to be too small at some future date.
Instead of making it Chunnel sized from day one at relatively little extra cost.

No....., it's cut costs to the bone - and to hell with future proofing.
HS2 will be built to the same loading gauge as HS1, and as far as i'm aware most if not all European HSL's. As there are no plans for it to be ever used by freight, let alone Channel Tunnel vehicle shuttles at a sufficient frequency to justify the extra expense, it doesn't make any sense to build to the Channel Tunnel loading gauge.

Chris

Last edited by Chris125; 26th January 2013 at 20:44.
Chris125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 20:39   #159
swt_passenger
Established Member
 
Join Date: 7 Apr 2010
Posts: 7,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly View Post
HS2 is a good example of that.
Everything I have read suggests they plan on making this new construction "just the right size" loading gauge.
HS2 will be built to UIC GC gauge. That has always been the case, ever since the first announcement by Adonis. That is also the largest gauge specified in the interoperbility standards (TSI).

Channel Tunnel gauge is a red herring, it is a captive gauge specifically designed for the drive on - drive off freight and passenger shuttles used only in the tunnel - and it is not, and never has been intended as a gauge for use on railways generally.

If 'everything you have read' says anything different you must have been reading the wrong info...
swt_passenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 23:41   #160
Holly
Cheshire Lass
Member
 
Join Date: 20 May 2011
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swt_passenger View Post
HS2 will be built to UIC GC gauge. ...
Channel Tunnel gauge ... never has been intended as a gauge for use on railways generally.
Exactly.
Penny wise.
Holly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2013, 00:30   #161
ainsworth74
Moderator
 
ainsworth74's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Redcar
Posts: 10,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly View Post
Exactly.
Penny wise.
In which case you can say the same about railways throughout Europe as no-one is building to Channel Tunnel gauge because why on earth would you? I'm all in favour of future proofing but this feels like a bit like too much proofing for too much money for me.
ainsworth74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2013, 22:22   #162
DJH1971
Member
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2012
Location: St Helens, Merseyside
Posts: 407
Cool

Whilst travelling into Manchester today, I can now confirm that a further stretch of catenary is now in place around Ordsall Lane Junction.

Pictures also attached, of which I took this morning.

DSC_1068.jpg

DSC_1069.jpg

DSC_1070.jpg

DSC_1071.jpg

DSC_1072.jpg

DSC_1073.jpg

DSC_1074.jpg

DSC_1075.jpg

DSC_1076.jpg
DJH1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2013, 03:08   #163
HSTEd
Established Member
 
Join Date: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 5,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swt_passenger View Post
HS2 will be built to UIC GC gauge. That has always been the case, ever since the first announcement by Adonis. That is also the largest gauge specified in the interoperbility standards (TSI).

Channel Tunnel gauge is a red herring, it is a captive gauge specifically designed for the drive on - drive off freight and passenger shuttles used only in the tunnel - and it is not, and never has been intended as a gauge for use on railways generally.
It has not been designed for use on general railways... it is smaller than gauges designed for general use on railways in India, the US and China....

But that is for freight use which will be going nowhere near HS2... although frankly the TSI loading gauge is too restrictive. We should be going for a Shinkansen compatible envelope (which is substantially wider).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainsworth74 View Post
In which case you can say the same about railways throughout Europe as no-one is building to Channel Tunnel gauge because why on earth would you? I'm all in favour of future proofing but this feels like a bit like too much proofing for too much money for me.
Betuweroute has had all infrastructure sized to enable a full AAR Plate H loading gauge for future double stack transports.

Last edited by HSTEd; 3rd February 2013 at 03:08. Reason: Double post prevention system
HSTEd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 22:10   #164
Inox
Member
 
Join Date: 2 Jan 2011
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJH1971 View Post
Whilst travelling into Manchester today, I can now confirm that a further stretch of catenary is now in place around Ordsall Lane Junction.

Pictures also attached, of which I took this morning.

Attachment 13425

Attachment 13426

Attachment 13427

Attachment 13428

Attachment 13429

Attachment 13430

Attachment 13431

Attachment 13432

Attachment 13433

hi

yeah, they've been up for a while those OHs. last night they were digging a trench on the side of the track, for what i do not know.

The OHs don't seem to be going up s fast as i thought they'd be - they seem to stop just before the bridge in front of the Windsor link....perhaps - maybe im looking out the wrong window...
Inox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 23:44   #165
DJH1971
Member
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2012
Location: St Helens, Merseyside
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inox View Post
hi

yeah, they've been up for a while those OHs. last night they were digging a trench on the side of the track, for what i do not know.

The OHs don't seem to be going up s fast as i thought they'd be - they seem to stop just before the bridge in front of the Windsor link....perhaps - maybe im looking out the wrong window...
Well, this stretch of catenary certainly wasn't up two weeks ago.
DJH1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:00.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright © 2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2014