• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
This suggestion appears to overlook the projected future intensive use of this stretch of line by the electrified services from Manchester Piccadilly bay platforms to Leeds, that are part of the railway vision of recent major projects in the North of England.

It certainly does, but then that is what makes it relevant as a suggestion for this thread about that route.

I imagine the trains could be sent to the East side of Victoria to terminate if the will was there.

It was very much a fantasy suggestion, and maybe in keeping with that there would be a way to grade separate Guide Bridge and keep the connection. Perhaps my tunnel could start early instead of continuing to the limit of the 4 track line towards Hyde.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Only by stringing the cables over the top of the moor above the tunnels. Imagine the public outcry!

Hope Valley is not at capacity, it leads directly into Sheffield Midland, and via the Dore Curve directly towards Chesterfield. Linking the Woodhead line into Sheffield Midland would be a huge engineering task, and please no suggestions that Victoria could re-open. Sheffield does not need two unconnected railway stations.

Well they are going to get them with HS2! Why not run the Woodhead route past Sheffield Victoria to Meadowhall and into HS2 and run 'compatibles' from Manchester Airport to Newcastle (for instance)?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Well they are going to get them with HS2! Why not run the Woodhead route past Sheffield Victoria to Meadowhall and into HS2 and run 'compatibles' from Manchester Airport to Newcastle (for instance)?

I would support any proposal to overturn the planned removal of the Newcastle service from Manchester Airport, but I only selfishly say this as the airport will lose its direct service to Durham and all its historical connections such as the cathedral.

Middlesbrough does not seem to be an acceptable tourist substitute, notwithstanding its railway connectional link to Whitby...:roll:
 

DJH1971

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2012
Messages
1,527
Location
St Helens, Merseyside
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more call on the CLC line from Liverpool to Manchester yo be wired, especially with the wires now going east of Manchester.

The newly electrified Chat Moss line will be beyond saturation point!
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more call on the CLC line from Liverpool to Manchester yo be wired, especially with the wires now going east of Manchester.

The newly electrified Chat Moss line will be beyond saturation point!

The consensus is usually it will come in CP6/early 7.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more call on the CLC line from Liverpool to Manchester yo be wired, especially with the wires now going east of Manchester.
The newly electrified Chat Moss line will be beyond saturation point!

Its future is probably tied up with the Hope Valley route.
It doesn't help that the Cleethorpes/Norwich services have no chance of electrification in the short term.

Currently there are only 6tph max on the Chat Moss route (Lime St-Huyton), 7 after the Liverpool-Newcastle starts.
Only 3/4tph east of Parkside. Not that busy really.
 
Last edited:

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I would support any proposal to overturn the planned removal of the Newcastle service from Manchester Airport, but I only selfishly say this as the airport will lose its direct service to Durham and all its historical connections such as the cathedral.

On a personal level, my main issue with this change is yet more people with lots of luggage being told to change to Airport services at Huddersfield. The one thing Huddersfield doesn't need is way more crowds in the station that won't go into town and spend money! :roll:

Then again, 2tph to Liverpool is a plus, so silver linings...:|
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
For all you Woodhead tunnel fanatics.... Movement!
Though perhaps not in a good direction.

As you may remember reopening the tunnels was considered for Northern Hub but dropped in favour of Hope Valley and electrification. Developement work on Northern Hub in 2008 concluded that improving the Hope Valley line was cheaper, benfitted the freight traffic on the quarries along the route and that there was no short/medium term need to reopen the Woodhead tunnels complicated by the fact that the National Grid cables then ran through the tunnels and it was decided that the 1950's tunnels didnt meet modern standards and if Woodhead was to be reused new tunnels would have to be bored.

In 2009 further Northern Hub work concluded that the Woodhead tunnels could not produce a potential Manchester-Sheffield journey time of under 40 minutes that improving the Hope Valley could though it could provide increased capacity for freight and slower passenger trains.

Consequently the Woodhead tunnels were not included in the Governments 2012 HLOS for control period 5.

However National Grid recently renewed the electricity cables through the 1950's tunnel and no longer requires the 19th century tunnels, In response to this the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to local authorities along the route in July and asked them their views on what should be done with the tunnels for future long term Transpennine transport and asked for responses by September. The Manchester policymakers believe that the Government/ORR is unhappy with the NR cost estimates for the Hope Valley lines improvement (The ORR draft determination suggests a reduction of £115m in the amount NR asked for to deliver Northern Hub) and is considering delaying work on the Hope Valley line for 5-10 years and instead reopening Woodhead as a short term fudge.

Not sure what replys other authorities will give but TfGM is responding that the Hope Valley improvements are essential for faster services and while reopening the Woodhead tunnels is something they would support and an option they want to keep open they wouldnt support it if the sole purpose was to justify downgrading the Northern Hub scope.


TfGM letter to Dft

Text of Letter from TfGM to the Minister of State, Department for Transport
Manchester – Sheffield Rail Services

Thank you for your letter dated 5th July concerning rail services between Manchester and Sheffield and the potential use of the Woodhead route in the
future.

When this was last discussed in 2008 the then Chair of GMITA wrote to then Ministers saying that a study into the potential use of the route was required to enable informed decisions to be made. The Northern Way subsequently conducted a technical review of the Woodhead route, and the practicalities of using the tunnels for rail services; and Network Rail, in conjunction with the wider rail industry (including PTEs), has progressed the Manchester/Northern Hub programme of works.

Currently there is a single rail route between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley. This route links both Liverpool and Manchester with Nottingham and Sheffield, and is therefore part of the key rail network that links four Core Cities together - not just a local link between Manchester and Sheffield.

The Hope Valley route is used by express trains linking the North West to South Humberside and the East Midlands, by local trains between Manchester and Sheffield, by freight trains from the quarries along the route and by through freight trains between the North West and South of England.

As a consequence of this mix of trains the available infrastructure is intensively used and efforts to increase the frequency of local passenger services have been unsuccessful. The Manchester/Northern Hub study therefore considered options for enhancing the capability of the rail network between Manchester and Sheffield, and concluded there was no requirement to re-open the Woodhead route in the short/medium-term as the Hope Valley route could be enhanced for less cost. Also, because of the quarries along the Hope Valley that require rail access and the towns/villages with commuters to both Sheffield and Manchester there would be no prospect of significantly reducing the cost of the rail infrastructure on that line. The prospect of re-opening the Woodhead route, however, has remained on the agenda of some organisations.

TfGMC and the GMCA endorsed the Northern Hub conclusions and the development proposals, recognising that enhancing links between Core Cities and improving commuter services are essential if the economy of Britain is to be rebalanced, with regional conurbations contributing more to national performance.

Department for Transport officials, however, have recently suggested that the infrastructure enhancements to the Hope Valley route may be delayed for five or ten years. Given the forecast growth in demand (both passenger and freight could nearly double) this is of great concern, as without the capability to operate more trains the demand cannot be met. There are severe physical constraints at some stations that limit the ability to lengthen platforms cost-effectively and achieve a doubling of train length and more, slow freight trains are likely to result in slower speeds for passenger trains. If the Hope Valley line is not to be improved this increases the arguments for preserving the option of re-opening the Woodhead route.

Although TfGM considers improving the Hope Valley route should be the best option for enhancing rail services between the four Core Cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham, as well as improving commuter and freight services along the line. However, as there are uncertainties surrounding the Hope Valley infrastructure enhancements it is difficult to say categorically that the Woodhead route should be completely abandoned. Support from Greater Manchester is dependent on commitments from both the DfT and Network Rail to delivery of Hope Valley route improvements that will enable the forecast passenger and freight requirements to be accommodated, with significant journey time improvements, so that growth of the North of England economy is not constrained by lack of infrastructure capability.

If you would like to discuss our position further please contact Louise Ebbs, Head of Rail – Interim ([email protected]).

Dr Jon Lamonte
 
Last edited:

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
It strikes me as rather optimistic to think that a lack of funding to upgrade the Hope Valley could improve the case for a much more expensive reopening of Woodhead, either now or in the future.

Chris
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Electrification would improve the stopper's performance significantly, allowing flighting of express services as required.

Surely any new stock would be a big help? I should think that electrification could offer an improvement to the stopping services as well. Let's not forget Barlaston, Wedgwood and Norton Bridge which went that way as well.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Consequently the Woodhead tunnels were not included in the Governments 2012 HLOS for control period 5. However National Grid recently renewed the electricity cables through the 1950's tunnel and no longer requires the 19th century tunnels, In response to this the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to local authorities along the route in July and asked them their views on what should be done with the tunnels for future long term Transpennine transport and asked for responses by September. The Manchester policymakers believe that the Government/ORR is unhappy with the NR cost estimates for the Hope Valley lines improvement (The ORR draft determination suggests a reduction of £115m in the amount NR asked for to deliver Northern Hub) and is considering delaying work on the Hope Valley line for 5-10 years and instead reopening Woodhead as a short term fudge.

When was the last officially released report made on the structural and other related matters that concern the two original tunnel bores of Woodhead ?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Northern Hub/Manchester Hub studies of 2008 and 2009, not sure if they were in public sections though.
 

furryfeet

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2008
Messages
449
On positive news, I hear Standedge tunnel spare bore re-openings are being reinvestigated as part of the project to boost Transpennine freight capabilities.
Nice to hear some forward thinking about Standedge !
Is there any details in what form the disused bores would be used be they
a) one bore or both
b) electric or non-electric ( if non-electric then surely easier to get W10 gauge for freight and other large gauge rolling stock )
c) unidirectional, or bi-directional. The latter in particular would enable the 1894 tunnel to be shut at night for periodic maintenance.

If it goes ahead, would this work go in tandem with the Nothern Hub upgrade and associated electrification and resignalling work ?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
One of the disused single bores at Standedge is used as emergency access for the canal tunnel (and in theory the extant rail tunnel too). WY Fire Service periodically drive an appliance down it as a training exercise. Though I don't see any reason why a tramway-style surface couldn't be laid over running lines to allow this to continue, as if there ever was an emergency in one of the tunnels all trains would be stopped anyway, I'd have thought.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Are there any reinforced bracings affixed in the Standedge disused bores ? If so, would they be the cause of any problems should re-opening be a considered option.

There may be some in the completely disused bore, though I've never heard it mentioned- and given that reopening the unused tunnels has been talked about on-and-off for the last 10-15 years I'd have thought if there were any blockages or problems that you wouldn't need to be a civil engineer to spot- then this would have been mentioned on this forum by now! As for the emergency tunnel, I'm not sure if the fire appliances are able to run right through to Diggle (into 'enemy' territory!) or if there's similar access on the Lancashire side of the tunnel. However it's probably fair to say that this tunnel will at least have been maintained to a reasonable standard at least along the length that's required for access.
 
Last edited:

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,882
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
The single bores always used to be treated as one way traffic for any authorised vehicles.
There was also the option of turning round and returning out the way you came in by the "Cathedral" in the centre of the tunnel, if your turning circle was small enough.

Access to the canal can be made from either the current Up Line or from the Northern single track bore as the cross passages link to both tunnels and have bridges across the canal.

Emergency vehicle access can always be provided by use of R/Rail vehicles as used by Avon Fire brigade for the Severn Tunnel, no need for tramway surfacing.
 

lancastrian

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
534
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
The problem with the Hope Valley line is the presence of the stopping trains which make it difficult to add any more express services, except during the off-peak hours on Monday to Friday when the stopping trains run every 2 hours.

From Sheffield, a stopping train departs immediately after a TPE service to Manchester. By the time the stopper reaches New Mills South junction, the following East Midland Norwich - Liverpool service is only a few minutes behind it.

I know that this might sound like a simple idea, and I don't seem to have seen it suggested before in this discussion, although I could be wrong.

If the express will catch up the stopper by New Mills Junction, then surely the simplest solution would be to put in loops and re-instated platforms at Chinley. Then any expresses from either Sheffield or Manchester can pass the stoppers at Chinley. Simples.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
If the express will catch up the stopper by New Mills Junction, then surely the simplest solution would be to put in loops and re-instated platforms at Chinley. Then any expresses from either Sheffield or Manchester can pass the stoppers at Chinley. Simples.

Both you and I are of an age to recall when Chinley was of a different station layout to that of today.

Even before our time, the rearranging works of 1902 saw five through platforms and one bay platform.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Northern Hub considered extra tracks at Chinley, and I guess it would be quite easy to put back some non-platform tracks round the outside though it looks like housing has been built where the southernmost platform used to be. Operationally it's not ideal though, as it is only a short distance from the junction where the slow and the fast trains take different routes. The ideal overtaking place would be about half way between Dore and Chinley but that is more difficult as it's in the National Park and this section was only ever double track with occasional sidings.
 

Sapphire Blue

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
439
I'm not sure if the fire appliances are able to run right through to Diggle (into 'enemy' territory!) or if there's similar access on the Lancashire side of the tunnel.

Stop right there fella!
Diggle is not, and never was, in enemy territory.
West Riding of Yorkshire pre 1974 and, whatever the politicians say, still is.
 

lancastrian

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
534
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
The Northern Hub considered extra tracks at Chinley, and I guess it would be quite easy to put back some non-platform tracks round the outside though it looks like housing has been built where the southernmost platform used to be. Operationally it's not ideal though, as it is only a short distance from the junction where the slow and the fast trains take different routes. The ideal overtaking place would be about half way between Dore and Chinley but that is more difficult as it's in the National Park and this section was only ever double track with occasional sidings.

They ideal thing would to reopen the northern island platform, then you could have cross platform connections between fast services which use the route via Stockport and those slow services which use the old Mid?GCR route via Romiley.

This would give the stations in the Hope Valley a decent connection to Manchester & London via Stockport.
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,882
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
Stop right there fella!
Diggle is not, and never was, in enemy territory.
West Riding of Yorkshire pre 1974 and, whatever the politicians say, still is.

However on the Railway the boundary between what was Eastern and Midland regions upto at least 2010 was approx the West Portal of Standedge tunnel.
Actually the small culvert a few yards west.

So Diggle could be held to be in enemy territory.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
The Northern Hub considered extra tracks at Chinley, and I guess it would be quite easy to put back some non-platform tracks round the outside though it looks like housing has been built where the southernmost platform used to be. Operationally it's not ideal though, as it is only a short distance from the junction where the slow and the fast trains take different routes. The ideal overtaking place would be about half way between Dore and Chinley but that is more difficult as it's in the National Park and this section was only ever double track with occasional sidings.

I thought chinley was confirmed as getting extra tracks as part of the hub.
 

Viscount702

Member
Joined
7 Sep 2011
Messages
329
I thought chinley was confirmed as getting extra tracks as part of the hub.

This is what is quoted on the Hub fact sheet to be done at Chinley. The precise detail isn't known yet. Also as has been reported elsewhere the funding/timescale for the Hope Valley line is now possibly in doubt


"Facts: We're adding an overtaking loop and providing the ability to terminate trains from Manchester without blocking the main line.

Benefits: Trains going beyond Chinley can overtake terminating trains, reducing bottlenecks, and faster, more frequent trains can be operated between Manchester and Sheffield."
 

noddingdonkey

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
772
How will TPE cope with off-wire diversions once they've redeployed the 185s to non electric routes and 350s are the main traction?
 

Top