Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[Ianno87]

I used to love Sunday travelling from Crewe -Preston. Quite a few times I have had a 47 attached to the electric at Wigan station and then a pair of Class 20s at the rear. The train has then travelled to Lostock Junction hauled by the 20s with the 47 in tail mode. Then at Lostock the 47 has taken over in Top mode with the 20s in tail mode.

Out of interest, how long ago was the practice you describe in operation? Grew up in the area since 1987 and have no recollection of personally seeing this taking place in my lifetime (the parts I was old enough to remember at least!).

I always wondered what the former trailing crossover at Lostock Jn was ever actually used for...

 

[thealexweb]

Apologies for my ignorance but I wondered what is the point of the Lostock-Wigan electrification?
I realise it's only a short distance but I cant think what services will actually use it.

It will allow three trains per direction per hour to go over to EMUs. Very handy when Northern Rail are short on DMUs.

 

[LDECRexile]

On a run round Phase 3 today I was not convinced any more mast bases have appeared in the last week.
Possibly some more excavations between Chorley station and tunnel.
To clarify progress on the complicated Salford Triangle:
- from Salford Crescent station to Windsor Bridge South Jn there are something like 6 bases along each of the 3 running lines
- from Windsor Bridge South Jn towards Ordsall Lane there are 10 bases on the Down and 4 on the Up, the southern limit being the Liverpool St bridge
- from Windsor Bridge South Jn towards Salford Central there are 9 bases on the Down and 13 on the Up, the eastern limit being the Oldfield Road bridge.

Running through the working bore at Farnworth, I would say about 80% of the length has now got concrete strengthening ready for the TBM work next door in the big tunnel.
Plenty of track-lowering work was going on under the bridges/tunnel west of Bolton.
Of all the Bolton route trains I saw today, only one was a double unit (one of the Hazel Groves).
Trains are thin on the ground at Salford Crescent in the special timetable.
I found to my cost there are connections there from Bolton to Victoria as long as 31 minutes!

As clear and helpful as always, thank you.

Paul and I went Wigan Wallgate-Bolton-Man Vic-Burnley Manchester Road via the Todmorden Curve. Burnley Manchester Road-Tod-Man Vic-Wigan Wallgate via Atherton today.

The track under the bridges/tunnel west of Bolton was noticeably smooth.

All trains we travelled on were two car, with crush loading on:

Bolton-Man Vic
Man Vic-Atherton

The Man Vic-Tod Curve and back trains were 142s with only a handful of passengers.

Newton Heath shed seemed to be bursting at the seams with DMUs.

Agree with your estimate of 80% shotcreted Farnworth narrow bore, but note the Orangeman's comment on Saturday that the job was done, so maybe the 20% isn't needed.

I'll weave your Salford Triangle base counts into the Progressometer.

Dave
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I used to love Sunday travelling from Crewe -Preston. Quite a few times I have had a 47 attached to the electric at Wigan station and then a pair of Class 20s at the rear. The train has then travelled to Lostock Junction hauled by the 20s with the 47 in tail mode. Then at Lostock the 47 has taken over in Top mode with the 20s in tail mode.

Long story short, for a closure between Wigan and Preston even with a Pendo, no need for loco attachment, reverse on electric power at Wigan NW station and then reverse again under electric power at Lostock Jct. A really good (non shortsighted) decision to electrify that little stretch of line.

The Hokey-Dokey sounds like real fun.

Not only will the manoeuvres you describe become easier, but also:

1. blockages Lostock-Euxton won't entail dragging electrics
2. blockages south of Wigan can be bipassed and Wigan still be served
3. suburban electrics can run Manchester-Wigan via Bolton
4. suburban electrics can potentially 'overrun' Manchester-Wigan, eg
4.1 Stalybridge-Manchester-Wigan-Kirby
4.2 Hazel Grove-Manchester-Wigan
5. semi-fasts and suburban electrics can run Manchester Airport-Southport.
6. Routes Manchester to WCML north are well used and the Sparks Effect may increase that; quite apart from diversions, to have a third route NW can only be good as it provides future-proofing.

4 and 5 depend on some form of electrification west of Wigan, eg battery or full whack 25kV.

As you say, small line, big potential benefits.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

AFAIK there are no plans to electrify North-west of Wigan (i.e. Southport and Kirkby)... I've heard it said that Wallgate would be an issue for OHLE, too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Regarding shotcreting apparently over only about 80% in the narrow tunnel, the description in Rail Engineer magazine was that there was a section that was too narrow to line, so they used a different method namely removing the existing brickwork and fitting steel rings.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Out of interest, how long ago was the practice you describe in operation? Grew up in the area since 1987 and have no recollection of personally seeing this taking place in my lifetime (the parts I was old enough to remember at least!).

I always wondered what the former trailing crossover at Lostock Jn was ever actually used for...

I am back in the UK July 1-6th and I will dig out my haulage book. I will be able to give you dates and loco numbers.

 

[snowball]

ALX400 and Bill Morton kindly sent photos they took over the weekend at Chorley Road Skew bridge plus one at Rawlinson Lane.

Their shots make sense of the mystery which Paul and I faced as to why two whopping great cranes had been brought in at considerable expense.

I've added ALX400's shots to his album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/sets/72157651121057352

And Bill Morton's to his album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/sets/72157650900509369

I've added them all, plus one taken at Bolton today, to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/sets/72157648767927083

Special thanks to ALX and Bill for turning out at short notice in pretty crap weather.

The latest batches of pictures of Farnworth, Skew Bridge and other locations are marvellous. Many thanks to all involved.

 

[LDECRexile]

Regarding shotcreting apparently over only about 80% in the narrow tunnel, the description in Rail Engineer magazine was that there was a section that was too narrow to line, so they used a different method namely removing the existing brickwork and fitting steel rings.

Aha.

Perhaps the steel rings were what Orangemen were dealing with on Saturday?

Please see:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/18299419535/in/album-72157648767927083/

and two or three adjacent photos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AFAIK there are no plans to electrify North-west of Wigan (i.e. Southport and Kirkby)... I've heard it said that Wallgate would be an issue for OHLE, too.

Thank you for correcting my typing.

You are correct that there are no plans to electrify west of Wigan.

There are aspirations, however, and electrifying Lostock Jn-Wigan makes them a whole lot less pie-in-the-sky.

The roof space at Wallgate is a hazard to 25kV which would need an imaginative solution.

Personally, I think the rechargeable battery unit currently under trial in East Anglia is the most exciting. The downside is that Southport is about at its limit of battery range. Maybe if the last 200 yards at Southport Platforms 4, 5 and 6 were wired such units could juice up whilst waiting to return? If it could juice up off 3rd rail then short extensions of the third rail at Kirkby and Southport would do the trick.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The latest batches of pictures of Farnworth, Skew Bridge and other locations are marvellous. Many thanks to all involved.

Thank you.

 

[po8crg]

If Wallgate is a big problem for OHLE, why not extend the Merseyrail third-rail from Southport and Kirkby to Wigan? Extend from Ormskirk to Burscough and rebuild the curves there while you're at it.

It's not going to happen next week or even next year, but it makes a perfectly reasonable alternative. I'm not generally a fan of third rail, but when there's a substantial amount already in place, why not extend it?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Regarding shotcreting apparently over only about 80% in the narrow tunnel, the description in Rail Engineer magazine was that there was a section that was too narrow to line, so they used a different method namely removing the existing brickwork and fitting steel rings.

The section in the middle without shotcrete has the wire cage framework that the rest of it has.
There's also a very short section where there is a low level connection between the narrow tunnel and the wide one (you can see the other tunnel briefly as you pass by).

 

[Grumpy]

Eventually, probably Wigan-Bolton-Stalybridge/Manchester Airport.
Other destinations (diesel) will go via Atherton.
TPE might route some Scotland services that way (ie serving both Bolton and Wigan).
It would be another electric diversionary route for the WCML.

Thanks. For some reason I had it in my head that the services over it continued to "off 25kv juice" destinations such as Southport or Kirkby. It's not a line I'm too familiar with. Last time I used it was around 3 years ago on a Manchester-Southport train. Pacer journey from hell (hot summer day with all windows open to let the maximum noise in, jolting around on jointed track west of Wigan etc.)

 

[WatcherZero]

Skelmersdale Rail Feasibility study has produced good BCR's so they are proceeding to Grip 3 on a new station with 2tph to Liverpool and 1tph to Manchester.

Southport line probably not a good candidate for 3rd rail due to the fencing requirements. Don't know what they are going to do about Wallgate it obviously needs something done as they have over the last couple of years installed a lot of extra semi-temporary structural support after a crack was found however the buildings on the bridge are listed I think.

 

[LDECRexile]

In post #1088 this morning I wrote:

"Personally, I think the rechargeable battery unit currently under trial in East Anglia is the most exciting. The downside is that Southport is about at its limit of battery range. Maybe if the last 200 yards at Southport Platforms 4, 5 and 6 were wired such units could juice up whilst waiting to return? If it could juice up off 3rd rail then short extensions of the third rail at Kirkby and Southport would do the trick."

Well, blow me down, unwinding after a day grandadding I read the "Rail Industry Innovation Awards 2015" supplement in the current Modern Railways (Modern Railways, June 2015, pp75-81). This lists the nominees and gives a synopsis of what they've done.

The Independently Powered Electrical Multiple Unit (IPEMU, aka battery powered train) is described on p78. Something related which I'd never heard of which may make battery power west of Wigan even more feasible, is described on p80, ie "Ultra High Power Charging".

The citation reads:

"RailBaar is Furrer + Frey's rapid-charge station for battery powered trains, taking existing proven technology from bus, tram and lorry applications. Using a low-cost and low-weight platform-side gantry, the ultra-high-power overhead automatic-charging station can eradicate the need for overhead line equipment and economically expand the operating range of battery powered trains. It is de-energised when not in use. With better charging, initial vehicle costs could be reduced through a reduced number of batteries or smaller, lighter batteries."

Here's more about it from a ten seconds internet 'search':

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulweston_scamps/17368110310

 

[WatcherZero]

Problem is it still requires a national grid connection and transformer equipment, so while it may make sense at a electrified station which has non electrified lines using it to install it in a previously un electrified platform, it doesn't really improve use at non-electrified stations.

 

[D6975]

Out of interest, how long ago was the practice you describe in operation? Grew up in the area since 1987 and have no recollection of personally seeing this taking place in my lifetime (the parts I was old enough to remember at least!).

I always wondered what the former trailing crossover at Lostock Jn was ever actually used for...

The Lostock drags, remember doing them just the once. The 20s normally only did Lostock Jn - Wigan, dragging a northbound to Lostock Jn, then returning dragging a southbound back to Wigan.
I did it on 11 December 1988. The 2 pairs that I had for haulage were 20218+189 and 20088+187.
Needless to say Tree was in attendance on that day.

 

[Elecman]

Problem is it still requires a national grid connection and transformer equipment, so while it may make sense at a electrified station which has non electrified lines using it to install it in a previously un electrified platform, it doesn't really improve use at non-electrified stations.

Depending on the DNO capacity available an 11 kv connection would certainly give you over 2MVA of capacity without a major grid connection which could then be transformed to 25 KV which must be suitable for battery top up charging at a terminal station/ stabling point

 

[LDECRexile]

Problem is it still requires a national grid connection and transformer equipment, so while it may make sense at a electrified station which has non electrified lines using it to install it in a previously un electrified platform, it doesn't really improve use at non-electrified stations.

Southport and Kirkby are both 3rd rail electrified, would that do the biz?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Depending on the DNO capacity available an 11 kv connection would certainly give you over 2MVA of capacity without a major grid connection which could then be transformed to 25 KV which must be suitable for battery top up charging at a terminal station/ stabling point

Sorry, I don't understand this. Is the gist that we wouldn't need megakit?

Thanks in anticipation.

Dave

 

[edwin_m]

Depending on the DNO capacity available an 11 kv connection would certainly give you over 2MVA of capacity without a major grid connection which could then be transformed to 25 KV which must be suitable for battery top up charging at a terminal station/ stabling point

If it's this one it is designed for the truck and bus industry and only transfers 650kW.

http://opbrid.info/news

I guess several could fitted to a train to transfer more power, on the other hand the existing pantograph would probably do the same job more simply. A typical EMU has around 1.5MW of installed power so even with a 2MW supply the time spent charging would be significant.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Needless to say Tree was in attendance on that day.

Tall guy - driver IIRC- remember him driving a class 60 off Warrington Bank Quay. Is that the same person?

 

[Whistler40145]

Tree also drove 31s & 37s. In the past, you'd either find him driving 31s on A1A Charters or traveling on them in the North West, he even signed 33s, driving 33202+31405 in multiple from Stafford to Workington plus other locations. Must be the same fella, very friendly chap.

 

[LDECRexile]

If it's this one it is designed for the truck and bus industry and only transfers 650kW.

http://opbrid.info/news

I guess several could fitted to a train to transfer more power, on the other hand the existing pantograph would probably do the same job more simply. A typical EMU has around 1.5MW of installed power so even with a 2MW supply the time spent charging would be significant.

Don't know if it is the one you've linked to, but

1. the name 'Railbaar' implies trains
2. the link in my post #1093 looks like a train
3. It's up for a Rail Innovations award
4. It's described in Modern Railways

I'd put a fiver on it being for battery powered trains.

 

[WatcherZero]

Opbrid is indeed the product linked from the Furrer and Frey website, Furrer manufacture several of the components. The tram and bus charging stations have been on the market for nearly a decade and as yet the charging station is only available in a Overhead DC version (likely simple port of the tram version) though says they are developing a AC version.

 

[snowball]

This page on the NR website confirms that all the bridges between Preston and Blackpool requiring attention have been done:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/North_West_electrification.aspx

It also has a link to a now rather old leaflet about the work.

 

[LDECRexile]

Bearing in mind my roots, I look at the MML Electrification thread from time to time.

Today I've come across this, posted there by 'civ-eng-jim' which is a very neat description of two approaches we're both likely to see on 'our' line.

'I expect two different methods of piling will be used for OLE pole foundations and bridge foundations.

Piled OLE foundations tend to be steel circular hollow sections which are rammed into the ground by vibratory or percussive methods. Their slender shape cut into the earth without excavating material.

Piling for the bridge will be by continuous flight auger which is effectively a giant drill bit. A cylinder of earth is excavated, a steel reinforced cage lowered in and then backfilled with concrete to form the pile.

While both are noisy operations, the noise from vibratory or percussive piling travels way further and would more than likely keep people awake.'

Steel circular hollow piles look like these:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/15449964026
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/15777491592

Concrete backfilled piles look this these:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/17762868281
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/17039523128
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/17110845612
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/15285850599
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/15473004785

I think

Thank you civ-eng-jim
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This page on the NR website confirms that all the bridges between Preston and Blackpool requiring attention have been done:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/North_West_electrification.aspx

It also has a link to a now rather old leaflet about the work.

Helpful, thank you.

It also includes a link to a NR film about Farnworth which in turn includes a neat, if short, graphic about reboring the big bore. I found using the pause option helpful.

If that film has been posted before, apologies - better twice than nonce.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Piling for the bridge will be by continuous flight auger which is effectively a giant drill bit. A cylinder of earth is excavated, a steel reinforced cage lowered in and then backfilled with concrete to form the pile.

Hmm. I'm not sure I have seen one of these steel cages in the NW project (for routine concrete bases).
All you tend to see are four long metal bolts which are set in the concrete to form the anchors for the mast structure.
But really, I have no idea what goes on below ground.
A 5-metre pile below ground is a huge foundation. I think some installed over Chat Moss were even longer!
I think the MML, like the GW, will be mainly piled (12000 on GW!).
The NW scheme is concrete-dominated - in fact I have yet to see a metal pile on Phase 4 (used on poor ground in Phase 1/2).
Concrete v piles? It sounds like a debate similar to concrete v tarmac on motorways. You'd think there would only be one approved way!

 

[LDECRexile]

Hmm. I'm not sure I have seen one of these steel cages in the NW project (for routine concrete bases).
All you tend to see are four long metal bolts which are set in the concrete to form the anchors for the mast structure.
But really, I have no idea what goes on below ground.
A 5-metre pile below ground is a huge foundation. I think some installed over Chat Moss were even longer!
I think the MML, like the GW, will be mainly piled (12000 on GW!).
The NW scheme is concrete-dominated - in fact I have yet to see a metal pile on Phase 4 (used on poor ground in Phase 1/2).
Concrete v piles? It sounds like a debate similar to concrete v tarmac on motorways. You'd think there would only be one approved way!

I used photos from Liverpool-Manchester for the metal ones because I haven't seen one on Blackpool-Salford yet, but you never know.

Talking to Orangemen, I reckon if we do need any steel ones for difficult ground it's likely to be between Kearsley and Agecroft.

 

[HowardGWR]

...........It sounds like a debate similar to concrete v tarmac on motorways. You'd think there would only be one approved way!

A bit OT but it's cost where roads are concerned. Concrete will last 'for ever' but is noisy and wears your tyres out. So the cost of concrete is for the road user and its neighbours, not the road maintainer. A favourite for DBFO builders,if they can get away with it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Don't know if it is the one you've linked to, but

1. the name 'Railbaar' implies trains
2. the link in my post #1093 looks like a train
3. It's up for a Rail Innovations award
4. It's described in Modern Railways

I'd put a fiver on it being for battery powered trains.

If it's this one it is designed for the truck and bus industry and only transfers 650kW.

http://opbrid.info/news

I guess several could fitted to a train to transfer more power, on the other hand the existing pantograph would probably do the same job more simply. A typical EMU has around 1.5MW of installed power so even with a 2MW supply the time spent charging would be significant.

The Class 379 IPEMU demonstrator would need around 7 minutes to charge using a 2MW supply, and between 7 and 14MW to do it in the time it takes for a station stop (60 to 120 seconds), assuming the battery is around half discharged.

That's assuming you can push that amount of power into a battery pack in 60 to 90 seconds. There's a lot of work going on to do this, but at the moment, it's not possible on anything that's commercially viable.

Tesla Motors are probably the company closest to having perfected the same technology but for a car. They fit either 70kWh or 85kWh battery packs to their cars - charging the 85kWh battery pack at one of Tesla's own 120kW supercharging stations from 10% to 100% is a 2 hour chore.

450kWh is the size of the battery pack fitted to the Class 379 IPEMU, so everything scales up accordingly, from power consumption and range through to the size of the charging equipment needed. It's not difficult to see how you reach MW sized chargers.

The difficulty of using an IPEMU and charging it up on the go without making a horse and cart a faster option end to end than the train really shouldn't be underestimated. It's really not the quick fix it's being made out to be. It's a good first step on the road to running electric trains without overhead electrification, but it's not the answer currently.

The hope would be that within 15 years, perhaps 10 years, when we're worrying about replacing life expired Class 156 and Class 158 units, an IPEMU will be a cost effective solution then, but there's only so much you can do with battery chemistry before you hit a plateau and can go no further, either physically or in a way that's economically viable.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not unlike the issue faces in the rail industry, whichever is the softer material will wear faster so you have to strike the balance between the hardness of the wheels and the hardness of the rails. Softer wheels mean more wheel turning and replacements, softer rails require more frequent replacement.

 

[CAF397]

Talking to Orangemen, I reckon if we do need any steel ones for difficult ground it's likely to be between Kearsley and Agecroft.

They will also probably be used on some sections between Kirkham and Poulton, especially around Weeton/Singleton where the embankment has suffered from slips in the past. It will probably be a similar approach to some of the Chat Moss, where metal piles support large metal portals.