Manchester - Stalybridge Electrification

[The_Engineer]

I have received this from an authoritative Orangeman:

"Phase 5 have been given infrastructure authorisation by the ORR which means it now needs operational authorisation and it will be ready to accept trains. Another big step and a sign Phase 5 is close to completion."

I have not been following Phase 5 closely, so I have nothing of value to add or comment on this except that it sounds like good news!

Unless I am missing something, is this not the ORR clearance to run electric passenger trains between Blackpool and Preston (i.e. phase 3)? North West Electrification Phase 5 is the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge and Ashburys electrification, for which not a lot has happened yet!

 

[swt_passenger]

Unless I am missing something, is this not the ORR clearance to run electric passenger trains between Blackpool and Preston (i.e. phase 3)? North West Electrification Phase 5 is the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge and Ashburys electrification, for which not a lot has happened yet!

Which is what makes it even more remarkable that the most recent CP5 EDP (from March this year) has an entry into service date for that bit you describe, and shown as phase 5, in er... May 2018! Maybe they've got totally confused with phasing...

 

[The_Engineer]

Maybe they've got totally confused with phasing...

Spot on!!

 

[familyguy99]

Don't sure if these belong on this thread given Ashton/Stalybridge line doesn't look like it going be electrification any time soon but here few picture that I took today at Ashton Moss junction









Just need to electrification line to make it look a lot better.

 

[geoffk]

The speeds diagram in the PWI presentation that Gralistair draws our attention to (for which, many thanks from one who had missed it!) appear to shew that 60 is proposed up the bank and round the curve at Miles Platting (after 40 at Victoria), with 80 then as far as Ashton, where there is a drop to 75, presumably because of the curvature past the island platform. After Ashton speed drops to 70 to and through Stalybridge.
This seems to indicate that two major interventions are planned, with a new curve at Miles Platting which will surely require new bridges and a complete re-alignment of the curve from the L&Y line into Stalybridge station.
Given that the speaker started by telling the audience how many slides he was not allowed to use and how much he could not say, presumably these two projects are pretty firm. So is there any point in wiring to Stalybridge before such major works are undertaken?

A feature of the 2012 layout at Stalybridge, which brought in the extra platforms, is the 25 mph limit on to the Ashton line, which is of course now the main line (again), used by all the non-stop trains. I think previously it was 40. Surely the new service pattern was anticipated six years ago as the Ordsall Chord has been in the planning that long. Or do the train operators and Network Rail just not talk to each other?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A feature of the 2012 layout at Stalybridge, which brought in the extra platforms, is the 25 mph limit on to the Ashton line, which is of course now the main line (again), used by all the non-stop trains. I think previously it was 40. Surely the new service pattern was anticipated six years ago as the Ordsall Chord has been in the planning that long. Or do the train operators and Network Rail just not talk to each other?

Plans are plans and NR got ORR approval for the current scheme in CP4, just as the Northern Hub plans for Victoria to be the main route came in for CP5.

 

[Senex]

Plans are plans and NR got ORR approval for the current scheme in CP4, just as the Northern Hub plans for Victoria to be the main route came in for CP5.

It would be interesting to know at what stage the idea of reverting to Victoria first became a proposal to be seriously investigated, since at that point there must have been a case for at the very least pausing the Stalybridge works. Or can the structures of today's railway no longer deal with things like pausing projects? As things have turned out, we're stuck with a layout giving a "fast" route for what is now the branch to and from Piccadilly and a totally lousy route for what is now to be the fast main line to and from Victoria, only minimally better than the 20 through the junction that used to apply. If the 40-minute journey is ever to come about, that is one of the jobs that will certainly need to be done over again, only a very few years after the last work.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It would be interesting to know at what stage the idea of reverting to Victoria first became a proposal to be seriously investigated, since at that point there must have been a case for at the very least pausing the Stalybridge works. Or can the structures of today's railway no longer deal with things like pausing projects? As things have turned out, we're stuck with a layout giving a "fast" route for what is now the branch to and from Piccadilly and a totally lousy route for what is now to be the fast main line to and from Victoria, only minimally better than the 20 through the junction that used to apply. If the 40-minute journey is ever to come about, that is one of the jobs that will certainly need to be done over again, only a very few years after the last work.

I think it was Stoke that took 3 goes to get right.
The first attempt expensively renewed the old layout, which had a lot of unused slow-speed freight infrastructure;
the second ripped out the redundant track but kept the slow station approaches;
it took a third go to build out P1 on to the avoiding line alignment and remove all the approach control.
It's now quite a fast and efficient layout for the main line, although Stoke Jn (towards Derby) is still painfully slow.

 

[edwin_m]

It would be interesting to know at what stage the idea of reverting to Victoria first became a proposal to be seriously investigated, since at that point there must have been a case for at the very least pausing the Stalybridge works. Or can the structures of today's railway no longer deal with things like pausing projects? As things have turned out, we're stuck with a layout giving a "fast" route for what is now the branch to and from Piccadilly and a totally lousy route for what is now to be the fast main line to and from Victoria, only minimally better than the 20 through the junction that used to apply. If the 40-minute journey is ever to come about, that is one of the jobs that will certainly need to be done over again, only a very few years after the last work.

It must have been the Northern Hub study (possibly called Manchester Hub at the time) that chose the Ordsall Chord in preference to the Ardwick Flyover. Unfortunately I don't have time to look it up right now but it must be on the WWW somewhere.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

It must have been the Northern Hub study (possibly called Manchester Hub at the time) that chose the Ordsall Chord in preference to the Ardwick Flyover. Unfortunately I don't have time to look it up right now but it must be on the WWW somewhere.

Correct; cost grounds and that the chord solved more problems that Ardwick Flyover.

 

[jayah]

It would be interesting to know at what stage the idea of reverting to Victoria first became a proposal to be seriously investigated, since at that point there must have been a case for at the very least pausing the Stalybridge works. Or can the structures of today's railway no longer deal with things like pausing projects? As things have turned out, we're stuck with a layout giving a "fast" route for what is now the branch to and from Piccadilly and a totally lousy route for what is now to be the fast main line to and from Victoria, only minimally better than the 20 through the junction that used to apply. If the 40-minute journey is ever to come about, that is one of the jobs that will certainly need to be done over again, only a very few years after the last work.

According to my 2009 S.A (online) it has risen from 15mph to 25mph so that is progress as far as Network Rail are concerned.

In case anyone was wondering, given a £bn to spent on that part of the country, I would tear up a good deal of the formation and start again. You will never get a 21st century alignment in a 19th century alignment. But at Stalybridge given the space available to mind boggles how they came up with 25mph even if every Ashton train called there.

 

[snowball]

That's my recollection, too. I don't recall any announcement that electrification to Stalybridge had been cancelled or postponed (and just to be clear, running a supply cable from Heyrod but with no overhead wires does not count as electrification), but it seems to be the fashion these days for government ministers to cancel schemes and then not bother to make their decisions public until months later.

Perhaps I wasn't paying attention when it was cancelled, or it's an announcement to be slipped out tomorrow when we're all distracted by something else? Not that I'm the slightest bit cynical, you understand.

Which is what makes it even more remarkable that the most recent CP5 EDP (from March this year) has an entry into service date for that bit you describe, and shown as phase 5, in er... May 2018! Maybe they've got totally confused with phasing...

Sorry to reply to a couple of week-old remarks.

It was discussed here at the time. There was no announcement. There remained an item in the EDP that continued to have the title "Phase 5, Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge", but the definition of its content changed. In one update last year it became "Manchester Victoria to the Miles Platting area, details to be determined" (or some very similar wording); in the current version it says

25kV AC overhead electrification between Manchester Victoria and the Bromley Street (Manchester) area, new grid supply point at Stalybridge, associated power cable from Stalybridge to Ordsall Lane for Phases 4 and 5 NWEP and infrastructure improvements to give journey time savings.

So, this time last year NR were still telling the public that electrification from Victoria to Stalybridge would be completed by the end of 2017; shortly before that deadline they reduced the project's scope to 10% of what it had been.

This is worth bearing in mind when reading posts #381 and #383.

 

[Senex]

According to my 2009 S.A (online) it has risen from 15mph to 25mph so that is progress as far as Network Rail are concerned.

In case anyone was wondering, given a £bn to spent on that part of the country, I would tear up a good deal of the formation and start again. You will never get a 21st century alignment in a 19th century alignment. But at Stalybridge given the space available to mind boggles how they came up with 25mph even if every Ashton train called there.

I'd taken my information from the 1960 LMR (Central Lines) SA, which gives 20 through the junction to and from the station and then 15 between Nos. 2 and 4 boxes through the station itself. However, the 1960 LMR (Western Lines : Crewe and North Thereof) SA gives for No. 2 box 15 through the junction from and to Ashton Charlestown, thus apparently disagreeing with the Central Lines book. By the 1977 issue, now for the northern half of the region, the restriction has become 15 between 7m30ch (ex Victoria) and the 8 milepost.

Regarding possible speeds, the February 2017 presentation to the Permanent Way Institution indicated a possible 80 through Stalybridge and on to Mossley after 75 and then 70 for the curves through and after Ashton. The present speeds of 25 to and from Victoria and 50 to and from Guide Bridge belong to the layout commissioned in November 2012, so just over five years old.

It's interesting that Stalybridge is such a mess because of the railway politics of the 1840s. The end-on junction of the SA&M branch from Guide Bridge with the H&M line from Huddersfield was designed when the SA&M was hoping to amalgamate with the H&M. The M&L built a separate station for its branch. The politics shifted, the H&M was taken over by the LNW which right from the start planned to use the M&L branch into Manchester. A really good junction was planned and powers were sought, but then money spoke and those plans were exchanged for an agreement with the SA&M (by now the MS&L) under which the simple double crossover between the two lines was built, and that was responsible for the lousy speeds there ever since.

 

[jayah]

I'd taken my information from the 1960 LMR (Central Lines) SA, which gives 20 through the junction to and from the station and then 15 between Nos. 2 and 4 boxes through the station itself. However, the 1960 LMR (Western Lines : Crewe and North Thereof) SA gives for No. 2 box 15 through the junction from and to Ashton Charlestown, thus apparently disagreeing with the Central Lines book. By the 1977 issue, now for the northern half of the region, the restriction has become 15 between 7m30ch (ex Victoria) and the 8 milepost.

Regarding possible speeds, the February 2017 presentation to the Permanent Way Institution indicated a possible 80 through Stalybridge and on to Mossley after 75 and then 70 for the curves through and after Ashton. The present speeds of 25 to and from Victoria and 50 to and from Guide Bridge belong to the layout commissioned in November 2012, so just over five years old.

It's interesting that Stalybridge is such a mess because of the railway politics of the 1840s. The end-on junction of the SA&M branch from Guide Bridge with the H&M line from Huddersfield was designed when the SA&M was hoping to amalgamate with the H&M. The M&L built a separate station for its branch. The politics shifted, the H&M was taken over by the LNW which right from the start planned to use the M&L branch into Manchester. A really good junction was planned and powers were sought, but then money spoke and those plans were exchanged for an agreement with the SA&M (by now the MS&L) under which the simple double crossover between the two lines was built, and that was responsible for the lousy speeds there ever since.

There is a huge amount of space at Stalybridge itself if only they had done a proper job of remodeling it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is a huge amount of space at Stalybridge itself if only they had done a proper job of remodeling it.

Let’s say TP upgrade does go ahead with electrification , it really would be wasteful to remodel it again.

 

[Senex]

Let’s say TP upgrade does go ahead with electrification , it really would be wasteful to remodel it again.

It all depends on whether the 40-minute promise really means anything, doesn't it? If that still stands—and it was repeated in public not very long ago, along with 62 minutes to York—then jobs like Stalybridge are going to be needed if there is any hope of delivering, either with electrification or with bi-modes. If, on the other hand, that has now been quietly dropped (as we are told platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly have been) then the poor layout can stay as something quite good enough for provincial Manchester.

 

[Class 170101]

Let’s say TP upgrade does go ahead with electrification , it really would be wasteful to remodel it again.

But it would be the right time to re-model it even though the layout is only five years old or so if electrification went ahead as opposed to wiring it first and then remodelling it some years after that.

 

[Mollman]

But it would be the right time to re-model it even though the layout is only five years old or so if electrification went ahead as opposed to wiring it first and then remodelling it some years after that.

Although there is of course the danger that they will remodel it again only for the higher speed to become unnecessary a few years later when HS3 opens (ooh a flying pig!)

 

[jayah]

Although there is of course the danger that they will remodel it again only for the higher speed to become unnecessary a few years later when HS3 opens (ooh a flying pig!)

HS3 must be 20 years away if ever?

25mph is useless on a key artery and should be sorted out. I was reading about the so called upgrade to the Blackburn - Bolton line where they passed over line speed improvements from 20mph to 60mph because there was no performance improvement.

It makes depressing reading.

 

[snowball]

Does anyone have any recent information on progress on either

a) electrification from Victoria towards Miles Platting
b) the extension lead from Stalybridge to Manchester?

 

[BurtonM]

There's not a lot to report AFAIK.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't remember the exact figures, but there is a cluster of something like 7 fully dressed portals up east of Victoria towards Miles Platting, but still a fair gap between them and the existing wires at the station, maybe another 7 to install I'd say.
This is mostly on bridge sections where there is no room for normal foundations, and the portals will have to span the Metrolink lines.
The eastern bays P1/2 at Victoria have masts but no wires yet.
The lineside power lead cable route from Stalybridge is partially constructed but still seems to have significant gaps.

 

[twpsaesneg]

The construction teams have been concentrating on the Euxton Junction to Manchester side, once it ramps down over there then we may start to see some more works. However I am led to believe access is far worse now than before the timetable change.

 

[Jonny]

The trouble with remodelling Stalybridge is that unless a blockade-type workaround can be arranged, which would surely be logistically very complicated, any remodelling would have to be done on a piece-meal basis. That would mean set up a possession, do one bit of work and hand back the possession... repeatedly; which is both slow and very expensive, even more so if ^knitting^ oops I meant electrification is present and therefore has to be altered.

 

[Scott95]

I'm not sure if anybody is aware at the moment but Ashton Moss box has shut now, control has been handed over to Manchester ROC i believe if i remember rightly last time I took a line blockage there.

 

[twpsaesneg]

There may be some small part steel works being carried out over this weekend between Victoria and Rochdale Road overbridge, plus I understand some more foundations are now in.

 

[td97]

Didn't notice any new SPS on my commute this morning. It has been fitted quite erratically so it's difficult to remember which bits have already been fitted, but I'll take another look this evening.

 

[td97]

Current state of affairs on the eastern viaduct into Manchester Victoria, generally in order from West to East:

East terminal platforms

• 2x masts with registration arms platform 1
• 2x cantilever plat 2

West run (MCV end)

• 1x portal (existing from NWEP2) 50% sps fit-out
• 2x portals SPS 70% fitted
• Some concrete bases in place, 1 rather large to-be installed base has a wooden frame/cutout but no concrete yet

East run (Rochdale Road end)

• 7x portals visible from tram, there are more further east but the tram goes behind shrubbery and then into the underpass. Fairly sure the latest (photo 1) was fitted this weekend. Photo order is from middle of the viaduct (least SPS) to Rochdale Rd (most SPS), and each photo is a consecutive portal.
• 

Photos are taken stood on the tram with a fairly uneven ride so apologies for not including the whole portal and general shakiness.
I get the impression that the idea is to work from both ends of the viaduct and then meet in the middle.
Does anyone whether the signal gantries will survive?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Current state of affairs on the eastern viaduct into Manchester Victoria, generally in order from West to East:


Does anyone whether the signal gantries will survive?

I hope so, they were designed and installed in 1998 with OLE in mind; should just need the platforms caging.

 

[snowball]

I hope so, they were designed and installed in 1998 with OLE in mind; should just need the platforms caging.

Apparently there were some gantries at Newport that were supposed to be OLE-compatible but turned out not to be!