Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[59CosG95]

Are these start and finish dates for each activity?

In which case could we see steelwork being erected and cabling installed from the Spring onwards?

Looks to be good progress, getting our jabs too!

HNY

WAO

I'd certainly expect steelwork start to go up around the spring, or perhaps summer at a push.

The first OLE piles are in at Colton South Jn... https://flic.kr/p/2knutxf

...and Bolton Percy: https://flic.kr/p/2knzYqV.
At both locations, piles seem to be concentrated near the Up Normanton line. It also seems to me that (possibly due to Storm Bella) the OLE modification didn't occur at Colton, Copmanthorpe & Dringhouses - all of which are locations consistent with booster transformer removal.

 

[59CosG95]

NR's January Works Tracker for York - Church Fenton is now online. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/January-Work-Tracker.pdf
Summary of Works:

• Installation of Acoustic Fence - Colton Jn, 11 Jan 2021
• Installation of Catch Pits - Colton Jn, 4 Jan 2021
• Fibre Cable Tests - Copmanthorpe, 18 & 25 Jan 2021 (post installation)
• OLE Pile Installation - Braegate Lane & Colton Jn, 10 - 22 Jan 2021; Bolton Percy 23 Jan - 5 Feb 2021; Church Fenton & Ulleskelf 23 Jan - 12 Feb 2021
• King Post Installation (for ballast support) - Ulleskelf, Braegate Lane & Colton Jn 10 - 22 Jan 2021; Church Fenton 24 - 31 Jan 2021
• Trough Route Installation - Colton Jn 10 - 17 Jan 2021; Bolton Percy & Braegate Lane 18 - 31 Jan 2021; Church Fenton & Ulleskelf 1 - 19 Feb 2021

Update to this - NR have issued a circular to local residents (also available online) detailing an amended Piling Schedule.
This is detailed below.

06 January 2020
Our Ref: Overhead Line Equipment Installation- Piling

Dear Neighbour,

Essential Piling Work- Important Update - Amendment to Schedule

Following up from our January ‘work tracker’, we would like to inform you that there has been an amendment to the schedule for essential piling work. These adjustments have been made due to ground conditions and to allow us to finish the piling programme sooner than originally forecast.

Our specialist teams will now be working along the track between the following dates:

• Saturday 16 January (PM) – Sunday 24 January (AM) - We will be piling overnight along the line in a southward direction starting north of Bolton Percy and moving to Ulleskelf and Church Fenton
• Monday 25 January (PM) - Friday 29 January (AM) - We will be piling overnight along the line in a southward direction through Church Fenton

The work will be carried out overnight during the following times:

• Weekday nights (Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday/Friday): 23:00 – 06:00
• Weekend nights (Saturday overnight to Sunday): 00:10 – 07:45

 

[Ploughman]

Is there a link to that circular?

 

[59CosG95]

Is there a link to that circular?

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ork-to-Church-Fenton-Piling-notification.docx should do it.

 

[InOban]

You don't often see an amended schedule allowing earlier completion than originally planned!

 

[Ploughman]

Thanks for that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ork-to-Church-Fenton-Piling-notification.docx should do it.

Indeed thanks. BTW and I know slightly OT but I think that is the first time I have seen something put out in Word docx format rather than html or PDF. I have downloaded it for posterity.

You don't often see an amended schedule allowing earlier completion than originally planned!

No and it really is good to see. Builds confidence at DfT and HM Treasury.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

deleted - automerge does not seem to be working sorry.

 

[Halish Railway]

A few questions about this scheme:

1. When will the linespeeds be increased?

2. Will the scheme use GWML style Series 1 electrification or Series 2 electrification found on most other recent schemes?

 

[59CosG95]

A few questions about this scheme:

1. When will the linespeeds be increased?

2. Will the scheme use GWML style Series 1 electrification or Series 2 electrification found on most other recent schemes?

Answers:
1. No idea yet.
2. Neither. As discussed further upthread, Siemens' SICAT SA range of catenary will be used; this has recently been added to the UKMS design range which currently includes elements from both Series 1 & 2.

 

[Halish Railway]

Answers:
1. No idea yet.
2. Neither. As discussed further upthread, Siemens' SICAT SA range of catenary will be used; this has recently been added to the UKMS design range which currently includes elements from both Series 1 & 2.

I’m assuming that design of electrification is the same type that can be found at Stevenage platform 5. Although we’ve seen an early version of that design in the Glasgow/Paisley area, it’ll be interesting to see how they plan to incorporate the design with portal masts on TRU and wether it’ll be different to what was seen in Paisley.

It’s nice to have a break from the rather magnolia series 2 electrification that is prominent in the North.

Later note:

I’ve read this article (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....cat-joins-network-rails-uk-master-series/?amp) and my attention was caught by this:

Clearances are an essential factor in the planning phase of overhead line system design. If a conflict of electrical clearances occurs, then considerations have to be made to either modify the relevant structure (bridge, tunnel or building) or lower the tracks, both of which require complicated, extensive and expensive design and construction works to achieve the required electrical clearance.

To address this issue, and so to reduce or eliminate the costs of either having to make modifications to the structure or to lower the track, Siemens has developed an alternative solution which uses a surge arrester in circuit with the overhead line system. This offers significant benefits both in terms of the cost and speed of electrification works, particularly compared to any requirement for reconstructing or modifying buildings, bridges or tunnels, or for lowering existing tracks.

Presumably this surge arrester solution is a way of getting around some of the many clearance issues found in TRU (Most notably the Dewsbury footbridge and the terrace houses in extremely close proximity to the railway immediately south of Mossley station), although I’d hardly consider myself to be an expert on anything to do with electricity.

 

[jonesy3001]

Is there anything happening on the stalybridge line to both manchester stations or is it still awaiting approval, last time I was in manchester there was a compound on Oldham rd, newton heath to repair/replace the bridges.

 

[Halish Railway]

Is there anything happening on the stalybridge line to both manchester stations or is it still awaiting approval, last time I was in manchester there was a compound on Oldham rd, newton heath to repair/replace the bridges.

The realignment of the Miles Platting curve has begun, with the line speed being raised from 30MPH to 55MPH.

 

[59CosG95]

I’m assuming that design of electrification is the same type that can be found at Stevenage platform 5. Although we’ve seen an early version of that design in the Glasgow/Paisley area, it’ll be interesting to see how they plan to incorporate the design with portal masts on TRU and wether it’ll be different to what was seen in Paisley.

It’s nice to have a break from the rather magnolia series 2 electrification that is prominent in the North.

Later note:

I’ve read this article (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.railengineer.co.uk/sicat-joins-network-rails-uk-master-series/?amp) and my attention was caught by this:

Presumably this surge arrester solution is a way of getting around some of the many clearance issues found in TRU (Most notably the Dewsbury footbridge and the terrace houses in extremely close proximity to the railway immediately south of Mossley station), although I’d hardly consider myself to be an expert on anything to do with electricity.

'Potentially' add the small gap between Common Lane & Rose Lane bridges in Church Fenton too...

 

[Domh245]

It’s nice to have a break from the rather magnolia series 2 electrification that is prominent in the North.

I'm sure that the maintenance teams probably don't appreciate yet another type of OLE equipment to stock and deal with!

 

[59CosG95]

I'm sure that the maintenance teams probably don't appreciate yet another type of OLE equipment to stock and deal with!

Depends on the areas in each maintenance team's scope.
Hitchin OLE (south end of the ECML) have had SICAT SA at Stevenage (and also on the Hertford Loop with structure replacements at locations where the old equipment is failing) and Bonomi and F+F equipment at Kings Cross.
Peterboro' is getting Bonomi at Werrington Junction.
AIUI, TRU would probably fall under Doncaster OLE's jurisdiction, certainly at the Church Fenton - York end.

The UKMS range, as stated, has drawings & diagrams for all of these types of cantilever, plus various droppers alongside.
It might also be worth mentioning that SICAT got added to the UKMS range after the detailed design work for Kings Cross/Werrington OLE works was complete.

 

[Domh245]

Depends on the areas in each maintenance team's scope.
Hitchin OLE (south end of the ECML) have had SICAT SA at Stevenage (and also on the Hertford Loop with structure replacements at locations where the old equipment is failing) and Bonomi and F+F equipment at Kings Cross.
Peterboro' is getting Bonomi at Werrington Junction.
AIUI, TRU would probably fall under Doncaster OLE's jurisdiction, certainly at the Church Fenton - York end.

The UKMS range, as stated, has drawings & diagrams for all of these types of cantilever, plus various droppers alongside.
It might also be worth mentioning that SICAT got added to the UKMS range after the detailed design work for Kings Cross/Werrington OLE works was complete.

Fair point about the areas in each scope, I can imagine the existing NW schemes provide enough scope to keep at least one team busy, so it's not unlikely that Transpennine will have it's own in due course.

I'm curious though if there any particular advantage to using SICAT on plain line compared to Bonomi? Now that Bonomi is proven and capable with multiple pantograph operation at 125mph (ie the most demanding 'use case' on the network - at least I think it has been proven now? MML is in trouble if it isn't!) surely NR should be standardising around using it whenever it can?

 

[edwin_m]

Fair point about the areas in each scope, I can imagine the existing NW schemes provide enough scope to keep at least one team busy, so it's not unlikely that Transpennine will have it's own in due course.

I'm curious though if there any particular advantage to using SICAT on plain line compared to Bonomi? Now that Bonomi is proven and capable with multiple pantograph operation at 125mph (ie the most demanding 'use case' on the network - at least I think it has been proven now? MML is in trouble if it isn't!) surely NR should be standardising around using it whenever it can?

Maybe simply an example of dual-sourcing? If the area being done is large enough to justify holding the necessary spares and giving the maintainers any relevant system-specific training, then it's best not to constrain anyone to buying components from a single supplier. Also I can't see 125mph being achievable on TRU so perhaps a lower spec saves a bit of cost.

 

[Halish Railway]

Maybe simply an example of dual-sourcing? If the area being done is large enough to justify holding the necessary spares and giving the maintainers any relevant system-specific training, then it's best not to constrain anyone to buying components from a single supplier. Also I can't see 125mph being achievable on TRU so perhaps a lower spec saves a bit of cost.

They are planning 125MPH from York to Church Fenton and 110MPH most of the way from Church Fenton to Leeds.

 

[59CosG95]

Fair point about the areas in each scope, I can imagine the existing NW schemes provide enough scope to keep at least one team busy, so it's not unlikely that Transpennine will have it's own in due course.

I'm curious though if there any particular advantage to using SICAT on plain line compared to Bonomi? Now that Bonomi is proven and capable with multiple pantograph operation at 125mph (ie the most demanding 'use case' on the network - at least I think it has been proven now? MML is in trouble if it isn't!) surely NR should be standardising around using it whenever it can?

One advantage of SICAT is the cost decrease of main steelwork - masts can now be 1.1m shorter compared to Bonomi installations as the cantilever diagonal struts are lower than the main horizontal struts.
Span lengths (oddly just for MS125) are also increased if SICAT is used (as the components are lighter), meaning less new structures overall.

 

[Domh245]

Maybe simply an example of dual-sourcing? If the area being done is large enough to justify holding the necessary spares and giving the maintainers any relevant system-specific training, then it's best not to constrain anyone to buying components from a single supplier. Also I can't see 125mph being achievable on TRU so perhaps a lower spec saves a bit of cost.

A fair point about the dual sourcing. I suppose that given the size of NR there's no need to standardise across the whole country, so long as each route/area is standardised enough. I can't help but wonder though why there hasn't been a move to try and standardise nationally, presumably the cost savings from a single set of spares and larger purchasing demand just aren't there?

The point about Bonomi managing 125mph was more that it is now a 'go anywhere' system that can be used on both simple (low speed, single pantograph) operations as well as demanding (high speed multi pantograph) ones, and would be the obvious quasi-standard system to use even if it is overspecced in some places.

One advantage of SICAT is the cost decrease of main steelwork - masts can now be 1.1m shorter compared to Bonomi installations as the cantilever diagonal struts are lower than the main horizontal struts.
Span lengths (oddly just for MS125) are also increased if SICAT is used (as the components are lighter), meaning less new structures overall.

Sounds like there are some significant advantages to be had then!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sounds like there are some significant advantages to be had then!

certainly all the seemingly smaller savings add up quite quickly to significant advantages. Encouraging

 

[cle]

They are planning 125MPH from York to Church Fenton and 110MPH most of the way from Church Fenton to Leeds.

This is pretty consistent - what does it mean in each main section in terms of minutes of savings?

 

[Bald Rick]

This is pretty consistent - what does it mean in each main section in terms of minutes of savings?

York - Church Fenton is about 30-40 seconds.

 

[Halish Railway]

This is pretty consistent - what does it mean in each main section in terms of minutes of savings?

I don’t know - Maybe I could use the extremely scientific method of driving the route on train simulator at the higher linespeed and find out.

Edit: I did used my scientific method and I drove from Leeds to York in a CrossCountry HST and I completed the journey in under 19 minutes using the proposed linespeeds.

 

[MarkLong]

I see this in the rail business daily:

Electrification creates demand for GRP structures | RailBusinessDaily

Ezi Klamp - a Bristol based supplier to the rail industry - has seen a surge in demand for its bespoke GRP driver walkways, GRP embankment steps and other Ezi Klamp has seen a surge in demand for its bespoke GRP driver walkways, GRP embankment steps and other products, with the roll out of...

news.railbusinessdaily.com

Is this a sign that more electrification is considered? For example, full electrification between York-Leeds-Manchester?

 

[Ploughman]

I don’t know - Maybe I could use the extremely scientific method of driving the route on train simulator at the higher linespeed and find out.

Edit: I did used my scientific method and I drove from Leeds to York in a CrossCountry HST and I completed the journey in under 19 minutes using the proposed linespeeds.

Did you allow waiting time for a platform at Dringhouses?

 

[Halish Railway]

Did you allow waiting time for a platform at Dringhouses?

Ok, admittedly it was a non stop run. I don’t know what the York throat remodelling will do to alleviate this problem.

 

[Purple Orange]

Could anyone state what the maximum and average line speed will be between Huddersfield & Leeds after this stage of TPRU is completed?

I am taking the comments earlier about Leeds to Church Fenton at 110mph and Church Fenton to York at 125mph to be the latest view for that section.

 

[Halish Railway]

Could anyone state what the maximum and average line speed will be between Huddersfield & Leeds after this stage of TPRU is completed?

Between Leeds and Huddersfield the linespeed will fluctuate between 85 MPH and 100 MPH compared to the current 75 MPH, the only exception being the curve on which Morley station sits on which will be raised from 45 MPH to 60 MPH.

Post #3,529 has the proposed line speeds on it.