Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

edwin_m · 3 Jul 2018

The_Engineer said:
Thank you! I feel that the extra platforms at Piccadilly without four-tracking will not deliver many extra paths, but I would like to see what the plans say.

At present the capacity is limited by the time it takes for a train to un/load and depart plus the time it takes the next train to arrive and start un/loading (platform reoccupation time). By paralleling the platforms, not forgetting to extend the parallel tracks for a signal overlap length at the departure end, the following train can arrive at one of the pair of platforms while the previous train is still un/loading at the other one. It also makes the station slightly less susceptible to over-running station stops such as when the wheelchair ramp is needed or (in my experience) every time East Midlands Trains arrives (I wish they put the coach order on the screens and the seat numbers by each door like Transpennine...).

RailUK Forums

snowball · 4 Jul 2018

Apparent confirmation that the TP upgrade will include at least some electrification:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-44700185

The rail minister has been accused of "reneging" on commitments after failing to confirm plans to fully electrify the Manchester-to-Leeds route.

Tory frontbencher Jo Johnson told MPs an announcement on the Transpennine route upgrade would be made later this year following a Network Rail report.

He said the scheme will include "major civil engineering projects and electrification" but stopped short of guaranteeing full electrification.

MP Lucy Powell said it was a "blow".

Mr Johnson said the government was awaiting Network Rail's "final options plan" about how to make best use of the £2.9bn for the upgrade before its statement later in the year.

'Second-class service'

Ditching electrification would also scupper plans to send freight through the Pennines, connecting docks at Liverpool, Teesport, Immingham and Hull.

Shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald said if investment was pulled it would "kill any notion of a Northern Powerhouse".

Labour's Lucy Powell MP for Manchester Central said: "Coming off the back of all the turmoil that we've seen on Northern rail and elsewhere recently, isn't this equivocation on the electrification of the Manchester to Leeds line just another real serious blow for people in the north, who now feel overwhelmingly, time and time again, they are getting a second-class service from this government?"

She pushed Mr Johnson to say the electrification of the line is of such strategic importance it will happen "come what may".

However, he replied the government was "signalling its political commitment" to the north of England by spending £13bn on transport in the north by 2020.

Labour's Mike Kane MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East said Mr Johnson was "reneging" on the commitment.

Chester1 · 4 Jul 2018

The_Engineer said:
Thank you! I feel that the extra platforms at Piccadilly without four-tracking will not deliver many extra paths, but I would like to see what the plans say.

For the reasons Edwin_m has explained it increases capacity from 12tph + 1tph of freight to 16tph + 2tph of freight. I was strongly in favour of it until the timetable change but now I am leaning towards money being spent on grade seperation instead. I would rather have 12tph that is reliable than 16tph that is unreliable!

snowball said:
Apparent confirmation that the TP upgrade will include at least some electrification:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-44700185

In a word it will be a "fudge"!

GRALISTAIR · 4 Jul 2018

Agree about the fudge but I am sure there will be some electrification. My bet is Manchester to Stalybridge feeder and Leeds to York and Selby. The core will not get electrified but other enhancements will take place.

B&I · 4 Jul 2018

Chester1 said:
For the reasons Edwin_m has explained it increases capacity from 12tph + 1tph of freight to 16tph + 2tph of freight. I was strongly in favour of it until the timetable change but now I am leaning towards money being spent on grade seperation instead. I would rather have 12tph that is reliable than 16tph that is unreliable!

In a word it will be a "fudge"!

Where would grade separation be most feasible, and most useful ?

B&I · 4 Jul 2018

snowball said:
If this was a nationally signifcant project.

If a project to relieve acute capacity problems which affect rail services across the whole of the north of England is not 'nationally significant', this suggests that 'national significance' peters out as a concept somewhere around Watford Gap

absolutelymilk · 4 Jul 2018

As far as I can see, Leeds to Selby/York electrification would not allow any current services to be run by electric traction, is that right?

furnessvale · 4 Jul 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
Agree about the fudge but I am sure there will be some electrification. My bet is Manchester to Stalybridge feeder and Leeds to York and Selby. The core will not get electrified but other enhancements will take place.

So, just as the trains get to the steep bits, the wires stop and diesel takes over!

snowball · 4 Jul 2018

B&I said:
If a project to relieve acute capacity problems which affect rail services across the whole of the north of England is not 'nationally significant', this suggests that 'national significance' peters out as a concept somewhere around Watford Gap

Read what I said. There is a specific legal definition of what counts as a nationally significant project for the purposes of the law. I don't know what it is, I haven't read the Act. When seeking permission for the Ordsall Chord, Network Rail initially applied on the basis that it was a nationally significant project but then had to start again when it was classified as not within the Act, possibly due to an amendment to the Act. I think the Chord was a bit too short.

Sceptre · 4 Jul 2018

absolutelymilk said:
As far as I can see, Leeds to Selby/York electrification would not allow any current services to be run by electric traction, is that right?

Theoretically, it could allow Leeds terminators on the ECML to run through, but I doubt there's any operational reason to do so (apart from possibly freeing up Platform 8 at Leeds).

If the Y&S services were split from the Calder Valley services once again, it would allow electrification of the now-truncated stoppers, but apart from the odd train that uses Platform 7 or 14, no services can be all-electric.

snowball · 4 Jul 2018

B&I said:
Where would grade separation be most feasible, and most useful ?

Replacement of the existing flyover between Bradley and Heaton Lodge junctions has been mentioned upthread and I think is mentioned in the video presentation linked upthread. I gather the existing bridge does not have headroom for wires.

B&I · 4 Jul 2018

snowball said:
Read what I said. There is a specific legal definition of what counts as a nationally significant project for the purposes of the law. I don't know what it is, I haven't read the Act. When seeking permission for the Ordsall Chord, Network Rail initially applied on the basis that it was a nationally significant project but then had to start again when it was classified as not within the Act, possibly due to an amendment to the Act. I think the Chord was a bit too short.

Wherever the definition comes from, it is clearly useless if this project does not fit it

lejog · 4 Jul 2018

absolutelymilk said:
As far as I can see, Leeds to Selby/York electrification would not allow any current services to be run by electric traction, is that right?

Yes although the Leeds to York and Selby stoppers were due to become self contained in Northern's abandoned May timetable.

Mollman · 4 Jul 2018

In regards to platforms 15/16 at Man Picc it would add resilience in times of disruption on one of the feeder routes. In many people's opinions one of the flaws of Thameslink is the lack of capacity at St Pancras which should have been three or four platforms instead of two - thus when a train of the ECML arrives but the platform is taken up by a late running ex-MML train it has to wait outside the station rather than being allowed to wait time at a platform.

lejog said:
Yes although the Leeds to York and Selby stoppers were due to become self contained in Northern's abandoned May timetable.

There's also been talk about extending some of the triangle electric services through either as York / Selby stoppers or to East Leeds Parkway if / when it gets built.

snowball · 4 Jul 2018

B&I said:
Wherever the definition comes from, it is clearly useless if this project does not fit it

No, it's merely a technical matter affecting which of two legal processes is used. The final decision is still made by the SoS or Transport. Even for a "nationally significant" project he can still put off a decision, he just has to announce that he is doing it. For the Silvertown road tunnel in east London he gave himself a one-month extension and then a further six-month extension.

Almost all the nation's railways, motorway network, dams, power stations, were built before the concept of nationally significant infrastructure had any legal existence. The concept does not exist for projects in Scotland but it didn't stop them building the new Queensferry crossing or the Borders railway.

keith1879 · 4 Jul 2018

furnessvale said:
So, just as the trains get to the steep bits, the wires stop and diesel takes over!

Another way of looking at it is that by having electrification at both ends but not in the middle it means that every train on the route has to operate as a diesel in the busiest part. At least on the GW main line they only have to be diesels at the outer end of the route. I really struggle to see how this makes sense unless all electrification is wrong (and most other countries seem to feel that it's a good idea).

Chester1 · 4 Jul 2018

B&I said:
Where would grade separation be most feasible, and most useful ?

In Manchester city centre I think Ordsall Lane Junction where Chat Moss and Windsor Link trains cross each other would be the only place where there is enough space. There is no free land near the Ordsall Chord. At Castlefield Junction there is enough free land to rebuild it to ease the angle of the junction to allow trains from the CLC to approach it faster than 25mph but I don't think there is enough space for grade seperation. I think both of those would help make the timetable much more reliable. I remember @Joseph_Locke saying there are designs for grade seperation so he can say for sure what is and is not possible.

YorkshireBear · 6 Jul 2018

I have it on reasonable authority that there will be an announcement within next week and decisions have been taken.

However that is caveated in that within that week they may decide against announcing anything or delay it. But information is starting to filter out.

edwin_m · 6 Jul 2018

Chester1 said:
In Manchester city centre I think Ordsall Lane Junction where Chat Moss and Windsor Link trains cross each other would be the only place where there is enough space. There is no free land near the Ordsall Chord. At Castlefield Junction there is enough free land to rebuild it to ease the angle of the junction to allow trains from the CLC to approach it faster than 25mph but I don't think there is enough space for grade seperation. I think both of those would help make the timetable much more reliable. I remember @Joseph_Locke saying there are designs for grade seperation so he can say for sure what is and is not possible.

Might just squeeze in a grade separation of Castlefield Junction by building a viaduct on top of the viaduct to bring the Up (eastbound) CLC line up to the level of Metrolink to pass over the lines towards Ordsall. However Deansgate station might have to be demolished to make way for the descending ramp.

Joseph_Locke · 6 Jul 2018

Key Manchester junctions:
Ordsall Lane - good scheme, complex design, grade separation possible
Water Street - no room to do anything except 4-track the OLW viaduct to avoid it
Castlefield - good scheme, multiple solutions, not necessarily grade separated
Ardwick - good scheme, big bridge to get grade separation (requires P15 and 16 at Picc.)
Edgeley - good scheme, big bridge to get grade separation (requires further remodelling of Stockport)

Senex · 6 Jul 2018

Joseph_Locke said:
Key Manchester junctions:
Ordsall Lane - good scheme, complex design, grade separation possible
Water Street - no room to do anything except 4-track the OLW viaduct to avoid it
Castlefield - good scheme, multiple solutions, not necessarily grade separated
Ardwick - good scheme, big bridge to get grade separation (requires P15 and 16 at Picc.)
Edgeley - good scheme, big bridge to get grade separation (requires further remodelling of Stockport)

Is today's Edgeley scheme anything like the one that was enacted for PicVic? And nothing for Slade Lane or Windsor Bridge West?

absolutelymilk · 12 Jul 2018

YorkshireBear said:
I have it on reasonable authority that there will be an announcement within next week and decisions have been taken.

However that is caveated in that within that week they may decide against announcing anything or delay it. But information is starting to filter out.

As I think others have said, looks like they are waiting until next week, i.e. when Parliament goes into recess for the summer.

YorkshireBear · 12 Jul 2018

absolutelymilk said:
As I think others have said, looks like they are waiting until next week, i.e. when Parliament goes into recess for the summer.

Indeed it appears so. I look forward to the discussion on the results here.

deltic08 · 12 Jul 2018

YorkshireBear said:
Indeed it appears so. I look forward to the discussion on the results here.

It is up to us then to keep it topical until they return in September although as far as I know Ministers are still available for comment.

Polarbear · 12 Jul 2018

If an announcement is to be made next week, just before a parliamentary recess, I rather think it may be a touch on the controversial side. Standard government tactic.

Allwinter_Kit · 13 Jul 2018

Probably going to suggest single-tracking it and claim that bi-modes and the digital railway will solve everything.

Not that i'm cynical...

Senex · 13 Jul 2018

Allwinter_Kit said:
Probably going to suggest single-tracking it and claim that bi-modes and the digital railway will solve everything.

Not that i'm cynical...

Don't even whisper such a thing — there's bound to be some political adviser or London civil servant who will whisper it on to Grayling so that he can announce the greatest step forward in railways since Stephenson (and then, of course, move on before the sh** hits the fan).

AndrewE · 13 Jul 2018

deltic08 said:
It is up to us then to keep it topical until they return in September although as far as I know Ministers are still available for comment.

so (if relevant) we mustn't forget to insist on an answer to the question why they are pretending that Stanage tunnels would be "too difficult."
I'll start a thread for it

GRALISTAIR · 13 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
so (if relevant) we mustn't forget to insist on an answer to the question why they are pretending that Stanage tunnels would be "too difficult."
I'll start a thread for it

STANDEDGE not Stanage please.

johnnychips · 13 Jul 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
STANDEDGE not Stanage please.

I had the opposite problem. I was a trainspotter before I started rock climbing and kept calling the cliff near Sheffield ‘Standedge’.

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member