superkev
Established Member
Base on the glacial performance on Manchester Preston electrification that's 3 years work.
K
-
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
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- Start date
K
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Mark Vs are designed for future use with 125mph electric locos. If the whole line was wired and Mark Vs switched to all electric routes then some 185s would need to continue running under the wires or 802s be switched to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough services and more stock ordered. While 3 TPE services have diesel sections the benefits of wiring Stalybridge to Huddersfield are not huge. Only Huddersfield-Piccadilly stopper, Liverpool-Edinburgh (via ECML) and Manchester Airport to Newcastle could be run by EMUs or electric loco hauled Mark Vs. The time saving would be minimal too. If NR decides there are better upgrade options for the line then I am open to them.
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
That's the biggie that needs sorting out though. Electrification is the best way to fit in stopping services with expresses. I posted yesterday that Chat Moss, St Helens & Blackpool only get 3tph EMU.
Having followed the progress of HS2, with regard to how it would include the north east (HS2 stage3), the York by-pass was speculation on the part of the forum based on Stage 3 being announced as coming off a junction at Swillington and heading north on a route to be determined at a later date*. Nothing was confirmed.
Responsibility for any possible high speed route north of Leeds (including what was proposed/supposed to be HS2 Stage 3) has been passed over to Transport for the North in the form of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Most of the ideas coming out of NPR appear to suggest that a High speed rail line coming off at Swillington and heading north has been dropped in favour of doing minimal upgrades to the ECML north of York instead. There is a paper due to be published (Dec '18) which I suspect will confirm that a route from Swillington heading north has been ditched and NPR will just use the bit of HS2 that re-joins classic rail lines at Church Fenton.
* my bold
Halifaxlad
Established Member
Well according to the article: 'Susan Hinchcliffe: Transport is key to our region’s success' published within the YEP on the 20-11-18. https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co...r&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn
The leader of Bradford Council and chair of WYCA stated:
"Northern Powerhouse Rail, a project which will cut rail journey times across the North including through a new east-west rail line between Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and York."
I suspect that this is maybe why electrification between Leeds & York doesn't appear to be going ahead. Probably might also explain why the bit between Huddersfield and Stalybridge isn't going ahead either. Although from what Ive heard the DFT do want to do it, but they don't like the cost of Standege.
The leader of Bradford Council and chair of WYCA stated:
"Northern Powerhouse Rail, a project which will cut rail journey times across the North including through a new east-west rail line between Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and York."
I suspect that this is maybe why electrification between Leeds & York doesn't appear to be going ahead. Probably might also explain why the bit between Huddersfield and Stalybridge isn't going ahead either. Although from what Ive heard the DFT do want to do it, but they don't like the cost of Standege.
Both sides could still be electrified to the portals if the tunnel really is a problem. All trains would have to be diesel or bimode.
It has also been pointed out and discussed here that there is quite a big problem on the downhill track at Mossley.
Downhill isn't a problem Up the hill needs to be electrified to the tunnel portals.
Could a long neutral section be used adjacent to houses? Being downhill would only cost 3 or 4mph.
Downhill is the problem, because those wires are within touching distance of the houses (I exaggerate a little) and it's just off the end of the platform where local services need to call. You could move the station back up the hill a bit, I suppose, plus maybe raise the track a bit there to increase the gradient through the downhill neutral section...
Would a rigid overhead catenary system (ROCS) be of any value here?
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/07/11/developing-rocs-for-the-uk/
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Probably not. The closest live bit to the houses would be the end of the pantograph, which is in the same place whatever contact system is used. A rigid system would if anything be harder to install, because its supports are much closer together.
59CosG95
Established Member
The problem is the electrical clearance to the surrounding houses, not so much the type of OLE just south of the station.
If it's live, it could be pretty dangerous, whatever the catenary type.
I have only been on non stoppers that have flashed by in the last 50 years. What length of C&C are we talking about? No problem is insurmountable.
59CosG95
Established Member
A photo on Flickr of what I can assume is the problem area around Mossley. https://flic.kr/p/cwefGC
but it is difficult to see how you would cope with a long neutral section immediately off the end of a station platform, apart from my repeating something I have read on a thread here, move the platform back uphill a bit and my idea: see if you can maintain the altitude as long as you can before the neutral section and increase the gradient through it, to help maintain speed while coasting.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Would "boxing in" with concrete be a solution at Mossley? (leaving aside that we're assuming that section is unlikely to be wired as part of the upcoming route modernisation).
Something a bit like the Gerrards Cross Tesco tunnel would nullify the proximity issue.
Something a bit like the Gerrards Cross Tesco tunnel would nullify the proximity issue.
only if you could get planning permission (or the locals to accept) a 20 ft wall 6 ft from their front doors...
How about plexiglass barriers like you get on some motorways? Would prevent physical access but wouldn't block light or the view. Sure they might still be a bit of an eyesore but would allow the scheme to go ahead and might even reduce noise for the residents too into the bargain!
That does look like a good idea, if it is do-able given the height needed... and as long as the design is done by an intelligent engineer and not the backside-covering clowns who have done the GW electrification structures. Have those individuals got shares in the company supplying the steel?
59CosG95
Established Member
Leaving accusations of "it's who you know" aside, these backside-covering clowns also proposed the more sympathetic twin track cantilever design that was planned to be installed in Sydney Gardens (Bath) before wires west of Thingley Jct were canned.
I reckon, if the houses are screened off with the aforementioned safety glass, a design similar to this one could be part of a solution to the Mossley conundrum.
Unfortunately a nice support doesn't give you physical separation about 30ft above rail level.Leaving accusations of "it's who you know" aside, these backside-covering clowns also proposed the more sympathetic twin track cantilever design that was planned to be installed in Sydney Gardens (Bath) before wires west of Thingley Jct were canned.
I reckon, if the houses are screened off with the aforementioned safety glass, a design similar to this one could be part of a solution to the Mossley conundrum.
Yes, I agree that Sydney Gardens were protected by an outcry after people had seen how much steel was being used elsewhere: http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Railbox1jan15.jpg shows a massive overhead girder, very different to the relatively light WCML gantries that are still in use 50 years later, and I can't find a picture of the things installed around Westerleigh Junction. Maybe they are so gross that no-one can be bothered to take a photo of one?
59CosG95
Established Member
The requirements for the WCML OLE 50 years ago were very different to those on the GWML - 1 pan at 100/110, as opposed to 2 at 140. I do think that a lot of the GWML structures are overkill, but that is the consequence of going for a high-output, modular system designed to avoid using headspans at every opportunity. The fact that it's come in far over budget is for another thread entirely!
Back on topic with Mossley, I noticed (from Google Maps) that there is a retaining wall on the western side of the line near those houses. Might a possible solution there be to stablilise the slope, and then provide slots for TTCs to go in on top of/behind the wall? The image shown here (https://flic.kr/p/K7HJah) shows the obvious problems with bridge clearances, as well as said wall.
Why is GW electrification made of oil rigs when HS1 is so dainty?
In that photo of Mossley is the fencing new installation by NR? Seems to be sturdy, the same colour as the footbridge in the background, and has posts higher than the current fence - as though they are awaiting an extension upwards
In that photo of Mossley is the fencing new installation by NR? Seems to be sturdy, the same colour as the footbridge in the background, and has posts higher than the current fence - as though they are awaiting an extension upwards
Could an earth-bonded grid/mesh (partial Faraday cage) be used to shield the lineside boundary so that there is no possibility of electrical arc over?
59CosG95
Established Member
Greater structural loading gauge (i.e. kinematic envelope) and a more complex wiring arrangement might have something to do with it I suspect. HS1 OLE was also installed using conventional methods, and (as it was a new line) didn't need to worry about possessions.
Ah, much longer than I thought. Too long for a neutral section. The only answer is protective screening but it would have to be idiot-proof. Is there any room for slewing away even if the bridge abutment is rebuilt and the platforms moved?
Isn’t HS1 continental gauge and therefore bigger? Or have I misunderstood your point?
modernrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,054
Why can't the houses at Mossley be CPO'd? CPO is always contentious and obviously causes distress to the existing homeowners which is not ideal. However it is also there to be used in just this sort of situation.
Any NPR alternative route is many years away. The cost of CPO of these properties would not be silly money compared to overall scheme costs. Better to get the job done now and properly and I am not keen on letting Grayling use a few houses in Mossley as an excuse to delay the electrification of one of the most important rail routes in the country.
Any NPR alternative route is many years away. The cost of CPO of these properties would not be silly money compared to overall scheme costs. Better to get the job done now and properly and I am not keen on letting Grayling use a few houses in Mossley as an excuse to delay the electrification of one of the most important rail routes in the country.
Or could they not just build a brick wall between the houses and the railway. From what I remember, the railway is fairly enclosed at this point, so that side of those properties probably doesn't get a great deal of light to start off with.
Bantamzen
Established Member
So in the space of just a few posts, three potential solutions have been derived. Now if some enthusiasts on a forum can brain storm so easily, why can't DfT? Oh wait, its just another excuse for Grayling & Co to skimp out on the project so they don't have to tackle the <ahem> "difficult" wiring of Standage <cough>. Any one of these solutions, whilst not ideal could offer a solution to a relatively simple problem.