• 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

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Why would this be necessary? It was reported upthread that electrifying Standedge isn't seen as a major problem
I think he was referring to the two disused single bores, where OHLE would be a tight fit.

Nevertheless, the enlargement of a tunnel less than 100 yards in length (IIRC) won't hold too many lessons for tunnels which are 3 miles long through very different geology.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Why would this be necessary? It was reported upthread that electrifying Standedge isn't seen as a major problem

Sorry about that - if that is the case it is good news.

I think he was referring to the two disused single bores, where OHLE would be a tight fit.

Nevertheless, the enlargement of a tunnel less than 100 yards in length (IIRC) won't hold too many lessons for tunnels which are 3 miles long through very different geology.
I was so as I thought, horrendously expensive
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
I would imagine so! Track lowering as much as possible without disturbing the canal tunnel (which is at a lower level) and rigid conductor bar in place of wires would seem the best way forward.

But presumably one cannot lower it too much otherwise you have 'hit' the water table which presumably the level of the canal reflects?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
But presumably one cannot lower it too much otherwise you have 'hit' the water table which presumably the level of the canal reflects?
All the tunnels under Standedge will be well below the water table for much of their length, being several hundred feet below the ground. It's the physical structure of the canal tunnel (and the rock/earth immediately surrounding it) that sets the limit. Ground water ingress is an issue at many tunnels and is usually dealt with using drainage and/or pumps.
 

AndyHudds

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Messages
530
All the tunnels under Standedge will be well below the water table for much of their length, being several hundred feet below the ground. It's the physical structure of the canal tunnel (and the rock/earth immediately surrounding it) that sets the limit. Ground water ingress is an issue at many tunnels and is usually dealt with using drainage and/or pumps.

If you watch Martin Zero's unauthorised trip on You Tube in to the tunnels they look in pretty good nick, whether in good enough nick to be returned to operational use, I don't know.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
If you watch Martin Zero's unauthorised trip on You Tube in to the tunnels they look in pretty good nick, whether in good enough nick to be returned to operational use, I don't know.
Cheers, I'll check it out.

I'd heard it said (from a contact within the industry but not directly related to infrastructure) that water ingress is in fact an issue in the double bore... but surely if the Severn Tunnel (with serious salt-water ingress) can be wired then so can Standedge... providing central government provides funding for a line that doesn't go to London!
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,883
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
I have driven through both single bores back inn the 90's early 2000's on relay works in cars and vans.
As part of that work we also used 38t Artic tippers to remove scrap from the Marsden end accessing via the Diggle bus turnround. Using both bores as a one way system which was the usual practice.

I admit that any changes since then I know nothing of.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
So let's stop banging our heads against a brick wall then. Neither route out of Manchester can be adapted to give what is needed, so simply recognise that a new alignment would be quicker and easier to build, faster (without going for any super-high speed) and less disruptive into the bargain.
More passenger capacity can be delivered as quickly as rolling stock can be built (and commissioned!) and serious lengthening of platforms to 8- or 10-car lengths isn't really needed if you run half-hourly long trains stopping only at key locations with shorter local/stopping trains in between.
Electrification of all lines is needed anyway, but a new line could protect longer-distance travel across the region from the difficulties and even prolonged closures discussed up-thread, which make you wonder if it is worth doing at all.

On the contrary, if they electrified the route, they could deliver precisely what is needed, i.e. frequent long trains over the route to provide bags of capacity well into the future.

I'm afraid that I still don't see why closures have to be so much more prolonged than other electrification schemes.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
On the contrary, if they electrified the route, they could deliver precisely what is needed, i.e. frequent long trains over the route to provide bags of capacity well into the future.

I'm afraid that I still don't see why closures have to be so much more prolonged than other electrification schemes.
Prolonged closures will be required at some point if the published plan is taken forward, because of the scale of work required. It isn't as simple as just stringing up some wires, as there's multiple stations to completely rebuild over a stretch of a few miles. Just wiring the current alignment won't in and of itself do much for capacity, and will only further limit any future expansion.

I've also heard (though it may be rumour) that the viaduct immediately East of Huddersfield station has potentially serious structural issues and is being monitored closely as a result. If that has to be replaced it'll be a massive job with a lot of disruption to both rail and road.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
Prolonged closures will be required at some point if the published plan is taken forward, because of the scale of work required. It isn't as simple as just stringing up some wires, as there's multiple stations to completely rebuild over a stretch of a few miles. Just wiring the current alignment won't in and of itself do much for capacity, and will only further limit any future expansion.

I've also heard (though it may be rumour) that the viaduct immediately East of Huddersfield station has potentially serious structural issues and is being monitored closely as a result. If that has to be replaced it'll be a massive job with a lot of disruption to both rail and road.

Admittedly, some of the larger stations would need a rebuild, to take longer trains (Huddersfield, Dewsbury etc) but again, this isn't unusual for electrification projects. Most traffic flows will still be able to be accommodated via the Calder valley most of the time.

The viaduct East of Huddersfield is an interesting issue that I hadn't heard of before. Could prove tricky if more lines are needed - but then again, if it's that bad, it will need rebuilding anyway.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
We're in danger of wandering into speculation again here. Let's stick to discussing the scheme as proposed not what we wish the scheme looked like. If anyone wants to discuss "my idea for the TRU..." including base tunnels, re-opening lines, rebuilding half of West Yorkshire, etc, they are more than welcome to do so but it must be on a new thread in Speculative Ideas.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Which is why Hudderefield to Stalybridge electrification is as far as I know not being taken forward at this stage of the Upgrade. Haven't heard anything about 4 tracking either
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
False economy, as it's only a very short distance between stalybridge and guide bridge, that provides an electrified diversionary route.
But under current electrification plans (with the "Grayling Gap" over the Pennines) allows NO services to go electric, unless a Piccadilly to Stalybridge stopper is introduced.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
But under current electrification plans (with the "Grayling Gap" over the Pennines) allows NO services to go electric, unless a Piccadilly to Stalybridge stopper is introduced.
Stopper - quite useful to improve performance stop it getting in the way of other services?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Stopper - quite useful to improve performance stop it getting in the way of other services?
I appreciate I'm getting into Speculative Ideas a bit here... but since the Ordsall Chord opened, there's only 2tph TPE Stalybridge to Ardwick, so there should be a path available. Plus if it calls all/most shacks it'll fit in better with the Hadfield services from Guide Bridge onwards. The main constraints would be crossing the western throat of Stalybridge*, and terminal platforms at Piccadilly.

*=has there been any published proposals for said station throat? IIRC it was identified as a pinch-point in the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade study despite having been rebuilt relatively recently.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I appreciate I'm getting into Speculative Ideas a bit here... but since the Ordsall Chord opened, there's only 2tph TPE Stalybridge to Ardwick, so there should be a path available. Plus if it calls all/most shacks it'll fit in better with the Hadfield services from Guide Bridge onwards. The main constraints would be crossing the western throat of Stalybridge*, and terminal platforms at Piccadilly.

*=has there been any published proposals for said station throat? IIRC it was identified as a pinch-point in the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade study despite having been rebuilt relatively recently.
Guide Bridge Jn - Stalybridge as an infill scheme is only 6.7 stkm of electrification so small easy add on later.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Guide Bridge Jn - Stalybridge as an infill scheme is only 6.7 stkm of electrification so small easy add on later.
I agree that it's a no-brainer from a strategic point of view, but in terms of day-to-day diesel mileage reduced it scores a big fat zero unless the Grayling Gap is closed, or unless TfGM or Northern/their successors* want a Stalybridge to Piccadilly "S-Bahn" service. Even then it isn't a reduction as it'd be a new service. A good use of those orphaned 323s too!

In my opinion TfGM would do better persuing this than tram-trains to Derbyshire, but that's probably for another thread. If anyone thinks the idea of a thread discussing the idea of a SBY-MAN stopper is a "go-er", let me know by PM... :)

*= Or Rail North or whatever they're called... it's hard work keeping up with all these stakeholders!
 

MetroCar4058

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2014
Messages
578
This is slightly off the current direction of this thread. But could anyone clarify how far past Victoria to the East that the current electrification is planned/funded to go?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Is there any actual announcement of electrification to Stalybridge being funded or committed, beyond the short distance east of Victoria to allow reversals? I know white crosses on the ground have been sighted but I think someone said they were just surveying markers.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
I've also heard (though it may be rumour) that the viaduct immediately East of Huddersfield station has potentially serious structural issues and is being monitored closely as a result. If that has to be replaced it'll be a massive job with a lot of disruption to both rail and road.

If that's the case then electrifying or quad-tracking east of Huddersfield (and west of Deighton) will be a no go until something is done about it. There are signs on the viaduct that state no tampers are permitted to cross the structure.

For anyone who hasn't found it yet:


Exploring With Fighters also visited the Standedge tunnels, however with some careful editing it appears that they enter the tunnel from some side road in Hull.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
If that's the case then electrifying or quad-tracking east of Huddersfield (and west of Deighton) will be a no go until something is done about it. There are signs on the viaduct that state no tampers are permitted to cross the structure.



Exploring With Fighters also visited the Standedge tunnels, however with some careful editing it appears that they enter the tunnel from some side road in Hull.
Tampers and other track plant are permitted to cross the viaduct, just not allowed to actually tamp! AIUI all ballast repacking on the structure is done the old fashioned way, by a human with a shovel!
 

Top