• 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

Spod

Member
Joined
28 May 2016
Messages
62
Location
Leeds
Suppose it was four tracked from the eastern end of the viaduct east from Leeds (Marsh Lane junction) through to just past Thorpe Park and the M1, and then York expresses could take the HS2 link to the ECML. Would the remaining local, semi-fast, Hull and freight traffic be sufficient to warrant additional four tracking for the existing line east of the M1? (Would Hull expresses take the HS2 link?)
I'm still not clear on how much of the plan deltic08 described above is what sources say will happen vs what patently ought to happen. What's the current level of certainty? When is the next update due [edit: realistically expected, I know it's already well overdue!] for the official plan?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
Suppose it was four tracked from the eastern end of the viaduct east from Leeds (Marsh Lane junction) through to just past Thorpe Park and the M1, and then York expresses could take the HS2 link to the ECML. Would the remaining local, semi-fast, Hull and freight traffic be sufficient to warrant additional four tracking for the existing line east of the M1? (Would Hull expresses take the HS2 link?)
I'm still not clear on how much of the plan deltic08 described above is what sources say will happen vs what patently ought to happen. What's the current level of certainty? When is the next update due [edit: realistically expected, I know it's already well overdue!] for the official plan?
There is no time advantage in Hull trains using HS2 to London but might add connectivity to the West Midlands.
 

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
33
Location
Leeds
I cannot see how they can increase the bend speed at Church Fenton to 125 mph without major line realignment, unless of course they use the intended HS2 route which cuts that corner out completely. It is currently a 70 mph bend.!!
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
I cannot see how they can increase the bend speed at Church Fenton to 125 mph without major line realignment, unless of course they use the intended HS2 route which cuts that corner out completely. It is currently a 70 mph bend.!!
70 Leeds-bound (platform-loop points into the back of the curve), 80 York-bound.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,298
What are Story Contracting doing with their compound near Micklefield? Have the platforms been extended at the station there yet? The track was relaid 2+yrs ago IIRC.

A quick search revealed they were recruiting in September for civil engineers who would be "engaged in the planning and engineering functions of large framework projects" and working on "varied structures, property and earthworks projects".
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,686
Location
west yorkshire
With the recent flooding between Wakefield and Doncaster woulnt that missing bit of wiring east between Neville Hill and the ECML been very useful. Pity it was Graylinged (paused)
No brainer really.
K
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,489
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
If it is in that location, then work is probably to be confined to the Leeds lines only, rather than all 4 tracks.
My initial reading into it made me think it was prep work for the 2nd Phase of the ECML PSU (for whom Murphy are the main civils contractor), but the Ulleskelf compound seems to lend itself toward work on the TRU.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,322
With the recent flooding between Wakefield and Doncaster woulnt that missing bit of wiring east between Neville Hill and the ECML been very useful. Pity it was Graylinged (paused)
No brainer really.
K

Something which was highlighted in the leaked report on HS2 was that HS2 was designed to be able to cope with more extreme flood conditions than the existing transport network.

Assuming the the same is true of the Trans Pennines Upgrade and Northern Powerhouse Rail, then that can only be a good thing.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
HS2 would be built to modern standards like any new road or rail project, for example bridging over or otherwise avoiding floodplains rather than crossing at ground level or building an embankment that might act as a dam. The opportunity to do the same when upgrading an existing railway is much more limited, because the basic alignment and most of the structures aren't going to chane. So while measures specifically part of the upgrade may be more flood resistant, such as putting electrical equipment in areas not prone to flooding, the route as a whole will remain more vulnerable than a totally new route would be.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,933
With the recent flooding between Wakefield and Doncaster woulnt that missing bit of wiring east between Neville Hill and the ECML been very useful. Pity it was Graylinged (paused)
No brainer really.
K

Agree but would also add Neville Hill to York (not just Hambleton).

As for No Brainer - well you mentioned Grayling in your previous sentence - says it as far as I am concerned.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,298
Finally, the cat is out of the bag for east of Leeds upgrade, starting with... "routine track renewals and improvements" - but it does get much better

It appears the project has been structured into sections; this section being classified 'E1' which I presume is phase 1 of section E.
The scope includes the ECML from Colton Jn to just before York Station, and Colton Jn to just before Church Fenton Station.
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited said:
The TRU programme will be delivered as a series of separate projects over a number of years and each project (for example Project E1) will have standalone benefit and could justifiably be advanced on its own, to contribute to the high-level outputs defined above. Each TRU project will progress in accordance with its own design development programme, which will be subject to future national government funding decisions.

The summary of "E1" works is given as (my bold):
  • realignment of the Up and Down Leeds lines to achieve a higher line-speed of 125mph;
  • renewal of track materials and components, including ballast and formation treatments, required to support line-speed increase;
  • various minor works / repairs to bridges, culverts and structures along the route, including relining and reconstruction;
  • provision of Continuous Position of Safety (CPOS) for the railway workforce with localised earthwork interventions due to increasing line-speed over 100mph;
  • upgrading of existing Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) components;
  • new electrification works, including provision of OLE and associated lineside works;
  • immunisation works, including renewal of lineside signalling and telecoms equipment due to electrification; and
  • temporary construction compounds adjacent to the existing railway at: Ulleskelf; Oxton Lane, Bolton Percy; Earfit Lane; Moor Lane, Copmanthorpe; Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe (by A64); and Model Railway, York.
Take a read of the full letter http://publicaccess.selby.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/00561866.pdf
There's some maps of the Environmental Impact Assessment areas at http://publicaccess.selby.gov.uk/PublicDocuments/00561865.pdf (but the chainage isn't continuous across pages). Colton Jn is at chainage 9100.

A few other points taken from the letter:
  • To appease all electrification enthusiasts!:
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited said:
Construction of a traction sectioning cabin (TSC) at Church Fenton.
Construction of a single storey brick-built principal supply point (PSP) building
  • There's also details of bridge works - mainly parapet works
  • Ecological survey looks to be a good conclusion - no wildlife etc. directly affected
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited said:
No direct impacts to these sites and species are predicted as a result of the relevant Project E1 works
And the overall environmental impact is concluded as
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited said:
Project E1 works would not result in any likely significant effects on the environment.

A few other planning documents are available at http://publicaccess.selby.gov.uk/

Looks to be a promising upgrade!
 

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
33
Location
Leeds
I like how it is being done in segments/ sections. In effect getting closer to a rolling programme.
Still no indication as to how they are going to ease the bend at Church Fenton to achieve these much faster line speeds. There is talk of line realignment but it will require a bit more than that to achieve the speeds they are aiming at.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,652
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Yes, promising indeed.
You wouldn't think that wiring 5 miles from Colton Jn to Church Fenton (without any obvious operational benefit) would be authorised without also committing to wire the rest of the route on to Neville Hill.
I suppose the E1 scheme might be linked to other work such as the ECML power supply upgrade.
Let's hope the other sections of the route are in the pipeline.
It will be a pricey job wiring the 4 tracks for 125mph - hopefully not using GW Series 1!
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
663
Presumably E1 will allow bi-modes to switch at Church Fenton and so equalise speeds on the ECML.

Also it may provide the connection to HS2 (if built). Hence it is a freestanding scheme, although it should make others more likely to proceed.

Not such a black Friday.

WAO
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
The scope includes the ECML from Colton Jn to just before York Station, and Colton Jn to just before Church Fenton Station.
Still no indication as to how they are going to ease the bend at Church Fenton to achieve these much faster line speeds. There is talk of line realignment but it will require a bit more than that to achieve the speeds they are aiming at.
From the above I wonder if the Church Fenton curve is actually in scope.
Presumably E1 will allow bi-modes to switch at Church Fenton and so equalise speeds on the ECML.

Also it may provide the connection to HS2 (if built). Hence it is a freestanding scheme, although it should make others more likely to proceed.
There has also been talk of NPR trains using that bit of HS2 so it could be that the line south of Church Fenton (at least as far as Micklefield) ends up being quite lightly used. They probably have to wait for decisions on those schemes before deciding what to do with that part of the existing route.
Why don't they just electrify the route between Neville hill Jct and Colton jct incase something goes wrong on the other line and they can divert.
Unfortunately it's very hard to make a business case for doing anything based on just the potential for diversions. And the bypassing section, if built, would be new high speed infrastructure and experience on HS1 and overseas indicates it would be highly reliable.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,298
Why don't they just electrify the route between Neville hill Jct and Colton jct incase something goes wrong on the other line and they can divert.
From the above I wonder if the Church Fenton curve is actually in scope.
I'd guess
A is Manchester - Stalybridge
B Stalybridge - Huddersfield
C Huddersfield - Leeds
D Leeds - Church Fenton
E Church Fenton - York

So Neville Hill - Church Fenton would fall under "D". Given the plan details big electrification kit at Church Fenton it's unlikely to be the limit.
Likewise Church Fenton - Sherburn South Jn and/or Micklefield - Hambleton or Selby would be included in "D" or perhaps "E2" if they are to be in TRU scope.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
I'd guess
A is Manchester - Stalybridge
B Stalybridge - Huddersfield
C Huddersfield - Leeds
D Leeds - Church Fenton
E Church Fenton - York

So Neville Hill - Church Fenton would fall under "D". Given the plan details big electrification kit at Church Fenton it's unlikely to be the limit.
Likewise Church Fenton - Sherburn South Jn and/or Micklefield - Hambleton or Selby would be included in "D" or perhaps "E2" if they are to be in TRU scope.
I'm suggesting that if electrification doesn't continue from Church Fenton towards Leeds on the existing route, that will be because HS2/NPR is to be built and the train will take that route instead. So the electrification kit will be needed to power one or the other or both, but we don't yet know which.
 

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
33
Location
Leeds
I'm suggesting that if electrification doesn't continue from Church Fenton towards Leeds on the existing route, that will be because HS2/NPR is to be built and the train will take that route instead. So the electrification kit will be needed to power one or the other or both, but we don't yet know which.

The HS2 connection to eventually link up to the ECML in Church Fenton will almost certainly go ahead I would think. It may have a new name, HS2 North, Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS3 or Northern Crossrail but whatever they decide to call it this line will probably happen and form the East-West high speed connection. This would then dispel requirement for massive engineering works in Church Fenton to ease the curve and lift line speeds up to 125 mph on this section of the Transpennine route.
 

Top