Manchester - Stalybridge Electrification

[trickyvegas]

Is the track behind the cabinets?

That's correct .

 

[td97]

(Seemingly) usual weekend work of 1 new portal installed, along with a selection of small part steel.

 

[snowball]

Pictures posted by Freel07 on SSC. He's also been to a talk on the 769s.

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=152206512&postcount=4335

 

[jyte]

Are the NR gantries going to in part replace the 'old' metrolink OHLE masts?

Aka are metrolink wires going to dangle off NR infrastructure?

 

[Geeves]

Its been mentioned before that the AC and DC will remain on separate supports due to electrical issues and paperwork.

 

[jonesy3001]

Is it only the victoria - stalybridge line thats getting electrified or are they doing the guide bridge section as well?

 

[Mollman]

Is it only the victoria - stalybridge line thats getting electrified or are they doing the guide bridge section as well?

Right now it isn't even going to reach Stalybridge

 

[jonesy3001]

Right now it isn't even going to reach Stalybridge

Be a shame really if they need to divert trains due to engineering in the victoria area

 

[td97]

(Seemingly) usual weekend work of 1 new portal installed, along with a selection of small part steel.

Photos from Monday:
This is the latest portal to go up (in the foreground)
Registration arm on the left is new since last week
Missed this until I looked through the photos this evening, but the ducting/cabling across the tracks is also new since last week

Have noticed more Murphy's vans than usual parked at the disused land between the A665 (Ring Rd overbridge) and A664 in the mornings too

 

[Greybeard33]

Very disappointed today to still see lots of gaps in the 25kv trunking between Stalybridge and Victoria. No evidence that the 'extension lead' has left Stalybridge yet to start its route to Ordsall Lane.

A pity that the engineering and installation effort expended on this 'extension lead' is not being devoted instead to the OLE that will (hopefully) replace it.

To me the extension lead scheme smacks of the 'wizard wheeze' of a project manager who had had his budget cut but had a poor understanding of the amount of work it would involve. I suspect it is costing considerably more than originally estimated.

The project team should have told the Network Rail bean counters that Victoria to Stalybridge OLE was essential to delivery of the Phase 4 Euxton to Victoria project, instead of offering this half baked get out of jail card.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Unfortunately I don't think there will be any rapid movement on electrification. Looking at the PWI lecture notes previously mentioned in this thread shows there is likely to be major junction works planned to take place first. This is based on the idea of 'Don't go slow' - the notes show speed increases up Miles Platting bank from 50 to 60 then from 30 to 60 at Miles Platting junction. A speed increase of that magnitude can only be achieved by a major rebuild of the junction. From Miles Platting junction to Ashton the increase is 76/60 to 80, that suggests Level Crossings may need to be removed. The next area of major work would seem to be the speed increase from 54/40 to 75/70 around Ashton station and finally an increase from 25 to 80 at Stalybridge junction. The speed increases from Stalybridge to Diggle are generally a 65 to 80mph uplift leading to 100 through the Standedge tunnel itself. From that there would appear to be a plan to rebuild 2 junctions and 1 station and relaying all the track before actually electrifying the line. So with no more work to start until the next CP, I would say there is no chance of electrification happening for at least 3 more years. This may be what was hinted about when they talked about taking a major possession of the line in the order of months to get the work done, with TPE running via Calder Valley during the possession.

What's amazing about that list, and the degree of speed uplift proposed, is that NR has only just finished a long spell of blockades for the current route upgrade between Victoria and Stalybridge.
Not to mention the upgrade at Stalybridge itself not so long ago, optimising the junction towards Guide Bridge.
The track through Ashton station has been carefully renewed for a fractional upgrade, and now we find it all has to be done again.
A major uplift at Miles Platting would need extensive realignment and bridge reconstruction I think (ie needing a long blockade).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Right now it isn't even going to reach Miles Platting

Edited that for you.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

A pity that the engineering and installation effort expended on this 'extension lead' is not being devoted instead to the OLE that will (hopefully) replace it.

To me the extension lead scheme smacks of the 'wizard wheeze' of a project manager who had had his budget cut but had a poor understanding of the amount of work it would involve. I suspect it is costing considerably more than originally estimated.

The project team should have told the Network Rail bean counters that Victoria to Stalybridge OLE was essential to delivery of the Phase 4 Euxton to Victoria project, instead of offering this half baked get out of jail card.

The extension lead has always been part of the design, appearing on the MFD about the time Phase 4 went to AT, so about four or five years ago? The only reason for its existence is because the bottom end of Phase 4 is too far from Willow Park, and the decision to put the Transpennine (Diggle) feeder at Heyrod means the HOIF, to give its proper codename, is vital. Go use you handy fact straightener ...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thank you Mr Locke - I love Informed Sources (no offence or copywrite infringement meant against Roger Ford!)

 

[deltic08]

What's amazing about that list, and the degree of speed uplift proposed, is that NR has only just finished a long spell of blockades for the current route upgrade between Victoria and Stalybridge.
Not to mention the upgrade at Stalybridge itself not so long ago, optimising the junction towards Guide Bridge.
The track through Ashton station has been carefully renewed for a fractional upgrade, and now we find it all has to be done again.
A major uplift at Miles Platting would need extensive realignment and bridge reconstruction I think (ie needing a long blockade).

The larger radius curve at Miles Platting will be constructed off line and a blockade will only be needed to join both ends.
As for Ashton, the island platform should have been swept away and replaced by two platforms and straighter running lines instead of doglegs.

 

[Mollman]

Edited that for you.

Thanks

 

[Greybeard33]

The extension lead has always been part of the design, appearing on the MFD about the time Phase 4 went to AT, so about four or five years ago? The only reason for its existence is because the bottom end of Phase 4 is too far from Willow Park, and the decision to put the Transpennine (Diggle) feeder at Heyrod means the HOIF, to give its proper codename, is vital. Go use you handy fact straightener ...

IIRC the ground level "extension lead", as originally conceived, would have extended less than a mile, from Heyrod to the limit of Phase 5 electrification at Stalybridge. The AT feeder onward to Victoria and Ordsall Lane was to be suspended from the Phase 5 OLE masts in the conventional way.

The original version of the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan gave the GRIP 6 complete date for Phase 5, Victoria to Stalybridge, as December 2016, the same as for Phase 4. But the target date for transpennine electrification was later than this, so, as you said, an interim solution was always needed for the Heyrod grid feed.

Even after the 2015 Hendy Review, the Phase 5 and Phase 4 EIS dates remained the same as each other, both put back to 10 December 2017 - see for example the March 2016 EDP Update. Arriva Rail North's rolling stock plan assumed EMUs would be able to operate to Stalybridge from the December 2017 timetable change.

It was not until late 2016 that it emerged that NR was intending to curtail the extent of Victoria to Stalybridge wiring, requiring the short extension lead to become the Great Extension Lead. My previous post was intended to refer to the additional resources needed for this long "extension of the extension".

 

[twpsaesneg]

The extension lead has always been part of the design, appearing on the MFD about the time Phase 4 went to AT, so about four or five years ago? The only reason for its existence is because the bottom end of Phase 4 is too far from Willow Park, and the decision to put the Transpennine (Diggle) feeder at Heyrod means the HOIF, to give its proper codename, is vital. Go use you handy fact straightener ...

Sorry, no it hasn't.

There was always an interconnector between Miles Platting and Ordsall Lane planned but the HOIF was only ever added when the wiring was descoped.

 

[twpsaesneg]

IIRC the ground level "extension lead", as originally conceived, would have extended less than a mile, from Heyrod to the limit of Phase 5 electrification at Stalybridge. The AT feeder onward to Victoria and Ordsall Lane was to be suspended from the Phase 5 OLE masts in the conventional way.

The original version of the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan gave the GRIP 6 complete date for Phase 5, Victoria to Stalybridge, as December 2016, the same as for Phase 4. But the target date for transpennine electrification was later than this, so, as you said, an interim solution was always needed for the Heyrod grid feed.

Even after the 2015 Hendy Review, the Phase 5 and Phase 4 EIS dates remained the same as each other, both put back to 10 December 2017 - see for example the March 2016 EDP Update. Arriva Rail North's rolling stock plan assumed EMUs would be able to operate to Stalybridge from the December 2017 timetable change.

It was not until late 2016 that it emerged that NR was intending to curtail the extent of Victoria to Stalybridge wiring, requiring the short extension lead to become the Great Extension Lead. My previous post was intended to refer to the additional resources needed for this long "extension of the extension".

This is correct. Very early on the connection from Heyrod to Stalybridge Feeder was added in, but I believe this was always in scope even before the wiring through Staly Tunnel was descoped, to allow continuity of supply to Phase 5 even with the power off through Stalybridge Tunnel. Bear in mind the original plans would effectively feed Manchester Piccadilly through a reconfigured Ardwick TSC.

I strongly believe that had the full cost of the HOIF been realised, the wiring would not have been descoped.

It is interesting that MMLE, in a similar situation, is considering wiring from Kettering to Braybrooke feeder rather than installing a costly feeder cable.

 

[snowball]

It is interesting that MMLE, in a similar situation, is considering wiring from Kettering to Braybrooke feeder rather than installing a costly feeder cable.

Yet on the GW they seem to be installing a feeder cable from Thingley Junction to the other side of Chippenham just so they can slightly postpone electrifying it.

 

[59CosG95]

Yet on the GW they seem to be installing a feeder cable from Thingley Junction to the other side of Chippenham just so they can slightly postpone electrifying it.

The difficulty at Chippenham was the viaduct west of the station and the Grade II listed footbridge within the station - these caused Wiltshire Council to dig their heels in. AIUI, the MML between Kettering and Braybrooke has no such hurdles to overcome.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Sorry, no it hasn't.

There was always an interconnector between Miles Platting and Ordsall Lane planned but the HOIF was only ever added when the wiring was descoped.

Me next with the straighteners ... and my apologies to all (including Greybeard 33). Having waded back through the trail of MFDs spanning about three years, twpsaesneg is correct (though I did find one revision even where the MP to Ordsall IF wasn't shown). So, I should have said "there were always independent feeders from Heyrod FS to Stalybridge ATS and from Miles Platting ATS to Ordsall ATS.

EDIT: forgot to add: the AF route between Stalybridge and Miles Platting would have involved significant sections of non-aerial conductor in any case.

 

[edwin_m]

Me next with the straighteners ... and my apologies to all (including Greybeard 33). Having waded back through the trail of MFDs spanning about three years, twpsaesneg is correct (though I did find one revision even where the MP to Ordsall IF wasn't shown). So, I should have said "there were always independent feeders from Heyrod FS to Stalybridge ATS and from Miles Platting ATS to Ordsall ATS.

EDIT: forgot to add: the AF route between Stalybridge and Miles Platting would have involved significant sections of non-aerial conductor in any case.

I presume the extension lead to Stalybridge was intended so Heyrod could still feed power if one of the two routes from Stalybridge into Manchester was isolated for work or because of some problem. So both routes would need to be electrified if it was intended to cut it back to Stalybridge again.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No wires yet east of Victoria, there are still at least 2 missing masts.
Bays not wired either.

If this is the Great Extension Lead, I think there's a bit missing.
This is alongside P1 at Stalybridge.
The "Danger 25000 volts" on the ducting is a bit of a giveaway.


PS I suppose this could be for the feed towards Guide Bridge (not needed for now), with the Ordsall Lane cable somewhere on the north side of the layout?
Clutching at straws really.

 

[twpsaesneg]

I presume the extension lead to Stalybridge was intended so Heyrod could still feed power if one of the two routes from Stalybridge into Manchester was isolated for work or because of some problem. So both routes would need to be electrified if it was intended to cut it back to Stalybridge again.

Heyrod to Stalybridge was so that Stalybridge could feed towards Manchester (there were neutrals proposed there) without relying upon the wiring through Stalybridge Tunnel.
The Miles Platting to Ordsall Feeder enabled an independent feed to the other side of Victoria in the event of an outage in the station.
The Extension Lead (HOIF) then replaced both on the descoping of the wiring, effectively making Ordsall Lane a remote feeder station for Heyrod and allowing the abolition of Stalybridge ATFS and Miles Platting SATS before they were built.
The HOIF will now stay in place regardless of what happens and the Major Feeding Diagrams will need to be re-done when the final configuration of Transpennine is known, but I suspect it will be significantly different than the original plan.

 

[Trapper]

No wires yet east of Victoria, there are still at least 2 missing masts.
Bays not wired either.

If this is the Great Extension Lead, I think there's a bit missing.
This is alongside P1 at Stalybridge.
The "Danger 25000 volts" on the ducting is a bit of a giveaway.
View attachment 53298

Has anybody spotted ANY of the extension lead being laid. I am beginning to wonder if they are waiting for all the troughing to be in place before starting the cable runs so as to avoid the temptation of unpowered cable lying around.

 

[alangla]

Pretty sure when the short lead from Parkhead to the Springburn branch was installed that was basically what happened - months of digging and installing troughing then the danger 25kv signs and the neutral section & feed just outside Bellgrove suddenly appeared.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have posted on the other thread but thought worth posting here too - it is Page 11 that caught my eye though page 31 and 32 impact too.


Enhancements Delivery Plan October 2018 (posted down thread too)
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Enhancement-Delivery-Plan-.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

I rather fear that although it's classified as an electrification scheme, that doesn't mean that all of it will be electrified (and what is the Extension Lead if not an electrification scheme?). OLE to Stalybridge by March 18 is also not credible.

 

[ic31420]

Out of idle curiosity more than any real need to know reason.

What sort of conductor material, conductor cross section and insulation will the "extension lead" have. How are terminations at length ends made?