• 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

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
The Transpennine route is an area of the country I have little experience of, so thanks to everyone on this thread for all the detail they've provided. I've spent an afternoon reading up on the history of the line, and I'm fascinated that there was a four track route between Manchester and Leeds - I thought at best there would have been just be some short 4 track sections.

Is there any point in reinstating the full line as a 4 track route, or is the proposed NPR route going to perform a much better job of providing fast lines than the old ones alongside the remaining tracks ever did?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,787
Location
West Riding
The 4-tracking was removed to speed up journey times by providing a faster alignment and reduce maintenance costs. Returning to 4 tracks would be very expensive and provide a slower journey unless new land was bought.

I've said it several times on here before; most punters just want a seat and a reliable service. 4 10 carriage trains an hour would solve most of TP's problems with only platform lengthening required.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/04/03/the-standedge-experience/ Worth a read to find out about the conditions of Standedge Tunnel. It's an older article, but it checks out.
No it doesn't.
It's an interesting article... and it says absolutely nothing about any of the 3 rail tunnels being unfit for further use, or difficult to electrify. What it is saying is that the earlier short-sighted abandonment/capping and lack of maintenance of some of the ventilation shafts was having to be remedied with difficulty and at significant cost.
What has this got to do with the electrification programme? If anything it is remedial works being done ahead of the main job going ahead.
 
Last edited:

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
The 4-tracking was removed to speed up journey times by providing a faster alignment and reduce maintenance costs. Returning to 4 tracks would be very expensive and provide a slower journey unless new land was bought.

I've said it several times on here before; most punters just want a seat and a reliable service. 4 10 carriage trains an hour would solve most of TP's problems with only platform lengthening required.
True, much longer trains are desperately needed, but that's only TPE's passengers' problem sorted. There is also a need for stopping trains both sides of the Pennines. An intensively used main line needs more than 2 tracks to deliver what is needed, so electrification throughout and 4-tracking up the Colne Valley (i.e. to Marsden) and through the tunnel will be essential, with clever timetabling and (I'm afraid) fewer trains on the double-track western side.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Transpennine route is an area of the country I have little experience of, so thanks to everyone on this thread for all the detail they've provided. I've spent an afternoon reading up on the history of the line, and I'm fascinated that there was a four track route between Manchester and Leeds - I thought at best there would have been just be some short 4 track sections.

Is there any point in reinstating the full line as a 4 track route, or is the proposed NPR route going to perform a much better job of providing fast lines than the old ones alongside the remaining tracks ever did?
The 4-tracking was removed to speed up journey times by providing a faster alignment and reduce maintenance costs. Returning to 4 tracks would be very expensive and provide a slower journey unless new land was bought.
That was the case east of Standege Tunnel. To the west it would have been very difficult to quadruple the route through Greenfield (surviving station) so another route was built on the east side of the valley passing through Uppermill and Greenfield (the village) and rejoining at Stalybridge. This was effectively the third and fourth tracks but did have several stations up until about WW1. Some of the route is still walkable but reinstating it now would involve rebuilding about five demolished viaducts and removing housing which has encroached in places, and a factory.

To be honest if you were going to do that NPR would probably cost about the same and give more benefit (quicker journey and the opportunity to serve Bradford directly).
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
I understand that if and when work actually starts on the North Pennine improvements any closures will not coincide with those needed for the South Pennine Hope Valley route. That work will not be completed before 2022, aiming for December timetable changes - including a safety margin after this years debacle.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
No it doesn't.
It's an interesting article... and it says absolutely nothing about any of the 3 rail tunnels being unfit for further use, or difficult to electrify. What it is saying is that the earlier short-sighted abandonment/capping and lack of maintenance of some of the ventilation shafts was having to be remedied with difficulty and at significant cost.
What has this got to do with the electrification programme? If anything it is remedial works being done ahead of the main job going ahead.
I didn't realise you were going to take a paraphrased quote from Return of The Jedi literally :lol:

What the article does mention is the amount of water in the shafts - which flies in the face of earlier comments stating that Standedge "isn't a particularly wet tunnel". It also states that a blockade might be necessary for any electrification work (which is, I'm sure, news to nobody at this point). The shaft repair scheme (with those floating cradles mentioned) might also be a useful way for workers to access multiple points of the tunnel simultaneously during a blockade, though I admit this is rapidly entering the realms of cloud-cuckoo land)
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
I understand that if and when work actually starts on the North Pennine improvements any closures will not coincide with those needed for the South Pennine Hope Valley route. That work will not be completed before 2022, aiming for December timetable changes - including a safety margin after this years debacle.

Politics will dictate that both North and South Transpennine upgrades will both need to start significantly prior to 2022. The next general election may well be earlier than that and the Tories need some spades in the ground to demonstrate the Northern Powerhouse project has some substance.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Politics will dictate that both North and South Transpennine upgrades will both need to start significantly prior to 2022. The next general election may well be earlier than that and the Tories need some spades in the ground to demonstrate the Northern Powerhouse project has some substance.

Is it actually possible though? There isn't a shovel-ready scheme for the North route, so it's useless for electioneering any time in the next couple of years at least.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Is it actually possible though? There isn't a shovel-ready scheme for the North route, so it's useless for electioneering any time in the next couple of years at least.

Which is why the Hope Valley Scheme is now back on the agenda for updating preparatory work at the end of CP5 and construction starting in CP6, probably early 2020. Using the construction timetable suggested at the public inquiry completion could be achieved in 2021, but there are more hurdles and hoops to clear now.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
Is it actually possible though? There isn't a shovel-ready scheme for the North route, so it's useless for electioneering any time in the next couple of years at least.

Although not officially part of the scheme, Victoria-Stalybridge. Guide Bridge-Stalybridge should have detailed plans by now as its scope hasn't changed since it was first proposed. Stalybridge remodelling could be done in a blockade once both lines are more or less wired.

Which is why the Hope Valley Scheme is now back on the agenda for updating preparatory work at the end of CP5 and construction starting in CP6, probably early 2020. Using the construction timetable suggested at the public inquiry completion could be achieved in 2021, but there are more hurdles and hoops to clear now.

Why the delay in construction until 2020? Its not a big scheme!

Its astounding that both schemes are apparently 18-24 months off earliest start date of actual work.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Why the delay in construction until 2020? Its not a big scheme!

Its astounding that both schemes are apparently 18-24 months off earliest start date of actual work.

Everything has to be re-costed and recalculated to meet updated planning stages. Possessions have to be sought after contractors have confirmed their proposed programme of works - the scheme may not be out out to tender for about 6 months. NR are deeply concerned not to have any more rail foul ups like Great Western, Crossrail, North Western electrification, SY Tramtrain and other schemes that are coming out well over budget and well behind on delivery time.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
I didn't realise you were going to take a paraphrased quote from Return of The Jedi literally :lol:

What the article does mention is the amount of water in the shafts - which flies in the face of earlier comments stating that Standedge "isn't a particularly wet tunnel". It also states that a blockade might be necessary for any electrification work (which is, I'm sure, news to nobody at this point). The shaft repair scheme (with those floating cradles mentioned) might also be a useful way for workers to access multiple points of the tunnel simultaneously during a blockade, though I admit this is rapidly entering the realms of cloud-cuckoo land)

I think what I was saying was thet the local geology doesn't lend itself to high levels of water ingress. Of course, if you have an open shaft with water pouring down it, its going to lead to a certain amount of ingress, but I've not read anything to suggest this is anything like the level in notoriously wet tunnels such as Bramhope or Balcome.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
I didn't realise you were going to take a paraphrased quote from Return of The Jedi literally :lol:

What the article does mention is the amount of water in the shafts - which flies in the face of earlier comments stating that Standedge "isn't a particularly wet tunnel". It also states that a blockade might be necessary for any electrification work (which is, I'm sure, news to nobody at this point). The shaft repair scheme (with those floating cradles mentioned) might also be a useful way for workers to access multiple points of the tunnel simultaneously during a blockade, though I admit this is rapidly entering the realms of cloud-cuckoo land)
I have just re-read the article (and searched it for "closure" and "blockade") and can't find any reference to either at all. They say that the shafts were cleverly overhauled by mining new adits from one of the disused rail bores which saved an enormous amount of time because they didn't have to access them from an operational railway tunnel.
As Yoksrob says, it isn't a wet tunnel compared with lots of others on the network, and water entering and coming down ventilation shafts is the norm. Usually gutters and downpipes fix it.
Regarding electrification in tunnels, Standedge has got to be one of the low-hanging fruit. It has two "spare" bores in good solid rock to get going on with no trains to worry about, easy access at both ends with little conflict with the working railways (plus stacks of space on disused formations both sides if you wanted to put in sidings for bringing in materials by train), no-one has ever suggested any clearance problems, and on top of all that at least one extra track will be needed in the near future, so none of the work will be wasted. It's not often that you get the chance to build your upgrade with so few complications.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
If Standedge is not electrified, would it be electrified to both ends of the tunnel with trains running bi-mode through the tunnel, or would the whole route between Stalybridge and Huddersfield remain as it is?
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Unless that twin bore gets smaller inside, a not uncommon feature (see Box tunnel), it looks quite large enough for some version of OHLE.

What gauge are the small bores C6? ... would it not be a good time to bore them out to UIC gauge whilst out of use?
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
The 4-tracking was removed to speed up journey times by providing a faster alignment and reduce maintenance costs. Returning to 4 tracks would be very expensive and provide a slower journey unless new land was bought.
I thought the re-alignment came a number of years after the removal of the 3rd and 4th lines. The removal was certainly done to cut costs as you point out. The re-alignment was a bit of the speed-up work that the old ER civil engineers were so good at, not just on the ECML but in a number of other places too. In line-speed terms the transition from LMR to ER had become very marked indeed by the end of BR days, with the LM still happily pretty much running the railway it had inherited at nationalisation.
 
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
929
Location
Wilmslow
I thought the re-alignment came a number of years after the removal of the 3rd and 4th lines. The removal was certainly done to cut costs as you point out. The re-alignment was a bit of the speed-up work that the old ER civil engineers were so good at, not just on the ECML but in a number of other places too. In line-speed terms the transition from LMR to ER had become very marked indeed by the end of BR days, with the LM still happily pretty much running the railway it had inherited at nationalisation.

Yes the route was de-quadrified in 1966 (including closure of the Micklehurst Loop) in response to falling freight traffic. As you say the ER civils did a good job (in the early 70s) to take full advantage of the four-track formation to ease the curvature. It also involved replacing and relocating some of the underbridges so it would not be a straightforward task to reinstate quadruple track. There was little scope to do much on the LMR side with the fast and slow lines split as completely seperate routes.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,559
What gauge are the small bores C6? ... would it not be a good time to bore them out to UIC gauge whilst out of use?
Given that complete 4 tracking of the whole route is out of the question, effectively providing passing loops through the tunnel section would appear to be the most expensive location to do it.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
There was little scope to do much on the LMR side with the fast and slow lines split as completely seperate routes.
Of course. What I was thinking of more on the LM side was the failure to do anything about the string of very low-speed junctions all around Manchester (and not just on the TP routes) and the failure to get line-speed any higher where it might have been possible, towards Diggle and then getting rid of the 60 where the fast lines (original lines) slewed into the new tunnel (which of course did then allow fast running until the killer of Marsden).
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
De-quadrified! The same job they did from Sheffield up the Sheaf Valley to Dore, slewing tracks to improve speed. Lineside structures now impede requadrification - plus removal of the bridge over London Road and selling off part of the trackbed for a Tesco Superstore.

What may seem to be simple operations to restore old capacity are anything but.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Given that complete 4 tracking of the whole route is out of the question, effectively providing passing loops through the tunnel section would appear to be the most expensive location to do it.
There is the possibility to send Leeds-Huddersfield non-stoppers via Wakefield Kirkgate. It is a fast alignment or can be made faster than it is to-day by building a new eastbound platform at Normanton and using the old eastbound platform for westbound trains. Not much can done about increasing speed through Kirkgate but the silly 20mph through Horbury Jnc can be made 80 or 90mph by abolishing the Up slow line and making it the UP fast Huddersfield without a connection to Barnsley as there is one from the current Up fast Barnsley.
If realigned for mostly 100mph right through to Huddersfield it could be timed in about 20 minutes and take some pressure off the Dewsbury route for stoppers and Brighouse direct trains.
Travelling at 100mph will give the perception of being a fast route even if it no quicker than via Dewsbury.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
There is the possibility to send Leeds-Huddersfield non-stoppers via Wakefield Kirkgate. It is a fast alignment or can be made faster than it is to-day by building a new eastbound platform at Normanton and using the old eastbound platform for westbound trains. Not much can done about increasing speed through Kirkgate but the silly 20mph through Horbury Jnc can be made 80 or 90mph by abolishing the Up slow line and making it the UP fast Huddersfield without a connection to Barnsley as there is one from the current Up fast Barnsley.
If realigned for mostly 100mph right through to Huddersfield it could be timed in about 20 minutes and take some pressure off the Dewsbury route for stoppers and Brighouse direct trains.
Travelling at 100mph will give the perception of being a fast route even if it no quicker than via Dewsbury.
There were proposals several times over to put in through lines at Normanton on the open straight alignment. As you note, almost all the alignment (of the old NMR and M&LR lines) is potentially very fast indeed, and it would be interesting to know what the best possible time that could be achieved over it with investment would be. I think the extra distance would always make it a little slower than the Dewsbury route, but maybe not by very much at all.
 

Halifaxlad

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
1,367
Location
The White Rose County
But what really matters is how wide it is at pantograph height at the narrowest point

Although the tunnel does appear to have what I would say to be an unusually high crown it doesn't appear to be any wider than your general tunnel.
There is the possibility to send Leeds-Huddersfield non-stoppers via Wakefield Kirkgate. It is a fast alignment or can be made faster than it is to-day by building a new eastbound platform at Normanton and using the old eastbound platform for westbound trains. Not much can done about increasing speed through Kirkgate but the silly 20mph through Horbury Jnc can be made 80 or 90mph by abolishing the Up slow line and making it the UP fast Huddersfield without a connection to Barnsley as there is one from the current Up fast Barnsley.
If realigned for mostly 100mph right through to Huddersfield it could be timed in about 20 minutes and take some pressure off the Dewsbury route for stoppers and Brighouse direct trains.
Travelling at 100mph will give the perception of being a fast route even if it no quicker than via Dewsbury.

But surely what would happen is that Wakey Council would call for trains to stop?

Aren't they four tracking it to Huddersfield anyway?
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Although the tunnel does appear to have what I would say to be an unusually high crown it doesn't appear to be any wider than your general tunnel.


But surely what would happen is that Wakey Council would call for trains to stop?

Aren't they four tracking it to Huddersfield anyway?
No, not all the way. I believe only in Batley station east of Ravensthorpe, for overtaking.
If the route via Normanton is upgraded for higher speed, Batley would not need doing.
 

Top