1. 125Group forum donation: see here!

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification, CP6

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by GRALISTAIR, 9 Aug 2013.

  1. AndrewE

    AndrewE Established Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2015
    Nobody has yet admitted to having any knowledge (at all) which might suggest that there would be any problem electrifying Standedge, or bringing the disused bores back into use. It's just a smokescreen to give cover to the spineless Westminster politicians who won't authorise the expenditure needed to do a proper job in the provinces.
    The only real "problem" is that the canal people drive through the single bore nearest the canal to escort convoys of boats through. That's easily solved, though.
     
  2. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    I managed to fix the issue I had before so below is what I've been working on so far:

    https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/Upgrade

    There are three options on the markers matching each corridor:

    1. Calder Valley with some new junctions, doubling of some tracks and re-opening a closed tunnel at Bootle.
    2. Huddersfield line with new tunnels (and re-opening the existing one).
    3. Hope. New tunnels and more loops. I'd personally love to see Hope valley as a freight corridor as there seems to be room for four-tracking and less passenger traffic but things get awkward on the west side as it's hard to avoid Piccadilly or Victoria. Both 2 and 3 share the same path after Manchester Victoria to Liverpool.

    I've tried to avoid busy stations, ECML, WCML, other busy passenger services and building new tracks where buildings are located. I've excluded electrification but I'd go from York, Leeds, Huddersfield (new tunnels) and then Stalybridge. I'm also tempted to add a fourth option which goes through Calder but turns off Todmorden via Castleford to Manchester Piccadilly.

    I was told the whole route involved 120+ interventions to improve and that Standedge Scout is the most difficult one as it's just a mess.
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2019 at 12:00
  3. LM93

    LM93 Member

    Messages:
    30
    Joined:
    9 Apr 2018
    Location:
    Walkden
    Adding to this, someone told me initial estimate came up to nearly £5bn for NRs full wishlist for the whole route.
     
  4. AndrewE

    AndrewE Established Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2015
    "It all makes work for the working man to do," to quote Flanders and Swann again... Maybe that would be the expected number of things on a route upgrade anyway. I wonder whether a rail tunnel in full use can really be "just a mess?"
    Maybe gold-plated? Again, 1) it's still hearsay and 2) if that is what the route needs then just do it.
    I wonder whether a no-frills base tunnel from Oldham to somewhere near Huddersfield (built to the biggest freight gauge and electrified) plus wiring the 2 existing tracks as they are would be a sensible way to resolve the issues, as otherwise we shall always have the capacity problem caused by the lack of 4 tracks between Stalybridge and Diggle.
     
  5. Ploughman

    Ploughman Established Member

    Messages:
    2,142
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Found this photo in a new book by P Tatlow on Railway Cranes.
    Anyway, if the clearance through the tunnel does not change from that shown above, is there a problem?

    Diggle.jpg
     
  6. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    Sorry I meant Scout not Standedge. Ok maybe not a mess but still troublesome. Also you have to be able to do it without closing down the line as it's a major northern route.

    Cool photograph. I think the issue is with the curves at the top of the tunnel. Anything like a high-cube container wouldn't fit unless you use a lower wagon.
     
  7. CdBrux

    CdBrux Member

    Messages:
    466
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2014
    Location:
    Munich
    There wasn't supposed to be any problem electrifying GWR, Bolton to Preston etc...
    The project has a 3billion budget, which doesn't presumably get you everything
    It has been stated clearly (albeit some time ago and there is the possibility more detailed work may have come up wit ha different conclusion) that electrifying the route was very low down the list of interventions that would make a positive contribution to additional capacity & speed for the desired services
    However as I notice that the vast majority of your posts are simply to complain / rant about the government etc... I doubt you either care or want to listen to such points of view.
     
  8. superkev

    superkev Established Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2015
    Location:
    west yorkshire
    With its curves and tunnels the Standedge route will never be anything but slow speed.
    Pity a previous transport Secretary (Can't remember her name so can't have been there long ) allowed the straight 1955 continental gauge Woodhead tunnel to be blocked by the CEGB.
    K
     
  9. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    I'm curious as to how easily it is to lower the tracks in the tunnels to make room for electrification and W12 gauge (or at least W10).
     
  10. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    8,965
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    The canal tunnel might be an issue in places, as it is at a slightly lower elevation than the rail tunnel.
     
  11. hwl

    hwl Established Member

    Messages:
    2,336
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    It depends on tunnel construction, geometry and how much height you want.

    Genrealised at a high level assuming typical brick as in Standedge:

    In the easy cases the existing ballast will need to be dug out and replaced with slab track which requires a lower total depth under the rail and doesn't move so certain clearance allowances can be reduced as well making the total lowering required smaller)

    In the more difficult cases the base arch of the tunnel that is normally hidden behind behind the ballast to be modified with reinforced concrete (again extend very dependent on original construction and geometry.

    Usually some structural repairs are also need on the tunnels.

    2 Easier recent NR examples:

    https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/southampton-tunnel-works-finished-a-year-early

    http://www.egip.info/projects/queen-street-tunnel-renewal

    A most difficult example would be Crossrail's Connaught Tunnel
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2019 at 13:31
  12. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    The Canal is quite a bit lower. It might work well for drainage as well.

    Standedge.png
     
  13. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    Interesting read, thanks!
     
  14. Ploughman

    Ploughman Established Member

    Messages:
    2,142
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    At the portal in the photo, I doubt that there is any possibility of lowering as the culvert crossing is on waybeams and I seem to recall it still being waybeams in 2000 last time I was there.

    One other slight problem is that the culvert was in Manchesters LM Zone domain and the Tunnel is under the Leeds LNE Zone.
    It may not mean much to some people, but any inter regional work always created problems through people not wanting to talk to that lot on the other side of the hill.
     
  15. superkev

    superkev Established Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2015
    Location:
    west yorkshire
    Both the sharpest curves which limit speeds are at the entrances to tunnels I.e. Morley and Standedge and can't be straightened without very major works.
    K
     
  16. Killingworth

    Killingworth Member

    Messages:
    610
    Joined:
    30 May 2018
    Location:
    Sheffield
    The ideas proposed in the positions mapped might work if they were there now, but when you note the time it took to get agreement to the very much more modest Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme (roughly 20 years and construction has still to be given the go ahead) there's little chance of even the simplest parts happening.

    Four tracking through the Peak District National Park would be fiercely resisted.
    More freight services through any Peak route will be fiercely resisted.
    Four tracking to double capacity at Cowburn and Totley ignores what is present at each end, particularly at Grindleford and Totley. Only about 6 miles of new tunnels needed!
    Four tracking down the Sheaf Valley into Sheffield from Dore might be possible, as long as Tesco can be compensated for totally rebuilding their store, as well as a few other busineses in the way.
    Four tracking around Chinley might be possible.
    Passenger service reductions aren't going to happen.

    However what would help to increase capacity and would be much less costly might be;

    1. longer trains, as is happening
    2. modernising signalling to allow trains to run safely closer together - supposed to happen.
    3. more loops to allow overtaking of stopping services and freight trains by fast services
    4. adding bi-directional sections through stations (say Dore and Hope) to allow overtaking without even constructing a loop. A possibility at Dore as part of the Scheme.
     
  17. Legolash2o

    Legolash2o Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2018
    Great feedback, thanks!

    There's enough room for loops either side of the tracks which shouldn't be much of an issue.
    Can't comment on that one.
    There isn't much at Grindleford and Totley. Both have a small siding that looks like a driver would need to reverse into them. I prefer loops.
    I haven't proposed four-tracking into Sheffield just gauge clearance.
    Just a single loop but some vegetation may have to be removed.
    I wouldn't reduce passenger just make use of the extra loops for freight to avoid passenger.

    The most realistic one will probably be what I've put as option 1 as it avoids a lot traffic and doesn't require any boring.
     
  18. Killingworth

    Killingworth Member

    Messages:
    610
    Joined:
    30 May 2018
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Really these details should be on the Hope Valley Capacity thread, however the point that more preference should be made for freight isn't far off the mark. If all the passenger trains were removed from the Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield the extra volume of road traffic would not be that great, percentage wise. If the volume of rail passenger traffic doubled in most places in the north it would barely be noticed on the roads!

    If all the train loads of limestone and cement had to move onto the roads they certainly would be noticed and very soon there would be an outcry.

    Yesterday morning an eastbound freight service broke down near Bamford causing a blockage that lasted about 3 hours. The first TPE services seem to have been diverted via Huddersfield to arrive an hour or so late before termination. The first Northern stopping service didn't arrive in Sheffield until about 8.30. Two earlier Northern Hope Valley services, and their reurn workings, were cancelled as a result.

    If there were 4 tracking no doubt this wouldn't have been such a problem:s

    Might SELRAP be part of a freight solution? See; http://www.selrap.org.uk/

    Network Rail don't like loops. The points cost a lot to install and maintain and in bleak hilly areas are particularly vulnerable to ice and snow. Every point is a potential safety issue, possibly needing a speed restriction.

    Anyway, as far as the Hope Valley is concerned there are old sidings, rails long since overgrown, immediately west of Grindleford station eastbound outside Totley Tunnel. The old station yard on the westbound side had several sidings which could be relaid as a loop. East of Cowburn tunnel at Edale are sidings either side of the running tracks with trailing points now disconnected, the rails slowly rusting away. I don't suppose there'd be too much issue regarding space for passing loops in these places to allow a fast passenger train to overtake a slow, but there are other solutions that seem to be more viable.

    HS2 may bring a third track down the Sheaf Valley from Dore into Sheffield - which is a major bottleneck going north and east.
     
  19. mwmbwls

    mwmbwls Member

    Messages:
    305
    Joined:
    14 Dec 2009
    Yes - but not if it decants freight trains at Lostock Hall on to the WCML and some form of acceptable avoiding route can be found for Whitehall Junction in Leeds. There is also the question of redoubling the line from Rose Grove through to Colne. The missing Colne to Skipton link is only part of the story - albeit the most publicised.
     
  20. Killingworth

    Killingworth Member

    Messages:
    610
    Joined:
    30 May 2018
    Location:
    Sheffield
    The devil is always in the detail
     
  21. matacaster

    matacaster Member

    Messages:
    406
    Joined:
    19 Jan 2013
    Solution to Whitehall junction is a flyover and there is room on Kirkstall approach and (possibly) at the other side (route to Normanton) to have a reasonable gradient.
     
  22. superkev

    superkev Established Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2015
    Location:
    west yorkshire
    There was a plan for a flyover in the 1960s but the then Leeds scheme was culled due to the Beeching cuts. Cant remember which book the plan was in.
    K
     
  23. GRALISTAIR

    GRALISTAIR Established Member

    Messages:
    2,928
    Joined:
    11 Apr 2012
    Location:
    Dalton Georgia USA
    Well as I am sure you have seen by now, it has been leaked that Man Vic to Stalybridge and Leeds to Huddersfield is getting wired as part of the Transpennine Upgrade. So, semi-official.
     
  24. 59CosG95

    59CosG95 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Joined:
    18 Aug 2013
    Location:
    WIM/PBO
    No news on Leeds-York then?
     
  25. td97

    td97 Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    26 Jul 2017
    That's part of NWEP (phase 5). Announced in 2011(?). Due by Dec 16. Just re-badged because NR are so late in delivering it.

    There's a news article that's been published to save anyone interested a Google search.

    Edit: to add, it will be interesting to see if the re-branding to TRPU ends up with Guide Bridge to Stalybridge becoming de-scoped.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2019 at 21:18
  26. td97

    td97 Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    26 Jul 2017
    The project was split in 2 with different contractors for west and east of Leeds, so clearly the east side have had a better time upholding confidentiality.
     
  27. driver_m

    driver_m Established Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Joined:
    8 Nov 2011
    Wouldn't it be better if the government actually just come up with some BS plan to wire the TP in three stages, the two above and the tricky inbetween bit, and just do what they've done with the Lostock-Wigan but and kick it into the long grass. I could handle being lied to a bit better than actually mugging us off with an inferior option and being blatant about it.
     
  28. 59CosG95

    59CosG95 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Joined:
    18 Aug 2013
    Location:
    WIM/PBO
    Ahh. Let us hope common sense prevails!
     
  29. 59CosG95

    59CosG95 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Joined:
    18 Aug 2013
    Location:
    WIM/PBO
    FYI - in a similar vein to the Manchester-Preston GSoP, as well as the similar Progressometers(TM) for the GWML, EGIP/Shotts/SDA, and MML schemes, a TransPennine Electrification Progressometer is now at the design stage. @GRALISTAIR - hopefully we can help encourage forum members to report on this!
     
  30. GRALISTAIR

    GRALISTAIR Established Member

    Messages:
    2,928
    Joined:
    11 Apr 2012
    Location:
    Dalton Georgia USA
    deleted
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2019 at 22:36

Share This Page