Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Legolash2o]

Is there a name and a link for the webinar please?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it on page 68 and still works which is great.

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/211633295909051405

 

[Spartacus]

The Leeds bound platform track would be the slow, the Dewsbury bound track would become the Leeds Fast, then two new westbound tracks where the Dewsbury platform is now would become the Fast and Slow with a new westbound platform and I would presume a new viaduct also to take the two new westbound lines.

Four tracks could extend a little bit further towards Leeds than the level crossing and further towards Dewsbury viaduct than Batley viaduct

Why the need for a replacement 2nd viaduct with all the railway land north of Batley? Would more than the existing former trackbed be needed with 4 tracks between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe?

 

[matacaster]

The original platform 1? was sold and now has an old railway carriage on cordoned off area (appears to be some sort of men's meeting haunt now???).

It looks as if it were repurchased, then one might be able to sneak a 3-coach train there if the tunnel mouth was unblocked. However anything longer would likely not fit without the front of train being in tunnel.

Although expensive, wouldn't it be an ideal opportunity to demolish the tunnel at the Manchester end of Huddersfield station, build a much wider new tunnel with a single span, straighten the track work, extend original short platform mentioned above all the way to the bus station thus providing a seamless interchange between bus and rail? They could extend platform 4, 8 and 9 as well.

While they were at it the bridges at the other end could be re-positioned so that they pointed in the same direction as the tracks ought to go making the throat less wiggly (*wiggly is a technical term!!)

 

[deltic08]

Not sure that was anything more than a (fairly sensible) bit of forum crayon-work. In any case if you were going to do it you'd still want the existing route electrified for the expresses.
Given what an operationally obvious bit of electrification this has been for the past 20 years without anything ever happening on it, I think I'd believe almost any plan they came up with at all at this stage.

Not a 'bit of Forum crayon- work'. The cant is at the maximum it can be for the curve and that allows for 70mph and no more. Have you been round this curve at low speed and felt the lean? If you are so sure, what is your solution to raising speed to 100mph+ here then without bypassing Church Fenton?

 

[deltic08]

Why the need for a replacement 2nd viaduct with all the railway land north of Batley?

Who mentioned a replacement viaduct? A new two track viaduct would be needed at Batley if the line was quadrupled here and yes probably more land would be needed at Ravensthorpe if the junction here is to be graded with a dive under for Wakefield. It depends where the dive under starts and finishes. The Wakefield line was also quad tracked until about late 1970s.

 

[Legolash2o]

Will there be any W10 or W12 gauge clearance work done on the route?

 

[Senex]

Although expensive, wouldn't it be an ideal opportunity to demolish the tunnel at the Manchester end of Huddersfield station, build a much wider new tunnel with a single span, straighten the track work, extend original short platform mentioned above all the way to the bus station thus providing a seamless interchange between bus and rail? They could extend platform 4, 8 and 9 as well.

Are the tunnels the major problem at Huddersfield? In the up direction there 30mph on the very gentle curve at the west end of platform 1 rises immediately to 50 just where the much more severe curvature of the old tunnel begins. The down line comes through the new tunnel and the sharpest curvature seems to be allowed 50 or 60 before reducing to 35 for a much easier curve into platform 4 (with a 25-mph turnout over the lousy alignment into 8). If the up and down main lines were the 1 and 4 lines and these became the new fast lines towards Heaton Lodge, why couldn't the through speed at Huddersfield be got up to the 50 or 60 already allowed in the tunnels, which would make it well worth running at least some trains through non-stop to gain perhaps 3 minutes or so? The new slow lines could then serve 8 and the planned new platform, with space for terminating/reversing trains well clear of the fast lines. (The alignments can be seen very well on Don Coffey's superb videos of the Trans-Pennine routes on YouTube.)
And a brief supplementary question. The talk two years ago to the PWI (that I gave references to in the "Manchester - Stalybridge Electrification" thread, post #617 of 1 May) suggested much higher speeds at Stalybridge than what we now see being suggested. Does anyone have any idea of what the work for the higher speeds would have involved?

 

[Senex]

Not a 'bit of Forum crayon- work'. The cant is at the maximum it can be for the curve and that allows for 70mph and no more. Have you been round this curve at low speed and felt the lean? If you are so sure, what is your solution to raising speed to 100mph+ here then without bypassing Church Fenton?

The down line from Micklefield is 80 through Church Fenton platform 4. The up main line (non-platform) is 90 except for the short section carrying the 15-mph connection from the platform line back into the main line in the back of a curve, which is the 70 you mention. Any re-alignment in the station or at the north end looks very difficult, though you can see how quite a major one might just about be done to the south.

 

[Spartacus]

Who mentioned a replacement viaduct? A new two track viaduct would be needed at Batley if the line was quadrupled here and yes probably more land would be needed at Ravensthorpe if the junction here is to be graded with a dive under for Wakefield. It depends where the dive under starts and finishes. The Wakefield line was also quad tracked until about late 1970s.

Replacement as in replacing the GNR one that was demolished perhaps 30 years ago now. What I mean is I doubt much of a running loop would be needed at Batley given all the 4 track that will be put back in. Extending North or South of Batley would be expensive for minimal benefit. Nobody's planning on quadrupling any line that has never been quadruple previously.

 

[themiller]

Will there be any W10 or W12 gauge clearance work done on the route?

From memory, it's currently planned for W12 but the webinar was described as a briefing rather than a plan so things in it may change as the scheme evolves.

 

[deltic08]

The down line from Micklefield is 80 through Church Fenton platform 4. The up main line (non-platform) is 90 except for the short section carrying the 15-mph connection from the platform line back into the main line in the back of a curve, which is the 70 you mention. Any re-alignment in the station or at the north end looks very difficult, though you can see how quite a major one might just about be done to the south.

You are right. It used to be 70mph on both. In that case I do not see that NR needs to spend £millions on a bypass when 80/90 is available to TOCs. I have been misinformed by a usually reliable source.

 

[deltic08]

Replacement as in replacing the GNR one that was demolished perhaps 30 years ago now. What I mean is I doubt much of a running loop would be needed at Batley given all the 4 track that will be put back in. Extending North or South of Batley would be expensive for minimal benefit. Nobody's planning on quadrupling any line that has never been quadruple previously.

But wasn't the GNR viaduct at a lower level than the present viaduct?

 

[Spartacus]

But wasn't the GNR viaduct at a lower level than the present viaduct?

Southern end, yes, but in theory could have been built up to the same level and the seperate deck over Crackenedge Lane replaced. The main issue is that South of the viaduct the GNR was at a lower level to the LNWR one, and not really in any way that it could be easily brought up to the same level as the LNWR one. As I've said, bar loops on the existing level at Batley I don't think there's need for anything there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The issue with a short loop only at a station is that any overtaking service must wait until the stopper enters the loop before it enters the section preceding the loop. This means the stopper is trapped in the loop for longer than ideal- a 1.5 min stop becomes 5 or 6 minutes.

 

[coxxy]

The issue with a short loop only at a station is that any overtaking service must wait until the stopper enters the loop before it enters the section preceding the loop. This means the stopper is trapped in the loop for longer than ideal- a 1.5 min stop becomes 5 or 6 minutes.

And couple that with the fairly limited signalling beyond Church Fenton and Micklefield delays can spiral pretty quickly to numerous services.

 

[deltic08]

And couple that with the fairly limited signalling beyond Church Fenton and Micklefield delays can spiral pretty quickly to numerous services.

We are discussing a loop at Batley and how long it should be.

 

[coxxy]

We are discussing a loop at Batley and how long it should be.

Ive either quoted the wrong post or got completely lost somewhere

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ive either quoted the wrong post or got completely lost somewhere

There's two separate discussions going on, one about Batley loops and one about a possible re-alignment at Church Fenton.

Though it appears that anything North/East of Leeds is being dealt with as a separate project.

 

[Spod]

The TransPennine Route Upgrade is one programme with a £2.9 billion budget covering improvements both east and west of Leeds. However, the contracts to actually build it have been awarded to two separate groups of companies, one for the work west of Leeds (the subject of the recent webinar and much of the subsequent discussion), and another for the work east of Leeds.
There's still not much detail confirmed for east of Leeds, for which suggestions have ranged from four tracking from Leeds to a new parkway station east of Micklefield, through three tracking the viaduct east of Leeds, suggestions of gaps in electrification to the east of Leeds, a fast bypass for Church Fenton (how is that justified in the face of the option to use the HS2 route to Colton Junction?), four tracking from Neville Hill to Thorpe Park (which may or may not require land purchase given the extra space needed for electrification, modern standards and clearances and reasonably fast alignments)... and no indication of how confident we can be in any of the above. Fundamentally, this is a result of the final decisions on which options to progress not having been made yet, and no-one in the know wanting to make promises they can't be sure to keep.

 

[deltic08]

The TransPennine Route Upgrade is one programme with a £2.9 billion budget covering improvements both east and west of Leeds. However, the contracts to actually build it have been awarded to two separate groups of companies, one for the work west of Leeds (the subject of the recent webinar and much of the subsequent discussion), and another for the work east of Leeds.
There's still not much detail confirmed for east of Leeds, for which suggestions have ranged from four tracking from Leeds to a new parkway station east of Micklefield, through three tracking the viaduct east of Leeds, suggestions of gaps in electrification to the east of Leeds, a fast bypass for Church Fenton (how is that justified in the face of the option to use the HS2 route to Colton Junction?), four tracking from Neville Hill to Thorpe Park (which may or may not require land purchase given the extra space needed for electrification, modern standards and clearances and reasonably fast alignments)... and no indication of how confident we can be in any of the above. Fundamentally, this is a result of the final decisions on which options to progress not having been made yet, and no-one in the know wanting to make promises they can't be sure to keep.

Well summarised.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I’d imagine it would go almost as far as the box and level crossing. Minimal work would need to be done to have a loop through the station on the Up/Manchester if you sent the loop round the back of the platform but one on the Down/Leeds would have to be after the station (in many ways little different to the current situation at Mirfield, or involve a rebuild.

If Batley gets a rebuild, then the infamous "Batley Hump" can be removed in the process and a ramp could be connected up to where the road bridge is instead to provide cheapish disabled access to the southbound platform.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If Batley gets a rebuild, then the infamous "Batley Hump" can be removed in the process and a ramp could be connected up to where the road bridge is instead to provide cheapish disabled access to the southbound platform.

Even if the existing platforms remain in use, the subway will probably be filled in and replaced with a bridge with ramps or lifts. If the platforms also move slightly eastwards as you suggest, the Soothill Lane bridge is conveniently sited.

The hump you describe is not something I'm familiar with, as since I moved to Batley I rarely go through non-stop!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Even if the existing platforms remain in use, the subway will probably be filled in and replaced with a bridge with ramps or lifts. If the platforms also move slightly eastwards as you suggest, the Soothill Lane bridge is conveniently sited.

The hump you describe is not something I'm familiar with, as since I moved to Batley I rarely go through non-stop!

The bump / hump can be felt when heading southwards on one of the expresses, as far as I know its something to do with the roof of the subway and the trackbed being rather a bit close - but I could be wrong. Others on here will have felt the bump / hump too when passing through Batley.

 

[xotGD]

The bump / hump can be felt when heading southwards on one of the expresses, as far as I know its something to do with the roof of the subway and the trackbed being rather a bit close - but I could be wrong. Others on here will have felt the bump / hump too when passing through Batley.

You confused me with 'southwards' across the Pennines until I checked a map of Batley - west is south!

 

[SideshowBob]

Appreciate this might be a silly question, but do we actually have a date for this 39-week (rolling?) blockade to start? Just from the point of view of the commute! Or might I be as well asking how long a piece of string is?

Anyone?

 

[dilbertphil]

Anyone?

I believe the work at Morley is to be done first, starting spring/summer next year. Preparatory work will be taking place throughout this year at various locations.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But if it is starting why has there been no announcement that the work is going ahead?

 

[hwl]

But if it is starting why has there been no announcement that the work is going ahead?

Presumably no decision on full scope of works. Some of the work is virtually certain to be needed so a soft start can be made.
Especially important as regards de-vegetation as that is now be watched more closely so would need to happen in Autumn/Winter.
Drainage works are oftenr better done is summer when the ground condition are bit better.
Some work may be renewals that need doing anyway but done slightly earlier than needed but include passive provision.

 

[matacaster]

Presumably no decision on full scope of works. Some of the work is virtually certain to be needed so a soft start can be made.
Especially important as regards de-vegetation as that is now be watched more closely so would need to happen in Autumn/Winter.
Drainage works are oftenr better done is summer when the ground condition are bit better.
Some work may be renewals that need doing anyway but done slightly earlier than needed but include passive provision.

There does appear to have been at least some tree / vegetation clearing between Deighton and Ravensthorpe.

 

[Halifaxlad]

There does appear to have been at least some tree / vegetation clearing between Deighton and Ravensthorpe.

They're has been a lot of tree vegetation clearing works between Leeds & Bradford as well, that is not part of maintaining the operational railway.