Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[edwin_m]

Why not just put the stations on short loops like at Marsden but for services in both directions ?

The stopping train would have to get into the loop in enough time for the non-stop train to run through at full speed on green signals. The stopper would have to wait four or five minutes for the fast train to pass through and get far enough ahead for the signal to be cleared. There are a handful of places where this actually happens (Dawlish Warren springs to mind) but that sort of delay is usually considered unacceptable.

Making the loop on the approach to the station longer with a high speed turnout helps a bit, because the stopping train can get off the main line at a higher speed so the train behind can be closer, rather like a car leaving a motorway at full speed then slowing down on the slip road. But to allow an overtake without any extra delay to the stopping train, the loop probably has to extend include at least two stations where it stops - as is intended between Huddersfield and Dewsbury.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Honestly nothing. There isn't a need for four tracking, there could be argued a hypothetical need for a long loop somewhere between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, but overall there's not really any pressing demand for a full four tracking.

If NPR is fudged as "new railway across the Pennines" which turns out to be just an upgraded Marsden line then maybe four tracking will happen, but it's unlikely that any interventions are needed.

My argument that it was four track or nothing was probably not very well worded. I meant that there isn't really a demand for a third track or a long loop style situation, instead it's going to be four track as part of NPR or nothing. Stringing the wires up over the top is most definitely going to happen, but announcement probably years away, simply because politically it's such a cheap and easy win. Anything else, unlikely until we know which way the HS2b eastern leg joint bill comes out in a couple of years .

There's a need for four tracking if the Government chooses not to electrify, even then, the aspired service patterns and frequencies cannot be achieved on diesel traction. The $1m question is whether the aspired service patterns are wanted post COVID.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The stopping train would have to get into the loop in enough time for the non-stop train to run through at full speed on green signals.

I wouldn't have thought that would have been a big issue if high speed turnouts were used, considering the service would be stopping anyway.

As for Huddersfield to Dewsbury I though this was simply because four tracks were possible without significantly affecting the alignment and consequently line speed.

Obviously four track would be ideal for West of Huddersfield but as pointed out by so many, it just isn't possible without affecting line speed.

 

[SuperNova]

This is all very interesting, but would would 4 tracking of that section of route actually be for?

With electric trains, the difference in time between the services stopping and those running fast will be about 8 minutes between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. A stopper leaving 4 minutes after a fast will have plenty of time to be out of the next fast.

What am I missing?

Nothing. Surely this debate needs to go into a speculative thread. As it stands, there will be no 4 tracking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge due to the constraints on line speed. The only place you could feasibly run a loop is through the old tunnels between Marsden and Diggle and even then they're really not long enough to all a fast service to pass unless Diggle station was to be rebuilt (I believe SHRUG have called for this).

Stringing the wires up over the top is most definitely going to happen, but announcement probably years away, simply because politically it's such a cheap and easy win. Anything else, unlikely until we know which way the HS2b eastern leg joint bill comes out in a couple of years .

Given the amount of work going into TRU already, an electrification announcement is likely to be within the next year I'd say. Those west of Huddersfield are going to see a lot of disruption without any gain if it doesn't happen which politically isn't good (Colne Valley a marginal seat of course). Plus is NPR as TfN want it doesn't happen, and I think their view on a Bradford route is deeply flawed personally, you'd still need some form of new line/alignment to increase capacity and speed on the Huddersfield to Manchester route - but again speculative and needs a thread in the appropriate section.

I looked at a cab-ride video of a journey between Huddersfield and Manchester Vic.
Also looking at Google Earth, would there be provision for quad tracks between Huddersfield and Marston.
From my view it could just about be done , but remodelling is needed. (From my limited Knowledge, correct me if im wrong)
Plus, would it even be beneficial due to high costs and the low amount of stopper services??

It's not cost effective and would require billions pumped in. For what? To reduce line speed? Not going to happen.

 

[Class 170101]

The $1m question is whether the aspired service patterns are wanted post COVID.

Not entirely sure its a matter of wanted, I think they are, the question is will the Treasury pay for it and I get the distinct feeling the answer is, no, no, no.

 

[edwin_m]

I wouldn't have thought that would have been a big issue if high speed turnouts were used, considering the service would be stopping anyway.

In that case you haven't thought about it enough.

All lines have a "headway" published in the Timetable Planning Rules. Typically it's 3min for a busy line, which means a train going into the loop must be off the main line 3min before a non-stopping train gets to the loop junction. If the loop is short high speed turnouts are pointless (!) because the train taking the turnout will be stopping a short distance away. I mentioned longer loops with high speed turnouts in my previous post, but you were referring specifically to short loops.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I mentioned longer loops with high speed turnouts in my previous post, but you were referring specifically to short loops.

I wasn't specifically referring to short loops at all unless you consider the existing loops at Mirfield, Dewsbury & Marsden to be too short to be effective, if that's the case could someone please explain why they are used ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wasn't specifically referring to short loops at all unless you consider the existing loops at Mirfield, Dewsbury & Marsden to be too short to be effective, if that's the case could someone please explain why they are used ?

The existing Up (westbound) loop at Mirfield's useable length runs from Mirfield East Junction (approximately halfway between Ravensthorpe and Mirfield station) and Heaton Lodge junction, so extends a fair distance either side of Mirfield's platform. This means that the braking for the stop happens mostly on the up slow line- as a result, a following fast service shouldn't need to slow down too much to avoid bunching behind the stopper.
The down loop at Dewsbury on the other hand only exists in the station area. As a result, the section preceding the loop won't clear for a following service until the stopping service is practically in the platform. This service then has an extended dwell whilst it waits for the overtaking service to reach the station, run through the fast line, and clear the following section before the stopper can depart. This is why up until a couple of years ago that loop was only used for overtaking at times of disruption, end even now only the ex-Huddersfield stopper is passed at Dewsbury, not the ex-Calder Valley.

It isn't too short to be effective, it's too short to be used efficiently. If it didn't exist already you wouldn't build it the way it is.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

In that case you haven't thought about it enough.

All lines have a "headway" published in the Timetable Planning Rules. Typically it's 3min for a busy line, which means a train going into the loop must be off the main line 3min before a non-stopping train gets to the loop junction. If the loop is short high speed turnouts are pointless (!) because the train taking the turnout will be stopping a short distance away. I mentioned longer loops with high speed turnouts in my previous post, but you were referring specifically to short loops.

The high speed turnout issue should, in theory, be more relevant for stock leaving loops even if we're talking about shorter loops, if the traction is electric and has the superior acceleration profile that's being assumed/planned/wished for/added to the design team's letter to Santa Claus this Christmas.

One wouldn't want to have stock accelerating to full line speed and having to slow down for the turnout, similarly, one wouldn't want stock being limited in their acceleration profile to stop the aforementioned braking at the turnout.

Of course, what one wants and what one is forced to eat by DfT and Treasury is often two dramatically different things.

 

[YorksLad12]

Surely this debate needs to go into a speculative thread.

Agreed, and I apologise profusely for my part in taking us down the wrong route

 

[edwin_m]

I wasn't specifically referring to short loops at all unless you consider the existing loops at Mirfield, Dewsbury & Marsden to be too short to be effective, if that's the case could someone please explain why they are used ?

I was responding to:

Why not just put the stations on short loops like at Marsden but for services in both directions ?

Which sounds very much like you were referring to, er, short loops. Another poster has expanded on this point further.

The high speed turnout issue should, in theory, be more relevant for stock leaving loops even if we're talking about shorter loops, if the traction is electric and has the superior acceleration profile that's being assumed/planned/wished for/added to the design team's letter to Santa Claus this Christmas.

One wouldn't want to have stock accelerating to full line speed and having to slow down for the turnout, similarly, one wouldn't want stock being limited in their acceleration profile to stop the aforementioned braking at the turnout.

Of course, what one wants and what one is forced to eat by DfT and Treasury is often two dramatically different things.

Depends what you mean by high speed I guess.

Yes the loop points should be fast enough not to cause the train to brake too early or interrupt its acceleration on departure, but the departure points don't have a major impact on capacity, especially under ERTMS when the stopping train can depart on a short movement authority, but while it accelerates the fast train will also be drawing further ahead so the movement authority will lengthen. So, to minimse the speed and therefore the cost of the turnout, the departure end of the loop should be as short as possible without creating problems such as overlap conflicts on arrival.

At the arrival end there is some headway advantage to having a longer loop and a higher speed turnout as I posted previously, as long as the turnout speed doesn't force early braking.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

At the arrival end there is some headway advantage to having a longer loop and a higher speed turnout as I posted previously, as long as the turnout speed doesn't force early braking.

Absolutely - the turnouts should enable linespeed to be maintained until clear of the pointwork when entering the loop (though it does depend on signalling, whether three aspect, four aspect or ERTMS) similarly, they should enable stock to reach linespeed (or as close as possible) when leaving the loop, to ensure headway isn't eroded by a non-stop service travelling at a marginally higher speed than the stopping service departing the loop unless the level of erosion on the headway can be reduced to acceptable levels.

 

[ZL exile]

An issue with freight traffic running into loops is the 10 mph max that some FOĆs specify at 200 m from a stop signal (certainly the one I drove for prior to retirement) if you have a train length approaching the length of the loop, it will still take some time for the train to be complete within it. Most loops are approached at a speed much less than the turnout speed, due train7infrastructure characteristics including train braking, train weight, track gradient and signalling and finally the FOC’s policies with regards to driving techniques and standards.

 

[edwin_m]

Absolutely - the turnouts should enable linespeed to be maintained until clear of the pointwork when entering the loop (though it does depend on signalling, whether three aspect, four aspect or ERTMS) similarly, they should enable stock to reach linespeed (or as close as possible) when leaving the loop, to ensure headway isn't eroded by a non-stop service travelling at a marginally higher speed than the stopping service departing the loop unless the level of erosion on the headway can be reduced to acceptable levels.

That's not necessarily so in relation to the exit. If the stopping train's acceleration is good enough then it can start from the station as soon as the signaling allows, and settle down midway between the two non-stops. The same is also true on many mixed-traffic lines where the fast has gradually been catching up with the slow over some distance, as there won't then be another fast right behind.

I spend a particularly head-exploding week or so a few years back analyzing all this for HS2...

 

[Halifaxlad]

When I think of short loops I'm thinking of something that is isn't just enough to get into the platform.

I apologise for any confusion caused.

 

[Revaulx]

I’m also one of the guilty one for stoking up the speculation.

The excellent contributions from the likes of @Philip Phlopp and @edwin_m have been incredibly informative. As a local with some engineering experience but absolutely zero specialist knowledge I’ve learned a lot!

Just passing the trunking containing the Great Extension Lead between Heyside and Stalybridge, it’s beginning to look rather rickety. I hope the designers factored in the awful local climate...

 

[59CosG95]

I’m also one of the guilty one for stoking up the speculation.

The excellent contributions from the likes of @Philip Phlopp and @edwin_m have been incredibly informative. As a local with some engineering experience but absolutely zero specialist knowledge I’ve learned a lot!

Just passing the trunking containing the Great Extension Lead between Heyside and Stalybridge, it’s beginning to look rather rickety. I hope the designers factored in the awful local climate...

Common sense would, IMHO, involve the erection of AT wires as bare feeders clamped to insulators like most ATs in the NW, rather than the cabled system we presently have.

 

[59CosG95]

Update to the York - Church Fenton page on NR's website; a Monthly Tracker has been launched. The first issue of these is included here. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/York-to-Church-Fenton-Work-Tracker.pdf

 

[yorkie]

I’m also one of the guilty one for stoking up the speculation....

Just to add that we very much do welcome speculative posts but we just ask that they be posted exclusively in our Speculative Ideas section please

If there isn't an existing open thread on any subject anyone wishes to discuss, feel free to create a new one.

People are welcome to link to any such thread from the non-speculative areas, but we do ask that the actual discussion goes into that section.

Many thanks

 

[mpthomson]

Update to the York - Church Fenton page on NR's website; a Monthly Tracker has been launched. The first issue of these is included here. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/York-to-Church-Fenton-Work-Tracker.pdf

I live right next to the ECML south of York and we get one of these posted to us monthly as a result, the second one arrived in the post yesterday.

 

[twin turbo]

It is getting very active at the Church Fenton compound now next to the Sandwath estate with a lot of heavy plant putting in new roads etc in preparation for the forthcoming electrification.

 

[Halifaxlad]

It is getting very active at the Church Fenton compound now next to the Sandwath estate with a lot of heavy plant putting in new roads etc in preparation for the forthcoming electrification.

that sounds like a lot of work just for electrification.

 

[swt_passenger]

that sounds like a lot of work just for electrification.

Plenty of examples on the GWR of similar temporary works, including tarmac roads etc. There was a huge compound built on the up side east of Didcot.

 

[twin turbo]

It may shed more light on upcoming works when we finally get to see the integrated rail plan which is supposedly imminent.

 

[59CosG95]

that sounds like a lot of work just for electrification.

Track & Signalling are also being renewed. Access to the railway in the Church Fenton area leaves much to be desired, so the contractors have (AFAICT) built haul roads for all the material to speed up the operation through reliability. The last thing NR & their contractors want is for their plant to get stuck in the mud a la Gipsy Patch Lane (although not nearly as dramatic) due to an access route that can't carry more than a quad bike's worth of pressure as the ground is terrible.

In the long run, if these access roads become a permanent fixture, it'll make access to the railway in the event of disruption much easier.

 

[Ploughman]

Access to the Leeds lines has always been a problem up to the 2010's. Very few places to access.
Normantons not so much with a number of access points available.

 

[twin turbo]

I am sure some of the work at Church Fenton will be permanent, the roads they are putting in certainly do not look temporary as they are putting drains in and run off areas as you would a main road. Also the road that they are putting in down the back of Sandwath estate is down as a HS2 access road on the maps!

 

[59CosG95]

For those who haven't received a physical copy of the latest York - Church Fenton works tracker in the post, the link is here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/December-Work-Tracker.pdf

In summary:

• RRAP installation works at Church Fenton are due to continue until 11/1/2021, on day shifts Monday - Saturday.
• UTX installation at Church Fenton takes place this weekend (nights), and at Colton Jn over Xmas (24hr).
• Delivery of OLE piles at Ulleskelf & Braegate Lane should conclude today (8th December 2020)
• OLE pre-works surveys are/have been taking place at all locations in the tracker this weekend gone and the 2 coming weekends (6/12, 13/12, 20/12) - all night shifts
• Piling Works take place between the 13th & 23rd (nights) at Bolton Percy, Ulleskelf & Colton Jn, and between the 25th & 27th at Ulleskelf, Church Fenton & Colton Jn (24hr)
• Modifications to existing OLE structures at Dringhouses, Copmanthorpe & Colton Jn (25-27th, 24hr)

Based on the locations of the "modified" structures, I'd assume that the insulated overlaps (with booster transformers) are being de-boostered.

Edit: Compound locations are as follows.

• Church Fenton: https://goo.gl/maps/Jh8THhNmZD33SJHZA
• Ulleskelf: https://goo.gl/maps/FrF2LKSsDDyTy24m6
• Bolton Percy:https://goo.gl/maps/8iFsvcpmoymzQTk19
• Braegate Lane: https://goo.gl/maps/wtMFhDhhdfDxwnH36
• Colton Jn (Earfit Lane): https://goo.gl/maps/7W4iydfXa5EzWPRF7
• Copmanthorpe (Moor Lane): https://goo.gl/maps/QdfshDzWEBs7fZ2p6
• Copmanthorpe (Tadcaster Rd): https://goo.gl/maps/aT5UuJft22wNZZb7A
• Dringhouses: https://goo.gl/maps/ZZFSWTQLwU6aw9Sv9 (adj. to the Model Railway track)

 

[sjpowermac]

For those who haven't received a physical copy of the latest York - Church Fenton works tracker in the post, the link is here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/December-Work-Tracker.pdf

In summary:

• RRAP installation works at Church Fenton are due to continue until 11/1/2021, on day shifts Monday - Saturday.
• UTX installation at Church Fenton takes place this weekend (nights), and at Colton Jn over Xmas (24hr).
• Delivery of OLE piles at Ulleskelf & Braegate Lane should conclude today (8th December 2020)
• OLE pre-works surveys are/have been taking place at all locations in the tracker this weekend gone and the 2 coming weekends (6/12, 13/12, 20/12) - all night shifts
• Piling Works take place between the 13th & 23rd (nights) at Bolton Percy, Ulleskelf & Colton Jn, and between the 25th & 27th at Ulleskelf, Church Fenton & Colton Jn (24hr)
• Modifications to existing OLE structures at Dringhouses, Copmanthorpe & Colton Jn (25-27th, 24hr)

Based on the locations of the "modified" structures, I'd assume that the insulated overlaps (with booster transformers) are being de-boostered.

That’s a really helpful summary, many thanks indeed for posting. Any indication when the first masts will appear?

 

[59CosG95]

That’s a really helpful summary, many thanks indeed for posting. Any indication when the first masts will appear?

All depends on what piles the structures being installed here are for. 'Open Route' ones will probably come more quickly, while those at overlaps & crossovers will likely take longer.