Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[snowball]

I've been reading the Environmental Statement, chapter 2, on proposed details of the Hudds-Westtown scheme. From pictures of the propsed OLE I gather an autotransformer system is not proposed.

 

[59CosG95]

I've been reading the Environmental Statement, chapter 2, on proposed details of the Hudds-Westtown scheme. From pictures of the propsed OLE I gather an autotransformer system is not proposed.

I guess that any power supply upgrades of that ilk are hard to include when you've only got that section planned for.
It's entirely plausible that an AT system may come later, or that the scope may be altered to include ATs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I guess that any power supply upgrades of that ilk are hard to include when you've only got that section planned for.
It's entirely plausible that an AT system may come later, or that the scope may be altered to include ATs.

Victoria-Liverpool is AT, also Victoria-Preston (not Huyton-Wigan or Preston-Blackpool, as I understand it).
It's difficult to see Victoria-York being classed at a lower traffic level, not least over the hills.

 

[edwin_m]

Victoria-Liverpool is AT, also Victoria-Preston (not Huyton-Wigan or Preston-Blackpool, as I understand it).
It's difficult to see Victoria-York being classed at a lower traffic level, not least over the hills.

I suspect the point raised by @59CosG95 is that the initial Huddersfield-Westtown route is a small electrified island with no electrical connection to any other OLE, whereas the Victoria routes are electrically connected to each other and to various other routes even if trains don't run through between all of them. That may mean either that a simple feeder arrangement is sufficient for this area and can be upgraded later, or that an AT feeder at this stage would be a waste of money. This might change if the Westtown to Leeds section, which has fewer major works so can be done quicker, "catches up" so they are both commissioned at the same time.

 

[59CosG95]

TransPennine Wiring East Progressometer Post 6.0 - accurate to 03/06/21.
Route announced as 'to be wired' in CP6: Church Fenton - Colton Jct.

E1. Church Fenton North Jct (NOC/CFM 10m 36ch) to Colton Jct (NOC 5m 41ch/ECM4 182m 79ch)
Electrification work underway.
Southern limit of OLE confirmed to be short of Church Fenton Stn itself due to
a) HS2 Phase 2b works; and
b) the Common Ln Underbridge/Rose Lane UWC situation (i.e. "Steventon with S&C")
With completion scheduled for October 2022; steelwork up in May 2021 (Normanton side only) & wires up in Jan 2022.
Leeds side steelwork originally planned for Autumn 2021, but work has been brought forward.

All piles presumed installed.
Colton Jn - Colton Lane O/B: 3 S1 TTC pairs up, followed by a S1 Monoboom, a UKMS Std portal, another S1 TTC pair, a second Monoboom, then 4 S1 TTCs to Colton Lane O/B.
TTCs now up over the Normanton & Leeds lines; including a UKMS Std TTC (structure no. NOC/10/02) over the Leeds lines & DL/UL crossover.
On the Normanton side, mast brackets for the cantilevers are now starting to appear - these will be of the Siemens "SICAT SA" type seen at Stevenage P5 & Paisley Gilmour Street - Gourock. The brackets are going up on the mast legs for the Up Normanton, and on stovepipes (where fitted). Earth Wire brackets are also appearing now.
5 S1 TTCs up and boomed on the Normanton side south of Colton Ln O/B. The lone S1 Monoboom leg up on the Leeds side has now been paired with its doppelganger, and boom installed. All steelwork aside from one monoboom appears to have been installed between Colton Ln & Brumber Hill (i.e. over Colton South Ladder); on the Leeds side, the UKMS Std TTC (NOC/10/08) & S1 TTC (NOC/10/10) which had no booms are now all boomed up. Another structure on the Normanton side (perhaps NOC/10/11) has been fitted with a 'tongue' for a strut tie, and mounting brackets for Tensorex units.
South of Brumber Hill Bridge, almost all S1 TTCs appear to be up and boomed as far as signals Y745 (DL)/Y742(UL)/Y747(DN)/Y44(UN). A S1 Monoboom (NOC/11/03), close to the trackman's hut on the UN side, is now fully boomed, and its adjustable leg struts are also present & correct. Stovepipes & brackets have been installed over the DN & UN. Its overlap compadre (NOC/11/08), 3 spans south, only has the Normanton side mast up.
South of that overlap are 7 S1 TTC pairs, followed by a UKMS Std PF DC portal (at a guess) for a mid-point anchor (MPA). A further 2 pairs of S1 TTCs are up south of that, along with an additional S1 TTC on the Leeds side.
A handful of masts (UKMS standard I think) are up between the Normanton lines on the old site of Bolton Percy station.

Between Bolton Percy & Ulleskelf, around 7 S1 TTCs, 5 S1 single track masts and a monoboom (now boomed) are up. 3 piles between the Dn & Up Normanton lines are also in place north of Ulleskelf, and clearances from the railway boundary to the Dn Leeds line are tight, so I suspect 3-track TTCs will go in over the Dn Normanton & both Leeds lines (unless more piles for the Leeds lines come later). Within Ulleskelf itself, 2, poss. more single track masts are also in place (one between the road bridge & the footbridge), and a pair south of the station that are very tall indeed (perhaps to give aerial clearance over the RRAP which they sandwich). A UKMS legacy TTC (from the Mk3 & Series 2 ranges) is also present south of Ulleskelf.

Between Ulleskelf & CF North Jn, around 20 or so masts (mainly S1 TTCs) are up on the Up Normanton side. Oddly enough, a standard UKMS mast (either a PF double channel or a UC - it's hard to tell from a telephoto shot) is up north of the current CF726/CF724 gantry.

At Church Fenton North Jn, 4 masts have gone up south of the signal gantry supporting signals CF726 (UN) & CF724 (UL); these are 2 no. Tensorex Monoboom Anchor masts sandwiching a pair of S1 style hook-and-pin TTC masts. This must be for an overlap - potentially the southern limit of works. The northern monoboom has since gained its Leeds lines compadre and boom; the southern one waits for these to arrive.

Track Sectioning Cabin to be built in Church Fenton.

Compounds established at:
Church Fenton;
Ulleskelf;
Bolton Percy (Oxton Lane);
Braegate Lane;
Earfit(ts) Lane;
Copmanthorpe (Moor Lane);
Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe (by A64); and Dringhouses (Model Railway).
(N.B. All dates are subject to alteration, whether due to COVID-19 or otherwise)

E2. Leeds Departures (presumed Leeds - Neville Hill - Cross Gates) - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E3. Cross Gates to Micklefield - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E4. Micklefield to Church Fenton - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.


Do let me know if I've missed anything!

 

[WAO]

I wonder if Shapp's announcement of HS2 to Leeds with an early start at the North end might clear the planning blight over Leeds - York electrification?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if Shapp's announcement of HS2 to Leeds with an early start at the North end might clear the planning blight over Leeds - York electrification?

I doubt it makes much difference, since the HS2 service would terminate at independent platforms at Leeds. The critical thing is whether NPR is to have its own tracks east of Leeds, including a connection to the last bit of HS2 towards York, and if so when that might happen.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I doubt it makes much difference, since the HS2 service would terminate at independent platforms at Leeds. The critical thing is whether NPR is to have its own tracks east of Leeds, including a connection to the last bit of HS2 towards York, and if so when that might happen.

Barmy if they don't "join the dots".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am not sure this has been posted before. An announcement form yesterday - or at least dated yesterday.

£317M PUMPED INTO CRUCIAL TRANSPENNINE ROUTE – NPH (northernpowerhouse.gov.uk)

In part

It means we can move forward with electrifying over 50% of the route, including sections between Manchester and Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds, and Church Fenton and York. We are currently exploring full electrification of the route, further station upgrades and digital signalling in the future. But in the meantime, work on the latest improvements will begin immediately.

I think this is very positive. Confirms 317 million is in addition to the 589 million (but totally separate from the TWAO money estimate). Confirms full electrification to Stalybridge and between Huddersfield and Leeds and Church Fenton to York and that all the rest was being actively looked at. Work to begin immediately.

 

[edwin_m]

Work to begin immediately.

This could just be referring to Church Fenton to York, which has been in progress for some time.

 

[snowball]

This £317M is the same sum discussed on 26 May (pages 137-139 above), claimed by Watcher Zero in #4127 to be entirely devoted to York to Church Fenton, though I think I've seen a paragraph in the latest issue of RAIL saying that it includes an element for further preparatory work for other sections.

 

[InOban]

And from Vic towards Stalybridge which started more recently.

 

[snowball]

though I think I've seen a paragraph in the latest issue of RAIL saying that it includes an element for further preparatory work for other sections.

Here it is, Rail 932 page 27:

According to the DfT, the bulk of the new investment will be used to deliver electrification and upgrades between York and Church Fenton. It will also enable further development of the wider TRU programme

[snip]

The latest announcement comes in addition to a £589m funding commitment made in June 2020 to 'kickstart' design and early construction works.

Given that design and development for TRU was understood to have already been fully funded by this original announcement, the DfT provided clarification that the latest £317m investment was intended to enable further development work that also includes full electrification, provision for digital signalling and additional upgrades. There will also be an examination of capacity options to increase freight.

An update to TRU's multi-billion-pound Business Case is expected to be published this summer.

 

[Brissle Girl]

So given that's a firm commitment to wire Huddersfield to Leeds, and also the awarding of bite-size contracts to keep the electrification teams going, is it possible that the next section (after Church Fenton to Colton and Stalybridge) to be done would be Copley Hill East Jn to Dewsbury (to whatever point is sensible given the major work west of there)?

That would be a similar length to the two schemes currently progressing (c 7 miles), and would reduce emissions in the Leeds city area.

 

[YorksLad12]

So given that's a firm commitment to wire Huddersfield to Leeds, and also the awarding of bite-size contracts to keep the electrification teams going, is it possible that the next section (after Church Fenton to Colton and Stalybridge) to be done would be Copley Hill East Jn to Dewsbury (to whatever point is sensible given the major work west of there)?

That would be a similar length to the two schemes currently progressing (c 7 miles), and would reduce emissions in the Leeds city area.

I believe that Morley station is being rebuilt and the track straightened out/the curve flattened. But it could certainly be spent on the bits that aren't having any other work done.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe that Morley station is being rebuilt and the track straightened out/the curve flattened. But it could certainly be spent on the bits that aren't having any other work done.

I recall hearing several years back (when TPE wiring was first proposed) that some consideration was being given to relocating Batley station Eastwards by around 50-100m, nearer to the bridge carrying Soothill Lane over the railway. However this was before the much more comprehensive upgrade at Mirfield was decided on so I've no idea if this is still on the cards. There was also talk of dynamic loops in the Batley area but that may have just been speculation.

 

[Legolash2o]

I don't understand why they are cutting short of Church Fenton station. I understand there is a bridge and level crossing that may be the issue but will any trains benefit from it? Will it get used? If it's for HS2, then why not do it as part of HS2 with HS2 funding?

It feels like electrifying Selby to Hull or Didcot to Oxford but then stopping two miles away from their targets. You'd still need to rely on diesel. I have the feeling I'm missing something.

 

[Bald Rick]

but will any trains benefit from it? Will it get used?

Yes, and yes, as soon as it is commissioned.

 

[jonesy3001]

I'm more interested in the sections between Manchester and stalybridge bit.
Does that mean the guide bridge line as well?

 

[Watershed]

Yes, and yes, as soon as it is commissioned.

I admire your confidence.

 

[matacaster]

Would the new money for enabling works cover such things as moving signalling equipment which is in the way of 4 tracking to Heaton Lodge?

 

[Legolash2o]

Yes, and yes, as soon as it is commissioned.

I would agree with you if it went to Church Fenton as I can imagine a lot of services between CF and York. But since it's stopping just north of CF, then it would require a bi-mode train, in which case you could have it remain on diesel mode to it's existing limit.

I'm happy to be wrong though!

 

[Bald Rick]

then it would require a bi-mode train

That will be the bimode trains TPE have?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

thats the plan, enables northbound trains to pop the pan up as soon as the wires start and run the 6 miles or so in to york or for westbound trains to leave york on electric power and not diesel....

 

[_toommm_]

thats the plan, enables northbound trains to pop the pan up as soon as the wires start and run the 6 miles or so in to york or for westbound trains to leave york on electric power and not diesel....

Im guessing that will be with a ballast in the track enabling APCO (automatic power changeover)?

 

[hwl]

thats the plan, enables northbound trains to pop the pan up as soon as the wires start and run the 6 miles or so in to york or for westbound trains to leave york on electric power and not diesel....

The electrification will extend about 10.2 miles south of York station with over 9miles used once changeover is taken into account.

Yes, and yes, as soon as it is commissioned.

Provided the feed upgrade is ready by that point too...

I don't understand why they are cutting short of Church Fenton station. I understand there is a bridge and level crossing that may be the issue but will any trains benefit from it? Will it get used? If it's for HS2, then why not do it as part of HS2 with HS2 funding?

It feels like electrifying Selby to Hull or Didcot to Oxford but then stopping two miles away from their targets. You'd still need to rely on diesel. I have the feeling I'm missing something.

a) there needs to be an OHLE sectioning location somewhere near Church Fenton
b) there is an NR operational boundary just north of Church Fenton North Jn
so it makes sense to align the two. ECML North look after the track and wiring north of CF North Jn and Eastern (NE) look after the track and wiring south of CF North Jn.

Church Fenton North Jn to Neville Hill West Jn also needs changes to track and bridges but Colton Jn to CF North Jn effectively didn't (electrification ready for the last 30 years as it would have been BR's next East Coast electrification step), so why not just get on with the spade ready bit as a first step?

 

[Ken H]

The electrification will extend about 10.2 miles south of York station with over 9miles used once changeover is taken into account.


Provided the feed upgrade is ready by that point too...


a) there needs to be an OHLE sectioning location somewhere near Church Fenton
b) there is an NR operational boundary just north of Church Fenton North Jn
so it makes sense to align the two. ECML North look after the track and wiring north of CF North Jn and Eastern (NE) look after the track and wiring south of CF North Jn.

Church Fenton North Jn to Neville Hill West Jn also needs changes to track and bridges but Colton Jn to CF North Jn effectively didn't (electrification ready for the last 30 years as it would have been BR's next East Coast electrification step), so why not just get on with the spade ready bit as a first step?

Well with that argument, why not do the 'easy' bit between Neville Hill and Crossgates? Would mean bi-modes can leave Leeds Stn. under electric power and so quicker, thus clearing signalling sections quicker.

 

[edwin_m]

Well with that argument, why not do the 'easy' bit between Neville Hill and Crossgates? Would mean bi-modes can leave Leeds Stn. under electric power and so quicker, thus clearing signalling sections quicker.

I suspect there is some work being done to look at capacity improvements on that section, which might happen in the medium term like Huddersfield to Dewsbury. If so then it probably makes sense at least to know what is planned and allow for it in the electrification design.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't understand why they are cutting short of Church Fenton station. I understand there is a bridge and level crossing that may be the issue but will any trains benefit from it? Will it get used? If it's for HS2, then why not do it as part of HS2 with HS2 funding?

It feels like electrifying Selby to Hull or Didcot to Oxford but then stopping two miles away from their targets. You'd still need to rely on diesel. I have the feeling I'm missing something.

There will be no HS2 money to spend east of the Pennines for 5+ years, until the route is fixed and has parliamentary approval.
NPR might generate some earlier spend if they can come up with a reliable plan.
The tunnel sections need design attention (Stalybridge, Standedge, Morley) or they will hold everything up.
There also has to be an answer to TPE's predominate use of diesel trains on the route.

 

[Legolash2o]

The electrification will extend about 10.2 miles south of York station with over 9miles used once changeover is taken into account.


Provided the feed upgrade is ready by that point too...


a) there needs to be an OHLE sectioning location somewhere near Church Fenton
b) there is an NR operational boundary just north of Church Fenton North Jn
so it makes sense to align the two. ECML North look after the track and wiring north of CF North Jn and Eastern (NE) look after the track and wiring south of CF North Jn.

Church Fenton North Jn to Neville Hill West Jn also needs changes to track and bridges but Colton Jn to CF North Jn effectively didn't (electrification ready for the last 30 years as it would have been BR's next East Coast electrification step), so why not just get on with the spade ready bit as a first step?

Makes sense, thanks.