Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[D6975]

So, in essence, Dewsbury drops down to having 2 tracks, and Batley gets a 3rd track? Makes sense, given that Dewsbury's current function (of looping an eastbound Slow train to allow a Fast train to pass) can now be taken by Ravensthorpe; and of course completely separating Slow & Fast between Ravensthorpe & Huddersfield has its own advantages. Looping a westbound Slow at Batley to allow a Fast to pass then gives a pretty clear run to the separate tracks at Ravensthorpe too.

No, that's not what it says. It says that the turnout speed is to be increased. Reducing to two tracks would eliminate the turnout.

 

[Revaulx]

Making a huge assumption that the old Picc-Airport throat-crossing paths can be found again. Possibly lost now other timetable changes have eradicated them (a benefit of the Chord everybody always forgets about)

Terminating 2tph at Picc probably more likely.

I understood from past posts on here that the reason people had forgotten about them was that the benefits (extra paths for stoppers to e.g. Stoke, Chester) had never materialised

 

[59CosG95]

No, that's not what it says. It says that the turnout speed is to be increased. Reducing to two tracks would eliminate the turnout.

Ahh, I see - the turnout's staying, but is being upgraded to allow the platform loop to be brought closer to the eastbound through track, with the platform being extended SE-wards?

 

[D6975]

Trains from the Huddersfield direction currently do an S bend to access the platform. The turnout angle will be reduced and the track straightened out as much as possible, with the platform edge being moved out to meet the new alignment. I can't see the higher speed limit making a huge difference to the time it takes to get into the platform, but someone obviously thinks the reduction is worthwhile for reliably running the increased frequency set of paths.

 

[Kieran1990]

Could definitely see the Liverpool’s running over the Calder Valley, airports via Guide Bridge, with Huddersfield could see maybe a peak extra to and from Leeds/ Man pic to help with peak crowds.
Picc throat issue could see Crewe/Apt- Picc extended via Cord to Vic to keep the cord in use?

 

[Ianno87]

I understood from past posts on here that the reason people had forgotten about them was that the benefits (extra paths for stoppers to e.g. Stoke, Chester) had never materialised

Accelerated northbound Cross Country paths, uhhh.... did.

 

[SuperNova]

Could definitely see the Liverpool’s running over the Calder Valley, airports via Guide Bridge, with Huddersfield could see maybe a peak extra to and from Leeds/ Man pic to help with peak crowds.
Picc throat issue could see Crewe/Apt- Picc extended via Cord to Vic to keep the cord in use?

I think there were some upcoming works which have been set back. Scarborough's were going to run via Calder Valley, while everything else terminated at Pic.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Hmm... not sure if Nova 1 (802) have been cleared for Calder valley yet, Nova 3 (Mk5) certainly have which would explain why Scarborough’s were being diverted, if not that will need to be looked at before any lengthy blockades are put in place, otherwise doubled up 185s would have to be operated to maintain capacity across the hills. There are a few 185s going spare after all...

 

[yorkie]

Before anyone gets to carried away just a gentle reminder this thread is to discuss Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates; it's best to discuss diversions in the timetabling & allocations area, and of course any ideas/suggestions belong in Speculative Ideas.

It can be difficult to keep up with threads that have thousands of posts and the forum does have plenty of spare capacity to discuss other matters in their own threads in the relevant forum sections, to make it easier to follow the electrification updates in this thread.

Thanks

 

[59CosG95]

Another piece of the TransPennine puzzle: subject to funding, NR plan to close Lane Anne Level Crossing & Batley Signal Box by the end of 2022. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...nnine-route-upgrade/lady-anne-level-crossing/

We are conducting a feasibility study to examine the option to close Lady Anne level crossing and Batley signal box by the end of 2022, subject to funding.
This study is being carried out to enable major railway improvements between Dewsbury and Leeds as part of the Transpennine Upgrade – such as faster, more frequent and more reliable trains – which the continued use of Lady Anne level crossing would restrict.

We are also generally aiming to eliminate safety risks by removing level crossings where possible and creating a safer railway.

Our monitoring shows that over 100 pedestrians use Lady Anne level crossing each day and we understand it is vital to maintain pedestrian access across the railway if the crossing is closed. This would most likely be in the form of a footbridge, and a questionnaire has been shared with local residents and community groups, whose input and feedback we would welcome.

As our investigations progress and plans are developed we are committed to keeping you updated.

Resident feedback
As a local resident and potential user of the level crossing we would like to understand the impact any works or changes to the crossing may have on you. Your feedback is invaluable to help us both minimise any disruption and to enable us to deliver the best solution possible. The questionnaire will be available from 8:00 on Monday 1 June and closes at 00:00 on Thursday 18 June.

Complete resident questionnaire

Footbridge design plans
We are at early stages of developing designs for a potential new footbridge, however we would like to share with you two potential options. Please see the drawings below. It is important to note that no decision has yet been taken on which design to adopt and that they are subject to change and further development.

Option A
Blends in well with the environment with ramps below the tree level to help address previously raised concerns.

Distance from points ‘A’ to ‘B’ are:

• Using ramps – 350m
• Using stairs – 200m
• From Rutland Road there is street level access to the footbridge over the railway.

Option B
More visible with no trees to hide the bridge/ramp on the North side

Distance from points ‘A’ to ‘B’ are:

• Using ramps – 314m
• Using stairs – 56m
• The land to the North of the footbridge is outside of Network Rail’s land boundary.

Safety first
We’re investing £100m to improve level crossing safety.

There are around 6,000 level crossings in Britain – a legacy of a railway built 150 years ago when there were fewer and slower trains, and no cars on the road. We have a national safety awareness and improvements programme investing in closing and upgrading level crossings, alongside a safety awareness campaign aimed at specific user groups.

Contact us
If you have any questions or enquiries please email [email protected].

 

[takno]

Another piece of the TransPennine puzzle: subject to funding, NR plan to close Lane Anne Level Crossing & Batley Signal Box by the end of 2022. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...nnine-route-upgrade/lady-anne-level-crossing/

Good as ever to close level crossings, although I can't for the life of me see why there isn't a middle option where the bridge is at the option B location and the ramps are still run down through the trees, in broadly the same place as they would be for option A

 

[themiller]

Good as ever to close level crossings, although I can't for the life of me see why there isn't a middle option where the bridge is at the option B location and the ramps are still run down through the trees, in broadly the same place as they would be for option A

Perhaps you should reply to the consultation with your (sensible) suggestion!

 

[Killingworth]

Good as ever to close level crossings, although I can't for the life of me see why there isn't a middle option where the bridge is at the option B location and the ramps are still run down through the trees, in broadly the same place as they would be for option A

Out of idle curiosity I wonder how many people use these very long zig-zag ramps, and how much it costs to construct and maintain them? From the costs I've seen given for a less elaborate crossing without ramps this one must be well in excess of £1m, maybe nearer £2m! The cost per person crossing must be enormous! I know, a bridge is necessary, lifts are not the answer and this is a digression onto another topic.

 

[Spartacus]

Good as ever to close level crossings, although I can't for the life of me see why there isn't a middle option where the bridge is at the option B location and the ramps are still run down through the trees, in broadly the same place as they would be for option A

Possibly due to the embankment there the ramp would either be too steep by modern rules, or exceedingly long. It's already 36m longer putting the bridge in the place to make it shortest on option A. As described I imagine total ramp distance would be over 400m!

Out of idle curiosity I wonder how many people use these very long zig-zag ramps, and how much it costs to construct and maintain them? From the costs I've seen given for a less elaborate crossing without ramps this one must be well in excess of £1m, maybe nearer £2m! The cost per person crossing must be enormous! I know, a bridge is necessary, lifts are not the answer and this is a digression onto another topic.

I think Woodlesford, a fairly simple scheme, came in at £1m about 10 years ago, this, with a good amount of groundwork, and potentially a decent slice of land purchased, could easily be around £2m.

 

[themiller]

I can’t remember if it’s been announced officially before but in the current Modern Railways (July 2020), Tim Wood (NPR Director for TFN) stated that NPR will be a fully electrified railway capable of 125 mph (or higher between Manchester and Leeds) with existing non-electrified routes to be wired.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can’t remember if it’s been announced officially before but in the current Modern Railways (July 2020), Tim Wood (NPR Director for TFN) stated that NPR will be a fully electrified railway capable of 125 mph (or higher between Manchester and Leeds) with existing non-electrified routes to be wired.

I somehow doubt if that means the current route will be wired as a priority.
The new NPR sections (Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Bradford-Leeds) are years away and largely away from the current routes.
He talks about "spades in the ground" and then mentions Darlington and Barnsley upgrades - hardly on the TP core.
The dilemma for the current route is HMG wanting immediate results, when NR (under previous DfT direction) has not done the design work between Huddersfield and Manchester, the critical section.

 

[Purple Orange]

I somehow doubt if that means the current route will be wired as a priority.
The new NPR sections (Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Bradford-Leeds) are years away and largely away from the current routes.
He talks about "spades in the ground" and then mentions Darlington and Barnsley upgrades - hardly on the TP core.
The dilemma for the current route is HMG wanting immediate results, when NR (under previous DfT direction) has not done the design work between Huddersfield and Manchester, the critical section.

Why wouldn’t the current route take priority? I assume by current route, you mean Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York

 

[paul1609]

I somehow doubt if that means the current route will be wired as a priority.
The new NPR sections (Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Bradford-Leeds) are years away and largely away from the current routes.
He talks about "spades in the ground" and then mentions Darlington and Barnsley upgrades - hardly on the TP core.
The dilemma for the current route is HMG wanting immediate results, when NR (under previous DfT direction) has not done the design work between Huddersfield and Manchester, the critical section.

Huddersfield and Manchester are roughly 25 miles apart, assuming you arent going to demolish large parts of the urban areas to build a high speed line you are never on current investment going to justify a line speed over 100 mph. If you look at HS1 in Kent the land take was a swath of around 1/2 mile alongside the relatively straight M20 and M20/A2 routes.The whole transpennine route would need to be in tunnel.

 

[Glenn1969]

It would help if there was a published plan for when work is actually going to start on the Upgrade

 

[SuperNova]

It would help if there was a published plan for when work is actually going to start on the Upgrade

Rumours are that an announcement is imminent.

 

[SuperNova]

I somehow doubt if that means the current route will be wired as a priority.
The new NPR sections (Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Bradford-Leeds) are years away and largely away from the current routes.
He talks about "spades in the ground" and then mentions Darlington and Barnsley upgrades - hardly on the TP core.
The dilemma for the current route is HMG wanting immediate results, when NR (under previous DfT direction) has not done the design work between Huddersfield and Manchester, the critical section.

Here's the issue with NPR - It's at least 30 years off, despite the likes of Burnham banging on about it. So for the short and medium term, the current route needs upgrading.

There's been some prelim work on Huddersfield to Manchester. However, this was a while back I believe. In reality someone just need to make a bloody decision - DfT are at fault.

 

[WAO]

The whole transpennine route would need to be in tunnel.

Absolutely, if one looks at the gradient profile, across the Pennines.

If Buckinghamshire can have all those HS2 tunnels and viaducts merely to provide new fasts from Euston to Rugby, then similar heroics are reasonable for the new L&Y red and white rose link. A base tunnel/s from Manchester to Leeds, actually from Victoria East to avoid the bank and only coming up for air briefly at Mirfield would give a c20min timing or less.

C'mon, Boris!

WAO

 

[nr758123]

Rumours are that an announcement is imminent.

As I recall, an announcement was imminent in December 2018.

 

[Senex]

Absolutely, if one looks at the gradient profile, across the Pennines.

If Buckinghamshire can have all those HS2 tunnels and viaducts merely to provide new fasts from Euston to Rugby, then similar heroics are reasonable for the new L&Y red and white rose link. A base tunnel/s from Manchester to Leeds, actually from Victoria East to avoid the bank and only coming up for air briefly at Mirfield would give a c20min timing or less.

C'mon, Boris!

WAO

C'mon. A tunnel would involve a bit of high-spec modern high-speed railway in the northern part of England. Can you really see DfT paying for that? For Buckinghamshire very different criteria apply.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Rumours are that an announcement is imminent.

You've all missed the announcement of electrification between Colton Junction and Church Fenton, as far as I can tell.

Transpennine Route Upgrade - Network Rail

Major investment to be made to the railway between York and Manchester via Leeds and Huddersfield. The Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) is a multi-billion pound, transformative, long-term railway infrastructure programme that will improve connectivity in the North. It will support economic...

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You've all missed the announcement of electrification between Colton Junction and Church Fenton, as far as I can tell.

Transpennine Route Upgrade - Network Rail

Major investment to be made to the railway between York and Manchester via Leeds and Huddersfield. The Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) is a multi-billion pound, transformative, long-term railway infrastructure programme that will improve connectivity in the North. It will support economic...

www.networkrail.co.uk

I haven't really kept up with this thread. But that's interesting. Is this a first - a significant electrification scheme that - if I've understood it correctly - won't allow a single journey to convert from diesel to electric, but will simply allow some bi-modes to use electric for a greater proportion of their journeys?

As an isolated scheme this wouldn't seem to make much sense - especially since quite a few of the trains along that route are diesel-only Voyagers anyway. But as a stepping-stone towards wider trans-pennine electrification, it seems quite important.

 

[twin turbo]

I haven't really kept up with this thread. But that's interesting. Is this a first - a significant electrification scheme that - if I've understood it correctly - won't allow a single journey to convert from diesel to electric, but will simply allow some bi-modes to use electric for a greater proportion of their journeys?

As an isolated scheme this wouldn't seem to make much sense - especially since quite a few of the trains along that route are diesel-only Voyagers anyway. But as a stepping-stone towards wider trans-pennine electrification, it seems quite important.

All households in Church Fenton have received a letter saying that the current works are phase 1 of 4 as part of the Transpennine Upgrade. The first phase stops just short of Church Fenton where HS2 joins the existing track to York but as yet no information on phase 2.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Here's the issue with NPR - It's at least 30 years off, despite the likes of Burnham banging on about it. So for the short and medium term, the current route needs upgrading.
There's been some prelim work on Huddersfield to Manchester. However, this was a while back I believe. In reality someone just need to make a bloody decision - DfT are at fault.

Going back to 2012 when TP electrification was first authorised by DfT, the work done by NR was on the basis of wiring the existing route via Huddersfield as is - no realignment or remodelling.
This was then canned when a) NR ran out of money, and b) when they were told to redesign the scheme to bring "more benefits" (capacity/journey time).
So some bridges were raised east of Leeds and west of Stalybridge before the work stopped, but there was no wiring east of Manchester Victoria.

Since then the TP scheme has grown in scope into NPR and been linked to HS2, for which (as I understand it) the design work has not been completed apart from the Leeds-Huddersfield section and the Colton Jn-Church Fenton scheme which are both pretty much "shovel ready".
There's also a Miles Platting realignment scheme on the stocks.

Now we (allegedly) have a plan for completely new sections Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Leeds via Bradford.
Wiring Victoria-Huddersfield as is takes us back to the original NR plan which was rejected by DfT in 2015.
Apart from Miles Platting that means remodelling Stalybridge (again) and resignalling west of Huddersfield - not just wiring.
I don't doubt HMG wants an early start and quick progress, but I somehow doubt NR's ability to get all this "shovel ready" within, say, 5 years.

 

[themiller]

You've all missed the announcement of electrification between Colton Junction and Church Fenton, as far as I can tell.

Transpennine Route Upgrade - Network Rail

Major investment to be made to the railway between York and Manchester via Leeds and Huddersfield. The Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) is a multi-billion pound, transformative, long-term railway infrastructure programme that will improve connectivity in the North. It will support economic...

www.networkrail.co.uk

Presumably, this is to get the changeover out of the York station area and onto a simple stretch of wires. It’ll also eliminate bi-modes starting their engines in the platforms at York thus giving better air quality and quieter environment for waiting passengers.

 

[edwin_m]

Going back to 2012 when TP electrification was first authorised by DfT, the work done by NR was on the basis of wiring the existing route via Huddersfield as is - no realignment or remodelling.
This was then canned when a) NR ran out of money, and b) when they were told to redesign the scheme to bring "more benefits" (capacity/journey time).
So some bridges were raised east of Leeds and west of Stalybridge before the work stopped, but there was no wiring east of Manchester Victoria.

Since then the TP scheme has grown in scope into NPR and been linked to HS2, for which (as I understand it) the design work has not been completed apart from the Leeds-Huddersfield section and the Colton Jn-Church Fenton scheme which are both pretty much "shovel ready".
There's also a Miles Platting realignment scheme on the stocks.

Now we (allegedly) have a plan for completely new sections Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Manchester-Leeds via Bradford.
Wiring Victoria-Huddersfield as is takes us back to the original NR plan which was rejected by DfT in 2015.
Apart from Miles Platting that means remodelling Stalybridge (again) and resignalling west of Huddersfield - not just wiring.
I don't doubt HMG wants an early start and quick progress, but I somehow doubt NR's ability to get all this "shovel ready" within, say, 5 years.

Whether it happens or not, NPR is intended to include a new route between Manchester and Leeds with a station somewhere in the Bradford area. The present works are part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade, which is a separate scheme. The NPR route is decades away and upgrade and electrification of the existing route should have a good case because of its primary role in the meantime, and because growth in rail use is likely to mean it remains busy even without Manchester-Leeds passengers.