Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[mr_jrt]

Of course you can. Light is very easy to redirect with lenses and mirrors. Strategically placed lightwells can provide a lot of natural illumination.

 

[Killingworth]

Of course you can. Light is very easy to redirect with lenses and mirrors. Strategically placed lightwells can provide a lot of natural illumination.

Funnels of fresh air and light!

However this is detail. We walk long distances through airport terminals, often aided by travelators, zig zagging through retail areas without any natural light.

A subterranean railway interchange would cost many billions and take a decade to plan and another to build. Worth doing, but the fear of old narrow and dark passageways would be low down the list of reasons for not doing it.

Far more significant would be where each line would start going underground, how they could intersect without obstructing each other and how you could excavate those tunnels and a large cavern for the station under an active city. That will kill the idea before it gets anywhere near pedestrian access planning.

This is Britain. We manage by patching up our Victorian railway heritage, adding a bit here and there. HS1 seems to have worked but it took a long time to get to St Pancras. It would be great if HS2 and HS3 could link below the city. That would help to identify Manchester as the true centre of a Northern powerhouse.

Which will upset the people of Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Hull, Newcastle to name but a few. There'll always be jealousies between northern towns and cities and that may also threaten progress.

 

[CW2]

Don't overlook the fire safety requirements. Having large numbers of people in an underground station interchange would trigger stringent requirements regarding emergency evacuation times and routes. It could be done, but it would be expensive and complicated, and might well trigger several surface building demolitions.

 

[Spartacus]

Frankly, this needs to be in another thread, it's got little to nothing to do with the current upgrade plans.

 

[Killingworth]

Frankly, this needs to be in another thread, it's got little to nothing to do with the current upgrade plans.

I'd tend to agree, except that we keep looking at bits of the picture and avoid the frame in which it's placed. The foundations are the best place to start, also the hardest.

I see large Victorian houses that have been altered and extended. There comes a point when demolition and total rebuild is the only practical way to move forward. The alternative is being trapped in a high maintenance heritage situation forever.

That's where we're effectively at with current plans for all trans-Pennine routes. Expensively patching up what we have on the basis that we do a little here, a bit more there and there's a slow improvement, but not the equivalent of HS1.

Central Manchester is the core of the Northern Powerhouse. It's currently very quiet and nobody knows if it will ever return to 2019 levels of activity but it will remain the hub. As such that element needs a lot more attention before all the spokes are further entangled in the web of rails and viaducts that currently stifle quick communications around the North.

It's the same in every city. You can speed through the countryside and save 5 minutes but get to the urban areas and congestion crawls lose 10 minutes very quickly. To get better long distance journey times it's that urban element that most needs tackling.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is for the discussion of updates to the actual Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification scheme.

It is not for the discussion of HS2 or HS3 or anything speculative - such topics can be discussed in, for example, the speculative ideas section of the forum.

Thanks

 

[Legolash2o]

Just a head ups, for those who are interested. This weekend I'm planning on mapping the Transpennine Route Upgrade with icons which people can click on to view required interventions and what other info I can find on the project. I'll be sure to share the link once I'm done.

EDIT: Work has now started and can be found on the link below.
https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/TRU

 

[Muenchener]

Just a head ups, for those who are interested. This weekend I'm planning on mapping the Transpennine Route Upgrade with icons which people can click on to view required interventions and what other info I can find on the project. I'll be sure to share the link once I'm done.

EDIT: Work has now started and can be found on the link below.
https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/TRU

Should turn out to be a useful tool for those wishing to keep up to speed on the latest developments.
Good luck in delivering this project. You obviously intend to be in it for the long haul!

 

[lancastrian]

Just a head ups, for those who are interested. This weekend I'm planning on mapping the Transpennine Route Upgrade with icons which people can click on to view required interventions and what other info I can find on the project. I'll be sure to share the link once I'm done.

EDIT: Work has now started and can be found on the link below.
https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/TRU

An excellent piece of work so far. I am sure that you will continue to maintain the standard that you have already set for yourself. I am so glad that here are many people on this site that do such work that keep us all informed about these very important update and upgrades. Thank you.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

An excellent piece of work so far. I am sure that you will continue to maintain the standard that you have already set for yourself. I am so glad that here are many people on this site that do such work that keep us all informed about these very important update and upgrades. Thank you.

I heartily agree and want to add my thanks too.

 

[Legolash2o]

Should turn out to be a useful tool for those wishing to keep up to speed on the latest developments.
Good luck in delivering this project. You obviously intend to be in it for the long haul!

An excellent piece of work so far. I am sure that you will continue to maintain the standard that you have already set for yourself. I am so glad that here are many people on this site that do such work that keep us all informed about these very important update and upgrades. Thank you.

I heartily agree and want to add my thanks too.

Thanks everyone. It's my way of contributing to this vast amount of knowledge shared on this forum.

Definitely in it for the long run.

 

[Chris125]

The PWI have uploaded a talk describing the linespeed improvements planned for Miles Platting:

 

[CW2]

Thanks for posting the PWI talk. Most interesting.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks for posting the PWI talk. Most interesting.

I dont think confirmation was needed but absolutely confirmed that virtually all future electrification/upgrade projects will be sliced into smaller manageable bit sized chunks. This chunk (W1A) does not even get us to Stalybridge. Makes sense really. Also builds up confidence in the DfT and above all the Treasury about tightly controlled projects and costs.

 

[Senex]

Really interesting stuff there. The speaker shewed a speeds diagram and said it portrayed an earlier stage when 60 was the aim, but he didn't explain why that came down to 55. If the curve-radius means that 55 is possible only with maximum can and near-maximum exceptional deficiency, could that mean that being stuck with Collyhurst Street Buffers has limited the amount the curve can be slued? And what was said at the beginning about the problems of dealing with the early viaducts and the curvature from the way they had been widened was fascinating (and the widening itself would of course have depended on which side at the time it was easiest to acquire the land). I do hope we may see more presentations like this as the whole TRU scheme progresses—they tell you far more, and far more interestingly, than gets out through the raiway press.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am a member of the PWI and I plan on attending some of the presentations -online at moment of course but even thinking post Covid of timing my visits back to UK to take in an in person seminar.

 

[CW2]

Really interesting stuff there. The speaker shewed a speeds diagram and said it portrayed an earlier stage when 60 was the aim, but he didn't explain why that came down to 55.<snip>

He did talk us through the option selection process, where the costs / outputs / deliverability / environmental impact of the options were assessed. In brief, the extra 5 mph wasn't worth the extra expenditure and environmental impact involved.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

He did talk us through the option selection process, where the costs / outputs / deliverability / environmental impact of the options were assessed. In brief, the extra 5 mph wasn't worth the extra expenditure and environmental impact involved.

That was exactly my take too. 55 MPH is still a nice improvement from current.

 

[CW2]

That was exactly my take too. 55 MPH is still a nice improvement from current.

Whilst the proposed speed around the curve towards Stalybridge is 55 mph, I couldn't make out the speed proposed for the Rochdale line. Will that be 55 mph too? If not, then what is proposed there?

 

[hwl]

That was exactly my take too. 55 MPH is still a nice improvement from current.

A 5mph increase from 30 to 35mph provides a far higher benefit than 55 to 60mph.

Whilst the proposed speed around the curve towards Stalybridge is 55 mph, I couldn't make out the speed proposed for the Rochdale line. Will that be 55 mph too? If not, then what is proposed there?

75

 

[CW2]

75

Really? Then I hope the p.way engineers have spoken to the signalling engineers. If I remember correctly, if the two routes have a speed difference of > 10 mph then the lower speeded route will always be approach controlled. That means the 55 mph towards Stalybridge will never be achieved, as the drivers will shut off approaching a red signal at the top of the bank, then have to accelerate again once it clears.
Far better to drop the Rochdale route to 65 mph through the junction, then you can have free signalling (i.e. without approach controls) on both routes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Really? Then I hope the p.way engineers have spoken to the signalling engineers. If I remember correctly, if the two routes have a speed difference of > 10 mph then the lower speeded route will always be approach controlled. That means the 55 mph towards Stalybridge will never be achieved, as the drivers will shut off approaching a red signal at the top of the bank, then have to accelerate again once it clears.
Far better to drop the Rochdale route to 65 mph through the junction, then you can have free signalling (i.e. without approach controls) on both routes.

That approach control can be done with flashing yellows of course, which enables trains to traverse the junction at line speed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A 5mph increase from 30 to 35mph provides a far higher benefit than 55 to 60mph.

Indeed.
On a 300 mile journey - 30 to 35 mph increase would save 86 minutes.
On a 300 mile journey - 55 to 60 mph increase would save 27 minutes.
On a 300 mile journey - 120 to 125 mph increase would save 6 minutes.

The secret of going fast is not to go slow! I did post a graph on this forum at one stage.

 

[Class 170101]

Indeed.
On a 300 mile journey - 30 to 35 mph increase would save 86 minutes.
On a 300 mile journey - 55 to 60 mph increase would save 27 minutes.
On a 300 mile journey - 120 to 125 mph increase would save 6 minutes.

The secret of going fast is not to go slow! I did post a graph on this forum at one stage.

As I was told many times, improve your minimum speeds not your maximum speeds.

 

[edwin_m]

Also when the acceleration and deceleration is taken into account, the time benefit from increasing permitted speed is less in practice than might be expected from a simple speed=distance/time type calculation. And at higher speeds this effect becomes more significant because the train has less acceleration.

 

[WAO]

Really? Then I hope the p.way engineers have spoken to the signalling engineers. If I remember correctly, if the two routes have a speed difference of > 10 mph then the lower speeded route will always be approach controlled. That means the 55 mph towards Stalybridge will never be achieved, as the drivers will shut off approaching a red signal at the top of the bank, then have to accelerate again once it clears.
Far better to drop the Rochdale route to 65 mph through the junction, then you can have free signalling (i.e. without approach controls) on both routes.

As I understood it the new line speed profile reflected the acceleration capability of electric trains. From a stand at Victoria, even a class 80x would find MP bank a challenge and could only reach the curve at about its new 55mph limit, so approach control should not kick in. The four tracks are I believe paired by direction.

The presentation and the presenter's encyclopaedic knowledge were very impressive. Thank you.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

As I understood it the new line speed profile reflected the acceleration capability of electric trains. From a stand at Victoria, even a class 80x would find MP bank a challenge and could only raech the curve at about its new 55mph limit, so approach control should not kick in. The four tracks are I believe paired by direction.

Achievable speed from a station stop should not be a factor in the application of approach control - as one day there will be a non-stop service...

The presentation and the presenter's encyclopaedic knowledge were very impressive.

I don’t know the guy, but I’d say he displayed a level of knowledge comparable with most designated project engineers / design leads. That’s what is needed for this sort of job.

 

[WAO]

Achievable speed from a station stop should not be a factor in the application of approach control - as one day there will be a non-stop service...

... but the timer release would catch that. The Vic - MP lines are unlikely to have a speed limit above that of the curve anyway, which is not a junction.

Just a thought.

WAO

 

[Seehof]

Please forgive my ignorance but is Leeds to York definitely going to be electrified or not? I get the impression it is not. I seem to remember there were plans for a reversing siding at Micklefield once.

 

[Senex]

As I understood it the new line speed profile reflected the acceleration capability of electric trains. From a stand at Victoria, even a class 80x would find MP bank a challenge and could only reach the curve at about its new 55mph limit, so approach control should not kick in. The four tracks are I believe paired by direction.

Aren't they paired by use, as they always were? I thought the northern pair are the down and up fast, the southern pair the down and up slow, with the fasts at Miles Platting continuing as the Rochdale lines and the slow as the Stalybridge lines. So a train that has left Victoria on the down slow will face neither crossover nor junction at Miles Platting but will just carry straight on round the corner—there's no question of any approach control being needed. (And likewise anything leaving Victoria on the down fast gets a clear run towards Rochdale.)