Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Bald Rick]

Yes this is not electrification - it is a major route upgrade.

Effectively it’s 8 miles of new railway, and several new stations (actually rebuilds of existing).

Those proposing the opening of new railways note the cost of this one per mile.

 

[snowball]

Not to mention the acquisition of land to iron out the curve at Heaton Lodge Jn, although that won’t constitute a significant part of the £1.5 billion budget seeing as it is only farmland.

There's a house or row of houses too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That’s very optimistic. TWAO are normally allowed 18-24 months from submitting application to order being made. This is a big one, so best to allow 2 years. During that period, properties will be being purchased (owners realising it is going to be compulsorily purchased, dangled a carrot to sell early and remove objections), and the non-contentious elements will be in detailed design. Some enabling works may take place - utility diversions etc. If the order is made in early 2023, then full mobilisation can take place. This will take at least 6 months, possibly twelve. So it’s around 3 years until a ‘major’ start on site.

In parallel, there will be a contract with National Grid / Northern Powergrid for the power supply. That could be a 3-5 year lead time.

In terms of construction, that flyover is probably on the critical path. Probably a 2-3 year job to build that, then a year to fit out and commission with track / OLE / signalling Etc. Say 4 years. So finishing around 2028/9 for the whole job. That’s if it all goes well, the TWAO doesn’t get held up, no issues with getting the access (ie disruption of the line) to build it, and no major construction issues.




This will be done, and almost certainly Huddersfield - Stalybridge, by 2030.

The full NPR Network - well no one knows what the full network is yet. Transport for the North have, as we know, said what they want. But then my daughter has also given me a long list of what she wants for her birthday, and she’s not getting all of it, mostly because I can’t afford it, and partly because I know she’s trying it on.

Yeah I clearly had a mind blank last night, as re reading my post this morning I don't know what I was thinking.

 

[superkev]

May be wrong but I seem to remember reading somewhere that a transport and works order was only required when the works went outside the current formation like Heaton lodge, Mile's Platting curves and possibly the grade seperation at Ravensthorpe.
Extracting money out of hm.gov prob the main cause of delays. K

 

[snowball]

May be wrong but I seem to remember reading somewhere that a transport and works order was only required when the works went outside the current formation like Heaton lodge, Mile's Platting curves and possibly the grade seperation at Ravensthorpe.
Extracting money out of hm.gov prob the main cause of delays. K

As far as I'm aware there was no TWAO application for Miles Platting. There was certainly a conventional planning application to the local authority.

The hierarchy according to the scale of the scheme seems to be

Act of Parliament (e.g. each phase of HS2)

Nationally Significant Infrastructure (Development Consent Order) (e.g. East-West Rail Bedford-Cambridge, most major trunk road schemes in England)

Transport & Works Order (e.g. East-West Rail Bicester-Bletchley, Huddersfield to Westtown, Hope Valley upgrade, Ordsall Chord, or the stalled Castlefield Corridor scheme)

Planning application to local authority

Courtesy planning application for things the railway can legally do anyway (there's probably a correct term for this)

Things that can be done without formallity

 

[swt_passenger]

Courtesy planning application for things the railway can legally do anyway (there's probably a correct term for this)

“Prior approval” by the planning authority of work which is allowed under what are known as “permitted development rights”. A quick summary is that it’s because the original Acts allowing railways to be built also included clauses allowing for future maintenance.

 

[Class 170101]

Do we know how NR propose to carry out these works and by that I mean weekend working every weekend over probably 7 years from Summer 2023 or are we talking continuous blockades? I seem to recall at one time that some sections could be blocked continously for 39 weeks - if so that seems a long time relative to the number of years in terms of time for construction.
(Assuming the TWAO approved around 2 years from now)

 

[Watershed]

Do we know how NR propose to carry out these works and by that I mean weekend working every weekend over probably 7 years from Summer 2023 or are we talking continuous blockades? I seem to recall at one time that some sections could be blocked continously for 39 weeks - if so that seems a long time relative to the number of years in terms of time for construction.
(Assuming the TWAO approved around 2 years from now)

Expanded section 4 times, and a number of longish section 7s.

Heaton Lodge-Thornhill is the only part that can't be diverted around (well, even then you can go via Bradford).

There will also be a temporary station near Huddersfield for part of the works.

Local passengers will bear the brunt of the disruption, with the Huddersfield to Bradford and Leeds services likely to be replaced by buses or diverted quite a lot.

 

[Bald Rick]

As far as I'm aware there was no TWAO application for Miles Platting. There was certainly a conventional planning application to the local authority.

The hierarchy according to the scale of the scheme seems to be

Act of Parliament (e.g. each phase of HS2)

Nationally Significant Infrastructure (e.g. East-West Rail Bedford-Cambridge, most major trunk road schemes in England)

Transport & Works Order (e.g. East-West Rail Bicester-Bletchley, Huddersfield to Westtown, Hope Valley upgrade, Ordsall Chord, or the stalled Castlefield Corridor scheme)

Planning application to local authority

Courtesy planning application for things the railway can legally do anyway (there's probably a correct term for this)

Things that can be done without formallity

There is some specific guidance for what needs a Development Consent Order, or a Transport & Works Act Order, for rail projects. From memory, you need a DCO if there is a continuous stretch of work outside the boundary for more than 2km. Both a DCO and TWAO need a fair amount of design done before they can be applied for, as the Orders made are very specific. An Act of Parliament is much more flexible (but also more expensive, and gets political).

 

[Halifaxlad]

£1.5bn just for Huddersfield to just past Dewsbury is an eyewatering sum of money.

The transformation of Huddersfield station alone is significant!

Its clearly designed with the Transpennine Route or at least this part of it, being a major route for many, many more years to come!

 

[37424]

Expanded section 4 times, and a number of longish section 7s.

Heaton Lodge-Thornhill is the only part that can't be diverted around (well, even then you can go via Bradford).

There will also be a temporary station near Huddersfield for part of the works.

Local passengers will bear the brunt of the disruption, with the Huddersfield to Bradford and Leeds services likely to be replaced by buses or diverted quite a lot.

That's an understatement the whole thing will be a nightmare not just for rail passengers but for road users as well when the bridges are closed for rebuilding.

 

[snowball]

There is some specific guidance for what needs a Development Consent Order, or a Transport & Works Act Order, for rail projects. From memory, you need a DCO if there is a continuous stretch of work outside the boundary for more than 2km. Both a DCO and TWAO need a fair amount of design done before they can be applied for, as the Orders made are very specific. An Act of Parliament is much more flexible (but also more expensive, and gets political).

If I remember correctly the Ordsall Chord was first prepared as a DCO submission, then it was ruled to be slightly too small so they had to redo it as a TWAO.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That's an understatement the whole thing will be a nightmare not just for rail passengers but for road users as well when the bridges are closed for rebuilding.

*plays world's tiniest violin*

Yes there will be disruption, that's inevitable when you're upgrading infrastructure. I do hope "disruption" isn't going to start being used as an excuse to do nothing. Eggs and omelettes spring to mind.

 

[37424]

*plays world's tiniest violin*

Yes there will be disruption, that's inevitable when you're upgrading infrastructure. I do hope "disruption" isn't going to start being used as an excuse to do nothing. Eggs and omelettes spring to mind.

Well I live near and have to work around that area so I am somewhat less flippant about it. Plus I have always been of the view that work shouldn't start on this until a decision is made on NPR and re-evaluate if nessesary.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well I live near and have to work around that area so I am somewhat less flippant about it. Plus I have always been of the view that work shouldn't start on this until a decision is made on NPR and re-evaluate if nessesary.

As do I... however when it comes to upgrading infrastructure that's been neglected for decades, some disruption is inevitable. The key thing is how that disruption is mitigated and managed. The proposal for the temporary station near Huddersfield at least shows that this disruption is being considered and mitigated. If there's roadworks on your commute you may have to set off 20 minutes earlier, that's hardly a reason to not do the work.

I remain sceptical about what NPR will end up being, as well as somewhat doubtful of whether an entirely new railway is required. The last thing I want though is for the possibility of NPR maybe happening at some point in the future, to be a reason to not invest in the railway we already have. For NPR to become the infrastructure equivalent of Bionic Duckweed.

 

[37424]

As do I... however when it comes to upgrading infrastructure that's been neglected for decades, some disruption is inevitable. The key thing is how that disruption is mitigated and managed. The proposal for the temporary station near Huddersfield at least shows that this disruption is being considered and mitigated. If there's roadworks on your commute you may have to set off 20 minutes earlier, that's hardly a reason to not do the work.

I remain sceptical about what NPR will end up being, as well as somewhat doubtful of whether an entirely new railway is required. The last thing I want though is for the possibility of NPR maybe happening at some point in the future, to be a reason to not invest in the railway we already have. For NPR to become the infrastructure equivalent of Bionic Duckweed.

Doesn't really matter whether you remain skeptical or not the politicians need to decide and then proceed with an appropriate upgrade for the route based on that decision, In any case it won't just be disruption to the commute in the case of the company I work for as they deliver around that area and I can see it causing massive disruption to that, especially when traffic gets back to pre-covid levels, and given the disruption to train services there likely be even more on the road as a result.

I'm certainly not convinced that the level of upgrade that's going to be carried out is really required in the event of full NPR, but as it appears to be going ahead there isn't much I can do about anyway.

 

[Glenn1969]

Hence my doubt about whether we will be full (or any) NPR on routes other than the one via Huddersfield. Simply because it costs too much and the Tories will revert to type if re elected in 2024 and scale back costs as much as possible. And "via Bradford" NPR costs £4bn more than just mirroring the existing alignment

 

[Roger B]

Hence my doubt about whether we will be full (or any) NPR on routes other than the one via Huddersfield. Simply because it costs too much and the Tories will revert to type if re elected in 2024 and scale back costs as much as possible. And "via Bradford" NPR costs £4bn more than just mirroring the existing alignment

I'm certainly no lover of the Tories, but it was Barbara Castle (a Labour Transport Minister) who actually closed many of the lines proposed by Beeching, after Labour had said they wouldn't in the lead-up to the previous general election. And I don't recall a great deal of rail investment under Blair / Brown when the economy was doing much better than it is now.

 

[59CosG95]

The April tracker for York - Church Fenton has been published:

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Wow SPS installation scheduled for April - they really are cracking on with it.

 

[matacaster]

I'm rather impressed by the detailed TRU upgrade plans between dewsbury and huddersfield. Huddersfield Station will be transformed. I'd like to thank the planners and hope it all comes to fruition!

 

[Brissle Girl]

I'm rather impressed by the detailed TRU upgrade plans between dewsbury and huddersfield. Huddersfield Station will be transformed. I'd like to thank the planners and hope it all comes to fruition!

There were equally detailed plans for the Castlefield corridor application. And we all know what happened to that once a SoS decided it was a little bit too pricey for a proposal outside the South East.

 

[Killingworth]

There were equally detailed plans for the Castlefield corridor application. And we all know what happened to that once a SoS decided it was a little bit too pricey for a proposal outside the South East.

That is a very valid point! Consideration of TWAOs can get lost in the long grass, however there does seem to be a momentum building to get projects completed.

Walked from Castlefield to Piccadilly today and can see very good reasons why that's got stuck

 

[edwin_m]

There were equally detailed plans for the Castlefield corridor application. And we all know what happened to that once a SoS decided it was a little bit too pricey for a proposal outside the South East.

I'd like to think there's a bit more consistency within government and co-ordination with Network Rail than in Grayling's time, as well as a need to show some progress on levelling up. The approximate costings would have been known some time ago, so they would have stopped the development of the TWAO if they weren't expecting to approve it. But given the level of competence of most of the current government I'm far from certain.

 

[Mollman]

There were equally detailed plans for the Castlefield corridor application. And we all know what happened to that once a SoS decided it was a little bit too pricey for a proposal outside the South East.

Don't forget an 'expert' also convinced him that the issue could be solved by introducing 'digital signalling' instead of extra platforms.

 

[Glenn1969]

An article about the Huddersfield TWAO says it could take two years to approve and work won't start until mid 2023 if that is the case

 

[swt_passenger]

An article about the Huddersfield TWAO says it could take two years to approve and work won't start until mid 2023 if that is the case

That’s par for the course for a TWAO as Bald Rick explained a few days ago.

 

[Glenn1969]

It's also at least a year delay on what they were talking about when they started the consultation which I'm sure was a 2022 start

 

[SuperNova]

It's also at least a year delay on what they were talking about when they started the consultation which I'm sure was a 2022 start

Didn't help the consultation process was hampered by Covid. I think the week they started consultation was the week before lockdown in March 2020, that was pushed back 6 months - I remember speaking with someone at Network Rail who was worried they may have to start the entire process all over again.

 

[Tim_UK]

I'm rather impressed by the detailed TRU upgrade plans between dewsbury and huddersfield. Huddersfield Station will be transformed. I'd like to thank the planners and hope it all comes to fruition!

A lot of detail. I've not read all of it, but I'll try to summarise what I thought were the interesting bits.

Who knew there was a parcels subway in Huddersfield? - it is getting filled in. But adding in some new service ducts to replace what is carried over the signalling bridge.

Some of the opening stuff says Huddersfield is going from 6 to 7 platforms. I think it is keeping 6 platforms, 4 through and 1 Penistone bay and 1 Leeds facing bay. I'm not sure if 7 was in a earlier plan.

No sidings in Huddersfield. I think there is room to leave one, but not there. 3 at Hillhouse, but no Overhead line supports on the plans.

The plans in the consultation suggested the overhead line would go slightly down the Penistone Branch. This is not shown in the current plans.

The thing I can't find is anything about the phasing of works., and how this might affect rail services.

Platform 4 in Huddersfield is staying put, but will be renumbered to platform 3. I was wondering if this was on purpose to keep some services to/from Manchester while the rest of the station gets rebuilt. I presume they would have to build the new footbridge first, before they start to change the underpass.

I think there is almost no change to the Penistone line platform either. But services bound to be affected by the work in the tunnels.

There are plans for a platform at Hillhouse, facing towards Leeds. This suggests a long term closure of most of Huddersfield station and the viaduct for services towards Leeds. The Hillhouse plans say Phase 1, so maybe this site will get re-arranged when the job is finished. The Huddersfield station re-arrange and the works to the Huddersfield viaduct, expecially John William Street, look really major.

The new Baker Viaduct at the Dewsbury end looks like a major piece of work. But it is away from the current lines. I suspect significant work can be done without disruption. Same for the Thornhill road Bridge just to the east of the viaduct.

Similar for the flyover. It is south of the existing Leeds lines, but North of the existing Wakefield lines. And you could connect the fast lines up before work started on Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations.

Well I live near and have to work around that area so I am somewhat less flippant about it. Plus I have always been of the view that work shouldn't start on this until a decision is made on NPR and re-evaluate if nessesary.

The 2 main road bridge replacements (in Huddersfield) are Leeds Road and Colne Bridge Road. They are both being done with a new Bridge along side, so I suspect the absolute closures will be for a few days while they plumb it in.

For short distance journeys to just the otherside, then it is a long way around. For Long distance journeys there are loads of options. I've moved now, but I used to have regular journeys that went over both those bridges, and 50:50 whether I went another way.

The John William street bridge just outside the station. That's a main route into town. But if they can keep Viaduct Street open one way. Or if they just remove the uphill bus lane from Northumberland street, then there will be no problem at all for car drivers. People who walk into town might struggle because there is no obvious diversion route.

The long term economic benefit for Huddersfield must surely offset this.