Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[59CosG95]

You have not missed anything with regards to what is posted. If I may I would like to add the following for completeness and by way of summary.

W1 - Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge
W2a - Stalybridge station
W2b - Stalybridge -Huddersfield
W3 - Huddersfield - Ravensthorpe
W4 - Ravensthorpe - Leeds
W5 - Morley station
E1 - as above

Thanks @GRALISTAIR - I ought to have mentioned that W1 through W5 will be in a separate doc! I'll start updating that when W1 piling works begin later this month.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks @GRALISTAIR - I ought to have mentioned that W1 through W5 will be in a separate doc! I'll start updating that when W1 piling works begin later this month.

I also edited my OP in light of comments that were posted slightly after mine in that W1a has been mentioned as Vic- Miles Plat - and likewise assumed that Miles Plat to Staly is thus W1b

 

[Purple Orange]

Sorry, I misread Purple Orange's post. I assumed he was asking about the TWAO for Huddersfield to Westtown. My reply in #3957 was relevant to that.

As others have said, the current works near Church Fenton don't require a TWAO. Furthermore, if they did, they would be in trouble with the law, as they're already well in progress.

You were right first time. I had assumed church Fenton to colton had also had a TWAO and was wondering if that would have set a tone for the approval of the latest TWAO.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wouldn‘t electrification itself come under permitted development? I assume it’s the major enabling work such as bridge rebuilds or alterations to listed station buildings that might make a TWA order necessary, (or other approval in cases such as listed building)?

I don't remember TWAOs being needed on some prior NW/TP electrification work including bridges (eg Chat Moss, Ashton upgrade (bridges and realignment)).
And in fact some bridges in the Church Fenton area were done a few years ago as a precursor to the current scheme.
There will have to be planning agreements with the local authority for bridges of course, but not on the scale of a TWAO.

 

[snowball]

You can get an impression of the typical scale of a project requiring a TWAO from this page on the DfT site which supposedly lists all applications and decisions in the last 10 years, though it strangely omits the Manchester Picc and Oxford Road application which AFAIK remains undecided. It also seems to list every application (including the recent Hudds one) as a "decision".

Transport and Works Act (TWA) applications and decisions

TWA screening, applications, inspector reports, decisions and related documents.

www.gov.uk

Transport and Works Act (TWA) applications and decisions​

TWA screening, applications, inspector's reports, decisions and related documents.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Somewhat cleverly, from 2017 back the title is subtlety changed from "Decisions and Applications" to "Decisions on Applications" thus enabling the one where no decision has been made to be omitted. I give them 10/10 for sleight of hand.

At least with a Development Consent Order there is a clearly defined process for an Inspector to make a recommendation within a time period and the SoS to then accept or reject the recommendation within a further short time period. So we don't have this nonsense of a situation whereby the process just comes to a halt with no decision ever being made because it would be politically too embarrassing.

 

[snowball]

I think even with DCOs there's a get-out clause that allows a minister to announce that he's giving himself extra time. I have a vague recollection that this power has been used once or twice.

 

[Purple Orange]

You can get an impression of the typical scale of a project requiring a TWAO from this page on the DfT site which supposedly lists all applications and decisions in the last 10 years, though it strangely omits the Manchester Picc and Oxford Road application which AFAIK remains undecided. It also seems to list every application (including the recent Hudds one) as a "decision".

Transport and Works Act (TWA) applications and decisions

TWA screening, applications, inspector reports, decisions and related documents.

www.gov.uk

Very informative, thanks. Here is hoping it doesn’t require a public enquiry! :/

 

[Bald Rick]

Very informative, thanks. Here is hoping it doesn’t require a public enquiry! :/

It’s very rare for a TWAO not to end up at a public inquiry. It is required if there are any unresolved objections, even one.

 

[Purple Orange]

It’s very rare for a TWAO not to end up at a public inquiry. It is required if there are any unresolved objections, even one.

Oh well, I will check back in 2023!

 

[Glenn1969]

I hope the fact that Jenrick has just put Leeds Bradford Airport expansion decision on hold indefinitely isn't an omen for how these TWAOs and NPR's decisions are going to go

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hope the fact that Jenrick has just put Leeds Bradford Airport expansion decision on hold indefinitely isn't an omen for how these TWAOs and NPR's decisions are going to go

I think the opposite especially as WrATH got kicked into the long grass. It seems possible rail schemes but not airport schemes might just be higher priority with a low carbon economy.

 

[Purple Orange]

I hope the fact that Jenrick has just put Leeds Bradford Airport expansion decision on hold indefinitely isn't an omen for how these TWAOs and NPR's decisions are going to go

I don’t see the correlation.

 

[59CosG95]

Structure no. plates have started to appear on the masts between Colton Jn & Church Fenton. The route code prefix, like the ELR, is 'NOC' - but it's not doing the MML/GWML style of numbering where you have 'ELR/kilometres/metres/nearest running line' (with exact kilometrage), it's reverted to the system of 'kilometres/structure no. in that kilometre'.
An example: on the MML, you have a structure numbered "SPC3/113/654"; as it's a portal, you have a plate suffixed with "DF" for the leg nearest the Down Fast, and one suffixed with "US" for the leg nearest the Up Slow.
On TRU E1, at Brumber Hill, you now have an S1 TTC numbered "NOC/10/33" with no distinction as to the exact kilometrage or the structure's nearest running road (in this case, the Up Normanton/UN).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That looks similar to the "old" identification standard, as used for the NW wiring, but using an ELR prefix.
The TP route is a bit of a jungle ELR-wise, unlike the primary main lines, being connected up from different local lines originally, with different mileage origins.
Under the old system, the ECML is simply plated E, and Doncaster-Leeds-Neville Hill is plated EG.
Liverpool-Manchester is LM (can't remember what it is for the short bit east of Manchester Vic).
Manchester-Hebden Bridge-Wakefield-Normanton-York was of course the original TP main line (M&L plus Y&NM via a bit of NM at Normanton).

I also see on this excellent site that "Liverpool Edge Hill to Hull via Manchester and Leeds" was down to be LH in the old system, and apparently is visible on the short wired section of the Manchester lines west of Leeds.
National network codes (railwaycodes.org.uk)

 

[59CosG95]

That looks similar to the "old" identification standard, as used for the NW wiring, but using an ELR prefix.
The TP route is a bit of a jungle ELR-wise, unlike the primary main lines, being connected up from different local lines originally, with different mileage origins.
Under the old system, the ECML is simply plated E, and Doncaster-Leeds-Neville Hill is plated EG.
Liverpool-Manchester is LM (can't remember what it is for the short bit east of Manchester Vic).
Manchester-Hebden Bridge-Wakefield-Normanton-York was of course the original TP main line (M&L plus Y&NM via a bit of NM at Normanton).

I also see on this excellent site that "Liverpool Edge Hill to Hull via Manchester and Leeds" was down to be LH in the old system, and apparently is visible on the short wired section of the Manchester lines west of Leeds.
National network codes (railwaycodes.org.uk)

IIRC, Doncaster - Leeds - NL is EB (EG being Saughton Jn - Glasgow QS), and Victoria - Leeds is VL.
The newer prefix removes the confusion of new masts being installed which require "A, B" etc suffixes when installed between the original structures.
E.g. if a new structure was installed between E/700/01 & E/700/02 (2 structures which don't even exist; they're just here for the example), the new structure would be E/700/01A.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

IIRC, Doncaster - Leeds - NL is EB (EG being Saughton Jn - Glasgow QS), and Victoria - Leeds is VL.
The newer prefix removes the confusion of new masts being installed which require "A, B" etc suffixes when installed between the original structures.
E.g. if a new structure was installed between E/700/01 & E/700/02 (2 structures which don't even exist; they're just here for the example), the new structure would be E/700/01A.

Yes of course EB. Can't even type properly now...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Just checked, EB, Im approaching leeds now so I can see the masts

 

[snowball]

There's a somewhat vague suggestion in the new Modern Railways, page 7, col 3, that the bureaucracy of multiple organisations (NR, DfT, main contractors and the Alliance) is inflating the costs of electrification in the TRU.

 

[Ianno87]

There's a somewhat vague suggestion in the new Modern Railways, page 7, col 3, that the bureaucracy of multiple organisations (NR, DfT, main contractors and the Alliance) is inflating the costs of electrification in the TRU.

I'd be interested to know what the alternative workable set up would be.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There's a somewhat vague suggestion in the new Modern Railways, page 7, col 3, that the bureaucracy of multiple organisations (NR, DfT, main contractors and the Alliance) is inflating the costs of electrification in the TRU.

Why - what could possibly be gained by that?

are we talking April Modern Railways btw. I just read again and can see no mention of this on page 7 column 3 ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It will be layers of consultants, project management and risk aversion.
No contractor is going to offer bargain prices after the outcome of the last round of contracts.
A rolling programme gets over all that.

 

[Killingworth]

Why - what could possibly be gained by that?

are we talking April Modern Railways btw. I just read again and can see no mention of this on page 7 column 3 ?

May edition, page 7, column 4 of the article contains that reference.

 

[snowball]

May edition, page 7, column 4 of the article contains that reference.

Sorry, yes, I failed to count the leftmost column, which doesn't reach the bottom of the page.

 

[Ianno87]

It will be layers of consultants, project management and risk aversion.
No contractor is going to offer bargain prices after the outcome of the last round of contracts.
A rolling programme gets over all that.

Wasn't Great Western in effect a "Rolling Programme"?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't Great Western in effect a "Rolling Programme"?

Well it was effectively a start, but there weren't any sequels (in fact it was cut short).
Scotland had the nearest, having done Airdrie-Bathgate and Paisley Canal, and then did a succession of projects, though not without issues (eg conformance to stricter ORR standards).
The NW schemes initially seemed to be progressing well but were then subject to contractor issues* and design problems with difficult ground conditions.
I think only about half the contractors who tooled up for the 2012 HLOS schemes have ongoing work for NR, the rest will be thinking twice before making the next round of investment.

The MR piece reports analysis of the piling work for the GW scheme, and the results are embarrassing really - the project just mushroomed out of control in the rush to keep to schedule.
Lessons were learned in time for MML, but it was too late to save GW being stopped.
Luckily the planned service was rescued by the IEP project, at the cost of a revised contract with Hitachi.

*Balfour Beatty has since won major work on Crossrail and HS2, so it's baffling why they failed on the NW scheme, putting up costs and extending the timeframe.

 

[59CosG95]

Well it was effectively a start, but there weren't any sequels (in fact it was cut short).
Scotland had the nearest, having done Airdrie-Bathgate and Paisley Canal, and then did a succession of projects, though not without issues (eg conformance to stricter ORR standards).
The NW schemes initially seemed to be progressing well but were then subject to contractor issues* and design problems with difficult ground conditions.
I think only about half the contractors who tooled up for the 2012 HLOS schemes have ongoing work for NR, the rest will be thinking twice before making the next round of investment.

The MR piece reports analysis of the piling work for the GW scheme, and the results are embarrassing really - the project just mushroomed out of control in the rush to keep to schedule.
Lessons were learned in time for MML, but it was too late to save GW being stopped.
Luckily the planned service was rescued by the IEP project, at the cost of a revised contract with Hitachi.

*Balfour Beatty has since won major work on Crossrail and HS2, so it's baffling why they failed on the NW scheme, putting up costs and extending the timeframe.

IIRC Balfours let a unit of OTP run loose from a worksite which then crashed, so they were then chucked off the job. Then Carillion came in...and we all know what happened there!

Manchester folk - piling begins this weekend (24th/25th) in the Collyhurst/Miles Platting area.

 

[childwallblues]

Will the piling taking place this weekend continue up Miles Platting Bank from Bromley Street?

 

[jonesy3001]

Take it the wires will go up during the blockade in July?

 

[Mollman]

A bit more on the piling work - should be finished by the end of the year so guess wires might not be until next year

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ine-route-upgrade-electrification-26-04-2021/

Piling work signals welcome start of Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade electrification​

26 APR, 2021 BY CLAIRE SMITH

Network Rail has said that overnight piling work has started as part of work to electrify the railway between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge on the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) scheme.
The TRU project will improve train capacity and reliability from Manchester to York, via Huddersfield and Leeds but there are a number of smaller improvements needed to deliver the overall scheme.
Transport for the North has welcomed progress on the scheme but has called on the government to confirm the full extent of the project and to publish the Integrated Rail Plan, which is expected to include the project, in full. Transport for the North has said that committing to full electrification of the line would cut carbon emissions and provide additional track capacity to reduce bottlenecks.
The current phase of steel piling work between Collyhurst and Miles Platting will create foundations for planned mast and overhead electrification equipment and follows on from embankment reconstruction work in the area. The piling work is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
Network Rail director for TRU Neil Holm said: “The overnight piling is early enabling work as part of future plans to electrify the line between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge, via Ashton, to improve passenger journeys. By its nature, piling can be a disruptive activity and so we would like to apologise in advance for any inconvenience it may cause. We will be engaging closely with local communities who live near the railway to keep them informed of progress and what it means to them.”
According to Network Rail, once the electrification is completed, it will enable quieter and more reliable train journeys between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge.

Transport for the North has welcomed progress on the project and the organisation’s strategic rail director David Hoggarth said: “Upgrading the existing Trans-Pennine route has long been seen as a key building block in delivering a better rail network for the North. It’s finally underway after years in the planning and – once delivered – it’ll speed up journeys, increase reliability and connect communities along the line much better than today.
“It’s critical we have better rail links across the Pennines and TRU – alongside a fully new line via Bradford as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail – will provide just that. Fully electrifying the existing line and freeing up capability to move freight from our ports onto rail would support our mission to make journeys in the North greener and more sustainable.
“Through everything, passengers must come first. It’s essential that, as this long-promised project gets underway, all those involved in the programme do everything possible to minimise disruption for travellers and we will be working closely with the rail industry and our partners on this throughout the course of its delivery.”