• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
929
Location
Wilmslow
Under the original 1500V DC scheme, the OLE extended to Dukinfield Central station, as a head shunt to Brookside Sidings. It was de-wired with the conversion to 25kV AC of the main line. Quite a few of the overhead gantries are still in place - coincidentally I cycled past the old Central station yesterday.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

billh

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2015
Messages
224
I agree. I am no expert but I would be absolutely shocked if any of those masts/gantries were reused.
Why?Most of the gantries to Ardwick from GB are original 1950s and seem to work ok.
One of the long gantries over Brookside was clobbered by a crane years ago . It remained in place ,rather bent for a while , gone now though. I think some in the area we are talking about were demolished when the junction curve was eased maybe 10 years since. Last time I looked the final overhead anchor post was still standing next to the Asda store at Cavendish st.
Some of the overhead stuff is still in place on the OA&GB line near Ashton Moss, that was de-electrified half a century ago!
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
For old stuff to remain in place as part of an old scheme is one thing. For it to remain in place as part of a new scheme is different - it requires somebody to sign it off as safe. People will not want to take that risk, so they will ensure it is replaced, just as happened with OLE near Liverpool when the Liverpool & Manchester was electrified a few years ago.
 

billh

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2015
Messages
224
For old stuff to remain in place as part of an old scheme is one thing. For it to remain in place as part of a new scheme is different - it requires somebody to sign it off as safe. People will not want to take that risk, so they will ensure it is replaced, just as happened with OLE near Liverpool when the Liverpool & Manchester was electrified a few years ago.
So, does that mean that Ardwick to Guide Bridge needs a new scheme if it's part of TRU?Complete new overheads? Think of the expense. When I was very young I can recall seeing the gantries being re-painted , they would have been about 10 years old then. A recent close inspection of samples of the old Dorman-Long structural steelwork shows it to be in excellent condition
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I agree. I am no expert but I would be absolutely shocked if any of those masts/gantries were reused.
There are still some original gantries and anchor masts from the GEML 1949 1500VDC electrification supporting 21st century F&F designed OLE so the equivalent kit on the Glossop line that I saw 3 1/2 weeks ago looks just as good for future use. If it 'aint broke ...
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
There are still some original gantries and anchor masts from the GEML 1949 1500VDC electrification supporting 21st century F&F designed OLE so the equivalent kit on the Glossop line that I saw 3 1/2 weeks ago looks just as good for future use. If it 'aint broke ...

Exactly!
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
So, does that mean that Ardwick to Guide Bridge needs a new scheme if it's part of TRU?Complete new overheads? Think of the expense. When I was very young I can recall seeing the gantries being re-painted , they would have been about 10 years old then. A recent close inspection of samples of the old Dorman-Long structural steelwork shows it to be in excellent condition
Others will know better than me but I would have thought not. I imagine Ardwick to Guide Bridge will be treated as a fait accompli, but a few yards from Guide Bridge towards Stalybridge, where there are currently no wires, will be redone.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Hopefully we can trust those people charged with making decisions on whether to replace or retain the existing masts to make the correct decision. Whilst they may be structurally sound, they might still not be suitable for certain modern use-cases such as bi-modes panning-up on the move. It's all well and good to say "if it ain't broke" but mode switching was not something the original design needed to consider. In the grand scheme of things, the cost difference between reuse and replacement is probably pocket change anyway.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Hopefully we can trust those people charged with making decisions on whether to replace or retain the existing masts to make the correct decision. Whilst they may be structurally sound, they might still not be suitable for certain modern use-cases such as bi-modes panning-up on the move. It's all well and good to say "if it ain't broke" but mode switching was not something the original design needed to consider. In the grand scheme of things, the cost difference between reuse and replacement is probably pocket change anyway.
Strangely enough, the sheer rigidity of the over engineered structures for the 1500VDC compound catenary OLE is probably well suited to more rigourous pantograph action.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Strangely enough, the sheer rigidity of the over engineered structures for the 1500VDC compound catenary OLE is probably well suited to more rigourous pantograph action.
I'm no OHLE technician, but is it not the tensioning system that's critical to panning up on the move, rather than the strength of the gantries themselves?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I'm no OHLE technician, but is it not the tensioning system that's critical to panning up on the move, rather than the strength of the gantries themselves?
Nobody is suggesting that the original tensioning (hint: there wasn't any on either of the LNER designed systems, -they were fixed tension) would be used. It is just the very substantial gantries put in to support the much heavier DC wiring that could be redeployed. The newest f&f components including Tensorex tensioners the can be hung on them just as easily as the original heavy kit.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Nobody is suggesting that the original tensioning (hint: there wasn't any on either of the LNER designed systems, -they were fixed tension) would be used. It is just the very substantial gantries put in to support the much heavier DC wiring that could be redeployed. The newest f&f components including Tensorex tensioners the can be hung on them just as easily as the original heavy kit.
The original DC overhead was heavier so the masts might need to have supported more downward force previously than they would if re-used today. But the different tensioning system creates different forces, including lateral ones due to the stagger of the wires, and probably other cases that would apply in the event of wire breakage. The existing structure might not be able to withstand these, particularly if corrosion has reduced their cross-section during long periods of disuse.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
The original DC overhead was heavier so the masts might need to have supported more downward force previously than they would if re-used today. But the different tensioning system creates different forces, including lateral ones due to the stagger of the wires, and probably other cases that would apply in the event of wire breakage. The existing structure might not be able to withstand these, particularly if corrosion has reduced their cross-section during long periods of disuse.
All that may be true, but the GEML structures are older, have been used much more heavily, have had trains running at speeds up to 80/90mph for decades and have in many places been gainfully used in the recent rewiring to meet current standards. The DC wiring, apart from being heavier, possibly put more stress on the structures because instead of a carefully controlled tension from calibrated weights or springs, it was fixed and subject to wide variations of temperature which actually relied on the wires linearly changing with the tension. In later years there have been many dewirements caused by the design.
Corrosion will of course be inspected and evaluated iaw the new requirement.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
All that may be true, but the GEML structures are older, have been used much more heavily, have had trains running at speeds up to 80/90mph for decades and have in many places been gainfully used in the recent rewiring to meet current standards. The DC wiring, apart from being heavier, possibly put more stress on the structures because instead of a carefully controlled tension from calibrated weights or springs, it was fixed and subject to wide variations of temperature which actually relied on the wires linearly changing with the tension. In later years there have been many dewirements caused by the design.
Corrosion will of course be inspected and evaluated iaw the new requirement.
I read somewhere that the fairly recent work on the GE decided the structures were not up to modern standards, but they were still reused despite the resulting shorter lifetime (but probably still decades). The same could be true here, but I do have my doubts about the condition of structure that have been out of use for decades and probably only had minimal maintenance to ensure they don't fall down.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Why?Most of the gantries to Ardwick from GB are original 1950s and seem to work ok.
One of the long gantries over Brookside was clobbered by a crane years ago . It remained in place ,rather bent for a while , gone now though. I think some in the area we are talking about were demolished when the junction curve was eased maybe 10 years since. Last time I looked the final overhead anchor post was still standing next to the Asda store at Cavendish st.
Some of the overhead stuff is still in place on the OA&GB line near Ashton Moss, that was de-electrified half a century ago!
As I previously posted upthread in January 2021:
Most of the old OLE structures on the Guide Bridge to Stalybridge line have now been demolished, but can still be seen on Google Earth historic imagery dated May 2019. The mast that terminated the wires was just north of the bridge over Cavendish Street (A627). About halfway between Guide Bridge and Stalybridge.
There is a big difference between the condition of these old OLE structures, which have been left to rust for decades, and those on the main line between Ardwick and Hadfield, which have remained in use and had the benefit of regular maintenance.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington

Back with the "East TRU Massive" - at least one of the headspans will be replaced with a pair of TTCs due to
  1. Rabbits weakening the existing foundation;
  2. Track works requiring adjustment of the OLE anyway.
The structure in question is E/299/20, which is a balance weight structure; I wonder if the tensioning arrangements will change.
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news...ddersfield-railway-station-set-close-21890169

Huddersfield Railway Station set to close for 30 days as part of £1.5 billion rail electrification works​

The station is set to close for a month – twice - as part of a planned modernisation of the region's railways.



The Grade 1 listed station building in St.George's square is scheduled for modernisation work.

The Grade 1 listed station building in St.George's Square is scheduled for modernisation work. (Image: Huddersfield Examiner)


Huddersfield Rail Station set to close for 30 days as part of modernisation work.
The scheme, part of The Transpennine route upgrade will see the eight-mile stretch between Huddersfield and Westtown just outside Dewsbury fully electrified and widened to four tracks.

Huddersfield, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations are also scheduled to be remodeled, with the grade 1 listed building in St George’s Square, expected set to see the most change.

Eight bridges will also need to be rebuilt including a narrow bridge over the railway in Colne Bridge Road near to Bradley traffic lights, with work possibly requiring ongoing road closures for up to two years while work is completed.
With the modernisation work due to be discussed at a public inquiry, which will be held at the John Smith’s Stadium from November 2, documents published ahead of the meeting have given some insight into the scale of expected disruption that could hit the town.

According to documents submitted to the inquiry, the scheme is due to start in January 2023 and be completed in June 2026.

An artist's impression of upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station

An artist's impression of upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station (Image: Network Rail)
As part of this work, it also revealed that Huddersfield Railway Station will have two closures, in Easter 2024 and again in Easter 2025.
https://comparehearingaids.org/news...izKQ6U2AV4f5n3zjk0-uhZ7xCDYtUMohaCb8L2i07TyAQ


During these extended periods of closure, the first scheduled at 30 days long, the station will remain completely closed, with rail replacement buses on offer instead of the usual trains.
John William Street and Fitzwilliam Street will be closed for work to be undertaken on the railway bridge, with the work anticipated to take place 24/7 during this period.
Kirklees Council initially raised concerns about the scheme’s scale of disruption to residents and the lack of clear details offered by Network Rail during the four years since the scheme was first discussed back in 2017.

An artist's impression of upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station.

An artist's impression of upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station. (Image: Network Rail)
As a result of this, the council lodged a formal objection, which prompted the public inquiry to take place next month.
Despite the objection, however, the council is not opposed to the investment and actively encourages it - but expressed concerns regarding the disruption to both rail and roads within the region, that are necessary for the scheme to go ahead.

Speaking at a council meeting back in July, when the objection was agreed, Clr Will Simpson, Cabinet member for Greener Kirklees and Culture, said: “This is not a small matter and we don’t object like this for the fun of it.
“A scheme like this will inevitably have a big impact but we have not had proper information or adequate assurances on behalf of our residents.”

An artist's impression of the upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station.

An artist's impression of the upgrades to Huddersfield Train Station. (Image: Network Rail)
“I don’t think any of us oppose this investment, we welcome it and we need it. But this is going to cause significant disruption.”
Clr Peter McBride, Cabinet member for Regeneration, also echoed these concerns, saying that the Department for Transport had behaved “appallingly” and that residents needed to be protected from the disruption as much as possible.Inspector Paul Singleton is set to chair the inquiry, with Network Rail seeking wide-ranging powers under the scheme.


These powers include compulsory purchase of land, the permanent stopping of footpaths and the closure of Huddersfield Broad Canal and the Calder & Hebble Navigation.
Formal objections have also been submitted by The Canal & River Trust and HD1 Developments Ltd, owner of the grade II-listed brick-built warehouse behind Huddersfield station.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
It would be interesting to know how much engagement NR have actually had with the local council and how much the council is trying to search for some solution to minimise disruption that cannot possibly / sensibly exist. It would for sure be poor if NR really hadn't tried that hard to bring the council with them, after all two public bodies that should be working together to make things happen.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
It would be interesting to know how much engagement NR have actually had with the local council and how much the council is trying to search for some solution to minimise disruption that cannot possibly / sensibly exist. It would for sure be poor if NR really hadn't tried that hard to bring the council with them, after all two public bodies that should be working together to make things happen.
I'd put money on the council not getting it and also not understanding the TWA process where they aren't in control of the planning (/nit picking).
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,875
Location
Leeds
It would be interesting to know how much engagement NR have actually had with the local council and how much the council is trying to search for some solution to minimise disruption that cannot possibly / sensibly exist. It would for sure be poor if NR really hadn't tried that hard to bring the council with them, after all two public bodies that should be working together to make things happen.

I'd put money on the council not getting it and also not understanding the TWA process where they aren't in control of the planning (/nit picking).
From memory of the Leeds Station Southern Entrance inquiry I partly attended, it seems to be that if an independent third party agrees with what Network Rail says then everyone will accept it. Plus, an attempt to get some other work done on the side as a sop to withdrawing any objection (some small infrastructure works, for example). Not that I'm a cynic.

The thing to remember is that if anything goes wrong or there are delays it won't be this opaque body called Network Rail that gets the grief it'll be the already-visible Kirklees Councillors... so they'd like to minimise that grief. Not that I'm a cynic.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
Well, some of the F&F components that exist in UKMS anyway. They're increasingly common on various parts of the network.

I'm fine with Series 1, except in areas where the area is too beautiful and scenic where instead I want headspans (looking at you, GWML between Reading and Didcot Parkway)
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I'm fine with Series 1, except in areas where the area is too beautiful and scenic where instead I want headspans (looking at you, GWML between Reading and Didcot Parkway)
Headspans are less robust than gantries so why sacrifice the reliability of a major rail trunk route for a minor impact on an area where there has alredy been considerable man made development. Personally I want the railway to run as efficiently and as reliably as practical. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
Headspans are less robust than gantries so why sacrifice the reliability of a major rail trunk route for a minor impact on an area where there has alredy been considerable man made development. Personally I want the railway to run as efficiently and as reliably as practical. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs.
Are there any numbers on relative reliability of headspans and gantries?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Are there any numbers on relative reliability of headspans and gantries?
Depends on component parts. Headspans with Cad-Cu (copper ply) spanwires and AWAC catenary are likely to be less reliable than ones with Bronze II catenary & spanwires.
Mark 1 portals where the cat goes over the boom are less reliable due to the fact that birds can short the catenary out (I know!).
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
It would be interesting to know how much engagement NR have actually had with the local council and how much the council is trying to search for some solution to minimise disruption that cannot possibly / sensibly exist. It would for sure be poor if NR really hadn't tried that hard to bring the council with them, after all two public bodies that should be working together to make things happen.

Kirklees council are likely to be dead against this full stop. They’re planning 4000+ homes on greenbelt land between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe, with a railway station to serve it (roads are too narrow as it is, and prone to flooding), likely replacing Mirfield and Ravensthorpe. Now, they don’t seem to have done any engagement with Network Rail, so to me it seems like a pie in the sky idea that will be inevitably dropped once the homes are built, citing cost, difficulties with location and mass opposition to closing Mirfield, but without it they may not get permission for them at all, or at least on a very reduced scale.

The upgrade, with the rebuilds of Ravensthorpe and Mirfield stations, will put a total block on their madcap station plans, and so likely do the same to paving over vast amounts of greenbelt woodlands and fields.

They’re already riling up the ‘local’ media (though reading the comments most people seem to be on NR’s side), but expect more from them. They’ll be complaining about the trees lost, almost all young ones that have grown on the old formation since it was reduced in the 70s, while planning on cutting down hundreds of mature trees in some of the most extensive local woodlands, and heaven knows what else.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,875
Location
Leeds
Kirklees council are likely to be dead against this full stop. They’re planning 4000+ homes on greenbelt land between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe, with a railway station to serve it (roads are too narrow as it is, and prone to flooding), likely replacing Mirfield and Ravensthorpe. Now, they don’t seem to have done any engagement with Network Rail, so to me it seems like a pie in the sky idea that will be inevitably dropped once the homes are built, citing cost, difficulties with location and mass opposition to closing Mirfield, but without it they may not get permission for them at all, or at least on a very reduced scale.
Is that development south and west of where the resited Ravensthorpe will go?
 

Top