Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[GRALISTAIR]

This is likely to be the longest running infrastructure thread on this forum by the time this project gets finished.

Yes. Maybe after consultation it gets locked and broken into components. However, I love all the info in one place. At one time we did have a separate Manchester Vic - Staly thread when it was part of the northern schemes rather than TPU.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes. Maybe after consultation it gets locked and broken into components. However, I love all the info in one place. At one time we did have a separate Manchester Vic - Staly thread when it was part of the northern schemes rather than TPU.

Unless they open up multiple construction fronts im sure the thread will be able cope with the sclerotic progress for the rest of this decade.

 

[snowball]

I really don't understand the issues around what is funded and what isn't, but here are two paragraphs of the Inspector's Report:

Funding Position

3.38 The ORR conducts a five-yearly review. This sets NR’s funding and
defines what NR must achieve within the relevant five-year control
period in accordance with the Rail Network’s Enhancement Pipeline
(RNEP) [NR32]. The RNEP was updated in Autumn 2019. The TRU was
listed as one of the schemes in Stage 3 (Decision to Design), with the
identified outputs of the Scheme being to deliver improved performance,
capacity and journey time between Manchester and York.

3.39 The TRU was awarded Outline Business Case (OBC) status in April 2020
with a funding allocation of £3 billion (bn). Since the OBC was confirmed
further funding has been awarded, with over £1.4bn having been
allocated to date to TRU projects progressing into delivery. Some works
on the programme started in August 2021, with the commencement of
Project W127 in the western section of the TRU. The Order Scheme has
received £161m to date, with a further recent approval of £264m for the
Scheme to be taken into delivery. The secured funding of £425m will
ensure that the Scheme will be ready to be built should the Order be
made.

At the time the application was submitted, the estimated cost of the works covered by the order was about £1.45 billion.

 

[Snow1964]

I think it's just lack of experience due to the 20 year hiatus.

With practice comes the confidence to sail a bit closer to the wind.

Checked with a civil engineer friend and there are three ways of making foundations : dig it out, hammer it in, or use a vibration driver. The pile lengths are different for each.

1) To dig it, use an augur (big drill) or if there might be buried cables or pipes a vacuum excavator is much safer. The advantage is get a fairly uneven edge to the hole so when you fill with concrete there is lot of surface to grip surrounding soil.
2) Hammering in a solid pile is rather noisy (although there are quieter hydraulic hammers), so not ideal if you want to do it at night in urban areas. Needs longer piles than concrete as relying on getting down to firm surface
3) Vibration piles, these work fine in soft ground, but if got unstable ground then risk causing the ground around it to move, you wouldn’t use these where there is lot of coal waste in heaps nearby as vibrations could cause slippages.

Apparently Experienced staff working the equipment get a feel for how deep to go, by the amount of resistance. So even if someone sitting in an office has suggested a depth you don’t always get to that depth. It is clearly easier to have bit extra than run out of pile being driven before it is firm enough. But even easier on the ground when filling with concrete as the bottom of the hole doesn’t determine how far out of the ground the top of the pile sticks up.

 

[hwl]

Checked with a civil engineer friend and there are three ways of making foundations : dig it out, hammer it in, or use a vibration driver. The pile lengths are different for each.

1) To dig it, use an augur (big drill) or if there might be buried cables or pipes a vacuum excavator is much safer. The advantage is get a fairly uneven edge to the hole so when you fill with concrete there is lot of surface to grip surrounding soil.
2) Hammering in a solid pile is rather noisy (although there are quieter hydraulic hammers), so not ideal if you want to do it at night in urban areas. Needs longer piles than concrete as relying on getting down to firm surface
3) Vibration piles, these work fine in soft ground, but if got unstable ground then risk causing the ground around it to move, you wouldn’t use these where there is lot of coal waste in heaps nearby as vibrations could cause slippages.

Apparently Experienced staff working the equipment get a feel for how deep to go, by the amount of resistance. So even if someone sitting in an office has suggested a depth you don’t always get to that depth. It is clearly easier to have bit extra than run out of pile being driven before it is firm enough. But even easier on the ground when filling with concrete as the bottom of the hole doesn’t determine how far out of the ground the top of the pile sticks up.

Piling is usually about getting sufficient friction which is a function of surface area and ground conditions rather than going down to something firm/solid is comparatively rare (e.g. Manhattan)

The steel piles used for mast foundations are typically scrap oil / gas pipe with 4/6 threaded fixings factory welded to the top end hence you have to go fully to the design depth or the mast will be way to high...

 

[Sonik]

Checked with a civil engineer friend and there are three ways of making foundations : dig it out, hammer it in, or use a vibration driver. The pile lengths are different for each.

1) To dig it, use an augur (big drill) or if there might be buried cables or pipes a vacuum excavator is much safer. The advantage is get a fairly uneven edge to the hole so when you fill with concrete there is lot of surface to grip surrounding soil.
2) Hammering in a solid pile is rather noisy (although there are quieter hydraulic hammers), so not ideal if you want to do it at night in urban areas. Needs longer piles than concrete as relying on getting down to firm surface
3) Vibration piles, these work fine in soft ground, but if got unstable ground then risk causing the ground around it to move, you wouldn’t use these where there is lot of coal waste in heaps nearby as vibrations could cause slippages.

Apparently Experienced staff working the equipment get a feel for how deep to go, by the amount of resistance. So even if someone sitting in an office has suggested a depth you don’t always get to that depth. It is clearly easier to have bit extra than run out of pile being driven before it is firm enough. But even easier on the ground when filling with concrete as the bottom of the hole doesn’t determine how far out of the ground the top of the pile sticks up.

Excessive Pile lengths (due to overly conservative design) were obviously a troublesome issue for GWEP but that seems to have been cracked now. It would be interesting to know what decisions drove the general move towards steel pile footings because they seem to be inherently more risky both design and installation wise than in-situ concrete.

The other thing driving foundation depth is OLE structures, I've wondered if Brunel's broad gauge formation had some impact on that? Other schemes such as MML seem to have made much greater use of lighter twin track cantilevers which perhaps were not viable structurally for the wider track spacing on GWML.

But the main cost issue IMO has to be clearances due to bridge rebuilds, but again there are workarounds such as surge arrestors becoming more common.

So it's all a learning curve, but to be fair to those involved, perhaps GWEP had some unusual characteristics too that just made the job more difficult (expensive)

 

[Snow1964]

I wonder if reconstruction as 4 tracks with fast and slow lines will greatly simplify overbridge reconstruction.

Unless I am being simplistic, would seem easy to dig out some formation, or even lay a length of slab track to lower the track on the new lines to provide clearance, then switch the current services to new tracks, then temporarily close existing tracks and lower them under bridges with lower clearance.

Anyone know the relative cost of lowering a few hundred metres of track vs cost of rebuilding bridges spanning 4 tracks. I assume if track is still to be laid, or is due to be relaid, altering track height becomes much cheaper as an add on cost.

Linking the Huddersfield-Dewsbury Decision

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1085988/huddersfield-to-westtown-dewsbury-improvements-order-application-decision-letter.pdf

 

[The Lad]

Floodwater may become an issue.

 

[snowball]

There's a lot of documentation on the NR site about how the bridges will be dealt with. I think the document I'm mainly thinking of is the one called "Proof of Evidence - Engineering and Design". Go to this page, click on "Full and Summary Proofs of Evidence" and then on the document name.

 

[323 Class]

A few pics near Ashton.
Definitely progress.

Ans the other one

 

[Ken H]

I know it will be in the documentation somewhere, but what will the track layout be for the 4-track sections? (e.g fasts in the middle; paired slows and fasts)

EDIT: And how will those be squeezed down into the three-track sections between Huddersfield and Marsden?

I am sure it was 4 track around 1980. Maybe it was a tight fit!

 

[snowball]

There was a 20-second item on the lunchtime BBC Look North (Yorkshire) today about the Huddersfield-Westtown upgrade. It gave the impression the new flyover would be at Leeds rather than Ravensthorpe.

 

[Spartacus]

There was a 20-second item on the lunchtime BBC Look North (Yorkshire) today about the Huddersfield-Westtown upgrade. It gave the impression the new flyover would be at Leeds rather than Ravensthorpe.

Lucky they got it in the right county given how inaccurate the media are these days.

 

[snowball]

There's now an NR press release with video. I was wondering why the Beeb waited two or three days. Obviously their item was triggered by the press release.

Revolutionary rail improvements in West Yorkshire given green light

An ambitious multi-billion-pound rail upgrade in West Yorkshire has now been given the green light, bringing a faster, greener, better-connected railway one step closer for passengers in the North of England. It’s the biggest milestone the Transpennine Route Upgrade has ever achieved.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

An ambitious multi-billion-pound rail upgrade in West Yorkshire has now been given the green light, bringing a faster, greener, better-connected railway one step closer for passengers in the North of England. It’s the biggest milestone the Transpennine Route Upgrade has ever achieved.

Network Rail now has the go-ahead to completely transform train journeys between Huddersfield and Westtown (Dewsbury) as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade. The mammoth scheme will see twice as many tracks installed, major renovations at Huddersfield, Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations, and the track layout reimagined.

As well as supporting rapid economic growth in the North of England, these major improvements will ultimately deliver more frequent, faster trains along a cleaner, greener, more reliable railway between York and Manchester.

The Transport and Works Act Order – required for any project that involves building new sections of railway outside of the existing boundaries – was approved by the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday (27 June) six months earlier than planned, kickstarting progress on the ambitious plans and designs. It’s one of the biggest applications ever made by Network Rail.

For anyone who wants a general impression of the proposed layout and the work involved in the scheme, the video in the press release is useful. In essence the slow lines (shown in blue) are what's there now, and the fast lines (in red) are new.

 

[Nottingham59]

In essence the slow lines (shown in blue) are what's there now, and the fast lines (in red) are new.

Have they said why they chose the Down-Up-Down-Up track layout? It's DS-DF-UF-US over the viaduct at the Eastern end of the new build, and that layout would make more sense for the rest of the new line all the way to Huddersfield and beyond.

 

[59CosG95]

Have they said why they chose the Down-Up-Down-Up track layout? It's DS-DF-UF-US over the viaduct at the Eastern end of the new build, and that layout would make more sense for the rest of the new line all the way to Huddersfield and beyond.

The Fast lines, on the south of the formation, cross over the lines to Wakefield and the Up Slow east of the new Ravensthorpe station. It also makes sense to keep the Fast traffic self-contained between Dewsbury & Huddersfield, as the TPE fasts should be the only traffic using it.

 

[snowball]

Have they said why they chose the Down-Up-Down-Up track layout? It's DS-DF-UF-US over the viaduct at the Eastern end of the new build, and that layout would make more sense for the rest of the new line all the way to Huddersfield and beyond.

3.1.37 onwards in the Proof of Evidence - Engineering and Design which I mentioned in #5529.

 

[Nottingham59]

It also makes sense to keep the Fast traffic self-contained between Dewsbury & Huddersfield, as the TPE fasts should be the only traffic using it.

Until there's a broken down train or emergency maintenance needed, and they have to switch from fast to slow or vice versa. The logic of having DD-UU for the Trent Valley four tracking was quite compelling. I assume these lines will all be signalled bidirectionally?

3.1.37 onwards in the Proof of Evidence

Thanks. I'll check that out

EDIT: Basically it says that "From a railway operational viewpoint only, the optimum solution for a new
railway would be to place fast lines in the centre with slow lines on the outside", which is what I was thinking. But in this particular case, four-tracking has to be squeezed into an existing footprint and structures, and DU-DU takes up less width, because it only needs one "ten-foot" for safety, and two "six foots", whereas DD-UU needs two "ten foots" and one "six foot".

Thank you for that information.

(Personally, I'm not sure I agree with that logic if the inner two lines are signalled reversibly, but at least it explains why the decision was made.)

 

[snowball]

If the fast lines were in the middle, you might need up to three new grade-separated junctions: one for the Bradley curve, one for the line coming in from the Calder Valley, and one for the line to Wakefield.

You might be able to drop one of the latter two if you could increase the route between them to a total of five tracks.

 

[Nottingham59]

one for the Bradley curve, one for the line coming in from the Calder Valley, and one for the line to Wakefield.

True, but latter two will be grade-separated in the current plan anyway.

And as for Bradley junction, I think that should be planned for grade-separation too. Once the NPR tunnel gets built, won't the fastest route from Halifax and Bradford to Manchester be via NPR Huddersfield? And Bradford will certainly want its own NPR service to Manchester, the Airport and Liverpool. So there will be demand to redouble the Bradley curve too, pretty soon after NPR starts up.

(But this is all speculative anyway. What is going to get built has already been decided.)

 

[SuperNova]

There's now an NR press release with video. I was wondering why the Beeb waited two or three days. Obviously their item was triggered by the press release.

More down to NR media giving BBC an exclusive. Same happened with W1 last summer.

Until there's a broken down train or emergency maintenance needed, and they have to switch from fast to slow or vice versa. The logic of having DD-UU for the Trent Valley four tracking was quite compelling. I assume these lines will all be signalled bidirectionally?

I believe there's something in the pipeline for crossover from slows to fasts in and around Mirfield.

And as for Bradley junction, I think that should be planned for grade-separation too. Once the NPR tunnel gets built, won't the fastest route from Halifax and Bradford to Manchester be via NPR Huddersfield? And Bradford will certainly want its own NPR service to Manchester, the Airport and Liverpool. So there will be demand to redouble the Bradley curve too, pretty soon after NPR starts up.

The only way that would reasonably happen is if a new line was built to Bradford from Huddersfield, but as it stands (and with this government) it won't.

 

[Revaulx]

I am sure it was 4 track around 1980. Maybe it was a tight fit!

Nah. Diggle Junction to Huddersfield was de-quadrupled in the late 60s, aside from the Diggle and Marsden loops

 

[snowball]

The teatime and late evening editions of Look North had a different version of the item in which the flyover wasn't mentioned but there were hints of confusion between the TWAO section and the whole route.

The teatime edition included a short clip filmed at the site of the proposed temporary station at Hillhouse with construction vehicles moving about in the background, but presumably not working on the station!

 

[quantinghome]

Piling is usually about getting sufficient friction which is a function of surface area and ground conditions rather than going down to something firm/solid is comparatively rare (e.g. Manhattan)

It very much depends what ground conditions you're piling into and what type of pile you're using. Piles get their capacity from both shaft friction and end bearing. Sometimes it's all one or all the other, sometimes it's a mix of both. Piling through soft material to bear onto something more solid is actually very common, particularly in the north of England where a significant amount of the geology is glacial till overlying bedrock. Driven piles such as the circular hollow sections used in electrification have a small cross-sectional area so will have lower end bearing capacity, unless the pile gets 'plugged' by the cylinder of soil inside - which is in itself a difficult thing to predict.

But for electrification mast foundations the main issue is actually the lateral capacity - the vertical loads are pretty small so the pile length is controlled by the need to avoid the pile rotating and moving sideways due to the horizontal forces and moments applied from the overhead lines.

Piling is actually a vast and complex subject for civil engineers - some people can spend their entire careers on it. This 566 page tome is a standard reference book used by practising engineers and even that doesn't touch some of the more complex areas like design for seismic loading - something we thankfully don't have to do too much of in the UK!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

True, but latter two will be grade-separated in the current plan anyway.

And as for Bradley junction, I think that should be planned for grade-separation too. Once the NPR tunnel gets built, won't the fastest route from Halifax and Bradford to Manchester be via NPR Huddersfield? And Bradford will certainly want its own NPR service to Manchester, the Airport and Liverpool. So there will be demand to redouble the Bradley curve too, pretty soon after NPR starts up.

(But this is all speculative anyway. What is going to get built has already been decided.)

Bradley Junction itself is irrelevant to any hypothetical Halifax-Leeds via Brighouse. Bradley Wood Junction at the other end of the Bradley chord would be, but I can't realistically see movements over the chord reaching above 2tph per direction- even that seems a bit optimistic other than when TPE fasts are diverted that way. Realistically a flat junction at Bradley or Bradley Wood isn't likely to become the main constraint on capacity on the line through Brighouse.

As for Bradford to Leeds, if the current TRUG plans are able to offer a faster journey time via Halifax and Brighouse, than a clear run on the direct line via New Pudsey would, I'll eat my hat, your hat, and all the hats of the Coldstream Guards!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Good to travel on the new Miles Platting infrastructure today, leaning into the curve at the new line speed.
It should improve journey times when the timetable is revised.
With 4-track portals being erected up the bank from Victoria, do we know the extent of intended wiring of the Rochdale lines - as far as Brewery Jn perhaps?
Good progress with masts and registration gear as far as Ashton, with some foundations in towards Stalybridge.
Still something of a gap in structures over the M60 and some of the viaducts.
In the few years since the "great extension lead" was installed, nature has hidden most of the trough route with undergrowth and you wouldn't know it existed.

 

[snowball]

With 4-track portals being erected up the bank from Victoria, do we know the extent of intended wiring of the Rochdale lines - as far as Brewery Jn perhaps?

Yes, according to #5245.

In the few years since the "great extension lead" was installed, nature has hidden most of the trough route with undergrowth and you wouldn't know it existed.

A lot of it is visible in the pictures linked in #5493, but there may have been further growth since they were taken.

Edit: and, by the way, the photographer (Freel07) has posted some more this evening, with very little of the extension lead visible.

Electrification

www.skyscrapercity.com

 

[Revaulx]

Good to travel on the new Miles Platting infrastructure today, leaning into the curve at the new line speed.
It should improve journey times when the timetable is revised.
With 4-track portals being erected up the bank from Victoria, do we know the extent of intended wiring of the Rochdale lines - as far as Brewery Jn perhaps?
Good progress with masts and registration gear as far as Ashton, with some foundations in towards Stalybridge.
Still something of a gap in structures over the M60 and some of the viaducts.
In the few years since the "great extension lead" was installed, nature has hidden most of the trough route with undergrowth and you wouldn't know it existed.

Some of the GEL trunking that’s mounted high up on the side of retaining walls is looking very tatty and corroded around the joints; almost as if it was made of a material that was unsuited to the extremely damp local climate.

Will it still be needed once the wires are energised? Why not build a feeder staton at Heyrod?

Yes, according to #5245.


A lot of it is visible in the pictures linked in #5493, but there may have been further growth since they were taken.

Edit: and, by the way, the photographer (Freel07) has posted some more this evening, with very little of the extension lead visible.

Electrification

www.skyscrapercity.com

Things are moving fast now. The Stamford Street bridge still to do. Presumably no layout changes at Stalybridge?

 

[snowball]

Will it still be needed once the wires are energised? Why not build a feeder staton at Heyrod?

Unfortunate if they then need to isolate the wires at Stalybridge and Bolton loses its supply.

 

[59CosG95]

Unfortunate if they then need to isolate the wires at Stalybridge and Bolton loses its supply.

Heyrod is in fact a Feeder Station (or, more pedantically, an ATFS) in its own right. The G.E.L. is just a very, very, very long cable linking it to the OLE at Man Vic.
Once the OLE reaches Stalybridge, the G.E.L. between Staly and Man Vic can probably be removed.