Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Greybeard33]

The Dantzic Street bridge is just beyond the eastern throat of Victoria, so presumably the remaining services into the station from the west will all have to reverse in Platforms 3 - 6. That could be quite challenging to timetable.

From Streetview it appears that the Metrolink tracks are on a separate deck of the bridge, so maybe they could remain open. Unless the opportunity is taken to refurbish the entire structure.

Edit: the footpath through the Bromley Street subway crosses the Metrolink tracks on a footbridge. Therefore that part of the works should not affect Metrolink.

 

[BrianW]

Thanks. M60lad seems to have found this page on the NR site. Either this content wasn't there when I last looked, or I missed it.

It might be useful if 'announcements'/ reports etc carried a date- that would also help with 'revisions' so you know which is the more recent, like on drawings, or 'track changes' (sorry about the pun!) on a document?
I love the answer to the FAQ about 'compensation'- 33 words to say no?

 

[jonesy3001]

Will they put up the wires up after the bridges have been finished or will that mean another blockade in the near future?

 

[adamedwards]

I'm assuming wires are a separate project unless getting wires to Newton Heath would enable depot turn back and crew changeover? But once the track is done Vic to Stalybridge ought to be a no brained.

 

[jonesy3001]

Didn't know Newton heath was getting electrified, be great if it did.

 

[snowball]

The renders in the video seem to show wires on the Stalybridge lines but not the Rochdale lines where they pass over Queens Road.

I don't claim that that proves anything either way.

 

[59CosG95]

Didn't know Newton heath was getting electrified, be great if it did.

I think the post above yours was more hypothetical - a suggestion, if you will, to ease crew change arrangements.

AFAIK wires are only going to Stalybridge from Miles Platting, and the install date for them will probably be after the bridge is done.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The renders in the video seem to show wires on the Stalybridge lines but not the Rochdale lines where they pass over Queens Road.

I don't claim that that proves anything either way.

I think they will at least do a 100 m overlap of wire run so the junction will not need doing in future. Or should I say common sense dictates they will.

 

[Class 170101]

I think they will at least a 100 m overlap so the junction will not need doing in future. Or should I say commonsensical dictates they will.

And helps with issues of wrong routings and how to resolve them.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A Cab Ride from Manchester Oxford Road to York via Manchester Victoria has been posted on YouTube on 04/01/21, the Cab Ride is from May 2020.
Manchester Oxford Road to York - YouTube

I watched this can see National Grid power lines in view at about 19:50 but I can’t easily spot Heyrod Grid Feeder. Is it easily visible or am I missing something?

 

[Elecman]

I watched this can see National Grid power lines in view at about 19:50 but I can’t easily spot Heyrod Grid Feeder. Is it easily visible or am I missing something?

It’s down the bottom of the upside embankment so on the wrong side of the line for viewing from a down line train, but it’s where the Long Extension Lead (HOIF) ducting finishes at the Undertrack crossing just before the footbridge

 

[59CosG95]

The February Work Tracker for the Church Fenton - York scheme is now online. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/York-to-Church-Fenton-February-Tracker.pdf
Piling should be finished by the end of the month, and steelwork should be going up in a fortnight or so.

 

[CrickUK]

The February Work Tracker for the Church Fenton - York scheme is now online. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/York-to-Church-Fenton-February-Tracker.pdf
Piling should be finished by the end of the month, and steelwork should be going up in a fortnigh

I passed Braegate Lane compound on Saturday, looks like there are a couple of artic loads of structural steel stacked up, which I take to be the OLE structures

 

[Halish Railway]

I passed Braegate Lane compound on Saturday, looks like there are a couple of artic loads of structural steel stacked up, which I take to be the OLE structures

Were you able to see what design of OLE structure they would be for?

 

[CrickUK]

Were you able to see what design of OLE structure they would be for?

Unfortunately not, they are set quite a long way back from the road, looked like just the columns rather than any head span members

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unfortunately not, they are set quite a long way back from the road, looked like just the columns rather than any head span members

I would be absolutely shocked if headspans were used. Portals and cantilevers much more likely I would have thought.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I doubt it given the flaky nature of headspans in that one going can easily bring the lot down. Then again the use of some headspans "may" be more cost effective at this stage as there will no doubt be changes to the structures and layouts once HS2 joins the ECML.

Personally I don't want it to stop at Church Fenton, I would want to see work continue through Micklefield and on to Neville Hill. I know it will eventually but sooner rather than later as I don't see the benefit in ending the wires at Church Fenton.

 

[greyman42]

Personally I don't want it to stop at Church Fenton, I would want to see work continue through Micklefield and on to Neville Hill. I know it will eventually but sooner rather than later as I don't see the benefit in ending the wires at Church Fenton.

There are no benefits as pans will continue to be raised and dropped at York, unless someone knows otherwise.

 

[plugwash]

The impression I got was that headspans were a pain to modify as changes to one wire would have a knock-on effect on others and that they way to go for ease of modification was "small part steelwork" hung from a fixed portal or cantilever beam.

 

[Halish Railway]

I doubt it given the flaky nature of headspans in that one going can easily bring the lot down. Then again the use of some headspans "may" be more cost effective at this stage as there will no doubt be changes to the structures and layouts once HS2 joins the ECML.

Siemens SICAT SA electrification will be used, suspended in some form portals, although headspans could still be used in more discrete areas on TRU, such as the line adjacent to the Standedge Tunnel and visitor centre. I can’t think of anywhere else asides from Rainhill station in which headspans where installed where electrification didn’t previously exist.

I should have clarified my previous question - I really should have asked what design of portals are on sight in the works compound, whether it be traditional lattice portals or the newer design used on the GWML, semi-portals that are being used on the MML electrification or complete portals.

 

[Kieran1990]

There are no benefits as pans will continue to be raised and dropped at York, unless someone knows otherwise.

Isn’t panning up and down only done at York as a preference by TPE? I’m sure they will have there arms twisted into using the new infrastructure...

 

[themiller]

There are no benefits as pans will continue to be raised and dropped at York, unless someone knows otherwise.

I thought that the idea behind the extension of the wiring was to get the changeover point out of the complex York station area onto a simple section.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are no benefits as pans will continue to be raised and dropped at York, unless someone knows otherwise.

Almost certainly they will be raised / dropped at Church Fenton.

 

[59CosG95]

Siemens SICAT SA electrification will be used, suspended in some form portals, although headspans could still be used in more discrete areas on TRU, such as the line adjacent to the Standedge Tunnel and visitor centre. I can’t think of anywhere else asides from Rainhill station in which headspans where installed where electrification didn’t previously exist.

I should have clarified my previous question - I really should have asked what design of portals are on sight in the works compound, whether it be traditional lattice portals or the newer design used on the GWML, semi-portals that are being used on the MML electrification or complete portals.

Glasgow Queen St HL is another that has headspans from new.

AFAIK, two-track cantilevers (TTCs) are the go-to for multi-track electrification nowadays, with portals generally being reserved for complex areas (e.g. station throats), stations themselves, and mid-point and termination anchors.
The MML uses some of the GWML's anchor portals too.

 

[tpjm]

Almost certainly they will be raised / dropped at Church Fenton.

With the power of APCO balise (automatic power change-over)

 

[ABB125]

AFAIK, two-track cantilevers (TTCs) are the go-to for multi-track electrification nowadays, with portals generally being reserved for complex areas (e.g. station throats), stations themselves, and mid-point and termination anchors.
The MML uses some of the GWML's anchor portals too.

Whilst I understand that the (main?) benefit of TTCs is that they can be installed in one go (on a double track line) or with the adjacent line pair staying open (3/4 tracks), surely from a cost point of view portal structures are better, because the upright bits (I can't think of the proper name ) don't need to be able to cope with anything near as high turning forces and can therefore be much smaller (along with smaller foundations)? There are also environmental benefits (less steel used due to the masts being smaller), and possibly more flexibility (eg: in future, one track may need to be moved a metre to the side. With a portal, the bit that holds up the wire can simple be slid across to the new position (I assume, but this is the rail industry so logic may not apply! ), but with a TTC the "half-portal" (horizontal bit) might not reach the new track position).

 

[Brissle Girl]

A personal view . From an aesthetic perspective TTCs are much more ugly than a simple and symmetrical pair of cantilevers on each side of the track.

 

[ABB125]

A personal view . From an aesthetic perspective TTCs are much more ugly than a simple and symmetrical pair of cantilevers on each side of the track.

I entirely agree!
I saw a cab-ride video heading out of Bristol Parkway sometime last year, and the assortment of OHLE was truly shocking (no pun intended!): sometimes there were "normal" single-track cantilevers, sometimes TTCs, and sometimes (for some unknown reason) double track portals. There was also huge variation in the size and shape of the upright bits: some were absolutely massive, the oft-mentioned "cruise ship moorings", some were medium sized, and some were very small. There was also variation between "box-shape" and "I-beam".

 

[Halish Railway]

I entirely agree!
I saw a cab-ride video heading out of Bristol Parkway sometime last year, and the assortment of OHLE was truly shocking (no pun intended!): sometimes there were "normal" single-track cantilevers, sometimes TTCs, and sometimes (for some unknown reason) double track portals. There was also huge variation in the size and shape of the upright bits: some were absolutely massive, the oft-mentioned "cruise ship moorings", some were medium sized, and some were very small. There was also variation between "box-shape" and "I-beam".

Absolutely, I can’t help but feel that the Series 1 Furrer+Frey electrification is extraordinary over-engineered when the role it performs on the GWML is considered. It really seemed like Network Rail tried to reinvent the wheel by installing such a complex OHLE design on what is essentially a bog-standard intercity railway.

Siemens SICAT is far more conventional, and by conventional I mean sympathetic to the eye and the surrounding environment, being similar to Mk3 electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst I understand that the (main?) benefit of TTCs is that they can be installed in one go (on a double track line) or with the adjacent line pair staying open (3/4 tracks), surely from a cost point of view portal structures are better, because the upright bits (I can't think of the proper name ) don't need to be able to cope with anything near as high turning forces and can therefore be much smaller (along with smaller foundations)? There are also environmental benefits (less steel used due to the masts being smaller), and possibly more flexibility (eg: in future, one track may need to be moved a metre to the side. With a portal, the bit that holds up the wire can simple be slid across to the new position (I assume, but this is the rail industry so logic may not apply! ), but with a TTC the "half-portal" (horizontal bit) might not reach the new track position).

The cost of a bit more steel will only be a tiny part of the total cost of getting a structure installed on site. On a four-track railway two tracks can often be closed at quieter times without disruption, as the timetable is planned to work with only two tracks, but getting possession of all four tracks to install a portal is only possible when there is no service or if the service is suspended. The TTC can probably cope with minor realignments, but larger ones will almost certainly need a new pile for either type of structure.

Absolutely, I can’t help but feel that the Series 1 Furrer+Frey electrification is extraordinary over-engineered when the role it performs on the GWML is considered. It really seemed like Network Rail tried to reinvent the wheel by installing such a complex OHLE design on what is essentially a bog-standard intercity railway.

Siemens SICAT is far more conventional, and by conventional I mean sympathetic to the eye and the surrounding environment, being similar to Mk3 electrification.

Looking at pictures of the recent MML electrification it's much more easy to accept visually. TTCs are used but they are nearly all of the same type (visually at least) and installed opposite each other.