Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Magdalia]

No wonder this project has a 10B price tag when they have a building like this and a comms team that needs to find something to showcase about the project. Railway needs to get a grip on project costs if it is to get back in govts good books and attract this sort of investment that is needed to promote global shift and decarbonisation.

To be fair, a temporary prefab building like that, on railway-owned land, probably compares quite favourably to leasing an office block from the private sector... Especially if the would-be lessor knows it's a publicly-funded infrastructure project. The location is probably an advantage too.

Really? That looks like a colossal waste of money. How is something on that scale possibly required when most of the workers will be on site and presumably most of the design teams will be in the officers of the relevant consultancies who are busily gold plating every step to pull out as much money from the contract as possible. Probably being project managed by another consultancy with the same self-interest.

Here in the Fens we have lots of big construction projects, most of them not railway related. All of them have Portakabin assemblages like this on site. It is the way that 21st century construction does things. They can't all be wrong.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Here in the Fens we have lots of big construction projects, most of them not railway related. All of them have Portakabin assemblages like this on site. It is the way that 21st century construction does things. They can't all be wrong.

Yes you need a project office and site construction offices and its good for staff and the workforce that they are of a much higher quality than old style portakabins dumped on muddy ground but they still cost money. The greater problem on the railway today compared to BR is the the plethora of support staff that big projects have that BR never bothered with. In part its a different for of contracting and design being externalised from the old regional engineering offices changes the dynamics but the railway does need to confront itself on the high cost of projects so it can make the case for more investment.

 

[themiller]

By the time construction starts on site, the bulk of the design is complete and the only design personnel in those temporary buildings are those doing as-built. Generally, design has to be signed-off in order for a project to start - it’s generally a hold point.

 

[xotGD]

In my experience, most of the staff based in site cabins have jobs that require them to don their overalls and PPE and get out on site some of the time.

There is no incentive for employers to have staff site based, incurring expenses, who can perform their role from the home office or working from home.

 

[Elecman]

This is no different to many large raikway project over the last few years the projects rent the modular units for tgd period of the project then hand them back to the rental company ( East West Rail project had 2 big modular office layouts at Bicester and Bletchley and also smaller construction site accommodation units at various other sites on the route.
Ordsall Chord also had a modular site office set up. TRU also has a big modular office set up at Gorton Road in Manchester

 

[Bald Rick]

By the time construction starts on site, the bulk of the design is complete and the only design personnel in those temporary buildings are those doing as-built. Generally, design has to be signed-off in order for a project to start - it’s generally a hold point.

Not necessarily. I can guarantee that there is someone in that office now doing detail design of stuff that will be installed tomorrow.


These modular offices are also reused. The ’Portacabin city’ used as the main offices for phase 2 of HS1 were reused for the Kings Cross rebuild then removed and reused as the Thameslink Programme main offices. And then reused again as Southern Region HQ.

 

[Elecman]

These modular offices are also reused. The ’Portacabin city’ used as the main offices for phase 2 of HS1 were reused for the Kings Cross rebuild then removed and reused as the Thameslink Programme main offices. And then reused again as Southern Region HQ.

Indeed they are!!

 

[swt_passenger]

…These modular offices are also reused. The ’Portacabin city’ used as the main offices for phase 2 of HS1 were reused for the Kings Cross rebuild then removed and reused as the Thameslink Programme main offices. And then reused again as Southern Region HQ.

I’ve often wondered how the planning regime allowed for the long use of the ‘temporary’ NR offices alongside the Waterloo East approaches, do they not have a ‘use by date’?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So, allowing for reuse means it is quite economical and efficient.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I’ve often wondered how the planning regime allowed for the long use of the ‘temporary’ NR offices alongside the Waterloo East approaches, do they not have a ‘use by date’?

I've wondered the same; are these now the southern region HQ?

 

[Elecman]

So, allowing for reuse means it is quite economical and efficient.

Absolutely

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ve often wondered how the planning regime allowed for the long use of the ‘temporary’ NR offices alongside the Waterloo East approaches, do they not have a ‘use by date’?

I forget what the rules are, but AIUI all that land is up for development anyway.

I've wondered the same; are these now the southern region HQ?

Not now, no.

 

[modernrail]

Does the success of the Hitachi battery trial have any implications for electrification on TRU? As in, are we getting to the point where you might assume 100% usage of bimodes in the future (electric/battery) (including freight bimodes) and so not do the very trickiest and expensive bits, or is it still better to do them and have an all electric fleet, in terms of long term costs?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Not necessarily. I can guarantee that there is someone in that office now doing detail design of stuff that will be installed tomorrow.


These modular offices are also reused. The ’Portacabin city’ used as the main offices for phase 2 of HS1 were reused for the Kings Cross rebuild then removed and reused as the Thameslink Programme main offices. And then reused again as Southern Region HQ.

Yep and temporary works design will go on until the end of the project and is a huge job in itself.

You will have all sorts of people in those offices including possession planners etc. The railway now comes with a huge support cast.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Does the success of the Hitachi battery trial have any implications for electrification on TRU? As in, are we getting to the point where you might assume 100% usage of bimodes in the future (electric/battery) (including freight bimodes) and so not do the very trickiest and expensive bits, or is it still better to do them and have an all electric fleet, in terms of long term costs?

Isn't it more about Hitachi bidding for other contracts (eg the Northern one) which requires a mix of EMU, bi-mode and battery?
I doubt there is any plan to have discontinuous wiring on TRU (after only recently getting full wiring approved).
Maybe it would work for (say) Calder Valley services which can use TRU wires on some sections but not others.

 

[Nottingham59]

Does the success of the Hitachi battery trial have any implications for electrification on TRU?

Yes it does. Though it makes economic sense for mainlines carrying around 6tph or more to be electrified fully. (Or at least that was the breakeven point when they published the MML busines case some years ago. The breakeven may have changed since then, but not by much.) So I'd say that TRU should have OHLE all the way.

The implications from batterification come in the specification of the power supply and the capability of the OHLE. For instance, when Huddersfield gets done, then the Penistone line could go over to battery and it would be a waste not to design the TRU to have the capacity need to recharge those services.

Similarly, batterification of local services around Leeds will need capacity to recharge BEMUs. I do hope that the TRU electrification is being specified to provide that capacity, or at least be have the correct passive provision to upgrade the grid supply points and the current-carrying capacity of the wires at the places that BEMUs will be taking large recharge currents.

The rail network will have similar issues with bimode freight locomotives. When 30 Class 99s arrive, they will mostly haul intermodals on the WCML and ECML, and each can draw the current (6000kW) of an 11-car Pendolino. I don't know if the power supply of those routes is going to be up to the job.

 

[hwl]

Similarly, batterification of local services around Leeds will need capacity to recharge BEMUs. I do hope that the TRU electrification is being specified to provide that capacity, or at least be have the correct passive provision to upgrade the grid supply points and the current-carrying capacity of the wires at the places that BEMUs will be taking large recharge currents.

Agreed significant electrification is still needed to charge batteries for quieter branches and also to keep battery usage to sensible levels so they aren't trashed to quickly.

The rail network will have similar issues with bimode freight locomotives. When 30 Class 99s arrive, they will mostly haul intermodals on the WCML and ECML, and each can draw the current (6000kW) of an 11-car Pendolino. I don't know if the power supply of those routes is going to be up to the job.

The default is that the OHLE should be able to support at least 300A per train which equates to 7500kw at 25KV.
Don't be surprised if you see 99s on the MML and hauling lots of heavy haul loads every where as well.

 

[superkev]

Another interesting videos from Sarah bell showing the various works east of Leeds listed in the transport and works order.
I didnt realise there were still bridges to modify including a unique very old cast iron overbridge.

On a side note has there been any visible progress during the current November diversions via Wakefield K?
Thanks
K

 

[Halifaxlad]

I have and very few of them were on-site. Why do those teams need to be in a prefab in Huddersfield rather than their usual offices in Leeds, Manchester or wherever? I could get it in a former era but is that really how it best works now?

I do believe it also includes living accommodation although don't quote me on that.

It certainly is more than just offices for the design teams, dont forget a large portion will also be mess facilities.

 

[modernrail]

I do believe it also includes living accommodation although don't quote me on that.

It certainly is more than just offices for the design teams, dont forget a large portion will also be mess facilities.

I did think about this after my original comment. Are lots of the people working on this site and others on TRU commuting from their homes daily or is there a big living accommodation bill for lots of overnight stays as well? If there is - where do workers tend to sleep - hotels, rented accommodation etc.

 

[Killingworth]

I did think about this after my original comment. Are lots of the people working on this site and others on TRU commuting from their homes daily or is there a big living accommodation bill for lots of overnight stays as well? If there is - where do workers tend to sleep - hotels, rented accommodation etc.

Having observed hundreds of workers (and spoken to quite a few) on the much smaller Hope Valley scheme I was at first surprised by the numbers travelling long distances by road every day. Although working to the west side of Sheffield some were staying at hotels in Doncaster. A few rented local accommodation. They've mostly come from England but also Scotland, Wales and Ireland. A lot of environmentally unwelcome motoring.

However most were not working on this project exclusively. With many sub-contractors themselves sub-contracting specialised parts of their work on and beside a live railway it's impossible do otherwise. Locally much comparison has been made with the way in which the original lines were built by gangs working long hours, probably 6 days a week. They were accommodated near the sites in temporary buildings of variable quality, more senior workers maybe in local houses. That's not practical with projects like these.

There seems to have been a lot of office type work. The amount of orange army activity has had to be limited around the active railway, much only within blockades booked over 6 months in advance. Most workers will also have been working on other sites nationwide over the same period. Planning all this in itself requires a lot of detailed co-ordination.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Another interesting videos from Sarah bell showing the various works east of Leeds listed in the transport and works order.
I didnt realise there were still bridges to modify including a unique very old cast iron overbridge.

On a side note has there been any visible progress during the current November diversions via Wakefield K?
Thanks
K

Despite travelling the line every day, never knew how man level crossings there were between Leeds and York. I assume the project is aiming to get rid of all of them.

On a side note, does anyone know what the final plans for Neville hill look like? There is some beefy sheet piles to the east end of the former sidings and I cannot for the life of me work out what they are for in terms of the alignment. I know TRU said it's to stabilise an embankment but not sure I buy that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The bridge reconstructions are interesting.
This was a 4-track route, and now reduced to 2-track but offset to one side - presumably it was the slow line pair that was lifted.
It isn't clear to me if the tracks were now realigned under the centre of the arches it would obviate the need to raise them.
But I expect NR knows what it is doing.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

It isn't clear to me if the tracks were now realigned under the centre of the arches it would obviate the need to raise them.
But I expect NR knows what it is doing.

That was exactly my thoughts when I saw the profiles, particularly as they are listed.

 

[sturmey_archer]

This looks like a four-track alignment, and it was intended to be... but there have never been more than two tracks here. When the Leeds and Selby Railway was built in the 1830s, enough land was purchased to build four-tracks, and the bridges were built to accommodate four tracks, but the earthworks were not - I guess it was sensible to dig only the earthworks they needed and extend them later, whereas building two-track bridges would be a false economy if they would soon need demolishing and widening. In the end, the extra tracks were never needed, other than West of Cross Gates.

If you travel by train along here, you can see that there is no spare space in the cutting for more tracks (if there was, it would probably have been repurposed as an van access track for maintenance.).

A hundred years later, we have different ideas about how safe it is to dig new earthworks next to an operational railway, and we would no longer build new cutting slopes as steep as the victorians, so it might be that reconstructing the bridges was cheaper and less disruptive than realigning the tracks.

 

[grdc]

Had a try this afternoon to gain access off Sunny Bank Road - Unfortunately, Northern Gas are installing new gas pipes - see first pic below.

A couple of pics below with the latter a long distance attempt at seeing works around the now demolished footbridge.

View attachment 168699View attachment 168700

Following on from your visit, I had a walk down to Lamplands today to see what was happening.

Sunny Bank Road was as you found it, closed by Northern Gas Networks, with the the notices I photographed in 2023 noticeably absent from the gate as in your picture.

I then went round to the Howley Mill Lane end, where I found many more of the notices from April 2023 referencing a "temporary closure" for "emergency repairs."

I pressed on past the notices to find more gasworks on the last straight stretch of path up to bridge location.

There are no further notices, no mention of the footpath being extinguished, diverted or the bridge being demolished.

At the top of the lane, you meet the start of the brickwork from the bridge structure that they have left behind, and installed a palisade fence in the gap.

Looking over the fence, you can see that they have turned the opposite side into an official Network Rail access gate, complete with information board and solar powered streetlamp, with the remainder of the footpath support structure fenced off.

It certainly looks from here like they have no intention of reopening this crossing, but cannot for the life of me understand why it is impossible to find any information about what is going on.

Googling MDL1/34 (the bridge ID) Bat/20/30 (the Kirklees footpath ID) or Morley 139 (the Leeds footpath ID) reveals nothing at all; combined with the complete lack of official notices makes this all a bit of a mystery.

Perhaps we are all getting worked up over nothing, and they intend to replace the footbridge with one compatible with OHLE and we just need to wait it out? Hmmm....

I'm almost certain that the right of way will not be extinguished, legally, that's not allowed. It can be temporarily closed or diverted but certainly not extinguished. Whether Leeds City Council have the money to replace the bridge is another matter. If you e-mail the Public Rights of Way team at Leeds City Council they should be able to give you more info on what they plan to do.

As someone spends tonnes of time walking round West and North Yorkshire, and who has reported footpath Issues to Leeds, Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford and Harrogate councils, the only one who ever responded in a helpful way at all was Harrogate Borough Council. Shame they no longer exist.

My last attempt at contacting Leeds City Counci's PROW and legal departments was regarding the expired closure order for all of the footpaths around the site of White Rose station. I find it extremely disrespectful that Metro and Munro K allowed its contractor to walk off and leave the footpaths closed with no intention of ever finishing the station. The correct thing to do would have been to move the fencing around, to block the work sites and reopen the footpaths, but of course they didn't. Why would they? This is Leeds/ West Yorkshire/ the UK delete as appropriate, who cares! Footpaths are for chumps.

Anyway, back to the point, they never responded so I don't really see much point in wasting any time contacting them, they really don't care.

I wonder if they'll just leave the two footpaths extant, to save going through the hoops to extinguish them, but not replace the bridge, with the railway as a barrier in the middle. This is exactly what happened in between Morley and the White Rose centre when they closed two foot level crossings and replaced one with a bridge, the other with a fence. The footpath that led to the second crossing, Morley 148, still exists on the definitive map of PROWs, but in reality no-one is going to walk on it as it leads nowhere. Interestingly Morley 148 is one of the footpaths I allude to above, "temporarily" stopped up for six months, from 17 June 2021. LOL.

 

[AndyHudds]

Following on from your visit, I had a walk down to Lamplands today to see what was happening.

Sunny Bank Road was as you found it, closed by Northern Gas Networks, with the the notices I photographed in 2023 noticeably absent from the gate as in your picture.

I then went round to the Howley Mill Lane end, where I found many more of the notices from April 2023 referencing a "temporary closure" for "emergency repairs."

I pressed on past the notices to find more gasworks on the last straight stretch of path up to bridge location.
View attachment 168986
There are no further notices, no mention of the footpath being extinguished, diverted or the bridge being demolished.

At the top of the lane, you meet the start of the brickwork from the bridge structure that they have left behind, and installed a palisade fence in the gap.
View attachment 168987
Looking over the fence, you can see that they have turned the opposite side into an official Network Rail access gate, complete with information board and solar powered streetlamp, with the remainder of the footpath support structure fenced off.
View attachment 168988View attachment 168989
View attachment 168990It certainly looks from here like they have no intention of reopening this crossing, but cannot for the life of me understand why it is impossible to find any information about what is going on.

Googling MDL1/34 (the bridge ID) Bat/20/30 (the Kirklees footpath ID) or Morley 139 (the Leeds footpath ID) reveals nothing at all; combined with the complete lack of official notices makes this all a bit of a mystery.

Perhaps we are all getting worked up over nothing, and they intend to replace the footbridge with one compatible with OHLE and we just need to wait it out? Hmmm....



As someone spends tonnes of time walking round West and North Yorkshire, and who has reported footpath Issues to Leeds, Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford and Harrogate councils, the only one who ever responded in a helpful way at all was Harrogate Borough Council. Shame they no longer exist.

My last attempt at contacting Leeds City Counci's PROW and legal departments was regarding the expired closure order for all of the footpaths around the site of White Rose station. I find it extremely disrespectful that Metro and Munro K allowed its contractor to walk off and leave the footpaths closed with no intention of ever finishing the station. The correct thing to do would have been to move the fencing around, to block the work sites and reopen the footpaths, but of course they didn't. Why would they? This is Leeds/ West Yorkshire/ the UK delete as appropriate, who cares! Footpaths are for chumps.

Anyway, back to the point, they never responded so I don't really see much point in wasting any time contacting them, they really don't care.

I wonder if they'll just leave the two footpaths extant, to save going through the hoops to extinguish them, but not replace the bridge, with the railway as a barrier in the middle. This is exactly what happened in between Morley and the White Rose centre when they closed two foot level crossings and replaced one with a bridge, the other with a fence. The footpath that led to the second crossing, Morley 148, still exists on the definitive map of PROWs, but in reality no-one is going to walk on it as it leads nowhere. Interestingly Morley 148 is one of the footpaths I allude to above, "temporarily" stopped up for six months, from 17 June 2021. LOL.

Have you tried e-mailing Leeds City Council ROW team over this? I see no reason as to why they can't give you an update or even put a Freedom of Information request in as to the paths future status. I agree it's pretty poor form in respect of the path and certainly the paths around the White Rose site too. They removed the foot crossing a number of years back further up but that had an alternative path nearby which caused little diversion but this does need a hefty detour.

 

[grdc]

Have you tried e-mailing Leeds City Council ROW team over this? I see no reason as to why they can't give you an update or even put a Freedom of Information request in as to the paths future status. I agree it's pretty poor form in respect of the path and certainly the paths around the White Rose site too. They removed the foot crossing a number of years back further up but that had an alternative path nearby which caused little diversion but this does need a hefty detour.

Yeah, I tried contacting Leeds CC about the White Rose situation and got no response, hence not wanting to waste my time trying them regarding Howley Mill Lane.

As we all know, most councils are extremely financially constrained, so marginal services tend to be very poorly funded. Is there anything more marginal than public footpaths?

In my experience, the permanent way officer at most councils tends to be one person, who works part time and has very few tools available to them when you can get through to them, and have them understand your issue (not a given).

If I come across as negative, it's purely based on reporting overgrown/barbed wired/fenced/signs removed/intimidation from landowners/their dogs on many PROWs to various councils and never achieving anything.

 

[D6130]

Yeah, I tried contacting Leeds CC about the White Rose situation and got no response, hence not wanting to waste my time trying them regarding Howley Mill Lane.

As we all know, most councils are extremely financially constrained, so marginal services tend to be very poorly funded. Is there anything more marginal than public footpaths?

In my experience, the permanent way officer at most councils tends to be one person, who works part time and has very few tools available to them when you can get through to them, and have them understand your issue (not a given).

If I come across as negative, it's purely based on reporting overgrown/barbed wired/fenced/signs removed/intimidation from landowners/their dogs on many PROWs to various councils and never achieving anything.

It might be worth contacting the local branch of the Ramblers Association. They will have volunteer footpaths officers who will be in regular contact with the appropriate people in the council and may be able to extract more information.

 

[Killingworth]

It might be worth contacting the local branch of the Ramblers Association. They will have volunteer footpaths officers who will be in regular contact with the appropriate people in the council and may be able to extract more information.

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society also monitor footpaths in that area, see; https://www.peakandnorthern.org.uk/