Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[childwallblues]

Great start

Thank you.

 

[ainsworth74]

Please see the existing thread on a proposed Skipton - Colne reopening. This thread is for the Transpennine Route Upgrade which does not include that reopening scheme.

 

[59CosG95]

Please see the existing thread on a proposed Skipton - Colne reopening. This thread is for the Transpennine Route Upgrade which does not include that reopening scheme.

Thanks @ainsworth74. I'm sure discussion on the TRU will continue apace.

 

[Senex]

What's the betting that in ten years' time we shall still be travelling between Liverpool and Manchester and between Manchester and Leeds at average speeds below 60mph?

 

[59CosG95]

What's the betting that in ten years' time we shall still be travelling between Liverpool and Manchester and between Manchester and Leeds at average speeds below 60mph?

A pessimistic betting.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What's the betting that in ten years' time we shall still be travelling between Liverpool and Manchester and between Manchester and Leeds at average speeds below 60mph?

The alternative is the M62 car-park, so good luck getting anywhere close to an average speed of 60mph from city centre to city centre during daylight hours...

The problem with the current thinking on the route is that it's trying to be both a high-quality intercity route, and a high frequency proto-S-bahn. As long as it tries to do both, it won't be great at either.

 

[Halifaxlad]

If we are going to be silly why not convert the M62 into a tram train?

 

[driver_m]

I'd put more money on a poor quality extended M65 towards Skipton than a genuine improvement of the TP rail routes.

Apols if this question has been asked before but how much of the line EAST of Huddersfield was historically 4 tracked pre the usual BR rationalisation? Standedge always gets mentioned but how much sustained 4 tracking could be had between Hudds and Leeds?

 

[Senex]

I'd put more money on a poor quality extended M65 towards Skipton than a genuine improvement of the TP rail routes.

Apols if this question has been asked before but how much of the line EAST of Huddersfield was historically 4 tracked pre the usual BR rationalisation? Standedge always gets mentioned but how much sustained 4 tracking could be had between Hudds and Leeds?

Four tracks between Huddersfield and the (flat) junction with the L&Y line at Heaton Lodge, and then four tracks along that line right through to Wakefield, so well beyond the junction with the LNW Leeds line at Ravensthorpe. Two tracks thence to Leeds. But there was of course the Leeds New line which effectively gave four tracks all the way from Huddersfield to Leeds. There were the two routes into Leeds, via Whitehall Jn and via the later Viaduct Line into the Joint Station, but passenger traffic used only the Viaduct Line in from Farnley Jn.

 

[driver_m]

Four tracks between Huddersfield and the (flat) junction with the L&Y line at Heaton Lodge, and then four tracks along that line right through to Wakefield, so well beyond the junction with the LNW Leeds line at Ravensthorpe. Two tracks thence to Leeds. But there was of course the Leeds New line which effectively gave four tracks all the way from Huddersfield to Leeds. There were the two routes into Leeds, via Whitehall Jn and via the later Viaduct Line into the Joint Station, but passenger traffic used only the Viaduct Line in from Farnley Jn.

Thanks for that. I know very little about the railway over that side , is it straightforward to 4 track or are we talking similar to Wavertree Tech Park and Broad Green, Liverpool where there are breaches of the trackbed

 

[wellhouse]

Thanks for that. I know very little about the railway over that side , is it straightforward to 4 track or are we talking similar to Wavertree Tech Park and Broad Green, Liverpool where there are breaches of the trackbed

Full information on the Leeds New Line route here

http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/leeds new line 1.htm

 

[Senex]

Thanks for that. I know very little about the railway over that side , is it straightforward to 4 track or are we talking similar to Wavertree Tech Park and Broad Green, Liverpool where there are breaches of the trackbed

In effect classic four track Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe Jn, with the two two-tracks routes on to Farnely Jn on completely different alignements, several miles apart from each other at the greatest separation. The old route was the one from Ravensthorpe Jn through Dewsbury to Farnley and then on to Whitehall Jn. The Leeds New Line (Spen Valley Line, opened 1900) on which you'll get full info from the source Wellhouse cites, diverged just before Heaton Lodge Jn, dived under the L&Y Calder Valley main line, and then headed off on its own route to re-join the older route at Farnley. It was also at Farnley that the Viaduct Line diverged to provide the connection directly into the Leeds Joint Station when that was built to join up the LNW and the NER in 1869.

 

[matacaster]

In effect classic four track Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe Jn, with the two two-tracks routes on to Farnely Jn on completely different alignements, several miles apart from each other at the greatest separation. The old route was the one from Ravensthorpe Jn through Dewsbury to Farnley and then on to Whitehall Jn. The Leeds New Line (Spen Valley Line, opened 1900) on which you'll get full info from the source Wellhouse cites, diverged just before Heaton Lodge Jn, dived under the L&Y Calder Valley main line, and then headed off on its own route to re-join the older route at Farnley. It was also at Farnley that the Viaduct Line diverged to provide the connection directly into the Leeds Joint Station when that was built to join up the LNW and the NER in 1869.

You are of course correct, but even now, the other pair that diverges at Ravensthorpe goes to Wakefield Kirkgate and then Normanton to Leeds, giving a longer, but potentially higher speed route (although it is well below the potential max speed.

 

[superkev]

You are of course correct, but even now, the other pair that diverges at Ravensthorpe goes to Wakefield Kirkgate and then Normanton to Leeds, giving a longer, but potentially higher speed route (although it is well below the potential max speed.

I've always puzzled why Ravensthorpe only has platforms on the Leeds lines when the Wakefield lines are so near.
K

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've always puzzled why Ravensthorpe only has platforms on the Leeds lines when the Wakefield lines are so near.
K

I'm not sure of the history of the decision, though as a station it struggles- being among the lowest used stations in West Yorkshire. There's no housing in the immediate vicinity, and AIUI a fair amount of the surrounding land is thought likely to be unsuitable for housing development due to contamination.

If the junction is to be radically changed as part of the upgrade, then difficult decisions over Ravensthorpe may have to be made.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

It is potentially 4 track all the way to Manchester as the 4 track continued from Huddersfield through Golcar, Marsden and standedge tunnel to Diggle where the micklehurst loop diverged and rejoined the route at Stalybridge. You then have your split to Man Vicc via Ashton and Man Picc via Guide Bridge. The formation is again 4 track between guide bridge through Ashburys along the former woodhead lines into Piccadilly.

Of course the viaducts along Micklehurst have now long gone but you can still see where the junctions were located at Diggle and in the mouth of Stalybridge Tunnel

 

[Senex]

You are of course correct, but even now, the other pair that diverges at Ravensthorpe goes to Wakefield Kirkgate and then Normanton to Leeds, giving a longer, but potentially higher speed route (although it is well below the potential max speed.

Yes, the original route of the Manchester & Leeds Railway. It could be a very high-speed route (if the original alignment at Healey Mills were restored). To get a really good impression of it, see Don Coffey's splendid cab-view video on YouTube.

 

[Senex]

It is potentially 4 track all the way to Manchester as the 4 track continued from Huddersfield through Golcar, Marsden and standedge tunnel to Diggle where the micklehurst loop diverged and rejoined the route at Stalybridge. You then have your split to Man Vicc via Ashton and Man Picc via Guide Bridge. The formation is again 4 track between guide bridge through Ashburys along the former woodhead lines into Piccadilly.

Of course the viaducts along Micklehurst have now long gone but you can still see where the junctions were located at Diggle and in the mouth of Stalybridge Tunnel

The Micklehurst Loop was built as the quadrupling because it was not practical to provide the two additional tracks on the other side of the valley through Mossley. There was in effect a four-track railway from Heaton Norris Jn to Leeds if you take into account the alternative routes from Denton Jn to Stalybridge, from Stalybridge to Diggle Jn, and then from Heaton Lodge to Leeds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've just been reading Roger Ford's e-preview of his column in the March Modern Railways:
http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2019.02.18.03.45.archive.txt

His first item is on electrification costs, and it seems NR has been challenged to produce an electrification plan for the whole of the TP route, for the current estimate of the partial scheme cost (ie filling in Huddersfield-Stalybridge "for free" by saving the costs required ).
That is based on lessons learned from the recent overspends, and applying new design standards to the project.
The gist is that with these changes, costs should be £1.0-1.2 million per stkm* rather than the £2-3.5 million of recent NR schemes.
There is also scope to reduce future costs to the European average of £0.8 million/stkm (though I seem to remember reading words like that before, in the 2009 RUS).
A report is also due on 28 Feb about electrification costs. (RIA/DfT/NR).
A great read for us optimists.
Whether DfT will buy it for CP6 implementation is another story.

* stkm = single track km.

 

[CdBrux]

I would hope future electrification costs are budgeted at around the average of recent NR schemes, with maybe a small variation depending on complexity, and this is only changed as NR demonstrate via projects completed under budget and on time. To agree a project based on £1.0-1.2 million vs £2-3.5 million would seem utter folly to me.

 

[Ken H]

I've just been reading Roger Ford's e-preview of his column in the March Modern Railways:
http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2019.02.18.03.45.archive.txt

His first item is on electrification costs, and it seems NR has been challenged to produce an electrification plan for the whole of the TP route, for the current estimate of the partial scheme cost (ie filling in Huddersfield-Stalybridge "for free" by saving the costs required ).
That is based on lessons learned from the recent overspends, and applying new design standards to the project.
The gist is that with these changes, costs should be £1.0-1.2 million per stkm* rather than the £2-3.5 million of recent NR schemes.
There is also scope to reduce future costs to the European average of £0.8 million/stkm (though I seem to remember reading words like that before, in the 2009 RUS).
A report is also due on 28 Feb about electrification costs. (RIA/DfT/NR).
A great read for us optimists.
Whether DfT will buy it for CP6 implementation is another story.

* stkm = single track km.

why not start on the easy bits? Neville Hill - Colton Jct would be a good start. No tunnels, not a huge numbers of bridges. Nice for the TPE bi-modes and an electric diversionary route from Donny to York.

 

[Bevan Price]

I've always puzzled why Ravensthorpe only has platforms on the Leeds lines when the Wakefield lines are so near.
K

Station was on a LNWR line; Wakefield line was L&YR -- and that once had other stations closer to populated areas, e.g. Thornhill and two stations in Horbury.

 

[Wtloild]

The alternative is the M62 car-park, so good luck getting anywhere close to an average speed of 60mph from city centre to city centre during daylight hours..

I commute 3 days a week from Chorley to Garforth over M62. There are bad and good days, but I average 1.5hrs each way.
On train, it'd be 2:15hrs (assuming everything ran on time).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I commute 3 days a week from Chorley to Garforth over M62. There are bad and good days, but I average 1.5hrs each way.
On train, it'd be 2:15hrs (assuming everything ran on time).

Neither of which are in Leeds or Manchester city centres, so that's not really a fair comparison. Rail will never compare well to such a niche journey from one random market town to another random market town, and nor should it try. Especially if both towns are close to the motorway network.

What it should do (and tries to do) is capture the city centre to city centre market, which in turn frees up capacity on the motorway network for those making journeys such as yours, which the railway can't fulfill.

 

[Bantamzen]

I would hope future electrification costs are budgeted at around the average of recent NR schemes, with maybe a small variation depending on complexity, and this is only changed as NR demonstrate via projects completed under budget and on time. To agree a project based on £1.0-1.2 million vs £2-3.5 million would seem utter folly to me.

That's how publically funded projects often end up in ever increasing cost cycles. If it can be shown that costs can be reduced, and quite frankly we can see that costs can be considerably less, then the lower figure should be used when sounding out potential contractors. If you ask contractors to work to £2-3.5M then they will, plus any additional costs that might be found along the way. No contractor is going to initially accept that budget then come back at the end of the project & say it cost 25-40% less.

I'd be happy to wager that electrification costs could be brought much closer to those of our European neighbours if the DfT got a better handle on costs & future contracts. That could then mean full wiring of the TPE, along with potentially taking additional schemes back off the shelves. All that is required here is the political will, and an acceptance from the Minister & DfT that bi-modes are best used for routes were destinations are beyond the wires, not to fill in gaps because you've incorrectly forecast costs based on flawed project management in the past. Sadly this is where the real problem lies.

 

[CdBrux]

That's how publically funded projects often end up in ever increasing cost cycles. If it can be shown that costs can be reduced, and quite frankly we can see that costs can be considerably less, then the lower figure should be used when sounding out potential contractors. If you ask contractors to work to £2-3.5M then they will, plus any additional costs that might be found along the way. No contractor is going to initially accept that budget then come back at the end of the project & say it cost 25-40% less.

I'd be happy to wager that electrification costs could be brought much closer to those of our European neighbours if the DfT got a better handle on costs & future contracts. That could then mean full wiring of the TPE, along with potentially taking additional schemes back off the shelves. All that is required here is the political will, and an acceptance from the Minister & DfT that bi-modes are best used for routes were destinations are beyond the wires, not to fill in gaps because you've incorrectly forecast costs based on flawed project management in the past. Sadly this is where the real problem lies.

That's not what I meant, you are right of course potential suppliers should always be encouraged to put in their best offer and if the market is functioning they will. The client needs to be sure though the offer is realistic and not just an unrealistic number in order to win the job. Part of the functionality for the moment seems to me to, as you say, ensure a decent pipeline of work, but probably rather less than in recent times to allow companies to build up and get costs down without blowing the bank in the meantime. However to budget for things based on unattainable cheap rates is crazy and is probably the quickest way to lose any remaining confidence in electrification. Correctly forecasting jobs is based on what has been demonstrated and most certainly not on the assumed 'should be'.
If contractors can operate on an open book and be incentivised to share savings maybe they will. Or if they see they deliver under forecast, thanks to being for whatever reason more efficient with innovative ways of doing things, then good on them to keep that money and invest, they can then bid lower for future business and gain more work.

 

[edwin_m]

There are contractual mechanisms where a "target cost" is set and the client and contractor share any excess cost but also share any saving if it comes in below the target. These may provide a means of addressing some of the issues here, although there will always be the issue of what is in scope and what is extra.

 

[themiller]

That's how publically funded projects often end up in ever increasing cost cycles. If it can be shown that costs can be reduced, and quite frankly we can see that costs can be considerably less, then the lower figure should be used when sounding out potential contractors. If you ask contractors to work to £2-3.5M then they will, plus any additional costs that might be found along the way. No contractor is going to initially accept that budget then come back at the end of the project & say it cost 25-40% less.

I'd be happy to wager that electrification costs could be brought much closer to those of our European neighbours if the DfT got a better handle on costs & future contracts. That could then mean full wiring of the TPE, along with potentially taking additional schemes back off the shelves. All that is required here is the political will, and an acceptance from the Minister & DfT that bi-modes are best used for routes were destinations are beyond the wires, not to fill in gaps because you've incorrectly forecast costs based on flawed project management in the past. Sadly this is where the real problem lies.

To my way of thinking, the main problem with costs of electrification projects is that too much other work is allowed to be included in the 'copper wire' account. The first is backlog of maintenance and can add millions of pounds putting the track to where the designers assume it should be given prudent maintenance - a concept designer doesn't need to know the detail to sketch out an overall scheme. The second is enhancements - these can add vast sums in terms of costs of material, disruption and time to pure electrification work. In some ways, Chris Grayling has done the right thing in pausing electrification into Bristol in order to get infrastructure and signalling work out of the way before the piles go in. Thirdly, signalling needs to be upgraded in order to cater for the electric environment causing more disruption and cost. Fourth is the fact that Britain suffers from being an 'early adopter' in that, when lines were built, there was no thought for the future to provide large clearances in case bigger trains were to be introduced - many lines would not have been built had it not been for the 'penny pinching' all those years ago.
If a politician says please electrify the GWML to reduce carbon emissions, and give faster trains between Paddington, Bristol and Cardiff, there are many more questions to answer before an answer can be given regarding the cost.
If the electrification were to be examined in isolation, would the cost overruns be so eyewatering? We know what we want but to put all the ills of the past on the electrification budget is bad accounting, bad publicity and a could also be referred to as a dereliction of duty from politicians, managers, designers etc.

 

[Spartacus]

I've always puzzled why Ravensthorpe only has platforms on the Leeds lines when the Wakefield lines are so near.
K

While the L&Y lines towards Wakefield never had anything serving Ravensthorpe, but that's not to say the L&Y didn't serve Ravensthorpe, as it had a station at Northorpe on the route to Heckmondwike, which is probably about as far from the centre of Ravensthorpe as the current Ravensthorpe station, and they also had their own Ravensthorpe station on the Spen Valley line near Huddersfield Road, which isn't much further away and would also serve the Scout Hill and Westtown areas of Dewsbury. Looking at those two, having another station at the current Ravensthorpe site would have been a bit over the top, even by the standards of the day.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's not what I meant, you are right of course potential suppliers should always be encouraged to put in their best offer and if the market is functioning they will. The client needs to be sure though the offer is realistic and not just an unrealistic number in order to win the job. Part of the functionality for the moment seems to me to, as you say, ensure a decent pipeline of work, but probably rather less than in recent times to allow companies to build up and get costs down without blowing the bank in the meantime. However to budget for things based on unattainable cheap rates is crazy and is probably the quickest way to lose any remaining confidence in electrification. Correctly forecasting jobs is based on what has been demonstrated and most certainly not on the assumed 'should be'.
If contractors can operate on an open book and be incentivised to share savings maybe they will. Or if they see they deliver under forecast, thanks to being for whatever reason more efficient with innovative ways of doing things, then good on them to keep that money and invest, they can then bid lower for future business and gain more work.

The thing is though the current costs are way & beyond anything paid by our neighbouring countries, suggesting that there is something seriously wrong with the cost of recent wiring projects (which I think we can all agree on). Unless of course there is something completely unique about wiring in the UK that is not an issue elsewhere, which honestly I doubt.

So why is it the case that wiring in the UK could potentially cost more than double than it would in Europe, what factors are driving these seemingly crazy additional costs? This is what needs to be challenged because on current costings projects are falling by the wayside with monotonous regularity. The problem is that all too often in the public sector that there simply isn't the will to challenge these figures, with the usual approach of delaying or cancelling as a result. And this is not just limited to the railway infrastructure, believe me. Projects all over the place are constantly being kicked down the road in the hope that they will either go away or become a SEP (Someone Else's Problem).

Potentially speaking, had these challenges been made a lot sooner, not only would the TPE wiring be under way in it's entirety, but other projects now gathering dust at the DfT & Minister's Office would be in their final stages of planning.

To my way of thinking, the main problem with costs of electrification projects is that too much other work is allowed to be included in the 'copper wire' account. The first is backlog of maintenance and can add millions of pounds putting the track to where the designers assume it should be given prudent maintenance - a concept designer doesn't need to know the detail to sketch out an overall scheme. The second is enhancements - these can add vast sums in terms of costs of material, disruption and time to pure electrification work. In some ways, Chris Grayling has done the right thing in pausing electrification into Bristol in order to get infrastructure and signalling work out of the way before the piles go in. Thirdly, signalling needs to be upgraded in order to cater for the electric environment causing more disruption and cost. Fourth is the fact that Britain suffers from being an 'early adopter' in that, when lines were built, there was no thought for the future to provide large clearances in case bigger trains were to be introduced - many lines would not have been built had it not been for the 'penny pinching' all those years ago.
If a politician says please electrify the GWML to reduce carbon emissions, and give faster trains between Paddington, Bristol and Cardiff, there are many more questions to answer before an answer can be given regarding the cost.
If the electrification were to be examined in isolation, would the cost overruns be so eyewatering? We know what we want but to put all the ills of the past on the electrification budget is bad accounting, bad publicity and a could also be referred to as a dereliction of duty from politicians, managers, designers etc.

Then that being the case, the cost of upgrades will need to be handled anyway so surely the maintenance, alignment & signalling improvements can be done hand in hand with the wiring? Yes the overall project cost goes up as a result, but this would be because of a multi-faceted approach meaning that all works are done at once rather than pieces of it kicked down the road. Bi-modes or not, a lot of this work still needs doing on the North TP so the DfT need to be a bit more transparent & say that the costs are not just for electrification, but for all the works they've been holding back on over the years. It cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility to plan for both alignment & signalling improvements alongside planning for wiring. If it where so difficult, HS2 would need to start out with bi-modes and/or DMU units until someone figured out how to throw up the wires.