Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Nomad8459]

Weren't they looking at some new routes in regards to the Standedge routes? I remember reading the report as part of my old job, but I can't place is that was as part of NPR or just a normal transpennine upgrade?

If anyone knows the document link, would love to read it again!

There was talk of a new very long road tunnel under the peaks across to Yorkshire with many asking for a railway to run parallel to that which would make some sense if the road comes about... major work anyway.. surely adding railway at same time would be easier if a new TP route is the desired.. it's been a while since I was reading about that tunnel though and it seemed an amazing prospect.. whether it's still actively being pursued.. I can't say myself..

 

[yorksrob]

Does anyone in the real world actually think that a project like this could be completed without creating any disruption.

It's a question of degrees though. 195 weeks of closures seems beyond anything we've had before.

 

[yorksrob]

It was also done under a much more relaxed H&S regime which made a huge difference as it was possible to wire one track while the other remained in use: not acceptable today. And of course so much was done on the cheap that significant sections have had to be re-done more recently. Not a fair comparison.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to design a wiring train which effectively "walls off" operatives from slow moving traffic on the other line. It's not as though they have to be stuck up a step ladder whilst an IC125 speeds by.

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting discussions - i sent a submission to strategic North Rail group with a map highlighting the old avoiding line for Bradford Interchange that would really help with timings when diversions take place - its a small stretch of track that should never have been removed really, the route of this avoider is largely (98%) still unencumbered - its hoped that the recent news and pressure from Andy Burnham will push this (TPE Wires) onto a completion - seems to me that the same pressure needs applying with the relatively small sections of Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads and Didcot to Oxford, these two aspects of GWR wires seem the minimum required to make that project worthwhile at all.

It's already been mentioned but the Bradford avoiding line is partly developed now, plus would require one level crossing reinstating so really would not be worth the effort when for a few minutes more transit time services could reverse at Bradford Interchange.

But all the noises coming out of the various departments on the TP upgrades are depressingly familiar. A worst wiring and improvement capacity would be difficult, far from impossible and certainly not as challenging as other recent rail projects like Crossrail and the future building of HS2. I am seriously starting to fear that it is never going to happen not because of the engineering facets, but because the decision makers can't see the gains and benefits such a project would bring.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It can't be beyond the wit of man to design a wiring train which effectively "walls off" operatives from slow moving traffic on the other line. It's not as though they have to be stuck up a step ladder whilst an IC125 speeds by.

The ECML electrification used traditional wiring trains. These included work platforms which were nothing more than flattened roofs of old coaching stock and most definitely do not meet even basic current H&S standards. Modern practice relies more on cherry-picker type vehicles. These are relatively cheap to acquire and by their nature are very flexible in use. However they are intrinsically quite light in weight: I'm not sure I'd be too happy working on one with heavy trains running on an adjacent line. You also have to factor in the risk of items getting dropped onto those passing trains.

On this forum we occasionally reference this country's good safety record compared with our European neighbours. Perhaps the biggest difference is in our attitude to the safety of staff working on or near the tracks. Having lines closed while work takes place on them is a very strong safeguard against trackworker accidents. It would be a brave manager who tries to turn back the clock in this respect.

 

[superkev]

It can't be beyond the wit of man to design a wiring train which effectively "walls off" operatives from slow moving traffic on the other line. It's not as though they have to be stuck up a step ladder whilst an IC125 speeds by.

Network rail had or have such a train and I remember a story that they took the safety people to Germany to see one in use. Guess what it was not deemed acceptable here.
K

 

[ainsworth74]

It can't be beyond the wit of man to design a wiring train which effectively "walls off" operatives from slow moving traffic on the other line. It's not as though they have to be stuck up a step ladder whilst an IC125 speeds by.

Network rail had or have such a train and I remember a story that they took the safety people to Germany to see one in use. Guess what it was not deemed acceptable here.
K

Yes we had one, it was called the High Output Plant System (HOPS) and was supposed to be the tool that would allow the GWML to be wired at the rate of around a mile per night (well one mile per line, it wasn't going to be wiring a four track cutting a mile long in one go!). I believe it was supposed to allow the line that wasn't being wired to be kept open at reduced speed as there would be a safety barrier between the work site and the open line as well. But, er, doesn't appear to have even slightly delivered on the promise. I'm not even sure if it's ever been used as intended.

This is, of course, one of the reasons it all has gone so utterly tits up when it comes to electrification.

 

[Chester1]

It's a question of degrees though. 195 weeks of closures seems beyond anything we've had before.

Its quite similar project to the WCML modernisation, and only part of the line will be closed at any time. Probably something like Leeds to York, Leeds to Ravensthorpe, Ravensthorpe to Huddersfield, Huddersfield to Stalybridge and Stalybridge to Manchester.

When diverting through the Calder Valley maybe Liverpool-Scarborough and Liverpool-Edinburgh will be merged and run with double 802s, splitting and joining in York? Manchester Airport-Newcastle could be run with Mark V sets, Airport-Middlesborough with double 185s and a Leeds-Hull service run by 185s (maybe with some interaction with Middlesborough services). Currently there are 18 x 185 coaches per hour across the pennines. What I suggested would be 10 x 802 coaches, 5 x Mark V and 6 x 185 coaches, so less than the franchise spec for 2020-24 but still a significant increase on today. What frequency of services can the Calder Valley support since it's signalling was upgraded?

 

[geoffk]

I live on the Calder Valley line and during the much shorter Stalybridge blockade in 2012 the timetable was completely recast to allow TPE to take over some Northern calls at Rochdale, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge as fewer Northern trains could run. Some TPE trains served Huddersfield via the Bradley triangle and reversal, others just served Dewsbury. The same kind of arrangement will probably be needed again although, by the time it happens, the CV signalling will have been upgraded to allow more trains to run.

The new TPE stock (802s and loco-hauled Mark 5a) will of course need to be cleared to run on Calder Valley.

Has the route of the Micklehurst loop (Stalybridge to Diggle) been looked at and definitely ruled out (I know a viaduct at Greenfield would have to be rebuilt and tunnel ends unblocked).

 

[yorksrob]

The ECML electrification used traditional wiring trains. These included work platforms which were nothing more than flattened roofs of old coaching stock and most definitely do not meet even basic current H&S standards. Modern practice relies more on cherry-picker type vehicles. These are relatively cheap to acquire and by their nature are very flexible in use. However they are intrinsically quite light in weight: I'm not sure I'd be too happy working on one with heavy trains running on an adjacent line. You also have to factor in the risk of items getting dropped onto those passing trains.

On this forum we occasionally reference this country's good safety record compared with our European neighbours. Perhaps the biggest difference is in our attitude to the safety of staff working on or near the tracks. Having lines closed while work takes place on them is a very strong safeguard against trackworker accidents. It would be a brave manager who tries to turn back the clock in this respect.

I'm thinking if you had a wiring train with raisable walls, you could get to work and there's a wall all the way between you and the running rail. That's probably safer than a cherry picker with the whole line closed.

 

[yorksrob]

Network rail had or have such a train and I remember a story that they took the safety people to Germany to see one in use. Guess what it was not deemed acceptable here.
K

Yes we had one, it was called the High Output Plant System (HOPS) and was supposed to be the tool that would allow the GWML to be wired at the rate of around a mile per night (well one mile per line, it wasn't going to be wiring a four track cutting a mile long in one go!). I believe it was supposed to allow the line that wasn't being wired to be kept open at reduced speed as there would be a safety barrier between the work site and the open line as well. But, er, doesn't appear to have even slightly delivered on the promise. I'm not even sure if it's ever been used as intended.

This is, of course, one of the reasons it all has gone so utterly tits up when it comes to electrification.

Weren't the problems with the GW electrification to do with cables being built in unusual places ?

I've not read anything to suggest that having people on a raised platform, wiring with the main line walled off, to be the problem.

 

[Domh245]

Weren't the problems with the GW electrification to do with cables being built in unusual places ?

I've not read anything to suggest that having people on a raised platform, wiring with the main line walled off, to be the problem.

Partially, but a lot of the costings were based on the HOPS working at full capacity - something that I don't think was ever achieved. Consequently they had to revert back to slower 'traditional' methods which cost more. There are a whole range of reasons why GWEP went the way it did

 

[yorksrob]

Partially, but a lot of the costings were based on the HOPS working at full capacity - something that I don't think was ever achieved. Consequently they had to revert back to slower 'traditional' methods which cost more. There are a whole range of reasons why GWEP went the way it did

Indeed, but I suspect that none of them were because of their using a platform enabling them to install OHE with the neighbouring track in use.

 

[Grumpy]

It was also done under a much more relaxed H&S regime which made a huge difference as it was possible to wire one track while the other remained in use: not acceptable today. And of course so much was done on the cheap that significant sections have had to be re-done more recently. Not a fair comparison.

Absolutely a fair comparison. It's fact-you might not like it. The reasons why the present managers cant deliver at the same pace need to be investigated and corrective action taken.

As suggested by Yorksrob why is it not possible to devise a system where one track is being worked on whilst trains pass by slowly on the adjacent line? People stand on railway platforms whilst trains pass by at 125mph.

The present situation just reeks of a hand-wringing management that doesn't want to do something so is piling on the excuses (time, cost, disruption etc) to put people off. The ECML project overcame all the problems of bridges, tunnels, viaducts old mine workings and still delivered on time.

The comment that "so much was done on the cheap that significant sections have had to be re-done more recently" is an irrelevant red herring. This has been in intensive use by 125mph services for 30 years so it should be no surprise that bits have had to be re-done recently. As I understand it the problems with ECML wiring have been more due to inadequate maintenance regimes rather than the initial construction. TP wouldn't have to cope with 125 mph running and would benefit from the use of modern components.

 

[furnessvale]

As suggested by Yorksrob why is it not possible to devise a system where one track is being worked on whilst trains pass by slowly on the adjacent line? People stand on railway platforms whilst trains pass by at 125mph.

Indeed, why slowly? Either a worker can put himself in the way of a passing train or he cannot. he will be just as dead if he goes under a slow train.

It should be perfectly possible to design single line equipment where workers are physically blocked from straying onto other lines.

 

[edwin_m]

Has the route of the Micklehurst loop (Stalybridge to Diggle) been looked at and definitely ruled out (I know a viaduct at Greenfield would have to be rebuilt and tunnel ends unblocked).

There are missing viaducts at Stalybridge (the tunnel portal is way up in the air), Staley & Millbrook, Micklehurst, Greenfield and I think one other between the last two. There's a factory on the line at Micklehurst and housing encroaches at Uppermill leaving just a narrow foot/cycleway. I'd say it was beyond redemption.

 

[B&I]

The ECML electrification used traditional wiring trains. These included work platforms which were nothing more than flattened roofs of old coaching stock and most definitely do not meet even basic current H&S standards. Modern practice relies more on cherry-picker type vehicles. These are relatively cheap to acquire and by their nature are very flexible in use. However they are intrinsically quite light in weight: I'm not sure I'd be too happy working on one with heavy trains running on an adjacent line. You also have to factor in the risk of items getting dropped onto those passing trains.

On this forum we occasionally reference this country's good safety record compared with our European neighbours. Perhaps the biggest difference is in our attitude to the safety of staff working on or near the tracks. Having lines closed while work takes place on them is a very strong safeguard against trackworker accidents. It would be a brave manager who tries to turn back the clock in this respect.

With proper side fencing and a work platform at a safe height, what would make a modern version of the old style wiring train less safe than a cherry picker ?

 

[Greybeard33]

I believe such a berth already exists and is used at Immingham.

The problem would appear that it is actually cheaper to empty a ship from the USA at Liverpool and continue the move by rail, rather than sending the ship around the UK and still have to use rail for final delivery to Drax.

There are typically more daily workings to Drax from the Immingham Biomass Terminal than from Liverpool.

As I understand it, Drax needs the dual, independent, supply routes because the wood chippings must be kept dry, so cannot be stored in the open like coal. Therefore Drax relies on "just in time" delivery. Any disruption in the biomass supply chain would cause a costly loss of production.

The GBRf deliveries from Liverpool give Drax insurance against delays to the DB Cargo deliveries from Immingham, e.g. due to temporary blockage of the port or rail line, or industrial action. If there are delays in shipments from the US, a ship can be diverted to Liverpool instead of Immingham to reduce the sailing time, thereby mitigating the delay.

To allow this flexibility, there are more paths allocated to Drax from both ports than are normally used. However, the Diggle route is normally only used at night, with daytime Liverpool workings going via the Calder Valley.

 

[Chester1]

I live on the Calder Valley line and during the much shorter Stalybridge blockade in 2012 the timetable was completely recast to allow TPE to take over some Northern calls at Rochdale, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge as fewer Northern trains could run. Some TPE trains served Huddersfield via the Bradley triangle and reversal, others just served Dewsbury. The same kind of arrangement will probably be needed again although, by the time it happens, the CV signalling will have been upgraded to allow more trains to run.

The new TPE stock (802s and loco-hauled Mark 5a) will of course need to be cleared to run on Calder Valley.

Has the route of the Micklehurst loop (Stalybridge to Diggle) been looked at and definitely ruled out (I know a viaduct at Greenfield would have to be rebuilt and tunnel ends unblocked).

The additional capacity since 2012 would hopefully avoid extra stops needing to be added to TPE services. 2/3 could run non stop between Victoria and Leeds and one stopping at Dewsbury. Huddersfield could be served by either extra northern services to / from Leeds or as the terminal for Hull TPE services + coaches for Manchester.

The biggest problem preventing the reopening of the Micklehurst loop is the low likely line speed which would probably kill the business case. The cost of demolishing buildings built on the trackbed and rebuilding the line would be large for a line that would be pretty slow and still require services to stop on the surviving "fast" line. The alternative would be a new line from near the M60 (west of Ashton-under-Lyne) to Diggle. This was an option suggested in a National Infrastructure Committee report a couple of years ago and I think it would be much better value for money than reopening the Micklehurst loop. It would allow the existing route to be used for freight, stoppers and perhaps a semi fast service, while cutting journey time for express services. Its likely to be irrelevant though if ETCS and a loop are installed between Stalybridge and Huddersfield. That would provide a significant increase in capacity.

 

[snowball]

There was talk of a new very long road tunnel under the peaks across to Yorkshire with many asking for a railway to run parallel to that which would make some sense if the road comes about... major work anyway.. surely adding railway at same time would be easier if a new TP route is the desired.. it's been a while since I was reading about that tunnel though and it seemed an amazing prospect.. whether it's still actively being pursued.. I can't say myself..

It has begun to dawn on them how expensive the original road tunnel proposal was, so if it happens, the total length of tunnel will be reduced as much as possible. Maybe a couple of shorter tunnels with some open-air road in between. Except that I expect the existence of the national park may prevent that.

The purpose of the road would be to link Manchester to Sheffield and the M1. It is now unlikely to include a rail element as it would be too indirect a route between Manchester and Leeds. The NPR rail investigations, in contrast, are looking at Manchester to Leeds via Bradford. For Manchester to Sheffield they are looking at improvements to the Hope valley line. But again the national park may prevent major alterations to that line.

 

[Chester1]

It has begun to dawn on them how expensive the original road tunnel proposal was, so if it happens, the total length of tunnel will be reduced as much as possible. Maybe a couple of shorter tunnels with some open-air road in between. Except that I expect the existence of the national park may prevent that.

The purpose of the road would be to link Manchester to Sheffield and the M1. It is now unlikely to include a rail element as it would be too indirect a route between Manchester and Leeds. The NPR rail investigations, in contrast, are looking at Manchester to Leeds via Bradford. For Manchester to Sheffield they are looking at improvements to the Hope valley line. But again the national park may prevent major alterations to that line.

National Park legislation can be overwritten by primary legislation for an infrastructure project. The SSSI boundary excludes the A628 between Hadfield and near to the Woodhead tunnel western portal. A tunnel to the otherside of the SSSI would be about 2 and a half miles long. I think the shorter tunnel proposed would be 7 miles long, which would require some open air dual carriageway within the national park boundary. Its certainly not likely that a new rail line and tunnel could be included in the project.

 

[Killingworth]

It will be interesting to see what diversionary routes will be used during all the blockades.

The SELRAP plans to reopen the Skipton-Colne line (see; http://www.selrap.org.uk/p1_project/20180905_prospectus_web_version.pdf ) would allow more capacity, particularly for freight, but any work to reopen that probably couldn't happen until about the same time.

The South Pennine line through the Hope Valley is already congested. The Hope Valley Capacity Scheme could be finished by the end of 2020 if they get started next April/May.

 

[Halifaxlad]

It has begun to dawn on them how expensive the original road tunnel proposal was, so if it happens, the total length of tunnel will be reduced as much as possible. Maybe a couple of shorter tunnels with some open-air road in between. Except that I expect the existence of the national park may prevent that.

The purpose of the road would be to link Manchester to Sheffield and the M1. It is now unlikely to include a rail element as it would be too indirect a route between Manchester and Leeds. The NPR rail investigations, in contrast, are looking at Manchester to Leeds via Bradford. For Manchester to Sheffield they are looking at improvements to the Hope valley line. But again the national park may prevent major alterations to that line.

Surely it would be long and straight enough to catch up some time lost by not being as direct?

I quite like the idea mainly for improving links between Man & the East Coast.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I live on the Calder Valley line and during the much shorter Stalybridge blockade in 2012 the timetable was completely recast to allow TPE to take over some Northern calls at Rochdale, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge as fewer Northern trains could run. Some TPE trains served Huddersfield via the Bradley triangle and reversal, others just served Dewsbury. The same kind of arrangement will probably be needed again although, by the time it happens, the CV signalling will have been upgraded to allow more trains to run.

The new TPE stock (802s and loco-hauled Mark 5a) will of course need to be cleared to run on Calder Valley.

Has the route of the Micklehurst loop (Stalybridge to Diggle) been looked at and definitely ruled out (I know a viaduct at Greenfield would have to be rebuilt and tunnel ends unblocked).

It sounds like the Calder Valley is to get upgraded as according to the T&A
the programme of work includes amongst other things:

"increasing capacity at Leeds and Calder Valley stations and enhancing Huddersfield and Stalybridge stations"

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...ars-of-disruption-on-transpennine-rail-route/

Its certainly going to be interesting when more light is shed on this!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The South Pennine line through the Hope Valley is already congested. The Hope Valley Capacity Scheme could be finished by the end of 2020 if they get started next April/May.

The proposed Hope Valley improvements don't get to the critical factor - the limitations of the manual signalling on the route.
A proper signalling upgrade would fix the capacity issues, along with the redoubling of the junction at Dore.

 

[squizzler]

The proposed Hope Valley improvements don't get to the critical factor - the limitations of the manual signalling on the route.
A proper signalling upgrade would fix the capacity issues, along with the redoubling of the junction at Dore.

And also an opportunity for practice at installing digital railway prior to the big Transpennine modification?

 

[The Planner]

We got practice in 2008 on the Cambrian, we just haven't bothered since. Any signalling upgrade of the Hope Valley would need to start from scratch, you would never get it done as a mitigation for this.

 

[edwin_m]

The proposed Hope Valley improvements don't get to the critical factor - the limitations of the manual signalling on the route.
A proper signalling upgrade would fix the capacity issues, along with the redoubling of the junction at Dore.

Multiple aspect or ERTMS would make some difference but the long tunnels this would still a constraint on train separation as they wouldn't want to put a stop signal (or the ERTMS equivalent) in a tunnel. So the Edale-Chinley block, which tends to be where the EMT catches up with a freight in my experience, could only be shortened a little by putting a "signal" at the tunnel entrance and another one a train length beyond the exit.

 

[MarkyT]

Multiple aspect or ERTMS would make some difference but the long tunnels this would still a constraint on train separation as they wouldn't want to put a stop signal (or the ERTMS equivalent) in a tunnel. So the Edale-Chinley block, which tends to be where the EMT catches up with a freight in my experience, could only be shortened a little by putting a "signal" at the tunnel entrance and another one a train length beyond the exit.

Agreed but I'd say it's less of an issue if a freight hangs back in the tunnel, so a signal after a tunnel exit might only need to be a shorter typical passenger train length from the portal. In some cases there are signals at the immediate exit from tunnels because there are junctions very close ahead. Its not practical to have full 'tunnel controls' on such signals as a route set ahead could completely block all other movements across the junction concerned all the while the approaching movement is in the tunnel, so those cases might be covered by other mitigations a short way into the tunnel to cater for evacuations if a train got stuck at such a signal, such as lighting, signage etc. What are more trouble are block signals or markers that are deep within the middle of long tunnels where appropriate mitigations are difficult and costly if not impossible to provide. The maintenance of signalling equipment deep within tunnels is also an issue.

 

[MarkyT]

If the primary limit on capacity is the difference in running times between different tiers of service at the desired frequencies and even intervals, then ETCS, even at a notional level 3, can make little difference to throughput. A little more closing up potential at stations perhaps, but nothing major. No signalling system on Earth can make faster trains pass through slower ones!