Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[LNW-GW Joint]

Another 2 weeks gone and no visible progress on electrification.
On the plus side, plenty of upgrade work going on around Chorley.
The new crossover is in at Buckshaw Parkway, and the line towards the old ROF site has finally been dismantled.
The temporary platform at Chorley is in use, and the top layer of the old platform has been stripped back so rebuilding can start.
Diggers are at work reconfiguring the sidings at Leyland for DMU stabling while the facilities at Blackpool are unavailable.
There's a lot of new rail in the 4-foot between Horwich and Chorley, waiting to go in.
But where have the electrification contractors gone?

 

[Bevan Price]

Additional example. Salford Crescent - Atherton - Hindley has a top speed of 50mph. Back in the day it was 70, indeed it was the L+Y's mainline to Liverpool, but eventually the jointed track got into such a state as to require the lower speed to become the rule. A few years ago the track was completely renewed with cwr and now the ride is smooth enough that drivers occasionally find themselves needing to touch the brake in the dips along the way. Prior to the work taking place Network Rail said that once the track had bedded in the linespeed would be increased to 60. Didn't happen.

Presumably 50mph is a cutoff point in maintenance regime with a higher speed requiring additional effort and expense. The cynic in me says that until the higher speed makes a significant change to the timetable possible NR will save the money rather than up the speed. Unless of course someone else wants to pay (TfGM?)

And just to emphasise how strange the situation is the continuation of that route, Wigan to Southport, was and is a 70mph line, even though by the time the track there was renewed the ride had become decidedly lively.

Back in "steam" days, Manchester - Atherton - Liverpool Exchange & Southport were all 75 mph maximum (except at junctions and some "curved" sections.) These speeds were reduced to 70 mph when 1st generation dmus took over - probably because the dmus were restricted to 70 mph.

The Kirkham - Poulton Le Fylde section has some 60 mph limits for Class 185, Voyagers & HSTs (70 mph for other dmus) - this, too, was 75 mph in steam days. So, not a lot of progress since the 1960s if they don't increase the limits to at least 90mph.

 

[snowball]

The temporary platform at Chorley is in use, and the top layer of the old platform has been stripped back so rebuilding can start.

Picture of the skinned platform on the Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/networkrailnp

But where have the electrification contractors gone?

Can any of our insiders cast any light on this?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Can any of our insiders cast any light on this?

Can't tell you where they currently are, but art of the reason for the lack of visibility is the ongoing resolution of the implications of the re-issue of GL/RT1210 - AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling Stock Subsystem, which withdrew the dimensions for electrical clearance that applied under the UK's National exemption to the Energy TSI.

This means that there now has to be (retrospectively*) 370mm electrical clearance to metallic or conductive structures (was 270mm) and 3.5m clearance between and place a person may stand and any live part (was 2.75m). There is at least one bridge on Phase 4 which now needs reconstruction (it didn't previously) but its location means the costs involved are staggering (and beyond the project's budget).

Note that to my knowledge there have never been any fatal accidents due to electrocution at any similar location, but the Energy TSI has spoken...

*yes, all the existing low wire heights at existing stations MUST now be addressed or their retention subjected to a massive and costly risk assessment process.

 

[edwin_m]

Can't tell you where they currently are, but art of the reason for the lack of visibility is the ongoing resolution of the implications of the re-issue of GL/RT1210 - AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling Stock Subsystem, which withdrew the dimensions for electrical clearance that applied under the UK's National exemption to the Energy TSI.

Whose idea was it to withdraw the exemption? In the current political climate it's important to know whether this was a national blunder or a European one.

 

[snowball]

Thanks for that, Joseph. Sounds depressing. My gut reaction is to say put a neutral section under whatever bridge it is.

Unless it's at a station.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can't tell you where they currently are, but art of the reason for the lack of visibility is the ongoing resolution of the implications of the re-issue of GL/RT1210 - AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling Stock Subsystem, which withdrew the dimensions for electrical clearance that applied under the UK's National exemption to the Energy TSI.

Wow.
Are we talking new construction only, or does it affect Phases 1/2 as well? And GW/EGIP? Paisley Canal?
And is the policy change down to an NR internal decision, or was it imposed from afar (by the passage of time perhaps)?

[Mind you, if we wait long enough and leave the single market we can ignore the TSI...]

 

[AM9]

[Mind you, if we wait long enough and leave the single market we can ignore the TSI...]

Without single market access, the country will probably be so poor that we won't be able to afford any engineering work anyway.

 

[Viscount702]

No wires by December 2017 then by the sound of it.

 

[thealexweb]

No wires by December 2017 then by the sound of it.

December 2017 is the timetable change from which TPE is required to offer ~16 Bolton to Scotland services a day. How can they do this without wires? :/

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Whose idea was it to withdraw the exemption? In the current political climate it's important to know whether this was a national blunder or a European one.

It went when we moved from GE/RT8025 to GL/RT1210, with B4.6 of GE/RT8025 (the section relating to electrical clearances) remaining in force until March 2015.

It wasn't specifically an exemption, it was a delay in finally incorporating the Energy TSI into our Group Standards, much like the bridge parapet height rising from 1.5m to 1.8m, we thought it would be OK, but then realised we hadn't checked everywhere.

It's not just us - plenty of other countries have similar issues and have dealt with it, though I suspect part of the reason the EU is quite unpopular is our cackhanded handling of EU rules, not the rules themselves.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It went when we moved from GE/RT8025 to GL/RT1210, with B4.6 of GE/RT8025 (the section relating to electrical clearances) remaining in force until March 2015.
It wasn't specifically an exemption, it was a delay in finally incorporating the Energy TSI into our Group Standards, much like the bridge parapet height rising from 1.5m to 1.8m, we thought it would be OK, but then realised we hadn't checked everywhere.

So we've been caught out by a compliance date, much like PRM then.
Assuming anything before March 2015 is exempt, that clears NW Phase 1/2 I should think (and Paisley Canal!).
But all the other current schemes must be affected.

While we are on bridge parapet height, the new footbridge at Leyland (on the WCML) has opened, and the extension from 1.5m to 1.8m is of see-through wire-mesh design.
This is effective and yet retains the open view that solid plates obscure.
I thought that was a natty piece of NR design.
But as for whoever decided the bridge should not have weather protection...
(And the lifts are STILL not working.)

 

[edwin_m]

It went when we moved from GE/RT8025 to GL/RT1210, with B4.6 of GE/RT8025 (the section relating to electrical clearances) remaining in force until March 2015.

It wasn't specifically an exemption, it was a delay in finally incorporating the Energy TSI into our Group Standards, much like the bridge parapet height rising from 1.5m to 1.8m, we thought it would be OK, but then realised we hadn't checked everywhere.

It's not just us - plenty of other countries have similar issues and have dealt with it, though I suspect part of the reason the EU is quite unpopular is our cackhanded handling of EU rules, not the rules themselves.

Thanks. Rather as I suspected...

 

[FordFocus]

Sorry if mentioned. Any resignalling works taking place from Salford Crescent to Blackpool via Chorley for more sections or upgrade to 4 aspect signalling?

 

[roversfan2001]

So we've been caught out by a compliance date, much like PRM then.
Assuming anything before March 2015 is exempt, that clears NW Phase 1/2 I should think (and Paisley Canal!).
But all the other current schemes must be affected.

While we are on bridge parapet height, the new footbridge at Leyland (on the WCML) has opened, and the extension from 1.5m to 1.8m is of see-through wire-mesh design.
This is effective and yet retains the open view that solid plates obscure.
I thought that was a natty piece of NR design.
But as for whoever decided the bridge should not have weather protection...
(And the lifts are STILL not working.)

The old footbridge didn't either, and was in a far better position in relation to the road bridge than the current one.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The old footbridge didn't either, and was in a far better position in relation to the road bridge than the current one.

You are also forced to use the dog-leg ramp access to the eastern side of the station.
I couldn't find a short-cut set of steps.
Very odd.
I couldn't work out if the bus-shelters on the platforms were new, or they had just reinstalled the old ones!
Either way waiting on the station is a low-quality experience.
One day recently I did find a mobile coffee bar in the west car park serving half-decent coffee though.

 

[ianhr]

Without single market access, the country will probably be so poor that we won't be able to afford any engineering work anyway.

I wonder how much of the electrification steelwork, cables, switchgear etc. is imported? I would suspect quite a lot. As the constitutional and economic crises gradually unroll and the currency, which the 'patriotic' segment of our population are so deeply attached to, is reduced to worthless junk I assume all electrification will become unaffordable.

Has any one noticed how long it has taken to electrify the Athens-Thessaloniki mainline in Greece?

 

[roversfan2001]

You are also forced to use the dog-leg ramp access to the eastern side of the station.
I couldn't find a short-cut set of steps.
Very odd.
I couldn't work out if the bus-shelters on the platforms were new, or they had just reinstalled the old ones!
Either way waiting on the station is a low-quality experience.
One day recently I did find a mobile coffee bar in the west car park serving half-decent coffee though.

While we're Leyland bashing, I can't quite understand why TPE stop trains at Buckshaw but not at Leyland? Very odd, why does Leyland even have 4 platforms, 3 and 4 are hardly used.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

It went when we moved from GE/RT8025 to GL/RT1210, with B4.6 of GE/RT8025 (the section relating to electrical clearances) remaining in force until March 2015.

It wasn't specifically an exemption, it was a delay in finally incorporating the Energy TSI into our Group Standards, much like the bridge parapet height rising from 1.5m to 1.8m, we thought it would be OK, but then realised we hadn't checked everywhere.

It's not just us - plenty of other countries have similar issues and have dealt with it, though I suspect part of the reason the EU is quite unpopular is our cackhanded handling of EU rules, not the rules themselves.

Excuse my ignorance, but does this basically mean that the wires need to be higher? If so does that mean taller masts/portals or can the series 1 stuff already installed accommodate that? (looks like it can from images on F&F website)

 

[edwin_m]

Excuse my ignorance, but does this basically mean that the wires need to be higher? If so does that mean taller masts/portals or can the series 1 stuff already installed accommodate that? (looks like it can from images on F&F website)

Looks like it would only apply in stations where there are bridges on the platforms or close to one end which force the wires are lowered below the usual height.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Excuse my ignorance, but does this basically mean that the wires need to be higher? If so does that mean taller masts/portals or can the series 1 stuff already installed accommodate that? (looks like it can from images on F&F website)

It's complicated.

The distance really only applies on platforms - passengers will generally always be more than 4m away from the nearest energised part of the OLE system elsewhere - such as level crossings, footpaths etc.

The distance also isn't actually 2.75m or 3.5m from the contact wire, but 2.75m/3.5m from the nearest energised part of the OLE collection system, this typically means the part of the system energised at 25kV closest to a passenger are the horns at the extreme ends of each pantograph.

The horns, btw, exist to prevent the pantograph riding above the contact wire, and to try and guide the pantograph back under the contact wire if there should be a significant sway/deviation event. That's just to head off any - just get rid of the horns chatter.

The calculation of 2.75m or 3.5m is also a little complicated, as it measures from the extreme edge of a platform to a fictional point adjacent to the contact wire where the nearest part of an energised but stationary pantograph can be found. The pantograph is allowed within the 3.5m envelope when it's moving, provided there's a yellow line provided for passengers to be required to stand behind for their own safety.

It is, as I understand it, a bit of a concession to the fact people now have larger umbrellas, essentially. They're both larger and more likely to be blown closer to the 'energised envelope'.

To create 3.5m space, it's only an issue at those stations with particularly low over bridges where the contact wire height has been dropped to avoid bridge rebuilding, tunnel reboring, that sort of thing and it's an issue that can typically be resolved by dropping platform and track height.

There are probably a few locations where it can also be resolved by reducing the height between catenary and contact wire, although in most cases, the contact wire should be as high as possible over the track and the catenary wire should be as close to the contact wire as is necessary to give as even a contact wire height along the line.

The 270mm to 370mm change is more of a problem, as it could result, feasibly, in areas where a 270mm clearance between catenary and structure gives 3.5m clearance between 'energised envelope' and platform edge, but dropping the catenary by 100mm reduces the 'energised envelope' to 3.4m, so risk assessment to keep 270mm clearance would be needed.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Sorry if mentioned. Any resignalling works taking place from Salford Crescent to Blackpool via Chorley for more sections or upgrade to 4 aspect signalling?

Not between Salford and Euxton at any rate.

 

[snowball]

An information event at Chorley on Tuesday:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/chorley/

UPDATE

Further night time work is required to install the retaining wall near Chorley station.

We need to complete the retaining wall before 23 July to tie in with our work to lower the tracks beneath Lyons Lane and Brooke Street bridges. We hoped that this work would be completed at weekends only, however unfortunately our team have been unable to install the piles as quickly as expected due to unforeseen ground conditions.

Mid-week night time piling will take place 4 - 22 July between 22.00 and 06.00. During this time we will continue to pile each weekend both in the day and at night.

A vibration piling method will be used to install the piles at night. Additionally, railway vehicles will be in use to move materials and equipment.

Due to the ground conditions we will need to use a noisier hammer piling method on occasions. However where possible and to cause as little disturbance as possible we will only use this method during the day and at the weekends.

We will make every effort to minimise any unnecessary noise. Furthermore, those working on site will be briefed on working responsibly in the local community.
Find out more

Join us on Tuesday 5 July 4-7pm at Chorley Council Chamber, Town Hall, Chorley, PR7 1DP.

Download a copy of our Improving Services at Chorley leaflet or pick one up at Chorley station.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

It's complicated.

The distance really only applies on platforms - passengers will generally always be more than 4m away from the nearest energised part of the OLE system elsewhere - such as level crossings, footpaths etc.

The distance also isn't actually 2.75m or 3.5m from the contact wire, but 2.75m/3.5m from the nearest energised part of the OLE collection system, this typically means the part of the system energised at 25kV closest to a passenger are the horns at the extreme ends of each pantograph.

The horns, btw, exist to prevent the pantograph riding above the contact wire, and to try and guide the pantograph back under the contact wire if there should be a significant sway/deviation event. That's just to head off any - just get rid of the horns chatter.

The calculation of 2.75m or 3.5m is also a little complicated, as it measures from the extreme edge of a platform to a fictional point adjacent to the contact wire where the nearest part of an energised but stationary pantograph can be found. The pantograph is allowed within the 3.5m envelope when it's moving, provided there's a yellow line provided for passengers to be required to stand behind for their own safety.

It is, as I understand it, a bit of a concession to the fact people now have larger umbrellas, essentially. They're both larger and more likely to be blown closer to the 'energised envelope'.

To create 3.5m space, it's only an issue at those stations with particularly low over bridges where the contact wire height has been dropped to avoid bridge rebuilding, tunnel reboring, that sort of thing and it's an issue that can typically be resolved by dropping platform and track height.

There are probably a few locations where it can also be resolved by reducing the height between catenary and contact wire, although in most cases, the contact wire should be as high as possible over the track and the catenary wire should be as close to the contact wire as is necessary to give as even a contact wire height along the line.

The 270mm to 370mm change is more of a problem, as it could result, feasibly, in areas where a 270mm clearance between catenary and structure gives 3.5m clearance between 'energised envelope' and platform edge, but dropping the catenary by 100mm reduces the 'energised envelope' to 3.4m, so risk assessment to keep 270mm clearance would be needed.

Thanks for the comprehensive response!

A veritable minefield, I don't envy those of you charged with implementing all this..

I do like the term 'energised envelope'!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Serious as this clearance problem may be for Phase 4, I can't see it would affect the rest of the electrification project.
Two years left to do 50 route miles (Stalybridge-Victoria-Preston-Blackpool), to meet the current Hendy dates.
That's faster that anything the NW project has done to date.
Phase 1 (15 miles) took 2 years, all but a couple of weeks.
Phase 2 (29 miles) took 2.2 years, 1.8 if you exclude Ordsall Lane-Victoria.
Phase 4 (25 miles) has been in progress for 1.5 years.

 

[Ploughman]

It's complicated.
It is, as I understand it, a bit of a concession to the fact people now have larger umbrellas, essentially. They're both larger and more likely to be blown closer to the 'energised envelope'.

I take it that the simple way round the problem of a total ban on umbrellas is not possible?
As, no doubt, it would be ignored.

 

[Chrisyd]

Orlando Bridge in Bolton which NR finished work on a couple of months ago, is now open to traffic again


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[snowball]

Serious as this clearance problem may be for Phase 4, I can't see it would affect the rest of the electrification project.
Two years left to do 50 route miles (Stalybridge-Victoria-Preston-Blackpool), to meet the current Hendy dates.

Indeed only one and a half for most of that.

 

[PR1Berske]

I take it that the simple way round the problem of a total ban on umbrellas is not possible?
As, no doubt, it would be ignored.

I can only imagine the response from the media to an umbrella ban!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I take it that the simple way round the problem of a total ban on umbrellas is not possible?
As, no doubt, it would be ignored.

Platform staff on the GWML routes should have had training about telling passengers to keep such things (plus foil balloons, fishing rods etc) clear of the OLE.

The issue wouldn't arise in this way if the Government banned metal umbrellas, many golfing and fishing umbrellas these days tend to be composite or graphite material which is electrically insulated to protect the user from lightning strikes.