Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[GRALISTAIR]

Just seen that the line between Manchester and Huddersfield is closed on Sundays from 19th June to August 21st. Does anybody know if this is in connection with electrification or routine maintenance?

 

[Ploughman]

Usual practice on that route is to have periods of the year when sections of the line are shut for maintenance or renewals.
We always seemed to spend September - October in Standedge tunnel so I think the periods may have moved a bit.

 

[jayah]

Surely any new stock would be a big help? I should think that electrification could offer an improvement to the stopping services as well. Let's not forget Barlaston, Wedgwood and Norton Bridge which went that way as well.

Given the stopper is all of what a 105 seat bus on rails every hour there are probably easier ways to speed it up that don't involve hundreds of miles of wiring rather a lot of it in tunnels.

 

[snowball]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...that-will-power-the-norths-railway-revolution

MP visits site that will power the north’s railway revolution

Jonathan Reynolds, MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, met with Network Rail and National Grid today (27 May) to see the electricity substation that will power the electrification of the railway in the north of England.

As part of Northern Programmes, a £1bn+ investment in the railway, Network Rail is upgrading key routes across the north to improve connectivity and pave the way for hundreds more trains and millions more passengers to travel each year.

The Network Rail and National Grid substation in Stalybridge, Greater Manchester, is a vital part of the transformation of the railway and will eventually power electric trains through central Manchester to Preston in the west and from Manchester to Leeds in the east.

National Grid is installing new equipment at their existing substation which also provides power to a large area of Greater Manchester. The new equipment will convert the 275,000v electricity supply down to 27,500v which is needed to power electric trains.

Network Rail is building its own substation adjacent to the railway which will connect to the National Grid site.

Sam Morris, sponsor from Network Rail said: “The new substation in Stalybridge forms a vital part of electrification plans in the north. This investment and upgrade, being delivered with National Grid, will pave the way for a better, faster, more reliable railway that will serve millions of passengers for many decades to come.”

A spokesperson from National Grid said: “National Grid is pleased to play its part helping Network Rail deliver faster and more frequent trains, improving journeys for rail travellers here in the north of England.”

Jonathan Reynolds, MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, said: “I am pleased improvements are being made locally, something that I have long campaigned for, and that will benefit users of Stalybridge and Mossley stations. I am very keen to see the line electrified between Stalybridge and Leeds, and that will be easier to do so thanks to projects like this.”

 

[snowball]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-sunday-journeys-as-railway-upgrades-continue

Manchester to Huddersfield passengers urged to plan Sunday journeys as railway upgrades continue

Vital work to improve future train services between Manchester and Stalybridge will impact Sunday timetables between 19 June and 21 August, passengers were advised today.

In order to deliver key aspects of the Railway Upgrade Plan, Network Rail’s engineers need access to the tracks in the Stalybridge area.

Across 10 consecutive Sundays engineers will replace tracks and improve drainage across the route. They will also fit new cables near to Stalybridge tunnel, which will eventually connect to a new power supply for running electric trains.

At Stalybridge station, which is operated by TransPennine Express (TPE), alternations will be made to the roof canopies to make room for electric wires.

Nick Brown, of Network Rail’s Northern Programmes team, said: “We’re advising people planning trips on these Sundays to check before they travel, so they know what to expect.

“In some instances buses will replace trains while our engineers carry out vital railway upgrades, paving the way in future for faster, greener, more frequent and more regular services.

“We would ask people to view the short-term pain of amended timetables against the long-term gain of a better better-connected, more prosperous North of England.”

Northern services between Manchester Victoria and Huddersfield will be affected with buses replacing trains on these Sundays.

Interestingly it mentions "new cables near to Stalybridge tunnel". There will eventually be a feed from the grid a few hundred yards beyond the Huddersfield end of the tunnel (see post above), which is said to be needed to feed Manchester-Preston, but I think it's been said that installation of the actual OHLE through the tunnel will not be done as part of the Victoria to Stalybridge electrification, but instead there'll be a temporary (presumably insulated) cable through the tunnel to feed the OHLE to the west.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interestingly it mentions "new cables near to Stalybridge tunnel". There will eventually be a feed from the grid a few hundred yards beyond the Huddersfield end of the tunnel (see post above), which is said to be needed to feed Manchester-Preston, but I think it's been said that installation of the actual OHLE through the tunnel will not be done as part of the Victoria to Stalybridge electrification, but instead there'll be a temporary cable through the tunnel to feed the OHLE to the west. So has "through the tunnel" now been changed to "near the tunnel"?

This doesn't look like OHLE work, "just" clearance and power supplies.
One would hope it might include Victoria-Stalybridge which needs a lot of work, but these possessions don't look "serious" enough for resignalling and remodelling.
I thought somewhere I had read that "TP West" would include wiring up to the western portal of Stalybridge Tunnel.
We're also still in the dark about a Northern Hub project called "Journey Time Improvements Victoria-Stalybridge".

 

[johnnychips]

Doesn't Stalybridge lose its fast services in the new scheme ?

 

[Greybeard33]

We're also still in the dark about a Northern Hub project called "Journey Time Improvements Victoria-Stalybridge".

Some details of this in the June TfGM Local Rail Service Performance and Station Issues Report:

26.1 North West Electrification - Phase 5 (Victoria to Stalybridge)

(i) To increase line speed between Manchester Victoria and
Stalybridge, as part of phase 5 electrification, Network Rail is
working on both lines along the route.

(ii) May Day bank holiday weekend saw the complete renewal of
530m track on the first half-section of the up line between
Manchester Victoria and Clayton Bridge. With 450m of core
track renewals completed on the same route a week
commencing 8th of May 2016.

(iii) The project is trialling new under sleeper pads, which is a first
for the Victoria to Stalybridge route and North West
Electrification Programme (NWEP). Under sleeper pads are
commonly used throughout Europe and bring many benefits
to the railway including reduction in train noise and vibration.

(iv) W/C 15 May saw the final possession to complete these track
renewal works which made this stretch of Ashton line capable
of an increased line speed.

26.2 In W/C 22 May, successful completion of track renewal through the
Clayton Bridge area that will benefit train performance and increased line
speeds between Manchester and Leeds. The Switches and Crossings
North Alliance delivered the works as part of the Phase 5 NWEP
programme and this included new track bed, ballast and sleepers.

26.3 The footprint of the worksite included closing the Berry Brow level crossing
for three weekends which went without incident. This section of the line
now will now have the capability for increasing its current 70mph line
speed.

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/278/metrolink_and_rail_networks_sub-committee

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well it does sound like progress

 

[Senex]

One would hope it might include Victoria-Stalybridge which needs a lot of work, but these possessions don't look "serious" enough for resignalling and remodelling.

Does anyone know what sort of line-speed improvments to the Stalybridge line are thought possible? It's a pretty horrible bit of L&Y branch-line with a sharp curve at the junction at Miles Platting, reverse curvature near Droylesden, reverse curvature caused by the island platform at Ashton, quite tight curves on the approach to Stalybridge, and then a horrible layout at Stalybridge resulting from the fact that the L&Y line still comes in as the low-speed branch, no improvement ever having been made throughout its history. Is there any way this line can be brought up to modern main-line standards?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just seen that the line between Manchester and Huddersfield is closed on Sundays from 19th June to August 21st. Does anybody know if this is in connection with electrification or routine maintenance?

Does that mean the Sunday TPE services from Manchester Airport will be taking the route via Hebden Bridge?

 

[The Planner]

Does anyone know what sort of line-speed improvments to the Stalybridge line are thought possible? It's a pretty horrible bit of L&Y branch-line with a sharp curve at the junction at Miles Platting, reverse curvature near Droylesden, reverse curvature caused by the island platform at Ashton, quite tight curves on the approach to Stalybridge, and then a horrible layout at Stalybridge resulting from the fact that the L&Y line still comes in as the low-speed branch, no improvement ever having been made throughout its history. Is there any way this line can be brought up to modern main-line standards?

Would need a lot of remodelling. Stalybridge fell foul of of being designed just before the aspiration of everything coming off the branch.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some details of this in the June TfGM Local Rail Service Performance and Station Issues Report:
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/278/metrolink_and_rail_networks_sub-committee

That's at least a start.
But it's evident that it will be a while before any line speed improvements are activated.
I would guess resignalling the semaphore section at Ashton Moss is the main constraint.
Some sections are already 70mph. Maybe the plan is to get it all up to that speed (sections of 60/50/45 at the moment, 30 at Miles Platting and 25 at Stalybridge).

 

[Welshman]

Does that mean the Sunday TPE services from Manchester Airport will be taking the route via Hebden Bridge?

Yes - here's an example:-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70643/2016/07/10/advanced

 

[Spod]

Can anyone help verify a rumour I've heard that transpennine electrification, when it comes through Garforth, will require the stone road bridge over Garforth station to be replaced as it is too low for the wires?

The bridge is HUL4/18, A642 Aberford Road, Garforth, overline bridge.

Is there any online source for information on what is planned for this bridge? If there is no plan yet, when would it be made, who would make it, and how can the public find out what it is?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Apologies if the question is too specific for this thread.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Is there any online source for information on what is planned for this bridge?

No, because there are (at the time of writing) no design proposals that are funded.

If there is no plan yet, when would it be made

About 2 years after NR appoint a designer for their new remit, so no time soon!

who would make it,

NR in the first instance

and how can the public find out what it is?

Depends on the status of the bridge (listed or not), which will determine what planning applications they might need, and what NR propose to do to it (which may not be anything, a track lower might work). With all the other electrification works there will be public displays, roadshows and possibly public inquiries

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Apologies if the question is too specific for this thread.

No, the question is too specific for this date.

 

[AndrewNewens]

Can anyone help verify a rumour I've heard that transpennine electrification, when it comes through Garforth, will require the stone road bridge over Garforth station to be replaced as it is too low for the wires?

The bridge is HUL4/18, A642 Aberford Road, Garforth, overline bridge.

It is a particularly nice bridge, and I always admire it passed under. Difficult position for track lowering, but is this out of the question?

 

[Ploughman]

It is a particularly nice bridge, and I always admire it passed under. Difficult position for track lowering, but is this out of the question?

Being as the platforms are very close to the bridge, in fact I think they run through the bridge don't they?
I would think it would be extremely doubtful that any worthwhile track lowering could be achieved here.
The NER Pattern footbridge will also be at risk.

Slightly further to the West about 200m West of the M1 bridge there is a low arch Cast Iron bridge which again will at risk.

 

[snowball]

Apparently it's listed:

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1419088

 

[Spod]

Interesting find Snowball, thanks! March 2015 suggests it only got listed in response to the transpennine electrification proposals. So presumably there would have to be a planning application made, and its listed status will influence the options available.
The platforms do run right under the bridge, so they would definitely need rebuilding if the track were lowered. That might require the bridge over Barwick Road to the west to be lowered as well, depending on permissible gradients.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that the station has been nominated for disabled access modifications as there is no level access to the eastbound platform. I wondered how that would dovetail with the electrification design work. If platforms may be lowered they might need to wait for that decision before building anything.
So when would Network Rail appoint a designer, given that I gather electrification will start from the ECML and work its way west, and that it's all supposed to be in service in 6 or 7 years?
Thanks all.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Just some random notes - I've not seen measurement data from the Structure Gauging Train nor have I been on-site, but from a very quick review of photographic evidence, it looks like bridge HUL4/18 has sufficient clearance for electrification. I could be wrong, given angles in photos and the like, but from what I've seen, it looks OK, but don't take that as gospel by any means.

The footbridge doesn't and will need significant work for clearance and user safety. It could be raised, but as with Dunblane, it could also be removed and donated to a preserved line with a new (probably accessible) footbridge installed instead.

Oh, and with regards to listed building status - Historic England, Historic & Environmental Scotland and Cadw have been conducting listed building assessments in relation to structures likely to be affected by signal box closures, level crossing closures and electrification, so the listed building status is clear when design work commences. It gives NR and design co's like Atkins and PB a firm set of criteria to work to, rather than having to second guess whether the council might want to list a structure when permitted development or prior approval rights are sought.

It also gives local authorities an idea of what they'll be looking at and what they might want to ask for in advance, so the NR people and the LA people can sit down together, look at photographs, supplier catalogues and CGI content to suggest what each party has in mind for each structure.

That's why route clearance work is going really well now - contractors know what they're doing and relatively good relations with local authorities (idiot Goring Gappers excluded, obviously).

 

[billio]

Apparently it's listed:

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1419088

It's not the only listed bridge in the Garforth area, there is also this one at Crawshaw Woods which I think is more important from a historical point of view :

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1419062

It is a shame that at the moment it is rather difficult to view due to line-side vegetation and steel sheeting protecting the bridge from agricultural traffic. Perhaps re-locating it to a heritage railway might be a good idea.

 

[55z]

There is a proposal to close both Garforth & East Garforth stations and replace with a brand new station about half way between the two. This is due to pathing problems trying to path stopping trains with fast non stop trains and by reducing the number of stops it becomes easier. The footbridge at Garforth is to be replaced as part of the Access for all schemes with a DDA friendly footbridge but at the moment very few upgrades to comply with DDA are being undertaken due to government cutbacks. It is quite complicated to replace a bridge besides the demolition and rebuilding there are legal processes and arranging and paying for the diversion of the utility services. These days track lowering is considered if possible or a bar electrification (as is going to be fitted in the Severn Tunnel) or even putting a neutral section (ie a section that is dead to electricity). We will have to wait to see what NR proposals are which I understand are quite radical but funding could be a difficulty and that NR are bad at delivering projects on time.

 

[Ploughman]

It's not the only listed bridge in the Garforth area, there is also this one at Crawshaw Woods which I think is more important from a historical point of view :

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1419062

It is a shame that at the moment it is rather difficult to view due to line-side vegetation and steel sheeting protecting the bridge from agricultural traffic. Perhaps re-locating it to a heritage railway might be a good idea.

That's the one I referred to in the second half of my reply.

 

[Class 170101]

There is a proposal to close both Garforth & East Garforth stations and replace with a brand new station about half way between the two. This is due to pathing problems trying to path stopping trains with fast non stop trains and by reducing the number of stops it becomes easier. The footbridge at Garforth is to be replaced as part of the Access for all schemes with a DDA friendly footbridge but at the moment very few upgrades to comply with DDA are being undertaken due to government cutbacks. It is quite complicated to replace a bridge besides the demolition and rebuilding there are legal processes and arranging and paying for the diversion of the utility services. These days track lowering is considered if possible or a bar electrification (as is going to be fitted in the Severn Tunnel) or even putting a neutral section (ie a section that is dead to electricity). We will have to wait to see what NR proposals are which I understand are quite radical but funding could be a difficulty and that NR are bad at delivering projects on time.

Putting a neutral section under a bridge right next to a station will increase the chances of failed in section as there is insufficient speed to coast through the section.

 

[LS1]

I remember seeing a planning application for HUL4/18 a while back, before the postponement of electrification.

I just searched for it again and it can still be viewed on Leeds City Council website, although it has since been withdrawn.

Doesn't look like there are any problems with the bridge clearance, unless something has changed. The application proposed attaching OLE supports to the underside of the bridge deck, to support wires 4345mm above rail level. It also proposed a reconstruction of the parapet to H4a standard, with stone cladding to match original.

No mention of any track lower, however I'm not sure if that would be covered by a planning application like this.


Also mentioned in the application letter was the proposed works required for the other bridges in the area:

"HUL4/14 (Bridge Reconstruction), HUL4/15 (Bridge Reconstruction), HUL4/16 (Parapet Works), HUL4/18 (Parapet Works)"

 

[snowball]

There was an article in Modern Railways a year or two ago on listed structures in relation to electrification. I seem to remember it discussed the Garforth area including Crawshaw Woods, along with parts of the GW, and the MML around Belper.

Edit: I've found an old post which mentions the article, so I can say it was in the April 2015 issue, pp. 66-71, and was by Richard Pollard.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I remember seeing a planning application for HUL4/18 a while back, before the postponement of electrification.

I just searched for it again and it can still be viewed on Leeds City Council website, although it has since been withdrawn.

Doesn't look like there are any problems with the bridge clearance, unless something has changed. The application proposed attaching OLE supports to the underside of the bridge deck, to support wires 4345mm above rail level. It also proposed a reconstruction of the parapet to H4a standard, with stone cladding to match original.

No mention of any track lower, however I'm not sure if that would be covered by a planning application like this.


Also mentioned in the application letter was the proposed works required for the other bridges in the area:

"HUL4/14 (Bridge Reconstruction), HUL4/15 (Bridge Reconstruction), HUL4/16 (Parapet Works), HUL4/18 (Parapet Works)"

OLE clearance through stations now has to be higher so any previous application might need to be disregarded.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The application proposed attaching OLE supports to the underside of the bridge deck, to support wires 4345mm above rail level.

That's a nuisance then, and if there's no space to lift the catenary higher, good luck to the design team.

The rules as they stood prior to the final standardisation between our RGS and the TSI Energy allowed contact wire at ~3950mm above rail which generates a safe distance of 2.75m between contact wire* and platform edge. The TSI Energy changes require 3.5m now, which requires ~4700mm contact wire above rail height (the way the distances are calculated allows for wire height to convert simply into platform-catenary distance).

*It's not technically the contact wire, it's a spot within the energised envelope in which the pantograph sits when the rolling stock is stationary at the platform, as that moves the energised envelope closer to the platform edge and eats into the 3.5m which would, in this case, almost certainly exist between contact wire and platform edge.

The designers may risk assess is and judge it to be safe, given it's marginally closer to 3.5m rather than 2.75m. The actual distance will depend on platform height and geometry, but desk calculation gives 3.145m clearance.

 

[LS1]

Ah didn't realise the rules had changed. Speculation, but it probably makes more sense just to close the platforms under the bridge and extend them to the east, where there is plenty of room. Would be a shame to destroy this bridge.

Having read the previous comment by 55z about building a new station between Garforth and East Garforth, looks this is exactly what they're planning, whilst also tackling the access issues and consolidating stops on the line.

Not cheap of course, but sensible.