Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[snowball]

For more effects of the rule change see the last few pages of the Blackpool-Manchester thread.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

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.

Just to repeat Joseph Locke's comments in the Blackpool electrification thread (where a similar issue is being discussed) is that the rise and fall of the contact wire height has to be undertaken within limits.

These limits are based on linespeed and in sites such as this, will also be limited by any additional height changes needed for further structures.

 

[XDM]

Just to repeat Joseph Locke's comments in the Blackpool electrification thread (where a similar issue is being discussed) is that the rise and fall of the contact wire height has to be undertaken within limits.

These limits are based on linespeed and in sites such as this, will also be limited by any additional height changes needed for further structures.

Do you actually work? You spend so much time posting here. But it is very informative if it is all correct. Keep up the accurate stuff.

 

[Clip]

Do you actually work? You spend so much time posting here. But it is very informative if it is all correct. Keep up the accurate stuff.

Looking at his post count he doesnt post all that much in the year since he joined!!

but I agree with the information that he presents - good stuff for those of us not technical on the railway

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do you actually work? You spend so much time posting here. But it is very informative if it is all correct. Keep up the accurate stuff.

Holidaying at the moment, wishing the weather would play ball for some longer outside activities.

 

[Spod]

A 355 mm rise to 4700 mm above rail at the example 1 in 100 gradient mentioned in the Blackpool thread would mean platforms would need to start at least 35.5m from the bridge. You could probably retain the existing ticket office and would certainly keep the car park, but the platform would start halfway along the station building. Maybe with an access path round the edge of the station building, away from the platform edge. At least that would make room for a ramped footbridge from the existing northern pedestrian access next to the bridge.
What I can't figure out is how you'd get pedestrians to the other end of the platform from the East Garforth end - you couldn't dress it up as merging the stations, it would just be closing East Garforth. Perhaps a lineside footpath to each platform from the bridge at Bar Lane?
Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic, though it would make sense to figure all this out before electrification enabling works at Garforth. Along with deciding on the new station at Thorpe Park and / or turning Micklefield into East Leeds Parkway. Either of which might get some of the "sorry you can't have trolley buses" transport money for Leeds. And may be presented as compensation for the loss of East Garforth.

 

[deltic08]

A 355 mm rise to 4700 mm above rail at the example 1 in 100 gradient mentioned in the Blackpool thread would mean platforms would need to start at least 35.5m from the bridge. You could probably retain the existing ticket office and would certainly keep the car park, but the platform would start halfway along the station building. Maybe with an access path round the edge of the station building, away from the platform edge. At least that would make room for a ramped footbridge from the existing northern pedestrian access next to the bridge.
What I can't figure out is how you'd get pedestrians to the other end of the platform from the East Garforth end - you couldn't dress it up as merging the stations, it would just be closing East Garforth. Perhaps a lineside footpath to each platform from the bridge at Bar Lane?
Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic, though it would make sense to figure all this out before electrification enabling works at Garforth. Along with deciding on the new station at Thorpe Park and / or turning Micklefield into East Leeds Parkway. Either of which might get some of the "sorry you can't have trolley buses" transport money for Leeds. And may be presented as compensation for the loss of East Garforth.

Quad tracking from Marsh Lane to Micklefield has gone quiet of late. Surely this needs to be done before any other work.

 

[Spod]

That's a good idea. There would be no need to close East Garforth, fewer objections to Thorpe Arch and combined with Micklefield getting a bay for trains turning back to Leeds could improve the frequency of local services without impacting expresses. The viaduct from Leeds station to Marsh Lane could follow when budget and traffic dictate. Could it fit within the budget and timetable of the transpennine electrification project? Would it need help from the trolleybus money and HS3?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Following Philip Phlopp's useful posting in the Blackpool thread, that as little as 4415 mm contact wire height above rail may be needed at platforms, my calculation becomes 7 m from bridge to start of platform at Garforth station, give or take whatever assumptions turn out to be wrong.
Of course, if four tracking is on the cards, this all goes out of the window. Unless the fast lines join the HS2 link to the ECML after crossing the M1.

 

[Ploughman]

When we were based in Aire St offices Leeds pre 1994, we were told that the previously protected corridor alongside the viaduct had become a victim of sell offs by BR Property Board and it was not now possible to get 4 tracks, 3 might be possible at a tight squeeze and may involve some zig zaging of the track to make use of the widest side.

 

[snowball]

Last year(?) there was a report by the West and North Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce advocating widening of the eastern approach to Leeds to 4 tracks, two of which would be a different route into Leeds for HS2. I seem to remember it had some fairly detailed plans in it. It was discussed on here somewhere.

 

[Spod]

Last year(?) there was a report by the West and North Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce advocating widening of the eastern approach to Leeds to 4 tracks, two of which would be a different route into Leeds for HS2. I seem to remember it had some fairly detailed plans in it. It was discussed on here somewhere.

It was discussed and linked in the HS2 Leeds station thread here.

So still plausible, if the budget can accommodate it. Marsh Lane to just east of the M1 should be fairly easy to four track, Garforth will be tricky but possible, not sure about Micklefield but if the station was getting rebuilt anyway it might not be too bad. Anyone have any idea of the likelihood of four tracking anywhere between Leeds and Micklefield?

 

[snowball]

That link has a double occurrence of "http://". Try this:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2250513&postcount=37

 

[Ploughman]

It was discussed and linked in the HS2 Leeds station thread here.

So still plausible, if the budget can accommodate it. Marsh Lane to just east of the M1 should be fairly easy to four track, Garforth will be tricky but possible, not sure about Micklefield but if the station was getting rebuilt anyway it might not be too bad. Anyone have any idea of the likelihood of four tracking anywhere between Leeds and Micklefield?

I understand that when rebuilt, way back when, it was constructed with the possibility of being 4 track, so all cuttings where dug out to that width but not embankments. Such as between the M1 and Garforth.
However the land take at the embankment foot may be capable of allowing expansion.

 

[Philip C]

Could someone please remind me just how many trains per peak hour are proposed to make use of this four-track section?

 

[Spod]

The Yorkshire Hub report on Leeds HS2 station mentions 53 (non-HS2) services per hour into Leeds from the West, but doesn't say how many were projected from the East.
TfN's spring 2016 report says on page 25 that Northern Powerhouse Rail wants 4 TPH Leeds to Newcastle (in 60 mins) and 2 TPH Leeds to Hull (in 45 mins). Currently, there are 10 services westbound between 0756 and 0856 passing through Garforth, and in the evening peak 1 TPH to Hull and 2 TPH to Newcastle from Leeds. So NPR brings at least 3 more TPH each way, a Micklefield turnback... not sure what that would add. 2TPH? An extra stopping TPH to Selby is being considered, as per recent additional details on Northern franchise. We're looking at 13 to 19ish trains per hour, with very mixed performance and stopping patterns, ignoring freight.
More accurate figures may emerge in the autumn NPR report, as they look deeper into the details of what they're planning.
What's the nominal TPH capacity of two track and 4 track, for mixed traffic?

 

[lejog]

The Yorkshire Hub report on Leeds HS2 station mentions 53 (non-HS2) services per hour into Leeds from the West, but doesn't say how many were projected from the East.
TfN's spring 2016 report says on page 25 that Northern Powerhouse Rail wants 4 TPH Leeds to Newcastle (in 60 mins) and 2 TPH Leeds to Hull (in 45 mins). Currently, there are 10 services westbound between 0756 and 0856 passing through Garforth, and in the evening peak 1 TPH to Hull and 2 TPH to Newcastle from Leeds. So NPR brings at least 3 more TPH each way, a Micklefield turnback... not sure what that would add. 2TPH? An extra stopping TPH to Selby is being considered, as per recent additional details on Northern franchise. We're looking at 13 to 19ish trains per hour, with very mixed performance and stopping patterns, ignoring freight.
More accurate figures may emerge in the autumn NPR report, as they look deeper into the details of what they're planning.
What's the nominal TPH capacity of two track and 4 track, for mixed traffic?

The Micklefield turnback was included in the CP5 HLOS and initial CP5 plans to allow 2 extra Calder Valley trains to run into Leeds. This has disappeared from the post Hendy plan and seems to have been replaced by running 6 car trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could someone please remind me just how many trains per peak hour are proposed to make use of this four-track section?

Within the next franchise period, there are 5 TPE tph, 1 Cross Country tph and 2 Northern tph, although Northern are hoping to add a third.

The problem is that the 2 Northern stoppers take 20mins to travel between Leeds and Micklefield, whereas the TPE and XC take 10min so without a passing loop in this stretch, the 6 fast services are squeezed into just over 30mins. Already alternate Northern services from York, which stop additionally at Church Fenton, have to leave York 9 minutes earlier and wait at Church Fenton for a TPE service and a XC service to pass.

Since Network Rail have said that there will be no upgrades that require purchase of land during the electrification project, I can't see any major quadrupling of the line. Sorting out a suitable passing loop would be nice.

 

[Ploughman]

The Micklefield turnback was included in the CP5 HLOS and initial CP5 plans to allow 2 extra Calder Valley trains to run into Leeds. This has disappeared from the post Hendy plan and seems to have been replaced by running 6 car trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Within the next franchise period, there are 5 TPE tph, 1 Cross Country tph and 2 Northern tph, although Northern are hoping to add a third.

The problem is that the 2 Northern stoppers take 20mins to travel between Leeds and Micklefield, whereas the TPE and XC take 10min so without a passing loop in this stretch, the 6 fast services are squeezed into just over 30mins. Already alternate Northern services from York, which stop additionally at Church Fenton, have to leave York 9 minutes earlier and wait at Church Fenton for a TPE service and a XC service to pass.

Since Network Rail have said that there will be no upgrades that require purchase of land during the electrification project, I can't see any major quadrupling of the line. Sorting out a suitable passing loop would be nice.

Instead of turning back at Micklefield can't they do as now, or previously, and turn back at Selby?

 

[Spod]

My understanding is that there is enough land for four tracks at least as far as Micklefield, it's just an infrastructure and budget challenge.

 

[Philip C]

My understanding is that there is enough land for four tracks at least as far as Micklefield, it's just an infrastructure and budget challenge.

It sounds like a business case challenge to me. Establishing a few feasible options and getting a cost for them doesn't sound too difficult. Finding enough benefits to justify the capital expenditure might be more of a problem?

 

[snowball]

The Chamber of Commerce report discussed above describes the issues involved in widening the route, though only between Leeds and a point short of Garforth:

http://leeds.wnychamber.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/HS2-Leeds-Station-Chamber-position-July-2015.pdf

 

[lejog]

The Chamber of Commerce report discussed above describes the issues involved in widening the route, though only between Leeds and a point short of Garforth:

http://leeds.wnychamber.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/HS2-Leeds-Station-Chamber-position-July-2015.pdf

.... which include property acquisition and demolition along with reallocation of land currently earmarked for hospital use and the Thorpe Park development. The only identified railway land is the former four track sections to Neville Hill and through Crossgates station and development and the yards at Neville Hill.

 

[Lurpi]

According to Twitter, Network Rail held a 'West of Leeds Procurement and Delivery Update' for the Transpennine upgrade, in Leeds on Wednesday. It seems to have been aimed at prospective suppliers and/or contractors.

Was anyone there? Anyone have any info?

I suppose it's asking too much to expect to be able to see the slides...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I know Stalybridge is part of Blackpool -Manchester - but anyone seen any work at all on this project recently?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know Stalybridge is part of Blackpool -Manchester - but anyone seen any work at all on this project recently?

Passed through today.
Could just about be convinced that the first "scrapes" have begun to appear between Ashton and Staley, plus the odd marker peg.
There is evidently general route upgrade work going on west of the M60 (track and drainage renewal etc).
Still no sign of resignalling though (to replace Ashton Moss and Baguley Fold boxes).
All the bridges look to be finished.
The route is closed on Sundays so they must be doing something.

 

[pjm0512]

Passed through today.
Could just about be convinced that the first "scrapes" have begun to appear between Ashton and Staley, plus the odd marker peg.
There is evidently general route upgrade work going on west of the M60 (track and drainage renewal etc).
Still no sign of resignalling though (to replace Ashton Moss and Baguley Fold boxes).
All the bridges look to be finished.
The route is closed on Sundays so they must be doing something.

Yeah, although it's hard to pinpoint what is and what isn't electrification works on the stretch at the minute. The last I saw was a couple of weeks ago, drainage works around Droylsden and Littlemoss, in preparation for stanchions etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yeah, although it's hard to pinpoint what is and what isn't electrification works on the stretch at the minute. The last I saw was a couple of weeks ago, drainage works around Droylsden and Littlemoss, in preparation for stanchions etc.

Is the area around Littlemoss naturally well drained or are there any possibilities of flooding? The M60 in that area seems to have flood warning notices displayed on a permanent basis.

 

[familyguy99]

Passed through today.
Could just about be convinced that the first "scrapes" have begun to appear between Ashton and Staley, plus the odd marker peg.
There is evidently general route upgrade work going on west of the M60 (track and drainage renewal etc).
Still no sign of resignalling though (to replace Ashton Moss and Baguley Fold boxes).
All the bridges look to be finished.
The route is closed on Sundays so they must be doing something.

Trains have been back and up running on Manchester & Huddersfield line (on Sunday's) now for past months (I think) and closure were just for eight weeks in summer which normally do.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Trains have been back and up running on Manchester & Huddersfield line (on Sunday's) now for past months (I think) and closure were just for eight weeks in summer which normally do.

Yes I misread the posters I think, it's Ordsall Lane which is closed on Sundays, so TPE is terminating from the east at Victoria.

 

[pjm0512]

Is the area around Littlemoss naturally well drained or are there any possibilities of flooding? The M60 in that area seems to have flood warning notices displayed on a permanent basis.

I think it's important to remember that the section of the M60 through Ashton cut between a reservoir and a large section of body of peat bog, so some drainage issues are expected I suppose.

 

[snowball]

I think it's important to remember that the section of the M60 through Ashton cut between a reservoir and a large section of body of peat bog, so some drainage issues are expected I suppose.

Indeed the M60 took some land from one of the three adjacent reservoirs at Audenshaw. However I think its drainage problems arise from specific aspects of the motorway's drainage system, or the guidelines that applied at the time, rather than the land. I think there are also drainage issues on the M1 east of Leeds built at the same time.

Is any work in progress on the substation east of Stalybridge tunnel?