Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Fougasse]

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.

But we can and do get it right (sometimes). The wiring train working on the Shotts line electrification in Scotland is doing two full wire runs per night; 2.5 to 3 km in total per shift.

 

[AndrewE]

But we can and do get it right (sometimes). The wiring train working on the Shotts line electrification in Scotland is doing two full wire runs per night; 2.5 to 3 km in total per shift.

That's good to hear, but it presumably follows on from masts and gantries having been installed to schedule - and where they were supposed to be too! Pity Preston to Manchester couldn't have been as well done.

 

[ainsworth74]

But we can and do get it right (sometimes). The wiring train working on the Shotts line electrification in Scotland is doing two full wire runs per night; 2.5 to 3 km in total per shift.

Presumably this is the team that have been sticking wires up in Scotland for the last eightish years? The advantage of having a team and supply chain that's got a continuing work stream I guess! My biggest fear at the moment as that we'll get to the end of the current run of wiring and not keep a single team in England meaning that we'll lose all the skills and logistics that have been rebuilt so painfully over the last five years.

 

[AndrewE]

Presumably this is the team that have been sticking wires up in Scotland for the last eightish years? The advantage of having a team and supply chain that's got a continuing work stream I guess! My biggest fear at the moment as that we'll get to the end of the current run of wiring and not keep a single team in England meaning that we'll lose all the skills and logistics that have been rebuilt so painfully over the last five years.

In that case (and regardless of small-minded /blinkered business cases) let's hope someone in "government" recognises the real cost of losing skills and authorises fill-in schemes pdq. A new thread beckons...
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...electrification-teams-from-dispersing.170025/

 

[td97]

Bit of reading here about a new prototype of OLE for anyone interested
https://www.mottmac.com/releases/mo...innovative-integrated-overhead-line-structure

 

[jyte]

Eugh. Every alternative OHLE design is either 1) literally unworkable or 2) functionally unworkable.

I think the fact they only, in their own press release, refer to 'cost' when talking about it being 'cost effective', so I suspect it would be rather pricey.

Also made out of wood? I'll pass.

 

[Mollman]

Bit of reading here about a new prototype of OLE for anyone interested
https://www.mottmac.com/releases/mo...innovative-integrated-overhead-line-structure

That looks like it would be good for Windermere but doesn't sound robust enough for dealing with a mainline through the Pennine climate.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That looks like it would be good for Windermere but doesn't sound robust enough for dealing with a mainline through the Pennine climate.

Agreed - horses for courses?

 

[Class 170101]

It reads for 39 weeks out of 52 weeks for 5 years - part of the route will be closed. It does not mean the whole route will be closed for 39/52 = 3/4 of the year. While upgrading Miles Platting to Heyrod Grid feeder, divert via Rochdale and Calder Valley. While doing Church Fenton to Leeds divert via Castleford etc. The whole route will not be closed is how I read it.

The only awkward part would be Mirfield where the L&Y and LNWR converge and I dare say that with plans to quadruple most of the really disruptive work might be able to be done over an Xmas/Near Year blockade. Even then diverting via Bradford would be an option, even possibly via Sheffield.

I agree that the most difficult part will be around Mirfield due to the difficultly over diversionary routes. However I fear its more fundamental than that. NR either don't want to do it so have over priced and so on or the only way NR think they will deliver it on budget is to have several blockades, locations as suggested previosuly as above and that weekend working with a few longer Holday closures like Easter and Christmas just won't cut it as far as NR are concerned. As for the passengers they are merely a pain not to be considered.

 

[BMIFlyer]

I agree that the most difficult part will be around Mirfield due to the difficultly over diversionary routes. However I fear its more fundamental than that. NR either don't want to do it so have over priced and so on or the only way NR think they will deliver it on budget is to have several blockades, locations as suggested previosuly as above and that weekend working with a few longer Holday closures like Easter and Christmas just won't cut it as far as NR are concerned. As for the passengers they are merely a pain not to be considered.

As I understand it, Heaton Lodge / Mirfield / Thornhill LNW can only be done with a full 3 month blockade. However we will find out in due course.

 

[matacaster]

As I understand it, the distance electricity can jump is primarily related to the voltage. So at 25kv it can arc maybe a couple of feet or so. I believe Elf & safety considerations have increased the safe distance in tunnels fairly recently. Would it be cheaper to reduce the voltage to say 6.25kv AC in standedge tunnel to limit the clearance needed? I realise that it would need some extra electronics on the trains, but this is rather easier these days than it used to be.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As I understand it, the distance electricity can jump is primarily related to the voltage. So at 25kv it can arc maybe a couple of feet or so. I believe Elf & safety considerations have increased the safe distance in tunnels fairly recently. Would it be cheaper to reduce the voltage to say 6.25kv AC in standedge tunnel to limit the clearance needed? I realise that it would need some extra electronics on the trains, but this is rather easier these days than it used to be.

They managed to do it in Glasgow in the 1960s, so I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man (or woman) today. Actually making it happen is another matter...

 

[snowball]

As I understand it, the distance electricity can jump is primarily related to the voltage. So at 25kv it can arc maybe a couple of feet or so. I believe Elf & safety considerations have increased the safe distance in tunnels fairly recently. Would it be cheaper to reduce the voltage to say 6.25kv AC in standedge tunnel to limit the clearance needed? I realise that it would need some extra electronics on the trains, but this is rather easier these days than it used to be.

Is there any evidence that clearance for 25kV is a problem in Standedge?

 

[deltic08]

Is there any evidence that clearance for 25kV is a problem in Standedge?

If it can be done in Kilsby tunnel it should be possible in Standedge.

 

[AM9]

As I understand it, the distance electricity can jump is primarily related to the voltage. So at 25kv it can arc maybe a couple of feet or so. I believe Elf & safety considerations have increased the safe distance in tunnels fairly recently. Would it be cheaper to reduce the voltage to say 6.25kv AC in standedge tunnel to limit the clearance needed? I realise that it would need some extra electronics on the trains, but this is rather easier these days than it used to be.

Electric arcing in air is about 1mm per kV, thus 25kV ac requires an absolute minimum of about 37mm. For safety purposes, any clearance must also provide for:

dirt and other contamination
condensation
mechanical stability
surges and transients​

That's why absolute minimum clearance to infrastructure is from about 120mm. For safety involving humans, there is additional allowance for unpredictable situations, e.g. umbrellas, fishing rod etc.. and of course stupidity.

 

[hwl]

As I understand it, the distance electricity can jump is primarily related to the voltage. So at 25kv it can arc maybe a couple of feet or so. I believe Elf & safety considerations have increased the safe distance in tunnels fairly recently. Would it be cheaper to reduce the voltage to say 6.25kv AC in standedge tunnel to limit the clearance needed? I realise that it would need some extra electronics on the trains, but this is rather easier these days than it used to be.

25kV actually nearer 1" in dry air. The main problems are potential foreign objects (and people) and the uplift of the contact & catenary wires, dropers and other on insulated parts of SPS when the train goes underneath so the allowance for movement and safety are fare greater than the actual arcing distance. Fairly easily solved in most tunnels with rigid bar systems at higher speeds or stiff insulating rod systems at low speeds (e.g. < 40mph).

Tunnels aren't the biggest of issues with specialist systems but platforms adjacent to low bridges are the massive problem under the new regs.

Edit: I see AM9 has said much the same as me in different way

 

[Ploughman]

As I understand it, Heaton Lodge / Mirfield / Thornhill LNW can only be done with a full 3 month blockade. However we will find out in due course.

For the divert routes on the transpennine.
It always used to be no more than 2 diversions off the main route between Liverpool and York at any one time.
Do not know if this is still the case.

 

[AM9]

25kV actually nearer 1" in dry air. The main problems are potential foreign objects (and people) and the uplift of the contact & catenary wires, dropers and other on insulated parts of SPS when the train goes underneath so the allowance for movement and safety are fare greater than the actual arcing distance. Fairly easily solved in most tunnels with rigid bar systems at higher speeds or stiff insulating rod systems at low speeds (e.g. < 40mph).

Tunnels aren't the biggest of issues with specialist systems but platforms adjacent to low bridges are the massive problem under the new regs.

Edit: I see AM9 has said much the same as me in different way

Just querying the gap. I had assumed 37kV peak in terms of breakdown.
I have seen plenty of glass fibre registration arms, particularly on the MML. I assume that they aren't limited to 40mph?

 

[superkev]

As I understand it, Heaton Lodge / Mirfield / Thornhill LNW can only be done with a full 3 month blockade. However we will find out in due course.

Outside the UK electrification with one track still in use is acceptable. Didnt I read the Network rail had taken the safety people to see such a system but it was rejected without a huge barrier.

Also posted elsewhere somewhere on here was a link to Mott Macdonalds proposed new system with wooden parts. Looks quite neat if it works.
See https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018/09/21/prototype-overhead-line-structure-revealed/amp/
K

 

[Class 170101]

If it can be done in Kilsby tunnel it should be possible in Standedge.

Not sure about that? Don't legacy standards apply in Kilsby Tunnel compared to what would be a new installation at Standedge Tunnel? I guess Kilsby may have derogations that may not be able to be applied for at Standedge.

 

[BMIFlyer]

For the divert routes on the transpennine.
It always used to be no more than 2 diversions off the main route between Liverpool and York at any one time.
Do not know if this is still the case.

For the closure TPE would run Liverpool / Man Air - Huddersfield and also Leeds - Hull / Newcastle / Scarborough / etc.

No trains at all Leeds to Huddersfield/Brighouse via Dewsbury, Wakefield to Huddersfield or Brighouse to Huddersfield.

 

[IanXC]

For the closure TPE would run Liverpool / Man Air - Huddersfield and also Leeds - Hull / Newcastle / Scarborough / etc.

No trains at all Leeds to Huddersfield/Brighouse via Dewsbury, Wakefield to Huddersfield or Brighouse to Huddersfield.

Nothing Manchester to Newcastle via Sheffield?

It has occurred to me in the past the before the Hope Valley capacity improvements are available for increases in the standard timetable, they could be useful in providing a diversionary route while parts of North TPE are closed.

 

[Ploughman]

For the closure TPE would run Liverpool / Man Air - Huddersfield and also Leeds - Hull / Newcastle / Scarborough / etc.

No trains at all Leeds to Huddersfield/Brighouse via Dewsbury, Wakefield to Huddersfield or Brighouse to Huddersfield.

There is always the option of Huddersfield - Halifax - Bradford - Leeds.
Or just route the trains all the way on the Calder valley to Halifax etc

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is already a brilliant presentation available in the pinned thread about this exact subject and will repost here if necessary but the diversionary routes and hardening already taking place is well publicized

https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hu...orthern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge

 

[Halifaxlad]

There is already a brilliant presentation available in the pinned thread about this exact subject and will repost here if necessary but the diversionary routes and hardening already taking place is well publicized

https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hu...orthern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge

Thanks for that I wondering that for a while.



Do love how even Network Rail have got time to input a bit of humor into things!

 

[Trapper]

There is already a brilliant presentation available in the pinned thread about this exact subject and will repost here if necessary but the diversionary routes and hardening already taking place is well publicized

https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hu...orthern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge

If you also review the 'Just don't go slow' and look at the speed uplifts it seems apparent to me that the TRU will involve a major rebuild of Miles Platting Junction (30-60 mph), Stalybridge Junction (25 - 80 mph) and Stalybridge Station (50-80mph). If those three interventions were all planned to take place at the same time then a diversion via the Calder Valley and Brighouse (either bus from Brighouse to/from Huddersfield or shuttle train Huddersfield to Brighouse via Bradley wood Junction). That would cover the Campaign to finish the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge section.

To 4 track from Huddersfield to Thornhill Junction would also require a full diversion via Calder Valley line and Bradford Interchange (along with the existing Calder Valley to Leeds trains) to get to Leeds and would presumably also be completed under a prolonged possession.

Final section of works from Thornhill Junction to Leeds would need a diversion from Huddersfield via Wakefield to get to Leeds.

If these interventions are planned to be Track upgrade in year 1 followed by electrification in year 2 then that accounts for 4 years and if the last intervention (Thornhill - Leeds) can be completed in only one year due to the reduced track alterations required, then there is a possible 5 year campaign for CP6 on the 'West of Leeds Section'.

There has been no leak on the exact changes required from Leeds to York but that would be carried out by the 'EAST of York' team.

That just leaves the Stalybridge to Huddersfield section to be deferred until CP7, although Bridge works could be undertaken during CP6 using the normal works. The major loser in all this would be Huddersfield as they would lose direct connecticity to Leeds and Manchester for large periods of the 5 year CP.

 

[Chester1]

If you also review the 'Just don't go slow' and look at the speed uplifts it seems apparent to me that the TRU will involve a major rebuild of Miles Platting Junction (30-60 mph), Stalybridge Junction (25 - 80 mph) and Stalybridge Station (50-80mph). If those three interventions were all planned to take place at the same time then a diversion via the Calder Valley and Brighouse (either bus from Brighouse to/from Huddersfield or shuttle train Huddersfield to Brighouse via Bradley wood Junction). That would cover the Campaign to finish the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge section.

To 4 track from Huddersfield to Thornhill Junction would also require a full diversion via Calder Valley line and Bradford Interchange (along with the existing Calder Valley to Leeds trains) to get to Leeds and would presumably also be completed under a prolonged possession.

Final section of works from Thornhill Junction to Leeds would need a diversion from Huddersfield via Wakefield to get to Leeds.

If these interventions are planned to be Track upgrade in year 1 followed by electrification in year 2 then that accounts for 4 years and if the last intervention (Thornhill - Leeds) can be completed in only one year due to the reduced track alterations required, then there is a possible 5 year campaign for CP6 on the 'West of Leeds Section'.

There has been no leak on the exact changes required from Leeds to York but that would be carried out by the 'EAST of York' team.

That just leaves the Stalybridge to Huddersfield section to be deferred until CP7, although Bridge works could be undertaken during CP6 using the normal works. The major loser in all this would be Huddersfield as they would lose direct connecticity to Leeds and Manchester for large periods of the 5 year CP.

Huddersfield will inevitably lose out while the work is done but it is in a very privileged position now and will be once the upgrade is complete. It should maintain services to either Manchester or Leeds while having a coach service to the other. Hopefully there are no major issues with using the new stock on diversionary routes.

I wonder what the rolling stock situation will be if / when ETCS is installed? The new stock can easily have the necessary kit installed but what about the 185s? The likely takeover of Liverpool-Nottingham by TPE could provide an opportunity to order more 802s and internally cascade some 185s but South TP would not need all 29 being retained.

 

[Killingworth]

Nothing Manchester to Newcastle via Sheffield?

It has occurred to me in the past the before the Hope Valley capacity improvements are available for increases in the standard timetable, they could be useful in providing a diversionary route while parts of North TPE are closed.

Looking at; https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hub/presentations_for_tech_hub/170302_northern_hub_beyond/06_170302_northern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme doesn't exist, although this document was produced in February 2017 when the scheme had already passed through the public inquiry stage and was awaiting a decision - granted in February 2018.

Those of us in Sheffield wonder if anyone in a position of power has looked at a map to see how the South Pennine route could be contributing so much more to the national rail network. Giving extra sidings at Buxton priority to the passenger flow is, to say the least, insulting .

It's a suspicion that all the cash is now to go to North-Pennine's more massive scheme, and construction there may be used to explain why far less severe blockades to the south can't happen until it's completed.

On the contrary we'd argue that urgently completing the South Pennine improvements is essential BEFORE the North Pennine blockades kick in. The more diversionary capacity the better.

 

[Trapper]

Huddersfield will inevitably lose out while the work is done but it is in a very privileged position now and will be once the upgrade is complete. It should maintain services to either Manchester or Leeds while having a coach service to the other. Hopefully there are no major issues with using the new stock on diversionary routes.

I wonder what the rolling stock situation will be if / when ETCS is installed? The new stock can easily have the necessary kit installed but what about the 185s? The likely takeover of Liverpool-Nottingham by TPE could provide an opportunity to order more 802s and internally cascade some 185s but South TP would not need all 29 being retained.

Looking at; https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hub/presentations_for_tech_hub/170302_northern_hub_beyond/06_170302_northern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme doesn't exist, although this document was produced in February 2017 when the scheme had already passed through the public inquiry stage and was awaiting a decision - granted in February 2018.

Those of us in Sheffield wonder if anyone in a position of power has looked at a map to see how the South Pennine route could be contributing so much more to the national rail network. Giving extra sidings at Buxton priority to the passenger flow is, to say the least, insulting .

It's a suspicion that all the cash is now to go to North-Pennine's more massive scheme, and construction there may be used to explain why far less severe blockades to the south can't happen until it's completed.

On the contrary we'd argue that urgently completing the South Pennine improvements is essential BEFORE the North Pennine blockades kick in. The more diversionary capacity the better.

Liverpool/Manchester Airport to Newcastle/Edinburgh will become class 802s, Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough/Saltburn will be class 68 + MK5A. That leaves only Manchester Picadilly - Selby/Hull and South Pennine to be run by the 185s. I expect some of those to be run as double 185 sets hence the 29 sets retained.

 

[Chester1]

Liverpool/Manchester Airport to Newcastle/Edinburgh will become class 802s, Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough/Saltburn will be class 68 + MK5A. That leaves only Manchester Picadilly - Selby/Hull and South Pennine to be run by the 185s. I expect some of those to be run as double 185 sets hence the 29 sets retained.

I know thats the plan but how would ETCS as part of the transpenine upgrade change it? Does anyone know how practical installing the equipment on 185s would be?