Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Bald Rick]

As someone who is loosely involved on TRU, it's strangely gratifying to see our designs being turned into reality!

It’s not strange. It is extremely rewarding to see your own designs / concepts turn into hard product. Even better to see it in use. And (in my experience) the rewardign feeling never leaves you, even decades later. (“I helped build that”)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It’s not strange. It is extremely rewarding to see your own designs / concepts turn into hard product. Even better to see it in use. And (in my experience) the rewardign feeling never leaves you, even decades later. (“I helped build that”)

I concur. It is why I went into STEM field many decades ago. Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths. Extremely rewarding when a molecule/polymer/coating I have designed gets used in the real world.

 

[modernrail]

So good to see this. Have been waiting for this moment since travelling this route as a boy and asking my Mum why it didn’t have wires like the big trains to London have.

 

[Mr Mean]

What are the plans for Dewsbury and Batley, both in terms of station changes and track layout?

I'm sure I saw something about a 3rd line at Batley (towards Dewsbury) to allow overtaking?

 

[B Box]

Today, from a distance I believe I noticed pylons on the stretch between Church Fenton and A162 at Barkston Ash. Too far away to photo from A162 (at least with my phone).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What are the plans for Dewsbury and Batley, both in terms of station changes and track layout?

I'm sure I saw something about a 3rd line at Batley (towards Dewsbury) to allow overtaking?

The only place I've seen the suggestion of a third track at Batley is on this website, not from anywhere official.
IIRC one of the proposals for Dewsbury involved removing the current down loop line (which serves Platform 1) and building the platform out to meet the down fast line. Hopefully this part of the plan has been shelved as it would make a right mess of a currently rather attractive station, and wouldn't offer any operational advantages that I can identify.

Putting an up through line in at Dewsbury is often suggested, but that would actually slow down non-stopping trains in both directions, as they'd have to "chicane" to gain the alignment over the viaduct.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Today, from a distance I believe I noticed pylons on the stretch between Church Fenton and A162 at Barkston Ash. Too far away to photo from A162 (at least with my phone).

They weren't there yesterday from what I could tell from the train but today I was preoccupied talking to a colleague on my journey into work. Next time I commute in I'll have a look.

 

[Tetragon213]

What are the plans for Dewsbury and Batley, both in terms of station changes and track layout?

I'm sure I saw something about a 3rd line at Batley (towards Dewsbury) to allow overtaking?

I haven't seen anything to indicate this to be the case, I'm afraid.

 

[Nottingham59]

What are the plans for Dewsbury and Batley, both in terms of station changes and track layout?

I'm sure I saw something about a 3rd line at Batley (towards Dewsbury) to allow overtaking?

I haven't seen any indication of how (or if) they're going to increase capacity between Dewsbury and Leeds. The only indication is the design of the Ravensthorpe flyover junction, which effectively commits any future Transpennine route to send the fast trains into the centre of Dewsbury.

(Personally I would have built a new line into a tunnel under Osset, and then follow the M1/M621 corridor to join the proposed HS2 route into new platforms at Leeds station. But that's for another thread.)

 

[59CosG95]

They weren't there yesterday from what I could tell from the train but today I was preoccupied talking to a colleague on my journey into work. Next time I commute in I'll have a look.

Passed them this afternoon - they are indeed up! I only looked out on the Down side so I can’t speak for progress on the Up side. I counted 8, then a gap, then another 7. There was then a sizeable gap until just before the A162, where there was 1 more before masts ran out completely.
Masts here all followed the ELR; I spotted ones such as CFM/19/02, for example. Everything on the Down side seemed to be an even numbered mast (so far).

 

[Halish Railway]

I haven't seen any indication of how (or if) they're going to increase capacity between Dewsbury and Leeds. The only indication is the design of the Ravensthorpe flyover junction, which effectively commits any future Transpennine route to send the fast trains into the centre of Dewsbury.

One big improvement has already been done - The relocation of Morley station enabled the station to be placed beyond the signal at the end of Morley tunnel, meaning that a fast train can start travelling towards Leeds can enter the tunnel whilst a stopping train is stationary at Morley, thus decreasing spacing between trains.

The most obvious capacity booster would be electrification itself, with modern electric multiple units being able to accelerate up inclines like they're not there, as opposed to Sprinters which really can struggle. If BRouter.de is to be believed there is an approximately 40 meter difference in elevation between White Rose and Dewsbury (both about 60 meters above sea level) and the summit of Morley tunnel (100 meters above sea level), thus the impressive electric performance of modern EMUs on stopping services is likely to make any passing loops at Batley redundant, bearing in mind that the diverging slow lines between Dewsbury and Ravensthorpe will be signalled in such a way to allow stopping services to diverge from the main route, even if their subsequent route onto the slow lines at Ravensthorpe hasn't been set yet, allowing fast trains to overtake.

 

[Dspatula]

The only place I've seen the suggestion of a third track at Batley is on this website, not from anywhere official.
IIRC one of the proposals for Dewsbury involved removing the current down loop line (which serves Platform 1) and building the platform out to meet the down fast line. Hopefully this part of the plan has been shelved as it would make a right mess of a currently rather attractive station, and wouldn't offer any operational advantages that I can identify.

No expert but I would a assume removing two points of failure in terms of point work and simplifying the signalling, given slow trains would be held in the four track section, would be attractive operationally even if the results wouldn't be visually.

Edit: If trains are going up to 200m I don't think the loop will be long enough for a platform of that length.

 

[zwk500]

Hopefully this part of the plan has been shelved as it would make a right mess of a currently rather attractive station, and wouldn't offer any operational advantages that I can identify.

If the turnouts are slow and nothing actually overtakes at the station, removing the loop can actually increase throughput as the stopping trains don't need to slow down for the junctions, and can accelerate to linespeed straight away. With the 4-tracking further down the line anyway, the need to overtake is also probably less important to maintain.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No expert but I would a assume removing two points of failure in terms of point work and simplifying the signalling, given slow trains would be held in the four track section, would be attractive operationally even if the results wouldn't be visually.

Edit: If trains are going up to 200m I don't think the loop will be long enough for a platform of that length.

Good points both about the removal of point work (the Dewsbury loop isn't ideal anyway as it's short- meaning a long dwell for anything being overtaken) and platform lengths. Just hope they make the changes as sympathetically as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

If the turnouts are slow and nothing actually overtakes at the station, removing the loop can actually increase throughput as the stopping trains don't need to slow down for the junctions, and can accelerate to linespeed straight away. With the 4-tracking further down the line anyway, the need to overtake is also probably less important to maintain.

The loop isn't ideal, and up until a few years ago it was only used to pass services on an "as needed in disruption" basis. As you say, the four tracking further up the line (Up is Manchester, by the way) means it won't be needed.
My concern is with how the changes to Dewsbury are implemented, as simply building out the platform to meet the down fast line will result in a stupidly wide platform with a ridiculously long walk from the lifts and steps.

 

[zwk500]

Good points both about the removal of point work (the Dewsbury loop isn't ideal anyway as it's short- meaning a long dwell for anything being overtaken) and platform lengths. Just hope they make the changes as sympathetically as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==


The loop isn't ideal, and up until a few years ago it was only used to pass services on an "as needed in disruption" basis. As you say, the four tracking further up the line (Up is Manchester, by the way) means it won't be needed.
My concern is with how the changes to Dewsbury are implemented, as simply building out the platform to meet the down fast line will result in a stupidly wide platform with a ridiculously long walk from the lifts and steps.

I am certainly sympathetic to the concern about the width and look - other stations where this has happened show both good and bad examples. But you specifically mentioned not seeing an operational advantage, so I was pointing out a potential one (you'd need to have a look at the actual signalling and speeds and timetable to know what the actual benefit was).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I am certainly sympathetic to the concern about the width and look - other stations where this has happened show both good and bad examples. But you specifically mentioned not seeing an operational advantage, so I was pointing out a potential one (you'd need to have a look at the actual signalling and speeds and timetable to know what the actual benefit was).

Sorry if I sounded combative in my reply- I agree the need for the loop lessens with the four tracking, and that the loop was never ideal in the first place. I do now see the operational advantages of the changes being made.

It doesn't look as if it would be easy to move the stairs and lift closer to the new platform edge, even if that were permissible under the listing. Certainly in inclement weather a very wide platform with the platform edge some distance from the waiting room and canopy, would not be particularly passenger-friendly.

 

[zwk500]

Sorry if I sounded combative in my reply- I agree the need for the loop lessens with the four tracking, and that the loop was never ideal in the first place. I do now see the operational advantages of the changes being made.

It doesn't look as if it would be easy to move the stairs and lift closer to the new platform edge, even if that were permissible under the listing. Certainly in inclement weather a very wide platform with the platform edge some distance from the waiting room and canopy, would not be particularly passenger-friendly.

apologies if I sounded defensive, I agree - a big gap between canopy and train is a massively unfriendly environment, equal to uncovered footbridges.

 

[D6975]

Good points both about the removal of point work (the Dewsbury loop isn't ideal anyway as it's short- meaning a long dwell for anything being overtaken) and platform lengths. Just hope they make the changes as sympathetically as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==


The loop isn't ideal, and up until a few years ago it was only used to pass services on an "as needed in disruption" basis. As you say, the four tracking further up the line (Up is Manchester, by the way) means it won't be needed.
My concern is with how the changes to Dewsbury are implemented, as simply building out the platform to meet the down fast line will result in a stupidly wide platform with a ridiculously long walk from the lifts and steps.

I'm sure that I saw somewhere that the plan for Dewsbury was do away with the 'fast' line and just to ease the 'S' bend at the Huddersfield end of the Eastbound platform to increase the linespeed approaching the platform, so only the western end of the platform would be extended towards the middle.

 

[SkinnyFists]

Some plans for Thorpe Park station have been published on Leeds City Council's North and East Plans Panel. The relevant slides are page 36-50 in the Presentation Slides, the most interesting one is on page 42 which shows how Network Rail are proposing to future-proof for 4-tracking by effectively building two down platforms (towards Garforth): a temporary one to serve the current two track layout and a future platform for when (presumably "when" rather than "if" if NR are going to this much effort) the quadrification is implemented. The visualisations also in the slides show the two scenarios.

https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=949&MId=12560&Ver=4

Agenda​

North and East Plans Panel - Thursday, 21st November, 2024 1.30 pm​

• Attendance details
• Agenda frontsheet PDF 322 KB
• Agenda reports pack
• Supplementary Information Items 8 & 10 PDF 5 MB
• North and East Plans Panel Presentation Slides PDF 18 MB

Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds

[Image shows a general arrangement plan of Thorpe Park station]

The presentation also states the following dates:
- Further planning engagement, Early Spring 2025
- Planning application submitted, Late Spring 2025
- Construction commences, Autumn 2025
- Station open, May 2027

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm sure that I saw somewhere that the plan for Dewsbury was do away with the 'fast' line and just to ease the 'S' bend at the Huddersfield end of the Eastbound platform to increase the linespeed approaching the platform, so only the western end of the platform would be extended towards the middle.

That's not so bad. The platform could probably do with being a little wider, particularly at the Leeds end which tends to be busier.

 

[Meerkat]

Network Rail are proposing to future-proof for 4-tracking by effectively building two down platforms (towards Garforth): a temporary one to serve the current two track layout and a future platform for when (presumably "when" rather than "if" if NR are going to this much effort) the quadrification is implemented.

Does seem odd to complete the future platform when there is no certainty of quad track. It doesn’t look like it would be a problem to build it later - it’s behind the temp one (so no need for possessions) and near the car park for access. Unless its to avoid any future standards issues.

 

[geordieblue]

Does seem odd to complete the future platform when there is no certainty of quad track. It doesn’t look like it would be a problem to build it later - it’s behind the temp one (so no need for possessions) and near the car park for access. Unless its to avoid any future standards issues.

Building this design would seem to suggest at least a degree of certainty for future four tracking - maybe the issue is that West Yorks want the station open ASAP (there were financial issues at White Rose when that got delayed) and the TRU team aren’t planning on four-tracking for ages? I agree it seems a bit inefficient.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Building this design would seem to suggest at least a degree of certainty for future four tracking - maybe the issue is that West Yorks want the station open ASAP (there were financial issues at White Rose when that got delayed) and the TRU team aren’t planning on four-tracking for ages? I agree it seems a bit inefficient.

The footbridge element is definitely better to do now with lifts. But there must be some certainty as you say otherwise this is a lot of effort....

It talks about Leeds to Micklefield but I assume realistically best case will be Neville hill to Thorpe Park as I cannot see a way of four tracking Garforth without spending about a £1bn.

 

[D6975]

That's not so bad. The platform could probably do with being a little wider, particularly at the Leeds end which tends to be busier.

Found it! It's in post 2831 onwards in this thread. Seems to be some doubt about whether the through line would stay or not.

 

[59CosG95]

#ole #teamwork #safetyfirst #engineeringexcellence #transpenninerouteupgrade | Jake Berry

Following on from my previous update, today marks the end of a series of midweek blockades on The Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) Despite battling through freezing temperatures and snowy weather, we’ve achieved incredible progress over the past few weeks across the Transpennine Route Upgrade...

www.linkedin.com

Further updates from the Leeds area.

Following on from my previous update, today marks the end of a series of midweek blockades on The Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU)

Despite battling through freezing temperatures and snowy weather, we’ve achieved incredible progress over the past few weeks across the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) project:

Over 100 OLE foundations installed and assured
Over 100 pre dressed masts erected
More than 40 booms successfully installed
2 viaduct brackets in place

All of this was delivered in on programme and most importantly, completed accident and incident-free!
This is a testament to the incredible commitment, teamwork, and safety-first approach of everyone involved.
As the blockade concludes, the footprint of the site is starting to transform into a fully-fledged electrification project, a tangible milestone in delivering the future of rail travel.
A massive thank you to, The Keltbray Infrastructure Services and Amey OLE teams for their resilience, expertise, and dedication and the Amey material and logistic team for their seamless support

I’m incredibly proud to be part of this team, working together to deliver such a transformative upgrade.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It is coming together nicely.

 

[BantamMenace]

Some plans for Thorpe Park station have been published on Leeds City Council's North and East Plans Panel. The relevant slides are page 36-50 in the Presentation Slides, the most interesting one is on page 42 which shows how Network Rail are proposing to future-proof for 4-tracking by effectively building two down platforms (towards Garforth): a temporary one to serve the current two track layout and a future platform for when (presumably "when" rather than "if" if NR are going to this much effort) the quadrification is implemented. The visualisations also in the slides show the two scenarios.

https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=949&MId=12560&Ver=4



View attachment 169682

[Image shows a general arrangement plan of Thorpe Park station]

The presentation also states the following dates:
- Further planning engagement, Early Spring 2025
- Planning application submitted, Late Spring 2025
- Construction commences, Autumn 2025
- Station open, May 2027

This is really interesting, especially the provision for 4 tracking. Does anyone know if the easing of the curves at Neville Hill has any provision for 4 tracking? Either by having room for a running line either side of the new alignment, or more likely room for a pair of lines in the inside of the new formation. The latter would mean that the outer most line of the new formation would go from being the fast line towards Leeds to becoming the slow line towards Leeds and hence losing some of the benefit. Additionally, the fast line towards York would be a new line on the inside of the currently under construction 2 track formation and therefore naturally a tighter curve and lower speed potentially.

 

[WAO]

This does seem to confirm quadrupling, not just to the previous limit of Cross Gates but beyond, seemingly to Micklefield. Also indicated is the arrangement of tracks, with fasts in the centre, i.e., paired by direction, there being only two outer (permanent) platform faces, with no lift shaft to the temporary platform. Fly-over at Micklefield?

Will there be equal provision in OLE mast/stanchion siting?

WAO

 

[noddingdonkey]

Local media reports that the Hillhouse temporary station is not going to happen, they are going to divert the funding into permanent upgrades for Brighouse

Inside Huddersfield Railway Station a year into £70m revamp as countdown begins to two 30-day closures - Huddersfield Hub

The £70m revamp of Huddersfield Railway Station is on track, on time and on budget says TransPennine Route Upgrade

huddersfieldhub.co.uk

The original plan was to have a temporary platform at Hillhouse for use during the 2025 closure with passengers bused between the station and the Hillhouse depot.

That, however, will no longer happen and instead Huddersfield passengers will go to Brighouse Railway Station, which will undergo a revamp.

TRU sponsor Paul Sumner said as work had progressed – and Huddersfield diversions successfully went onto the Calder Valley Line – it became clear there was a better way than building a temporary platform at Hillhouse.

Instead of spending the money on a temporary platform that would be taken up afterwards, it was decided to invest in Brighouse, extending the width of a platform and improving car parking and other facilities.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Local media reports that the Hillhouse temporary station is not going to happen, they are going to divert the funding into permanent upgrades for Brighouse

Inside Huddersfield Railway Station a year into £70m revamp as countdown begins to two 30-day closures - Huddersfield Hub

The £70m revamp of Huddersfield Railway Station is on track, on time and on budget says TransPennine Route Upgrade

huddersfieldhub.co.uk

Makes sense in a lot of ways, Hillhouse is hardly the most salubrious part of town.

Odd that the site is still referred to as "Hillhouse depot" when there hasn't been a shed there for the best part of 70 years!