Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[Mag_seven]

When is this project due for completion?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When is this project due for completion?

The whole Manchester - Preston Euxton Jct is due by Dec 2017 so 17 months to go

 

[snowball]

I have emailed websupport@networkrail.co.uk to get an answer. I could be be that the certificate is out of date. I have seen this message before on other quite genuine major websites.

In the meantime, just delete the s from HTTPS, as this
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...ons-trinity-street-bridge-to-start-this-month

Thanks to both of you!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Devon produced just one item relevant to this thread, as per the photo below.....

One is not flattered in the slightest.

 

[wrinkley]

My estimate of the Trinity Street bridge is wrong. I assumed that the top concrete slab at the foot of the wall was at platform level, looking at some old photos, the platform level is at least at the top of the row of stonework and possibly higher. This would make the bridge height a maximum of 3.9 metres and probably less.

Just out of interest the platform to underbridge height at Lostock is approx. 3.7 metres - measured with a tape. I will send photos to LDECRexile for addition to the album.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My estimate of the Trinity Street bridge is wrong. I assumed that the top concrete slab at the foot of the wall was at platform level, looking at some old photos, the platform level is at least at the top of the row of stonework and possibly higher. This would make the bridge height a maximum of 3.9 metres and probably less.

Just out of interest the platform to underbridge height at Lostock is approx. 3.7 metres - measured with a tape. I will send photos to LDECRexile for addition to the album.

This is never going to be accurate, but if you're going to measure bridges (and I'd strongly advise against it for safety reasons) then you need to do the calculations as follows.

You need to determine the height of the bridge over the highest rail.

The basic calculation (so done on perfectly aligned, perfectly flat geometry) on a bridge to platform height of 3700mm is top of rail to underside of bridge of 4615mm.

4615mm then needs 370mm subtracted for the gap between underside of structure and catenary, which takes you to 4245mm to the contact wire.

4245mm will generally provide a safety margin of 3350mm from the nearest part of the energised collection system (usually the pantograph horns) for a stationary pantograph, 150mm less than the new requirement of 3500mm.

The general requirement from top of rail to underside of contact wire to ensure there's 3500mm from platform edge to nearest part of electrical envelope on a stationary train is at least 4415mm.

The above measurements would be acceptable under the old group standards where underside of bridge to catenary was 270mm and platform to nearest part of the energised envelope was 2750mm.

Also to add - I cannot confirm these measurements to be correct for the bridge mentioned, they're taken using the 3.7m value provided. This is genuinely a purely hypothetical calculation, without having the correct track geometry, cant, precise platform height above top of rail, etc, I can only provide an exemplar.

 

[LDECRexile]

I have received two sets of photos from Wrinkley, one contains four shots at Lostock Station relating to the correspondence immediately above this post, the other contains eighteen shots of track relaying taking place earlier today.

I have added them to his album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157654034635234

and to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157661069863633

Great stuff Wrinkley, thank you.

 

[Class 170101]

There have been possessions took around 22:00 every night this week on the line beyond Lostock Junction right the way up to Euxton Junction so this can only be a good sign!

Possessions are one thing. The question is was any work undertaken within them?

I have seen possessions taken and no evidence of work being undertaken.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

I've found this http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/def...ng/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf which explains many electrification things in language which idiots like me can understand!

Section 12.1 illustrates the clearance issues - albeit with the old values. Without getting my tape measure out I reckon Bolton is in trouble - or very, very close....

N.B. Not saying our resident engineers are not explaining things well - they most certainly are! But basic background knowledge for non engineers but interested parties such as I is always welcome..

In the interests of self education, do NR publish technical details of ongoing projects? If so, they don't seem to make them easy to find!

 

[wrinkley]

This is never going to be accurate, but if you're going to measure bridges (and I'd strongly advise against it for safety reasons) then you need to do the calculations as follows.

Thanks Philip, please be assured that I don't make a practice of waving tape measures around on live railways, but as there were no trains through Lostock today, no-one on the station and the nearest workgang some 300 metres away, the risk seemed to be minimal.

Thanks for the calculation method, if I read it correctly then the bridge does not comply with the new rules. There are two bridges next to each other, the second one is over the Wigan line and they are jointly on a restricted weight limit of three tons which has been in place for several years, I don't know whether the restriction applies to just one or both. The very high kerbs, where the road has been narrowed to allow cars and small vans only, have quite a few scars from tyres and cills as cars go through, so I'm sure the locals would appreciate a new bridge.

 

[CAF397]

The Lostock Bridge - Rumworth Road, if it requires rebuilding, I can't see it costing a massive amount of money. It would cause headaches and some spluttering of accountants brews, but the road is not that main (as you state it has restrictions of HgVs). It would certainly cause localised traffic inconvenience, but I very much doubt that this (or these) bridge(s) are the troubled ones.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

The Lostock Bridge - Rumworth Road, if it requires rebuilding, I can't see it costing a massive amount of money. It would cause headaches and some spluttering of accountants brews, but the road is not that main (as you state it has restrictions of HgVs). It would certainly cause localised traffic inconvenience, but I very much doubt that this (or these) bridge(s) are the troubled ones.

Salford Crescent or Bolton Trinity Street would be the biggest headaches I would imagine (Crescent would be worse I would have thought simply because of the traffic volumes it carries...)- Mr Locke stated that it was only one bridge previously out of scope that now needs attention, so take your pick....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks Philip, please be assured that I don't make a practice of waving tape measures around on live railways, but as there were no trains through Lostock today, no-one on the station and the nearest workgang some 300 metres away, the risk seemed to be minimal.

Thanks for the calculation method, if I read it correctly then the bridge does not comply with the new rules. There are two bridges next to each other, the second one is over the Wigan line and they are jointly on a restricted weight limit of three tons which has been in place for several years, I don't know whether the restriction applies to just one or both. The very high kerbs, where the road has been narrowed to allow cars and small vans only, have quite a few scars from tyres and cills as cars go through, so I'm sure the locals would appreciate a new bridge.

It's those tape measures you have to watch out for - they'll have an eye out...

I'm very firmly of the opinion that if we can help local authorities remove life expired, single track or weight limited bridges during electrification, then we should do so.

 

[wrinkley]

It's those tape measures you have to watch out for - they'll have an eye out...

Thanks, I'll get the safety glasses out of the drawer and risk assess the tape measure.

 

[snowball]

Mr Locke stated that it was only one bridge previously out of scope that now needs attention, so take your pick....

He actually said "at least one" (post #2824 on page 189).

 

[SodTheDrummer]

He actually said "at least one" (post #2824 on page 189).

Doh! My bad...

 

[42626]

Whilst if it was Lostock or Clifton then these are fairly quiet roads (compared to Bolton of Salford Crescent).

It's a big problem if it's Clifton as this would completely cut off access to a number of businesses, and HGV access to another two, effectively closing them down for the duration.

 

[LDECRexile]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum. I think this is a fair summary of what I was told. Any errors or misunderstandings are mine.

1. The realignment which Wrinkley has photographed and reported at Lostock Junction is to allow trains to run southwards under Beaumont Road bridge at up to 95mph.

2. The problem bridge on the Salford-Euxton stretch is MVE2/4, the Trinity Street bridge over the railway. Mr/Ms Orange didn't know of the Blackpool problem bridge which Philip Plopp has written about.

3. The lack of visible action on masts and bases following public meetings in the Spring is a case of cumulative issues combining to glue the works, notably clarifying and agreeing detailed contracts and concerns that some design work might need revisiting, especially in light of the changes to the overhead lines clearance rules which have been discussed in the Forum. NR are acutely aware that silence is not golden.

4. The lack of action on foot crossings between Salford and Euxton (apart from South of Farnworth Tunnel, of course) springs from a decision to move the job from one team to another. Wheels have now been set in motion, but visible action won't come soon.

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum. I think this is a fair summary of what I was told. Any errors or misunderstandings are mine.

1. The realignment which Wrinkley has photographed and reported at Lostock Junction is to allow trains to run southwards under Beaumont Road bridge at up to 95mph.

2. The problem bridge on the Salford-Euxton stretch is MVE2/4, the Trinity Street bridge over the railway. Mr/Ms Orange didn't know of the Blackpool problem bridge which Philip Plopp has written about.

3. The lack of visible action on masts and bases following public meetings in the Spring is a case of cumulative issues combining to glue the works, notably clarifying and agreeing detailed contracts and concerns that some design work might need revisiting, especially in light of the changes to the overhead lines clearance rules which have been discussed in the Forum. NR are acutely aware that silence is not golden.

4. The lack of action on foot crossings between Salford and Euxton (apart from South of Farnworth Tunnel, of course) springs from a decision to move the job from one team to another. Wheels have now been set in motion, but visible action won't come soon.

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

One should hope that between the three major electrification projects currently ongoing we can put together some much better knowledge interms of understanding the work before the wires go up.

A lessons learned if you will so that the MML, TP, Spine and any other future schemes do not hit these problems. If any of those schemes do then it truly will be an embarrassment.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

2. The problem bridge on the Salford-Euxton stretch is MVE2/4, the Trinity Street bridge over the railway. Mr/Ms Orange didn't know of the Blackpool problem bridge which Philip Plopp has written about.

They may not know about Plymouth Road - it's being replaced by Blackpool Council and not Network Rail. Demolition started last weekend.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not much to add to LDECR's detailed post above, after a run round today.
The only electrification progress was a few test holes north of Salford Cres on the Up line, as promised by Joseph.

Having travelled over the newly relaid Up line east of Lostock, it seems to have a higher cant than before, which suggests higher speeds are indeed planned.
The Down platform at Chorley has been completely demolished.
December 2017 seems out of the window now.
Northern/TPE won't be happy (not to mention DfT).

 

[snowball]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum.

Thanks for that, a tremendous advance in our knowledge!

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

I would have thought a problem like that would have been identified soon after electrification of the line was authorised, and would have been discussed with National Grid or whoever owns the cables, and resolved by now.

Edit: unless the problem has changed due to the proximity to Kearsley station, the new platform clearance rules and the limits on wire gradient.

As YorkshireBear says, one hopes future schemes will benefit from this experience.

They may not know about Plymouth Road - it's being replaced by Blackpool Council and not Network Rail. Demolition started last weekend.

This article refers to a £1M contribution from NR for "heightening" - could that mean the parapets rather than the deck?

Edit: except that as it's next to Layton station, it may be that the deck has to be higher because of the new platform clearance rules.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This article[/url] refers to a £1M contribution from NR for "heightening" - could that mean the parapets rather than the deck?

Edit: except that as it's next to Layton station, it may be that the deck has to be higher because of the new platform clearance rules.

It's the deck on this bridge - under the old rules, the old bridge was OK, but all that pre-dates the time it was discovered to be months away from complete failure.

 

[Trackman]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum. I think this is a fair summary of what I was told. Any errors or misunderstandings are mine.

1. The realignment which Wrinkley has photographed and reported at Lostock Junction is to allow trains to run southwards under Beaumont Road bridge at up to 95mph.

2. The problem bridge on the Salford-Euxton stretch is MVE2/4, the Trinity Street bridge over the railway. Mr/Ms Orange didn't know of the Blackpool problem bridge which Philip Plopp has written about.

3. The lack of visible action on masts and bases following public meetings in the Spring is a case of cumulative issues combining to glue the works, notably clarifying and agreeing detailed contracts and concerns that some design work might need revisiting, especially in light of the changes to the overhead lines clearance rules which have been discussed in the Forum. NR are acutely aware that silence is not golden.

4. The lack of action on foot crossings between Salford and Euxton (apart from South of Farnworth Tunnel, of course) springs from a decision to move the job from one team to another. Wheels have now been set in motion, but visible action won't come soon.

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

I thought Trinity street bridge would be an easy fix, just shorten the platform.
I didn't know about HV stuff over the line, but this must have been sussed out years ago.
I'm not back there for a fortnight so I'll have a look.
Also, last weekend I had a look at the new interchange construction at Bolton, there is supposed to be a walkway bridge from the bus station to the railway station but I cannot see any sign of construction of it. I wonder if NR have said something, or maybe the plans have changed.
Oh, The Buffet is still shut at Bolton

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum. I think this is a fair summary of what I was told. Any errors or misunderstandings are mine.
<snip>
3. The lack of visible action on masts and bases following public meetings in the Spring is a case of cumulative issues combining to glue the works, notably clarifying and agreeing detailed contracts and concerns that some design work might need revisiting, especially in light of the changes to the overhead lines clearance rules which have been discussed in the Forum. NR are acutely aware that silence is not golden.
<snip>
5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

An excellent report. "Informed Sources" at their best!

So the Balfour Beatty fallout continues, and we have lost a year.
As BB are still at work for NR on GW/Crossrail, they must have left NW because the job was unprofitable for them.
So it's not a surprise that the next contractor is playing hard-ball with NR over contract terms, as NR will be a "distressed client".

On the low power lines, as you know there are several which come close to/cross the L&M line near Rainhill, which didn't seem to bother Phase 2 at all.

 

[42626]

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

That'll be Kearsley Main Sub.

On the low power lines, as you know there are several which come close to/cross the L&M line near Rainhill, which didn't seem to bother Phase 2 at all.

The land and railway line are at the same level at Rainhill. At Kearsley, the railway line is on an embankment on the side of a hill, with the sub on the lower side. The towers on the lower side already seem quite tall to accommodate this.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

An excellent report. "Informed Sources" at their best!

Speaking of which - this is ripe for a Roger Ford article in MR methinks. Turning into a bit of a fiasco one way or another. So much has gone wrong on this project - makes me want to weep.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

I had a chat with an Orangeperson over the weekend and asked about various observations and concerns which have been expressed on the forum. I think this is a fair summary of what I was told. Any errors or misunderstandings are mine.

1. The realignment which Wrinkley has photographed and reported at Lostock Junction is to allow trains to run southwards under Beaumont Road bridge at up to 95mph.

2. The problem bridge on the Salford-Euxton stretch is MVE2/4, the Trinity Street bridge over the railway. Mr/Ms Orange didn't know of the Blackpool problem bridge which Philip Plopp has written about.

3. The lack of visible action on masts and bases following public meetings in the Spring is a case of cumulative issues combining to glue the works, notably clarifying and agreeing detailed contracts and concerns that some design work might need revisiting, especially in light of the changes to the overhead lines clearance rules which have been discussed in the Forum. NR are acutely aware that silence is not golden.

4. The lack of action on foot crossings between Salford and Euxton (apart from South of Farnworth Tunnel, of course) springs from a decision to move the job from one team to another. Wheels have now been set in motion, but visible action won't come soon.

5. A problem lurks in plain sight: several electric power lines cross the railway in positions which preclude erecting "our" 25kV wires. Shifting them will be neither quick nor trivial. Take a look round the 7 milepost between Clifton and Kearsley.

Excellent update, thanks LDECRexile - although I am naturally quite smug to find out that I was correct in my bridge guesswork but not so happy at the potential catastrophic effect it will have on the project timeline...

Shame NR don't seem to want to share such information with the general public at an early stage - it always seems to be at the last minute and attracts much more bad publicity as a result IMO.

I know certain stuff can't be released until certain dates due to contract discussions/negotiations etc - but a cursory release saying that this type of discussion is happening would at least reassure folks that something is actually going on! Just saying!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought Trinity street bridge would be an easy fix, just shorten the platform.
I didn't know about HV stuff over the line, but this must have been sussed out years ago.
I'm not back there for a fortnight so I'll have a look.
Also, last weekend I had a look at the new interchange construction at Bolton, there is supposed to be a walkway bridge from the bus station to the railway station but I cannot see any sign of construction of it. I wonder if NR have said something, or maybe the plans have changed.
Oh, The Buffet is still shut at Bolton

It's not as simple as shortening the platform - Joseph Locke explained in previous post...

I can re-confirm its a phase 4 bridge, not previously in scope. Can't comment on other phases or on which bridge it actually is, sorry.

Using Bolton as an illustration though, it isn't a matter of short-ending the platforms as there is a limit on how rapidly the OLE can rise and fall relative to the track, based on speed. At Bolton this would be 1 in 100, meaning that to gain a metre of wire height takes at least 100m. The interaction of requirements is complex ...

Plus the stairs are right near the bridge so they might need moving..So that prompts a question - if the original station location on Trinity St had been kept, would it have been such a problem? i.e. could have platform shortening have worked with the original stairway positions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, last weekend I had a look at the new interchange construction at Bolton, there is supposed to be a walkway bridge from the bus station to the railway station but I cannot see any sign of construction of it. I wonder if NR have said something, or maybe the plans have changed.
Oh, The Buffet is still shut at Bolton

Again our friend Mr Locke has provided an update on SKC re this - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=134066756&postcount=166

Although sadly not about the buffet. There are limits to any engineer's talents!

 

[Greybeard33]

Apologies that this is slightly off topic, but I think it would be a bit premature to start a separate thread on Lostock to Wigan electrification before a new schedule is published.

Travelling through Westhoughton today, it struck me (though only from looking through the carriage window) that there might be another "problem bridge" there, as and when the line is eventually electrified. The structure in question is a brick arch that carries Church Street, the B5236, over the line. It is hard against the end of the station platforms.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Apologies that this is slightly off topic, but I think it would be a bit premature to start a separate thread on Lostock to Wigan electrification before a new schedule is published.

Travelling through Westhoughton today, it struck me (though only from looking through the carriage window) that there might be another "problem bridge" there, as and when the line is eventually electrified. The structure in question is a brick arch that carries Church Street, the B5236, over the line. It is hard against the end of the station platforms.

I think that line is sufficiently in the future that rather than a problem bridge it will simply be a renewal for the OHLE.