Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[wrinkley]

If it looks like a DMU, sounds like a DMU and operates like a DMU, it is a DMU (unless its a 185).

Apparently, despite being RA5 (same as a class 43 - an HST can run as MU) it isn't allowed to operate at the MU speeds. A 350 can, but a 185 can't. Rolling Stock Acceptance Board (RSAB) have spoken.

edit: if you read "heavy" for "fat" then Msr. Planner he speak true (but only 18.5t per axle)

See page 14 of the current LNWN sectional appendix, available Network Rail's website

Thanks Joseph, you learn something new every day.

As its top speed is listed as 100 mph, are there are places where it can run at that speed e.g. West Coast Main Line to keep out of the way of Pendolinos.

 

[Senex]

As its top speed is listed as 100 mph, are there are places where it can run at that speed e.g. West Coast Main Line to keep out of the way of Pendolinos.

West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line -- and doesn't it get the 100 between Church Fenton and Coilton Jn too?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Surely the facing crossover jsut inside the layout would have been better moving the other side (towards Chorley) to Platform 5 to be bi-directional in all directions?

You could, but then you'd lose the parallel moves on 5 (right way) and 4 (wrong way) when you also have a pair of Blackburns crossing in 1 and 3, which isn't uncommon.

It would also have to go a long way north to cross the wideway and fit it between all the various piers and tunnels; could make for a long bi-di section on the Down.

Lastly, it's already there - costs to move it.

So, looks like a good compromise, I'd say.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I am surprised that 185s aren't allowed to use the MU Differentais. I knew about the ban on use of SP ones for Class 185s though. Are they really that bad on track when compared to HSTs (or even 350s mentioned above)?

Only classes meeting the definition of SP can run at SP, so less than 11t axle load. All SP are also MU, but not all MU are SP ...

 

[driver9000]

Thanks Joseph, you learn something new every day.

As its top speed is listed as 100 mph, are there are places where it can run at that speed e.g. West Coast Main Line to keep out of the way of Pendolinos.

A 185 can travel at 100mph wherever the ordinary permitted speed is 100mph or above.

 

[Class 170101]

You could, but then you'd lose the parallel moves on 5 (right way) and 4 (wrong way) when you also have a pair of Blackburns crossing in 1 and 3, which isn't uncommon.

It would also have to go a long way north to cross the wideway and fit it between all the various piers and tunnels; could make for a long bi-di section on the Down.

Lastly, it's already there - costs to move it.

So, looks like a good compromise, I'd say.

Just wondered as it seems Manchester end is more flexible in terms of the layout than the eastern end. Notably platform 5 cannot be used to terminate services if Bolton to Manchester is closed (unless shunting ECS at the Manchester end via the western most points in the picture, so arrive Platform 3 shunt forward and reverse back to access Platform 5).

Clearly with it being there, cheaper not to move it though.

 

[01jg]

Hi I was just wondering why they can't connect trains from the north up to platform form 1 again ?.. obviously it will have to cross track like it was previous and a sharp curve .. but to me it's seems stupid to have 4 & 5 as a loop for north bound trains .. but no loop for southbound.. with the exception that a southbound train from Chorley would have to use a northbound platform (4) to overtake .. wouldn't that cause congestion ?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Hi I was just wondering why they can't connect trains from the north up to platform form 1 again ?.. obviously it will have to cross track like it was previous and a sharp curve .. but to me it's seems stupid to have 4 & 5 as a loop for north bound trains .. but no loop for southbound.. with the exception that a southbound train from Chorley would have to use a northbound platform (4) to overtake .. wouldn't that cause congestion ?

I need one more on my Bolton Bingo for a line ...

You can, you can't easily but why would you want to?

It used to be there, but requires the GSM-R mast to be shifted, a curve-on curve fixed diamond and lastly (and possibly worst) reconstruction of the footbridge stairs (which weren't there when the Up to P1 connection existed. In summary, not cheap.

On the benefits side, err, struggling. northbound from Salford you have nowhere to regulate trains for eight miles. It's pretty inevitable that something will catch something else up, particularly when some of them are doing 100mph.

On the southbound into Bolton, you have trains from Chorley, Blackburn and Wigan, but Blackburns can be regulated north of Bolton and Wigans north of Lostock, so it isn't so critical.

Bolton works ok today with only one platform identified with each direction, so adding what is effectively a bi-di middle road should help immensely.

 

[42626]

Anyone know what's happening with Anderton Hall crossing bridge? The level crossing has now been closed now since 17th March. Bolton Council's footpath closure order expires after six months (17th Sept) or when work completed (whichever is earlier), but work doesn't appear to have started on the replacement crossing.
Back in April the official statement received from NR was that "Anderton Hall footbridge starts construction at the end of April and finishes in November".

Is there a particular reason this crossing has been closed for so long before the bridge gets installed whereas Kearsley level crossing remained open until the bridge was ready? Is it to do with the new speed limits introduced? Was the work supposed to start in April but been delayed?

 

[42626]

... so adding what is effectively a bi-di middle road should help immensely.

Yes, that's what struck me - it's putting back the old middle through road, but with the advantage of it being a platform road too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But within a couple of years the route will see 319s, 331s and possibly 195s too, all of which are capable of 100mph.

I'm aware of that.
No doubt 350s and 319s, and maybe 323s, will be the first to use the higher speeds after the wires are live, unless some 158s find their way to Bolton.
22x can't use MU speeds either, but 175s can, despite being rather heavy (eg on the Marches route).
TPE's 68+LHCS will have to stick to 75mph too.
I can't remember what the situation with Pendolinos is on MU speeds.

It sounds like the Bolton route will be more restricted than the Chat Moss route, even though most trains will be allowed 100mph (versus 90mph for all trains on Chat Moss).
More fat for the "all trains must go via Bolton" faction to chew on.

 

[Senex]

It sounds like the Bolton route will be more restricted than the Chat Moss route, even though most trains will be allowed 100mph (versus 90mph for all trains on Chat Moss).
More fat for the "all trains must go via Bolton" faction to chew on.

There's not much 90 between Ordsall Lane and Parkside on the L&M line, and then you have the remaining 60 short restriction at Astley, the lengthy very slow progress through Parkside, Lowton, and Golborne, and the extra distance. Even at 75 the Bolton line will be faster than the Parkside line, and at 90 significantly so.

 

[Mordac]

I'm aware of that.
No doubt 350s and 319s, and maybe 323s, will be the first to use the higher speeds after the wires are live, unless some 158s find their way to Bolton.
22x can't use MU speeds either, but 175s can, despite being rather heavy (eg on the Marches route).
TPE's 68+LHCS will have to stick to 75mph too.
I can't remember what the situation with Pendolinos is on MU speeds.

It sounds like the Bolton route will be more restricted than the Chat Moss route, even though most trains will be allowed 100mph (versus 90mph for all trains on Chat Moss).
More fat for the "all trains must go via Bolton" faction to chew on.

22xs can use MU speeds. You're maybe thinking of pendos? The only MU that can't use MU speeds are 185s and 390s. Here's it straight from the sectional appendix:

Rule Book Module SP - Speeds : Part A Permissible speeds and enhanced permissible speeds

Section 2, Clause 2.5 - Permissible speed indicators with letters

This is what the letters mean:

Letters Description
HST Class 91 locomotive with mark 4 vehicles and DVT, classes 158, 159, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 180, 220, 221, 222, 253, 254 and 373
MU Multiple Unit Trains
DMU Diesel Multiple Units
EMU Electrical Multiple Units
SP Classes 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 165, 166, 168, 170 , 171 and 172
CS Class 67 locomotive

At locations where more than one speed indicator is displayed, classes listed in more than one speed category shown above, may run at the higher of the speeds displayed.

National exceptions to MU trains
• Class 185 trains are not permitted to run at MU or DMU speeds
• Class 390 trains are not permitted to run at MU or EMU speeds
• Class 253 and 254 trains formed with less than three coaches between the power cars are not permitted to run at MU or DMU speeds

 

[QueensCurve]

Platform 5 is shown as bi-di, but unless there's another crossover off the map to the north, there seems to be no way a southbound train can get to it from either the Preston or Blackburn lines. Perhaps it's for turning round shuttles from Manchester?

Is the track layout published? Someone else asked above but I don't recall it being posted.

 

[snowball]

Is the track layout published? Someone else asked above but I don't recall it being posted.

Linked in #4968, five up from the post you quoted.

 

[Elecman]

Neutral section now installed on the Chorley lines at Euxton Junction

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Neutral section now installed on the Chorley lines at Euxton Junction

So does this mean WCML- Euxton Jct area is completely wired and neutral section installed which therefore means they can carry on wiring -Euxton area onwards to Manchester without having to isolate power on the WCML?

A picture would be really wonderful. If I was in the UK I would go and photograph myself (honest! )

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

22xs can use MU speeds. You're maybe thinking of pendos? The only MU that can't use MU speeds are 185s and 390s. Here's it straight from the sectional appendix:

Yes, I was mis-remembering 22x and 390.
Presumably TPE class 68 will be the same as 67.

 

[Trackman]

There's an update on the Bolton news website re:Moses Gate bridge, it looks a right mess. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news..._from_Bank_Holiday__after_mains_burst_damage/

 

[mikemcniven]

From Network Rail @NetworkRailNP on Twitter

 

[Elecman]

So does this mean WCML- Euxton Jct area is completely wired and neutral section installed which therefore means they can carry on wiring -Euxton area onwards to Manchester without having to isolate power on the WCML?

A picture would be really wonderful. If I was in the UK I would go and photograph myself (honest! )

Sadly no photo and no it will still require an isolation on the WCML to tie in the knitting but enables a seamless wiring run now towards Manchester

 

[Railrover700]

Meanwhile more cantilevers in place and gantries ready to be installed on the Blackpool line alongside Tom Benson Way.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147506051@N02/sets/72157679909475566/

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Meanwhile more cantilevers in place and gantries ready to be installed on the Blackpool line alongside Tom Benson Way.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147506051@N02/sets/72157679909475566/

Yes - definite progress since I took my shots and sent to Dave on August 6th. 3398 AND 3401 show clearly the section is getting some bigger and lattice type gantries. And an early shot (3412) shows a load of this lattice type gantries on the ground ready to be lifted into place. Good one on 3253 showing UCLAN sports complex in the background.

Thanks a bunch

 

[BMIFlyer]

Here's the pics from Moses Gate

 

[InOban]

Is it now clear that the cause of the collapse lies entirely with the water company? In which case they are lucky that it happened while the line closed anyway, so there will be less compensation! Hi

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is it now clear that the cause of the collapse lies entirely with the water company? In which case they are lucky that it happened while the line closed anyway, so there will be less compensation! Hi

I think its clear that it is the other way around....

 

[InOban]

Explain?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is it now clear that the cause of the collapse lies entirely with the water company? In which case they are lucky that it happened while the line closed anyway, so there will be less compensation! Hi

Explain?

No disrespect meant - but that is a blade that cuts both ways my friend. I would love you to explain how you know it is clear that the collapse lies QUOTE[entirely with the water company?] END QUOTE

please and thanks

 

[Inox]

I think he was just asking a question, that's all.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think he was just asking a question, that's all.

You know, YOU ARE CORRECT. I am sorry - I just realized - it says Is it? as in a question - not it is - my bad