Does electrification still bring W10 improvements?

[Legolash2o]

Hello,

Do routes that are currently have electrification being built still bring W10 improvements?

Context
The reason I ask is that I saw a YouTube video about Gascoigne Wood Interchange having access to key ports and other areas, but there's barely any W10 for those high-cube containers (excluding RT3973s).

https://harworthgroup.com/developments/gascoigne-interchange/

I was wondering if the TRU would bring W10 clearance, leaving a few gaps:

• Church Fenton to Sherburn Jn (W9)
• Gascoigne to Micklefield Jn (current W8)
• Micklefield Jn to Leeds (currently W8 but W10 with TRU?)
• Gascoigne to anywhere south west (W8)
• Selby to Hull (W8)

 

[Adrian Barr]

I'm not sure of the exact details on improvements to container gauge with the TRU, but this recent article in the New Civil Engineer mentions work to the tunnels on the Standedge route to provide W12 clearance:

Cowi has signed a contract with Network Rail to design tunnelling works to three Victorian era tunnels as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU).
The works will include preparing the three tunnels, built by the Victorians, Stalybridge tunnel, Scout tunnel and Standedge tunnel, to be able to accommodate W12 freight gauge clearance and electrification of the line. These works will take place between Stalybridge and Huddersfield

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/cowi-signed-to-design-tunnelling-works-on-victorian-tunnels-as-part-of-transpennine-route-upgrade-01-05-2024/

This July 2023 article mentions W12 clearance between Manchester Victoria and Thornhill Jn:

W12 freight gauging clearance will be provided between Manchester Victoria and Thornhill Junction, which will require significant work to Stalybridge tunnel.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/transpennine-upgrade-still-stepping-ahead/

I'm not sure how gauge clearance on these sections fits in with the various "gaps" that connect them to other parts of the network.

This is a useful map for looking at Trans-Pennine gauge clearance: https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/TRU
It looks like any Trans-Pennine traffic from Gascoigne Wood would be restricted to W8 by these "gaps" before it reached the new W12-cleared sections.

Realistically, most potential container traffic to the ports from Gascoigne Wood is likely to be for Felixstowe, Southampton or London Gateway. For these destinations traffic could use the same W10 routes that are used by trains from Doncaster Iport. Any traffic to Scotland would have the same W9 restrictions as the current Doncaster Iport to Mossend service, which runs via Gascoigne Wood on the southbound 4E04.

---

Practical differences between W8 / W9 / W10 (for high cube containers 9ft 6 inches high and up to 2.5m wide)

W10 allows high cube containers on "standard" container flats.
W9 needs low deck (but common) "megafret" types such as IKA or FKA to convey high cube containers
W8 needs very low deck types such as FLA / IDA wagons with smaller wheels, KTA pocket wagons or FAA well wagons to convey high cube containers

---

 

[zwk500]

I believe that the current policy is that if a structure over or beside the line is being rebuilt for any reason, it's rebuilt for W12 and electrification clearances unless there's a good reason not to. However, if it's possible to avoid the bridge reconstruction but still achieve the required clearances, the project may leave the structure even if it's foul of non-project requirements. E.g. an electrification project may leave a bridge alone even if it's foul of W12 so long as they can get the pantograph or voltage clearances.
Electrification tends to require sufficient clearances for the wires, voltages and pantograph dynamic profile that to be clear for modern electrification, a structure will generally be clear for W12. However I think there are circumstances where it's not automatic.

IIRC some bridges on East West Rail were left alone because they could be cleared for W12 by realigning the track through them but this left them still foul of electrification clearances.

I was wondering if the TRU would bring W10 clearance, leaving a few gaps:

• Church Fenton to Sherburn Jn (W9)
• Gascoigne to Micklefield Jn (current W8)
• Micklefield Jn to Leeds (currently W8 but W10 with TRU?)
• Gascoigne to anywhere south west (W8)
• Selby to Hull (W8)

Selby to Hull is not a container route, it would need a sizeable expansion of the container traffic at Hull to justify rail transport (although I accept the chicken and egg argument here). Containers can be rail loaded at Immingham instead.
Similarly anything for the Neville Hill approach to Leeds has minimal reason to be cleared to W10. Leeds Container terminal is on the Woodlesford Line, with Wakefield Europort on that line as well. So the route you want clearing for W10/12 is Stourton/Wakefield - Milford Jn - Colton Jn and Milford-Selby avoiding curve-Temple Hirst Jn.

Apologies if this duplicates anything in the post above.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2025 ==

To follow up on it, the 'gaps' in the W10/12 Network in this area are the lines in pink on the image below, with the line in dotted pink a potential useful option. The green blobs represent Leeds and Wakefield container terminals. The Red Line is also arguably only a half gap although it would allow trains to get off the ECML a lot earlier, but I'm not sure how much Hi-Cube traffic uses the ECML between Doncaster and York.

 

[Adrian Barr]

I'm not sure how much Hi-Cube traffic uses the ECML between Doncaster and York.

Considering how much container traffic passes the sidings at Decoy (by Doncaster Royal Mail terminal) south of the station - I counted over 30 movements in a 24 hour period last time I looked into it - there is very little that ends up on the ECML north of Doncaster. There's a daily Freightliner working from Doncaster Railport to Tees Dock, the Doncaster Iport to Tees Dock Tesco train (which runs via Yarm and doesn't convey high cubes), and the GBRF service from Doncaster Iport to Mossend, but that's about it.

I think W10 traffic is cleared to Tees Dock (providing it runs round at Darlington and avoids Yarm) but anything running through to Scotland needs to be W9.

Castleford to Milford and the route through Ferrybridge to Milford both encounter the problem of short tunnels, neither of which look friendly to containers:

Fairburn Tunnel (between Milford and Castleford): https://www.flickr.com/photos/56249446@N06/44067727282/ (Photo: varleyroger2002)

Brotherton Tunnel (near Ferrybridge): https://www.flickr.com/photos/66202473@N04/31571486195/ (Photo: Alan Burkwood)

Despite this, I was intrigued to find an RT3973 that clears high cubes on megafrets (IKA / FKA / FOA), which would normally be W9, as "special gauge" all the way from Crofton West Jn via Streethouse, Pontefract Monkhill, Ferrybridge, Milford, Gascoigne Wood, Hambleton East / West Jns, Selby and Gilberdyke to Hull Docks.

This gives Hull Docks surprisingly good gauge clearance. It would also provide a route from Wakefield Europort or Stourton to Scotland, but I don't think the short section from Milford to Sherburn is included.

 

[zwk500]

Considering how much container traffic passes the sidings at Decoy (by Doncaster Royal Mail terminal) south of the station - I counted over 30 movements in a 24 hour period last time I looked into it - there is very little that ends up on the ECML north of Doncaster. There's a daily Freightliner working from Doncaster Railport to Tees Dock, the Doncaster Iport to Tees Dock Tesco train (which runs via Yarm and doesn't convey high cubes), and the GBRF service from Doncaster Iport to Mossend, but that's about it.

I think W10 traffic is cleared to Tees Dock (providing it runs round at Darlington and avoids Yarm) but anything running through to Scotland needs to be W9.

Castleford to Milford and the route through Ferrybridge to Milford both encounter the problem of short tunnels, neither of which look friendly to containers:

Fairburn Tunnel (between Milford and Castleford): https://www.flickr.com/photos/56249446@N06/44067727282/ (Photo: varleyroger2002)

Brotherton Tunnel (near Ferrybridge): https://www.flickr.com/photos/66202473@N04/31571486195/ (Photo: Alan Burkwood)

Despite this, I was intrigued to find an RT3973 that clears high cubes on megafrets (IKA / FKA / FOA), which would normally be W9, as "special gauge" all the way from Crofton West Jn via Streethouse, Pontefract Monkhill, Ferrybridge, Milford, Gascoigne Wood, Hambleton East / West Jns, Selby and Gilberdyke to Hull Docks.

This gives Hull Docks surprisingly good gauge clearance. It would also provide a route from Wakefield Europort or Stourton to Scotland, but I don't think the short section from Milford to Sherburn is included.

Both the Flikr links seem to be showing me the same tunnel, but thank you very much for this informative response. Interesting that the route from Crofton to Hull via Pontefract is clear! It's a shame so much is kept on RT3973s and the Sectional Appendix clearances are improved, I assume it's due to there being a fair amount of restrictions on the RT3973s? It's been a while since I had to deal with them regularly and in my current role I don't really get to see them.

 

[Adrian Barr]

Both the Flikr links seem to be showing me the same tunnel

Apologies, link now edited!

It's a shame so much is kept on RT3973s and the Sectional Appendix clearances are improved, I assume it's due to there being a fair amount of restrictions on the RT3973s?

In the route clearance tables in the sectional appendix it says "Temporary authority for a specific wagon and container/swapbody combination may be granted by the Infrastructure Manager’s Gauging Engineer. This authority shall be detailed and issued on an RT3973/CON form."

I think the sectional appendix is showing clearances which are considered to be permanent - for example if sections of the Trans-Pennine route get proper W12 clearance they should be updated there. Where a route has the potential to convey container traffic which exceeds the published gauge for the route, the clearances become tighter and may require monitoring (e.g. by the structure gauging train) to make sure they are maintained, and are more like permissions that have to be regularly renewed than a permanent clearance.

The RT3973 container forms are re-issued at fairly short intervals, sometimes only being valid for a few months. I assume this is done to allow for these permissions to be renewed at intervals, and any changes in clearances to be reflected on the forms, such as where the additional clearance for "special gauge" traffic is limited and minor alterations to track geometry or lineside structures from engineering work could potentially reduce it below an acceptable safety margin. For example, high cubes on FXA and FQA wagons are prohibited between Reading and Acton Wells, and between Wembley and Rugby. They slightly exceed W10 gauge (listed as "special gauge" on the RT3973 forms) but a few years back they were cleared for these routes.

The clearance on the RT3973 for high cubes on megafrets from Crofton all the way to Hull Docks via Pontefract is listed as "no special restrictions." One change on the container RT3973s (compared to what I remember from a few years back) is that they now specify which gauge each combination of wagons and containers is conforming to (e.g. "Loads 1, 2 and 3 are Special Gauge. Loads 4, 5, 6 and 7 are W8 Gauge").
I think the "special gauge" provision allows for cases where full clearance for a gauge is not possible, but there is enough clearance to allow some combination of wagons / containers which normally require that gauge. So for example high cubes on megafrets exceed W8. The route to Hull may not allow W9 traffic in its entirety but the combination of high cubes on megafrets is useful enough to publish that as a separate "special gauge" clearance. However, this does make it more difficult to give a simple answer to a question like "What container gauge is the route to Hull cleared for?"

At least that's how I interpret the way these clearances work, it's a complicated topic and I may not be entirely correct about some aspects of it...

 

[zwk500]

At least that's how I interpret the way these clearances work, it's a complicated topic and I may not be entirely correct about some aspects of it...

You outline certainly lines up with my experience of it, although that was less with freight and more with the passenger end of special clearances (CTGAs, SOCs, COTs that sort of thing).

 

[Legolash2o]

This is a useful map for looking at Trans-Pennine gauge clearance: https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/TRU
It looks like any Trans-Pennine traffic from Gascoigne Wood would be restricted to W8 by these "gaps" before it reached the new W12-cleared sections.

Realistically, most potential container traffic to the ports from Gascoigne Wood is likely to be for Felixstowe, Southampton or London Gateway. For these destinations traffic could use the same W10 routes that are used by trains from Doncaster Iport. Any traffic to Scotland would have the same W9 restrictions as the current Doncaster Iport to Mossend service, which runs via Gascoigne Wood on the southbound 4E04.

I'm taking that a huge compliment having someone reference my own map to me, thanks!

I agree about the Felixstowe, Southampon and London Gateway but I'll crunch and visualise some freight data to confirm. Would it make sense to gauge clear a bit more to divert trains away from the ECML?

Despite this, I was intrigued to find an RT3973 that clears high cubes on megafrets (IKA / FKA / FOA), which would normally be W9, as "special gauge" all the way from Crofton West Jn via Streethouse, Pontefract Monkhill, Ferrybridge, Milford, Gascoigne Wood, Hambleton East / West Jns, Selby and Gilberdyke to Hull Docks.

This gives Hull Docks surprisingly good gauge clearance. It would also provide a route from Wakefield Europort or Stourton to Scotland, but I don't think the short section from Milford to Sherburn is included.

I'm also surprised to see RT3973 forms for those routes. I wonder if Hull has W10 clearance but just not fully published or assessed recently since the signalling and other works done a few years ago.

I believe that the current policy is that if a structure over or beside the line is being rebuilt for any reason, it's rebuilt for W12 and electrification clearances unless there's a good reason not to.

I thought so too.

IIRC some bridges on East West Rail were left alone because they could be cleared for W12 by realigning the track through them but this left them still foul of electrification clearances.

Selby to Hull is not a container route, it would need a sizeable expansion of the container traffic at Hull to justify rail transport (although I accept the chicken and egg argument here). Containers can be rail loaded at Immingham instead.
Similarly anything for the Neville Hill approach to Leeds has minimal reason to be cleared to W10. Leeds Container terminal is on the Woodlesford Line, with Wakefield Europort on that line as well. So the route you want clearing for W10/12 is Stourton/Wakefield - Milford Jn - Colton Jn and Milford-Selby avoiding curve-Temple Hirst Jn.

Apologies if this duplicates anything in the post above.

To follow up on it, the 'gaps' in the W10/12 Network in this area are the lines in pink on the image below, with the line in dotted pink a potential useful option. The green blobs represent Leeds and Wakefield container terminals. The Red Line is also arguably only a half gap although it would allow trains to get off the ECML a lot earlier, but I'm not sure how much Hi-Cube traffic uses the ECML between Doncaster and York. View attachment 179500

All makes sense. I agree with those pink sections.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

 

[zwk500]

I'm also surprised to see RT3973 forms for those routes. I wonder if Hull has W10 clearance but just not fully published or assessed recently since the signalling and other works done a few years ago.

My reading of @Adrian Barr's post (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that the Selby-Hull route can accept traffic that would normally be W9 under special conditions (speed restrictions at bridges/platforms, etc). Implication being that it has clearance greater than that needed for W8 but not sufficient for a general W9 clearance in the Sectional Appendix. It's also possible the RT3937 is issued for specific wagon/container combinations, not a general assessment of W9 gauge.

IIRC W10 and W9 do not 'nest' neatly (your site has the profiles viewable, I think?) so it is possible to get a W10 route that isn't W9 cleared and vice versa, but I'd suggest if the gauge isn't cleared in the sectional appendix when RT3973s are being issued, there's likely a reason for it.

 

[Legolash2o]

My reading of @Adrian Barr's post (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that the Selby-Hull route can accept traffic that would normally be W9 under special conditions (speed restrictions at bridges/platforms, etc). Implication being that it has clearance greater than that needed for W8 but not sufficient for a general W9 clearance in the Sectional Appendix. It's also possible the RT3937 is issued for specific wagon/container combinations, not a general assessment of W9 gauge.

IIRC W10 and W9 do not 'nest' neatly (your site has the profiles viewable, I think?) so it is possible to get a W10 route that isn't W9 cleared and vice versa, but I'd suggest if the gauge isn't cleared in the sectional appendix when RT3973s are being issued, there's likely a reason for it.

Yeah, a route can be W10 and W12 cleared but not W9. I always thought W9 was within W12 too but I was wrong.