Manchester - Liverpool Electrification

[PDG1949]

More progress at Allerton Depot here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

Nice Catch, Dave - considering forthcoming traffic, hopefully will be relatively quickly wired ?

 

[LDECRexile]

Phil Wieland has kindly sent four shots he took of 319 365 on a trip from Huyton to Warrington Bank Quay on Monday.

There was brief hope that this may have been the start of regular electrics on this service, but it looks like that will have to wait until the December timetable change.

I've added the shots to Phil's album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157650238941151

and to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

Thank you Phil.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nice Catch, Dave - considering forthcoming traffic, hopefully will be relatively quickly wired ?

I combined family business with a jaunt today, earning Bonus Points and sight of wiring taking place at Allerton Depot.

I've added photos and a short film to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

 

[PDG1949]

Half-hourly 319 service between Liverpool and Wigan next month....

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/2015/09/08/northern-to-sever-liverpool-blackpool-link

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Half-hourly 319 service between Liverpool and Wigan next month....
http://www.railmagazine.com/news/2015/09/08/northern-to-sever-liverpool-blackpool-link

They've got their facts wrong again.
There already are 2tph 319s Liverpool-Wigan.
Electrics to Preston will make it 3tph.

 

[furnessvale]

They've got their facts wrong again.
There already are 2tph 319s Liverpool-Wigan.
Electrics to Preston will make it 3tph.

Are they perhaps simply extending an existing 319 Liverpool-Wigan to Preston?

 

[Loop & Link]

Nope cutting the existing Lime St-Blackpool to Preston so it's a 319 under the wires all the way.

 

[ianhr]

Nope cutting the existing Lime St-Blackpool to Preston so it's a 319 under the wires all the way.

Don't some reverse at Lime Street & continue to South Parkway? Will the 319s do this?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't some reverse at Lime Street & continue to South Parkway? Will the 319s do this?

Wires all the way (since 1962).
It's also on their way home to Allerton depot.
Having said that, RTT says the Preston services are still timed for 75mph DMUs even after the timetable change in December.
Talk about lack of ambition. We are still waiting for the "faster" trains promised with electrification.

 

[PDG1949]

We are still waiting for the "faster" trains promised with electrification.

Surely what they really mean is it's FASTER between stations but you have to wait longer at them? HaHa !

 

[WatcherZero]

The articles taken from a Northern press release.

 

[LDECRexile]

I had a look at Allerton Depot on Friday.

I've added photos to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

 

[johnmoly]

This morning, I caught the 11:03 from Liverpool South Parkway which normally goes to Blackpool North after reversing at Lime Street, but it was only going as far as Preston as it was class 319, calling points were the same as usual to Preston.

Confusion at Lime Street, where I got off, for boarding pax too, as many queried the driver is the Blackpool - ' no, Preston, change there for Blackpool '.

I thought this was only happening after the December timetable change. Was it a one off for this timed train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought this was only happening after the December timetable change. Was it a one off for this timed train.

Since yesterday, most Liverpool-Blackpools are now split at Preston, with 319s Liverpool-Preston.
The Hazel Grove-Preston DMU has been extended to Blackpool to compensate.
There should be 3 DMUs freed up by this change, but I've no idea where they are going.
Up till now the remaining Bolton route trains have been mostly 2-car as previously.
Hopefully more of these will be 4-car now.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is this the first time the Warrington BQ-Earlestown-Liverpool Lime St route has been used by Virgin for electric passenger trains?
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/today.aspx

Virgin Trains from Crewe to Liverpool Lime Street will divert via Warrington Bank Quay, not calling at Runcorn.

LM are bustituting from Crewe.

Edit: Having looked at RTT, Up trains are going the usual route via Runcorn.
Two Down trains (1F13/14) have so far diverted via Warrington, losing about 12 minutes over the direct route.

 

[Loop & Link]

Been used a few times for diversions now, it's come in handy!

 

[sarahj]

Some of those masts almost has an Italian feel to it. I just dont get some of this new kit. Its like we looked at what the latest euro designs are and thought, 'nah, that's foreign, we dont need to look at the advances they have made, lets go our own way'. Result, a bizarre miss-match and OTT.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Some of those masts almost has an Italian feel to it. I just dont get some of this new kit. Its like we looked at what the latest euro designs are and thought, 'nah, that's foreign, we dont need to look at the advances they have made, lets go our own way'. Result, a bizarre miss-match and OTT.

Which designs in particular ?

UK Series 1 is a development of a Swiss design, and has made great use of lessons learned in foreign countries, primarily Switzerland, which has so much experience of electrification, with interesting rolling stock configurations, line speeds and some particularly severe and challenging climactic conditions, but Furrer+Frey have fed in their experiences from elsewhere, including the UK GEML replacement program.

UK Series 2 is a development of the BR Mark 3 and Railtrack UK1 designed for 100mph operation, the major changes are the significant reliability modifications that have been made, reduced component count, better understanding of forces and lessons being learned from the failures on the ECML and northern WCML. It also benefits from spring tensioning and an almost total eradication of pulleys, which I dislike tremendously.

 

[Domh245]

Series 2 uses some Omnia components, doesn't it? That would explain the Italian feel, seeing as Omnia is an italian company.

http://www.bonciani.com/en/services.../cantilever-railway-omnia-lines-overhead.html

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which designs in particular ?

UK Series 1 is a development of a Swiss design, and has made great use of lessons learned in foreign countries, primarily Switzerland, which has so much experience of electrification, with interesting rolling stock configurations, line speeds and some particularly severe and challenging climactic conditions, but Furrer+Frey have fed in their experiences from elsewhere, including the UK GEML replacement program.

UK Series 2 is a development of the BR Mark 3 and Railtrack UK1 designed for 100mph operation, the major changes are the significant reliability modifications that have been made, reduced component count, better understanding of forces and lessons being learned from the failures on the ECML and northern WCML. It also benefits from spring tensioning and an almost total eradication of pulleys, which I dislike tremendously.

I notice experience from HS1 is missing from the above.
Presumably this was based on French LGV practice.
As the most recent significant UK electrification I would have thought that would be a starting point for future designs.
It seems to have a good dewirement record.
Visually, I notice from pictures that the HS1 insulators are prominent. As we haven't got any finished OHLE on the GW yet its difficult to know how they compare.
Picture here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

I have also passed a brand-new AV line in Spain where large pulleys (pram wheel size) are prominent in the design.

 

[Domh245]

I notice experience from HS1 is missing from the above.
Presumably this was based on French LGV practice.
As the most recent significant UK electrification I would have thought that would be a starting point for future designs.
It seems to have a good dewirement record.
Visually, I notice from pictures that the HS1 insulators are prominent. As we haven't got any finished OHLE on the GW yet its difficult to know how they compare.
Picture here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

I have also passed a brand-new AV line in Spain where large pulleys (pram wheel size) are prominent in the design.

The OHLE used on HS1 is a french design I think, using higher tensions and pantographs with higher uplift to ensure better contact at high speeds. I don't think that anywhere else on the National Rail Network would need similar equipment because there aren't as high speeds.

You can compare it with the GWML electrification because there are photos of the system from when it was installed at Old Dalby

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I notice experience from HS1 is missing from the above.
Presumably this was based on French LGV practice.
As the most recent significant UK electrification I would have thought that would be a starting point for future designs.
It seems to have a good dewirement record.
Visually, I notice from pictures that the HS1 insulators are prominent. As we haven't got any finished OHLE on the GW yet its difficult to know how they compare.
Picture here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

I have also passed a brand-new AV line in Spain where large pulleys (pram wheel size) are prominent in the design.

The HS1 design is largely (but not totally) irrelevant to wider 'Classic' network electrification in the UK. It is what it is - highly specific to high speed operation with fairly optimal pantograph spacing, limited numbers of switches and crossovers and long straight track with no tight radius curves, and generous overhead space under structures. The OLE on HS1 also has to cope with larger current demands, upto 1250A at 25kV (in theory, 27.5kV).

Domh245 is absolutely correct in what he says about uplift and tensioning, HS1 uses as 20kN/14kN system, with a 150mm2 cross section contact wire (which in turn increases the weight per metre of the catenary). The Series 1 equipment uses a 16.5kN/14kN system with a 120mm2 cross section contact wire and the ECML is a step down on that, 12kN/10kN (and similar) and 107mm2.

What we're really interested in is an OLE system that can cope with different pantograph configurations, different speed profiles, different uplift forces, different current draw, more than a handful of S&C's, tight radius curves and all sorts of tight clearances in tunnels, in bridges, around stations etc, where the catenary wire and contact wire come together to maintain the required clearances.

What we wanted (and what we've got) is a system that can be fitted to our network, consisting of various different routes built to different standards by different railway companies, so there's not really one common standard for the route - clearances, gauge, structure design and so on. The many decades of attempted standardisation, firstly under the 'grouping' of four railway companies, then under British Rail, Railtrack and Network Rail, has created even more differences, so fitting OLE in and around our network is difficult and it needs systems which can be adapted to fit masts and brackets wherever they can be fitted.

The Series 2 system is perfect for it - different lengths of cantilever arm, different registration arm design, routing of the catenary wire under the cantilever arm to cope with reduced clearances without needing unique designs, and the ability to switch the stagger easily to cope with changes to the OLE in future. That's all things you couldn't even begin to imagine doing with the HS1 electrification system - to change the stagger on HS1, you need to swap the entire cantilever arm, with Series 1 and 2 systems you normally only need to swap the registration arm.

Series 1 is a little more bespoke, and needs more changes to accommodate it, it will maintain a constant wire height regardless, so no raising for level crossings or dropping for tight bridges and tunnels, but that will in the fullness of time, show in increased reliability, as the pantograph doesn't have to do quite so much work. It's hoped to come in somewhere around HS1 in terms of reliability with Series 1.

The pram wheel pully system looks horrendous, but it'll work. It's fine in a country like Spain where you've got a lot of heat expansion to deal with in the system and a tensioning system like Tensorex might not be the best system. It's also not as bad an option in a nice dry country where you don't have to worry about the pulleys rusting into position, grease being washed out, pulleys freezing and so on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Series 2 uses some Omnia components, doesn't it? That would explain the Italian feel, seeing as Omnia is an italian company.

http://www.bonciani.com/en/services.../cantilever-railway-omnia-lines-overhead.html

Yes - Omnia cantilevers but with revised insulator positioning so the entire cantilever and mast doesn't become momentarily live if the catenary wire support fails and drops onto the cantilever.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What we wanted (and what we've got) is a system that can be fitted to our network, consisting of various different routes built to different standards by different railway companies, so there's not really one common standard for the route - clearances, gauge, structure design and so on. The many decades of attempted standardisation, firstly under the 'grouping' of four railway companies, then under British Rail, Railtrack and Network Rail, has created even more differences, so fitting OLE in and around our network is difficult and it needs systems which can be adapted to fit masts and brackets wherever they can be fitted.

Thanks again for a very lucid piece.
Can't be long now before actual wiring starts/restarts on the 3 current projects.

 

[ed1971]

Since yesterday, most Liverpool-Blackpools are now split at Preston, with 319s Liverpool-Preston.
The Hazel Grove-Preston DMU has been extended to Blackpool to compensate.
There should be 3 DMUs freed up by this change, but I've no idea where they are going.
Up till now the remaining Bolton route trains have been mostly 2-car as previously.
Hopefully more of these will be 4-car now.

I have been out to Liverpool today. Since last May there has only been one Saturday Class 319 diagram on Wigan NW to Liverpool LS services. Now all of them are 319s. It looked liked some of the Liverpool LS to Manchester Oxford Rd services were doubled up with 2 units possibly using the released DMUs.

It appears that for the moment the hourly daytime Sunday Liverpool LS to Blackpool North through service is not being split at Preston.

As already mentioned there are now only odd through services from Liverpool LS to Blackpool North on Mondays to Saturdays. I caught one of them, the 17:16 back today. On arrival at Liverpool LS, the train was formed of a 142 leading a 156. Surprisingly, considering that the Blackpool North services are always busy, the service was only formed with the 156 which soon got crowded.

I too would like to know where all the other released DMUs have gone to. On Saturdays, wouldn't there be seven DMUs freed up - 4 from the Liverpool LS to Blackpool North services and three from the Wigan NW to Liverpool services?

 

[Loop & Link]

Lime St-Oxford Road are now mostly 2 units, Lime St-Bank Quay 2 units coupled. Others released for strengthening on the Bolton corridor.

 

[156441]

Northern are getting quite good at moving units round at a weekend for major events. So today a lot of the diesels worked in the Manchester area doubled up and there was also strengthening for the rugby in the North East.

Of interest in this thread the 1750 Liverpool - WBQ and return is now diagrammed a 319 and today (Saturday) the 1847 ran 319 vice 156 to allow a diesel route to be strengthened in the evening.

 

[sarahj]

Which designs in particular ?

UK Series 1 is a development of a Swiss design, and has made great use of lessons learned in foreign countries, primarily Switzerland, which has so much experience of electrification, with interesting rolling stock configurations, line speeds and some particularly severe and challenging climactic conditions, but Furrer+Frey have fed in their experiences from elsewhere, including the UK GEML replacement program.

UK Series 2 is a development of the BR Mark 3 and Railtrack UK1 designed for 100mph operation, the major changes are the significant reliability modifications that have been made, reduced component count, better understanding of forces and lessons being learned from the failures on the ECML and northern WCML. It also benefits from spring tensioning and an almost total eradication of pulleys, which I dislike tremendously.

A google search came back with no realife pics, but sommerfeldt make overhead for models, and this style http://www.sommerfeldt.de/data/SOM__220.JPG is what I mean.

Other advances I'm also talking about include concrete masts and tubular outriggers. http://il6.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/8301166/thumb/1.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160)

http://silverrailtechnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DB-Train.jpg

SJ

 

[swt_passenger]

You can compare it with the GWML electrification because there are photos of the system from when it was installed at Old Dalby

There are also photos of the complete hardware in the GW electrification thread here:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2318797&postcount=1472
You do have to visualise the insulators and support fittings turned through 90 degrees so they are across the track, rather than inline with the track, but the look isn't going to change much...

 

[DJH1971]

I note for the next three Saturdays that there won't be any trains running between Earlestown to Manchester duew to engineering works.

Anyone know what the works relate to, as I heard that there has been legal problems concerning the Ordsall Chord.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A google search came back with no realife pics, but sommerfeldt make overhead for models, and this style http://www.sommerfeldt.de/data/SOM__220.JPG is what I mean.

Other advances I'm also talking about include concrete masts and tubular outriggers. http://il6.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/8301166/thumb/1.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160)

http://silverrailtechnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DB-Train.jpg

SJ

I can't imagine a sensible reason to use a concrete mast, there would be a lot of engineering challenges - rigidly the mounting of the cantilever arm would be very difficult, to have any level of height adjustment you would need to use some sort of clamping arrangement which would be in danger of over compressing the concrete of the mast. Concrete cracking/spalling under the bracket would allow the cantilever to move and result in a loss of registration, will allow water ingress resulting in corrosion and generally isn't good.

The risk of spalling, hidden internal corrosion issues and stray electrical currents within the metal reinforcing, and a suitable monitoring regime to deal with those would be significant headaches to deal with.

To my mind, concrete has had its day for such uses - along with lamp standards, signal gantries and the like, the way forward is steel structures with a modern epoxy resin paint system to add an extra decade or two of life expectancy.

Tubular outriggers and other bits of OLE aren't advances, they're old hat and really pretty rubbish if we're being honest. It's just a way to add a failure point or two to a system. The idea of suspending a cantilever by using a steel wire isn't ideal, you need clamps on the wire at either end, and a higher mast than we would normally use to give a decent angle for support. Outriggers do get a bit of use with our systems, mainly for AT cables and to drop down cantilevers from gantries/portals.

We've had so many of our OLE engineering teams reporting failures and so many engineers - F+F et al designing out failure modes, building in reliability to the system, that I see absolutely no benefits in trying to reinvent the wheel by taking a square and rounding off the edges.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I can't imagine a sensible reason to use a concrete mast, there would be a lot of engineering challenges - rigidly the mounting of the cantilever arm would be very difficult, to have any level of height adjustment you would need to use some sort of clamping arrangement which would be in danger of over compressing the concrete of the mast. Concrete cracking/spalling under the bracket would allow the cantilever to move and result in a loss of registration, will allow water ingress resulting in corrosion and generally isn't good.

The risk of spalling, hidden internal corrosion issues and stray electrical currents within the metal reinforcing, and a suitable monitoring regime to deal with those would be significant headaches to deal with.

To my mind, concrete has had its day for such uses - along with lamp standards, signal gantries and the like, the way forward is steel structures with a modern epoxy resin paint system to add an extra decade or two of life expectancy.

Tubular outriggers and other bits of OLE aren't advances, they're old hat and really pretty rubbish if we're being honest. It's just a way to add a failure point or two to a system. The idea of suspending a cantilever by using a steel wire isn't ideal, you need clamps on the wire at either end, and a higher mast than we would normally use to give a decent angle for support. Outriggers do get a bit of use with our systems, mainly for AT cables and to drop down cantilevers from gantries/portals.

We've had so many of our OLE engineering teams reporting failures and so many engineers - F+F et al designing out failure modes, building in reliability to the system, that I see absolutely no benefits in trying to reinvent the wheel by taking a square and rounding off the edges.

I have a degree in Material Science & Engineering and a Masters in The Corrosion of Engineering Materials and I totally agree with your post.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I have a degree in Material Science & Engineering and a Masters in The Corrosion of Engineering Materials and I totally agree with your post.

Why thank you.

The other thing I should have said - reducing the component count generally allows a simplification in bolt sizes and thread types, it reduces the weight of components, taking a little bit of stress out of the system, and gives a bit of leeway to increase the diameters of the remaining parts for yet more standardisation and/or reliability.

That's one reason we're all so happy with the Series 1 system, compared with some Mk.3 headspans on the ECML, there's around an 80% drop in nuts and bolts and a similar 80% drop in the number of insulators. What insulators and bolts remain are standard whether it's a single or twin track cantilever structure, portal gantry or other mounting system.

I was taught it's better to engineer unreliability out of a design than to try and engineer reliability into a design, and it's something, like the old KISS acronym (keep it simple, stupid) that the railway could do with re-learning in these austere times.