Potentially massive delays in electrification program

[snowball]

If we're going to continue this discussion we should move to the Trans-Pennine electrification thread.

 

[ianhr]

Agreed.

 

[Senex]

Many posts on the Forum have implied that the route will be electrified with the EXISTING track layouts which are clearly inadequate, hence the current inherent unreliability with the present intensive service. It has been suggested that electrification alone will bring improvements ..."because electric trains have better acceleration".

I can't remember the reference, but I'm sure I've seen a Network Rail publication that says that in the light of electrification there is no need for most of the infrastructure work that was planned on the Manchester-Leeds route as the target time can be achieved because of the better acceleration of electric trains.

IIRC, then this seems a sad state of affairs, in that electrification is being seen as a closing off of options for better things rather than a once-in-a-century opportunity to try to make the best possible railway out of a route that is really pretty poor.

And the capacity argument will remain. Can a railway being used almost right up to its theoretical capacity limits ever be a really reliable operation (especially with all the opportunities for importing delays from further west and further east/north-east)?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And the capacity argument will remain. Can a railway being used almost right up to its theoretical capacity limits ever be a really reliable operation (especially with all the opportunities for importing delays from further west and further east/north-east)?

And the straight answer to your question is of course - NO.

 

[snowball]

I can't remember the reference, but I'm sure I've seen a Network Rail publication that says that in the light of electrification there is no need for most of the infrastructure work that was planned on the Manchester-Leeds route as the target time can be achieved because of the better acceleration of electric trains.

This has certainly been said about a previously proposed pair of loops somewhere between Stalybridge and Standedge. I don't know if it's been said about any other works - or indeed if much else was proposed in the first place.

 

[deltic08]

It seems generally agreed that Colton Jct/Selby-Neville Hill could be wired relatively easily and bring significant stand alone benefits with stock utilisation etc.i.e. a quick gain ( and BR did a few small schemes like this). I wonder if the reason that it has not been progressed is because it is being treated as an integral part of the larger TP scheme to Stalybridge and this involves more complex engineering and decisions about more expensive options (Dewsbury Loops, Heaton Lodge, Huddersfield, Standedge etc.)

Many posts on the Forum have implied that the route will be electrified with the EXISTING track layouts which are clearly inadequate, hence the current inherent unreliability with the present intensive service. It has been suggested that electrification alone will bring improvements ..."because electric trains have better acceleration". I have always disputed this assertion because there will still be a chronic lack of capacity on what will still be a 2-track railway with very high frequencies and a mix of fast and stopping trains with few passing loops. There ARE a number of options and all have cost implications and perhaps this is what is delaying the decisions.

If TPE insist on 6tph with short trains with the existing track capacity then it seems the smaller stations will lose any semblance of a decent service. There is an alternative to this in that TPE could be REQUIRED to run 2 or 3 fast trains per hour of SENSIBLE and ADEQUATE LENGTH i.e. 8-car. Otherwise the only way to satisfy all demand is more track: an UP loop at Dewsbury, 4 track Thornhill Jct-Heaton Lodge, and 4 track Marsden-Diggle and I imagine this was not budgeted for in the original TP electrification proposal.

This is exactly the crux of the capacity problem on North trans Pennine. Longer but less frequent TPEx trains or more tracks installed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't remember the reference, but I'm sure I've seen a Network Rail publication that says that in the light of electrification there is no need for most of the infrastructure work that was planned on the Manchester-Leeds route as the target time can be achieved because of the better acceleration of electric trains.

IIRC, then this seems a sad state of affairs, in that electrification is being seen as a closing off of options for better things rather than a once-in-a-century opportunity to try to make the best possible railway out of a route that is really pretty poor.

And the capacity argument will remain. Can a railway being used almost right up to its theoretical capacity limits ever be a really reliable operation (especially with all the opportunities for importing delays from further west and further east/north-east)?

This seems to be the wrong way round. With 100mph DMUs on the route only able to travel at 70mph max apart from a short five miles at 80mph between two restriction of 30 and 40mph, the trackwork should be upgraded to as near 100mph as economically possible before electrification. This means raising the lower limits first at places such as 20mph at Miles Platting, 50mph at Ashton, 20mph at Guide Bridge, 60mph at Diggle, 40mph at Marsden, 65mph at Mirfield and 40mph at Morley. Together with 50mph at Stalybridge this is a restriction with wasteful heavy braking and acceleration every five miles on average. Would this achieve the same journey time reduction as electrification and for the same cost as electrification?

I was disappointed that all the work at Stalybridge only allowed a line speed increase of 10mph to 50mph whereas for double the cost could have been raised to 70mph.

 

[The Planner]

I was disappointed that all the work at Stalybridge only allowed a line speed increase of 10mph to 50mph whereas for double the cost could have been raised to 70mph.

Have you not answered your own question there? Double the cost for an incremental increase? What extra benefits would it have provided? If I recall Stalyvegas isnt on a straight so an increase in line speed could have caused many more issues with platforms and track geometry. Nothing is going to be gold plated anymore, it doesnt become affordable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have you not answered your own question there? Double the cost for an incremental increase? What extra benefits would it have provided? If I recall Stalyvegas isnt on a straight so an increase in line speed could have caused many more issues with platforms and track geometry. Nothing is going to be gold plated anymore, it doesnt become affordable.

They'll be saving the gold plating for HS3.
The present route cries out for tilt but nobody's interested.

 

[edwin_m]

This seems to be the wrong way round. With 100mph DMUs on the route only able to travel at 70mph max apart from a short five miles at 80mph between two restriction of 30 and 40mph, the trackwork should be upgraded to as near 100mph as economically possible before electrification. This means raising the lower limits first at places such as 20mph at Miles Platting, 50mph at Ashton, 20mph at Guide Bridge, 60mph at Diggle, 40mph at Marsden, 65mph at Mirfield and 40mph at Morley. Together with 50mph at Stalybridge this is a restriction with wasteful heavy braking and acceleration every five miles on average. Would this achieve the same journey time reduction as electrification and for the same cost as electrification?

Many of these would be very difficult to sort. For example the tightest bit of the curve at Miles Platting looks to be about 200m radius and with bridges and junctions both ends well nigh impossible to ease out. I think Guide Bridge has now been eased from 20mph but it isn't on the main line anyway. The curves between Ashton and Stalybridge means that much more than 50mph isn't possible at either. I would guess Diggle is constrained by the road above and the canal tunnel below, and Marsden by the river above and the canal again.

This is never going to be a high speed route. At least EMUs will be able to accelerate faster out of the restrictions and recover some of the energy used in braking into them.

 

[Senex]

Many of these would be very difficult to sort. For example the tightest bit of the curve at Miles Platting looks to be about 200m radius and with bridges and junctions both ends well nigh impossible to ease out. I think Guide Bridge has now been eased from 20mph but it isn't on the main line anyway. The curves between Ashton and Stalybridge means that much more than 50mph isn't possible at either. I would guess Diggle is constrained by the road above and the canal tunnel below, and Marsden by the river above and the canal again.

This is never going to be a high speed route. At least EMUs will be able to accelerate faster out of the restrictions and recover some of the energy used in braking into them.

Does sensible infrastructure planning need a decision on "HS3" as fast as possible? If a substantial section of new railway is to be built between Manchester and Leeds, then there is no justification for very expensive civil engineering on the existing LNW route. If however there is to be no new line, then the existing line does need some expensive work to get the best speeds that its alignment is capable of, with each location being examined and assessed. You're probably right about Miles Platting -- those two bridges do seem to be located just nicely to prevent anything very much. But at Ashton it looks as if the restriction is caused by the island platform. If this were a German "Ausbaustrecke" (i.e. old line being upgraded for best possible performance), this island would go and two simple side-platforms would replace it. The curves beyond look as though they could certainly be faster, but change is not justified if there is a low speed at Ashton and an even lower one at Stalybridge junction.

Stalybridge is a real puzzle. Going for the 70 mph option is the main line remained the Guide Bridge line could never have been justified given the really sharp curve just west of the station and its low limit, but why was the station carefully re-designed the way it is just before it was decided to route principal services through Victoria? Joined-up thinking, British style? There is open space around the junction at the west end that could have allowed a complete re-design to make the Victoria line the main line. Expensive? Certainly, but that's my point about HS3 or no HS3. (As to Guide Bridge, on the Piccadilly route, as article some years ago in RAIL, based on Railtrack plans, said that by using the land available in railway ownership 60 mph could be achieved at this point, which makes the 25/30 actually done seem pretty poor.)

East of Stalybridge there is probably nothing to be done before Diggle, given the way the line is situated in the valley, but do signal spacing and superelevation allow the best possible speed (and would tilt help)? At Diggle the problem is that the present main lines point straight into the original twin tunnels, so that there is a kink to the left into the tunnel now used. Has there been any investigation into whether this kink could be eased, I wonder?

And so one could go on, asking what could be done and what the cost of doing it would be for each problem location along the line, and then looking at the answers to ask: Is this justified (a) if we are going to build HS3, and (b) if we are not going to build a new trans-Pennine line and this is to be for the next century the principal railway route linking two of England's greatest cities?

Sorry to have rambled on again -- it's a hobby-horse of mine that the trans-Pennine infrastructure has been pretty shabbily treated for a long time past, especially on what was the London Midland Region section.

 

[deltic08]

Have you not answered your own question there? Double the cost for an incremental increase? What extra benefits would it have provided? If I recall Stalyvegas isnt on a straight so an increase in line speed could have caused many more issues with platforms and track geometry. Nothing is going to be gold plated anymore, it doesnt become affordable.

Double the spend would have achieved treble benefits. Trains from Guide bridge at 45mph over the viaduct could accelerate to 70mph through the station. Similarly for trains from Victoria travelling at 50mph over the junction could be travelling at 70mph entering the tunnel if a little more straightening had occurred by moving the Leeds bound platform and buildings back. It is not gold plating but making the best of the assets. The difference between £20 and £40m is peanuts compared to spending £81m at Watford to save 45 seconds on Virgin services.

 

[The Planner]

Unless you can quantify those benefits in terms of journey time then I dont beleive there is anywhere near "treble" the benefits. Saving 45 seconds on a Virgin is worth considerably more value than it is on a TPE, thats just they way it works. Factor in that Watford is a renewals job with benefits realised from it then you arent spending £81 million on saving 45 seconds, you are spending £81 million on renewing a life expired asset and getting 45 seconds on the cheap.

 

[edwin_m]

by moving the Leeds bound platform and buildings back.

The buildings on the Leeds bound platform are the historic station including the popular station buffet pub. Good luck with moving those! Not to mention the massive steel bridge just to the east, which would also have to go if re-aligning the Down Main.

If I'm reading this plan correctly the curve radii between Ashton and Stalybridge are as low as 476m, which will never be more than 60mph even if the maximum cant is achievable (which it probably isn't due to the reverse curves). 45mph is allowed between Ashton and Stalybridge Junction and 50mph through Ashton island platform, so the platform isn't the main constraint.

 

[Senex]

If there's a minimum radius of 476 meters, that suggests a maximum speed of 110 km/h with 150 mm cant and 150 mm cant deficiency (the old exceptional value as applied on the MML) or of 106 km/h with 130 mm deficiency -- other things being equal, which they rarely are.

The standard rounding of 106 km/h would give the 60 mph you suggest. Not wonderful, for sure, but a steady 60 from Ashton to and through Stalybridge would give a significant time-saving in comparison with today's layout. It seems that you enter the curve from the Ashton end by a straight and could certainly leave it at the Stalybridge end by a straight, so everything hangs on what sort of a transition curves could be achieved between right-hand and left-hand between Stamford Street East bridge and Currier Lane bridge.

 

[deltic08]

Unless you can quantify those benefits in terms of journey time then I dont beleive there is anywhere near "treble" the benefits. Saving 45 seconds on a Virgin is worth considerably more value than it is on a TPE, thats just they way it works. Factor in that Watford is a renewals job with benefits realised from it then you arent spending £81 million on saving 45 seconds, you are spending £81 million on renewing a life expired asset and getting 45 seconds on the cheap.

£20m was spent I presume on replacing and improving life expired assets at Stalybridge with only 10mph increase in speed limit for non-stop trains. For a greater spend not above a further £20m to alter the platform edges particularly at the east end metal underbridge, speed increase could have been three-fold to 70mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The buildings on the Leeds bound platform are the historic station including the popular station buffet pub. Good luck with moving those! Not to mention the massive steel bridge just to the east, which would also have to go if re-aligning the Down Main.

If I'm reading this plan correctly the curve radii between Ashton and Stalybridge are as low as 476m, which will never be more than 60mph even if the maximum cant is achievable (which it probably isn't due to the reverse curves). 45mph is allowed between Ashton and Stalybridge Junction and 50mph through Ashton island platform, so the platform isn't the main constraint.

I don't think there are many through passengers worried about a small pub on the platform at Stalybridge but they are concerned about journey times.

I give way to your argument about Ashton-Stalybridge but I have recorded higher speeds than 45mph long ago when trans Pennine was loco hauled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there's a minimum radius of 476 meters, that suggests a maximum speed of 110 km/h with 150 mm cant and 150 mm cant deficiency (the old exceptional value as applied on the MML) or of 106 km/h with 130 mm deficiency -- other things being equal, which they rarely are.

The standard rounding of 106 km/h would give the 60 mph you suggest. Not wonderful, for sure, but a steady 60 from Ashton to and through Stalybridge would give a significant time-saving in comparison with today's layout. It seems that you enter the curve from the Ashton end by a straight and could certainly leave it at the Stalybridge end by a straight, so everything hangs on what sort of a transition curves could be achieved between right-hand and left-hand between Stamford Street East bridge and Currier Lane bridge.

I take your word for it as I still think in mph.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I give way to your argument about Ashton-Stalybridge but I have recorded higher speeds than 45mph long ago when trans Pennine was loco hauled.

I take your word for it as I still think in mph.

Class 47 Generators, Class 45/0 and 45/1 and Class 46 - all on a Peak Wayfarer ticket. Those were the days indeed and agree with your comments entirely.

 

[ianhr]

Class 47 Generators, Class 45/0 and 45/1 and Class 46 - all on a Peak Wayfarer ticket. Those were the days indeed and agree with your comments entirely.

and everyone got a SEAT!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to have rambled on again -- it's a hobby-horse of mine that the trans-Pennine infrastructure has been pretty shabbily treated for a long time past, especially on what was the London Midland Region section.

I agree. Until ~1965 there were 4 tracks all the way from Manchester to Leeds if we include the Micklehurst Loop and the Leeds New Line, neither of which can realistically be reinstated and so we are back to making the most of the 'main line'.

The main route has been systematically desecrated since the removal of the parallel 'loop' lines. 4 tracks reduced to 2 Diggle-Huddersfield in the 1970s, and then drastic reduction in capacity Heaton Lodge-Thornhill Jct in the 1980s, and the final disaster of routeing the Liverpool trains to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge (with Guide Bridge-Ashburys conveniently reduced to 2 tracks from 4!) and the run down of Manchester Victoria. All very short sighted and very expensive to rectify.

 

[CdBrux]

I don't think there are many through passengers worried about a small pub on the platform at Stalybridge but they are concerned about journey times.

It's rather more than a 'small pub' though. I have no idea of it's status but it ought to be listed.

 

[Haydn1971]

All this debate kinda reinforces why a new high speed line is required that isn't constrained by current station, tunnel, viaduct and other such problems. There is definitely a need to link any route between Leeds and Manchester to the intermediate places, I'd suggest a parkway station on the Brighouse-Mirfield line would be a good start, then something on the Rochdale-Chadderton line - both next to the M62

 

[Joseph_Locke]

They'll be saving the gold plating for HS3.
The present route cries out for tilt but nobody's interested.

HS3 can't really be HS as Leeds and Manchester are too close together to justify much over 125mph. I prefer to that of it as "L&Y2"

And not everyone is as disinterested in tilt as you might think.

 

[Haydn1971]

I also see HS3 being a relatively lower speed route than HS2, maybe in the 125-140mph range.

 

[Grumpy]

and everyone got a SEAT!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree. Until ~1965 there were 4 tracks all the way from Manchester to Leeds if we include the Micklehurst Loop and the Leeds New Line, neither of which can realistically be reinstated and so we are back to making the most of the 'main line'.

The main route has been systematically desecrated since the removal of the parallel 'loop' lines. 4 tracks reduced to 2 Diggle-Huddersfield in the 1970s, and then drastic reduction in capacity Heaton Lodge-Thornhill Jct in the 1980s, and the final disaster of routeing the Liverpool trains to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge (with Guide Bridge-Ashburys conveniently reduced to 2 tracks from 4!) and the run down of Manchester Victoria. All very short sighted and very expensive to rectify.

I'm not sure that "desecrated " is fair. The likes of the Micklehurst loop, 4 tracks Diggle-Huddersfield and Heaton Lodge-Thornhill were used by freight traffic which is no longer on rail. Whilst it's pleasant to think of a 37 or 40 hauled coal train at every signal on these tracks you cant really blame BR for taking them out when surplus. Indeed taking the tracks out between Marsden and Huddersfield allowed some slewing and speed improvements.

And speaking as someone who travelled regularly from Leeds to an office close to Oxford Rd station, and also to Warrington, I would describe the diversion as inspired rather than a disaster

 

[The Ham]

I also see HS3 being a relatively lower speed route than HS2, maybe in the 125-140mph range.

That's my understanding of what is proposed. It is worth noting that to classify as a HS services may only have to travel faster than 124mph although this depends on whose definition you use as there is no one standard.

I would suggest that the UK's definition (depending on how "HS3" turns out) is something like:

"A route which is a route which has been or will be opened since privatisation and is designed to increase capacity of the existing network AND provide increased speeds in a single project. This can be new build (where it would generally include being built to the larger European loading gauge) or upgrades. However in the case of upgrades this must (if not to the larger European loading gauge) be more than line speed upgrades to an historical Mainline."

 

[northwichcat]

Patrick McLoughlin has just said he's unsure of when an expected completion date for Manchester-York electrification will be.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Patrick McLoughlin has just said he's unsure of when an expected completion date for Manchester-York electrification will be.

I'm listening too.
"I'm sorry I haven't a clue" just about sums it up.
Or in reality, they are just deflecting probing questions.
They admit electrification is over budget but that NR are committed "at the highest level" to meeting the schedule.
Some of the questioning is just as naff though.
Parochialism rules.

 

[muddythefish]

Cost and time overruns are bad news all round really, and could well kibosh further electrification schemes across the north.

Looking at the title of the thread, it should be programme, not program.

 

[rail-guy]

it all seems to be going bottoms up lol in the whole electrification programme

 

[WatcherZero]

That's my understanding of what is proposed. It is worth noting that to classify as a HS services may only have to travel faster than 124mph although this depends on whose definition you use as there is no one standard.

I would suggest that the UK's definition (depending on how "HS3" turns out) is something like:

"A route which is a route which has been or will be opened since privatisation and is designed to increase capacity of the existing network AND provide increased speeds in a single project. This can be new build (where it would generally include being built to the larger European loading gauge) or upgrades. However in the case of upgrades this must (if not to the larger European loading gauge) be more than line speed upgrades to an historical Mainline."

There is a UK definition via EU legislation, that specifies speeds in excess of 124mph for upgraded existing lines and 159mph for new lines.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I also see HS3 being a relatively lower speed route than HS2, maybe in the 125-140mph range.

Nothing shabby with 140mph running! Especially given that you would expect to see at least one intermediate station (Huddersfield comes to mind) along the route.

 

[HSTEd]

The speed of HS3 and indeed if it will have any intermediate stations at all all hinges on what the Manchester approach looks like.
A straight line out of Victoria would have an intermediate station and 125-140mph but would likely have issues with train length and platform capacity.

The alternative is to commence construction from Manchester Airport and use the HS2 approach which is highly unlikely to be near capacity. That saves you lots and lots of expensive building work in Manchester city centre but it becomes necessary to use higher speeds to keep journey time down.
It also puts the alignment a bit far away from Huddersfield.

If you use the Leeds HS2 approach as well for the same reason as the Manchester approach then you get a 70km+ sectino of track connected to ~230km/h sections at both ends with 230km/h swingnose crossings - at that point higher speeds become feasible.

Which route ends up cheaper is an interesting question, I personally think the latter is the better choice as it permits 'easy' extension to a Liverpool (which with clever planning can allow 320km/h+ train running between Liverpool and Leeds). Additionally it has the nice effect of concentrating all High Speed services in Manchester into the new HS2 Picadilly, making that a bit larger to handle extra traffic is not going to be too expensive compared to a wholesale rebuild of Victoria with 400m platforms.

But this is rather off topic.
If the projects run late that is very bad news for the electrification programme generally.