Todmorden Curve

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If I understand the tale of woe correctly, the scheme was originally a third-party one (from NR's point of view) so probably didn't go through the "best" development route for a project of this size.

This project has been (even from my very limited second-hand involvement with it and in context with the scope of works) a bit of a mess.

Has there been any similar instances to this project, where the finance to enable the required infrastructural works has been sourced from an external source from a successful bid project ?

 

[northwichcat]

Has there been any similar instances to this project, where the finance to enable the required infrastructural works has been sourced from an external source from a successful bid project ?

Buckshaw Parkway was funded on that short of basis:

The project is being delivered by Network Rail but the funding comes entirely from third parties. Chorley Borough Council is funding £3.5M from a Section 106 agreement with the former landowner, BAE Systems. Developers Redrow and Barratt also worked in partnership to transfer the land for the station to Network Rail and facilitate the construction stages and other developers, including Orbit, took account of the needs of the station in their plans.

However, a £3.3M funding gap remained. Lancashire County Council successfully targeted the government’s Community Infrastructure Fund which was an ideal source, specifically designed to fund transport schemes that support housing growth. This funding, confirmed in August 2009, had a two-year spending deadline, giving the project urgency.

Project partners Lancashire County Council, Chorley Borough Council, Network Rail and Northern Rail have collaborated closely. Richard Watts, Rail Projects Manager at Lancashire County Council, explains that the project board included representatives from all four parties: “We brought together senior people and gave leadership from a high level. The people there had the authority and clout to make it happen”.

http://www.therailengineer.com/2012...omes-the-latest-addition-to-the-rail-network/

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sounds to me as if something was found after installation to be non-compliant with one of the many standards and isn't allowed to be used until it is sorted.

Today, I noticed that the southbound junction signal for the new curve at Stansfield Hall Jn has a right-hand feather with a bag over it.
This suggests that the local signalling work has been completed but more has to be done at Preston PSB to commission the junction towards Todmorden.

 

[Signal Head]

Sounds to me as if something was found after installation to be non-compliant with one of the many standards and isn't allowed to be used until it is sorted.

Not the case as far as I am aware. As I understand it the design was altered, deliberately, to introduce a stage where there is enough in for the turnback + through move in the Down direction, ie enough for the service intended to operate until December, by which time the rest of the work can be completed. This was done to claw back some of the time lost due to delays earlier in the project, which meant the full-blown signalling work couldn't be designed and installed in time for the May TT change.

The through move presumably allows for some elements of route-learning ready for full opening, as well as, of course, the railtour which ran just after it opened.

 

[mirodo]

Possibly there's no money to staff the station until the agreement between lancashire County Council and Northern rail is signed.

I had heard a suggestion that the staff who currently work at Burnley Central would move to the new facilities at Manchester Road, and the existing ticket office at Central would close. Anyone able to confirm/deny this?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I could see Central getting reduced hours - its current hours are ridiculous and considerably longer than, for example, the much busier (and generally superior ) Blackburn or Accrington. Perhaps the staff rosters could be rejigged so the person who would do the late shift at Central moves over to Manchester Road in the morning, and both become single shift stations? Something like 0600-1400 I think would be suitable for both stations.

 

[Starmill]

This has got to be the last straw... how can anyone be expected to have any faith in Network Rail or the Train Operators when they keep postponing things like this!? The line has been closed for so long and the Chord wasn't exactly quick to construct... and still for some reason the thing isn't fully signalled!? Why!?

 

[spongsdad]

This has got to be the last straw... how can anyone be expected to have any faith in Network Rail or the Train Operators when they keep postponing things like this!? The line has been closed for so long and the Chord wasn't exactly quick to construct... and still for some reason the thing isn't fully signalled!? Why!?

The answer is simple-and I am not intending to be facetious here; it is because this project is NOT important. By this, I mean that for those who make the decisions, the reopening of the Todmorden Curve is a long way down their list of priorities. The people for whom it IS important are, sadly, not the decision makers.

 

[Starmill]

But what is the point of initiating and paying for the project if it is going to be so late? I agree that there might be more important strategic priorities for this sort of work, but it's an embarrassment that this has been promised it would be finished and is now so late. Didn't Lancashire County Council put some money in for a trial service too?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The answer is simple-and I am not intending to be facetious here; it is because this project is NOT important. By this, I mean that for those who make the decisions, the reopening of the Todmorden Curve is a long way down their list of priorities. The people for whom it IS important are, sadly, not the decision makers.

The bid monies that were obtained which partly were used (in addition to the Weavers Triangle at Burnley) to help fund the works of the Todmorden Chord came as part of the stated bid ...."to aid in the regeneration of East Lancashire"

Burnley Council who were the lead authority on the successful bid and also the organisation who were the guarantees of the payment of the bid monies will be most interested to hear that the rail part of this successful bid grant "is NOT important". Perhaps attempts should now be made to consider if the bid submission was fraudulent in that part of its submission and the other project that lost out to this Burnley Council led bid should also conjoin with that process.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

But it isn't really important though is it? To the best of my knowledge this whole scheme was set-up by non-rail bodies, I can't ever recall it being on any Network Rail / TOC-based list of desires. Compared to schemes like CrossRail, or closer to Burnley, the Northern Hub, or even projects like the continuing expansion of Metrolink, the Todmorden Curve really is not all that ground-breaking in the big picture. One would hope people with powers to the extent that council bodies et al have would be able to realise this...

 

[158756]

But it isn't really important though is it? To the best of my knowledge this whole scheme was set-up by non-rail bodies, I can't ever recall it being on any Network Rail / TOC-based list of desires. Compared to schemes like CrossRail, or closer to Burnley, the Northern Hub, or even projects like the continuing expansion of Metrolink, the Todmorden Curve really is not all that ground-breaking in the big picture. One would hope people with powers to the extent that council bodies et al have would be able to realise this...

So what's the point of finding other funding for schemes, as it is often suggested ' the North' should do on this forum, if that means the TOC,DfT etc can completely ignore it?
Didn't an RUS or something like that suggest there was a desire to run an extra service to Todmorden?
If so, one could say, being very cynical, that it appears the railway has taken the money, got the turn back siding it wanted, and now no one cares about running the through service.
What should they do upon realising this? Say 'yeh fine, we'll wait for every big project for the next 50 years?

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't the funding time-limited, so had to be spent by a particular date which may not have suited the availability of trains? In which case the authority had the choice of getting the work done a few months before trains were available or not getting it done at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Wasn't the funding time-limited, so had to be spent by a particular date which may not have suited the availability of trains? In which case the authority had the choice of getting the work done a few months before trains were available or not getting it done at all.

This is not questioned. What is questioned is the actuality of the bid-process and then of the success of it were unbeknown to either Network Rail or to Northern Rail and surely there are personages employed within the organisational structures of both these two companies who do monitor such matters that have rail implications.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But it isn't really important though is it? To the best of my knowledge this whole scheme was set-up by non-rail bodies, I can't ever recall it being on any Network Rail / TOC-based list of desires. Compared to schemes like CrossRail, or closer to Burnley, the Northern Hub, or even projects like the continuing expansion of Metrolink, the Todmorden Curve really is not all that ground-breaking in the big picture. One would hope people with powers to the extent that council bodies et al have would be able to realise this...

That being the case, it should have been patently made clear by either Network Rail or by Northern Rail to the Burnley Council bid team, prior to the final bid submission, NOT to include any rail-based part of the bid, but to concentrate upon the Weaver's Triangle regeneration as the main core part of the bid, then to supplement this with other project works that could be seen to aid the regeneration of East Lancashire.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what's the point of finding other funding for schemes, as it is often suggested ' the North' should do on this forum, if that means the TOC,DfT etc can completely ignore it? Didn't an RUS or something like that suggest there was a desire to run an extra service to Todmorden?
If so, one could say, being very cynical, that it appears the railway has taken the money, got the turn back siding it wanted, and now no one cares about running the through service. What should they do upon realising this? Say 'yeh fine, we'll wait for every big project for the next 50 years?

Current objectors suddenly find themselves "hoist upon their own petard".

 

[deltic08]

But it isn't really important though is it? To the best of my knowledge this whole scheme was set-up by non-rail bodies, I can't ever recall it being on any Network Rail / TOC-based list of desires. Compared to schemes like CrossRail, or closer to Burnley, the Northern Hub, or even projects like the continuing expansion of Metrolink, the Todmorden Curve really is not all that ground-breaking in the big picture. One would hope people with powers to the extent that council bodies et al have would be able to realise this...

So, are you saying that if Network Rail didn't think of it first then it shouldn't be executed in a reasonable timescale? As far as I can tell, it has been known about in railway circles for a very long time, long enough for Network Rail to pull their finger out and complete a customer contract even if there aren't enough trains at the moment to use it. Building the Hitchin flyover took less time.

 

[edwin_m]

Both Network Rail and Northern were aware of the bid process, as they were asked to give prices for the infrastructure and the operation respectively. I presume some at least of the curve work was scheduled to coincide with the Holme Tunnel blockade, to avoid having another one later, but I'm not aware of the reason for the work not now being finished so I can't comment on that.

For the fifth or sixth time, what else could have been done? As there are no DMUs spare anywhere, it would have been necessary to remove a unit from an existing service or bring forward an electrification scheme by several months.

Perhaps those complaining about this situation might offer some constructive and realistic suggestions of how it might have been avoided?

 

[deltic08]

Both Network Rail and Northern were aware of the bid process, as they were asked to give prices for the infrastructure and the operation respectively. I presume some at least of the curve work was scheduled to coincide with the Holme Tunnel blockade, to avoid having another one later, but I'm not aware of the reason for the work not now being finished so I can't comment on that.

For the fifth or sixth time, what else could have been done? As there are no DMUs spare anywhere, it would have been necessary to remove a unit from an existing service or bring forward an electrification scheme by several months.

Perhaps those complaining about this situation might offer some constructive and realistic suggestions of how it might have been avoided?

Network rail could have completed the contract so that the curve could be used as soon a trains are available to use it. It is looking more likely that trains will be available now before the curve is fully open.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps those complaining about this situation might offer some constructive and realistic suggestions of how it might have been avoided?

I will offer one such suggestion. The monies spent from the successful bid monies could have spent on a new fleet of buses for the X43 "Lancashire Witch" bus service from Burnley to Manchester which should have been in the bid submission from the very start. This would have enabled the bid monies to be more actively used than what this disgraceful rail fiasco ever purported to achieve...and now we are notified in a posting on another thread on this website that all will eventually be offered in the form of rail traction is an elderly Class 142 raibus that will be released by the introduction of an elderly Class 319 unit somewhere else on the "Northern" circuit. Will this be an hourly rail service to compete against the 15-minute X43 bus service frequency.

 

[edwin_m]

It's probably illegal to bung a wad of public money to a commercial bus service. And I thought the X43 buses were pretty new anyway,

 

[spongsdad]

Both Network Rail and Northern were aware of the bid process, as they were asked to give prices for the infrastructure and the operation respectively. I presume some at least of the curve work was scheduled to coincide with the Holme Tunnel blockade, to avoid having another one later, but I'm not aware of the reason for the work not now being finished so I can't comment on that.

For the fifth or sixth time, what else could have been done? As there are no DMUs spare anywhere, it would have been necessary to remove a unit from an existing service or bring forward an electrification scheme by several months.

Perhaps those complaining about this situation might offer some constructive and realistic suggestions of how it might have been avoided?

For the avoidance of doubt, details of the work schedule during the Holme Tunnel blockade are contained in a file downloaded from Network Rail entitled NR and Northern Co-ordination Meeting-3.ppt. I'm not sure if it is still available to download and even in Zipped form it is still too big to upload to this forum. If anyone can suggest how I might upload it, please let me know. From my reading of the file, the recommissioning of the curve was scheduled for the end of the tunnel blockade, i.e. March 28th 2014. All associated signalling works, so far as I can see, were supposed to take place during the blockade.
The absence of trains suitable to provide the service is at least explicable, if it is consequent upon delays in transferring stock to Northern. What is inexcusable is the fact that further delays seem inevitable as a result of the engineering and signalling work being, even at this late stage, incomplete.
Also, it should not be forgotten, the tunnel works were intended to stabilise the structure, improve clearance and allow an increase in the speed to 45mph and 75mph overall. As far as I know, it's still at 20mph so what happened to that one?
I repeat my assertion in post #1358 that this project is NOT important to the decision makers. Were it otherwise, the Curve would at least be READY to run trains

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's probably illegal to bung a wad of public money to a commercial bus service. And I thought the X43 buses were pretty new anyway,

I was referring to the newest fleet of the new buses on the X43 service. You offer an interesting view nonetheless, bur why should this be any different to a Rosco putting finance forward for new train units that they can then lease ?

 

[edwin_m]

I was referring to the newest fleet of the new buses on the X43 service. You offer an interesting view nonetheless, bur why should this be any different to a Rosco putting finance forward for new train units that they can then lease ?

A ROSCO putting forward finance is a commercial arrangement and they will want paying back at commercial rates. The TOC that is leasing the trains will probably be receiving public funding, but only because they have been successful in a bidding process that is open to all applicants.

Our bus industry is supposed to be deregulated and unilaterally giving a public grant to one operator is unfair to their competitors. It is possible for the public sector to tender a service and even to buy the buses, then allow the winner of a bidding process to use them on specific services. However it is also forbidden for a tendered service to compete with a commercial service. As the X43 is presumably commercial the only way the public sector could intervene, assuming it wanted to, would be to make some road improvements which help the buses get through.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is inexcusable is the fact that further delays seem inevitable as a result of the engineering and signalling work being, even at this late stage, incomplete.

I agree this is a very poor result, and the fact it can't even be sorted before the trains are available in December makes it much worse. Especially as no explanation has been offered as far as I'm aware.

My previous comments referred to the delay in providing the trains, which I consider was unavoidable.

 

[The Planner]

Also, it should not be forgotten, the tunnel works were intended to stabilise the structure, improve clearance and allow an increase in the speed to 45mph and 75mph overall. As far as I know, it's still at 20mph so what happened to that one?

Golden word there is allow. The job was to do Holme Tunnel, not to actually deliver a line speed increase. Thats a seperate output as its an enhancement not a renewal and are different pots of cash and rules etc in the bizarre way our industry works... the linespeed over the entire Copy Pit line is being looked at but I wouldnt hold your breath.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

allow an increase in the speed to 45mph and 75mph overall. As far as I know, it's still at 20mph so what happened to that one?

"Allow" is the operative word - there are signalling and track condition issues to fix before a speed increase is implemented. I'd put a virtual pint on it not being 75mph anyway ....

 

[Philip C]

Am I the only one who feels that the whole sorry affair might have been avoided, and an effective service provided, if an additional/ replacement station had been built at Todmorden Hall Royd Junction and decent connections arranged between Manchester-Calder Valley trains and those running between the Calder Valley and East Lancashire?

I know it is a bit late now.

 

[spongsdad]

"Allow" is the operative word - there are signalling and track condition issues to fix before a speed increase is implemented. I'd put a virtual pint on it not being 75mph anyway ....

I would think allow is more a weasel word in that it allows NR & Northern to apparently promise something whilst giving them a let out if they don't deliver, as in, "The upcoming reinstatement of the Todmorden Curve will allow the provision of a direct train service between Accrington/Burnley and Manchester Victoria."

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Am I the only one who feels that the whole sorry affair might have been avoided, and an effective service provided, if an additional/ replacement station had been built at Todmorden Hall Royd Junction and decent connections arranged between Manchester-Calder Valley trains and those running between the Calder Valley and East Lancashire?

I know it is a bit late now.

The question there would be whether such a scheme, whilst probably* cheaper than the curve and not necessarily needing any extra rolling stock, would offer as much in terms of modal shift as a direct service.

*=Such a station would need to be fully accessible with all potential passengers needing to use a footbridge or subway in order to interchange. If built with two platforms (to the East of the junction) it would reduce capacity on a busy route and would slow some if not all of the services. Even with services retimed to connect I'd be surprised if it gained much more than 10mins over the status quo of interchange at Hebden Bridge. There's also the cost of access roads and possibly parking, unless a "Smallbrook Junction" type situation would be acceptable. Building beyond the junction would mean 4 platforms and a double span footbridge or subway, and the issues with the proposed station at Low Moor show that curved platforms are not really welcomed easily by 'the powers that be'...

 

[edwin_m]

A station at Hall Royd would probably have needed just as much signalling work as the Curve did.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What now occupies the site of the former Stansfield Hall railway station ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What now occupies the site of the former Stansfield Hall railway station ?

If my memory serves me rightly, mostly buddleia and Japanese Knotweed!