Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Class 170101]

If the Labour/Lib Dem MPs want to push for an answer from Osborne they'll have the chance on Wednesday. David Cameron's away in Europe and has delegated his PMQs responsibility to Osborne for this week.

And you expect him to answer questions. PMQ's is just a pantomine show of very poor talent when it comes to acting.

 

[QueensCurve]

How could Woodhead be re-opened given that National Grid have their cables in the 1950's tunnel?

Has that actually happened?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only by stringing the cables over the top of the moor above the tunnels. Imagine the public outcry!

Hope Valley is not at capacity, it leads directly into Sheffield Midland, and via the Dore Curve directly towards Chesterfield. Linking the Woodhead line into Sheffield Midland would be a huge engineering task, and please no suggestions that Victoria could re-open. Sheffield does not need two unconnected railway stations.

The cables were originally located in the original tunnels vacated by the railway when electrification was carried out.

I don't know the motivation for moving the cables into the newer tunnel, but imagine it might have been easier to replace the cables by putting them in an new location rather than take them out of service for renewal.

If so, it is presumably possible to replace the present cables with new cables installed in the old tunnel?

I still can't see Woodhead reopening happening any time soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Hope Valley line stopping services sees essential rail transport links being maintained between settlements as well as enabling visitors to access the great natural facilities in the area.

Remember what happened to all the railway stations that used to be situated between Preston and Lancaster which were all closed to facilitate a fast line service,

Not to mention those further North in Cumbria and Scotland.

 

[Haydn1971]

The DfT have said Woodhead will not reopen - with the current rail network, the current Woodhead route would be practically useless as a fast route anyways - plus the design standards wouldn't meet modern requirements - the old tunnels are knackered too.

I do however see the Woodhead route as being favourable for a new line from a junction with HS2 at Hoyland cutting up to pass under the Woodhead area missing the National Park completely (Dunford Bridge to a stop just north of Tintwistle or near Padfield) - make it as fast as possible

 

[Daz9284]

Nat Grid installed the new 400kV cables in the BR tunnel about 3-4 years ago. They never took them out of service at all. They put the new ones in the BR tunnel while the ones in the vic tunnel were in use. when the works were finished in the BR tunnel, the ones in the BR tunnel were energised and the ones in the vic tunnel were de-energised

Over the past few years they have taken the old (and life expired) oil-filled 400kV out of the Victoria Tunnel, as well as all the oil tanks, fire systems and some of the narrow gauage railway. They have also blocked up & reinforced the tunnels at the bottom of shafts 2 and 5, and sealed up the ends of the tunnels for approx 70m to reinforce them under the road and the pylon at the other.

This was all done because they were spending over £1m/year on maintenance on the old vic tunnels and they were becoming too unsafe with a couple of collapses over the past decade.

They approached NR to ask if there was any future plans to re-open them to rail traffic and NR said no.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rumour has it (well more than a rumour) that he nicked it from Labour and got away with because Labour was too slow at deciding exactly what their policy under that banner was going to be.

Well, the blame seems to find its home in the higher echelons of the Labour Party for allowing this to occur. Are not fingers applied to political pulses these days?...:roll:

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Well, the blame seems to find its home in the higher echelons of the Labour Party for allowing this to occur. Are not fingers applied to political pulses these days?...:roll:

Labour really did take their eye of the ball with the Northern Powerhouse and allow themselves to be outflanked by the Tories. I personally blame the Leadership and espically Ed Balls who in his Autumn 2013 conference speech when he questioned whether Labour should back HS2 or not. Two days later the Labour leaders of the Northern city councils were at a meeting at 10 Downing Street in support of HS2 with David Cameron talking about how important HS2 was for the future prosperity of the North. That's when I believe Osbourne saw an opportunity to wrong foot the Labour leadership and make them look out of touch in their heartlands and the idea for the Northern Powerhouse was born.

Fast forward six months and new HS2 chairman David Higgins launches is HS2 plus report in March 2014 and announces a study into improving East West links and HS3 in announced a few months later, and all Labour would say the whole time was "No blank cheque" for HS2, so Osbourne was able to win over Labour's Northern council leaders while the leadership in Westminster looked increasingly out touch.

 

[northwichcat]

I personally blame the Leadership and espically Ed Balls who in his Autumn 2013 conference speech when he questioned whether Labour should back HS2 or not.

Really Labour were in a catch 22 situation. If they said they'd back it whatever it costed then they the Tories would have used it as evidence that they would spend money they didn't have if they got back in. So they said they might review the scheme if the costs got too high and they got critcised for not confirming HS2 will go ahead.

And you expect him to answer questions. PMQ's is just a pantomine show of very poor talent when it comes to acting.

When Brown was PM it was less of a pantomime show but with him being more serious and honest and concentrating less on positive spin Labour's popularity rating dropped.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm pleased to see you use inverted commas around HS3. Given there would be no running at over 125mph I think TransPennine Mainline would be more appropriate given it'll be more like the Midland Mainline than HS1 or HS2.

Have you seen the design specification and preliminary route work for the project ?

The rumours and budgets I've seen suggest HS3 would be a GC gauged route joining HS2 at Leeds with HS2 at Manchester. Speed would be limited, 140mph maximum, because of the extensive running in tunnels. Rolling stock would be a mix of full size GC gauged units and classic compatible C1/C3 or similar gauged units.

HS2 stock may operate a limited service between Leeds and Manchester after arriving from London to Leeds/Manchester services (to provide a service between Crewe and Leeds, Sheffield & East Midlands Hub).

The remainder of services would be operated by either dedicated 140mph High Speed stock, such as the Hitachi Class 395 units on HS1, or AT300/IEP units which also have a 140mph capability on electric. They would operate services to destinations such as Hull and Newcastle.

 

[Class377/5]

Absolutely, but what has the industry been doing during the three-and-a-half years since the announcement of trans-Pennine electrification? Surely there has been plenty of time what sort of a service is wanted and then what sort of infrastructure is required to deliver that service reliably day in and day out (and not just in ideal conditions with everything functioning perfectly).

I haven't checked, but I wonder how long it took our Victorian predecessors to get the Acts for the Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Leeds railways in the 1840s and then actually build them from scratch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
PS Just to shew how long some of the ideas for route improvement have been around, there's an article in RAIL written fifteen years ago by Philip Haigh (No. 383, 17 May 2000, pp38-41), which sets out some quite detailed planning, some of which has already been carried out, some done in a de-specced form, and much just not done.

There's a difference between penning to write and planning a complete line upgrade. The TOCs have gone to NR wroth a list of improvements that have thrown out a lot of the already planning and now look at improving the line speeds alongside wires up. This isn't a simple job and the reality is that there is a huge load on the planning department and looking at the entire route afresh is going to take time. And have multiple stage discussions how can be funded.

The and and half years isn't much time in planning terms. Not for major works.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a difference between penning to write and planning a complete line upgrade. The TOCs have gone to NR wroth a list of improvements that have thrown out a lot of the already planning and now look at improving the line speeds alongside wires up. This isn't a simple job and the reality is that there is a huge load on the planning department and looking at the entire route afresh is going to take time. And have multiple stage discussions how can be funded.

The and and half years isn't much time in planning terms. Not for major works.

Up to about 2007, the SRA used to act as the "customer" for Network Rail's major projects.
They arbitrated the design of things like Rugby and the current Stafford scheme, to deliver the best functionality for the money.
After they were disbanded, those roles migrated either to the DfT Rail group, or to the ORR.
Today, I would expect these people to be specifying and reviewing NR's projects.
The TOCs may have a consultancy role in this as current operators, but certainly won't be able dictate design.
I very much doubt the TOCs (TPE I suppose) are able to force NR to dump its plans.

On the TP North route, the west side has been badly treated over the years, while the east side is in reasonable shape.
The west side still has manual signalling in places, and very low speeds either via Miles Platting or Guide Bridge.
Stalybridge has been upgraded recently but is still by no means "fast", especially towards Victoria.
The east side has modern signalling managed from York and has better junctions and alignments by remodelling the former 4-track layouts.
I don't see how a TOC's opinions can stop a major project in its tracks.
If the DfT or ORR has called a halt, or NR itself has decided to have another think, that's different.
We don't even know what NR planned to do to the route regardless of electrification (ie under the original Northern Hub plans).
All we have to go on are raw figures for train frequency and journey time.

 

[Senex]

On the TP North route, the west side has been badly treated over the years, while the east side is in reasonable shape.
The west side still has manual signalling in places, and very low speeds either via Miles Platting or Guide Bridge.
Stalybridge has been upgraded recently but is still by no means "fast", especially towards Victoria.

Whilst the old Eastern Region improved the trans-Pennine route very considerably along with a programme of (over-)simplification, the London Midland did the bare minimum east of Manchester just like north-west of Manchester.

Stalybridge has indeed very recently been very well upgraded -- but on the basis that all the main-line traffic would be continuing to run to and from Guide Bridge! These were essentially the plans that were being developed for the route fifteen years ago (see attached). The other part of the work, at Guide Bridge, was in the event carried out in a much more cheese-paring fashion, so instead of the 50 or 60 that was thought possible only much slower speeds are possible. Had anyone thought that the route through Manchester Victoria would come back as the principal route surely the work at Stalybridge would have been paused for reconsideration, given that there is plenty of space for a much better alignment towards Victoria making the Stockport line the branch rather than the main line that it always has been (in layout terms).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Whilst the old Eastern Region improved the trans-Pennine route very considerably along with a programme of (over-)simplification, the London Midland did the bare minimum east of Manchester just like north-west of Manchester.

Stalybridge has indeed very recently been very well upgraded -- but on the basis that all the main-line traffic would be continuing to run to and from Guide Bridge! These were essentially the plans that were being developed for the route fifteen years ago (see attached). The other part of the work, at Guide Bridge, was in the event carried out in a much more cheese-paring fashion, so instead of the 50 or 60 that was thought possible only much slower speeds are possible. Had anyone thought that the route through Manchester Victoria would come back as the principal route surely the work at Stalybridge would have been paused for reconsideration, given that there is plenty of space for a much better alignment towards Victoria making the Stockport line the branch rather than the main line that it always has been (in layout terms).

Interesting piece. They would have been Railtrack plans I suppose.
Anyway, not much of that happened did it?
100mph at Micklefield; 90mph at Heaton Lodge? Plus ca change!
You'd think that this sort of plan would be first base for the Northern Hub upgrade (before deciding about wiring).
And I'm pretty sure the Stalybridge upgrade was actually done after the decision to restore the main line via Victoria.

 

[Senex]

And I'm pretty sure the Stalybridge upgrade was actually done after the decision to restore the main line via Victoria.

You're right, but the plans were finalised before. No-one apparently thought there ought to be a pause for a re-think.

 

[Class377/5]

Up to about 2007, the SRA used to act as the "customer" for Network Rail's major projects.
They arbitrated the design of things like Rugby and the current Stafford scheme, to deliver the best functionality for the money.
After they were disbanded, those roles migrated either to the DfT Rail group, or to the ORR.
Today, I would expect these people to be specifying and reviewing NR's projects.
The TOCs may have a consultancy role in this as current operators, but certainly won't be able dictate design.
I very much doubt the TOCs (TPE I suppose) are able to force NR to dump its plans.

On the TP North route, the west side has been badly treated over the years, while the east side is in reasonable shape.
The west side still has manual signalling in places, and very low speeds either via Miles Platting or Guide Bridge.
Stalybridge has been upgraded recently but is still by no means "fast", especially towards Victoria.
The east side has modern signalling managed from York and has better junctions and alignments by remodelling the former 4-track layouts.
I don't see how a TOC's opinions can stop a major project in its tracks.
If the DfT or ORR has called a halt, or NR itself has decided to have another think, that's different.
We don't even know what NR planned to do to the route regardless of electrification (ie under the original Northern Hub plans).
All we have to go on are raw figures for train frequency and journey time.

The TOCs went to Network Rail staying that there is little point just wiring up when work to improvements will require wiring to be rebuild. Things like adjusting curves to improve sleds requires ripping the wires down and starting again more money and very disruptive now and in future, especially an all eletric railways.

Thier comments have got NR to rethink is design and all parties including DfT agreed. You might be able to see how a TOC can affect a major project but that's what's happened in this case. It's a positive approach to actually upgrading the line properly then the piecemeal way we normally go for.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's a positive approach to actually upgrading the line properly then the piecemeal way we normally go for.

Indeed, it will be most unusual for piecemeal works not to be brought into play, but there has always been the eagle-eyes of those in the Treasury who do not normally miss out when very large project sums are to be involved.

Now, if only the Transpennine electrification project could mystically be financially conjoined to the Trident replacement scheme, then that would then see a totally different kettle of fish simmering away upon the back burner of the Treasury budgetary control...:roll:

 

[northwichcat]

The rumours and budgets I've seen suggest HS3 would be a GC gauged route joining HS2 at Leeds with HS2 at Manchester. Speed would be limited, 140mph maximum, because of the extensive running in tunnels. Rolling stock would be a mix of full size GC gauged units and classic compatible C1/C3 or similar gauged units.

So you mean just like the WCML or ECML where up to 140mph running was planned and trains were ordered which were capable of doing that but limited to 125mph?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Indeed, it will be most unusual for piecemeal works not to be brought into play, but there has always been the eagle-eyes of those in the Treasury who do not normally miss out when very large project sums are to be involved.

Now, if only the Transpennine electrification project could mystically be financially conjoined to the Trident replacement scheme, then that would then see a totally different kettle of fish simmering away upon the back burner of the Treasury budgetary control...:roll:

Britain has always punched or tried to punch above its weight no matter which political party is in. After end of WW2 did the Labour government use American money etc to rebuild the railway - no. What did it do - made Britain a nuclear power. Did Harold Wilson in 1967 authorize electrification of Crewe -Glasgow - no. What did it do - purchased Polaris from the USA. etc . We have to face it. The Railways are a Cinderella case compared to defense. It just be that way sir. :cry:

 

[Senex]

It's a positive approach to actually upgrading the line properly then the piecemeal way we normally go for.

I seem to recall that the British Railways Board invented Total Route Modernisation a good few years ago. Has it taken those involved with trans-Pennine 3½ years to re-invent the wheel?

More seriously, OLE obviously tends to freeze the infrastructure because the costs of doing anything rocket the moment the wires have to be changed for even the slightest alteration -- something we saw happen on the West Coast Main Line over very many years. So it is excellent news that there is a move to try to get things right first time. But it would be good to see a little urgency, given the delay there has already been. Certainly I should like to think that I might be able to travel by electric train from York to Manchester during my lifetime.

 

[HowardGWR]

Britain has always punched or tried to punch above its weight no matter which political party is in. After end of WW2 did the Labour government use American money etc to rebuild the railway - no. What did it do - made Britain a nuclear power. Did Harold Wilson in 1967 authorize electrification of Crewe -Glasgow - no. What did it do - purchased Polaris from the USA. etc . We have to face it. The Railways are a Cinderella case compared to defense. It just be that way sir. :cry:

I suppose excusable if discussing Trident all the way from Ohio!

You are probably right though.

 

[Olaf]

I'm pleased to see you use inverted commas around HS3. Given there would be no running at over 125mph I think TransPennine Mainline would be more appropriate given it'll be more like the Midland Mainline than HS1 or HS2.

Thank you. Yes as far as I can determine it officially consist of no more than a rushed Treasury estimate for a tunnel (but nothing about the route, service, integration etc), and a lot of hot air from various local political groups that took the bait. However, until the position is clarified, it will have an unknowable impact on planning for existing routes, including the TPE project; another candidate for the post-election cull.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Up to about 2007, the SRA used to act as the "customer" for Network Rail's major projects.
They arbitrated the design of things like Rugby and the current Stafford scheme, to deliver the best functionality for the money.
After they were disbanded, those roles migrated either to the DfT Rail group, or to the ORR.
Today, I would expect these people to be specifying and reviewing NR's projects.
The TOCs may have a consultancy role in this as current operators, but certainly won't be able dictate design.
I very much doubt the TOCs (TPE I suppose) are able to force NR to dump its plans.

On the TP North route, the west side has been badly treated over the years, while the east side is in reasonable shape.
The west side still has manual signalling in places, and very low speeds either via Miles Platting or Guide Bridge.
Stalybridge has been upgraded recently but is still by no means "fast", especially towards Victoria.
The east side has modern signalling managed from York and has better junctions and alignments by remodelling the former 4-track layouts.
I don't see how a TOC's opinions can stop a major project in its tracks.
If the DfT or ORR has called a halt, or NR itself has decided to have another think, that's different.
We don't even know what NR planned to do to the route regardless of electrification (ie under the original Northern Hub plans).
All we have to go on are raw figures for train frequency and journey time.

NR is obliged to consult with stake holders, and if existing proposals/plans/offerings do not meet requirements then the plans have to be re-worked.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The TOCs went to Network Rail staying that there is little point just wiring up when work to improvements will require wiring to be rebuild. Things like adjusting curves to improve sleds requires ripping the wires down and starting again more money and very disruptive now and in future, especially an all eletric railways.

Thier comments have got NR to rethink is design and all parties including DfT agreed. You might be able to see how a TOC can affect a major project but that's what's happened in this case. It's a positive approach to actually upgrading the line properly then the piecemeal way we normally go for.

I suspect (I would hope) it was more a case of the RDG/DfT/NR Capacity analysis stating that the capacity of the planned changes was in adequate to meet anticipated demand, and that then the NR Program Office would have decided that the then existing proposals/work had to be abandoned/re-worked - not a decision taken outside of the NR program Office.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed, any project big or small has to go through Network Change which is a licence condition. If an operator doesnt agree to it then things can go down the pan time wise, it pays NR to make sure that operators are on board with the plans and are happy.

 

[snowball]

I work on the NTPE project currently. The first four structure upgrades (as part of the route clearance package) being carried out currently will be completed by August time (NOC/13, 15, 22 and 22A for those interested).

NOC/22 is New Road, the road overbridge at Ulleskelf station (8m 64ch). 22A is the footbridge at the station (8m 65ch)

I walked over both Ulleskelf bridges today and couldn't see any evidence of work in progress. I also drove over the road bridge a week after Easter and didn't notice anything. Have they perhaps been finished? Both bridges appear to have had their parapets raised by being encased in steel sheet.

At Bolton Percy the road signs are very precise about when the bridge will reopen - 15:30 on 3 July if I remember correctly.

 

[The Snap]

I walked over both Ulleskelf bridges today and couldn't see any evidence of work in progress. I also drove over the road bridge a week after Easter and didn't notice anything. Have they perhaps been finished? Both bridges appear to have had their parapets raised by being encased in steel sheet.

At Bolton Percy the road signs are very precise about when the bridge will reopen - 15:30 on 3 July if I remember correctly.

The works on the road bridge (NOC/22) are finished barring snagging and a plate to be fitted to the NW parapet (you won't be able to see it as it's track side).

All steel has been fitted to the footbridge, barring the joining pieces between the parapet extensions. These will be fitted, then the new steel will be repainted.

All these works will take place in mid-July during a Saturday night and midweek night possessions. After that, we should be done. Unfortunately work has been stop-start due to limited possession availability on both the Leeds and Normanton lines.

 

[snowball]

At Bolton Percy the road signs are very precise about when the bridge will reopen - 15:30 on 3 July if I remember correctly.

Now changed to read 30 Sept. No time of day mentioned, perhaps wisely!

At least the pedestrian route is now back over the main bridge.


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


Some bridges between Manchester and Stalybridge were rebuilt a year or two ago, and one was demolished. More recently, the deck of Rochdale Road bridge was raised. I've been wondering whether that meant all the necessary bridges had been done. Now there's an NR press release about a start on two more.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...orth-west-electrification-programme-continues

Probably the people who've recently completed most of the necessary bridges between Manchester and Preston are moving to Tameside.

Two bridges are to be rebuilt as part of the electrification of the railway between Manchester and Stalybridge.

Network Rail is investing more than £1bn in the north of England to provide passengers with a better railway. To electrify the line the bridges have to be rebuilt to increase the clearance underneath to accommodate overhead lines which will power trains.

Aisling Wall, scheme project manager for Network Rail, said: “The rebuilding of these bridges is an essential part of the electrification of the railway which will provide passengers with faster, more reliable and efficient services.

“I apologise for any disruption caused to the surrounding road network but we have worked closely with the local authority to plan the diversions and will complete the work in the quickest and safest possible way.”

The bridge and road closure details are:

Granville Street:

• A road closure at the bridge itself will be required from Monday 27 July 2015 until 23 December 2015.
• A temporary footbridge will be constructed in advance of the closure to maintain pedestrian access. This temporary bridge will also be used to carry the diverted utility pipes and cables from within the bridge.
• The main work to demolish and reconstruct the bridge will take place over two weekends when the railway will be closed: 12.30am on Saturday 12 September 2015 until 5.05am on Monday 14 September 2015 to demolish the bridge; 12.30am Saturday 19 September until 5.05am on Monday 21 September 2015 to build the new bridge.

Mossley Road:

• A road closure at the bridge itself will be required from Monday 27 July 2015 until Wednesday 23 December 2015.
• The main work to demolish and reconstruct the bridge will take place over the course of three weekends when the railway will be closed: 12.01am on 12 September until 6.10am on 14 September 2015 to demolish the bridge; 12.01am on 26 September until 6.10am on 28 September and 12.01am on 3 October until 6.10am on 5 October 2015 to rebuild the new bridge.

 

[misterredmist]

Am I correct in thinking that the wiring to Stalyvegas will be unaffected by the delay in the Transpennine electrification and go ahead as part of the "Northern Hub" scheme as part of CP5 ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Am I correct in thinking that the wiring to Stalyvegas will be unaffected by the delay in the Transpennine electrification and go ahead as part of the "Northern Hub" scheme as part of CP5 ?

As I understand it, Victoria to Stalybridge is unaffected but Guide Bridge to Stalybridge might be. Not sure how official that is though...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Am I correct in thinking that the wiring to Stalyvegas will be unaffected by the delay in the Transpennine electrification and go ahead as part of the "Northern Hub" scheme as part of CP5 ?

As I understand it, Victoria to Stalybridge is unaffected but Guide Bridge to Stalybridge might be. Not sure how official that is though...

All CP5 projects are up for review.
The driver is the overspend on GW electrification.
Separately from this, Northern Hub is stalled until the Ordsall Chord legal challenge is resolved.
At the moment, Victoria-Stalybridge is part of the NW scheme, and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge is part of TP (so "paused").

 

[Philip Phlopp]

All CP5 projects are up for review.
The driver is the overspend on GW electrification.
Separately from this, Northern Hub is stalled until the Ordsall Chord legal challenge is resolved.
At the moment, Victoria-Stalybridge is part of the NW scheme, and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge is part of TP (so "paused").

The overspend is rumoured to be at £2bn so far, though that's presumed to include penalty payments and compensation to train operating companies for additional disruption and closures.

 

[WatcherZero]

Though 10% of that, £200m was the Transport Secretary banking on descoping and projects coming in under budget to balance the books. I.E. he signed off a budget £200m larger than he could pay for. That's what he told the transport select committee.

 

[Greybeard33]

All CP5 projects are up for review.
The driver is the overspend on GW electrification.
Separately from this, Northern Hub is stalled until the Ordsall Chord legal challenge is resolved.
At the moment, Victoria-Stalybridge is part of the NW scheme, and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge is part of TP (so "paused").

Network Rail's LNW Network Specification https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Network-Specification-2015-London-North-Western.pdf lists both Victoria-Stalybridge and Guide Bridge-Stalybridge as parts of the "North Trans-Pennine Electrification: West" scheme. But it states:

The project is being delivered as part of the North West
Electrification programme due to synergies with timescales and
power supplies.

The CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf describes both lines as parts of Phase 5 of the NW Electrification Programme.

Guide Bridge-Stalybridge is only 2.1 miles. Will it not improve 25kV network resilience by providing a second connection to the Stalybridge National Grid feeder station?