Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Haydn1971]

But even if thats true I still doubt HS2 will be finished before 2026 for phase 1, some ten years away and stage 2 in 2032 and therefore HS3 is unlikely to begin before then never mind finish. I just don't believe the resources will be available to complete the jobs simultaneuously and thats without consideration to Crossrail 2.

I sympathise with your view, working in the civil engineering industry, it's clear that staff numbers are really ramping up... My office in Manchester has a huge proportion of engineers with good degrees and good experience, from Ireland, Spain, Greece and Poland for a start, there's an Iraqi, another guy from Napal and even a bloke from Barnsley ! These mega projects have a degree of commitment that is coming through into the private sector, my current firm and previous firms are both massive US firms, with very talented staff around the world, we currently outsource work to India... The construction industry will be doing the same - when staff and equipment is needed, it's found - where the difficulties come are with artificial constraints - primarily access time restrictions to track.

 

[LateThanNever]

I sympathise with your view, working in the civil engineering industry, it's clear that staff numbers are really ramping up... My office in Manchester has a huge proportion of engineers with good degrees and good experience, from Ireland, Spain, Greece and Poland for a start, there's an Iraqi, another guy from Napal and even a bloke from Barnsley ! These mega projects have a degree of commitment that is coming through into the private sector, my current firm and previous firms are both massive US firms, with very talented staff around the world, we currently outsource work to India... The construction industry will be doing the same - when staff and equipment is needed, it's found - where the difficulties come are with artificial constraints - primarily access time restrictions to track.

Good to hear that the League of Nations - and Barnsley! - is keeping UK engineering going. The trouble is that engineering in the UK has unfortunately never had the respect that it should have. Lots of icon architects, overpaid chief executives and of course the fine wunch of bankers.
But people who make things work might possibly get their hands dirty and that would never do...

 

[Class 170101]

where the difficulties come are with artificial constraints - primarily access time restrictions to track.

Euston yes (for HS2) and outside of the Crossrail 2 I agree but HS2/3 and Crossrail 2 shouldn't be affected by these constraints as far as the new sections go, I would have thought.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

They were told to presume no electrification during the term of the franchise.

Starting to look like locomotive hauled 442's may not be such a fanciful idea then given we may be 10 years from electrification and something will need to be done to increase capacity on the TPE network and the franchise is barred from taking on surplus 15x's and 17x's from other operators.

 

[Soyyo]

I travelled from Leeds to Manchester Victoria the other day. As a passenger with no knowledge of engineering, it struck me that practically the whole line could be double tracked once you get through the Morley Tunnel and towards Dewsbury. Most of it looks like it was four track. Between Huddersfield and Leeds capacity could also be increased by improving the infrastructure between Ravensthorpe and Wakefield and sending some of the Transpennine services that way.

This led me to wondering if what they mean by HS3 is to do this as much as is possible, reopening the tunnels that have been closed, straightening things out where necessary, and buying back the odd bits of land that have been sold off and/or built on.

If they are now delaying electrification, could this be because this is what HS3 means and that they need to do this before not after the line is electrified?

Do the experts on here see any possibility and/or merit in this approach?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

where the difficulties come are with artificial constraints - primarily access time restrictions to track.

--- and politics?

But people who make things work might possibly get their hands dirty and that would never do.. !!!

 

[Haydn1971]

Too many cynics here

Re the four tracking - generally it's not really the links that are the issue, it's typically station capacity and major structures that's difficult to add

 

[The Snap]

It would indeed be interesting to know if the NR TP electrification team is talking to the NR "HS3" team...
If major infrastructure upgrades are needed on the current route it must play into the larger scheme.
Supposedly it's all about how to get 6tph out of the current route.

It's exactly that - "more work". The North TransPennine route has been massively impacted by changes coming in every direction.

There's HS3 fairly obviously, but there's also the Hull electrification scheme and there's the possibility of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 recommendations from RailNorth's Electrification Task Force being incorporated into the CP6 and CP7 RUS. They all impact on the North TransPennine electrification and the TransPennine franchise in different ways.

The biggest challenge is working out what additional capacity could be generated by electrification to Hull, additional electrification in CP6 & CP7 and by HS3. When the additional capacity is determined, it's a case of determining what and where the new capacity constraints will be and whether they should be pre-emptively dealt with during core electrification works, making best use of possessions and engineering assets in the area(s) concerned.

There's also the opportunity to operate 125mph capable rolling stock and if you do that, you may want to make linespeed improvements. They in turn may require track realignment or other alterations which make more sense if you're already rebuilding structures or lowering track for electrification purposes.

The only hint from NR is that the route will need resignalling to support the extra services (ie closing up sections).
Originally, NR thought the existing signalling would cope, but it is at its limit with the current 5tph.
Signalling design resources are in very short supply, with so many schemes going on round the country.

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). After that, all works have been suspended indefinitely and contractors will demobilise and move elsewhere.

In the meantime, between now and CP6, NR are in the process of re-scoping and re-programming the project to determine the most cost effective way of delivering electrification in conjunction with various other schemes at the same time such as linespeed improvements and re-signalling between Manchester and York to assist in reduced journey times between Manchester and York. Currently journey times are between 75 and 85 minutes, with NR hoping to reduce to 68 or 66 if possible. The more journey times are decreased, the more the project costs, so it's a balancing act to determine which options offers the best value. Other schemes being considered as part of the same package are Leeds and Huddersfield station capacity (in terms of trains per hour), and the construction of various new stations replacing other inconveniently positioned ones along the route. Examples are Garforth and East Garforth where the plan would be to remove both and replace with one more central station. This would also help improve journey time for all services.

 

[Harlan Cage]

It's a cut! I guess the D278 project just got a big boost!

HC

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the meantime, between now and CP6, NR are in the process of re-scoping and re-programming the project to determine the most cost effective way of delivering electrification in conjunction with various other schemes at the same time such as linespeed improvements and re-signalling between Manchester and York to assist in reduced journey times between Manchester and York. Currently journey times are between 75 and 85 minutes, with NR hoping to reduce to 68 or 66 if possible. The more journey times are decreased, the more the project costs, so it's a balancing act to determine which options offers the best value. Other schemes being considered as part of the same package are Leeds and Huddersfield station capacity (in terms of trains per hour), and the construction of various new stations replacing other inconveniently positioned ones along the route. Examples are Garforth and East Garforth where the plan would be to remove both and replace with one more central station. This would also help improve journey time for all services.

That's a very interesting update and explains the delay.
What I don't quite understand is why this stalls the basic electrification project (route clearance and OHLE construction).
I would have thought the spec for this would be common to any emerging scheme, except at very localised points like the stations which could be altered later.

 

[The Snap]

That's a very interesting update and explains the delay.
What I don't quite understand is why this stalls the basic electrification project (route clearance and OHLE construction).
I would have thought the spec for this would be common to any emerging scheme, except at very localised points like the stations which could be altered later.

I agree. It makes sense to continue with the route clearance (structures works), because that work will need doing for electrification regardless of any additional schemes such as re-signalling, new stations etc.

In terms of OLE construction though, consider this: when you re-signal, invariably OLE needs to be designed around signalling to ensure signal sighting is maintained, amongst other things. To electrify now, then decide to re-signal in say 3 years time, you could knacker yourself by having installed loads of new OLE which will obstruct your new signals.

Hence, suspending the electrification and progressing that as part of a larger JTI and capacity package is sensible for me.

However, back to the route clearance, by completely suspending works after these first 4 structures are complete, the entire TPE project realistically has been put back ten years in terms of completion in my opinion. There are over 50 structures that need work doing to them, and for me that work could have continued whilst electrification, re-signalling, JTI, capacity etc was re-scoped. All the structures could have been done and dusted ready for electrification by say 2017/18, in time for a newly planned, newly scoped combined TPE package to commence. But alas, NR have had their say (most likely in part down to the DfT as well), and so the job will cease in a few weeks/months.

 

[stockport1]

I agree. It makes sense to continue with the route clearance (structures works), because that work will need doing for electrification regardless of any additional schemes such as re-signalling, new stations etc.

In terms of OLE construction though, consider this: when you re-signal, invariably OLE needs to be designed around signalling to ensure signal sighting is maintained, amongst other things. To electrify now, then decide to re-signal in say 3 years time, you could knacker yourself by having installed loads of new OLE which will obstruct your new signals.

Hence, suspending the electrification and progressing that as part of a larger JTI and capacity package is sensible for me.

However, back to the route clearance, by completely suspending works after these first 4 structures are complete, the entire TPE project realistically has been put back ten years in terms of completion in my opinion. There are over 50 structures that need work doing to them, and for me that work could have continued whilst electrification, re-signalling, JTI, capacity etc was re-scoped. All the structures could have been done and dusted ready for electrification by say 2017/18, in time for a newly planned, newly scoped combined TPE package to commence. But alas, NR have had their say (most likely in part down to the DfT as well), and so the job will cease in a few weeks/months.

bonkers.

so what do the NW electrification team do after Bolton has been completed?

will staly-vegas still get wires in the near future?

 

[CdBrux]

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). After that, all works have been suspended indefinitely and contractors will demobilise and move elsewhere.

In the meantime, between now and CP6, NR are in the process of re-scoping and re-programming the project to determine the most cost effective way of delivering electrification in conjunction with various other schemes at the same time such as linespeed improvements and re-signalling between Manchester and York to assist in reduced journey times between Manchester and York. Currently journey times are between 75 and 85 minutes, with NR hoping to reduce to 68 or 66 if possible. The more journey times are decreased, the more the project costs, so it's a balancing act to determine which options offers the best value. Other schemes being considered as part of the same package are Leeds and Huddersfield station capacity (in terms of trains per hour), and the construction of various new stations replacing other inconveniently positioned ones along the route. Examples are Garforth and East Garforth where the plan would be to remove both and replace with one more central station. This would also help improve journey time for all services.

Interesting to learn that the scope of the project is potentially being revised substantially upwards from just electrification. Others have stated that they don't thnk there is an overlap with 'HS3' but I wonder... would you necessarily do capacity work on a section that may be bypassed by 'HS3' and only deliver benefits for a few years? If the payback is longer than the period until 'HS3' kicks in then this should be taken into account? And at the very least would you not want some kind of passive provision in the design (if practicable and without great expense) for what you think 'HS3' will be?

As for the contractors then are they being moved to other electrification or rail projects where they can help keep a project to time that is otherwise struggling?

 

[thealexweb]

bonkers.

so what do the NW electrification team do after Bolton has been completed?

will staly-vegas still get wires in the near future?

Manchester Victoria / Piccadilly to Stalybridge is still due to be completed by December 2016 I believe.

If Euxton to Salford is completed on time by December 2016 the team would move on to finishing the Blackpool North branch, the Windermere branch and Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western.

 

[CdBrux]

However, back to the route clearance, by completely suspending works after these first 4 structures are complete, the entire TPE project realistically has been put back ten years in terms of completion in my opinion. There are over 50 structures that need work doing to them, and for me that work could have continued whilst electrification, re-signalling, JTI, capacity etc was re-scoped. All the structures could have been done and dusted ready for electrification by say 2017/18, in time for a newly planned, newly scoped combined TPE package to commence. But alas, NR have had their say (most likely in part down to the DfT as well), and so the job will cease in a few weeks/months.

Why do you say '10 years'? If the rescoping is confirmed and funded in say 1 year (my number with no factual basis, just for an example), and work then recommenced I could understand the delay being more than 1 year as resources were re-assembled / came off other projects, but 10 years seems a very long time? I'm interested to hear your view.

Was there also not a possibility that, with other projects (such as GW) due for completion before TP work started taking longer than initially planned then resources for TP work would have become available later than originally planned (i.e. they are much of the same teams and equipment) anyway so this rescoping work may not lose so much time vs what would have happened anyway? Or does it not happen like that?

This is not meant as a criticism just questions to aid my understanding.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect that with funds tight and NR borrowing counted as Government borrowing, there is considered to be little point in spending money now on structure works that doesn't bring any benefit until the electrification is finished at some future date. Plus it releases resources for other projects.

If the original programme for the electrification was robust, then it would allow time for structure works and a similar length of time could be built into the new programme. This programme of course has turned out not to be robust, but this probably isn't related to the time allowed for structure works.

 

[The Snap]

Interesting to learn that the scope of the project is potentially being revised substantially upwards from just electrification. Others have stated that they don't thnk there is an overlap with 'HS3' but I wonder... would you necessarily do capacity work on a section that may be bypassed by 'HS3' and only deliver benefits for a few years? If the payback is longer than the period until 'HS3' kicks in then this should be taken into account? And at the very least would you not want some kind of passive provision in the design (if practicable and without great expense) for what you think 'HS3' will be?

As for the contractors then are they being moved to other electrification or rail projects where they can help keep a project to time that is otherwise struggling?

Unfortunately I know very little about HS3 (the scope and the timescales etc), so I can't really give you an accurate answer. I would assume that, given the total rethink on TPE, NR and the DfT see upgrading TPE as a preferable alternative to HS3. That's the impression I get anyway...

Why do you say '10 years'? If the rescoping is confirmed and funded in say 1 year (my number with no factual basis, just for an example), and work then recommenced I could understand the delay being more than 1 year as resources were re-assembled / came off other projects, but 10 years seems a very long time? I'm interested to hear your view.

Was there also not a possibility that, with other projects (such as GW) due for completion before TP work started taking longer than initially planned then resources for TP work would have become available later than originally planned (i.e. they are much of the same teams and equipment) anyway so this rescoping work may not lose so much time vs what would have happened anyway? Or does it not happen like that?

This is not meant as a criticism just questions to aid my understanding.

If you consider that this project will now not happen until CP6, that's 4 years straight away, taking us to 2019 at the earliest. Then you have 2 to 3 years of structures work, then 2 to 3 years for re-signalling, electrification and remodeling, it could easily be 2025 before the route is fully upgraded to the specification that NR are currently looking into.

Regarding resources, I believe GW electrification is fully manned, or at least not far away. That work is being done by different contractors to TPE, so resources displaced from TPE are unlikely to find themselves on the Great Western anytime soon. There is a merry-go-round of staff on the infrastructure project side of the railway, and we all jump from contractor to contractor when work comes and goes. You tend to find a lot of us stay in the same geographical regions too - most of the TPE staff will be heading to the Manchester area to get involved with the various CP5 electrification and framework contracts, whether it be with our current employers or new ones.

I suspect that with funds tight and NR borrowing counted as Government borrowing, there is considered to be little point in spending money now on structure works that doesn't bring any benefit until the electrification is finished at some future date. Plus it releases resources for other projects.

Fair point. As I say above, a lot of the TPE resource will go towards Manchester on the electrification and panel projects that have already been funded and are in full swing.

If the original programme for the electrification was robust, then it would allow time for structure works and a similar length of time could be built into the new programme. This programme of course has turned out not to be robust, but this probably isn't related to the time allowed for structure works.

Structures work was allocated 2-3 years starting in early 2014 (this includes initial surveys and design), then electrification would have commenced in late 2016 running until 2019 for commissioning. Obviously they've decided to do away with that now!

 

[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).

The first two of those are Brumber Hill and Bolton Percy, which I knew about, but where are 22 and 22A? The numbers on this site seem to jump from 21 (a flood arch near Ulleskelf) to 23 (another flood arch near Ulleskelf).

 

[CdBrux]

If you consider that this project will now not happen until CP6, that's 4 years straight away, taking us to 2019 at the earliest. Then you have 2 to 3 years of structures work, then 2 to 3 years for re-signalling, electrification and remodeling, it could easily be 2025 before the route is fully upgraded to the specification that NR are currently looking into.

Thanks, I understand now - lets hope the structures work can at least (re)start before 2019, although I also think edwin_m has a very good point which may influence that.

Always interesting to hear a voice from the 'inside' with clear explanations and thoughts! I hope you move onto other work as seamlessly as possible in the merry-go-round.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If Euxton to Salford is completed on time by December 2016 the team would move on to finishing the Blackpool North branch, the Windermere branch and Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western.

As for the contractors then are they being moved to other electrification or rail projects where they can help keep a project to time that is otherwise struggling?

The NW scheme is not affected, so it will continue with Stalybridge/Blackpool/Wigan/Windermere.
After that hopefully the team will continue on the Northern Task Force priority list published recently (ie Calder Valley and CLC etc).
The TP scheme was down to be delivered in parallel by a different contractor (Carillion), and they have just started on the MML project.

It's more than a little galling that a project well down the DfT priority list is going ahead in preference to TP.
It just shows where the NR design effort went to in recent years.
It would be amusing (not) if the Calder Valley scheme started up before the Standedge route was done!

 

[snowball]

It's more than a little galling that a project well down the DfT priority list is going ahead in preference to TP.
It just shows where the NR design effort went to in recent years.
It would be amusing (not) if the Calder Valley scheme started up before the Standedge route was done!

I have no inside info but I'd be surprised if any design work has been done on any of the schemes preferred by the Northern Task Force, or if any of them were to overtake TP.

 

[stockport1]

Might this now mean that there is a rethink on the disused Standedge tunnels that will increase capacity by making 4-tracks between Diggle and Marsden ?

I believe that in the 1950's 4 tracking went from Huddersfield to Diggle junction. maybe NR have increased the scope of 4 track reinstatement???

 

[The Snap]

The first two of those are Brumber Hill and Bolton Percy, which I knew about, but where are 22 and 22A? The numbers on this site seem to jump from 21 (a flood arch near Ulleskelf) to 23 (another flood arch near Ulleskelf).

NOC/22 is New Road, the road overbridge at Ulleskelf station (8m 64ch). 22A is the footbridge at the station (8m 65ch). If you're ever there, check the ID plates, the bridges do exist trust me!

The NW scheme is not affected, so it will continue with Stalybridge/Blackpool/Wigan/Windermere.
After that hopefully the team will continue on the Northern Task Force priority list published recently (ie Calder Valley and CLC etc).
The TP scheme was down to be delivered in parallel by a different contractor (Carillion), and they have just started on the MML project.

It's more than a little galling that a project well down the DfT priority list is going ahead in preference to TP.
It just shows where the NR design effort went to in recent years.
It would be amusing (not) if the Calder Valley scheme started up before the Standedge route was done!

The TP electrification scheme is nothing to do with Carillion, it was to be delivered by REAL (Rail Electrification Alliance). This is made up of several companies including Volker Rail, Seimens, J Murphy & Sons, Tata Steel and Jacobs. The Alliance has two main projects, TPE (now suspended), and ECML PSU project at Peterborough which is well underway.

 

[snowball]

NOC/22 is New Road, the road overbridge at Ulleskelf station (8m 64ch). 22A is the footbridge at the station (8m 65ch). If you're ever there, check the ID plates, the bridges do exist trust me!

Thanks, I'll take a look some weekend soon!

 

[The Snap]

Thanks, I'll take a look some weekend soon!

Ignore the paint job on the footbridge, I'm getting it sorted, honest!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The TP electrification scheme is nothing to do with Carillion, it was to be delivered by REAL (Rail Electrification Alliance). This is made up of several companies including Volker Rail, Seimens, J Murphy & Sons, Tata Steel and Jacobs. The Alliance has two main projects, TPE (now suspended), and ECML PSU project at Peterborough which is well underway.

Well they were appointed as the framework supplier for Scotland/NE/EMids electrification last year by Network Rail.
http://www.carillionplc.com/news-me...n-electrification-programme.aspx#.VXhMAo3bLIU

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

In Prime Minister's Questions it sounded like TransPennine Electrification was suspended.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well they were appointed as the framework supplier for Scotland/NE/EMids electrification last year by Network Rail.
http://www.carillionplc.com/news-me...n-electrification-programme.aspx#.VXhMAo3bLIU

IIRC there's an east/west division either side of Staybridge, Carillion's section of TP Electrification being the eastern section within NR's East Coast route.

Carillon's press release describes both their bit, and in the following paragraph lists other things that they aren't necessarily involved with, possibly just to highlight that there's a lot going on nationally?

I guess it depends where someone is located, perhaps viewed from the NW the eastern end is a bit out of sight...

 

[Haydn1971]

Bidders on the TransPennine ITT will be a bit annoyed - I'd imagine some work will have been put into looking into EMU's for the fleet late in the franchise, which won't be required now.

 

[The Snap]

IIRC there's an east/west division either side of Staybridge, Carillion's section of TP Electrification being the eastern section within NR's East Coast route.

Carillon's press release describes both their bit, and in the following paragraph lists other things that they aren't necessarily involved with, possibly just to highlight that there's a lot going on nationally?

I guess it depends where someone is located, perhaps viewed from the NW the eastern end is a bit out of sight...

To my knowledge, Carillion have nothing to do with Transpennine electrification. I've been involved with the project for 12 months and haven't heard them mentioned once. Interesting one this, I'll ask around!

Doesn't really matter anyway because it's been canned.