Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Viscount702]

Does anyone know what is planned for Stalybridge Station because I presume they will do any remodeling before putting up the wires

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

According to this document published as part of the papers for the TWAO application, spending on Huddersfield to Westtown is expected to be timed like this:

£479M in CP6 (the current period, ending March 2024)
£946M in CP7 (April 2024 - March 2029)
£34M in CP8 (begins April 2029).

Thats a pretty large sum of money for 8 miles of upgrade so presumably it covers all aspects of TRU otherwise it would have been cheaper to build HS2 Eastern Leg.

 

[stuu]

Thats a pretty large sum of money for 8 miles of upgrade so presumably it covers all aspects of TRU otherwise it would have been cheaper to build HS2 Eastern Leg.

No, that's correct, that's how much its going to cost for those 8 miles

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No, that's correct, that's how much its going to cost for those 8 miles

Ludicrous cost and am surprised DofT just roll over and support it.

Will they make same mistake again though...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No, that's correct, that's how much its going to cost for those 8 miles

Which to be fair, is a complete rebuild and upgrade of those 8 miles: from an ageing 2/3 track mixed-use line with very little grade-separation to a 4-track railway built to modern standards with fast services almost fully segregated from other traffic. Significant rebuilds of three stations (Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe) also adds to the cost (AIUI the Huddersfield work is costed separately).

 

[snowball]

Ludicrous cost and am surprised DofT just roll over and support it.

Will they make same mistake again though...

All transport capital projects cost a lot today. TRU is not worse than others.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

All transport capital projects cost a lot today. TRU is not worse than others.

Indeed but if the industry doesn't get a grip of the costs risk is investment will be dialled back.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed but if the industry doesn't get a grip of the costs risk is investment will be dialled back.

I should think this particular TRU cost will be in the IRP funding.
But NR still has to deliver it on time and budget, or it will impact other projects like the GW project did.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I should think this particular TRU cost will be in the IRP funding.
But NR still has to deliver it on time and budget, or it will impact other projects like the GW project did.

If they can't four track and electrify 8miles for 1.5B they might as well give up now

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If they can't four track and electrify 8miles for 1.5B they might as well give up now

Again, it's not as simple as laying an extra two tracks and stringing up the wires. There's a lot of structures that need significant work such as the viaduct at Huddersfield. Those structures would need refurbishment even if the railway was being put back "as-is". Then there's replacing Deighton's "MFI Flatpack" station with something more significant, with room for the fast lines to pass.

 

[superkev]

If they can't four track and electrify 8miles for 1.5B they might as well give up now

Timescales longer than a whole world war too. Ill be dead before I see the full TRU.
Any successful business will tell you to be competative you need to be slick.
With the current pace of doing things in this country we would have lost both wars. End of moan.
K

 

[quantinghome]

Timescales longer than a whole world war too. Ill be dead before I see the full TRU.
Any successful business will tell you to be competative you need to be slick.
With the current pace of doing things in this country we would have lost both wars. End of moan.
K

If you've any ideas on how to build it quicker and cheaper then please feel free to enlighten the project team.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Again, it's not as simple as laying an extra two tracks and stringing up the wires. There's a lot of structures that need significant work such as the viaduct at Huddersfield. Those structures would need refurbishment even if the railway was being put back "as-is". Then there's replacing Deighton's "MFI Flatpack" station with something more significant, with room for the fast lines to pass.

Well it has been rather over engineered but as a result the new flying jcn at Ravensthorpe is largely on a greenfield site so can be built without needing possessions and then the four track section is largely using the existing formation so again much of the work can be executed without possession. So five years seems excessive timeline should have been nearer three years.

Also I will profess not be knowledgeable of this area but what is the benefit from all this work other than providing fast lines to separate the stopping service can't see it provides that much benefit when it goes back to 2 track at Dewsbury. I see the fast lines will be 100mph where possible but given the geometry of the rest of the route it will give 1-2mins for 1.5B. Would have been better to have kept the works inside the existing railway boundaries and saved two to three hundred million on the heavy civil works.

 

[quantinghome]

Well it has been rather over engineered but as a result the new flying jcn at Ravensthorpe is largely on a greenfield site so can be built without needing possessions and then the four track section is largely using the existing formation so again much of the work can be executed without possession. So five years seems excessive timeline should have been nearer three years.

Also I will profess not be knowledgeable of this area but what is the benefit from all this work other than providing fast lines to separate the stopping service can't see it provides that much benefit when it goes back to 2 track at Dewsbury. I see the fast lines will be 100mph where possible but given the geometry of the rest of the route it will give 1-2mins for 1.5B. Would have been better to have kept the works inside the existing railway boundaries and saved two to three hundred million on the heavy civil works.

The main gain is allowing fast services to overtake slow services. The length of four-tracking is enough to allow this. It's not 1-2mins for 1.5B.

How would keeping within the existing railway boundaries save money? Building green field is cheaper because, as you say, it can be done without possessions.

Compare this to the WCML Trent Valley which opened in 2008. That was £350m for 12 miles: longer, but few if any really big structures to rebuild. Then factor construction inflation over the last 15 years and you'll probably get something approaching £1.5B.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The main gain is allowing fast services to overtake slow services. The length of four-tracking is enough to allow this. It's not 1-2mins for 1.5B.

How would keeping within the existing railway boundaries save money? Building green field is cheaper because, as you say, it can be done without possessions.

Compare this to the WCML Trent Valley which opened in 2008. That was £350m for 12 miles: longer, but few if any really big structures to rebuild. Then factor construction inflation over the last 15 years and you'll probably get something approaching £1.5B.

The flying jcn at ravensthorpe require huge land take to build it along with a new four track structure over river calder which at the Leeds end merges straight back into two track. The existing alignment could have been retained with a flat jcn. Likewise at Heaton Lodge a lot of expense to improve 70PSR to 100PSR by building a mile of new track on a complete new alignment in a deep cutting. There was plenty of railway land that could have been used. Anyhow DofT could have told them to go back and come up with something cheaper but they haven't so I will follow with interest as it get constructed and look forward to seeing what the finally benefits are sometime after 2030 by the looks of it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Listed structures on the route and other places need Persons With reduced mobility mods

 

[CapabilityB]

If they can't four track and electrify 8miles for 1.5B they might as well give up now

It's a massive piece of engineering with new grade separated junctions, so bound to be expensive.

It would be interesting to know how much of the predicted cost is related to schedule 4 payments

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well it has been rather over engineered but as a result the new flying jcn at Ravensthorpe is largely on a greenfield site so can be built without needing possessions and then the four track section is largely using the existing formation so again much of the work can be executed without possession. So five years seems excessive timeline should have been nearer three years.

Also I will profess not be knowledgeable of this area but what is the benefit from all this work other than providing fast lines to separate the stopping service can't see it provides that much benefit when it goes back to 2 track at Dewsbury. I see the fast lines will be 100mph where possible but given the geometry of the rest of the route it will give 1-2mins for 1.5B. Would have been better to have kept the works inside the existing railway boundaries and saved two to three hundred million on the heavy civil works.

Ravensthorpe may be a "greenfield site", but the landscape around there is pretty rough. The site currently between the Dewsbury and Wakefield lines is/was used as (I think) some sort of landfill- it's very uneven and partially flooded. The new junction and approaches will need substantial earthworks. As far as any less-expensive options go, what do you sacrifice?
Grade-separation is pretty much a requirement in order to get the capacity and speed increases required. It might be possible to fit a flyover or dive-under within existing railway boundaries (and without as much gain speed-wise) but I'd be surprised if it could be done for much less than the proposed scheme.

I'm also slightly baffled by the Dewsbury plan- building out the Down platform to meet the fast line strikes me as a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the 'nut' being the slow approach into the loop for stopping trains.

 

[Halish Railway]

I'm also slightly baffled by the Dewsbury plan- building out the Down platform to meet the fast line strikes me as a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the 'nut' being the slow approach into the loop for stopping trains.

The ‘looping’ of stopping trains will be done between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe to provide for more productive dynamic overtaking.

Should delays happen the lower priority train can be held at Ravensthorpe.

 

[Brooke]

The site currently between the Dewsbury and Wakefield lines is/was used as (I think) some sort of landfill- it's very uneven and partially flooded.

Yes, I think I remember it being a storage location for coal for Thornton power station. Then I think it was quarried for sand / gravel after that, then partly backfilled. (?)

I would imagine it’s not the most stable, nor is it what I’d think of as “greenfield” as you say!

 

[superkev]

If you've any ideas on how to build it quicker and cheaper then please feel free to enlighten the project team.

Ive have no idea why things take so long in the UK but red tape, lack of future commitments from gov to encourage contractors to invest in sufficent plant to do things quicker along with a cant do culture springs to mind.
Modern Railways recently reported that the Stalybridge electrification rate was just 3 miles a year. I suspect the 5 mile Church Fenton - Colton jnc may be even slower.
K

 

[quantinghome]

Ive have no idea why things take so long in the UK but red tape, lack of future commitments from gov to encourage contractors to invest in sufficent plant to do things quicker along with a cant do culture springs to mind.
Modern Railways recently reported that the Stalybridge electrification rate was just 3 miles a year. I suspect the 5 mile Church Fenton - Colton jnc may be even slower.
K

Certainly the ongoing failure by government to provide a clear direction on long term investment is a strategic problem. But 'red tape' and 'can't do culture' are rather vague 'go to' phrases which don't mean much. The electrification schemes you mention are likely slowed by a deliberate decision by Network Rail to ensure an active electrification programme is maintained while the government dithers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TRU has been the victim of the TWAO process (on top of NR's GRIP process, now replaced).
These are guaranteed to prolong project timescales.
Liverpool-Manchester/Wigan electrification, without any TWAO being needed, was relatively fast at about 15 double-track miles a year (for, I think, £50-100m).
But there was very little route remodelling, the main section being Roby-Huyton quadrupling, largely within existing boundaries.
By contrast Dewsbury-Huddersfield is a major upgrade of the route, and with significant land-take.
It remains to be seen what is proposed for Stalybridge-Huddersfield.

Going back 7 years or so, the original (authorised) TP electrification scheme in CP5 was pulled because it "only put wires up" without any route alterations, and therefore didn't deliver the capacity/journey time benefits desired.
The current TRU scheme is much bigger, and it also supposed to deliver ETCS signalling at some point.

 

[macka]

There's also the fact that the railway has to operate continuously throughout the TRU, which severely limits the options available to manage the upgrades. The railway through Mirfield is the only direct link between Leeds and Huddersfield, Calderdale and Manchester; to close it for longer than the nights and the odd weekend would be politically and financially impossible.

 

[Glenn1969]

Take it you are forgetting the route via Bradford?

 

[quantinghome]

Take it you are forgetting the route via Bradford?

It's a rather indirect route. And even if the extra half hour added to the journey was acceptable, would it be possible to run that many trains into and out of Bradford Interchange, on top of the Calder Valley services?

Who knows, it might be possible to timetable something which may just about work. But I'd imagine it would only be over the summer holidays or something like that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Compare this to the WCML Trent Valley which opened in 2008. That was £350m for 12 miles

£400m at 2006 prices. And largely in fields.

 

[D6130]

Thornton power station.

Pedant/typo alert: Thornhill power station.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ive have no idea why things take so long in the UK but red tape, lack of future commitments from gov to encourage contractors to invest in sufficent plant to do things quicker along with a cant do culture springs to mind.
Modern Railways recently reported that the Stalybridge electrification rate was just 3 miles a year. I suspect the 5 mile Church Fenton - Colton jnc may be even slower.
K

Like Network Rail invested heavily in HOPS High Output Plant System only for it to hardly be used.

 

[Brooke]

Pedant/typo alert: Thornhill power station.

Thank you - correcting!