Landslip at Hatfield Colliery (near Doncaster) line to Hull/Scunthorpe now reopened.

[DavidBrown]

What's the latest at the site, then? Has the ground stopped moving or is it still far too unstable to even consider prelimernary inspections?

 

[TG]

it's still moving, they have set up an exclusion zone so not many photos are coming out at the moment...

 

[corin paul]

Yes, dry spring is needed. But then again lets see the worst it can do before they clear the mess up.

http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1261020490000

 

[DarloRich]

picture here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/8480298108/in/photostream

(NOT MINE!)

 

[daikilo]

Mix a coal tip with enough water and it eventually becomes a suspension called slurry and slurry flows until the slope is inadequate and the waste and water separate again. Unfortunately, here the surface is vegetation which is possibly holding together the surface and allowing the slurry to burrow underneath.

Where was the drainage for this tip. Just look at the water on the surface in earlier photos and you can deduce that there is plenty to keep the slurry flowing as cracks open. I do hope there is corrspondance from NR to the tip owners on this. Wasn't it close enough to the NR fencing?

In one of the photos, earthmoving machines can be seen on the top of the tip apparently continuing to place waste near the slope. What I would have expected to see is industrial pumps trying to remove water from the basins that have formed. Too dangerous to get near? Build up flexible pipes further back and use a helico to drop them into the basins.

It will take ages for that lot to become truly stable.

 

[Soupdragon]

Cleethorpes guard have sign them off. Not sure about drives.

Both Cleethorpes drivers and guards sign 170's

 

[unlevel42]

Mix a coal tip with enough water and it eventually becomes a suspension called slurry and slurry flows until the slope is inadequate and the waste and water separate again. Unfortunately, here the surface is vegetation which is possibly holding together the surface and allowing the slurry to burrow underneath...

The slippage here is mainly of a rotational nature- slower but much more difficult to repair.

The original spoil tips were reworked to obtain coal suitable for power stations.
These working go down to sea level -the land here is less than 4m above sea level.
The mine reopened and the new spoil was placed into and then above the water logged diggings.
Old OS maps show two streams here bringing water from the east into and under the railway and into an area is being used as a landfill.

This has resulted in a rotational slip which has raised the track by the toe of the slip.
This rotation will soon balance-however any attempt to lower the level of the material at the track site will cause further rotation- so all of the spoil back to the plane of slippage has to be removed and then stabilized before removing the current railway formation and replacing it.
Secondly there has been changes in pressure levels in the spoil which has resulted in changes in water distribution-this leads to the possibility of dangerous avalanche style landslip which with cracking and water traps has led to site closure.

500m X 200m X 40m is a lot of material to move.

 

[HowardGWR]

The slippage here is mainly of a rotational nature- slower but much more difficult to repair.

500m X 200m X 40m is a lot of material to move.

Surely it is clear from Google Earth and Street View that the only solution is to divert south of the land fill site and back on again before hitting the M18 at Potfinder Road?

Have local people a better idea? They will know if what I am saying is nonsense.

 

[corin paul]

Both Cleethorpes drivers and guards sign 170's

That was in 2009 then, when the blockade was on in the summer, around the Scunthorpe area. 170304 spend a few weeks at Cleethorpes for the training, and got a spary paint by a yob or two. A guard is a good friend of the family, told us he was getting trained on then. But could not remember what he said about the drivers.

http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364021428000
http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364020453000

 

[Boothby97]

That was in 2009 then, when the blockade was on in the summer, around the Scunthorpe area. 170304 spend a few weeks at Cleethorpes for the training, and got a spary paint by a yob or two. A guard is a good friend of the family, told us he was getting trained on then. But could not remember what he said about the drivers.

http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364021428000
http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364020453000

Oh, I remember a video of a 170 going up the Barton line as part of Crew training. Never remember it being here though.
Thanks, Sam

 

[Mugby]

The seriousness of this cannot be overstated.
It must be completely unprecedented to Network Rail, probably even BR too.

The only parallel I can think of in terms of timescale and the suggestion of diverting round the problem was the Penmanshiel Tunnel disaster.

 

[Red Dragon]

The slippage here is mainly of a rotational nature- slower but much more difficult to repair.

The original spoil tips were reworked to obtain coal suitable for power stations.
These working go down to sea level -the land here is less than 4m above sea level.
The mine reopened and the new spoil was placed into and then above the water logged diggings.
Old OS maps show two streams here bringing water from the east into and under the railway and into an area is being used as a landfill.

This has resulted in a rotational slip which has raised the track by the toe of the slip.
This rotation will soon balance-however any attempt to lower the level of the material at the track site will cause further rotation- so all of the spoil back to the plane of slippage has to be removed and then stabilized before removing the current railway formation and replacing it.
Secondly there has been changes in pressure levels in the spoil which has resulted in changes in water distribution-this leads to the possibility of dangerous avalanche style landslip which with cracking and water traps has led to site closure.

500m X 200m X 40m is a lot of material to move.

I agree with much of what you say - interesting to read the tip was re-worked too, and there were two streams present.
Not sure what, if any, ground water monitoring was carried out prior to the slip but it looks like a pore water pressure problem which lowered the angle of friction.
Possible solutions, dig out as you say, load the toe with rock, decrease the head surcharge, but most importantly increase the angle of friction by lowering the water table and/or installing drainage to lower the pore water pressure which may have built up in pockets. Cut offs of some type might be needed - where has the water come from, the streams, the ground, the sky or all three ?
Time scale - hard to say until they are able to lower the water table/pore water pressure, excavate and thoroughly investigate the extent. Only then can they be satisfied that their solution will adequately cope and have a reasonable factor of safety.
I'm originally from a village some 4 miles from Aberfan and was studying civil engineering in Loughborough University when the slip took place. Knew a family who lost two children in the Aberfan disaster - fortunately there was no loss of life here.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I agree with much of what you say - interesting to read the tip was re-worked too, and there were two streams present.
Not sure what, if any, ground water monitoring was carried out prior to the slip but it looks like a pore water pressure problem which lowered the angle of friction.
Possible solutions, dig out as you say, load the toe with rock, decrease the head surcharge, but most importantly increase the angle of friction by lowering the water table and/or installing drainage to lower the pore water pressure which may have built up in pockets. Cut offs of some type might be needed - where has the water come from, the streams, the ground, the sky or all three ?
Time scale - hard to say until they are able to lower the water table/pore water pressure, excavate and thoroughly investigate the extent. Only then can they be satisfied that their solution will adequately cope and have a reasonable factor of safety.
I'm originally from a village some 4 miles from Aberfan and was studying civil engineering in Loughborough University when the slip took place. Knew a family who lost two children in the Aberfan disaster - fortunately there was no loss of life here.

Completely agree (currently studying civ eng), i think the saturation has come from all three sources you suggest. I think the Ground is less likely but the sky is surely one of the main ones, especially for it to be saturated to the top... as it appeared to be. The rain has been unprecedented and this is not the first and certainly not the last landslip that has been caused by this summers delude!
The cold weather warm weather cycles this winter may also have not helped.

but it looks like a pore water pressure problem which lowered the angle of friction. This is essentially what has happened and then resulted in a rotation mechanism. This is how my geology lecture explained it to me. And he is fairly knowledgeable and was chosen by BBC ro ITV to be their expert.

 

[Red Dragon]

If the tip had been re-worked to take out coal to send to the power stations then these excavations would have pierced the intact surface and dramatically increased the permeability, adding to any other water problems already present eg the streams. This would also be exacerbated if inadequate compaction was applied in the re-instatement of the excavations and the top was not re-profiled and sealed properly to shed surface water.
All speculation at the moment, but in my humble opinion it's not a problem with a quick fix.
Red Dragon BSc(Hons) CEng FICE

 

[YorkshireBear]

If the tip had been re-worked to take out coal to send to the power stations then these excavations would have pierced the intact surface and dramatically increased the permeability, adding to any other water problems already present eg the streams. This would also be exacerbated if inadequate compaction was applied in the re-instatement of the excavations and the top was not re-profiled and sealed properly to shed surface water.
All speculation at the moment, but in my humble opinion it's not a problem with a quick fix.
Red Dragon BSc(Hons) CEng FICE

I wasnt aware until today it was re-worked, that provides yet more problems. Seems to me someone has done something they shouldnt... or not checked it definitely!

 

[HowardGWR]

in my humble opinion it's not a problem with a quick fix.
Red Dragon BSc(Hons) CEng FICE

Thus my earnest proposal at 15 27. I reckon it needs a decisive person at NR to go an see the Minister - and ASAP.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Time scale - hard to say until they are able to lower the water table/pore water pressure, excavate and thoroughly investigate the extent. Only then can they be satisfied that their solution will adequately cope and have a reasonable factor of safety.

As the ground level of the area in question is only some 4 metres above sea level (so I have been informed), would difficulties be envisaged in lowering the water table in the area of the slag heap ?

 

[Red Dragon]

I wasnt aware until today it was re-worked, that provides yet more problems. Seems to me someone has done something they shouldnt... or not checked it definitely!

I'd be shocked if monitoring of water levels wasn't being carried out, as a risk assessment should have identified the potential problem. All the slag heaps in South Wales were inspected after Aberfan and quite a few were re-profiled lowered and sealed/stabilized because of the potential risk to the communities below the tips.
I don't recall what, if any, on-going annual inspections and monitoring were required after the Aberfan disaster.

 

[stanley T]

picture here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/8480298108/in/photostream

(NOT MINE!)

There is nothing near the line in the 2009 photo, so Hargreaves have been tipping near it. I can see lawyers being busy here, as to who should pay for all this...

 

[Red Dragon]

As the ground level of the area in question is only some 4 metres above sea level (so I have been informed), would difficulties be envisaged in lowering the water table in the area of the slag heap ?

Yes there could be problems - however it's the water within the colliery waste which is the real problem, and once they have assessed the quantum they can come up with the solutions to deal with the problems. They'll need to assess where the water came from and how they prevent it getting into the colliery waste, along with the methods they employ to reduce the water currently within the tip. The relative level of the sea water will make it much more difficult for the spoil heap to drain naturally.

 

[Crossover]

What an odd diversion that was. Instead of going straight from Doncaster round to the junction before Knottingley, it went up to Wakefield Kirkgate, waited there for about 5mins and then did reversing movement all the way back round via Knottingley and Pontefract.

As others have said, it may be the Knottingley avoider is either not signed by the necessary crew and/or the chord isn't rated for passenger workings.

I would suppose the reversal at Wakefield Kirkgate was the first place the service could turn back on that line

 

[lincolnshire]

As others have said, it may be the Knottingley avoider is either not signed by the necessary crew and/or the chord isn't rated for passenger workings.

I would suppose the reversal at Wakefield Kirkgate was the first place the service could turn back on that line

I guess your talking about Hull Trains service on Saturday then?

Yes they went from Hull to Goole and up the singlel line towards Knottingly and through to Wakefield and Doncaster via Hare Park.

Hull trains drivers did sigh this route as they used to take there Pionner sets to Croften for service etc. So some had resigned the route in the last couple of days to act as pilotman for there other drivers who don,t know the route.

Going off at Knottingly and takeing same route as Grand Central would not be possible as they wouldn,t have signed that route.

O the joys of privateiseation of the railways.

 

[IanXC]

As others have said, it may be the Knottingley avoider is either not signed by the necessary crew and/or the chord isn't rated for passenger workings.

I would suppose the reversal at Wakefield Kirkgate was the first place the service could turn back on that line

I guess your talking about Hull Trains service on Saturday then?

Yes they went from Hull to Goole and up the singlel line towards Knottingly and through to Wakefield and Doncaster via Hare Park.

Hull trains drivers did sigh this route as they used to take there Pionner sets to Croften for service etc. So some had resigned the route in the last couple of days to act as pilotman for there other drivers who don,t know the route.

Going off at Knottingly and takeing same route as Grand Central would not be possible as they wouldn,t have signed that route.

O the joys of privateiseation of the railways.

I understand that on Saturday (at least the first couple of services) were route conducted by West Coast Railways! I'm fairly sure that there were 4 HT drivers in the cab on my journey from Kirkgate to Goole, I suspect there has been a lot of effort put into bringing all the HT crews up to speed on this route, as for some time its going to be the only diversionary route should the Selby route be shut for whatever reason.

On Saturday I had the impression that the 09.48 KGX-HUL reversed at Kirkgate because the route conductors had to swap trains there (the down HT was waiting at WKK, and departed a couple of minutes after we arrived).

On Sunday the reversal was significantly slicker - firstly because it was undertaken just past Calder Bridge Junction, and secondly because another driver was ready and waiting in the rear cab, so the reversal took less than a minute.

 

[Teaboy1]

I am currently out of the country at present so would someone please indicate what the Cottam & West Burton (from Immingham pans) coal traffic now do? They used to use this line to the Stainforth Jct with SYJR and then run to Branwith via same. Have they diverted to use Brigg line or run via Adwick & Doncaster ?
Always something happens when one is bloomin miles away!! Doubtless some odd movements now happening to cope!
TB1
Thanks in advance

ps I have videoed this location several years ago, when that site adjacent to track was to be Richard Budge POWERFUEL site but then that project went bust. Site was well down to sub-soil in 2009 with large tip some 150-200 meter away from track. Guess they just tipped wash plant slurry waste willy-nilly without thinking. If then solid waste was put above that then that slurry is a nice smoothe lubricant for the heavy stuff on top to 'rotate' apon.
Sounds like its will be fun down there!

 

[Donny Dave]

Firstly, apologies for my (rather) stupid question as to why Network Rail had not done any possible planning prior to the line being closed, but at the time, I was not aware of the severity of the landslip.

Anyway, there is an article on the Scunthorpe Telegraph website, suggesting that until the line is re-opened, all South TPE service should be re-routed via Retford, Gainsborough and Brigg to reach Cleethorpes ....

First TransPennine Express trains that can no longer reach Scunthorpe from Doncaster because of a landslip in the Hatfield and Stainforth area should be re-routed through Kirton Lindsey and Brigg - according to a rail campaigner.

It will be months before the track is repaired and the temporary bus service can be removed between Scunthorpe and Doncaster - the major South Yorkshire rail junction.

The train company says there is no alternative route around the landslide and reckons the only option is to continue providing bus replacements.

But Phillip Hewson, from Brigg, wants the Brigg line - already carrying diverted traffic from the Scunthorpe route - to be pressed into service to take these passenger trains.

He says TransPennine services could be sent on the alternative line through North Lincolnshire - currently used almost exclusively by freight, with only six passenger trains running on Saturdays.

Had the Stainforth blockage happened during the days when British Railways managed the track AND ran the trains, Mr Hewson suggests the plan would have been to re-route passenger trains to Barnetby via Gainsborough.

If this option was taken up now he says the journey through Kirton and Brigg would take only a few minutes longer and give Grimsby/Cleethorpes passengers the benefit of train travel throughout "without the inconvenience of transferring to a bus."

Mr Hewson says: "This possibility still exists but the companies will, I am sure, need to be prompted into taking this course of action because of the economic issues."

He suggests the arguments against re-routing will be:

a) Crews are unfamiliar with the route

b) Lack of availability of rolling stock

c) Pathing problems on the single track sections of the Brigg line

d) Additional costs incurred.

Mr Hewson has provided answers to all four points:

a) A small cohort of crews could be trained within a week or so with the dedicated task of shuttling to and fro from Doncaster to Cleethorpes. It would not be necesary to train all TransPennine crews.

b) There should not be an additional call on rolling stock since there is enough leeway in the present schedules to allow for the minor number of additional minutes caused by the re-routing.

c) The Brigg line can get busy but there have been periods of significant slack even within this initial period of uncertainity. With a more unhurried look at what traffic is offered he is sure it would be possible to find paths for passenger trains.

d) Train passengers pay a premium price for their travel and it is unlikely that fares will be dropped to compensate for the decline in quality in their travel experience.

Mr Hewson says there has been a good deal of political talk about less "bustitution" in the UK.

He adds: "This unfortunate scenario is an ideal opportunity for TransPennine to show its worth in addressing the needs of passengers and keeping them on the train.

"As a sop to rail managers who may be inclined to veto this course of action, I would say - Show willing and implement a two-hourly service between Doncaster and Cleethorpes for the duration of this blockage."

Currently, passenger trains can get from Barnetby to Scunthorpe but are unable to make it through to Doncaster because of the landslip.

http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/D...tory-18174864-detail/story.html#axzz2LIvoLVjZ

I've bolded that parts, which IMO need addressing, but I have added my comments abouth them to the article (quoted below).

Firstly, I am not an employee of First TPE or any railway company. I'm posting these comments as I am a railway enthusiast and I feel a few things need correcting in this report.

Mr Hewson states that not many staff would need training for the route. If all TPE services are diverted via Brigg (or even Lincoln), then all drivers and guards based at both Cleethorpes and Sheffield would need to learn "the road". For a route of this length, your looking at several weeks minimum for each driver and guard.

To maintain the hourly service via Brigg, that would mean that the Cleethorpes - Scunthorpe shuttle service, as well as the leg from Sheffield - Doncaster would need to be cancelled, meaning more bus replacement services would be needed, as TPE (as well as Northernrail) do not have enough spare stock to cover those routes. This isn't the fault of either TOC, but rather the (then Labour) government who decided they had enough stock for the routes the operate over. Currently, the only spare stock available to hire is a small batch of EMUs, which can not be used as there is no overhead electrification in the area.

Lastly. Following the closure of the route between Scunthorpe and Doncaster when a major rebuild of the line took place near Medge Hall, TPE reduced fares from Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Barnetby and Scunthorpe to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester by 50% for a while afterwards to compensate all passengers (not just those affected) for the line being closed for an extended amount of time.

As a side note, apart from Barnetby - Doncaster via Scunthorpe, I'm not aware of another direct route between them. Coming from Sheffield, it would need a reversal at Doncaster, followed by 2 reversals in and around Retford to access the Brigg line.

 

[Tomnick]

To answer your very last point, how about reversing at Doncaster, running via the 'Joint' to Gainsboro' Trent Jn and onto the MS&LR there? Seems easy enough to me .

 

[corin paul]

To answer your very last point, how about reversing at Doncaster, running via the 'Joint' to Gainsboro' Trent Jn and onto the MS&LR there? Seems easy enough to me .

Yes, I think he forgot about running down "The Joint" to Gainsboro Trent Jcr, then Gainsborough Central and Brigg, and then back on at Wrawby Junction.
But it's single line and freight will need the paths. And this has all been covered somewhere above.

http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364022116000
http://railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=1364021775000

 

[Tomnick]

But it's single line and freight will need the paths. And this has all been covered somewhere above.

Indeed, the lack of paths still stands; I just wanted to correct the thought that you'd need to reverse twice at Retford (in fact, you might even need to go through to Worksop if you were doing it that way) to get onto the MS&LR! Even if some paths could be squeezed out, I'm sure they'd be very slow (either in the plan or in practice) as it's difficult to justify wasting half a path in the opposite direction just to avoid a passenger train having to wait for the single line!

 

[eastwestdivide]

To address point B above

b) There should not be an additional call on rolling stock since there is enough leeway in the present schedules to allow for the minor number of additional minutes caused by the re-routing.

Assuming paths over the Brigg line aren't a problem, the timetable gives:
Doncaster-Gainsborough 28 mins (EM daily service)
Gasinborough-Barnetby ~40 mins (Sat Northern service - varies by a few mins)
For a total 68 mins (plus an allowance for reversal at Doncaster?)

Normal Doncaster-Barnetby time via Scunthorpe: 40 mins

So I reckon there would be an additional call on rolling stock, especially if you still wanted to serve Scunthorpe from the E by train

 

[Chapeltom]

People keep going on about waiting for the land to stop moving, what happens if it doesn't for months? How long could we be talking about a closure, is years a possibility? Or is just a case of months?