Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[LNW-GW Joint]

Evidence of more political procrastination of NPR/TP plans in this Railway Gazette piece.
TfN is poised to deliver an initial NPR business case to DfT, but have been asked to delay it until DfT has published its Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands/North, itself delayed from late-2020.
It all adds to the planning blight that has settled on northern rail projects.

Transport for the North delays next steps in Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme | Rail Business UK | Railway Gazette International

Transport for the North has ‘reluctantly’ agreed to delay the submission of its Outline Business Case for Northern Powerhouse Rail, at the request of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Department for Transport has indicated that submission of the OBC should follow the publication of the Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and northern England, which will consider the best way to deliver HS2 north of Birmingham, Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Midlands Rail Hub plus a number of major Network Rail projects. This was due to have been published by the end of 2020 but has since been delayed.

 

[ABB125]

Unfortunately the laws of physics intervene. The maximum combined speed of the turnout routes is 75mph. Unless you want to demolish the station and start again.

Out of interest, why is it the combined speed that is the limit, rather than one or the other?

 

[CW2]

Out of interest, why is it the combined speed that is the limit, rather than one or the other?

As you are making one route straighter (= faster) you make the other route more acute (= slower).

In these circumstances it is important to remember the signalling controls too. If every train going toward the lower speed route is going to be "approach release from red" because of the difference in speeds, then there is a hit on the overall route capacity, as well as the capacity of the specific junction. Having the routes within 10 mph of one another is a much better approach (in every sense).

 

[ABB125]

As you are making one route straighter (= faster) you make the other route more acute (= slower).

In these circumstances it is important to remember the signalling controls too. If every train going toward the lower speed route is going to be "approach release from red" because of the difference in speeds, then there is a hit on the overall route capacity, as well as the capacity of the specific junction. Having the routes within 10 mph of one another is a much better approach (in every sense).

Thanks very much

 

[Revaulx]

Unfortunately the laws of physics intervene. The maximum combined speed of the turnout routes is 75mph. Unless you want to demolish the station and start again.

The entire section of line between Guide Bridge and Stalybridge suffers from lots of tight curves and is extremely slow. The turnout at the Stalybridge end is the least of its problems!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As you are making one route straighter (= faster) you make the other route more acute (= slower).
In these circumstances it is important to remember the signalling controls too. If every train going toward the lower speed route is going to be "approach release from red" because of the difference in speeds, then there is a hit on the overall route capacity, as well as the capacity of the specific junction. Having the routes within 10 mph of one another is a much better approach (in every sense).

On the ground, the straight route is towards Guide Bridge; the L&Y route takes a distinct right-hand curve and climbs towards Victoria.
So in some ways the current setup is close to the "natural" one.
Signalling restrictions can be overcome with modern technology, and ETCS has been talked about for TP anyway (the supposed digital" solution).

 

[CW2]

On the ground, the straight route is towards Guide Bridge; the L&Y route takes a distinct right-hand curve and climbs towards Victoria.
So in some ways the current setup is close to the "natural" one.
Signalling restrictions can be overcome with modern technology, and ETCS has been talked about for TP anyway (the supposed digital" solution).

I approach such statements regarding the powers of ETCS and modern technology with the equivalent of an entire Cheshire salt mine. I bear the scars from previous enhancement schemes, where everybody approached the scheme independently with the best of intentions, and then "improved it worse". The first step would appear to be simple: agree the desired outcome. On Trans-Pennine modernisation we still appear to be a long way from that, despite the expenditure of a lot of time, energy, and goodwill.

 

[snowball]

I approach such statements regarding the powers of ETCS and modern technology with the equivalent of an entire Cheshire salt mine.

See Roger Ford's hype graph in the current (March) Modern Railways.

 

[Ianno87]

On the ground, the straight route is towards Guide Bridge; the L&Y route takes a distinct right-hand curve and climbs towards Victoria.
So in some ways the current setup is close to the "natural" one.
Signalling restrictions can be overcome with modern technology, and ETCS has been talked about for TP anyway (the supposed digital" solution).

I approach such statements regarding the powers of ETCS and modern technology with the equivalent of an entire Cheshire salt mine. I bear the scars from previous enhancement schemes, where everybody approached the scheme independently with the best of intentions, and then "improved it worse". The first step would appear to be simple: agree the desired outcome. On Trans-Pennine modernisation we still appear to be a long way from that, despite the expenditure of a lot of time, energy, and goodwill.

ETCS does, in theory, permit the remove of approach controls as the speed of a train approaching a low speed turnout is supervised to the correct speed by the braking curve on approach applied instead, with drivers likely to follow this more consistently than variation in driving styles that often occurs today.

But, yes as @CW2 notes, it absolutely must be specified correctly by the operator to do this, otherwise it "accidentally gets worse" when various risk-averse tolerances are added.

 

[Grumpy]

Of course it doesn’t - you can’t fully commit funding until you can be be reasonably sure how much it is going to cost. Until the TWA Order process is well underway it will not be clear what the final scope is. The domestic equivalent would be setting a budget for your house extension before getting planning permission.

Or like electrifying from York to Church Fenton before you know if you'll be able to afford to carry on to Leeds?

 

[Ianno87]

Or like electrifying from York to Church Fenton before you know if you'll be able to afford to carry on to Leeds?

Doesn't really matter, if York-Church Fenton stacks up on its own merits (e.g. changing to AC before reaching York).

 

[IanXC]

Doesn't really matter, if York-Church Fenton stacks up on its own merits (e.g. changing to AC before reaching York).

Which is principally about not running diesel engines in York, and particularly not starting diesel engines in York going south, York station is most definitely on the emissions hot spot list for the city.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or like electrifying from York to Church Fenton before you know if you'll be able to afford to carry on to Leeds?

No, not like that at all. The domestic equivalent to Colton - Church Fenton is building a small extension on one side of the house, which you will use, but making it compatible with a bigger extension you intend to build across the back when you have the money. Which, incidentally, is precisely what I have done in the past.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Or like electrifying from York to Church Fenton before you know if you'll be able to afford to carry on to Leeds?

As I keep saying - every mile counts and helps imho

 

[Yindee8191]

As I keep saying - every mile counts and helps imho

Also, having a bit of a line done helps make the case for wiring the whole line look better.

 

[WAO]

The problem with Leeds York electrification is not the wiring but the other work needed, just like the problems besetting the GWML, the MML and other parts of TP. Does it need 4-track? (yes), should the extra tracks be on HS2/3? Can NR handle large complex schemes? etc.

This jig-saw piece approach, thanks to the bi-modes, seems the way ahead.

WAO

 

[nr758123]

The problem with Leeds York electrification is not the wiring but the other work needed, just like the problems besetting the GWML, the MML and other parts of TP. Does it need 4-track? (yes), should the extra tracks be on HS2/3? Can NR handle large complex schemes? etc.

This jig-saw piece approach, thanks to the bi-modes, seems the way ahead.

WAO

The jig-saw approach may have its merits from the point of view of getting approval from a dysfunctional government piece by piece.

Seen from the point of view of a passenger who stands to experience disruption over a long period, it's not unreasonable to want to know what a scheme will deliver once it is completed. We still don't know what TRU will look like when it is completed or what outcomes it will deliver for passengers.

 

[Halish Railway]

The jig-saw approach may have its merits from the point of view of getting approval from a dysfunctional government piece by piece.

As well as the argument that politicians (Mainly Mayors such as the newly crowned King of the North) can have some PR for an impactful infrastructure scheme that is solely within their patch.

Another point about doing small bite size chunks is that NR can experiment and gain expertise with new techniques and technologies, the chief one on this project being Siemens SICAT which is yet to feature on a large headline grabbing project. Hopefully this will avoid massive cost overruns like those seen on other projects such as the GWML electrification and Rotherham Tram-Train, thus potentially encouraging the government to invest in more electrification schemes.

 

[takno]

Hopefully this will avoid massive cost overruns like those seen on other projects such as the GWML electrification and Rotherham Tram-Train, thus potentially encouraging the government to invest in more electrification schemes.

The Rotherham tram train was a proof of concept. The original figure was a low-balled guestimate, and the whole project was designed to test whether that hypothetical was true. The result was to very-much prove that it wasn't, and the industry will now be saved from some truly epic costs as similar larger schemes around the country are cancelled

 

[Ianno87]

The Rotherham tram train was a proof of concept. The original figure was a low-balled guestimate, and the whole project was designed to test whether that hypothetical was true. The result was to very-much prove that it wasn't, and the industry will now be saved from some truly epic costs as similar larger schemes around the country are cancelled

Or will equally learn why some things turned out unexpectedly expensive, and learning will improve upfront planning to avoid this.

 

[Purple Orange]

Or will equally learn why some things turned out unexpectedly expensive, and learning will improve upfront planning to avoid this.

Exactly. I fully expect to see tram-trains running in to Manchester. Part of the issue on this forum, is that people consider 2 tph heavy rail service to be superior to a 5 tph light rail, tram or tram-train service.

 

[WAO]

While light rail and heavy rail overlap, they are not really in competition as they are suited to different capacities, journey lengths, speeds, stopping intervals etc.

The tram train blends the two but a (diesel) tram train (AKA Pacer) operating as heavy rail over TP or part is very unpopular!

Some simple rules for major projects: only do one thing at a time but do it well, only use existing state-of-the-art technology, do your R&D separately, not on the back of a customer's contract.

WAO

 

[Purple Orange]

Tram train would serve a metro market and will be nothing like that of a pacer. The technology is proven in Germany and is earning it’s stripes by testing in Rotherham, then on short stretches in Manchester (Wilmslow-Airport and Altrincham-Hale), before being let lose on a longer line like Glossop-Piccadilly. Give it time. If it produces a far better service then all credit to it.

 

[IanXC]

Seen from the point of view of a passenger who stands to experience disruption over a long period, it's not unreasonable to want to know what a scheme will deliver once it is completed. We still don't know what TRU will look like when it is completed or what outcomes it will deliver for passengers.

Of course a benefit of the jig-saw approach is that while there may be more occasions of disruption, each is much more limited. I might be wrong but I don't think there has been anything more disruptive than diversions via Castleford and retiming of the first morning stopping service to run 50 minutes later than usual as a result of the Church Fenton to Colton Junction scheme.

 

[CrickUK]

There are a lot more masts up now, most seem to be twin track cantilevers either side of the lines to give coverage of all 4 tracks. Nearly all the masts are up from the Braegate lane compound to the over bridge on the Appleton Roebuck road. 75% installed between the Appleton Roebuck overbridge and Brumber Hill farm access bridge and 6 up between Brumber Hill and Bolton Percy.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this thread is for actual progress updates related to the Transpennine route upgrade and electrification

The forum has plenty of spare capacity for threads to discuss any other topic

 

[SuperNova]

The jig-saw approach may have its merits from the point of view of getting approval from a dysfunctional government piece by piece.

Seen from the point of view of a passenger who stands to experience disruption over a long period, it's not unreasonable to want to know what a scheme will deliver once it is completed. We still don't know what TRU will look like when it is completed or what outcomes it will deliver for passengers.

Here's the issue - we're still awaiting information from the integrated rail plan. The scope of what NPR will be is likely to influence what TRU as a whole will look like. My money is on Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester being the main route over the Pennines still and if that's the case there is likely to need to be some significant new infrastructure built, especially west of Huddersfield.

There's no point starting TRU, realising you don't want to do NPR like TfN do and then trying to redo TRU. My issue is that this is continuously dragging and they need to make a decision in the next few months, rather than continuously kicking it down the road.

 

[Class 170101]

Seen from the point of view of a passenger who stands to experience disruption over a long period, it's not unreasonable to want to know what a scheme will deliver once it is completed. We still don't know what TRU will look like when it is completed or what outcomes it will deliver for passengers.

Here's the issue - we're still awaiting information from the integrated rail plan. The scope of what NPR will be is likely to influence what TRU as a whole will look like. My money is on Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester being the main route over the Pennines still and if that's the case there is likely to need to be some significant new infrastructure built, especially west of Huddersfield.

On the basis the passenger won't accept long periods of disruption and go elsewhere, look at farce that was West Coast Route Modernisation, it would be better to build the NPR route via Bradford as its a new route and focus on upgrading the existing route between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield in the least disruptive way possible if it can be done. (Note in the same way HS2 is a new railway rather than trying upgrade the West Coast Main Line again). Fortunately this route is duplicated between Manchester and Leeds via Rochdale and Bradford Interchange (reverse) and also between Leeds and York via Castleford with only intermediate flows requiring road transport.

Of course sadly the biggest opportunity for probably 100 years to carry out the TRU with few passengers around is going to sadly pass us by.

 

[matacaster]

Here's the issue - we're still awaiting information from the integrated rail plan. The scope of what NPR will be is likely to influence what TRU as a whole will look like. My money is on Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester being the main route over the Pennines still and if that's the case there is likely to need to be some significant new infrastructure built, especially west of Huddersfield.

There's no point starting TRU, realising you don't want to do NPR like TfN do and then trying to redo TRU. My issue is that this is continuously dragging and they need to make a decision in the next few months, rather than continuously kicking it down the road.

I feel pretty sure your money is safe via huddersfield.

 

[SuperNova]

On the basis the passenger won't accept long periods of disruption and go elsewhere, look at farce that was West Coast Route Modernisation, it would be better to build the NPR route via Bradford as its a new route and focus on upgrading the existing route between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield in the least disruptive way possible if it can be done. (Note in the same way HS2 is a new railway rather than trying upgrade the West Coast Main Line again). Fortunately this route is duplicated between Manchester and Leeds via Rochdale and Bradford Interchange (reverse) and also between Leeds and York via Castleford with only intermediate flows requiring road transport.

Of course sadly the biggest opportunity for probably 100 years to carry out the TRU with few passengers around is going to sadly pass us by.

Thing is, and I realise I may be going slightly off topic, NPR is not really comparable to HS2 as HS2 is essentially freeing up capacity of three main lines for local/regional/freight services as well as competing with road/air travel with enhanced journey times. There's not really the capacity requirements to justify NPR as TfN want it, is the cost of a Bradford city centre station worth the outlay, there's still the capacity constraints around Manchester that will limit freight movements (something that really needs a deep dive into) along with the corridor between Leeds and York. It doesn't answer a lot of questions as a project.

In an ideal world we'd be cracking on with TRU now, but nobody knew about a pandemic. Plus, as Leeds - Manchester flows go, the only really major disruption will be caused by any works at Heaton Lodge to Ravensthorpe - bar those who travel in and out of Huddersfield. Diversionary routes via Rochdale and Wakefield limit that disruption and journey time is only around 15 mins more.

What I hope is that we finally get a decision and that decision also future proofs the railway.