Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates, CP6

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
1,911
Well with that argument, why not do the 'easy' bit between Neville Hill and Crossgates? Would mean bi-modes can leave Leeds Stn. under electric power and so quicker, thus clearing signalling sections quicker.

Might save a few seconds at best, the limiting factor is the line speeds rather than train performance. Most TPEs are up the tail end of something else by Micklefield anyway so there'd be no advantage there.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
The electrification will extend about 10.2 miles south of York station with over 9miles used once changeover is taken into account.


Provided the feed upgrade is ready by that point too...


a) there needs to be an OHLE sectioning location somewhere near Church Fenton
b) there is an NR operational boundary just north of Church Fenton North Jn
so it makes sense to align the two. ECML North look after the track and wiring north of CF North Jn and Eastern (NE) look after the track and wiring south of CF North Jn.

Church Fenton North Jn to Neville Hill West Jn also needs changes to track and bridges but Colton Jn to CF North Jn effectively didn't (electrification ready for the last 30 years as it would have been BR's next East Coast electrification step), so why not just get on with the spade ready bit as a first step?
To add to the engineering difficulties of Church Fenton - Leeds, just SW of CF you have Rose Lane UWC & footbridge, giving access to a small handful of properties. There are other UWCs along the route, but Rose Lane poses the largest complexities as you have a turnout for the Up Passenger Loop almost immediately north of the footbridge, with the overbridge at Common Ln shortly to the north of that. The grading on that, assuming all tracks are left as-is, would be hugely difficult to implement.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
6,453
To add to the engineering difficulties of Church Fenton - Leeds, just SW of CF you have Rose Lane UWC & footbridge, giving access to a small handful of properties. There are other UWCs along the route, but Rose Lane poses the largest complexities as you have a turnout for the Up Passenger Loop almost immediately north of the footbridge, with the overbridge at Common Ln shortly to the north of that. The grading on that, assuming all tracks are left as-is, would be hugely difficult to implement.
I suspect it has been left until after the revisions to the rate of change of wire height "rules" that will be coming along shortly which will make life easier and give more potential options in those situations. :)
The Southampton Uni work on safe wire to structure distances under different conditions has also been very useful and has been reaffirming many of the BR 1960's clearances where the paperwork had been lost, net result many reduced clearances required so far less clearance work and cost.

Holding off on Neville Hill West Jn - to Church Fenton North Jn will reduce clearance scope of work and costs.

Might save a few seconds at best, the limiting factor is the line speeds rather than train performance. Most TPEs are up the tail end of something else by Micklefield anyway so there'd be no advantage there.
EMU on the Northern Leeds - York Stoppers will help.

Plenty to resolve with new additional station, improving line speeds and signalling too.

I'd be very surprised if entry /exit to Neville Hill isn't being looked at especially after the IET vs HST incident
 

billio

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2012
Messages
378
Are there any plans for the cast-iron over railway bridge near Shippen House Farm ? Would it be affected by the electrification ? Built 1830-34, this is the earliest, remaining cast iron bridge over a working railway.


The last time I was there, a few years ago now, it was protected by some steel sheeting, I think more to do with the farm traffic at that time rather than the railway. Is it now affected by the Thorpe Park development ?
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
4,935
Location
Leeds
Are there any plans for the cast-iron over railway bridge near Shippen House Farm ? Would it be affected by the electrification ? Built 1830-34, this is the earliest, remaining cast iron bridge over a working railway.


The last time I was there, a few years ago now, it was protected by some steel sheeting, I think more to do with the farm traffic at that time rather than the railway. Is it now affected by the Thorpe Park development ?
This info is probably too vague and too old to be much use, but round about 2015, when electrification seemed to be on a roll nationally, before all the delays and cost increases, there was an article in Modern Railways on electrification clearances at bridges, with examples from several different lines, and I think this bridge was mentioned.
 

Mollman

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
714
Are there any plans for the cast-iron over railway bridge near Shippen House Farm ? Would it be affected by the electrification ? Built 1830-34, this is the earliest, remaining cast iron bridge over a working railway.


The last time I was there, a few years ago now, it was protected by some steel sheeting, I think more to do with the farm traffic at that time rather than the railway. Is it now affected by the Thorpe Park development ?
Though not seemingly affected by Thorpe Park, it's location is also around where any junction would be build as part of NPR to allow trains heading to / from Leeds to use HS2's Garforth by-pass. One suspects that if it has to be removed it would be donated to a preserved railway.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
TransPennine Wiring East Progressometer Post 7.0 - accurate to 10/06/21.
Route announced as 'to be wired' in CP6: Church Fenton - Colton Jct.


E1. Church Fenton North Jct (NOC/CFM 10m 36ch) to Colton Jct (NOC 5m 41ch/ECM4 182m 79ch)

Electrification work underway.
Southern limit of OLE confirmed to be short of Church Fenton Stn itself due to
a) HS2 Phase 2b works; and
b) the Common Ln Underbridge/Rose Lane UWC situation (i.e. "Steventon with S&C")
With completion scheduled for October 2022; steelwork up in May 2021 (Normanton side only) & wires up in Jan 2022.
Leeds side steelwork originally planned for Autumn 2021, but work has been brought forward.

All piles presumed installed.
Colton Jn - Colton Lane O/B: 3 S1 TTC pairs up, followed by a S1 Monoboom, a UKMS Std portal, another S1 TTC pair, a second Monoboom, then 4 S1 TTCs to Colton Lane O/B.
TTCs now up over the Normanton & Leeds lines; including a UKMS Std TTC (structure no. NOC/10/02) over the Leeds lines & DL/UL crossover.
On the Normanton side, mast brackets for the cantilevers are now starting to appear - these will be of the Siemens "SICAT SA" type seen at Stevenage P5 & Paisley Gilmour Street - Gourock. The brackets are going up on the mast legs for the Up Normanton, and on stovepipes (where fitted). Earth Wire brackets are also appearing now.
5 S1 TTCs up and boomed on the Normanton side south of Colton Ln O/B. The lone S1 Monoboom leg up on the Leeds side has now been paired with its doppelganger, and boom installed. All steelwork aside from one monoboom appears to have been installed between Colton Ln & Brumber Hill (i.e. over Colton South Ladder); on the Leeds side, the UKMS Std TTC (NOC/10/08) & S1 TTC (NOC/10/10) which had no booms are now all boomed up. Another structure on the Normanton side (perhaps NOC/10/11) has been fitted with a 'tongue' for a strut tie, and mounting brackets for Tensorex units.
South of Brumber Hill Bridge, almost all S1 TTCs appear to be up and boomed as far as signals Y745 (DL)/Y742 (UL)/Y747 (DN)/Y744 (UN). A S1 Monoboom (NOC/11/03), close to the trackman's hut on the UN side, is now fully boomed, and its adjustable leg struts are also present & correct. Stovepipes & brackets have been installed over the DN & UN. Its overlap compadre (NOC/11/08), 3 spans south, only has the Normanton side mast up.
South of that overlap are 7 S1 TTC pairs, followed by a UKMS Std PF DC portal (at a guess) for a mid-point anchor (MPA). A further 2 pairs of S1 TTCs are up south of that, along with an additional S1 TTC on the Leeds side.

A handful of masts (UKMS standard I think) are up between the Normanton lines on the old site of Bolton Percy station; those adjacent to the Up Normanton (NOC/12/05?; NOC/12/08; possibly NOC/12/11) are taller to allow increased Earth Wire heights over the RRAP at Bolton Percy. EW clamps have already been attached.
The masts for the Dn Normanton (NOC/12/06; NOC/12/09; NOC/12/12) are shorter as they have no earth wire and will be bonded directly to the traction return rail. NOC/12/06 also has a back-tie pile north-east of it.
The corresponding masts for the Leeds lines are S1 TTCs (NOC/12/07; NOC/12/10; NOC/12/13).


Between Bolton Percy & Ulleskelf, around 7 S1 TTCs, 5 S1 single track masts and a monoboom (now boomed) are up. 3 piles between the Dn & Up Normanton lines are also in place north of Ulleskelf, and clearances from the railway boundary to the Dn Leeds line are tight, so I suspect 3-track TTCs will go in over the Dn Normanton & both Leeds lines (unless more piles for the Leeds lines come later). Within Ulleskelf itself, 2, poss. more single track masts are also in place (one between the road bridge & the footbridge), and a pair south of the station that are very tall indeed (perhaps to give aerial clearance over the RRAP which they sandwich). A UKMS legacy TTC (from the Mk3 & Series 2 ranges) is also present south of Ulleskelf.

Between Ulleskelf & CF North Jn, around 20 or so masts (mainly S1 TTCs) are up on the Up Normanton side. Oddly enough, a standard UKMS mast (either a PF double channel or a UC - it's hard to tell from a telephoto shot) is up north of the current CF726/CF724 gantry.

At Church Fenton North Jn, 4 masts have gone up south of the signal gantry supporting signals CF726 (UN) & CF724 (UL); these are 2 no. Tensorex Monoboom Anchor masts sandwiching a pair of S1 style hook-and-pin TTC masts. This must be for an overlap - potentially the southern limit of works. The northern monoboom has since gained its Leeds lines compadre and boom; the southern one waits for these to arrive.

Track Sectioning Cabin to be built in Church Fenton.

Compounds established at:
Church Fenton;
Ulleskelf;
Bolton Percy (Oxton Lane);
Braegate Lane;
Earfit(ts) Lane;
Copmanthorpe (Moor Lane);
Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe (by A64); and Dringhouses (Model Railway).
(N.B. All dates are subject to alteration, whether due to COVID-19 or otherwise)

E2. Leeds Departures (presumed Leeds - Neville Hill - Cross Gates) - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E3. Cross Gates to Micklefield - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E4. Micklefield to Church Fenton - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.



Do let me know if I've missed anything!

For work on the West side of the Pennines, this time-lapse video shows some of the work going on around Miles Platting. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tru-...r-timelapse-activity-6808769738571825153-XHDn
 
Last edited:

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
22
Location
Leeds
I understand home owners at Rose Lane Church Fenton and land owners on that section of track who use un-manned crossings to access fields have been notified of a potential new highway and flyover being built with a view to closing those crossings.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
I understand home owners at Rose Lane Church Fenton and land owners on that section of track who use un-manned crossings to access fields have been notified of a potential new highway and flyover being built with a view to closing those crossings.
Fantastic news. The three are, I believe, Adamsons UWC (11m 36ch from York), Poulters UWC (11m 14ch) & Rose Lane UWC (10m 79ch).
After last night's ECML level crossing debacle (the southern one of which I was caught up in), the less LCs we have, the better.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,572
Location
N Yorks
Fantastic news. The three are, I believe, Adamsons UWC (11m 36ch from York), Poulters UWC (11m 14ch) & Rose Lane UWC (10m 79ch).
After last night's ECML level crossing debacle (the southern one of which I was caught up in), the less LCs we have, the better.
Quite - LC's have no place in a high speed* railway

*100mph +
 

Nottingham59

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
265
Location
Nottingham
On Google satellite view of the tracks just north of Church Fenton, there are white dots laid alongside the track, and a number of markings in the ballast at regular intervals across just the western pair of tracks. I assume they're to do with OHLE catenary. Can anyone say what these are, please?


1623664187689.png
 

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
22
Location
Leeds
A meeting is being set up for land owners which will hopefully give out more details as to what is being planned, I will update as soon as I have more news.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
On Google satellite view of the tracks just north of Church Fenton, there are white dots laid alongside the track, and a number of markings in the ballast at regular intervals across just the western pair of tracks. I assume they're to do with OHLE catenary. Can anyone say what these are, please?


View attachment 98158
More likely UTXs (Under Track Crossings) for either signalling or drainage systems. The OLE here has mainly been installed in the cesses, rather than the wideway/10-foot (where all these seem to be).
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,572
Location
N Yorks
More likely UTXs (Under Track Crossings) for either signalling or drainage systems. The OLE here has mainly been installed in the cesses, rather than the wideway/10-foot (where all these seem to be).
I thought they were stacks of concrete cable trunking, maybe.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,142
On Google satellite view of the tracks just north of Church Fenton, there are white dots laid alongside the track, and a number of markings in the ballast at regular intervals across just the western pair of tracks. I assume they're to do with OHLE catenary. Can anyone say what these are, please?

In the picture in post #3680 there’s a long run of temporary black cable protective trunking weighted down with white bags every few metres:
 
Last edited:

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
22
Location
Leeds
A lot of people in Church Fenton are waiting to see what the next step is with regards electrification of that track as the bridge will need to be lifted if they are to continue through Church Fenton station. The current works stop north of Church Fenton where HS2 is supposed to join so there is speculation that this will become part of the integrated rail plan and cut that corner out which would allow higher speeds and eliminate the problem of the tight curve North of Rose Lane.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,812
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
Quite - LC's have no place in a high speed* railway

*100mph +
+1 from me too. Obviously you can’t do every level crossing in the country but overtime as a railway gets upgraded etc such as the Northern Transpennine, it makes sense to do the LCs as part of the upgrade. Good news indeed.
 

td97

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
696
Good riddance. Rose Lane has the highest level crossing risk of any LC in the UK. It is the only A1 category LC across the network.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
A lot of people in Church Fenton are waiting to see what the next step is with regards electrification of that track as the bridge will need to be lifted if they are to continue through Church Fenton station. The current works stop north of Church Fenton where HS2 is supposed to join so there is speculation that this will become part of the integrated rail plan and cut that corner out which would allow higher speeds and eliminate the problem of the tight curve North of Rose Lane.
Is the bridge you're referring to the footbridge at Rose Lane, or the road bridge at Common Lane? At the very least, Rose Lane FB would need to be rebuilt - Common Lane is a trickier one as it's the main road through the village. Surge Diverters (as used in Cardiff) may be required, or, perhaps more likely, the new highway & flyover could act as a southern bypass to the village, crossing over both the Leeds & Normanton lines south of CF Sth Jn, linking Common Ln (west of the village) to Ash Lane.

This new bypass could then be used as a diversionary route for road traffic, with a temporary pedestrian bridge (as used on Werrington Grade Separation (at Lincoln Rd), MMLE (at Bedford Bromham Rd), EGIP (Kerse Rd, Stirling) and many other projects) used adjacent to Common Lane at the station throat.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
1,266
Good riddance. Rose Lane has the highest level crossing risk of any LC in the UK. It is the only A1 category LC across the network.
Curiously enough, Google Street View does not make it past the level crossing as it is closed!
 

twin turbo

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2019
Messages
22
Location
Leeds
Is the bridge you're referring to the footbridge at Rose Lane, or the road bridge at Common Lane? At the very least, Rose Lane FB would need to be rebuilt - Common Lane is a trickier one as it's the main road through the village. Surge Diverters (as used in Cardiff) may be required, or, perhaps more likely, the new highway & flyover could act as a southern bypass to the village, crossing over both the Leeds & Normanton lines south of CF Sth Jn, linking Common Ln (west of the village) to Ash Lane.

This new bypass could then be used as a diversionary route for road traffic, with a temporary pedestrian bridge (as used on Werrington Grade Separation (at Lincoln Rd), MMLE (at Bedford Bromham Rd), EGIP (Kerse Rd, Stirling) and many other projects) used adjacent to Common Lane at the station throat.
I am referring to the road bridge on common lane which I know has been surveyed with a view to future works, totally agree with you that a link between Ash Lane and Common Lane would make sense and would be far less disruptive as it crosses farmland only.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,252
Location
Peterborough
I am referring to the road bridge on common lane which I know has been surveyed with a view to future works, totally agree with you that a link between Ash Lane and Common Lane would make sense and would be far less disruptive as it crosses farmland only.
Ahh, I didn't realise it had been surveyed previously. Assuming demolition and reconstruction is inevitable, staging the demolition to maintain 1 pair of operational tracks could work.
 

zwk500

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
1,402
Location
Milton Keynes
Ahh, I didn't realise it had been surveyed previously. Assuming demolition and reconstruction is inevitable, staging the demolition to maintain 1 pair of operational tracks could work.
That doesn't look like it's going to be feasible - a single skew girder span crosses the Normantons and both Up Leeds lines, with a separate single arch span crossing the Down Leeds.

A full bank holiday possession, with road diversion via Sherburn might potentially be enough to crane out the old span, demolish the arch, put in a prefab central pier south of the island platform and 2 pre-fab concrete spans. Depends if the road itself needs lifting for clearance.

1623673214450.png
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
3,090
A lot will depend on whether there are services which need to be diverted. A temporary footbridge will usually carry the these underneath. But first you have to find the cables and pipes...
 

Top