Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Nottingham59]

it looks to me that there is more than enough clearance from back yard to wire height

Yes, but how does the railway ensure 3.5m clearance from reasonably foreseeable events like a homeowner using a metal ladder to clean their gutters? Or a contractor who installs a scaffolding to repair the roof?

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but how does the railway ensure 3.5m clearance from reasonably foreseeable events like a homeowner using a metal ladder to clean their gutters? Or a contractor who installs a scaffolding to repair the roof?

the clearance required is 2.75m from the ground level where an individual would stand.

3.5m is only necessary if the live conductor is directly Overhead, which this isn’t.

 

[WiredUp]

2the clearance required is 2.75m from the ground level where an individual would stand.

3.5m is only necessary if the live conductor is directly Overhead, which this isn’t.

The standing surface clearance ('protection by clearance) to any live component of high voltage OLE above the surface (and pantographs / roof mounted equipment on rolling stock) is 2.75m in restricted i.e. non-public areas.
The value is 3.50m in public areas.

Where protection is provide by obstacles (screens etc.) then these values can be reduced.

BS EN 50122-1:2011- is the standard which covers this area. (Sections 5.2, 5.3 in particular)

Just wanted to clear this up in case people ever rely on anything on this forum.

 

[Bald Rick]

The standing surface clearance ('protection by clearance) to any live component of high voltage OLE above the surface (and pantographs / roof mounted equipment on rolling stock) is 2.75m in restricted i.e. non-public areas.
The value is 3.50m in public areas.

Where protection is provide by obstacles (screens etc.) then these values can be reduced.

BS EN 50122-1:2011- is the standard which covers this area. (Sections 5.2, 5.3 in particular)

Just wanted to clear this up in case people ever rely on anything on this forum.

thank you for the correction. That’s not what the standard I have has, although that is 7 years old.

 

[Revaulx]

I can understand why people would assume that Standedge tunnel would be difficult simply because it's so long and quite wet. I've heard from various people who are somewhat in the know that Morley tunnel is more problematic due to clearances (the portal at the Morley end is deceptive, as the very end section is actually a road bridge with a much larger arch than the the main tunnel has).

I had thought that the spillway/aqueduct at the Marsden end of Standedge would be an issue, but according to an earlier post on this thread that's already been sorted with adequate clearances.

Standedge looks pretty generously dimensioned though. Morley less so; your observation about the bridge is an interesting one. It’s also very wet; a not uncommon issue to affect Pennine tunnels!

According to something I read a year or so ago, possibly in Modern Railways, the most difficult of the tunnels is Stalybridge, especially for freight loading gauge. It even led me to wonder if the reference to Standedge in the most recent Modern Railways (see #5646) is a mistake for Stalybridge.

Yes that doesn’t surprise me. Scout looks a similar squeeze; it’s only short and I suppose could be opened out if it hadn’t got a house on top.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Standedge looks pretty generously dimensioned though. Morley less so; your observation about the bridge is an interesting one. It’s also very wet; a not uncommon issue to affect Pennine tunnels!

Stalybridge, Scout and Morley tunnels date from the 1848 original construction of the LNWR line.
The currently operational Standedge tunnel is the third rail tunnel constructed between Diggle and Marsden and dates from 1894, and was built to more modern standards than others on the route.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Standedge looks pretty generously dimensioned though. Morley less so; your observation about the bridge is an interesting one. It’s also very wet; a not uncommon issue to affect Pennine tunnels!

If you stand at the Huddersfield end of the Leeds-bound platform, you can see the actual portal of the tunnel beneath the bridge which carries the road to the industrial site next to the station. It's significantly tighter than the bridge itself.
I would never have assumed that the tunnel would have any issues with water ingress. I'd be more concerned about the ventilation shaft that comes out right next to the Westbound M62 carriageway between the Tingley and Birstall junctions... I hope there's something that would prevent an errant vehicle plummeting down onto the tracks!

 

[sjm77]

This appears to be similar to what SuperNova (with apparent inside knowledge) has said in #5774 - except that the "eastbound" line here is actually going very slightly west of north, and I assume that's the direction of movement you're referring to.

Yes, except you wouldn't necessarily need to relocate the Huddersfield bound platform IMHO.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes, except you wouldn't necessarily need to relocate the Huddersfield bound platform.

Though it might be easier/cheaper if the platforms remain opposite each other rather than being staggered. Providing an accessible means of crossing between the platforms would probably be more difficult (read: expensive) if there's a significant gap between the up and down platforms.

 

[AndrewE]

Though it might be easier/cheaper if the platforms remain opposite each other rather than being staggered. Providing an accessible means of crossing between the platforms would probably be more difficult (read: expensive) if there's a significant gap between the up and down platforms.

Random thought: If it is an unstaffed station and nobody is going to need to change to the other line/direction there why do you need an accessible way between the platforms? Is it so unacceptable to have different access arrangements for up and down platforms?
I suspect that easy access to car parks might be driving this, but for most people it will be swings and roundabouts: easier/closer in one direction, but slightly further going home!

 

[zwk500]

Random thought: If it is an unstaffed station and nobody is going to need to change to the other line/direction there why do you need an accessible way between the platforms? Is it so unacceptable to have different access arrangements for up and down platforms?
I suspect that easy access to car parks might be driving this, but for most people it will be swings and roundabouts: easier/closer in one direction, but slightly further going home!

I don't think you do. Glynde has step-free access to the down platform (EDIT: just checked and the down requires 1 small step up, it's not step-free) from the station approach road but the up platform is accessed from a totally separate location. To transfer from down to up involves exiting the station, making a u-turn about 90m away and then going straight up a steep road, which definitely isn't within the accessibility guidelines, before crossing the road to get to the top of the ramp back down to the Up platform.

GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.860...4!1sL40vIsoI0n0_faq-Fmogfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (Down platform to the right, up platform step-free access on the far side of the bridge, on the left. The overhead view shows the route quite well, but even the GSV photo deceives on the steepness of the road to clear the line. it goes from nearly rail level to clearance height in c.80m.

 

[sjm77]

Random thought: If it is an unstaffed station and nobody is going to need to change to the other line/direction there why do you need an accessible way between the platforms? Is it so unacceptable to have different access arrangements for up and down platforms?
I suspect that easy access to car parks might be driving this, but for most people it will be swings and roundabouts: easier/closer in one direction, but slightly further going home!

Not that random! It is why I said "move/extend" the Manchester bound platform. Basically if you extend the platform to double the length but trains only stop (under normal circumstances) on the new section. That way all existing access arrangements could be continued and Manchester-bound EMUs get a quick burst of acceleration before hitting the neutral sectionm and especially so if the Pantograph in use is at the rear of the train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Random thought: If it is an unstaffed station and nobody is going to need to change to the other line/direction there why do you need an accessible way between the platforms? Is it so unacceptable to have different access arrangements for up and down platforms?
I suspect that easy access to car parks might be driving this, but for most people it will be swings and roundabouts: easier/closer in one direction, but slightly further going home!

You need step free access to both platforms- I agree it's unlikely many will alight from a train on one platform and want to catch another going back the way they came. However you still ideally want access to either platform from both sides of the tracks. If the platforms are 150m apart (as suggested upthread) this is more difficult.

In any case, doesn't Mossley still have a part-time ticket office?

 

[Bald Rick]

That way EMU stoppers would easily be able to reach ~25mph on the falling gradient before hitting a neutral section next to the houses.

Neutral sections are normally about 2 metres long. I think you mean a long isolated section.

 

[Bantamzen]

If you stand at the Huddersfield end of the Leeds-bound platform, you can see the actual portal of the tunnel beneath the bridge which carries the road to the industrial site next to the station. It's significantly tighter than the bridge itself.
I would never have assumed that the tunnel would have any issues with water ingress. I'd be more concerned about the ventilation shaft that comes out right next to the Westbound M62 carriageway between the Tingley and Birstall junctions... I hope there's something that would prevent an errant vehicle plummeting down onto the tracks!

Just looking a Google StreetView, it seems that there is a small wall just behind the metal barrier on the westbound section, with an incline behind it towards the portal itself. Additionally there appears to be some additional supporting brickwork on the portal faces towards the motorway so I would imagine it would take something quite spectacular to reach it & breach the brickwork.

Image of portal next to M62

 

[zwk500]

Just looking a Google StreetView, it seems that there is a small wall just behind the metal barrier on the westbound section, with an incline behind it towards the portal itself. Additionally there appears to be some additional supporting brickwork on the portal faces towards the motorway so I would imagine it would take something quite spectacular to reach it & breach the brickwork.

Image of portal next to M62

From that image, it would look to be nearly impossible for any likely accident on the Motorway to breach the brickwork. The Motorway has presumably been there for 40-odd years now, has there ever been a recorded incident of a collision with the shaft, let alone breach of it?

 

[Bantamzen]

From that image, it would look to be nearly impossible for any likely accident on the Motorway to breach the brickwork. The Motorway has presumably been there for 40-odd years now, has there ever been a recorded incident of a collision with the shaft, let alone breach of it?

Indeed, and if you switch to satellite view its clear that the additional brickwork shown at street level is only on the motorway side of the portal. Along with seemingly different bricks used to the main structure, I'd image these were added around the time of the motorway construction.

 

[Revaulx]

Stalybridge, Scout and Morley tunnels date from the 1848 original construction of the LNWR line.
The currently operational Standedge tunnel is the third rail tunnel constructed between Diggle and Marsden and dates from 1894, and was built to more modern standards than others on the route.

Indeed. Though “third rail tunnel” had me confused for a moment!

The original single bores look fairly tight, though they weren’t particularly on a gradient and had plenty of vent shafts; I haven’t heard any stories of them being awful to work in steam days, unlike the original Woodhead ones.

 

[matacaster]

Multi tasker 1200 in hudds station sidings presumably for bridge replacement fieldhouse road?

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. Though “third rail tunnel” had me confused for a moment!

The original single bores look fairly tight, though they weren’t particularly on a gradient and had plenty of vent shafts; I haven’t heard any stories of them being awful to work in steam days, unlike the original Woodhead ones.

In fact the tunnels are dead level, the only significant level section for many miles in each direction. Back in the day that's the only place they could put water troughs for the steam locomotives to re-fill their tanks on the move.

 

[SuperNova]

Yes, except you wouldn't necessarily need to relocate the Huddersfield bound platform IMHO.

But it is, mainly due to platform length.

Bar Greenfield, I'm led to believe that all other intermediate local station will be seeing a move/remodel.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But it is, mainly due to platform length.

Bar Greenfield, I'm led to believe that all other intermediate local station will be seeing a move/remodel.

Certainly the stations East of Huddersfield will get a substantial rebuild. For Deighton this will mean a replacement of the WYPTE "flatpack" platforms, even though the earlier plan of relocation closer to Bradley junction has been shelved. I'd expect platform 3 at Mirfield (also a "flatpack" wooden structure) will be removed, as the lines on that side of the formation will be the fasts. The island platform (1 & 2) will need step-free access, and to be honest I hope the plan is to rip it up and start again as it's a bit of a mess. Ravensthorpe will get new platforms due to the significant reconstruction in that area related to the grade separation of the adjacent junction between the Leeds and Wakefield lines. This will allow services towards Wakefield to call, assuming they ever return. If they're still going by then, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grand Central call there as a sort of Dewsbury parkway.

 

[edwin_m]

But it is, mainly due to platform length.

Bar Greenfield, I'm led to believe that all other intermediate local station will be seeing a move/remodel.

The bridge at the end of Greenfield station might be an interesting problem too.

 

[Metroman62]

With regards to Deighton station, will it be possible to keep it open while work is done to put the 4 tracks in? The current platforms seem to be on the alignment. And how long will the work take? I ask as I am a member of a visually impaired tandem who use Deighton station. So if it closes we will need a plan B!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regards to Deighton station, will it be possible to keep it open while work is done to put the 4 tracks in? The current platforms seem to be on the alignment. And how long will the work take? I ask as I am a member of a visually impaired tandem who use Deighton station. So if it closes we will need a plan B!

Perhaps it would be possible, but given all the other disruption the upgrade will cause and the relatively low usage, I'd be surprised if the plans would prioritise maintaining service over getting the job done efficiently. It is worth remembering that even in the best case scenario, some closures would be unavoidable.

That said, I don't think any concrete (no pun intended) plans for the work schedule have been decided on, so I'm just making educated guesses here.

 

[SuperNova]

With regards to Deighton station, will it be possible to keep it open while work is done to put the 4 tracks in? The current platforms seem to be on the alignment. And how long will the work take? I ask as I am a member of a visually impaired tandem who use Deighton station. So if it closes we will need a plan B!

Plan B will be rail replacement buses. Until the plan of works is announced, little information is available.

 

[YorksLad12]

Certainly the stations East of Huddersfield will get a substantial rebuild. For Deighton this will mean a replacement of the WYPTE "flatpack" platforms, even though the earlier plan of relocation closer to Bradley junction has been shelved. I'd expect platform 3 at Mirfield (also a "flatpack" wooden structure) will be removed, as the lines on that side of the formation will be the fasts. The island platform (1 & 2) will need step-free access, and to be honest I hope the plan is to rip it up and start again as it's a bit of a mess. Ravensthorpe will get new platforms due to the significant reconstruction in that area related to the grade separation of the adjacent junction between the Leeds and Wakefield lines. This will allow services towards Wakefield to call, assuming they ever return. If they're still going by then, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grand Central call there as a sort of Dewsbury parkway.

Wasn't P3 at Mirfield built on the old line? I think the same happened at Slaithwaite. I'd imagine they'd do the Mirfield rebuild first before pulling out P3, so the station and lines can stay open while the new railway is built. Same with Ravensthorpe, basically a whole new station. But I guess we're nowhere near a schedule of works, beyond the need to build the new P5 & 6 at Huddersfield before closing the old ones!

Your point about Grand Central is interesting. If "Ravensthorpe Parkway" has enough parking capacity (and certainly more than at Mirfield) then GC might consider dropping the Mirfield call. It's an odd inter-city service that calls at every station on the route between Bradford and Wakefield... but as the fast and slow railway will operate independently, so there should be space in the timetable for them to do that if they really wanted to.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't P3 at Mirfield built on the old line? I think the same happened at Slaithwaite. I'd imagine they'd do the Mirfield rebuild first before pulling out P3, so the station and lines can stay open while the new railway is built. Same with Ravensthorpe, basically a whole new station. But I guess we're nowhere near a schedule of works, beyond the need to build the new P5 & 6 at Huddersfield before closing the old ones!

Your point about Grand Central is interesting. If "Ravensthorpe Parkway" has enough parking capacity (and certainly more than at Mirfield) then GC might consider dropping the Mirfield call. It's an odd inter-city service that calls at every station on the route between Bradford and Wakefield... but as the fast and slow railway will operate independently, so there should be space in the timetable for them to do that if they really wanted to.

I can't remember what the layout was like at Mirfield immediately prior to the last rationalisation, but once that stretch was reduced to three tracks from four, the third platform was required for services from the Wakefield line to still call. There was definitely a track where the platform is at some point in the past, as there's a disused bridge adjacent to the one that's still in use which aligns with the platform and car park. I think it was a siding rather than a main running line though.

On Grand Central, I was surprised they chose to call at Low Moor once it opened but I suppose it is a sort-of parkway for Cleckheaton and the southern side of Bradford. Similarly I'd have thought Pontefract Tanshelf would have been a better option than Monkhill, though Monkhill has the advantage of a car park.

 

[AndrewE]

In fact the tunnels are dead level, the only significant level section for many miles in each direction.

something to do with following the canal (which was used for removing spoil during the construction.) Funnily enough, that's dead level too...

 

[jonesy3001]

Piling being done in the collyhurst area, is that the bit between victoria and miles platting junction?

Matty Peel on LinkedIn: 7.5 mtr piles know hammer required team Lundys do it again tru all home… | 14 comments

7.5 mtr piles know hammer required team Lundys do it again tru all home safe | 14 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com