Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[61653 HTAFC]

Is there a reason why they can't pass through Leeds station?
Being containers perhaps they could turn right at Holbeck to run to the container terminal?

Currently very little (if any) freight runs via Dewsbury. Not only is it a fair stretch of intensively used two-track railway now, that limiting factor will still be there post-upgrade (as currently planned). Sending frequent heavy & slow intermodal trains through there is a non-starter.

 

[Ken H]

well this Network Rail – Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge Railway Improvements (manchestertostalybridge.co.uk)



says December 21 but I think that is piling, masts and major civils. I don't think it includes endanglement and wires.

The Man-stalybridge site you quote seems a little ambiguous. Is piling done by Dec 2021, or electrification complete by then?

 

[snowball]

The Man-stalybridge site you quote seems a little ambiguous. Is piling done by Dec 2021, or electrification complete by then?

It seems to be only talking about piling.

Compared with Colton to Church Fenton, Manchester to Stalybridge is a long way behind - lots of piles still to do, no masts in place yet.

 

[Seehof]

Remind me! What was the point of electrifying Colton to Church Fenton? Or was it to show us living in the North East just how hideous modern electrification is!?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Remind me! What was the point of electrifying Colton to Church Fenton? Or was it to show us living in the North East just how hideous modern electrification is!?

I believe it was to do with HS2 in terms of why just that bit. Don't ask me why when they are rumoured to be cancelled the Yorkshire leg.

I don't know if TPE plans to change traction on move or not but it feels a whole section needs to be done at once on TPE for anything meaningful.

 

[59CosG95]

I believe it was to do with HS2 in terms of why just that bit. Don't ask me why when they are rumoured to be cancelled the Yorkshire leg.

I don't know if TPE plans to change traction on move or not but it feels a whole section needs to be done at once on TPE for anything meaningful.

TPE do indeed plan to change on the move; this eliminates power changeover at York.
Church Fenton Nth Jn - the planned limit of wiring for work package E1 - is also the boundary between NR's North East & East Coast routes ISTR. There will also be linespeed improvements on the section (from what to what, I don't quite know), and it was a very easy win as all the heavy civils had been done previously (around 2015 IIRC).

Of course, adding HS2 means that the layout will doubtless require further work, but the infrastructure will be there...

Back to "whole sections" - another key enabler of CF to Leeds is the new SFC grid connection and associated feeder at Hambleton Jn (part of ECPSU 2), which hasn't gone online yet.

 

[Grumpy]

Leeds, meanwhile, is W8 along all through lines.
From Whitehall Jn down to the FL terminal at Stourton, W8 is the top loading gauge until Pepper Rd O/B, where it changes to W9, on the through lines, the container sidings and the CEMEX siding. The through lines are also W10 & W12, covered by a gauge certificate, which continues to Doncaster via Methley, Normanton, Turners Lane Jn & South Kirkby Jn.

Thanks.
I can recall seeing container trains routed that way, but it must be 20 years ago. I assumed they had been diverted from the Normanton route

 

[Spartacus]

Thanks.
I can recall seeing container trains routed that way, but it must be 20 years ago. I assumed they had been diverted from the Normanton route

I suspect those might have been the smaller binliners, or traffic using similar sized containers.

 

[snowball]

The Man-stalybridge site you quote seems a little ambiguous. Is piling done by Dec 2021, or electrification complete by then?

It seems to be only talking about piling.

Compared with Colton to Church Fenton, Manchester to Stalybridge is a long way behind - lots of piles still to do, no masts in place yet.

In fact, nothing anywhere on the NR website says that the current works between Manchester and Stalybridge will extend beyond foundations to include actual masts or wires. For example, on the main TRU page, if you click on "Manchester to Stalybridge", it opens out to say (my bold)

Key rail infrastructure in Greater Manchester will be upgraded this summer. The work is part of early preparations to eventually electrify and re-signal the railway and renew track between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge, via Ashton.

If you then click on "Find out more about the Machester to Stalybridge scheme", it takes you to a page about the recently completed bridge works, not mentioning electrification at all.

Finally, there's the Manchester-Stalybridge "dashboard" page, linked in several posts such as #4620, which says things like

This dashboard allows you to monitor trackside work that is taking place between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge, via Ashton. This work is overhead line equipment (OLE) piling, and has been taking place since Saturday 24 April 2021.

and

543 piles to be installed

and

8 months to complete the piling project.

 

[Purple Orange]

In fact, nothing anywhere on the NR website says that the current works between Manchester and Stalybridge will extend beyond foundations to include actual masts or wires. For example, on the main TRU page, if you click on "Manchester to Stalybridge", it opens out to say (my bold)



If you then click on "Find out more about the Machester to Stalybridge scheme", it takes you to a page about the recently completed bridge works, not mentioning electrification at all.

Finally, there's the Manchester-Stalybridge "dashboard" page, linked in several posts such as #4620, which says things like

and

and

It might not say "electrification" but it seems to me that this work definitly points towards electrifiction! No point in doing it otherwise.

 

[vic-rijrode]

It might not say "electrification" but it seems to me that this work definitly points towards electrifiction! No point in doing it otherwise.

Freudian slip perhaps - electri-fiction....

 

[snowball]

It might not say "electrification" but it seems to me that this work definitly points towards electrifiction! No point in doing it otherwise.

Obviously you don't install foundations for masts unless you hope masts and wires will follow, but it suggests that electrification to Stalybridge (as distinct from the Victoria to Miles Platting bridgeworks) does not yet have official financial authority. Maybe the foundations are being done on spec to keep the teams busy.

 

[Purple Orange]

Freudian slip perhaps - electri-fiction....

Ha ha! Yes i think you might be right!

Obviously you don't install foundations for masts unless you hope masts and wires will follow, but it suggests that electrification to Stalybridge (as distinct from the Victoria to Miles Platting bridgeworks) does not yet have official financial authority. Maybe the foundations are being done on spec to keep the teams busy.

But that is how TRU funding is being tackled. Smaller packages of work and getting specific funding and delivered rather than approving everything at once. Doesnt mean it wont happen.

 

[zwk500]

Obviously you don't install foundations for masts unless you hope masts and wires will follow, but it suggests that electrification to Stalybridge (as distinct from the Victoria to Miles Platting bridgeworks) does not yet have official financial authority. Maybe the foundations are being done on spec to keep the teams busy.

If Stalybridge has a medium-to-high chance of being remodelled then holding off on electrification would potentially save disruption in the future, because you don't have to take all the kit down first.

But that is how TRU funding is being tackled. Smaller packages of work and getting specific funding and delivered rather than approving everything at once. Doesnt mean it wont happen.

The very reason it is being funded in small packages is so that they can turn the tap off at any moment. It would be madness to not do it, but then given the people we've got in charge madness would hardly be a surprise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It might not say "electrification" but it seems to me that this work definitly points towards electrifiction! No point in doing it otherwise.

There's 8 miles or so of OHLE foundations installed between Didcot and Oxford, but no plan to finish the wiring.
I think they went in during 2014-ish, early in the GW project, so 7 years and counting.

 

[nlogax]

There's 8 miles or so of OHLE foundations installed between Didcot and Oxford, but no plan to finish the wiring.
I think they went in during 2014-ish, early in the GW project, so 7 years and counting.

Is there a view as to the 'shelf life' of unused OHE foundations before they need to be removed and recast? Can a foundation sit there unused then happily receive masts ten or fifteen years later?

 

[snowball]

Is there a view as to the 'shelf life' of unused OHE foundations before they need to be removed and recast? Can a foundation sit there unused then happily receive masts ten or fifteen years later?

I'm not an engineer but I would imagine the stresses on an unused pile or pad are less than on one that is in use supporting a mast and wires, so I would expect it to last at least as well when unused as when used.

 

[nlogax]

I'm not an engineer but I would imagine the stresses on an unused pile or pad are less than on one that is in use supporting a mast and wires, so I would expect it to last at least as well when unused as when used.

Thanks..I would have thought so too but there may be other factors at work here we've not considered. Not that I know what they are.. unknown unknowns and all that!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not an engineer but I would imagine the stresses on an unused pile or pad are less than on one that is in use supporting a mast and wires, so I would expect it to last at least as well when unused as when used.

As long as the OHLE design has not changed, affecting location/spec of foundations.
One would hope the Didcot-Oxford eventual spec would be lighter and cheaper than Series 1.
The route either side of Bolton has foundations (test and complete) that were superseded after the ground conditions caused a redesign.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As long as the OHLE design has not changed, affecting location/spec of foundations.
One would hope the Didcot-Oxford eventual spec would be lighter and cheaper than Series 1.
The route either side of Bolton has foundations (test and complete) that were superseded after the ground conditions caused a redesign.

Not only that some foundations weren't up to spec I believe. Don't know the reason or whether it was balls up or miscommunication.

The foundations will generally be fine the only thing I can think of would be any of the steel connections at the top of the pile, if left exposed may rust/corrode and have to be redone. But I don't think we are approaching that timeframe yet.

 

[hwl]

Obviously you don't install foundations for masts unless you hope masts and wires will follow, but it suggests that electrification to Stalybridge (as distinct from the Victoria to Miles Platting bridgeworks) does not yet have official financial authority. Maybe the foundations are being done on spec to keep the teams busy.

One of the significant challenges is quantify exactly where things go wrong on costs and the direct and (more interestingly) the indirect effects on later project elements with all the feed back loops for re-work.
By splitting the elements /stages up in a particular area these can be better understood and in may cases mitigated against.

1. Having a final design that is checked and verified before starting is a very good idea based on recent experiences
2. Combining all the work into one contract significantly limits the number of firms which will be a big issue if higher electrification rates return, it also tends to decrease transparency. Having a final design and being able to split elements up allows much more scope to let well defined tightly focused contacts covering some elements e.g. piling and have substantial completion (last few issues being dealt with after the next phase starts) before starting on the next element (e.g. masts) allowing the next team a clearer less complex run at things that is easier to manage and less risky.
3. Compressed electrification scheme timetables to align with politics or rolling stock replacement (e.g HSTs) tend to force substantial overlap between different project elements which hasn't proved to be good for costs. Spliting up may take longer but could be good for costs and on time delivery.

Effectively could have a 4 way split:
1. Civils (in parallel)
a) Structures work
b) mast piling / foundations
2. masts (very quick if everything else done)
3. SPS and wiring etc. (very quick if everything else done e.g one wire run per night)

 

[59CosG95]

Effectively could have a 4 way split:
1. Civils (in parallel)
a) Structures work
b) mast piling / foundations
2. masts (very quick if everything else done)
3. SPS and wiring etc. (very quick if everything else done e.g one wire run per night)

I'd add that SPS & wiring could only be done in a oner if the wire run is a half-tension length (i.e. fixed at one end, tensioned at the other) as they are shorter than a full tension length. Certainly from on-site experience it's more common to do SPS in one shift, then wiring in another; cantilevers would be locked-off parallel to the rails (at 90 degrees to the sleepers) and then moved into position during the wiring shift.
Again, with full-tension lengths, rigging the conductors to the termination structure (mast/boom) is quite a fiddly, time-consuming process.

Re point 2, this is part of the rationale behind the Series 1 TTCs used between York & Church Fenton - as soon as the 'leg' is landed, the boom can be lowered into position in the hooks, with the pin then slid/knocked through the holes at the back. The more traditional TTCs have bolted connections between the mast & boom, the kneebrace & boom, and the kneebrace & mast - and if, for whatever reason, the wrong tool was brought, or a bolt assembly goes AWOL, that's time lost.

 

[hwl]

I'd add that SPS & wiring could only be done in a oner if the wire run is a half-tension length (i.e. fixed at one end, tensioned at the other) as they are shorter than a full tension length. Certainly from on-site experience it's more common to do SPS in one shift, then wiring in another; cantilevers would be locked-off parallel to the rails (at 90 degrees to the sleepers) and then moved into position during the wiring shift.
Again, with full-tension lengths, rigging the conductors to the termination structure (mast/boom) is quite a fiddly, time-consuming process.

Sorry, over summary and lack of clarity from my end...
I meant contractually SPS and wiring as one contract. The one wiring run per night was just the pace of wiring not the sps too. The relative pace of increases through the steps so the wiring team will always be fastest. Ideally you want the SPS team to be completed and well out of the way (barring snagging) pre-wiring. Once everything else is done on Colton-Church Fenton the wiring element should be doable in 3months followed by some snagging

Re point 2, this is part of the rationale behind the Series 1 TTCs used between York & Church Fenton - as soon as the 'leg' is landed, the boom can be lowered into position in the hooks, with the pin then slid/knocked through the holes at the back. The more traditional TTCs have bolted connections between the mast & boom, the kneebrace & boom, and the kneebrace & mast - and if, for whatever reason, the wrong tool was brought, or a bolt assembly goes AWOL, that's time lost.

Point 2. Another reason for separating is so that "oops" moments don't have knock on effects.
A bit of a break between stages would also de-risk things in the event of few to many "oops", you end up with higher costs for mobilisation and PM from a longer project but should have better costs elsewhere.
Following the flat packed furniture route of having the right bag of bolts (and selection of spare bags of different types) would also help... Preferably done by a supporting logistics team (a bit more cost but should recoup overall), boxes of 100/200 of the wrong nut aren't that useful... Ideally standardising nuts /bolts washer requirements would be good.

 

[59CosG95]

Sorry, over summary and lack of clarity from my end...
I meant contractually SPS and wiring as one contract. The one wiring run per night was just the pace of wiring not the sps too. The relative pace of increases through the steps so the wiring team will always be fastest. Ideally you want the SPS team to be completed and well out of the way (barring snagging) pre-wiring. Once everything else is done on Colton-Church Fenton the wiring element should be doable in 3months followed by some snagging

Totally agree there. Once SPS is all in place, the wiring follows pretty quickly afterwards.

Point 2. Another reason for separating is so that "oops" moments don't have knock on effects.
A bit of a break between stages would also de-risk things in the event of few to many "oops", you end up with higher costs for mobilisation and PM from a longer project but should have better costs elsewhere.
Following the flat packed furniture route of having the right bag of bolts (and selection of spare bags of different types) would also help... Preferably done by a supporting logistics team (a bit more cost but should recoup overall), boxes of 100/200 of the wrong nut aren't that useful... Ideally standardising nuts /bolts washer requirements would be good.

Most of the assemblies arrive pre-packed anyway - the lost bolt problem is likely to occur once the bag's opened. Thorough checking of delivery notes/the BoQ should reduce the probability of a cancelled shift due to materials not arriving. The bolts and nuts are increasingly being standardised, if that helps.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

3. Compressed electrification scheme timetables to align with politics or rolling stock replacement (e.g HSTs) tend to force substantial overlap between different project elements which hasn't proved to be good for costs. Spliting up may take longer but could be good for costs and on time delivery.

didn't cause us a problem on ECML and other electrification schemes in the 1980's where those issues were at play and we didn't have PCs or mobiles to run the project just the mainframes which were used very successfully for Overhead System Design and automated component allocation for over 95% of the structures. Yes there were differences to today largely in Health & Safety but those are known constraints that can be managed with probably wholesale closures the best route to minimise the cost and time impact. I also believe the teams can deliver what is required and they need to be left to get on with it. This was the difference in BR we weren't burdened with excessive oversight and interference from the client team as we were one and the same all pulling in the same direction.

 

[59CosG95]

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/york-to-church-fenton-monthly-project-tracker/September%202021%20monthly%20project%20tracker.pdf

The September Tracker for York - Church Fenton has now been uploaded. The big ticket OLE works are:

• 3 Saturday Night shifts of piling based out of the Braegate Lane & Colton Jn (Brumber Hill) compounds; 4/9/21, 11/9/21 & 18/9/21
• SPS installation based out of the Church Fenton (25/9; 27-30/9), Ulleskelf (1/9, 2/9, 4/9 & 11/9) & Braegate Lane (3/9, 4/9, 13-15/9, 20/9, 21/9, 27-30/9) compounds
• Construction of the "Power Supply Building" (TSC(?)) at Church Fenton during most weekday day shifts. This could alternately be a signalling power supply point.

 

[snowball]

• Construction of the "Power Supply Building" (TSC(?)) at Church Fenton during most weekday day shifts. Thiscould alternately be a signalling power supply point.

I'd guess it's for signalling power. I imagine the time for a TSC will be when the wires are extended south of Church Fenton, and there will be a TSC at the junction, south of the station.

 

[59CosG95]

I'd guess it's for signalling power. I imagine the time for a TSC will be when the wires are extended south of Church Fenton, and there will be a TSC at the junction, south of the station.

That would make a ton more sense to have it south of the station IMO.

Some initial notes from a trip to the E1 works over the weekend:

• 10-11km: Colton Sth Ladder - Brumber Hill (NOC/10/01 - NOC/10/36)
  • Most/all structures on the Normanton side are complete.
  • About half the installed structures on the Leeds side still require some work.
  • One structure appears to be missing; between the monobooms at NOC/10/15 & NOC/10/21, only structures 10/16 (DN/UN), 10/17 (DL/UL), 10/19 (DN/UN) & 10/20 (DL/UL) have been installed. By a process of elimination, structure NOC/10/18 has yet to be installed.

• 11-12km: Brumber Hill - Bolton Percy (NOC/11/01 - NOC/11/27)
  • All masts in this km range installed.
  • Again, the Normanton side structures look more complete than the Leeds side. Monoboom NOC/11/08 is still missing its Leeds side strut tie, but I saw it awaiting installation in the Brumber Hill compound.

• 12-13km: Bolton Percy - River Wharfe (north of) (NOC/12/01 - NOC/12/xx). More detail to follow later.
  • Normanton side TTCs NOC/12/01 & 12/03 are still awaiting installation.
  • Most of the steelwork immediately around Bolton Percy looks complete.
  • As the 12-13km line is harder to get to, I don't have a full structure list at the higher no'd end.

• 13-14km: River Wharfe (north of) - Ulleskelf (north of) (NOC/13/01 - NOC/13/05). This one is a bit more detailed...
  • Unknown about NOC/13/01 (DN/UN). NOC/13/02 (DL/UL) is boomed but has no SPS at all.
  • NOC/13/03 (DN/UN) complete. Can't quite remember 13/04 (DL/UL).
  • The MPA portal at NOC/13/05 only has its Leeds side leg installed; the pile on the Normanton side is in though.
  • NOC/13/06 & 13/08 (both DN/UN) aren't up yet, but 13/08's pile is sunk.
  • NOC/13/09 (DL/UL) has no SPS (I think 13/07, same side) is the same.
  • NOC/13/10 to NOC/13/17 (where the Wharfe is) all seem to be complete.
  • NOC/13/18 (DN/UN), first mast south of the Wharfe, hasn't been installed yet - its location is marked out by a ton of ballast bags. This might be what the pile in Ulleskelf stn compound is for.
  • NOC/13/19 & NOC/13/22 (both DL/UL) still need stovepipe brackets.
  • NOC/13/20 (UN) & 13/21 (DN), both STCs, are complete.
  • NOC/13/23 to 13/26 are 4 STC backtied Tensorex anchors, running UN/DN/UL/DL; 13/25 (UL) has no brackets yet.
  • NOC/13/27 to 13/30 (the overlap TTCs) are complete.
  • Monoboom NOC/13/31 is complete except for Tensorex stovepipes on the Leeds lines, and brackets for the cantilever stovepipe on the UN.
  • The last two Leeds lines TTCs (NOC/13/32 & NOC/13/35) are complete, while 13/33 & 13/34 (on the Normanton lines) have no brackets on the stovepipes for cantilevers.

• 14-15km: Ulleskelf and southwards (NOC/14/01 - NOC/14/xx). More detail to follow later.
  • NOC/14/01, /03 & /05 (all UN) are complete
  • NOC/14/02 (DL/UL/DN) lacks its boom but the mast brackets for the DN are in
  • NOC/14/04 (DL/UL/DN) lacks a stovepipe for the UL
  • NOC/14/06 (DL/UL/DN) has no brackets on the UL stovepipe
  • NOC/14/07 & 14/08 (both UN) look to be awaiting bridge arms; an old brick outhouse between 14/08 and 14/10 (also UN) requires demolition, based on the positioning of the EW clamps
  • The 3 3-track TTCs over the DL/UL/DN within the station (14/09, 14/11 & 14/13) are complete except for the UL stovepipe on 14/09 (bkts not installed for cantilever yet)
  • NOC/14/14 & 14/17 (both UN) look complete at first glance, as does 14/15 (UN) & 14/16 (DL/UL).
  • NOC/14/18 is an MPA structure for the DL/UL/DN lines, but I don't know what the situation will be with the UN.
  • NOC/14/19 has mast brackets for the UN, a boom with stovepipe (bracketed) for the DN, and a north-facing backtie (not sure what for). NOC/14/20 (DL/UL) looks complete.
  • I managed to spy up to at least NOC/14/27 on the UN side, but couldn't get any further south than that.

I was unable to get further south than Ulleskelf as there are basically no paths south of there that go anywhere near the line.

Picture update for the Man Vic-Stalybridge piling works (as of 5/9/21):

 

[YorkshireBear]

Bit of an update after this morning's Leeds to Victoria trip. Not done it for a week or so.

Steady progress most of the route between the M60 and Manchester. With lots of devegtation going on. New piles were being delivered to the compound this morning as I passed.

The big change I noticed was piles have appeared around the new curve which were not present when the blockade ended.

I'll try get something more precise tommorow I was a bit dozy today!

 

[59CosG95]

Bit of an update after this morning's Leeds to Victoria trip. Not done it for a week or so.

Steady progress most of the route between the M60 and Manchester. With lots of devegtation going on. New piles were being delivered to the compound this morning as I passed.

The big change I noticed was piles have appeared around the new curve which were not present when the blockade ended.

I'll try get something more precise tommorow I was a bit dozy today!

Thanks for the update @YorkshireBear, exciting news indeed!

As for the route between York & Church Fenton, NR are now consulting proposed plans to shut Copmanthorpe UWC: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ne-route-upgrade/copmanthorpe-level-crossing/