Transpennine Route Upgrade: could there be scope for futher speed increases?

[AL1875]

Moderator note: Split from

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Well it was suggested in the Manchester - Liverpool Electrification thread that we have a seperate Transpennine thread. Now I know that Manchester - Stalybridge is actually part of the Northern Hub project , but to me, haulage bashing Peaks in the 1970s-1980s - Liverpool-Newcastle was classed as...

www.railforums.co.uk

Is there any scope to increase linespeed between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (or also between Leeds and Church Fenton)?

 

[Meerkat]

Is there any scope to increase linespeed between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (or also between Leeds and Church Fenton)?

Presumably electrification will speed up trains going uphill, particularly for the stoppers?

 

[AndrewE]

Presumably electrification will speed up trains going uphill, particularly for the stoppers?

but that is only an increment, and won't increase capacity by very much.

What we really need is a Pennine Base Tunnel. (But of course that would be far too expensive for something in "the North.") I would go for Oldham to Huddersfield. It would get rid of all this arguing about 2 or 3-track up the east side, addresses the fact that there will always be just 2 tracks from Stalybridge to Diggle, gives a route with as large a loading gauge as you want for future freight (and will save energy in perpetuity,) puts Oldham back on the real railway network...
If they could completely rebuild Woodhead tunnel in the 1950s why can't we do this new one now? The length is comparable with the Elizabeth line (15 mi cf. 26 (presumably track-)miles in London, but with no stations it would be a fraction of the cost.

 

[Meerkat]

but that is only an increment, and won't increase capacity by very much.

What we really need is a Pennine Base Tunnel. (But of course that would be far too expensive for something in "the North.") I would go for Oldham to Huddersfield. It would get rid of all this arguing about 2 or 3-track up the east side, addresses the fact that there will always be just 2 tracks from Stalybridge to Diggle, gives a route with as large a loading gauge as you want for future freight (and will save energy in perpetuity,) puts Oldham back on the real railway network...
If they could completely rebuild Woodhead tunnel in the 1950s why can't we do this new one now? The length is comparable with the Elizabeth line (15 mi cf. 26 (presumably track-)miles in London, but with no stations it would be a fraction of the cost.

Wouldn't a base tunnel be significantly longer than Woodhead? Where would it go to in the East.
As for the usual North v South stuff I dont imagine the business case would be anything like as rosy as the Lizzie etc
AIUI the Alpine base tunnels are based on properly long distance traffic, particularly North Sea/Germany to southern Europe, not just a bit of regional in country traffic.

 

[AndrewE]

Wouldn't a base tunnel be significantly longer than Woodhead? Where would it go to in the East.

It would, but so what? Technology has moved on...
Huddersfield station would be my choice for the portal, coming out through the foundations of that warehouse! It would only be 2 tracks so could probably be fitted in... However you might need a dive-under for through freights to avoid the platforms.

As for the usual North v South stuff I dont imagine the business case would be anything like as rosy as the Lizzie etc

It would be a long tunnel/pair with only the 2 portals but I thought it was really the stations in London which cost a fortune.

AIUI the Alpine base tunnels are based on properly long distance traffic, particularly North Sea/Germany to southern Europe, not just a bit of regional in country traffic.

"Just a bit of regional" isn't fair. We are looking at a significant cross-country link on which a step-change is desperately needed but stymied because of all the difficulties I mentioned above. Think of it as another NE/SW axis (acknowledging that that route has also suffered from lack of investment because it doesn't serve London either.)

 

[Elecman]

Tunnelling through Granite/Millstone is rather more difficult and expensive than through London Clay though

 

[Nottingham59]

Huddersfield station would be my choice for the portal, coming out through the foundations of that warehouse! It would only be 2 tracks so could probably be fitted in... However you might need a dive-under for through freights to avoid the platforms.

There's space for a Pennine tunnel to merge onto the Penistone Line, giving an unobstructed two-track route into Huddersfield Station

The portal could be in the cliff where the Penistone line enters a tunnel under Yews Hill, just north of Lockwood Station.

Images from

Fantasy tunnelling suggestions

Tunnels shape a railway network for the next hundred years. Once built, they are fixed and the rest of the network has to evolve around them; their size limits the loading gauge of the line in perpetuity. So where would you put them? This is the deal: You are in charge of a fully-funded...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AM9]

but that is only an increment, and won't increase capacity by very much.

What we really need is a Pennine Base Tunnel. (But of course that would be far too expensive for something in "the North.") .... The length is comparable with the Elizabeth line (15 mi cf. 26 (presumably track-)miles in London, but with no stations it would be a fraction of the cost.

Comparatively it would be a poor business case even if it was cheaper than the Lizzie. Just compare the two:

a Pennine base tunnel - bored through sedimentary rock including millstone and overworked coal measures, - to carry about 4 tph in each direction, (2x3-car and 2x5-car)​

the Lizzie tunnel - bored through London clay - to carry 16 tph in each direction (that's a capacity of 24,000 passengers per hour), (16x9-car*)​

* stations capable of 16x11-car trains which is nearly 30,000​

A far better use of public capital would be to electrify and modify the existing stations to at least 160m, - maybe adding some bypass loops allowing probably 8+ tph in each direction. That would increase capacity by about 2 1/2 times without the inevitable decade of decline that waiting for a tunnel would incur. The busuness would also benefit from much lower operating cost per passenger.

 

[AndrewE]

Tunnelling through Granite/Millstone is rather more difficult and expensive than through London Clay though

I don't think there is any granite in the S Pennines, millstone grit is just sandstone and probably a lot easier to bore through than most of the rocks of the Alps. Agree it is harder than London Clay though!

 

[AM9]

I don't think there is any granite in the S Pennines, millstone grit is just sandstone and probably a lot easier to bore through than most of the rocks of the Alps. Agree it is harder than London Clay though!

Actually, millstone grit is one of the hardest sedimentary rocks.

 

[AndrewE]

Actually, millstone grit is one of the hardest sedimentary rocks.

it is, but it's certainly no worse than granite. Just give the engineers the remit and it could be done. They dug Standedge tunnel by hand, after all.

 

[IanXC]

Comparatively it would be a poor business case even if it was cheaper than the Lizzie. Just compare the two:

a Pennine base tunnel - bored through sedimentary rock including millstone and overworked coal measures, - to carry about 4 tph in each direction, (2x3-car and 2x5-car)​

Current specification is for the line to support 6x expresses (expected to be at least 5 car) and 2x stoppers (expected to be 4 car).

Totally accept the numbers are lower but not that low!

 

[edwin_m]

Current specification is for the line to support 6x expresses (expected to be at least 5 car) and 2x stoppers (expected to be 4 car).

Totally accept the numbers are lower but not that low!

The stoppers would stay on the existing route, and if the base tunnel route missed Stalybridge then so might some of the expresses, to retain the link to Piccadilly.

 

[snowball]

Here's one (NR13 Planning Drawing - B6117 Fall Lane, Thornhill Road (MDL1-9) - Proposed Highway GA.pdf):

Thanks. That drawing specifically labels the houses in question as to remain.

Re some recent posts, the hardest rock is not necessarily the most difficult material to tunnel through. Ground that is too soft is a much bigger headache.

 

[Bald Rick]

If they could completely rebuild Woodhead tunnel in the 1950s why can't we do this new one now? The length is comparable with the Elizabeth line (15 mi cf. 26 (presumably track-)miles in London, but with no stations it would be a fraction of the cost.

As others have said, rather different geology to London. But then such a tunnel is in the NPR proposals.

 

[Benjwri]

It would be a long tunnel/pair with only the 2 portals but I thought it was really the stations in London which cost a fortune.

Realistically it isn’t a great comparison to compare the Elizabeth Line, which is under at most 40m of London Clay, to your proposal for a tunnel nearly 1km under hills, the engineering challenges are vastly different between the two.

That being said as a very of the cuff rough statement, yes it would probably cost less than the Elizabeth Line.

However the cost is very dependant, at its very core on alignment and length, which will dictate emergency access requirements; and how many tunnels your going to have to dig through the entire mountain, and if you have to create emergency stations. Where the tunnel goes, and therefore the distances and depths these have to be dug can have big effects.

You also have to factor that such a tunnel hasn’t been dug in the UK before, so importing machinery and skill from abroad will be expensive, however the cost may be more comparable to projects abroad because there are fewer of the factors which tend to increase the cost of UK infrastructure projects around planning for an underground tunnel. There’s no way to come up with even a rough estimate without fairly detailed investigation.

Just give the engineers the remit and it could be done. They dug Standedge tunnel by hand, after all.

It’s certainly not impossible, or hugely difficult, but remind me how many people died digging that tunnel by hand?

Engineers of the past achieved quite a few things quicker and cheaper than we can now, but that was usually at the cost of human life.

 

[Meerkat]

It would be a long tunnel/pair with only the 2 portals but I thought it was really the stations in London which cost a fortune.

A business case isnt just about cost - the Lizzie rakes in cash from the huge passenger loads.

"Just a bit of regional" isn't fair. We are looking at a significant cross-country link on which a step-change is desperately needed but stymied because of all the difficulties I mentioned above. Think of it as another NE/SW axis (acknowledging that that route has also suffered from lack of investment because it doesn't serve London either.)

Its regional. It would be pretty significant for the north, but it doesn't connect two sides of Europe between which there are huge freight flows. Driving over the Pennines is also nowhere near the scale of challenge of driving over the Alps.
Its also problematic because of the wide variety of destinations, particularly on the Eastern sides - wasnt the plan to build a base tunnel further south with a triangle for Leeds and Sheffield?

It would also take years and years to see any benefits whilst mopping up a huge proportion of available spending.
Getting back from speculation the current plan will deliver incremental improvements much quicker, and result in electrification much sooner.

 

[stuu]

Tunnelling through Granite/Millstone is rather more difficult and expensive than through London Clay though

Hard rock can be dug using drill and blast, which is the cheapest tunnelling method. You just need a few people, a drill, a digger and big pile of dynamite.... Ask the Norwegians.

Fractured rock is a different matter

 

[WAO]

The gradient profile shows that a level base tunnel could be routed from Victoria East Jn to Heaton Lodge Jn, about 25 miles direct. After a few miles on the level, along the Calder valley route, about 6 miles more tunnel under Morley would lead to the approaches to Leeds.

This would be a high speed non-stop route, providing an all-weather (have you ever crossed the Pennines in snow?) spine connection for English Regions comprising about 17 million.

Rail investment in the North will never please the Treasury simply because the benefits to a low income population are necessarily modest in sum. When one thinks how much expensive tunnelling is taking place under the Chilterns to benefit relatively few.....

Boris's "levelling up!" agenda at least recognised this and it is not surprising that the London Elites therefore conspired to remove him, although he did not exactly help himself.

WAO

 

[edwin_m]

Rail investment in the North will never please the Treasury simply because the benefits to a low income population are necessarily modest in sum. When one thinks how much expensive tunnelling is taking place under the Chilterns to benefit relatively few.....

Boris's "levelling up!" agenda at least recognised this and it is not surprising that the London Elites therefore conspired to remove him, although he did not exactly help himself.

WAO

The investment criteria are based on incremental improvements, and don't really capture the potential for "transformative change" which might occur if travel between Manchester and Leeds was as easy as between Canary Wharf and Old Oak Common. That might trigger changes such as businesses choosing to locate in the North when they might otherwise have gone to London area or overseas, creating high-paid jobs and general prosperity. Clearly there are many practical challenges to make it work, but that's the principle behind NPR and indeed HS2.

I would seriously question whether any of this would have been more likely to happen had Johnson still been in power. Besides being an inveterate liar who would say anything to gain a temporary advantage, I don't believe he had the staying power to see a project like this through. So if Johnson ever intended NPR to progress beyond some exciting promises to win votes, it might have limped on through studies and designs until cancelled for a different temporary advantage just as HS2 has now been.

 

[fishwomp]

[..]
This would be a high speed non-stop route, providing an all-weather (have you ever crossed the Pennines in snow?) spine connection for English Regions comprising about 17 million.
[..]

Yes. Regularly. The train is already rather good at that. Next question?

 

[AM9]

As others have said, rather different geology to London. But then such a tunnel is in the NPR proposals.

So not really part of a discussion about TRU.

 

[HSTEd]

A base tunnel is probably essential to get any step change in capability on this corridor.

TPRU is hamstrung by being stuck to a railway that simply isn't designed for modern requirements and can never be so.

Manchester to Leeds is about 60km, implying a journey time of 16-17 minutes would be achievable end to end.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Extension of electrification from Rochdale to Leeds via the Calder Valley and Bradford?

 

[Ken H]

I am not sure you would be in Millstone Grit if digging a base tunnel.
The pennines are a huge anticline, so the strata form an inverted U
Under the millstone grit there will be layers of Yoredales, and under that the great scar limestone.
So starting at Stalybridge and going horozontally towards Huddersfield, what would you be tunneling in?
There must be a geologist with a cross section who knows.

Diagram to show a syncline and anticline

 

[fishwomp]

A base tunnel is probably essential to get any step change in capability on this corridor.

TPRU is hamstrung by being stuck to a railway that simply isn't designed for modern requirements and can never be so.

Well, when they've filled the two unused Standedge tunnel bores, restored 4 track on the east side and reopened the 2 track solum on the other side, and then turfed National Grid out of the new Woodhead tunnel, and then out of the old tunnel (8 miles from the Standedge at their nearest points), they could try moving block in the Standedge and the rest.

There's nothing too wrong with the tunnels.. bar the exit at the Marsden end, which could be eased by blasting open or tunneling a half mile section over the canal into the adjacent hill. The money for a base tunnel would build a lot of hospitals, or defence, or social care etc.

Manchester to Leeds is about 60km, implying a journey time of 16-17 minutes would be achievable end to end.

Why would you want to do that. Nowt to see in Manchester.

 

[stuu]

Manchester to Leeds is about 60km, implying a journey time of 16-17 minutes would be achievable end to end.

I think speed is the wrong approach. If I were in charge, I would build a base tunnel, but via Halifax and Bradford, with underground stations in both. A high speed metro basically, 30 minutes end to end but massive change in connectivity.

 

[HSTEd]

Well, when they've filled the two unused Standedge tunnel bores, restored 4 track on the east side and reopened the 2 track solum on the other side, and then turfed National Grid out of the new Woodhead tunnel, and then out of the old tunnel (8 miles from the Standedge at their nearest points), they could try moving block in the Standedge and the rest.

There's nothing too wrong with the tunnels.. bar the exit at the Marsden end, which could be eased by blasting open or tunneling a half mile section over the canal into the adjacent hill. The money for a base tunnel would build a lot of hospitals, or defence, or social care etc.

I'm skeptical you would get all that for the price of a base tunnel.
Woodhead alone will blow a lot of the budget! Meanwhile the far less ambitious TPRU is costing ten billion pounds.
You will probably have significant trouble getting permission to (re)build a two track railway line through a national park on the surface. It's been going 40+ years at this point.

Whilst rebuilding the alignment near Marsden would help these existing routes can't escape the bad track geometry (curvature etc), numerous local stations on running lines and ancient infrastructure.

 

[quantinghome]

Remember TRU is costing 11 billion. Messing around with an existing railway is very expensive.

We haven't built a transport tunnel in hard rock in the UK for some time, but we have for various other applications - water industry and mining in particular.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

The investment criteria are based on incremental improvements, and don't really capture the potential for "transformative change" which might occur if travel between Manchester and Leeds was as easy as between Canary Wharf and Old Oak Common. That might trigger changes such as businesses choosing to locate in the North when they might otherwise have gone to London area or overseas, creating high-paid jobs and general prosperity. Clearly there are many practical challenges to make it work, but that's the principle behind NPR and indeed HS2.

I would seriously question whether any of this would have been more likely to happen had Johnson still been in power. Besides being an inveterate liar who would say anything to gain a temporary advantage, I don't believe he had the staying power to see a project like this through. So if Johnson ever intended NPR to progress beyond some exciting promises to win votes, it might have limped on through studies and designs until cancelled for a different temporary advantage just as HS2 has now been.

I dont agree. I think even his biggest critic would agree that BJ would not have cancelled HS2.