Wigan-Bolton electrification. Construction updates only please

[LDECRexile]

Wrinkley and I did a railtour Wigan Wallgate to Stalybridge via Bolton and back today.
Contrary to the report in RAIL magazine Crow Nest to Lostock Bridge 7 was not replaced over the weekend as planned, perhaps due to the storms. A wholly new, very stout looking concrete support for the bridge-to-be has been built, replacing the slim metal one as posted here recently. Orangemen were working and lots of plant in evidence.
Buckingham have set up a workbase a short distance on the Wigan side of Hindley Station.
Some evidence of vegetation clearance here and there.
At least two Class 769s working. Wrinkley's unaudited view is that they are appearing more frequently now.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks for the first hand update Dave.

 

[Foggycorner]

On a trip to Wigan from Bolton this morning I noted that the bridge deck of the new bridge 7 at chew moor had been put in over the weekend I do hope that the local nimbys like the new bridge
The Large crane I saw being put into place on saturday had gone this morning

 

[wrinkley]

I arrived at bridge 7 at 11am on Sunday to find that all the bridge beams were in place, the work had started as soon as the line closed on Saturday night. I was told that Murphys will be on site until May, although Bolton MBC say that the footpath will be open by end March. Buckinghams are doing all the electrification work and currently drilling for soil samples where the masts will be. Couldn't find out which bridge is to be worked on next.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Roger Fords Informed sources has this snippet for April issue

According to the press release announcing the scheme, ‘The upgrade project will provide 450 new overhead line equipment stanchions, and modifications to 17 bridges and two-level crossings’.

But, as we learned at the PWI Seminar, significant strides have been made in reducing electrical clearances at structures. According to Informed Sources, application of this engineering activity has resulted in a substantial reduction in the cost of electrification-related work in the Wigan-Bolton scheme. Without the reported 150% overhead on the actual project costs, the physical work on site, including those ‘modifications to 17 bridges’, came to around £30million.

Application of the new approaches to clearances, means that only one bridge will now require reconstruction for electrical clearance. Two more will need to be reconstructed because of condition. At a stroke, this has reduced the cost to under £15million, or around the £750,000/stkm, which the RIA study thought should be achievable on simple schemes

This is good to hear and lets hope NR are recycling this knowledge back into future estimates so they can demonstrate real cost savings to entice the DofT to approve more schemes.

 

[John R]

Great news, although given it’s 7 years since the bridge east of Cardiff Central was done, it seems to take an awfully long time for these things to move from a one-off to making a difference. (I’m making the bold assumption that the technique used there is at least part of the solution now proposed to be adopted.)

 

[WAO]

If this works out, NR will have shown that an actual project required to be costed at 2.5 times its given estimate can come in at 0.5 (50%) times that estimate.

Only a successful out-turn will prove this finally.

WAO

 

[wrinkley]

I have been told by contractors that one of the other bridges to be rebuilt is the one leading to Westhoughton golf course. This bridge currently has an approximately one metre high wooden palisade fence as a parapet above the line. I was also told that the bridge at Crow Nest is to be raised.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Crow Nest is surely the more difficult one of the two iirc? Here is the golf club bridge with LDECRExile making a cameo appearance. And here is our Graham with a quick reminder


And here is Crow Nest

 

[wrinkley]

It's only a personal opinion, but the bridge at Chulsey Gate Lane in Chew Moor needs some attention, it's a wide bridge as it also covered the entrance to the old sidings at Lostock. The bridge is in three sections supported by two sets of steel columns similar to the one supporting the old bridge 7. The suface of the roadway over the bridge has several 6 inch deep potholes in it.

 

[Gricer99]

I understand that the two bridges in Hindley will need to be replaces too. It will be a shame to lose the locally iconic ”Iron Bridge”.

 

[furnessvale]

I understand that the two bridges in Hindley will need to be replaces too. It will be a shame to lose the locally iconic ”Iron Bridge”.
View attachment 111744

If that bridge is being replaced rather than simply being lifted, it can only be because the structure itself is life expired.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think I am getting confused. I thought the iron bridge was this.

 

[furnessvale]

I think I am getting confused. I thought the iron bridge was this.View attachment 111754View attachment 111754

My comment would also apply to this bridge, although I could foresee a desire, not necessarily by the railway, to upgrade its carrying capacity when finished.

 

[Gricer99]

No I mean the red one just West of Hindley Station. Known locally as the Iron Bridge.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have now had time to read the latest Modern railways Informed Sources. There is a whole article on this electrification scheme. A really good read which I thoroughly recommend. It really does have some very promising news regarding costs.

 

[The exile]

Roger Fords Informed sources has this snippet for April issue


This is good to hear and lets hope NR are recycling this knowledge back into future estimates so they can demonstrate real cost savings to entice the DofT to approve more schemes.

Presumably the cost of rebuilding bridges “because of condition” isn’t/ needn’t be included in electrification cost estimates as it would have to be done anyway…

 

[Nottingham59]

Roger Fords Informed sources has this snippet for April issue ....

Application of the new approaches to clearances, means that only one bridge will now require reconstruction for electrical clearance.

Would it be a fair summary to say that after introducing new standards for OHLE clearances, which cost several £billions in GWEP, MML etc. etc., they have now gone back to more or less the original clearances which had been found to be adequate for decades previously?

(Though obviously, with a bit of insulating paint on the underside of bridges, and maybe surge arrestors where lightning-induced over-voltages could be a problem.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well I am not sure - but on my read it basically says:

Dft/treasury - prove you have your costs under control with this scheme and MML and TPU with what has been approved. If you get it right then we may approve more. Long story short PROVE IT.

 

[superkev]

Well I am not sure - but on my read it basically says:

Dft/treasury - prove you have your costs under control with this scheme and MML and TPU with what has been approved. If you get it right then we may approve more. Long story short PROVE IT.

As Roger Ford pointed out in this month Modern railways this is a catch 22 situation in that to reduce costs you need to authorise long term work but drip feeding money limits supplier confidence in investment and increases costs.
K

 

[John R]

As Roger Ford pointed out in this month Modern railways this is a catch 22 situation in that to reduce costs you need to authorise long term work but drip feeding money limits supplier confidence in investment and increases costs.
K

Though the bridge changes being discussed and the more realistic foundation depths that also happened following the GWML debacle are improvements that are not related to the benefits of a continuity of work.

 

[Class 170101]

Well I am not sure - but on my read it basically says:

Dft/treasury - prove you have your costs under control with this scheme and MML and TPU with what has been approved. If you get it right then we may approve more. Long story short PROVE IT.

Would be interested to know what the fallback plan is if its not possible, especially as I doubt the politicans have realistic ambitions / expectations.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Article in Rail Technology Magazine

A Case Study of Wigan to Bolton Electrification

authored by NR route director. Doesn't really tell us anything we don't know and omits any reference to the suggestion made in MR this month that less bridges need modifying.

 

[Greybeard33]

Article in Rail Technology Magazine

A Case Study of Wigan to Bolton Electrification

authored by NR route director. Doesn't really tell us anything we don't know and omits any reference to the suggestion made in MR this month that less bridges need modifying.

Although it does say that they are continuing to look at "innovative solutions" to reduce cost.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Although it does say that they are continuing to look at "innovative solutions" to reduce cost.

The other thing that caught my attention was the cost of the new Springs Branch depot maybe electrification costs aren't so expensive after all

 

[Gricer99]

How is Lostock Junction on the Bolton to Manchester corridor? It’s north of Bolton!

 

[507020]

How is Lostock Junction on the Bolton to Manchester corridor? It’s north of Bolton!

It’s not the worst mistake given it is the first junction on the continuation of that corridor 3 miles dead west (not north) of Bolton station and it is still in what you would otherwise call Bolton though.

 

[WAO]

NR's NW route director would be well advised to issue statements in good, objective English without tabloid newspaper hyperbole and public relations overstatement.

Electrifying 6.5 miles of railway is not a "major way" of achieving anything, nor can projects be "targeted to complete", suggesting that they complete themselves rather than are completed by the skill and artifice of the design and construction groups.

Clear (and accurate) English is a result of clear thinking, necessary for electrification schemes.

WAO

 

[themiller]

Although it does say that they are continuing to look at "innovative solutions" to reduce cost.

Build it cheap, build it twice. The costs of projects on the railways are inflated by the cost of work to bring the infrastructure to where it should have been in the first place. Reducing cost normally means stripping out scope which will need to be done in the future. For example, WCML electrification didn’t allow for increased gauge clearance which is needed for what is now needed. I know it’s because of the successive holders of the purse strings but frustrating nevertheless!

 

[Howardh]

There's a report in the local paper about a campaign to install platforms on the Wigan branch at Lostock. Would make sense to do that at the same time as electrification, but I don't suppose it's in the plans?