Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[DY444]

11 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

This is primarily approval of the NR Upgrade scheme advocated in the summer of 2019. Why has it taken this long to approve what is essentially, a minor fettling scheme, adding electrification only on the easy bits, with a bit of 4 track reinstatement?

 

The Acceleration Council just seems to be, yet another, layer of decision makers over and above the Northern Powerhouse and Transport (for the) North bodies set up only a year or two ago. Is it just to accommodate those councils who refused to join, or who were denied access to, Northern Powerhouse?

 

As for the announcement of a decision about a decision to settle the Northern Powerhouse project, for the end of this year, that is only a mere 15 months later than advertised. And it is holding up HS2 Phase 2B.

 

I have never been impressed with Mr Shapps, and am even less so now.

 

However the press release states that full electrification is being considered.  Whilst that is obviously nothing like a confirmation it is going ahead it does strike me as significant given that the DfT was implacably imposed to it previously.  The anti-electrification triumvirate of Grayling/Carne/Rutnam have all gone and lo and behold there are the first tentative signs of a change of policy.  If Shapps had anything to do with that and it leads somewhere then he will deserve some credit.  As such I am cutting him some slack for the moment.

Edited July 24, 2020 by DY444

[corneliuslundie]

Ditto, though this applies to most encumbents of his position. To me yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy to avoid decision making, or alternatively to enable the government to blame others for its failures.

I just hope this is not code for "this is all you are going to get" - claiming in the future that this makes any new line unnecessary.

And it is the usual government tactic of announcing every item of expenditure as new at least twice.

When I was working I knew an engineer at what is now DfT who complained to me that much of their time was spent dreaming up proposals for the Minister to announce but which the government had no intention of implementing.

Jonathan

[DY444]

3 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Ditto, though this applies to most encumbents of his position. To me yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy to avoid decision making, or alternatively to enable the government to blame others for its failures.

I just hope this is not code for "this is all you are going to get" - claiming in the future that this makes any new line unnecessary.

And it is the usual government tactic of announcing every item of expenditure as new at least twice.

When I was working I knew an engineer at what is now DfT who complained to me that much of their time was spent dreaming up proposals for the Minister to announce but which the government had no intention of implementing.

Jonathan

 

I see it the other way round.  I see not having a commitment to HS3 (or whatever it is called now) as political suicide.  However it is politically smart to do both because it brings tangible benefits sooner.  I suspect someone in Government has probably also realised that partial electrification is politically dangerous too.  Most of the cost for only a fraction of the benefit.

[62613]

I must admit that £0.6 billion surely wouldn't cover the costs of upgrading the entire route; is the bit announced just the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade proposed last year?

 

A couple of other points; firstly, all the off-railway civils work (raising bridges, etc.) for electrifying to Stalybridge was completed in 2017, and all the electrical feed work. How much would it cost to complete the job?

 

The other thing was that, in the interview I saw, Mr. Shapps mentioned electrifying York-Newcastle. Really?

 

[iands]

8 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I must admit that £0.6 billion surely wouldn't cover the costs of upgrading the entire route; is the bit announced just the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade proposed last year?

 

A couple of other points; firstly, all the off-railway civils work (raising bridges, etc.) for electrifying to Stalybridge was completed in 2017, and all the electrical feed work. How much would it cost to complete the job?

 

The other thing was that, in the interview I saw, Mr. Shapps mentioned electrifying York-Newcastle. Really?

 

Quite so. Earlier this year, just before I retired, I was chatting with a very experienced OHL engineer with an involvement with the Trans-pennine electrification scheme. I was a little astonished when he quoted the York (Colton Jnc) to Church Fenton section D&B coming in at just over £300M! Somewhat expensive for approximately 4.5 miles of railway (albeit 4-track). However, he did say that this section of the York-Leeds scheme was heavily, and dispropotionately, "risk loaded". Even so, £589M of new(?) money isn't going to go far in terms of actual infrastructure, especially if there is another layer of "management" to fund as well. 

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I have never been impressed with Mr Shapps, and am even less so now.

 

Still better than 'failing Grayling'...

[4630]

38 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I must admit that £0.6 billion surely wouldn't cover the costs of upgrading the entire route; is the bit announced just the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade proposed last year?

 

 

Yes, that's the big unanswered question from the DfT press release that got me puzzled when I read it and why I mentioned a future press release or statement from Network Rail in my post yesterday.

 

Obviously it depends on the scope and specification of what's included (or more importantly what's excluded) from the project that's key.  And at the moment we don't know that.  But my interpretation of the various proposals that Network Rail has put out for consultation and that are in the public domain, I doubt £0.6bn would be sufficient.

 

Leaving Leeds and Manchester to one side, as the press release makes separate reference to works there, I'd contend that the pinch points along the route in need of greatest attention and that would have the most beneficial affect on capacity and time keeping are;

 

1 - the three track section from Thornhill LNW Junction at Ravensthorpe through Mirfield to Heaton Lodge Junction. 

 

2 - the current track layout and platform configuration at Huddersfield station.

 

Resolving both of those featured in Network Rail's proposals.  Just have to hope that more information is forthcoming before long.

 

As an aside, BBC's Look North programme is generally supportive of rail in West Yorkshire in their reporting.  Yesterday's reporting of this press release however was far more cynical and along the lines of  "We've heard it all before over many years from numerous Transport Secretaries, whose average duration in post is about 18 months."   

 

 

[62613]

36 minutes ago, iands said:

Quite so. Earlier this year, just before I retired, I was chatting with a very experienced OHL engineer with an involvement with the Trans-pennine electrification scheme. I was a little astonished when he quoted the York (Colton Jnc) to Church Fenton section D&B coming in at just over £300M! Somewhat expensive for approximately 4.5 miles of railway (albeit 4-track). However, he did say that this section of the York-Leeds scheme was heavily, and dispropotionately, "risk loaded". Even so, £589M of new(?) money isn't going to go far in terms of actual infrastructure, especially if there is another layer of "management" to fund as well. 

Thanks for that, iands. I wouldn't have thought that there was much, if any external bridge works, and so on, to be done on that stretch. That almost looks like a quote to ensure that the scheme is shelved.

 

My actual feeling is that, if they want a a fully electrified route between Manchester and Leeds, the various northern transport bodies are going to have to find some way of raising the money themselves, and doing it incrementally.

 

[62613]

6 minutes ago, 4630 said:

 

 As an aside, BBC's Look North programme is generally supportive of rail in West Yorkshire in their reporting.  Yesterday's reporting of this press release however was far more cynical and along the lines of  "We've heard it all before over many years from numerous Transport Secretaries, whose average duration in post is about 18 months."   

 

 

On this side of the Pennines, that's more or less what Andy Burnham said in his response to Mr. Shapps' announcement

 

West Yorkshire PTE was always more supportive of rail wasn't it? Wasn't the Leeds/ Bradford to Skipton electrification one of their schemes?

Edited July 24, 2020 by 62613

[4630]

13 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

West Yorkshire PTE was always more supportive of rail wasn't it? Wasn't the Leeds/ Bradford to Skipton electrification one of their schemes?

 

Without overstepping forum rules, yes, but the political landscape was very different all those years ago.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Quite so. Earlier this year, just before I retired, I was chatting with a very experienced OHL engineer with an involvement with the Trans-pennine electrification scheme. I was a little astonished when he quoted the York (Colton Jnc) to Church Fenton section D&B coming in at just over £300M! Somewhat expensive for approximately 4.5 miles of railway (albeit 4-track). However, he did say that this section of the York-Leeds scheme was heavily, and dispropotionately, "risk loaded". Even so, £589M of new(?) money isn't going to go far in terms of actual infrastructure, especially if there is another layer of "management" to fund as well. 

As I understand it the scheme is a major route modernization (admittedly of only a short section) including new signaling and possibly track remodeling.  £300m might make more sense if it covers all that.  

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

As I understand it the scheme is a major route modernization (admittedly of only a short section) including new signaling and possibly track remodeling.  £300m might make more sense if it covers all that.  

Might there also problems with possible mining subsidence at the Leeds end, leading to problems with catenary masts?

[jamie92208]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Might there also problems with possible mining subsidence at the Leeds end, leading to problems with catenary masts?

I would doubt that now.  Most of the pits between Mickelfield and Leeds closed in the 60's and Peckfield was working eastwards and closed by thecearly 90's.  I suspect that all possible subsidence will have happenned.

 

Jamie

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

I would doubt that now.  Most of the pits between Mickelfield and Leeds closed in the 60's and Peckfield was working eastwards and closed by thecearly 90's.  I suspect that all possible subsidence will have happenned.

 

Jamie

If only subsidence did stop with the closure of the mines; as time passes, pit-props rot away, and land collapses. There have been instances where mines have been shut for centuries, and still occasionally cause problems; when my sister was working on the geotechnics for a new road near Dudley, she discovered workings that had lain unused for two centuries, and which had to be filled with PFA to stabilise them.

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Might there also problems with possible mining subsidence at the Leeds end, leading to problems with catenary masts?

This is only north of Church Fenton, although that is in the mining risk area according to the Coal Authority (Selby coalfield I presume?)

[iands]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

This is only north of Church Fenton, although that is in the mining risk area according to the Coal Authority (Selby coalfield I presume?)

Looking at the mining maps, it looks like (my interpretation) the mining in the Selby coalfield didn't extend as far west as the York-Church Fenton line.

 

Thinking about it, the mining wouldn't (shouldn't?) have extended that far west anyway, otherwise it would have been pointless diverting the ECML.

Edited July 24, 2020 by iands
Clarity.

[jamie92208]

5 minutes ago, iands said:

Looking at the mining maps, it looks like (my interpretation) the mining in the Selby coalfield didn't extend as far west as the York-Church Fenton line.

The Selby diversion was built to take the ECML clear of the Selby Coalfield. I believe that the NCB paid for it.  The HS2 branch to Leeds and Church Fenton will go over old mining areas but fortunately  the Yorkshire area was very well mapped after the Lofthouse disaster in 72 so it is unlikely that unknown workings will be encountered.

 

Jamie

[iands]

38 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

The Selby diversion was built to take the ECML clear of the Selby Coalfield. I believe that the NCB paid for it.  

Hi Jamie, yes indeed, I lived in Riccall until 1978, when I moved to Doncaster for 7 years. Used to visit Mum & Dad every 2 or 3 weeks (still needed to use Mum's washing machine!). Had a few mates from the area that joined the mine construction company, and one or two who joined NCB when the coal mining started for real. Used to see the changes to the area on just about every trip "home", the rise of the pits and the construction of the Selby diversion, followed ultimately by the closure of the Selby-York line. Yep, NCB paid for the Selby diversion.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Looking at the mining maps, it looks like (my interpretation) the mining in the Selby coalfield didn't extend as far west as the York-Church Fenton line.

 

Thinking about it, the mining wouldn't (shouldn't?) have extended that far west anyway, otherwise it would have been pointless diverting the ECML.

I was just looking at the top-level map at https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html.  The entire Selby diversion is part of the mining reporting area but not shown as a high risk area.  Certainly there weren't any collieries that far north in recent times.  I recall soon after the Diversion opened there was a proposal to open a colliery near Snaith, which was just south of where it left the main line and might have needed another Diversion, but the miners strike was only a few years later and I don't think anyone was interested in developing new collieries after that.  

[Mike Storey]

13 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

However the press release states that full electrification is being considered.  Whilst that is obviously nothing like a confirmation it is going ahead it does strike me as significant given that the DfT was implacably imposed to it previously.  The anti-electrification triumvirate of Grayling/Carne/Rutnam have all gone and lo and behold there are the first tentative signs of a change of policy.  If Shapps had anything to do with that and it leads somewhere then he will deserve some credit.  As such I am cutting him some slack for the moment.

 

Full electrification was considered, two to three years ago, and rejected. The new brooms may have some better attitudes, but the "considered" reference means naff all, really. There is a scheme there, ready for progression, but they have not progressed it, preferring instead to re-gurgitate last year's announcement, in some form.

 

I believe, although am not certain without hours of delving, that the funding for this is already in the current Periodic settlement.

 

I am not sure what your reference to Carne is about - it was under him that NR bid for further electrification schemes, including the option of full electrification of the Trans Pennine route. As for Rutnam, he transferred to the Home Office in 2017. The anti-electrification sentiment was driven by a combination of the calamity that was GWEP and the advent of promising new technology. The sooner NR develops a more economic design and methodology for OLE work, the better.

 

But Grayling was a complete and utter tw&t.....

[Grovenor]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

But Grayling was a complete and utter tw&t.....

Still is!

[4630]

It would seem as though Network Rail has made a few revisions and added some more detail to the proposed electrification and route upgrade between Leeds and Huddersfield.

 

A further round of public meetings, with suitably social distancing, are now being held but the documentation that would be available at the meetings is also available here;
 

Network Rail Trans Pennine Upgrade
 

 

[jamie92208]

Some interesting reading there. So Hillhouse shed is to be reborn morphing out of a construction compound and full electrification including the tunnels west of Huddersfield Station. That and the works at Heaton Lodge remove 2 of the 6 main obstacles to electrification between York and Stalybridge. 

 

The other interesting thing is that the original masonry arches from the 1840's seem to be fine, but the steel bridges built when the lines were quadrupled by the LNWR all seem to need replacement.

 

The substation at Thornhill seems to be a new project but will provide some much needed redundancy in the electrical supply. With the next one west at Heyrod and East at Leeds Station via Ardsley .

 

I look forward to being able to ride an electric express from Leeds to Huddersfield before I'm too old.

 

Jamie

Edited October 5, 2020 by jamie92208

[4630]

4 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Some interesting reading there. 

 

I look forward to bei g able to ride an electric express from Leefs to Huddersfield before I'm too old.

 

Jamie

Yes I agree, there’s some interesting reading there and it’s good to see how Network Rail’s proposals have developed.

 

I admire your optimism Jamie.  I’ll keep my fingers crossed for both of us!

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

The other interesting thing is that the original masonry arches from the 1840's seem to be fine, but the steel bridges built when the lines were quadrupled by the LNWR all seem to need replacement.

Masonry bridges essentially stand up by the bricks/stones resting on one another.  With fairly minimal maintenance and as long as the supporting ground and the material itself holds up they should last indefinitely.  Metallic bridges suffer from corrosion which gives them a finite life unless very well maintained, and they also tend to be designed for the expected load at the time so may not be adequate if loads increase later.