Jump to content

Transpennine Electrification : Manchester/Leeds


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The danger with that is if it's not coherently designed as a system it'll look like a network but won't actually work as one. But once the wires and bridges are done then changing the distribution is easier.

Hence why I hope electrification from Westtown to Leeds is completed before Dewsbury to Westtown, so there is an alternative feed from the Leeds direction rather than spending money on a duplicate supply to that section (I'm assuming there's one somewhere in the area).  Although perhaps a duplicated feed isn't so critical while the section is an electric island, as while it remains so all the electric trains using it will be bi-modes that can revert to diesel if the power goes off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/04/2021 at 16:59, Christopher125 said:

 

 

All four AIUI.

 

51095841917_d04346f37a.jpg

Colas 70813 Colton Jn by Adam J Gibbons, on Flickr

 

51015161295_2131319ce9.jpg

Sentinels to Progress! by TheRosyMole, on Flickr

 

What is also very interesting is that the infrastructure being installed appears to be the Furrer and Frey Series 1 type, as used on GWEP, judging from the portals, as opposed to the previous Mark 3 used elsewhere.  Presumably, NR have not experienced the same problems with piling as they did on the GW. This is a good sign that some lessons have been learned, and one could presume that per Km costs have not been anything like the GWEP experience. Otherwise, we might be hearing about it!

 

I would countenance caution though, on believing the electrification through Neville Hill to Leeds will automatically carry on. There are severe constraints, both from track capacity but also from clearances along the viaducts, for the OLE. Not impossible, but I doubt that could sneak through, guerrilla-style, as this has done. I can only surmise that there is sufficient benefit for the Bi-mode TP units, to get this done now, as well as providing some ongoing work for electrification teams. I cannot find any mention of this work in the NR Plan for CP6 (dated 2019), nor in the Route Strategy. I can only conclude that this was a DfT driven initiative, post ORR settlement, in terms of authority, and NR IP (previously major projects) delivered.

 

It may be that this is as far as it goes (East of Leeds) without substantial investment in new feeders, and in new NG support. That is where the big money has been in the past. We have yet to hear of any definitive decision from DfT or Minister Shapps (who must have approved this work to date, as it falls outside the general approvals given to TP works in CP 6.).

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

There are severe constraints, both from track capacity but also from clearances along the viaducts, for the OLE. Not impossible, but I doubt that could sneak through, guerrilla-style, as this has done.

 

Viaducts?  If you mean the viaducts east of Leeds station, that section of line is already electrified, as far as Neville Hill West Junction for access to the depot.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 31A said:

 

Viaducts?  If you mean the viaducts east of Leeds station, that section of line is already electrified, as far as Neville Hill West Junction for access to the depot.

Yes the wires run out somewhere alongside Neville Hill depot. From there it isvpretty clearvtill the previously discussed Cross Gates overbridge. Garforth station overbridge is the next tricky one as the M1 overbridge would have been built with good clearances. I'm not sure but I don't think there are many major problems from there to Church Fenton.

 

I agree with Mike that it's interesting to see the design of the OHLE equipment at Colton.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the clearance is like on the bridge over the track between Halton Dial and Cross Gates at the back of the Sutton estate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Viaducts?  If you mean the viaducts east of Leeds station, that section of line is already electrified, as far as Neville Hill West Junction for access to the depot.

 

Yes, I am aware of that. Sorry, I was thinking more of capacity, and that the viaduct from Railway Street to The Calls would have to be enlarged to take, at least, a third track. With all the modelling we did in the 1990's, we could not see a way of increasing capacity significantly, without doing that. Even moving block would not squeeze an awful lot out, without reducing ave train speeds to even more of a crawl. That is why I am curious as to what the electrification initiated will achieve - if part of the North TP Upgrade, that has vowed both to accelerate and to increase train frequencies. I guess the improved acceleration of electrics will help a little, but that will take some imagination in between the InterCities moving back and forth to Neville Hill, especially in the shoulder peaks.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Yes, I am aware of that. Sorry, I was thinking more of capacity, and that the viaduct from Railway Street to The Calls would have to be enlarged to take, at least, a third track. With all the modelling we did in the 1990's, we could not see a way of increasing capacity significantly, without doing that. Even moving block would not squeeze an awful lot out, without reducing average train speeds to even more of a crawl. That is why I am curious as to what the electrification initiated will achieve - if part of the North TP Upgrade, that has vowed both to accelerate and to increase train frequencies. I guess the improved acceleration of electrics will help a little, but that will take some imagination in between the InterCities moving back and forth to Neville Hill, especially in the shoulder peaks.

Yes, that potential widening will be 'interesting' as at the east end of the viaduct is the embankment that was built over the graveyard for what is now Leeds Minster.  If my forgettery has remembered correctly, no graves were moved when this was built, just the gravestones, which are now on the side of the embankment.so widening and potentially putting in piled foundations would be tricky. From there to Marsh Lane cutting there aren't any major obstacles apart from possibly the Coop funeral services.  At least their clients wouldn't be able to write objections. There is, from memory a bit of three track viaduct at the west end but I think it only goes as far as Briggate.

 

Jamie

 

Jamie

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Yes, I am aware of that. Sorry, I was thinking more of capacity, and that the viaduct from Railway Street to The Calls would have to be enlarged to take, at least, a third track. With all the modelling we did in the 1990's, we could not see a way of increasing capacity significantly, without doing that. Even moving block would not squeeze an awful lot out, without reducing ave train speeds to even more of a crawl. That is why I am curious as to what the electrification initiated will achieve - if part of the North TP Upgrade, that has vowed both to accelerate and to increase train frequencies. I guess the improved acceleration of electrics will help a little, but that will take some imagination in between the InterCities moving back and forth to Neville Hill, especially in the shoulder peaks.

 

Would it really be too difficult to widen the viaduct?  I'm sure I've seen elsewhere (Berlin?  Brussels?) viaducts that have been widened by cantilevering a new deck for extra lines out from the original structure.  It might mean some demolition of buildings that are very close, but I think for a good part of the distance there would be room beside the viaduct as things are at the moment, particularly on the south side.  A lot more was done in Borough Market!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 31A said:

 

Would it really be too difficult to widen the viaduct?  I'm sure I've seen elsewhere (Berlin?  Brussels?) viaducts that have been widened by cantilevering a new deck for extra lines out from the original structure.  It might mean some demolition of buildings that are very close, but I think for a good part of the distance there would be room beside the viaduct as things are at the moment, particularly on the south side.  A lot more was done in Borough Market!

 

Not doubt all the "physical works" are quite possible/achievable, but would a business case (cost, disruption, end benefit etc.) stand up to scrutiny? If the projected drop in future passenger numbers due to Covid actually transpire, it would perhaps make it even harder to prove a business case - for the time being at least. Not arguing one way or the other, just an observation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Would it really be too difficult to widen the viaduct?  I'm sure I've seen elsewhere (Berlin?  Brussels?) viaducts that have been widened by cantilevering a new deck for extra lines out from the original structure.  It might mean some demolition of buildings that are very close, but I think for a good part of the distance there would be room beside the viaduct as things are at the moment, particularly on the south side.  A lot more was done in Borough Market!

 

 

Physically, no. Financially, extremely. That area of Leeds, just to the east of the station, is quite pricey. As an early stage of Leeds First, we did a fag packet calculation, for demolition (of three buildings) and loss of trade (mainly under-arch and neighbouring properties, and temporary street closures) compensation costs alone, at (ISTR) around £80 million (+/- 50%), at 1996 pricing, for four tracking. Fortunately, some demolitions more recently mean that, technically, it would not be very difficult if all kept to the south side, apart from crossing a major roadway and the graveyard. I doubt you would cantilever, as the existing arch structure is not designed to take those stresses, and there is anyway no need.

 

That figure may not sound much, in the scheme of things, but add it to the cost of the new viaduct, as well the new infrastructure on top, and you begin to get into dodgy territory for the gain of a few extra train paths an hour - station capacity then becomes the constraint. The widening of Piccadilly to Oxford Road in Manchester, made much more sense, but look what happened to that! Borough Market involved massive gains, to which Yorkshire could not seriously hope to match, without the much more ambitious "HS3" scheme to back it up.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the double-track bottleneck out of Leeds will be addressed before NPR, if at all.  That has been suggested to use part of the HS2 York leg, and a new viaduct could create an independent route from there into the south side platforms at Leeds and on towards Manchester (or to Sheffield via a connection onto the London-Leeds HS2 route).  

 

In the meantime, complete electrification of the existing might squeeze out another path an hour, by allowing the stopping service to use higher-performance EMUs that are better at keeping ahead of the following fast.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could another solution be stabling trains somewhere other than Neville Hill, thus reducing the number of ECS movements ? This would be fairly straightforward for EMUs, less so obviously for diesels ! Electrifying Leeds/York would also increase the proportion of electric vice diesel trains in the area. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Could another solution be stabling trains somewhere other than Neville Hill, thus reducing the number of ECS movements ? This would be fairly straightforward for EMUs, less so obviously for diesels ! Electrifying Leeds/York would also increase the proportion of electric vice diesel trains in the area. 

 

 

 

It is a possibility of course, but the costs, both of a new depot(s) and the additional running time for ECS moves (plus additional crew transfer costs I would guess), would need an awful lot of justification. I cannot see any site close to Leeds station to the west, south or north that would work without having to create additional capacity on those routes, which are close to full already. It would rather require a re-casting of the working TT so that stabling occurs at other centres, which again would not be cheap, or await the HS3 type of solution, IMHO.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

It is a possibility of course, but the costs, both of a new depot(s) and the additional running time for ECS moves (plus additional crew transfer costs I would guess), would need an awful lot of justification. I cannot see any site close to Leeds station to the west, south or north that would work without having to create additional capacity on those routes, which are close to full already. It would rather require a re-casting of the working TT so that stabling occurs at other centres, which again would not be cheap, or await the HS3 type of solution, IMHO.

Holbeck still exists, used by NR - that could be repurposed for stabling electric units similar to Wigan Springs with exams etc still at Neville Hill.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caradoc said:

Could another solution be stabling trains somewhere other than Neville Hill, thus reducing the number of ECS movements ? This would be fairly straightforward for EMUs, less so obviously for diesels ! Electrifying Leeds/York would also increase the proportion of electric vice diesel trains in the area. 

 

 

 

One of the Trans Pennine Upgrade plans published recently shows a new depot at Huddersfield, on what was one the site of Hillhouse steam depot (recently mostly a car scrapyard I think).  I'm not sure what the scale of this facility is expected to be but presumably it will at the least have to replace the stabling sidings at Huddersfield station, which look as though they will be taken out to allow for the proposed new platform.

 

Before I retired (7 years ago!), I remember being told by a colleague at Northern that that had been suggested as a site for stabling sidings in the past but was turned down (unsure of the details).

 

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Holbeck still exists, used by NR - that could be repurposed for stabling electric units similar to Wigan Springs with exams etc still at Neville Hill.

 

Northern do also use Holbeck for stabling and fuelling units.  From what I remember, they started using it for exactly that reason, to relieve Neville Hill, probably 15 years ago or so.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

One of the Trans Pennine Upgrade plans published recently shows a new depot at Huddersfield, on what was one the site of Hillhouse steam depot (recently mostly a car scrapyard I think).  I'm not sure what the scale of this facility is expected to be but presumably it will at the least have to replace the stabling sidings at Huddersfield station, which look as though they will be taken out to allow for the proposed new platform.

 

Before I retired (7 years ago!), I remember being told by a colleague at Northern that that had been suggested as a site for stabling sidings in the past but was turned down (unsure of the details).

 

 

Northern do also use Holbeck for stabling and fuelling units.  From what I remember, they started using it for exactly that reason, to relieve Neville Hill, probably 15 years ago or so.

 

 

Indeed. there were suggestions, some twenty plus years ago, of multiple sites to relieve Neville Hill, not just for track capacity reasons but also because Neville Hill was becoming full. There were proposals to increase outstabling at several sites, as well as a new depot entirely, but all of these fell to earth, bar one or two extra sidings at a few locations. Quite why involves multiple reasons, but essentially, the two key hubs on the route are Leeds and Manchester and that is where the TOCs preferred to concentrate their resources (plus of course the endpoints). 

 

Holbeck does stable a few two and three car diesel units, on its northern side, but it is extremely constrained from any expansion, and even four cars are limited to one road, I think. To stable six or eight car EMU's would be highly problematic. There is a green space opposite, but that is equally constrained.

 

I think you would have to go out to Kirkstall Valley or even Horsforth, to get the space needed, but that would be very unpopular from a town planning point of view, destroying green space. I cannot see any alternative, in the long run, to widening the viaduct, unless HS3 takes a completely different route.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Holbeck does stable a few two and three car diesel units, on its northern side, but it is extremely constrained from any expansion, and even four cars are limited to one road, I think. To stable six or eight car EMU's would be highly problematic. There is a green space opposite, but that is equally constrained.

 

6 or 8 cars, this isn't London you know, we have no need of such long trains in this locality, such luxury should be left for those who are not local.

 

But if such trains ran between Manchester/Huddersfield Bradford and York then Leeds would be a passing point - perhaps more stabling at Huddersfield and York and less focus on Leeds where there isn't the space.  York certainly has a lot of redundant railway land that could be repurposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had seen some discussion about a "new" station on the old Marsh Lane site but that would need a shuttle bus into the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond Holbeck, what is wrong with the sidings at Hunslet?  They seem to be used by Freightliner for storing (largely redundant) coal hoppers and are easily long enough to fit a depot for full length trains.  It would mean the empty stock movements running on the quietest(?) route out of Leeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Beyond Holbeck, what is wrong with the sidings at Hunslet?  They seem to be used by Freightliner for storing (largely redundant) coal hoppers and are easily long enough to fit a depot for full length trains.  It would mean the empty stock movements running on the quietest(?) route out of Leeds.

They are certainly leased by Freightliner. The site was earmarked as the depot for the aborted Leeds Supertram with yhe Stouton line going past it then up what used to be the headshunt to get  to Wakefield Road. Parliamentary  powers were granted but may have lapsed.

 

Jamie

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Beyond Holbeck, what is wrong with the sidings at Hunslet?  They seem to be used by Freightliner for storing (largely redundant) coal hoppers and are easily long enough to fit a depot for full length trains.  It would mean the empty stock movements running on the quietest(?) route out of Leeds.

 

I believe that was one of the areas that was looked at for a potential passenger train facility of some kind in the past.  It was before I was involved with such things in any way at work, but I seem to think I've heard it said (or I may have read it in Modern Railways) that Freightliner "got in first".  We're talking about the time when Freightliner's coal traffic was bouyant; perhaps it's something that could be looked at again, or maybe has been?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, woodenhead said:

6 or 8 cars, this isn't London you know, we have no need of such long trains in this locality, such luxury should be left for those who are not local.

 

But if such trains ran between Manchester/Huddersfield Bradford and York then Leeds would be a passing point - perhaps more stabling at Huddersfield and York and less focus on Leeds where there isn't the space.  York certainly has a lot of redundant railway land that could be repurposed.

When I used to travel from Manchester to York, most of the trains were 8 coaches long:lol:. Back then there were extensive carriage sidings on Redbank seen in the distance. 

 

Mike WiltshireRedbank45106june1984mail.jpg.c22c2b9fee28629090fdf00a74deb2c0.jpg

Edited by Coach bogie
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Red Bank carriage sidings were on the Manchester Loop which has long since been lifted.

The last time I was on a Manchester to York train was made up of two 185 units, I think.

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.