North West/GM Electrification.

[kevpeo]

So as not to clog up the Transpennine Electrification thread, I thought it best to start a new one!

 

Noted today that as well as Stalybridge - Man Vic, Stalybridge - Man Pic and Bolton - Wigan NW, which are ongoing electrification schemes. Network Rail have put forward proposals for Rochdale - Man Vic and Manchester Deansgate - Liverpool South Parkway, the Cheshire lines route. Not funded yet but could be a good sign! Kev.

[woodenhead]

Some money has been announced that will re-signal the Oxford Road corridor and re-model Oxford Road

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60701178

 

According to the M.E.N. - to be delivered by the 2030s, groan, so that's at least 8 years of continued bottleneck in Manchester, all that work to build the new curve and it's being wasted.

Edited March 11, 2022 by woodenhead

[Mol_PMB]

On 08/03/2022 at 17:25, kevpeo said:

So as not to clog up the Transpennine Electrification thread, I thought it best to start a new one!

 

Noted today that as well as Stalybridge - Man Vic, Stalybridge - Man Pic and Bolton - Wigan NW, which are ongoing electrification schemes. Network Rail have put forward proposals for Rochdale - Man Vic and Manchester Deansgate - Liverpool South Parkway, the Cheshire lines route. Not funded yet but could be a good sign! Kev.

 

On 11/03/2022 at 16:58, woodenhead said:

Some money has been announced that will re-signal the Oxford Road corridor and re-model Oxford Road

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60701178

 

According to the M.E.N. - to be delivered by the 2030s, groan, so that's at least 8 years of continued bottleneck in Manchester, all that work to build the new curve and it's being wasted.

 

I'm very interested in these developments, thanks for mentioning them. Do either of you have links to more information from NR, DfT etc?

CLC electrification and the Oxford Road re-modelling especially. 

Cheers,

Mol

[Grovenor]

You get very little for 84 million these days.

[woodenhead]

17 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

 

 

I'm very interested in these developments, thanks for mentioning them. Do either of you have links to more information from NR, DfT etc?

CLC electrification and the Oxford Road re-modelling especially. 

Cheers,

Mol

Ironically, I was hoping someone might post some more detail myself about the remodelling - a couple of references in the media about the money, but no-one is giving any detail.  I am not sure how remodelling Oxford Road helps unless it is accompanied by the remodelling proposed at Piccadilly so that both stations can hold 4 trains in the through platforms.  In the original expansion plans Oxford Rd was getting longer platforms to deal with longer trains, Piccadilly got an extra two platforms to ease congestion.  For the resignalling I can only think of ERTMS which is the clever signalling Schapps wanted to avoid having to do any building work to open up the Deansgate corridor to more trains.

 

CLC has been a long vaunted desire to electrify, it's the only route left I think not on a current wiring scheme but offers a diversionary route off Chat Moss if it floods or needs to close for maintenance.

[Mol_PMB]

There’s this on gov.uk but it doesn’t really say much more:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/manchester-and-north-west-rail-passengers-to-see-more-reliable-journeys-with-84-million-investment

 

The previous plans for remodelling at MCO would remove the bay, so the CLC trains (and some others) would have nowhere to terminate. But is there space for them at Piccadilly without platforms 15/16? 

 

A new western concourse and platform extensions at MCO might be close enough to Deansgate that the latter could be closed, which might have a small benefit on capacity. But something would need to be done to improve interchange with Metrolink in that area. 

[kevpeo]

I think the new plan for ‘ocky rd’ still involves closing the bay and extending the platforms but by using the centre rarely used island road(3?) as a virtual bay platform. But they would still need to spend big money on improving platform access! 

[Mol_PMB]

This is a relatively recent webpage but not sure if the graphic is up to date:

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/manchester-oxford-road-station-upgrade-will-finally-move-to-design-phase-in-early-2022-17-12-2021/

 

[62613]

35 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Ironically, I was hoping someone might post some more detail myself about the remodelling - a couple of references in the media about the money, but no-one is giving any detail.  I am not sure how remodelling Oxford Road helps unless it is accompanied by the remodelling proposed at Piccadilly so that both stations can hold 4 trains in the through platforms.  In the original expansion plans Oxford Rd was getting longer platforms to deal with longer trains, Piccadilly got an extra two platforms to ease congestion.  For the resignalling I can only think of ERTMS which is the clever signalling Schapps wanted to avoid having to do any building work to open up the Deansgate corridor to more trains.

 

CLC has been a long vaunted desire to electrify, it's the only route left I think not on a current wiring scheme but offers a diversionary route off Chat Moss if it floods or needs to close for maintenance.

Wasn't the original idea to four - track the whole way between at least MCO and Piccadilly, but the city council got cold feet when they saw what was involved ? Why not run CLC services through to a turnback siding the other side of Piccadilly?

 

[62613]

36 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

There’s this on gov.uk but it doesn’t really say much more:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/manchester-and-north-west-rail-passengers-to-see-more-reliable-journeys-with-84-million-investment

 

The previous plans for remodelling at MCO would remove the bay, so the CLC trains (and some others) would have nowhere to terminate. But is there space for them at Piccadilly without platforms 15/16? 

 

A new western concourse and platform extensions at MCO might be close enough to Deansgate that the latter could be closed, which might have a small benefit on capacity. But something would need to be done to improve interchange with Metrolink in that area. 

Soundbititis! On another note, I think I saw, but missed, something about electrification structures being erected between Victoria and Stalybridge on one of the NR works videos last week

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by 62613

[Mol_PMB]

25 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Wasn't the original idea to four - track the whole way between at least MCO and Piccadilly, but the city council got cold feet when they saw what was involved ? Why not run CLC services through to a turnback siding the other side of Piccadilly?

 

The through ‘Junction’ platforms 13/14 at Picc are capacity-constrained, and the only turnback facility beyond them is the Mayfield loop which is already well-used. Many services go through to the airport to provide an alternative turnback, rather than for any real need to serve the airport so frequently! 

Recent and near-future timetable changes have aimed to reduce train throughput at Picc 13/14. 

 

[woodenhead]

32 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Wasn't the original idea to four - track the whole way between at least MCO and Piccadilly, but the city council got cold feet when they saw what was involved ? Why not run CLC services through to a turnback siding the other side of Piccadilly?

 

The plans I saw just showed lengthened platforms at Oxford Road and a new island platform at Piccadilly to raise the platforms to 4.  There was no need I understood to four track because one train would dwell as another departs and so on whereas in the current Piccadilly set up it was one train in, dwell, depart, another train in.  The bit in between can be two tracks if the station is designed to be efficient which it isn't.

 

Odd CLC services did used to start from Piccadilly and I think there once was even an early direct to the airport, but nothing like that since the mess they made of the timetable for the new curve.  Personally, the CLC should have terminated in Piccadilly, changing at Oxford Rd was always a PITA if the services weren't timed right and you'd be sat on a windy Oxford Rd waiting for the next service, but never been the capacity at Piccadilly to handle them.  Of course if they were electric or hybrid, they could continue through to Stockport or Hazel Grove couldn't they.

Edited March 14, 2022 by woodenhead

[Mol_PMB]

Because the 'Junction' (so named because it was the former MSJ&A) platforms 13/14 are on the south side of Picc, you're really looking for a turnback on the south side. The whole (flawed) point of the Ordsall Curve was to try and avoid trains from the junction crossing the entire Piccadilly throat to Ardwick. To some extent, continuing the CLC stoppers through would have the same problem with a Hazel Grove destination. I think they're trying to reduce the number of Southport and Blackpool services that do that move.

 

The concept of platforms 15/16 at Picc was good, and it would enable the platform islands to be directional. The existing 13/14 would be for eastbounds, 15/16 for westbounds. Then if trains turn up in the wrong order they can overtake each other or be replatformed very simply, without hordes of people scrambling over a footbridge. As regulars will know, passenger congestion on 13/14 is a big problem, even post-COVID.

 

Although the revisions at MCO should provide four full-length platforms and better passenger access, I think they will be configured as the present ones (a middle island and two side platforms) so do not have the above advantage. However, nothing can be worse than the current situation when peak-hour trains are replatformed simulataneously at MCO, and two hordes of hundreds of people fight each other up and down the narrow stairs!

[BMS]

How on earth are they going to do all that on the stated money? Sounds almost like a £10000 each project

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, BMS said:

How on earth are they going to do all that on the stated money? Sounds almost like a £10000 each project

All they have mentioned so far is new signalling and remodelling of MCO, so the comments above are all musing based on previous projects.

 

This could simply be revised entry and exit points for the track at MCO but no change to the platforms themselves and the signalling replacement to get the best out of the changes.  Extending the current platforms at MCO will be quite an undertaking given it is all on arches.

 

It's not clear yet what the annoucement actually means, as always the devil is in the detail.......

[BMS]

I was reacting to the official government announcement; Man Vic, Picc, Oxford rd, Airport mods and electrification Liverpool to York etc

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/manchester-and-north-west-rail-passengers-to-see-more-reliable-journeys-with-84-million-investment

[62613]

12 hours ago, BMS said:

I was reacting to the official government announcement; Man Vic, Picc, Oxford rd, Airport mods and electrification Liverpool to York etc

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/manchester-and-north-west-rail-passengers-to-see-more-reliable-journeys-with-84-million-investment

The Liverpool - York electrification is a different pot of money to this (I think - the £589 million announced about 2 years ago?). This £84 million covers the upgrade in the Castlefield Corridor, and the platform lengthening in Cumbria. I can remember a scheme called the "Northern Hub", from about 2014 (?) of which the only part  done was the Ordsall Curve. The rest seems to have vanished into the air.

Edited March 15, 2022 by 62613

[kevpeo]

I had a run Wigan - Stalybridge - Man Pic and return yesterday to have a look at progress.

 

No change on the Wigan line that I could see, other than the one bridge replaced and veg clearance.

 

Man Vic - Stalybridge I reckon 95% bases in, 60% masts up, 35% small part steelwork (arms etc). The big news, a full earth wire run is up and bases have appeared in Stalybridge station!

 

Guide bridge line, looks like most bases are in, except  the viaduct mounted ones, but no masts yet.

 

Good progress. Kev.

[kevpeo]

Video here showing recent progress between Stalybridge and Man Vic -

 

 

[31A]

34 minutes ago, kevpeo said:

Video here showing recent progress between Stalybridge and Man Vic -

 

 

 

Interesting; quite a lot of progress with masts.  But there seem to be several bridges between Staly and Ashton that look quite low; I wonder whether any will have to be rebuilt?

[St. Simon]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

Interesting; quite a lot of progress with masts.  But there seem to be several bridges between Staly and Ashton that look quite low; I wonder whether any will have to be rebuilt?

Hi,

 

Recent technical and knowledge advancements from the electrification works at Cardiff and Steventon Bridge mean that they can take a bit more of a broader view of whether bridges need to be rebuilt.

 

Simon

[31A]

1 minute ago, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

Recent technical and knowledge advancements from the electrification works at Cardiff and Steventon Bridge mean that they can take a bit more of a broader view of whether bridges need to be rebuilt.

 

Simon

 

Yes, I've read about things such as sections of dead contact wire through low bridges etc., but got the impression that was only intended for passenger lines - would it be suitable for lines carrying electric freight trains?

 

As I believe the intention now is for the Trans Pennine route upgrade to be 'full' electrification rather than the partial scheme with 'islands' in the difficult bits and bi-mode units that was at one time proposed.

[DY444]

8 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Yes, I've read about things such as sections of dead contact wire through low bridges etc., but got the impression that was only intended for passenger lines - would it be suitable for lines carrying electric freight trains?

 

I'm afraid that's a "how long is a piece of string" question.  The suitability will depend on the traction type, train formation, location of the dead section, the route topology in its vicinity, its length, and its proximity to other dead sections (either OHNS or "under bridge" dead sections). 

 

Dead sections also present a bigger problem to tap changer locomotives.  As of now these only exist in heritage fleets so that probably doesn't matter but Freightliner stated when the 86/6s were stood down that they might make a return if the traffic and economic situation warranted it.  If that happens then it might be the case that they wouldn't be able to operate on some lines with "under bridge" dead sections. 

[62613]

13 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Interesting; quite a lot of progress with masts.  But there seem to be several bridges between Staly and Ashton that look quite low; I wonder whether any will have to be rebuilt?

They were all rebuilt between about 2014 and 2016 in anticipation of the scheme being completed by the original scheduled date. There has been a considerable amount of civils work done between Ashton Moss North and Staly over the last 10 years

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by 62613

[Grovenor]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

Dead sections also present a bigger problem to tap changer locomotives.  As of now these only exist in heritage fleets so that probably doesn't matter but Freightliner stated when the 86/6s were stood down that they might make a return if the traffic and economic situation warranted it.  If that happens then it might be the case that they wouldn't be able to operate on some lines with "under bridge" dead sections. 

Why not? A dead section under a bridge is no different to a neutral section so far as a loco is concerned.