Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[DY444]

On 19/02/2022 at 14:03, TheSignalEngineer said:

Headspan wires for holding the arms on four-track lines were an absolute disaster in my opinion. They were a cheap and nasty solution which stored up future problems. OK for hanging tram wires from buildings along city streets but no good for high speed running in open country.

 

I agree they were a bad idea, but, whilst the number of route miles equipped with them is much lower than on the ECML, they were used on multi-track sections of the WCML north of Weaver Jn and on BedPan first.  Those earlier sections don't seem to have suffered from the same level of problems as those on the ECML.  The ECML also suffers far more double track de-wirements where single track masts are employed - there was a whole spate of them between Retford and Doncaster a couple of years ago for example.  I've also seen it reported that the maintenance regime on the ECML was thought to be partly responsible for some of the issues.

 

BR was obviously pretty good at getting the most it could out of every pound spent on infrastructure.  Notwithstanding the possibility of maintenance issues contributing to the ECML ole unreliability, with hindsight it would have been wiser to make it a tad more robust.  Having said that there is clearly a sweet spot in the robustness vs reliability curve and it seems to me that the structures used on the original WCML scheme may have got that about right.  Most of them are still in use after 60 odd years and likely to be so for many, many years to come.  Now those original "zig zag" portal structures would no doubt be very expensive to fabricate these days but a modern, durable and affordable equivalent of that basic design is what is required.  NR finally seems to be moving that way but I'm still not convinced it has got there yet.  It seems to me it has this over engineer demon it can't quite bring itself to ignore.

Edited February 22, 2022 by DY444

[31A]

57 minutes ago, DY444 said:

The ECML also suffers far more double track de-wirements where single track masts are employed - there was a whole spate of them between Retford and Doncaster a couple of years ago for example. 

 

I thought it was because the structures were placed further apart on the ECML electrification than they had been on previous schemes, in order to economise on steelwork, which makes the overhead line less rigid.

 

[62613]

14 hours ago, 4630 said:

 

Details are in this Network Rail press release here.  The release also references, in paragraph 2, the electrification of the line from Manchester in 2016.  That didn't stand the test of time very well.

 

 

 

That date was never on, IMHO. Tamside MBC did all the bridge works around Ashton for electrification in 2017 and 2018. I thought the original timescale was for the whole line to go live for the December 2019 timetable May I ask how things are progressing (if they are!) for the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade?

[4630]

9 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 May I ask how things are progressing (if they are!) for the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade?

 

From my observations, so far there's been little visible progress at all along the line between Huddersfield and Dewsbury. 

 

The only activity that I'm aware of has been;

Further vegetation clearance between Deighton and Huddersfield, and it could be argued that that work should be done periodically in any case;

The boring of survey holes around some of the bridges west of Heaton Lodge Junction towards Bradley Junction and around Deighton.  This was carried out mid-2021.

Edited February 22, 2022 by 4630
to add a word!

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

I agree they were a bad idea, but, whilst the number of route miles equipped with them is much lower than on the ECML, they were used on multi-track sections of the WCML north of Weaver Jn and on BedPan first.  Those earlier sections don't seem to have suffered from the same level of problems as those on the ECML.  The ECML also suffers far more double track de-wirements where single track masts are employed - there was a whole spate of them between Retford and Doncaster a couple of years ago for example.  I've also seen it reported that the maintenance regime on the ECML was thought to be partly responsible for some of the issues.

 

BR was obviously pretty good at getting the most it could out of every pound spent on infrastructure.  Notwithstanding the possibility of maintenance issues contributing to the ECML ole unreliability, with hindsight it would have been wiser to make it a tad more robust.  Having said that there is clearly a sweet spot in the robustness vs reliability curve and it seems to me that the structures used on the original WCML scheme may have got that about right.  Most of them are still in use after 60 odd years and likely to be so for many, many years to come.  Now those original "zig zag" portal structures would no doubt be very expensive to fabricate these days but a modern, durable and affordable equivalent of that basic design is what is required.  NR finally seems to be moving that way but I'm still not convinced it has got there yet.  It seems to me it has this over engineer demon it can't quite bring itself to ignore.

BR's strongest/stiffest 25kv catenary (in terms of ability to cope with pantograph uplift forces etc) was the original installation on the Styal Loop - it was the only section of 25kv catenary on BR that would be able to cope with the uplift forces of an SNCF pantograph on a Class 373 Eurostar.  Even the rest of the WCML south of Manchester/Liverpool was not as 'strong'/stiff as that section but still considerably better than the ECML headspan supported catenary.

[Christopher125]

4 hours ago, 62613 said:

May I ask how things are progressing (if they are!) for the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade?

 

They've applied for a TWAO, so I wouldn't expect much progress before that's granted:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/huddersfield-to-westtown-dewsbury-improvements-transport-and-works-act-order

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 22/02/2022 at 08:28, DY444 said:

they were used on multi-track sections of the WCML north of Weaver Jn and on BedPan first. 

BedPan had a lot of wire problems in the early days to the extent that intermediate structures were put in on some exposed areas. One of the worst on the WCML four track was actually on the old structures at Cheddington where there were serious wind problems, to the extent that there is a wind monitoring station on the embankment there. That was set to give an alarm under certain wind conditions and a  temporary speed restriction was then imposed by stopping and cautioning all trains on the approach to advise the driver. Not surprisingly the bit of land alongside was earmarked for many years as London's Third Airport.  The wind causing the worst problem to trains was ideal for an east-west takeoff.

Edited February 23, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer
typo

[Mike Storey]

On 22/02/2022 at 10:27, 31A said:

 

I thought it was because the structures were placed further apart on the ECML electrification than they had been on previous schemes, in order to economise on steelwork, which makes the overhead line less rigid.

 

 

Bang on. When I was on the ECML (in RT days), we spent a small fortune adding structures at the most vulnerable points, where high speed gusting was proving to be a regular issue for de-wirements. I believe that programme continued for many years after I left.

 

The other reason for greater de-wirements was the use of 125mph running (originally planned at 140mph) using pantos, on Class 91's, that were specifically designed for greater upward pressure, to reduce "bouncing", but which had to be modified several times to get both panto carbon strip wear reduced and theoretically to reduce de-wirements. They worked for the former but not really for the latter. The one device that shortened the length of wire brought down was the auto-drop system on the pantograph itself, retro-fitted after several years of research.

 

 

[DavidLong]

Does the electrification west from Stalybridge include both the Ashton and Guide Bridge routes?

 

David

[SHMD]

36 minutes ago, DavidLong said:

Does the electrification west from Stalybridge include both the Ashton and Guide Bridge routes?

 

David

 

Yes.

 

The pilings have been marked out on both routes. (A small patch of cleared undergrowth and a wooden square marking the exact spot.)

I haven't seen any thing official, saying the route to Guide Bridge is being wired up, but both routes are having the Pilings driven in and capped off with the Mast Bases.

 

 

Kev.

[62613]

On 24/02/2022 at 08:39, SHMD said:

 

Yes.

 

The pilings have been marked out on both routes. (A small patch of cleared undergrowth and a wooden square marking the exact spot.)

I haven't seen any thing official, saying the route to Guide Bridge is being wired up, but both routes are having the Pilings driven in and capped off with the Mast Bases.

 

 

Kev.

Only slightly tongue in cheek; after that, Guide Bridge - Heaton Norris, and Denton Junction - Ashton Moss North. Forms a complete system then!

 

Edit: I saw on faceache the other day, in a post about Northern improving their services, someone advocating for a Glossop - Stockport service. Personally, I'd like as many trains from Piccadilly to my local station(s) per hour as you could get from Piccadilly to Euston. I guess lack of capacity at the former's plaforms 1 - 3 is the problem there.

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by 62613
Additional information

[Mike Storey]

Some more cheerful news from the Manchester end, but it seems like chicken-feed to me:

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/government-allocates-84m-to-enhance-reliability-as-manchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

 

They still can't bring themselves to admit that four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the only sensible medium term solution to many of the reliability issues, preferring instead little bits of tinkering. However, some grander schemes emerging, but by no means approved as yet.

 

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Some more cheerful news from the Manchester end, but it seems like chicken-feed to me:

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/government-allocates-84m-to-enhance-reliability-as-manchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

 

They still can't bring themselves to admit that four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the only sensible medium term solution to many of the reliability issues, preferring instead little bits of tinkering. However, some grander schemes emerging, but by no means approved as yet.

 

But it would still leave two tracks from Oxford Road to the three junctons west of Deansgate - it needs the extra platform space at Piccadilly for better dwelling/departing of trains east and west, plus the longer platforms at Oxford rd.

[GordonC]

7 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Some more cheerful news from the Manchester end, but it seems like chicken-feed to me:

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/government-allocates-84m-to-enhance-reliability-as-manchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

 

They still can't bring themselves to admit that four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the only sensible medium term solution to many of the reliability issues, preferring instead little bits of tinkering. However, some grander schemes emerging, but by no means approved as yet.

 

 

£84m is peanuts. I find some of these plans a bit odd, if they think it realistic to tunnel HS2 from the Airport to Manchester City Centre, then would building a tunnel be easier and or cheaper than trying to fit another pair of tracks through the middle of the city centre? One end starting at the south end of Manchester Piccadilly would be obvious, but where it could come out I wouldn't be sure of. In the past a Pic-Vic tunnel would have made sense but building the Ordsall Chord would have to make that a pointless while adding to the current problem.

[PenrithBeacon]

7 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Some more cheerful news from the Manchester end, but it seems like chicken-feed to me:

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/government-allocates-84m-to-enhance-reliability-as-manchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

 

They still can't bring themselves to admit that four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the only sensible medium term solution to many of the reliability issues, preferring instead little bits of tinkering. However, some grander schemes emerging, but by no means approved as yet.

 

I think the idea of quadrupling the South Junction line is nuts; absolutely crackers. No one in Manchester will ever agree to it.

The link above isn't useful,  try this https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rail-minister-hit-train-delays-23364147v

Edited March 18, 2022 by PenrithBeacon

[Edwin_m]

10 minutes ago, GordonC said:

 

£84m is peanuts. I find some of these plans a bit odd, if they think it realistic to tunnel HS2 from the Airport to Manchester City Centre, then would building a tunnel be easier and or cheaper than trying to fit another pair of tracks through the middle of the city centre? One end starting at the south end of Manchester Piccadilly would be obvious, but where it could come out I wouldn't be sure of. In the past a Pic-Vic tunnel would have made sense but building the Ordsall Chord would have to make that a pointless while adding to the current problem.

Changing from the current dead-end proposed for HS2 and NPR to a through station would set both projects back by at least a decade, due to the changes to design and the necessary consultation and legislation.  Ideally something like this might have been planned from the start, but now it's a case of letting the best get in the way of the good.  

[Mol_PMB]

9 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think the idea of quadrupling the South Junction line is nuts; absolutely crackers. No one in Manchester will ever agree to it.

The link above isn't useful,  try this https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rail-minister-hit-train-delays-23364147v

Thanks. That link does indicate that most of the money is for planning rather than doing. Sigh. All these things have been planned many times over - it’s just a way to keep kicking the cost into the future. 

Considering the length of parliaments and the changes going on in the wider world, projects scheduled for 15 years time may never happen. 

[SHMD]

I tried to get out and about today, to see progress but...

 

 

There's a box closed in the Huddersfield area (Covid?) and I'm guessing the Manchester disruption is down to train crews being nowhere near their trains!

 

 

Kev.

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

Thanks. That link does indicate that most of the money is for planning rather than doing. Sigh. All these things have been planned many times over - it’s just a way to keep kicking the cost into the future. 

Considering the length of parliaments and the changes going on in the wider world, projects scheduled for 15 years time may never happen. 

I think Schapps is hoping some sort of automated flying train will be invented to solve his problems and then he won't need to do anything.

[phil-b259]

On 18/03/2022 at 14:36, Mike Storey said:

Some more cheerful news from the Manchester end, but it seems like chicken-feed to me:

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/government-allocates-84m-to-enhance-reliability-as-manchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

 

They still can't bring themselves to admit that four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the only sensible medium term solution to many of the reliability issues, preferring instead little bits of tinkering. However, some grander schemes emerging, but by no means approved as yet.

 

 

Actually 4 tracking is NOT needed!

 

What is needed is extra through platforms at Piccadilly and remodelling at Oxford Road!.

 

Its a FACT that a section of plain line with no stations can cope with many more trains per hour than one with a station (or stations) in it as all the declaration / boarding / acceleration takes ages.

 

Thats why best the new HS2 station at Old Oak Common gets 6 platforms being served by a double track railway as any less than that reduces the number of TPHs that can run.

 

If you only want some trains to stop then you need to have loops long enough such that the stopping train can peel off and then rejoin the mainline at full line speed to minimise the reduction in TPH

 

Similarly its worth remembering that the two track section carrying ALL Charing Cross trains across borough Market in London is perfectly sufficient because it has 4 platforms at the stations either side thus maximising throughput. In other words while one train is arriving / undertaking platform duties another at the adjacent platform leaves / passes through the 2 track section.

 

The only real benefit of 4 tracking the entire Piccadilly - Deensgate corridor is it potentially means less pointwork to go wrong and potentially makes engineering works / faults easier to manage. Neither of these are worth the eye watering cost though.

Edited March 20, 2022 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

I don't think I have ever seen any plans where they had the Picc-Oxford Rd four tracked, perhaps it was considered in early planning but the last set of plans I saw (when it was originally approved but not funded) was two tracks but four long platforms at both Piccadilly and Oxford Rd.  Deansgate does not see as many stoppers as it did so I am guessing it impacts less on the overall route with Piccadilly being the main pinchpoint as the route all the way from there to Ardwick is effectively three sets of 2 tracks meaning Piccadilly 13/14 is the blocking point in the whole route through from Ardwick to Deansgate.

 

Yet the latest proposals still don't appear to address this pinch point, remodelling Oxford Rd makes no difference to the number of platforms, it is four now and will still be four afterwards albeit possibly longer (depending on what they propose now).  But no mention of the additional capacity at Piccadilly unless they think it is some sort of mini Crossrail now and that semi automated trains is how they will deal with the problem.  That would be interesting on a class 66 hauled intermodal whose tail is in Oxford Rd and head is stopped at Piccadilly.

 

 

[62613]

7 hours ago, woodenhead said:

That would be interesting on a class 66 hauled intermodal whose tail is in Oxford Rd and head is stopped at Piccadilly.

 

 

I've stood on one of the through platforms at Oxford Road before now, with a 2 x 5 Voyager in Deansgate, with the tail about 50 yards off the platform at Ox Road 

[Northmoor]

If Deansgate s actually that disruptive to reliable timetabling (and is that close to Oxford Road) then would closing it cause that much hardship to users?  What proportion of the traffic would not transfer and be lost to rail?  Consider that pre-pandemic, Deansgate had about 400k entries/exits p.a, Oxford Road about 8.5M.

[woodenhead]

57 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

If Deansgate s actually that disruptive to reliable timetabling (and is that close to Oxford Road) then would closing it cause that much hardship to users?  What proportion of the traffic would not transfer and be lost to rail?  Consider that pre-pandemic, Deansgate had about 400k entries/exits p.a, Oxford Road about 8.5M.

The number of entries/exits will be impacted by stopping services, Deansgate used to have more services.  It does serve people who work on Deansgate better than Oxford Rd, it is directly connected to the GMEX (or whatever we call it now) Metrolink and there is a lot of housing going up near to it.  On the CLC line to Warrington, Deansgate is a popular destination/starting point as well.

[Mol_PMB]

55 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

If Deansgate s actually that disruptive to reliable timetabling (and is that close to Oxford Road) then would closing it cause that much hardship to users?  What proportion of the traffic would not transfer and be lost to rail?  Consider that pre-pandemic, Deansgate had about 400k entries/exits p.a, Oxford Road about 8.5M.

The plans for the Oxford Road upgrade include a new concourse at the western (Deansgate) end which would be even closer to Deansgate and would support that approach.

However, one of the strengths of Deansgate is its good links to the Metrolink so I think a new footbridge and elevated walkway would be needed to connect the new MCO concourse to the Deansgate/Castlefield tram stop. Sadly someone's just built a tower block in the way!

Another point is that Deansgate used to be much better used until the number of trains stopping there was halved (to create more paths). For example only one of the two CLC stoppers each hour now calls at Deansgate.

 

Deansgate station is listed, which may constrain some options.

 

(note to acknowledge woodenhead's post making similar points written at the same time)