Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[Edwin_m]

I think Alan is correct, but I'd like to think they also have an eye on the longer-term economic and employment benefits of improving the rail network, which are diminished if somewhere like Middlesbrough ends up with worse rail connections.

 

There is a further advantage to the government that money spent on infrastructure will mostly remain in Britain, but money spent on rolling stock has a habit of going overseas!

[jamie92208]

I personally think that Middlesborough would be on for sure:

 

a) It would wire up nealry into another container terminal at Wilton, therefore more electric freight, and

 

B) It would wire up a large part of the diversionay route to Ferryhill from Northallerton that will be useful

 

All this on top of giving the 2nd of the 4 TP eastern legs the knitting.

 

Jamie

[woodenhead]

What we will see from here is a cascade of electrification across the North East, West and South Yorkshire and onto the MML.

 

As has been picked up a few times, having teams of people available to do the work and trained up it makes sense to keep them employed, it looks like the days of building diesel MU stock might be at an end.

[96701]

The problem with diesel multiple units is that there is a lack of space under the floor to fit all the engine, transmission, air conditioning and fume scrubbing systems to achieve the emission targets. If it isn't possible to design new DMUs to fit the current loading gauge (including platform heights), then the future is electrification. 3rd rail is not favoured because the contact system is on the ground and is therefore much more difficult to achieve compliance with the Electricity at Work Regulations, so that only leaves the prospect of installing OLE. This obviously is not without risk, but there doesn't seem to be much option at the moment.

[Christopher125]

...it looks like the days of building diesel MU stock might be at an end.

 

Those days have been over for a while now, apparently ROSCO's arent interested in them probably because of the pro-electrification stance of the DfT and the upward trend of fuel prices. After all, build any more and a rolling programme of electrification could see them being handed back in favour of cheaper cascaded sprinters or made redundant entirely.

 

Chris

Edited December 4, 2011 by Christopher125

[woodenhead]

And therein lay DFTs difficulties on stock procurement - more diesels even though really we don't want them or sign off electrification schemes which has extra infrastructure costs over a simple order of diesels.

 

Now that it's been made clear that a rolling programme of electrification is policy then it makes procurement a whole lot simpler, DFT knows what it needs, the builders know what is required and the ROSCOs can take a punt.

[Edwin_m]

And what DfT needs is apparently no more rolling stock of any type for the time being, just cascaded 319s with everything!

[woodenhead]

Aren't Merseyrail looking to procure replacements for it's 508 fleet, these are based on the same bodyshell design as a 313 so perhaps these could be modified for use under wires.

 

In times of austerity it's a hand-me-down world.

[Edwin_m]

Converting the 508s to AC would almost certainly involve building a new pantograph/transformer car, and probably replacing the traction package too. Not worth doing IMHO when there are so many 319/317/365 units displaced by Thameslink and 315s by Crossrail.

[coachmann]

While they're wiring up the Standedge line, they could run a branch back from Greenfield Station into Oldham using trams as far as Grotton and from there to Bottom 'O Moor via mainroad, and put Oldhamers on the TransPennine route to Yorkshire and Manchester.

[Edwin_m]

Slightly less difficult than the Friezland loop but still not easy. There's a housing estate on the line between Grasscroft Halt and Lydgate Tunnel (and I don't think trams would get over the top). The last mile or so into Glodwick Road has the cutting infilled with waste, complete with vents to bleed off the methane. The 180 and 184 buses, which Coachmann will know as the 10 and the 14, still link Oldham with Greenfield and run every 10min on weekdays, though of course the only train stopping there is the hourly local.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Edwin_m

[coachmann]

Didn't know about the new housing near Grasscroft but I knew the old railway formation was hopeless from County End into Oldham. Looks like the buses have it then.

[Andy C]

While they're wiring up the Standedge line, they could run a branch back from Greenfield Station into Oldham using trams as far as Grotton and from there to Bottom 'O Moor via mainroad, and put Oldhamers on the TransPennine route to Yorkshire and Manchester.

 

More chance of the trams Larry, and theres little chance of that. Still a nice thought though, would make a night out on the soup with my fellow musicians at Boarshurst band club http://www.boarshurstband.co.uk/boarshurstband.co.uk/Home.html

a damn sight easier to get back to Rochdale from!

Edited December 4, 2011 by Andy C

[frobisher]

Converting the 508s to AC would almost certainly involve building a new pantograph/transformer car, and probably replacing the traction package too.

 

Not so sure. Traction package won't need changing (314 203 runs with a DMSO that used to be part of 507 022) and I suspect that structurally the TSOs of the PEP derived units would be pretty much the same as the PTSOs coming off of the same jigs and all - so it would be a matter of adding the equipment.

 

Not worth doing IMHO when there are so many 319/317/365 units displaced by Thameslink and 315s by Crossrail.

 

...But probably dead right.

[Edwin_m]

As far as I know 507 and 508 have camshaft controllers as per all DC classes until the 319 came along. The only way to drive this off AC is to fit a front end transformer and rectifier as per class 313, which would rule out regenerative braking and probably be very difficult to get a safety case. 315s are either tap-changer or phase angle thyristor control, not sure which. So while these units had virtually identical bodyshells the traction equipment is totally different with the exception of the actual motors, and I assume a 507 motor coach running in a 314 must have had the relevant equipment replaced.

 

I don't know how mechanically similar the 507/508 centre car is to that of the 313/314/315 but it would need mechanical provision both for a pantograph well and for transformer mountings. I think either would be difficult to add if the structure didn't allow for them.

[Suzie]

There should be a few AC bits left over from the 313s on the south coast that were converted to DC only that could be used to make the 507 and 508 work on AC.

 

I think that realistically if they are no good for Merseyside they are not going to be much good for anything else except perhaps rural branch line use, but last time I travelled on Merseyrail the ride was all I would expect of an inner suburban journey.

[Edwin_m]

There should be a few AC bits left over from the 313s on the south coast that were converted to DC only that could be used to make the 507 and 508 work on AC.

 

There may be some pantographs and transformers, but these are only any good if the 507/508 coaches are suitable for them to be attached.

 

In terms of control gear the 313 is a DC camshaft train like the 507/508, with a front end transformer and rectifier which essentially supplies it with 750Vdc whichever supply it is running on. This arrangement is incompatible with regenerative braking, and although it has run safely for many years it might be difficult to prove its safety sufficiently to operate on a route where it does not have "grandfather rights". The AC-only units of class 314 and 315 are totally different.

 

About the only use I can think of for 507/508 after they are replaced on Merseyrail might be to use the trailers to lengthen 314s to 4-car, if these were no longer needed in Scotland and the fleet was merged with the similar 4-car units of class 315. Cardiff Valleys could be ideal for a displaced 314/315 fleet.

[jonhall]

I guess it rather depends what Mersey Rail want to do with these units - Replacement of 507/508, or growth build, or OHLE capability or a combination.

 

It seems unlikely that the 313's are to be like for like replacements because they cannot be all that much younger.

 

If its a straight growth build for capacity, then is a 313 without a pantograph able to couple (functionally) with a 507 to give an effectively homogenous fleet.

 

If is a duel-voltage unit that required, to say run to Preston or Manchester or wherever, is there a way of divinding the existing routes up so that there are either DC lines, or Duel voltage lines, and split the fleet into two, so that 507's run the DC only and 313 run the dual voltage requirements.

 

It seems likely to me that the 508/313 (and I can remember what the scotish version is numbered as 314 perhaps?) probably only have another 10-20 years of life left in the bodyshell, so once the electification of the routes is done, they may only have 10 years of life in them anyway.

 

Jon

[Glorious NSE]

Merseyrail shouldn't need to use 313s if it wants straight additional capacity as there are 508s (ex Silverlink/Overground and South East Trains) in storage - if dual voltage is needed for a new/expanded route then the 313s maybe a good bet though.

 

Current disposition of the 'PEP' types I *think* is:

 

507 - Merseyrail

508 - Merseyrail plus some (12-ish?) in store ex SET and Silverlink/Overground

313 - Southern and First Capital Connect (and the FCC ones are not likely to be replaced under the Thameslink 2000 project)

314 - Scotrail - I *think* these are due to go off lease soon?

315 - Anglia - the Great Eastern half of the fleet will be replaced under Crossrail, the West Anglia part won't be though...

[62613]

ISTR a couple of years ago, when Merseyrail were trying to become a 'standalone' franchise, they were talking about trying to get funding for electrifying Bidston-Wrexham at 25kV a.c.But of course it didn't happen.

[Edwin_m]

Various local authorities along the route were looking at electrifying Wrexham-Bidston on 750V (not Merseyrail who are the operator, possibly thinkin of Merseytravel the PTE sponsor). However Network Rail's cost came out absolutely astronomical. 25kV might be cheaper if they could find enough 313s or some other dual-voltage unit that would go through the tunnels.

[plarailfan]

 

All true, but well more than 50% of trains passing my house, just north of Wigan on the WCML are diesel. Most freights, Liverpool - Preston DMU, Voyagers Birmingham - Glasgow / Edinburgh (100% electrified route). The class 66 diesel hauled freights are alot quieter than the Pendolino's too.

 

As to the tunnels on the standedge route (don't forget Morley either - a fairly long one), I remember reading about the early LNER Woodhead electrification plans - apparently they where going to electrify the OLD Woodhead tunnels. Tunnel condition, not clearance dictated otherwise post WW2. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

In my opinion THE main reason for electrification of any route is energy driven. As oilfields deplete over time, and oil is ever more costly / politically sensitive, it makes sense to electrify. The whole main line network needs converting over time, say the next 20 years or so.

 

Electrified railways are the future.

 

Brit15

Just in passing, during the 1980's Morley tunnel was closed for quite a few consecutive weekends, while some refurbishment work took place. (cue bustitution and frustrated passengers)

A story was going around at the time, that some preparation work was taking place, for future electrification. I don't know what the alleged preparations involved, maybe someone on here knows ?

[Edwin_m]

I doubt BR would have put up the money to provide electrification clearances when there was no electrification project agreed. However, if they needed to do something fairly drastic to the tunnel for other reasons then it might not be much extra work to create electrification clearances at the same time. For similar reasons pretty much any bridge replacement anywhere in the network is likely to create clearance for 25kV and probably W10/W12 as well,

[jamie92208]

I remeber watching the work being done. From memory it was mainly pounting and general repairs as well as drainage works. They also managed to damp prodf the signalling circuits which enabled them to close Morley signal box. I was told tnat the track circuits were never reliable so absolute block working was in use from lady Anne Crossing to Morley. When they'd finished the tunnel works Lady Anne became the fringe box for Leeds.

 

Jamie

[SHMD]

Anyone seen the plans for Stalybridge yet?

 

I've spoken to two members of staff and I can't believe what they've said!

 

They were very guarded but:-

Platform 1, (as it is now), to go - line slewed over into where the old through roads were and to become the down relief, (Ithink he phrased it 'goods line'). Already pegged out - he said! (there are white pegs in the ground.),

Platform 3, (as it is now), to go - probably, see next,

Patform 2 to become Down and the wall on the other side removed. Whole platform, (both edges), to be aligned further over, (Northwards, where the old through lines were), and extended, (presumably where bay platform 3 is currently). New platform edge to be the line into Manchester,

Outer goods loop to be Up goods line' - as is,

New Bay Platform to be opened adjacent to (current) Platform 1, ending buffers right up to where the white fence is next to the Buffet Bar. (There used to be Bays here in the days of steam!).

 

 

So one island platform and one bay. Goods loops to be either side of island platform.

There was some confusion as to bi-directional running. Indication was that all 4 roads were to be bidirectional, but i interpreted it as only the two platform roads being bidirectional.

 

 

Why?

There just seems to be so many better solutions than this one.

 

(Does explain why (current) Platform 1 has just had its canopy renewed!)