Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[mozzer models]

There used to be a loop between Heyrod and Scout Tunnel but on the Up line (travelling down hill, that is, towards Manchester!).

Being so close to Stalybridge, I'm not sure that it would be that benifitial.

 

If they did want to re-instate the Micklehurst Loop again then another viaduct would have to be rebuilt at Stalybridge over the Canal, the River Tame and then straight into the Tunnel.

 

I always thought that the viaduct straight into a Tunnel would look particularly good in model form.

 

Kev.

& the Greenfield Viaduct is long gone & that was a long one

[Edwin_m]

as i said theres space for a loop between moorgate crossing and saddleworth viaduct where the formation of the Delph branch ran along side the mainlines

 

or heres a radical thought run through stalybridge no2 tunnel then curve around on a new embankment to reconect near printworks road bridge ? tunnels in good condition

http://www.nwex.co.u...ght=stalybridge

 

Moorgate is an interesting one but there is no need for loops near Stalybridge as they are already provided in the form of the goods lines and the remodelling will create three through platforms and therefore allow passenger to overtake passenger and probably goods too. There are certainly better ways to do it than emerging from a tunnel straight over a river and back again, on a new and tightly curved structure built in a conservation area.

[peanuts]

had alook at the new signals today and they appear to be two lens searchlight 4 aspect signals ? odd as the rest of the signals on the route are 3 aspect ??????

 

are they all going to be changed to four aspect ?

 

 

anybody got a diagramme for the new layout yet ?

[SHMD]

I came across a very poor power point slide showing before and proposed layouts, for Stalybridge, on the Network Rail website - dated 16.6.11.

 

Not much detail, but it does show a lot of points.

 

I will post the link when I can find it again.

 

Kev.

[Fat Controller]

had alook at the new signals today and they appear to be two lens searchlight 4 aspect signals ? odd as the rest of the signals on the route are 3 aspect ??????

 

are they all going to be changed to four aspect ?

 

 

anybody got a diagramme for the new layout yet ?

I stand to be corrected, but doesn't installing 4-aspect signals for the immediate vicinity of the station effectively increase the capacity of the layout in the busiest part, without requiring conversion to 4-aspect elsewhere on the route? I'm sure I've seen such an arrangement elsewhere.

[Edwin_m]

Yes 4-aspect will increase the capacity and small "islands" of 4-aspect in otherwise 3-aspect territory have been used in the past. However they are frowned on today because frequent changes of signal spacing create a SPAD risk if the driver gets confused about which signals need immediate braking and which don't.

 

My guess is that 4-aspect will eventually extend from the vicinity of Stalybridge to link with the existing 4-aspect at Guide Bridge and also near Miles Platting. I can't remember if the latter gap is filled as part of this scheme but I would have thought it was a definite to happen before electrification.

 

The LED signals are pretty much standard for any signal work these days. They are a drop-in replacement for the older style so you see individual LED signals in areas where all others are of the multi-lens type, and also wholesale replacement in the areas of powerboxes that have a long remaining life.

[DerekEm8]

Edwin,

Is there any long term prospect of the Guide Bridge to Stockport link being added to the plan. ?

If so it would enable all sorts of interesting alternative routes for the smaller TOCs (eg Grand Central ) to access WCML to London/ the Midlands/Wales and the West Country.

[62613]

had alook at the new signals today and they appear to be two lens searchlight 4 aspect signals ? odd as the rest of the signals on the route are 3 aspect ??????

 

are they all going to be changed to four aspect ?

 

 

anybody got a diagramme for the new layout yet ?

 

The new signals were around Mossley and Heyrod, so cannot link with GB and Miles Platting. As I said, I reckon they are to do with the linespeed limit rise. Keith, does the one near Heyrod look bi-directional to you?

 

There is a diagram of the proposed new layout in today's 'Rail' magazine. As SHMD says, lots of points.

[Edwin_m]

Providing 4-aspect for a distance out of Stalybridge and also Huddersfield, but not necessarily the bit in the middle, would allow closer running of trains, since the stopper must follow closely after a non-stop leaving one place and the next non-stop will be close behind as they approach the other. Headways are in any case limited on the central section unless you want to risk stopping trains in Standege tunnel. I still think it will eventually be 4-aspect from here both to Guide Bridge (because it's too short to go to 3-aspect and back again) and Miles Platting area (because there will be even more trains on this part with the Stalybridge terminators).

 

We discussed on another thread somewhere that NR is looking into electrification of various connections incuding Stalybridge to Stockport.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Edwin_m

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've got a feeling that's an announcement that will be kept under wraps for a fair while. Another "political triumph" locked away safely in the piggy bank, as it were; to be pulled out when the time is right.

They can afford to do that as most pieces of the "jig-saw" are already steadily falling into place.

 

.

 

Having been involved with "political stuff" in the Thames Valley, I am sure that you are right. Ultimately, Crossrail to Reading can even save money by comparison with Crossrail to Maidenhead as it potentially reduces need for depots and increases scarce capacity on the route.

 

With Crossrail to Reading, it makes very little sense to use Class 319 in the Thames Valley at all, freeing them up for various northern projects.

[Edwin_m]

With Crossrail to Reading, it makes very little sense to use Class 319 in the Thames Valley at all, freeing them up for various northern projects.

 

You'd still need quite a few units for Oxford and Newbury services, and in the absence of any announcement on rolling stock for Transpennine we must assume that 185s are replaced by 319s on journeys as long as Newcastle to Liverpool. Are you suggesting that the South gets new build yet again and the North gets more cast-offs???!

[Joseph_Pestell]

You'd still need quite a few units for Oxford and Newbury services, and in the absence of any announcement on rolling stock for Transpennine we must assume that 185s are replaced by 319s on journeys as long as Newcastle to Liverpool. Are you suggesting that the South gets new build yet again and the North gets more cast-offs???!

 

I think that you can safely assume that it won't be 319s on Newcastle to Liverpool. A short IEP could be a candidate but I think that Govt is finally realising what a folly that project is. Class 395 Javelin (or a 23 metre derivative) would be a good call on that route.

 

I also think that we will see something similar to Class 395 on the Great Western's shorter routes. Really need the extra speed over the 319 to maximise capacity on the fast lines east of Airport Jct. With extra platform capacity at Reading we might even see Oxford / Newbury services of 2 x 395 split at Reading.

 

So, yes, probably more new trains in the South and cascaded (but refurbed) 319s in the North - but only for suburban services. 319s 3rd rail/overhead capacity could be useful in extending Merseyrail services.

[Glorious NSE]

I think that you can safely assume that it won't be 319s on Newcastle to Liverpool. A short IEP could be a candidate but I think that Govt is finally realising what a folly that project is. Class 395 Javelin (or a 23 metre derivative) would be a good call on that route.

 

Would have thought an add-on to TPXs 350s would be more likely, even if only for compatibility reasons?

[The Stationmaster]

I think that you can safely assume that it won't be 319s on Newcastle to Liverpool. A short IEP could be a candidate but I think that Govt is finally realising what a folly that project is. Class 395 Javelin (or a 23 metre derivative) would be a good call on that route.

 

I also think that we will see something similar to Class 395 on the Great Western's shorter routes. Really need the extra speed over the 319 to maximise capacity on the fast lines east of Airport Jct. With extra platform capacity at Reading we might even see Oxford / Newbury services of 2 x 395 split at Reading.

 

So, yes, probably more new trains in the South and cascaded (but refurbed) 319s in the North - but only for suburban services. 319s 3rd rail/overhead capacity could be useful in extending Merseyrail services.

 

The serious question is 'what extra platform capacity at Reading?' - and the serious answer is 'not much on the Great Western side'. In fact there is in some respects a loss of capacity on that side with the loss of two bays and their effective replacement by two through platforms plus the creation of another through platform - which is in reality the only nett addition. It seems that the operating companies have yet to give any serious thought to how they will run local services but if - in the original scheme - two dedicated platforms were inadequate for the level of service planned for Crossrail then the new Reading layout won't necessarily be adequate either unless something else is taken away.

 

The existing local service is east of Reading is abysmal - albeit frequency is not too bad but journey times to London from stations between Slough and Reading are generally worse than they were 40 years ago and there is major overcrowding east of Slough on most trains altogether making rail unattractive to many potential users. If CrossRail goes to Reading - as it almost certainly will I think (assuming the extra resources are affordable?) - there will have to be some very serious thinking about how local services are to be structured and the poor service which has resulted, in many respects, from the introduction of the Paddington - Heathrow stoppers will have to be addressed and, one hopes, greatly improved.

 

Sorry for going off thread title area.

[MarkC]

 

I remember catching a train to Liverpool composed of a 6 car blue/grey transpennine, with a 2 car blue dmu tacked on the back. The ride in the dmu at the rear got a bit lively once past 70mph!

 

This is a bit late 'coming to the party', but the Class 124 Transpennines were also restricted to 70mph - they had the same mechanical kit as many other 1st generation DMUs, and were 'Blue Square' for multiple working.

[coachmann]

When some Class 158's were paired with a 156 to form a 2-coach Unit on Standedge in the 1990's, there was a sign in the 158 cab to remind the driver not to exceed the top speed of the 156.

Edited May 1, 2012 by coachmann

[TheSignalEngineer]

When some Class 158's were paired with a 156 to form a 2-coach Unit on Standedge in the 1990's, there was a sign in the 158 cab to remind the driver not to exceed the top speed of the 156.

310 sets were 85 mph when introduced but were soon restricted to the speed of the 304s (75mph?) when a 304 suffered damage whilst running in multiple with a 310 leading.

[Christopher125]

Would have thought an add-on to TPXs 350s would be more likely, even if only for compatibility reasons?

 

Pretty sure we've seen the last of the 350 family now, future orders will have to be Desiro City's which meet the latest regs. Not much of an issue though as the TPE 350's will be subleased from LM and will probably be cascaded back to them by 6-car EMU's as predicted by the relevant RUS - perhaps as part of a larger Transpennine order?

 

Chris

Edited May 2, 2012 by Christopher125

[coachmann]

I photographed one of the brandnew TransPennine Units in 1961 just below Greenfield but I'm blowed if I can find the negative now. Got a Class 40 on a Newcastle and a 2-6-4T at Royal George soap works (on which I got a lift on back to Lees). On a sliding scale of sound, the double-headed steam trains on TransPennine workings could be heard miles away, the Class 40's a lot closer, but I had never heard anything so quiet as the new TP Unit. It caught me quite by suprise and I am wondering if I threw the neg away 'cos it was blurred(!).

Edited May 3, 2012 by coachmann

[peanuts]

know what you mean about the 40s used to be able to here them coming up the valley on the dewsnap - healy mills goods every evening deltics were fairly quiet in comparison didnt usualy here them untill they cleared greenfield station the 40s you could hear as far back as mossley .once watched a very late running dewsnap healeymills which was very heavily loaded come up the valley around 11pm and you could see flames coming out of the class 40 exhaust from the otherside of the valley it was being worked that hard glorious .

37s could give a good show but the ultimate was a class 25 hauling a failed peak and 8 bogies on a liverpool - york realy being worked hard think it was terminated at leeds

 

was passing stalybridge today and noticed the goods loops have been completley dug out and theres a huge pile of earth near the tunnel entrance so there cracking on with the remodeling also theres an new LED banner repeater between mossley station and scout tunnel

[lmsforever]

How far towards the east is the knitting going to reach surely passenger levels at Grimsby are not high, as to Hull there would seem to be a case ,any thoughts guys?

[jamie92208]

At the moment the only firm committment is York as far as I know but the various studies that have been commissioned under the GRIP process are looking at what other routes need to be done.

 

 

Jamie

[AMJ]

Perhaps for the quieter branches the talked of conversion of 220's by the addition of a new EMU trailer might be the ideal solution. It would be more logical than having different train types for the traffic flows such as Ringway - Boro as that would come of the wires to go through Yarm.

[Edwin_m]

I think the 220s would still all be needed on CrossCountry. Maybe scope for Siemens to combine bits of the 350 and 185 to create a bi-mode Pennine unit, but not as easy because the 185 doesn't have electric transmission so can't just be fed power from the transformer.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think the 220s would still all be needed on CrossCountry. Maybe scope for Siemens to combine bits of the 350 and 185 to create a bi-mode Pennine unit, but not as easy because the 185 doesn't have electric transmission so can't just be fed power from the transformer.

 

I think that CrossCountry might be very glad to be rid of the 220s in favour of something with a bit more capacity (even allowing for the extra pantograph coach).