Midlands Rail Hub

A version of this article was published in Rail Magazine issue 1016

Since November 2022 Volkerfitzpatrick has been working on behalf of the West Midlands Rail Executive and the West Midlands Combined Authority to deliver three new stations on the Camp Hill Line in Birmingham to replace ones which had closed in 1941. Thankfully the line remained open, however for the last 80 years it has only been used for freight traffic, empty stock moves and some Cross Country services in order to bypass the Cross City Line.

The £61m scheme to reopen the Camp Hill Line will see three stations rebuilt with accessible, two platform stations capable of handling six-car trains. The initial two trains per hour service will operate between Birmingham New Street and Kings Norton, with trains joining the Camp Hill Line at St Andrews Junction. As the line will remain unelectrified the service will be operated by West Midlands Railway using Class 196 DMUs.

Heading south from New Street the first of the rebuilt stations on the route will be Moseley Village, which is located on St Mary’s Row in Moseley, just to the north of the short tunnel which takes the line underneath what will eventually be the entrance to the station and St Mary’s Row.

Moseley Village station progress April 2024

The next station will be approximately 1km to the south, located close to the A435 High Street in Kings Heath, next to a small retail park. The new Kings Heath station will be situated alongside the car park for the retail park and will have access from a new pedestrian overbridge onto High Street.

CG render of Kings Heath station (West Midlands Combined Authority) 

The final station to be rebuilt will be Pineapple Road, located approximately 1.5km to the south of Kings Heath, just north of the bridge which takes Cartland Road over the line in Stirchley. From there, trains will head south to Kings Norton, where the trains will terminate, before reversing to head back to New Street station.

Rebuilding stations which existed previously would normally be relatively straightforward, however, the re-opening of the three stations has not been without its challenges as after eight decades almost nothing remained of the former stations. The sites for the three stations are also especially constrained and substantial remediation works had to be carried out in order to stabilise cuttings and provide space for the longer platforms. Piling work is clearly visible at Kings Heath and Pineapple Road stations, whilst ground anchors and concrete has been used to stabilise embankments on either side of Moseley Village station.

Image from 2024 shows the extent of the piling work required at Kings Norton to stabilise an embankment 

Lack of space is not the only challenge faced by the contractor. In June last year, it was reported that the discovery of badgers in Moseley was to blame for a significant delay in the reopening of the station. Badgers are classified as an endangered species, which means their sets cannot simply be removed. This meant that Volkerfitzpatrick had to work with ecologists to rehome the badgers to a suitable location before work on the station could continue.

Operating services to Birmingham New Street is currently the only practical way to get trains into the city centre, although capacity at the station has been constrained for a number of years. However, the new service will be able to make use of paths into New Street which have become available following the Pandemic. In particular, Cross City Line services have not returned to pre-pandemic levels and currently, four trains per hour operate in each direction, as opposed to six trains per hour before the pandemic. This also means that there will be capacity to turnback the new Camp Line trains at Kings Norton on the Cross City Line without any expensive infrastructure modifications.

Ultimately, following the completion of the Midlands Rail Hub project, it is proposed to restore six trains per hour on the Cross City line into New St and to re-route the Camp Hill Line services into Birmingham Moor Street station.

The Midlands Rail Hub scheme is being developed jointly by the Department for Transport, sub-national transport body Midlands Connect, West Midlands Rail Executive and Network Rail. The project involves the construction of a two new chords in the Bordesley area from the Chiltern Mainline onto to connect the Camp Hill Line and line from Water Orton with the existing Chiltern Main Line into Birmingham Moor St. The project also involves building additional platforms at Moor Street and a new platform at both Snow Hill and Kings Norton, as well as increasing the number of tracks between Moor Street and Bordesley.

Two new chords will be constructed in Bordesley linking the Camp Hill to the Chiltern Main Line

The western Bordesely chord would not only allow Camp Hill Line services to terminate at Moor Street, but together with other proposed infrastructure interventions south of Kings Norton would allow additional services from Moor Street to serve Bristol, Cardiff, Worcester and Hereford. Similarly, in conjunction with other infrastructure works east of Birmingham, the second chord at Bordesley will allow additional trains to head from Moor Street towards the East Midlands. In total more than 50 stations will benefit from the Midlands Rail Hub plans.

Constructing the two new chords is likely to be one of the most challenging aspects of the scheme and will likely involve the rebuilding of the bridge over Bordesley Middleway, and the construction of a bridge over the roundabout at the western end of Small Heath Highway. In addition, both the eastern and western chords would also have to cross the Grand Union Canal. Ideally, both chords would be constructed at the same time, which should provide overall cost savings, by delivering the works within a single package.

The budget for the combined Midlands Rail Hub interventions is estimated to be £1.75bn and it is hoped to complete the project around the early 2030s, should funding be agreed. At the beginning of March, the Government announced funding of £123m to progress the Full Business Case stage and begin design work.

Due to the scale of the project, the Government as well as agreeing to fund the scheme must also grant a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), which would provide Network Rail with permission to begin construction. The TWAO will only be granted once the full business case has been appraised and funding granted which is likely to still be a few years away.

The reopening of the Camp Hill Line will provide benefits for residents who live in the south of the city who currently don’t have access to rail services. The Camp Hill Line could also improve local and regional connectivity with HS2 services from Curzon Street should the western chord be constructed. The western concourse of Curzon Street will be adjacent to the entrance to Moor Street station, however, the current plans for the new HS2 station do not include full integration with Moor Street, it is therefore hoped that plans will eventually be progressed to fully integrate the two stations.

The main entrance of the new HS2 station in Birmingham will be adjacent to Moor St station

If the full Midlands Rail Hub scheme can be realised then connectivity with HS2 services will be further enhanced and could bring passengers from Bromsgrove and Worcester within easy reach of HS2 services.

From the very beginning, the location of the new HS2 station has come under criticism, due to the distance from New Street station. But if the Midlands Rail Hub is realised then Birmingham Moor St could become a much more convenient station for onward travel from Curzon Street to destinations across Birmingham and further afield to the West and East Midlands, should both of the chords at Bordesley be constructed.

The Government has claimed that the Midlands Rail Hub has been made possible by “reallocated HS2 funding” freed up by the cancellation of the northern sections of HS2. However, in addition to the improved regional and cross-regional connections it delivers, Midlands Rail Hub has always been seen as key to unlocking the full benefits of HS2 and in fact, the cancellation of the northern section appears to have reduced the overall benefits and limits the scope for further connectivity improvements.

Without significant upgrades to the WCML, or the construction of a new line between Handsacre and Crewe/Manchester it will be unlikely that services will be able to operate from Curzon Street to Manchester, the North West and Scotland. And whilst this shouldn't affect the business case for the Midlands Rail Hub, it will limit the usefulness of Curzon Street Station and ultimately curtail the transformational connectivity HS2 Phase 2b would have provided between Britain's two largest regional cities.

That’s not to say the Midlands Rail Hub will not be transformational on its own, if delivered in full, but the benefits could be spread much further if HS2 was to be constructed in full.

HS2, Handsacre

A version of this article was Published in Rail Magazine, issue 999

The small village of Handsacre has recently become the focus of attention after the Prime Minister announced at the Conservative Party Conference on the 4th of October that he was cancelling phase 2 of HS2 to Crewe and Manchester. Now the parish of Handsacre and Armitage, which is more often associated with the manufacture of bathroom fixtures has another claim to fame, being the likely permanent end point for HS2.

It was always intended that HS2 would join the WCML at Handsacre, however, it was assumed that this would be the first of three connections that would allow trains to leave the new line and head north on the existing railway. The other two were to be located to the south of Crewe and Golborne to the North of Warrington.

Before Phase 2 was split into phases 2a and 2b it was proposed that HS2 services would leave the high-speed line at Handsacre and continue on the existing network to Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow before the completion of Phase 2 to Manchester and Golborne.

The plan was changed in 2014, when it was decided to build HS2 to Crewe first (Phase 2a), then continue the line to Manchester and Golborne (Phase 2b). After the re-phasing, it was proposed that Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow could each be served by one HS2 service per hour to London Euston (later, further revised to terminate temporarily at Old Oak Common) until the completion of phase 2a to Crewe.

Site of Handsacre Junction, 2023

Once phase 2a opened, Manchester would have been served by three trains per hour, Liverpool two and Glasgow one train per hour, joining HS2 just south of Crewe. After which two additional services were proposed. One originating in Macclesfield calling at Stoke and Stafford, before joining HS2 at Handsacre utilising the capacity released by Phase 2a. The other would start at Lancaster and call at Preston, Wigan and Warrington Bank Quay before joining a service from Liverpool at Crewe to form a single 400m set (2x 200m). This service would then join the WCML at the connection south of Crewe.

Now though, after Rishi Sunak’s announcement, trains will join the WCML at Handsacre indefinitely, as he has cancelled arguably the most transformative section of HS2. HS2 Phase 1 will still provide some capacity gains between Rugby and London Euston, with benefits for commuters south of Birmingham, however, there will be no additional capacity freed up between Rugby and Manchester.

The PM's decision may also potentially create a severe bottleneck between Handsacre and Colwich, which could have implications for the WCML north of Lichfield, affecting both passenger and freight services.

HS2 - WCML Spur

To further complicate matters Handsacre Junction requires two separate junctions to work, with a flyover taking a down line over the core section (that would later have become Phase 2a), to the spur which would join the WCML. Now though, this first junction is no longer technically required, but work on the junction has already begun before being paused in March this year.

If the grade-separated junction from HS2 to the WCML spur is no longer required then it may be the case that changes to the Hybrid Bill for Phase 1 will be required, which could mean the bill would have to go back to Parliament. The best outcome would be that a stub be left so that HS2 could potentially continue north at some point in the future.

For the moment however, no one seems to know what will happen and those working within the DfT and HS2 Ltd are only now starting to understand what the implications of the PM's decision will be. When asked for comment, a spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said “We understand the Government’s ambition is to run HS2 trains via the Handscare Link to serve destinations in the North. We await formal notification as to whether the Government intends to repeal the Phase 2a Act, and therefore whether any amendment would be required to the Phase One Act powers for this train service specification to be delivered”.

For now, the sites between Lichfield and Handsacre have been mothballed after all construction north of Streethay (Lichfield) was paused. Since then, the most northerly work that has taken place was the construction of a bridge taking the WCML over HS2 at Fulfen Wood, which was moved into place in July. The Balfour Beatty VINCI joint venture delivering this part of the route is continuing work on the bridge that will take the A38 over HS2, but workers have been stood down between Streethay and Handsacre.

The situation at Handsacre was further complicated when the Phase 2a bill was deposited, as the WCML connection was redesigned so that the HS2 tracks would connect to the Up-Down slows on the WCML. The original proposal for Phase 1 would have seen the HS2 tracks join the UP-Down fasts, which would have been more costly and complicated but would have maximised capacity.

Handsacre original junction design

This change wasn’t as important with the plans for Phase 2a taking HS2 to Crewe and therefore reducing the burden on Handsacre. But without phase 2a, will provide a constraint which will impact capacity on the WCML.

Updated junction design

Professor McNaughton highlighted the issue during a Transport Select Committee HS2 update on the 16th of November, during which he suggested that the WCML connection will have to be redesigned if HS2 is to terminate at Handsacre permanently. When Jack Brereton, MP for Stoke-on-Trent asked “You are advocating a redesign of Handsacre?" Professor McNaughton replied, “I think it is inevitable and an unfortunate consequence, and then bang goes some of the money that you might have saved from not doing 2a.”

Prior to that exchange Professor McNaughton alarmingly said “Unless something has fundamentally changed in the laws of physics since I last looked at it, you cannot deliver the whole of the HS2 phase 1 service on to the slow lines without actually cancelling your freight trains.”

So it seems clear that significant design change will be required, to one or both of the junctions, from what would have been Phase 2a and the spur to the WCML at Handsacre. But even if the WCML connection is reverted to the original more efficient design, it would still be the case that HS2 trains will join the WCML at a section which is already constrained. Just a few miles north of Handsacre is Colwich Junction, which is a flat junction where the Stone and Colwich line meets the WCML from Stafford. This junction funnels Avanti services from the North and LNR services from Crewe down the Trent Valley line. Being at-grade means that capacity is inherently constrained and that’s before the introduction of additional HS2 services.

It is important to note that current Avanti services will largely be replaced by HS2 services, however, it was always proposed that some “classic services” would be retained. The classic services would not only retain or improve local and regional connectivity but would also free up seating capacity for passengers on the WCML. An indicative service pattern within the Phase 1 business case (which was updated in 2020), shows an hourly service from Manchester calling at Rugby and Milton Keynes, in addition to the three proposed HS2 services per hour.

Stopping at Milton Keynes not only benefits Milton Keynes commuters but also maintains connectivity between North and the largest settlement in Buckinghamshire which has a population of 260,000. Milton Keynes is also home to head offices for several large international and national companies, and from 2025 will provide improved links to Bicester and Oxford via East West Rail

Not only would the PM's decision limit capacity on the WCML, it will fail to provide any meaningful capacity for passengers from the North. In fact seating capacity could be reduced unless the current order for 54, 200m long trains is modified. The expected capacity of the HS2 units that will be delivered by a Hitachi/Alstom Joint Venture would only be 550 seats. This wasn’t a problem with phase 2 providing Manchester Piccadilly with the ability to accommodate 400m long (2x 200m), 1,100 seat sets. However, without phase 2 the existing platforms could only accommodate 200m long units. If so this would lead to a reduction in seating capacity when compared to the 265m long, 11 car Class 390 Pendolinos, which have a capacity of 589.

Capacity comparison, 200m long HS2 trains vs existing Avanti Class 390

Even if the order is modified to deliver say 250m long HS2 units, that would only provide a marginal gain, versus the capacity provided currently. A potential for a 294 seat per hour gain from Manchester to London is hardly transformation, not when compared with phase 2, which would have provided up to 1550 additional seats per hour. This reduction also applies to Glasgow, which would only be served by one HS2 service per hour, instead of the 2tph that would have been provided with the completion of the Golborne Link. Liverpool could potentially still see two HS2 services per hour, but it is unclear if the additional service would be a straight swap for the proposed Avanti service calling at Liverpool South Parkway using Class 807s.

It's too early to tell what the implication of the PM's decision will be, but it seems patently clear that if nothing else, reliability will suffer by trying to squeeze more capacity out of the existing railway North of Handsacre and that the proposed capacity gains provide by HS2 will be marginal at best.

155mph Class 390s on HS2?

You may have to forgive the grammar, this article was based on a script for a Youtube video

Should we operate 155mph (250km/h) capable Class 390 Pendolinos on HS2? The short answer, in my opinion, is no. However, it is a complicated issue that deserves further investigation.

The renowned and well-respected railway veteran Chris Gibb has proposed that Class 390s should be fitted with new traction systems and bogies so they can operate in regular service at 155mph in non-tilt mode on HS2. 

The primary benefit is capacity from Glasgow and Manchester to London.  But it is also claimed that the Glasgow to London journey time will be 17 minutes slower via HS2 than the existing service.

Firstly I have to agree with the point about capacity, In fact, I was one of the first people to demonstrate that HS2 in its current form could lead to a reduction in seating capacity from Manchester and Glasgow into London. However, it is important to stipulate seating capacity.

Why is this the case? Because the new HS2 trains on order will be 200m long and were intended to work in multiple to Birmingham Curzon St and the new HS2 platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, so would be 400m long during peak hours, providing up to 1100 seats.  But with no new HS2 platforms at Manchester there will be no room at Piccadilly for 400m long trains

Artist impress of the rolling stock intended for HS2. Source HS2 Ltd

Even if HS2 were built in full to Golborne, Glasgow would still have been served by 200m HS2 sets but would have benefited from an increased frequency, leading to an overall capacity gain. But unfortunately curtailing HS2 means no more trains can operate between Glasgow and Euston that already do currently.

The main issue is that a 265m long, 11 car Pendolinos have 589 seats, whereas the proposed HS2 units will have up to 550 seats per 200m long sets. So there could be an overall reduction in seating capacity on some routes

HS2 units vs Class 390 comparison

However, once HS2 opens to Handsacre there may still be potential to operate a so-called “classic” between Manchester and London, calling at Milton Keynes. So Manchester could see up to 4 trains per hour to London, comprised of 3 HS2 and 1 classic. This means there could still be an overall capacity gain and more choice for passengers.

Glasgow is a bit more challenging, as capacity is limited between Crewe, Warrington and Wigan and on the northern section of WCML. So without HS2 to Golborne, no more trains can operate than currently do, so technically there could be a reduction in seating capacity from Glasgow. At least for the direct Glasgow to London via HS2 service, which would replace the existing direct service.

Liverpool to London will still see an overall increase with the service increased to 2tph with HS2 to Handsacre. Even taking into account the proposed additional Avanti service from Liverpool to London. However, Gibb suggests that one service per hour should continue to use the WCML via Milton Keynes, but use the new HS2 trains. This idea possibly may have some merit, at least until HS2 is completed to Euston.

The report also recommends the existing two Cross Country services per hour from Manchester should replaced by 200m long HS2 service from Manchester to Birmingham. This would provide a capacity uplift between Manchester and Birmingham and the Chris claims would reduce the journey from 90 to 50 minutes

Although the current services stop at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton and takes 57 minutes just to get to Stafford. So is there a suggestion that some stops would be missed out between Manchester and Birmingham? 

This proposal also removes the direct connectivity from Manchester with the South and South West, with XC services continuing to Bristol and Bournemouth. Although it should be pointed out that some journeys such as those to Reading could switch to HS2 and GWR, with passengers changing trains at Old Oak Common.

Manchester to Birmingham connectivity is an issue I have continually tried to raise, and I feel it has been repeatedly ignored within the HS2 debate, despite time savings between the UK's two largest regional cities that would have been transformational. But HS2 would have retained the existing service and supplemented it with new services between the UK's two largest regional cities. So, as it stands I do not think we should be replacing the existing services with HS2 services. Not least because the time-saving claiming would not be achievable without removing stops between Manchester and Birmingham.

Manchester to Birmingham

Current: 90 minutes 

HS2 to Manchester: 49 minutes

The other significant proposal is to de-scope Euston to just 2, 400m HS2 platforms, to be used for the Birmingham services. Beyond that I'm not sure what Gibb is suggesting, he makes reference to Caledonian Sleeper platforms, but with no connection from HS2 to the existing station possible, they seem irrelative.

I'm working on the basis that he means to continue to build some new platforms at Euston, but only build 2, 400m long platforms. With new shorter platforms which would be served by Class 390s and 200m long HS2 units. But I can't imagine that building shorter platforms would save a significant amount of money, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

It is worth pointing out that the current design for Euston Tunnel and the approach would not allow for a connection from HS2 to the existing platforms simply because of the lack of space available. In fact, the HS2 platforms will be lower than the existing ones due to the lack of space, to get from the tunnel portal to the station throat.

Layout of Euston approach, source HS2 Ltd

Why do I oppose this plan? I think Richard Bowker put it best, during the interview that Chris Gibb did with Green Signals. Richard said “The critics will say you're letting the politicians off the hook” [Green Signals episode 35].  This was said when Sunak was in power and Richard appeared to be playing devil's advocate. But I do still agree with the sentiment.

In essence, it begs the question, why should any Government continue to develop HS2 if we can just operate some Pendolinos along the route and call it a day? I know Gibb does make further suggestions about Northern Powerhouse Rail and Handsacre to Crewe. But it could be all too tempting just to use slower trains on HS2 and perhaps carry out some upgrades on the WCML.

Gibb's proposal also means that Birmingham's services will have to run slower and could operate a maximum of 186mph, instead of between 200mph (320km/h) and 225mph (360km/h). It wouldn't be practical or possible to operate trains with a speed differential ranging from 45mph to 70mph and maintain the headway. Although I appreciate HS2 is primarily about capacity, but it doesn't seem right to cut the benefits for Birmingham, just so we can operate Class 390 on HS2.  

Gibb also said during the Green Signals interview that he is “challenging” the industry to see if it's possible to re-engineer Class 390s. This seems to be a change from the tone of the report, which makes it seem as if it is already possible.

Perhaps instead we should be challenging the industry to find a cost-effective and practical way to modify the HS2 rolling stock order and instead order 250m or 260m long HS2 sets, which would have more capacity than Class 390s despite being a similar length. I'm not saying all units, but perhaps 8, 10 to 12, to operate peak Manchester and Glasgow services would be sufficient?

I understand there may also be an issue with the Washwood Heath Depot and the maintenance hall may not be long enough to accommodate longer sets. But perhaps the units could be maintained in existing WCML depots with the installation of new equipment?

Washwood Heath plan. Source HS2 Ltd

Surely modifying the HS2 rolling stock order and creating provision for maintenance would be no more expensive or technically challenging than fitting new traction equipment to 20-year-old trains? Which will be close to 30 years old by the time HS2 opens to Handsacre.

I also have to question the “up to 17 minutes longer” claim between Glasgow and London, to which I wasn't able to get a satisfactory answer to what this means. As far as I can tell, it most certainly will not mean services from Glasgow to London via HS2 would be 17 minutes slower than today. As even the most pessimistic time penalty for non-tilting trains between Glasgow and Handsacre would be more than made up for with the time saving between Handsacre and London.

And plans to lift the non-tilt speed on the WCML are already well in advance and a special speed limit can be applied on straight sections of the WCML to allow no-tilting multiple units to travel at 125mph, rather than 110mph, further reducing the time penalty.

Raising the MU speed to 125mph on straight sections of the northern WCML would benefit Transpennine Express services served by Class 397s. In addition, raising the non-tilt MU speed is already planned for Avanti services operated by Class 805s (which do not tilt) between Crewe and London.

Avanti's new Class 805 units do not tilt. But the journey time between Chester and Euston will not be significantly longer once the MU speed is raised. 

Also, as far as I can tell, there may still be scope for a Lancaster to Euston service within the current HS2 plan, This service would have stopped at Preston, Wigan and Warrington, then joined with a Liverpool HS2 service at Crewe. This means it will only occupy a single path between Crewe and Handsacre.  

This could mean that the Glasgow service could make fewer stops on the WCML, further reducing the overall journey time. This service would have been introduced only after HS2 was completed to Crewe but before the completion of HS2 to Golborne. So would have operated over the constrained section between Crewe and Wigan.

HS2 and Classic services, potential

I imagine capacity for this service would be released by running the Glasgow service non-stop south of Preston. But I'm not sure if there would be scope to run the Lancaster service to and from Glasgow instead.

What I'm trying to say is, that there are other options and this proposal could be seen as defeatest. But I think ultimately there may be little point in running the proposed full HS2 timetable until HS2 is open to Euston. So this gives the Government time to reconsider its decision and come up with a better plan than operating 25 to 35-year-old trains at 155mph on HS2.

Until HS2 opens to Euston, it may be better to operate limited service from Manchester to Old Oak Common, perhaps, 2 HS2 trains per hour to Old Oak, with 2 classic services to Euston. Similarly, Liverpool to London could be 1 HS2 and 1 Classic service per hour

Admittedly this leaves a question about Glasgow, to which I don't have a satisfactory answer. Perhaps an alternating HS2 and Classic service, with 260m long HS2 trains. This would provide Glasgow with a connection to Old Oak Common, whilst maintaining capacity into Euston.

HS2 + Classic service, potential prior to opening of HS2 to Euston

Terminating at Old Oak Common is far from ideal and HS2 must be built to Euston. But there will be benefits of changing trains at Old Oak, with connections via the Elizabeth Line to central London and Heathrow and the Reading and the South West via GWR services. So there would be a benefit of providing services from the North to Old Oak Common

I know I'm just a solitary railway commentator and Chris has decades of experience has the support of many within the rail industry and should be said has my full respect. But myself and others, including industry experts I have spoken to privately disagree with this proposal, as pragmatic as it may seem on the surface.

If you would like to consider buying me a coffee and please head over to ko-fi ko-fi.com/rail_focus. I also have a Patreon. Any support you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. And don't forget to share the blog ;)

Twitter - Facebook - Youtube

HS2 Thame Valley Viaduct, first beams lifted into place

Text edited from a script I wrote for a video which can be found here

At 880m long and only 3m high the Thame Valley Viaduct in Buckinghamshire won’t be as impressive as the Colne Valley Viaduct in Denham. However, the way in which it is being constructed will make the viaduct pioneering, at least here in the UK.

The viaduct will pass over a large floodplain to the west of Aylesbury that is situated between the A41 and A418. Trying to build a viaduct that is almost a kilometre long within a floodplain provides a whole host of challenges, which is part of the reason why the viaduct is being constructed in the way that it is, using prefabricated elements for much of the viaduct's structure.

In order to build the viaduct an access road first had to be constructed, which had to be strong enough to allow cranes, ADTs (articulated dump trucks) and excavators to pass over it, but could not contaminate or block the flow of water.

Therefore several culverts were installed underneath the road to stop it from becoming a dam, in addition, the base for the road was made with coarse stone, which was free of fine material that would otherwise reduce permeability and could contaminate the water.

A bowser carrying diesel driving over part of the Thame Valley haul road

The road which has been constructed to a height of approximately 1.8m is a feat of engineering in itself, but is only temporary and will have to be removed once the viaduct is complete.

With the completion of the haul road work could begin on the difficult task of trying to sink piles and excavated material for a pile cap within a floodplain. The pile cap is a steel-reinforced concrete box which sits on top of the piles and is used as a base to support the piers. There are typically three piles underneath each cap, which have been sunk to a depth of 45m to provide a solid foundation for the piers and ultimately the viaduct to rest on.

Before earth could be excavated for the pile cap a cofferdam had to be constructed, which used sheet piling that was driven into the ground. The earth was then excavated to the top of the piles before a mould was placed inside the hole into which steel reinforcement was placed and concrete poured.

The construction of the haul road and pile caps is interesting, but not particularly groundbreaking. The pioneering part began when the construction of the viaduct's structure commenced, as it is thought that this will be the first time that a viaduct in the UK has been constructed almost entirely out of pre-fabricated sections. This includes the steel reinforcement cages for the pile cap, the concrete piers and concrete beams used to support the deck, as well as elements of the deck.

The 68, three-metre tall concrete piers that each weigh 42 tonnes and 72 concrete beams that weigh 97 tonnes have been constructed 90 miles away on the Isle of Grain by PACADAR.

Ends of the beams sitting on top of the pre-case concrete piers.

Using prefabrication in a controlled environment has allowed the bridge design to be improved which it is thought will save as much as 19,000 tonnes of concrete. In addition, it will cut down the number of lorry movements required, with each beam transported on a single vehicle, which would otherwise require as many as five, four-axle lorry loads of materials to be delivered to the site.

The 42-tonne piers alone would have required the equivalent of around two, 12m3 cement mixers worth of concrete to be delivered to the site. In addition, using prefabrication means fewer workers are needed on site which further reduces vehicle traffic in the area.

The first piers were installed in June this year (2023) and so far 36 have been installed. With the piers now installed the first beams are beginning to be placed on top.

The lift was carried out using two crawler cranes, one with a lifting capacity of 300 tonnes and another with a 350 tonne capacity. The cranes worked in tandem to first lift the beam from the transporter and then slew the beam into place on top of the piers.

Lift off, the 97 tonne beam being slewed into place

Each of the viaduct's 36 spans will require 2 beams, with spans of between 20 and 25 metres. It is hoped that a beam one will be lifted into place each day, weather permitting.

Once installed the beams will be post-tensioned to the adjoining beam, using short threaded bars that will be slotted into holes within the ends of the beams.

Once several beams have been installed the deck sections will be lifted into place on top of the beams. The bridge deck will be constructed using pre-assembled panels, which will be covered in a final layer of concrete that will be poured in situ to form a continuous concrete deck. The deck will support pre-cast slab track sections which will in turn support the rails.

Although the piles, pile cap and top layer of the deck are being poured in situ, it is the use of prefabrication for the beams, piers and sections of the deck and slab track that make the construction of this viaduct unique within the UK.

So whilst it may not get as much attention as the Colne Valley viaduct, The Thame Valley viaduct is no less important and is helping to push the boundaries of UK construction.

Twitter - Facebook - Youtube

Re-blog: Improving links between North West England and North Wales

A version of this article was published in Rail Magazine in December 2021

As someone who lives on the Wirral and frequently travels to North Wales via the A494 through Queensferry, and has been a committee member of the Wrexham-Bidston Rail User's Association for a number of years, I'm well aware of current poor transport connections between North West England and North Wales. The bridge which carries the A494 over the River Dee and on to the A55 was used by 60,000 vehicles a day before the Pandemic. So, knowing how busy the A494 can get, particularly during school holidays and on Fridays before bank holidays when people flock to North Wales, I supported a proposal to build a new link road from the A548 Flintshire bridge to the A55, a proposal known as the "Red Route".

You may be wondering what if anything roads have to do with railways? Well, recently my support for the "Red Route" has started to wane, especially as awareness of the climate emergency has grown. However despite the pandemic, the A494 often still gets incredibly congested and in 2020 particularly with many people holidaying in the UK, it seemed as if the A494/A55 was busier than ever. Even so, the Welsh Government may be right to cancel the "Red Route". But it does beg the question, how are the aims of the Union connectivity review which was published in December 2021 going to be delivered if not by upgrading road connections? The report led by Sir Peter Hendy sought to identify ways of improving connectivity between the 4 UK nations and recommended that the Westminster works “with the Welsh Government to undertake a multimodal review of the North Wales transport corridor”

The four-lane bridge which carries the A494 over the River Dee is set to be replaced, with work due to begin in 2024/25 and as the proposal falls under renewals is not subject to the same environmental review as the Red Route. The bridge replacement will see an additional lane in each direction added to the A494 which may relieve congestion in the short term. However, the only long-term solution to improve links would be to build the new link road to the A55.

Map showing the road and rail links between England and North Wales

If new roads aren't the answer then the only other alternative is to improve rail links between the two nations, which are the North Wales Coast Line, the Wrexham-Bidston (Borderlands) Line and Shrewsbury-Chester Line. The latter was recently partially re-double between Chester and Wrexham General, however, the Wrexham-Bidston and North Wales Coast Line are in dire need of upgrades and are currently underutilised. The hourly Transport for Wales service from Manchester to North Wales is often crowded and fares are relatively expensive, also the hourly service on the Borderlands Line isn't viewed as a reliable means of travelling between North East Wales and Liverpool.

North Wales Coast services will be given a boost in December 2023 when TfW plans to introduce an hourly Liverpool to Llandudno service which will use new Class 197 DMUs that are now being introduced. The CAF-built units are being introduced on TfW's long-distance service, such as Manchester to Llandudno Junction and Manchester to South Wales. The introduction of Class 197s and rakes of Mk4 carriages will allow TfW to operate five-car trains between Manchester and South Wales, but TfW is yet to decide if the new stock will allow the operator to improve capacity between Manchester and North Wales. If passengers travelling between Manchester and North Wales are to benefit from the introduction of new units then TfW must operate more four-car (2x2) or three-car services as a minimum. Even in this post-pandemic era, operating two-car trains between Manchester and North Wales is simply unacceptable.

Class 197 002 on display at Chester Station

TfW also plan to introduce a new Liverpool to Shrewsbury via Wrexham General service from December 2024, which will be extended to Cardiff every two hours. The Liverpool to Shrewsbury will be an extension of the current Liverpool to Chester via Halton Curve service and be coupled to the Llandudno service as far as Chester, where the two units will split, with one unit going to Llandudno, whilst the other travels to Shrewsbury/Cardiff. The Llandudno service is set to begin in December this year (2023), whilst the Shrewsbury/Cardiff service isn't due to commence until December 2024 and is subject to capacity improvements being completed between Wrexham and Shrewsbury.

As well as improved connectivity between Liverpool and North Wales the new service to Llandudno will also improve connectivity at Shotton, as currently, only one North Wales Coast service per hour calls at Shotton low-level and one Borderlands Line train per hour calls at high-level. With two trains per hour calling at both high-level and low-level the interchange possibilities between the two lines will be vastly improved.

Whilst the Borderlands line isn't currently viewed as a reliable means to travel between Liverpool and NE Wales, the line will hopefully see improvements as the delayed increase in the frequency of the service from one, to two trains per hour is finally set to begin this year. Thankfully the ORR has settled the dispute between TfW who wanted to increase the frequency and GBRf who wanted more freight paths into the cement works at Padeswood. However, a proposed compromise will see gaps in the half-hourly service during the day to allow freight movements into and out of Padeswood. 

The only thing holding up the half-hourly service now is the entry into service of the much-delayed Class 230s, which have been dogged by technical issues, the Pandemic and last year the unit's manufacturer going into administration. However, TfW who owns the Class 230s seems to have come to an agreement regarding maintenance and Class 230s which have once again started driver training on the line. In addition to the gaps during the day, the additional service will be a skip-stop service and will cut out a number of stations between Gwersyllt and Shotton. This isn't to do with freight however, but based on concerns about hitting a specific reliability target, as the turnaround of the current service is already very tight.

The interior of Class 230 which was converted from redundant D78 stock

In the long term groups such as the WBRUA and Growth Track 360 would like to see four trains per hour operating from Wrexham directly through into Liverpool and if the trial of the battery variant of the Class 777 is successful, then this may be a real possibility. This could be quite expensive, as it would require additional infrastructure, such as rapid charging via 3rd rail at the Wrexham end of the line, the installation of additional block sections, particularly between Penyffordd and Dee Marsh and of course additional battery Class 777s IPEMUs (independently powered electrical multiple units) to be ordered.

Class 777 002 on display at Rail Live

Providing additional capacity is one thing, but fare prices may also be a barrier for many people and there does seem to be a disparity between the cost of fares offered by TfW and other TOCs, and between North and South Wales. In 2019 a BBC investigation found that it cost 41p per mile to travel from Flint to Bangor, in contrast, it cost just 27p per mile to travel from Swansea to Cardiff Central. I believe strongly that somehow prices need to be reduced and simplified for passengers travelling between NW England and N Wales in order to drive any meaningful modal shift from road to rail.

Returning to the UCR, the document itself seems to be lacking in detail and there doesn't appear to be any concrete plans for improving cross-border links, instead, it suggests that Westminster and the Welsh Government should investigate ways of improving connectivity. Very little attention is given to freight but does recognise the importance of the M56, A494 and A55 and the link they provide to the port of Holyhead, which moved 5.3 million tonnes of freight and 1.9 people between the mainland and Dublin in 2019.

Brexit will undoubtedly continue to have an impact on EU freight travelling between ports in the east of England to Dublin via Holyhead, but the port will remain an important and heavily used link between the mainland and Ireland. In my view, the DfT should explore options for providing container handling facilities near to the port to reduce HGV traffic travelling from England to Holyhead. That way at least freight could be transported to Holyhead by rail and then transferred to HGVs which can then be loaded onto ferry services. Building a container port at Holyhead would possibly be a better solution, but ultimately not easily achievable.

One thing is clear if more capacity is to be provided for passenger and freight services then the North Wales Mainline should be electrified and signalling upgraded. It's unlikely that there would be much capacity for additional services beyond those already proposed by TfW and Avanti. Electrification also provides the potential for HS2 classic compatible services to use the North Wales Coast Line, rather than the current proposals which would see passengers from North Wales having to change trains at Crewe to access HS2 services heading to the capital. Although it should be pointed out that even with the interchange at Crewe passengers from North Wales could still see a significant reduction in journey times for N Wales to London when compared to direct services via the WCML.

It does finally appear as if improved rail links between NW England and N Wales are on the horizon, but I do not believe the current pipeline of improvements on their own will be enough to have any meaningful impact on thousands of daily trips made by car between the two nations. I believe that much more investment will be needed to further improve rail links combined with a review of fares to try to simplify and bring down the costs in order to drive the considerable shift from road to rail that is needed if the UK is to achieve its net-zero goals.

Twitter - Facebook - Youtube

Re-blog: Nurturing the next generation of rail workers

A version of this article was originaly published in Rail Magazine in August 2021

 

 

A recent tweet commenting on what appears to be a new generation of young rail enthusiasts got me thinking about skills and how the industry can attract the next generation of railway workers. The skills gap within the rail industry seems to be a subject which comes up frequently and has been in part blamed for the difficulty the industry has had in delivering large infrastructure projects. GWML electrification and the Control Period 5 debacle highlighted the issues the industry has with a lack of skilled workers to undertake the monumental task of upgrading the UK's railway network. The CP5 debacle was in my opinion largely the fault of the Government, they simply asked the industry to do too much in such a short space of time, but it is clear that the rail industry must attract and retain skilled people if it is to continue to modernise.

 

I do think there may be a deep-rooted issue with encouraging young people to join the railway industry, or for them to even consider a career within the industry, and as it happens I do have some experience with interacting with young rail enthusiasts, as I have a small YouTube gaming channel. It's not something I often discuss openly beyond those who watch my channel and follow me on various social media platforms. But I have gotten to know a number of incredibly talented young railways enthusiasts, who would be a credit to the industry, should they decide to pursue a career within rail.

 

There is a small group of enthusiasts in particular who are incredibly talented and knowledgeable. They make 3D models of UK rolling stock for a game called Transport Fever 2, on which my own Youtube Channel is based. They are able to recreate these models in exquisite detail, which often include custom sounds and recreations of various iterations of locomotives in a variety of liveries. 

 

3D model of a Class 87 by a modder called Chris

I think it is these young people who really should be encouraged to take up a career within the railway industry. However, I do not think that the industry knows how to talk to these young individuals, who don't always use established social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to communicate. Many are active on an online platform called Discord, which is a chat room-style app that can be used to discuss a variety of subjects.

 

I know some Rail contributors are familiar with Discord and have their own, "servers" which are used to talk about railway subjects. I also know that this is where a large number of young rail enthusiasts are choosing to congregate online and discuss gaming, modding and railways in general. 

 

Example of an active Discord server

Now I'm not saying that it's the job of those within the railway industry to monitor these platforms or even to engage with young people on these platforms, but it does show that, what are considering relatively new platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which the railway industry is now using with great effect to engage with passengers, are fast becoming almost, dare I say it, old-fashioned.

So it can become more difficult to engage with these new young rail enthusiasts and attract them into the railway industry. It may well be the case that they already have thoughts about joining the railway industry one day, but I think it's vital that the industry engages with these individuals and encourages them to peruse a career within the railway industry.

 

I myself through my YouTube channel have been, in my own small way trying to educate and garner interest from people who are interested in the railways. Throughout my videos I try and be as factual as possible and try and talk about different railway subjects, in fact during the last series that I recorded which was based in the north of the UK, I talk about HS2, discussing why it is needed, where it will serve and what it will do to improve the UK's rail network. Of course, I try to keep my videos light-hearted and entertaining, but I do also like to try and inform and encourage discussion.

 

Now, I do not pretend to have the answers on how to engage with young people, but I do think it's vital that the industry does engage with these young people. Whilst 3D modelling and coding may not, on the face of it sound like something that is directly transferable into rail. Clearly, not all young rail enthusiasts can become designers or architects working within the rail industry, but as the railways become increasingly digitised, it is these tech-savvy individuals with knowledge about coding who may well have the skills that the industry needs.

 

Network Rail already offers an IT and Business Services apprenticeship which it says “could involve anything from implementing cutting-edge, innovative technologies and applications like digital railway traffic management and accident prevention to playing a supporting role in the delivery of a significant business change initiative to working in one of our business as usual departments (Information Security, IT Support Services Programme Office)”. But are these opportunities being marketed widely enough to young people? Granted only a small number of such opportunities may be available each year, but are organisations doing enough to promote them to the right sort of young people?

 

Coding is an increasingly sought-after skill, so the rail industry can't just expect that rail enthusiasts who can code will pursue a career within the railway, so the industry must do all it can to make rail as attractive as possible, and as subsequent generations become increasingly diverse and socially aware the industry must also do all it can to show that it is open to and accepting of diversity.

 

 

Put simply, if these young people do have skills that the industry needs, then they must be made aware that the skills they have are transferable into the “real world” and also that they will be welcomed into the rail industry no matter their gender, sexual orientation or where they come from.

 

 

Twitter - Facebook - Youtube