Port Salford Freight Terminal
GRIP 3 Option Selection Interim report to align current Reference Design and inform the decision process
Project No. B1762900
Date: October 2012
Document Reference: B1762900-03/PM/REP/0100
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Document control sheet BPP 04 F8 version 14 July 2012
Project: Port Salford Rail Terminal Client: Peel Holdings Project No: B1762900 Document title: GRIP 3 Option Selection - Interim report to align current Reference Design and inform the decision process Ref. No: B1762900-03/PM/REP/0100 Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by
ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME Jeff Boden Dave MacLennan Richard Lindop Jeff Boden
DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS 11/10/12 Document status For Issue
REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME
DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS
Document status
REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME
DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS
Document status
Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.
This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
CONTENTS
Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2. LOCATION ...... 5 3. SCHEME OVERVIEW ...... 6 4. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 9 5. KEY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ...... 16 6. SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED GRIP 2 OPTIONS ...... 18 7. REVIEW OF GRIP 2 OPTIONS RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN FORWARD ...... 20 8. PRS – SUMMARY OF KEY REQUIREMENTS ...... 25 9. OPTION 4 - REFERENCE DESIGN OVERVIEW ...... 27 10. OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION REMIT ...... 43 11. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ...... 49 12. DESIGNERS RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 50 13. PROGRAMME ...... 51 14. ROGS REGULATIONS ...... 55 15. CONSULTATION ...... 57 16. APPENDICES ...... 58
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Port Salford is a £138 million project with planning permission to develop the UK's first tri-modal (served by road, rail and short-sea shipping) inland port facility and distribution park on the Barton Strategic Site adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. It is proposed that the Port Salford Freight Terminal be connected by rail to the Liverpool – Manchester via Chat Moss line, between Astley and Patricroft to allow rail access to/from the West Coast Mainline via Parkside Jcn and Earlestown, and to/from the east for services via Manchester. The terminal is to be designed to handle the most modern rail traffic with capacity for 775m (30SLU) trains with up to 16 trains per day (8 in / 8 out) which need to be timetabled to align with the proposed operational planning flows for the route and achieved without impacting other services on the DSE line. A separate study has been commissioned directly by Peel to consider timetable and operational constrains, which have been used to inform the requirements for the form of connection, turnout speeds on/off the main line and extent of signalling The purpose of this Interim Option Selection Report is to align the current Reference Design and inform the decision process with respect to decisions made following submission of the GRIP2 report in February 201, and to: • Provide an overview of the findings contained within the GRIP2 report. • Identify how each of the potential options, that were recommended by the GRIP 2 report to be taken forward, have been considered • Consider the parameters and advantages / disadvantages of each option • Clarify the key constraints and required parameters for design • Provide an outline reference design for the recommended option, that it is anticipated will form the basis for the GRIP3 AIP design. Provide an overview of construction to enable consideration of possession requirements and application timescales therefore.
For clarity it should be noted that the outline reference design included within this report is submitted as a basis for discussion and subsequent amendment and development through the GRIP3 process. The outline reference design has not been integrated fully with all RAM requirements within the Project Requirements Specification issued at the end of August 2012, it is however largely compliant therewith, and the requirements of the PRS will be fully integrated into the design as it is progressed. It is recommended, subject to acceptance in principal of the outcomes of the option selection process that has been undertaken to date, that this reference design be taken forward to an IDR1 stage review as the proposed base design. Full; supporting information to the outline reference design– such as Geotechnical Factual Reports, Estimates and Environmental assessment etc, were provided within the GRIP2 report and have not been included again herein as the purpose of this report is to inform the Network Rail Project team of the design progress to date and gain agreement to the baseline position to move forward to GRIP3 design.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
2. LOCATION
Port Salford is located to the west of Manchester
The new Freight terminal is to be constructed in the area bounded by the railway to the north, the M62 to the west, the M60 to the east, and the Manchester Ship Canal to the south.
The Freight terminal is connected by rail to the Deal St – Edge Hill railway adjacent to the M62 motorway bridge, by road to the A57, and also be served by shipping along the Manchester Ship Canal from Runcorn
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
3. SCHEME OVERVIEW
The proposal for the operation of a new Freight Terminal at Port Salford is to connect to the Liverpool – Manchester DSE:Deal St – Edge Hill line (commonly referred to as the Chat Moss line), between Astley and Patricroft to allow rail access to/from the West Coast Mainline via Parkside Jcn and Earlestown, and to/from the east for services via Manchester. The Terminal is to be designed to handle the most modern rail traffic with capacity for 775m trains with potential for up to 16 trains per day (8 in / 8 out) which need to be timetabled to align with the proposed operational planning flows for the route and be achieved without impacting other services on the DSE line. It is be connected by rail to the DSE line between Astley (22m 54c) and Patricroft (26m 46c). The connection to the West is constrained by the M62 Motorway bridge (Bridge 112A at 24m 73c), and the toe of the points for this connection needs to be as close as practicable and permissible to the bridge to maximise the curve radii onto the branch line. The main line connections are to be designed for OLE 25kV electrification in line with the ongoing National Electrification Programme (NEP) works currently in progress to electrify the line between Liverpool and Manchester, with implementation works taking place in 2013. Passive provision is to be provided for future electrification of the arrival and departure lines such that the terminal will be future- proofed as train path opportunities on the West Coast Main Line, particularly to the North, are restricted to electric traction in future timetables. The signalling on this route is controlled by Eccles Signal Box with an additional Level Crossing Signal Box at Astley. Eccles Signal Box was refurbished circa 1997 and is understood to have sufficient capacity for the additional equipment required for the provision of the new terminal. The arrivals/departures sidings leading to the terminal will be required to be fully signalled and track circuited to support route setting of the main line, and hence will come mainly under Network Rail control. A GRIP 2 report was produced by Jacobs (B1762900/PM/REP/0002) and issued in February 2012. It identified 8No possible options for the rail connection, of which Options 3,4 and 5 were considered worthy of taking forward for further review; and the potential advantages, if any, of Option 6 be considered. This report discusses how these potential options have been progressed and identifies a recommended option which it is considered should form the basis of the GRIP3 design Notes: 1) The outline reference design included within this report is submitted as a basis for discussion and subsequent amendment and development through the GRIP3 process. It has not been reviewed to date with the RAM requirements within the PRS, however it is largely fully compliant therewith, and will be updated during the GRIP process 2) Intrusive Investigations to prove Ground Conditions have been undertaken and a Geotechnical report is available. It is understood that the RAM responsible for geotechnical review has agreed that additional SI will not be required at the GRIP3 stage. 3) Location for Signalling Interlocking has yet to be determined
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Geographical limits of rail The extent of this multi-discipline design and build contract for the operational railway contract is up to the Stop and Await instruction Board at the southern end of the arrival and departure lines as illustrated in the sketch below. This includes • Main line connections to form the western and eastern junctions on the Deal Street to Edge Hill main line between 24m 1676y and 25m 787y • East and West chord lines • Arrival and Departure lines • Crossovers and Headshunts Port Salford Tri Modal Freight Terminal Indicative Layout
For illustration only Not to Scale 25MP 25 1/4mp 25m 1/2mp Deal St œ Edge Hill (Chat Moss) M62
y y 6 3 y y y y 7 5 7 6 0 7 Br 112A 6 7 3 6 1 8 1 1 6 7 7 m M62 Motorway m m 5 m m m 4 4 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 UP From Liverpool & W CML Dv15 Dv15 To Manchester DOW N Dv15 Dv 10.75 Min 250m Radius Gantries shown for illustration only and not representative of actual position
Engine Release Dv15
Bv Trap
v v Dv15
Runway 20 Glideslope
Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome)
Runway 27 Airport Glideslope
A57 Underbridge
Cv 91/4 Crossover STR Cripple Siding
Passive provision for non-electrified track to service warehouses in Zone1 STOP & AW AIT INSTRUCTIONS
Passive provision for siding and run-round to service W arehouse
Passive provision for shunt neck to service Zone1
W harf Phase C W harf Phase D 775m standage + Run Round
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Signalling limits on the main line will be between 23m20c and 26m 20c Track beyond the stop and await instruction board which leads to the wharfside sidings and passive provision for warehouse and zone 1 sidings is outwith the scope of these works and will be let within a separate tender package. Construction of a new rail bridge over the realigned A57 road is also outwith the scope of this contract and will be built within the WGIS road scheme development to underside of ballast. The Contractor will be required to liaise with the WGIS scheme to integrate design for the track alignment, cable routes, walking routes, track drainage outfall and access for construction.
Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome) Manchester City Airport is immediately to the West of the new arrival and departure, and intersects with the glide slopes for Runway 20 and 27, and form a key constraint for the proposed horizontal and vertical alignment when passive provision for OLE to the arrival / departure lines is considered – see Key Issues and Constraints
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
4. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Track The existing line comprises FB113A CWR with F27 concrete sleepers. It is twin track ballasted non- electrified line with a permanent speed restriction, due to formation conditions, of 60mph for passenger services and 40mph for freight.
Signalling Signalling on the line is controlled by Eccles Signal Box via an NX panel which communicates with Astley Level Crossing Signal Box and Manchester Piccadilly Signal Box. The RRI interlocking housed in Eccles R.E.B ES27/3 with lineside multicore cables carry functions to the locations. The 650V power supply is routed on the Down Main line cess with the extremities at Locations BN30/2 and ES23/3. Existing track circuits within the area are TI21 type. Eccles Signal Box was refurbished c.1997 and is understood to be capable of accommodating the additional requirements of the freight terminal connections and arrival / departure signalling. There is a Level Crossing Signal Box at Astley to the west of the proposed terminal, however it is not anticipated that this will be affected by the works
Telecoms Telecoms has an existing C/1/8 SCT cable route in the cess along the Down Chat Moss Line at the 25MP location. The route is 90% full, in poor to reasonable condition and is situated on a shoulder below the ballast. There was evidence of ballast encroaching on the route at the time of the survey. The toughing route has become overgrown with vegetation in places.
C/1/9 SCT route, 90% full at 25 mile post. C/1/10 SCT route, 50% full at 24m 288m Damage to rough lids is visible.
Ballast encroaching onto route at 25 ¼ Mile Post Secured trough route near Barton Moss Level plus 172m. Crossing
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
The route fluctuates between C/1/8 and C/1/7 SCT as the route heads towards Patricroft. At 24MP + 288m the route was noted as 50% full. At some locations along the route the trough route has been secured with metal bindings, presumably to prevent vandalism. At 25 ¼ MP there was a fibre joint. The C/1/10 SCT appeared to be 30% full on the Patricroft side of the joint. The joint appeared to be in good condition.
Fibre Joint at 25 ¼ MP C/1/10 SCT route, 30% full on Patricroft side of joint.
Copper Cabling Records received indicate that there are the following telecoms cables in the trough route in the vicinity of the new junction: Cable ID A End B End No. of Pairs TBA Astley SB Eccles SB 30pr CM 27/4 At the time of survey access was not possible to the location cabinets and hence no further ID’s have been found.
Fibre Cabling There is an FTN 24F PE armoured fibre optic cable running in the cable route along the Down Chat Moss Line. The records indicate that the locations of the nearest fibre joints either side of the new junction are as follows: Cable ID Joint A Joint B F-MJSA-MNCC-A F-MJSA-MNCC-A-12 F-MJSA-MNCC-A-1 FTN 25 ¼ MP +288m 24 ¼ MP +2355m So far, no records have been received which detail the circuits currently on this cable.
Lineside Telephones There are no operational telephones within the vicinity of the new junction.
Lineside Equipment Housings All lineside cabinets in the vicinity of the new junction were Box on Post type. All cabinets were locked, presumably to guard against vandalism. This particular style key was not available during the survey, so internal inspection was not possible. The nearest lineside telecoms cabinet that was identified on the Astley side of the scheme was at 24 ½ MP + 342m, next to signal ES107, and is believed to have an ID of RT/T/24/12, however this was not clearly written on the cabinet. On the Patricroft side another location cabinet was sited along side signal ES105 (25 ½ MP). The identification for this cabinet again, was unclear, but is believed to be RT/T/25/2.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Cabinet RT/T/24/12 on Astley side of Cabinet RT/T/25/2 on Patricroft side of junction junction A further telecom cable interface unit was found within the signalling loc ES110 at 25 ½ MP. This was labelled as “Top 30 towards Eccles”. The cables entering the unit were not labelled.
Telecoms cabinet within Signalling Loc ES110.
Eccles Signal Box Access was not granted to the operational floor of Eccles Signal Box, however photos of a previous survey in September 2011 have been made available. These indicate that there are 14 spare key positions for new operational telephones on the existing 32 line STS concentrator which was installed in 2000.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Eccles SB concentrator key panel STS 32 Line Concentrator The concentrator is located in the lower level of the SB along with a Nice Call Focus 3 voice recorder.
Cable access to the signal box is via a 20pr, 0.9mm conductor size copper cable (ID: Eccles E01) from Loc CM 27/4 which is located outside the signal box. Loc CM 27/4 has a 50pr copper cable which splits so that fibres 1-40 go towards Ordsall Cord and pairs 41-50 go towards Astley. The right hand cable was noted as “dead” on the records found on site. Local onsite records indicate that there are 9 spare pairs on cable Eccles E01 into the signal box. See below..
Eccles E01 on-site records.
There is 30pr cable with ID RT(T) 27-3-1 which comes from a termination box in the lower level of the signal box out to a location cabinet RT(T) 27/3. This cable has all the SPT’s routed over it, see Table 4-I below. However this location cabinet was outside the survey area and was not accessed So far, no CAMS records have been received for any cables to Astley from Eccles. It has been assumed that there is a 30pr cable down this route terminating in the BOP cabinets along the route. There are 11 pairs spare on this cable.
OLE There is currently no existing overhead line equipment in the area.
Designs are being developed to electrify the Liverpool to Manchester route through Chat moss. These designs are still at the preliminary stages.
M&E There is no existing M&E equipment in the immediate area of the proposed Junction. There is a DNO supply at Eccles serving the main line S&C, Weaste branch, and signalling power supplies. It is proposed that the Points Heating associated with the new S&C will be provided with a new DNO supply. The power
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
supplies for the associated new signalling equipment will be derived from the existing 650V distribution system..
Civils and Structures The only affected structure is Br112A (M62) motorway bridge at 24m 73c It is not proposed that any changes be made to Br112A, and all new connections have been designed to be at least 20m from the bridge abutment. Geotechnical work may be required up to the abutment to ensure integrity of the formation from the ‘hard spot’ of the bridge through the proposed new junctions.
Geotechnical (Embankments & Earthworks) The existing main line is on a relatively unstable embankment and a 60/40 PSR for condition of track exists at this location. The line is ‘floating’ on a peat bog, and as trains pass the embankment settles vertically and rebounds. There has previously been considerable deformation of the embankment when dewatering was undertaken for the M60 works at Barton. It is essential that the embankments for main line connection and freight line act as a single unit, which is likely to require stabilisation to ensure that there is no settlement, or movement of the points under traffic, for safety, operational performance and maintenance parameters. Embankment stabilisation will be required to the areas beneath the proposed new S&C on the main line. At the interface between the existing and new embankments differential settlement issues will need to be resolved. The existing embankment has reached an equilibrium state over many years of compaction through traffic. The ‘new’ embankment will not have the same compaction and a consolidation period may be required which would drive timescales for construction. In addition proposals for stabilising the existing formation will need to consider the interface and potential impact upon the OLE supports. Embankment Construction The Manchester to Liverpool line over Chat Moss was constructed between 1826 and 1830. It is known that considerable difficulties were encountered during construction because of the weak – compressible nature of the peat. The original idea of displacing the peat until a firm foundation was achieved had to be abandoned and changed to a floating embankment which left the peat in place. Construction appears to have consisted of digging edge drains to some 2.5m (8ft) depth to allow the surface of the bog to dry out. The roots and long grass between the drains was left in place and on this firmer surface tree branches and hedge cuttings were placed. In particularly soft areas, hurdles with heather were laid in double thickness and covered with 600-900mm (2-3ft) of clayey gravel, on which the track was then constructed. The thickness of the peat across Chat Moss was stated to be between some 3m to 11.3m (10 -37ft) thick with groundwater level just below the ground surface. The strength of the surface was very low and could not bear the weight of a horse. A berm was constructed some 21.3m (70ft) to the south of the centreline of the main embankment and to a similar height. Past reviews have shown that the purpose of the berm was not for sidings or loops and has been in place since the original construction. It has been assumed in previous assessments that the berm was constructed to aid stability by placing it as a counterweight to the bulges observed by Stephenson on the side of the “sagging” embankment. This gave a total width of embankment of some 60m (200ft). Construction of the M62 The M62 was constructed in cutting under the railway. The rail overbridge was supported on pier foundations bearing on Sandstone. During construction the line was maintained by a diversion to the south along the pre-existing berm. The bridge was constructed within open cutting and sheet piled supported excavations within the railway embankment slope. A transition slab was constructed. The length of the transition slab was some 30m (100ft). Selected construction records, including exploratory ground investigation were provided within GRIP 2 report within Annex G1, with locations of the historical investigation data provided on Drawing MMD-293621-G-DR-00-XX-10004.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Ground Conditions Ground investigations to determine ground conditions through the site area have been undertaken; the factual records are provided within Annex G4, including investigation data received from Network Rail in relation to the Liverpool to Manchester Electrification Scheme. Significant existing ground condition data has been sourced from Network Rail in relation to construction of the M62 underbridge (112A) situated to the immediate west of the site. Investigation data is provided in Annex G1. Exploratory holes bored for the construction of the M62 showed the ground sequence to consist of • The existing rail embankment comprised generally soft clayey FILL to between 2.3m (7.5ft) and 4.0m (13ft), underlain by; - Very soft PEAT to depths of between 4.0m (13ft) and 5.5m (18ft) - L< oose to compact SAND to depths of between 5.6m (18.5ft) to 7.8m (25.5ft) - S< tiff “boulder clay” to depths of between 8.7m (28.5ft) and greater than 9.1 (30ft) - Weathered SANDSTONE Investigations for the current scheme indicate that the peat in the area to the east of the M62 is soft and compressible to 2m depth underlain by loose to medium dense sand to approximately 4m depth which is then underlain by firm glacial clay. Weathered rock level is variable, with a shallowest level of 7.5m depth. Groundwater is typically between 500mm to 1m below the natural ground level. Earthworks & Trackbed Condition Examinations of the existing embankments have been undertaken on behalf of Network Rail to the current Network Rail Standard RT/CE/P06 to assess the asset condition. Selected extracts from the inspection records received from the Territory Earthworks Engineer are provided in Annex G2, with the most recent inspections undertaken in 2008 for much of the track section, with 2011 inspections available for the eastern site extremity. The results of the examinations have been to categorise both the Down and Up sections of existing line affected by this scheme as Serviceable. This indicates that there are no ongoing significant earthworks failures. Speed restrictions are in place at 60/45mph for passenger/ freight, respectively. The reason for the restriction is not documented but is reported to have been driver reports of poor ride quality due to embankment deflections beneath train movements. Observations reported by British Rail Board Soil Mechanics Section in 1972 for the M62 underbridge design, indicated track movements of some 12mm (0.5inch) due to train movements. Scott Wilson Ltd undertook a TPE Enhancements Journey Time Improvement GRIP3 Earthworks Desk Study for Chat Moss (2010) to investigate the dynamic behaviour of the trackbed to determine if line speeds for passenger traffic can be increased from the existing 60mph to 75mph, to replicate historic line speeds, without unduly influencing track deterioration rate. As part of the study, track quality was reported through the section to be poor, primarily thought to be a function of differential settlement induced within the underlying peat deposit; maintenance records were not obtained. Trackbed investigation was undertaken through Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) applied to sleepers, though the spacing of geophones would indicate that stiffness determinations would only be achievable to depths of 2m below sleeper level. From a track walkover of the site undertaken by Mott MacDonald on the 6th February 2012, it is known that through the site, the trackbed typically sits on a 1m thick ballast formation overlying a 2-4m high embankment, widened significantly to the south due to the redundant counterbalance constructed by Stephenson, hence the FWD testing may only provide data on the upper surface of the earthwork and not on the subgrade. Annex G3 provides selected summary extracts from the Scott Wilson report. It may be seen that track deflections of 2-3mm are predicted for the proposed increased line speed. The earthworks are reported to be up to 10m height and in a marginal to poor condition with 4No localised translational landslips. The source for this data is unknown; however it contradicts the earthworks inspection data as provided by the territory engineer. Scott Wilson also report that significant differential settlement occurred in the past, either side of the M62, with differential settlement reported to be a serious track issue in 2008, though in 2010 track quality through this area was recorded as good.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Environment An environmental Assessment report was provided as Appendix K to the GRIP 2 report. This will be developed during the GRIP3 process - the overall conclusions are shown for reference
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
5. KEY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS
During the preparation of the GRIP2 study, and subsequent development of the potential options a number of key issues and constraints have been identified, which are considered in outline within this report, and will need further review during the GRIP3 AIP and subsequent GRIP4-5 stages. These include: • Location of main line S&C needs to be to the east of Bridge 112A at 24m 73c • Arrival and departure to both east and west is required • Embankment stabilisation will be required beneath the S&C on the main line • The connections on the main line should be a Flat Junction (crossover and lead) configuration not a Double Junction (fixed or switch diamond), as advised by Track RAM • The connections on/off the main line need to be for the highest practicable speed to enable trains to clear the main line quickly because of limited headway within the timetable patterns. It is considered that 30mph is the maximum practicable speed achievable for a train leaving the main line and approaching a fixed red signal c1600m from the main line connection. • The arrival and departure lines need to be signalled to enable route setting off the main line to achieve the above. • Signalling needs to be taken back to Eccles Signalbox. Consideration may need to be given to the proposed future migration of control to the new Rail Operations Control to be built at Ashburys • Arrival and departure lines need to be capable of accepting 775m trains • The radius of curve off the main line should be 250m or greater • Existing linespeed is 60/40PSR for Condition Of Track. Network Rail have aspiration to raise this to 75mph in future as part of the Transpennine Linespeed improvement scheme. • NEP electrification scheme will require the main line crossovers and turnouts to be electrified at 25kV with overrun protection to the terminal. The arrival / departure lines need to have passive provision only for future electrification • The gradients to/from the main line need to be as shallow as practicable to mitigate affect on trains departing the depot and reaching full linespeed as quickly as possible. • Clearance to the glide slopes to Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome). (including passive provision for OLE equipment) needs achieved. For this reason the track has been located as far away from the glide slope as possible to maximise the achievable rail level above AOD. The current design allows for a maximum height of OLE equipment under the glideslope of 5.5m above rail level. • Track over the new A57 roadbridge needs to be 20.5m AOD maximum and no lower than 19.5m AOD. The higher track level brings significant cost benefits to the road scheme and gradient benefits to the vertical rail alignment. • The existing power supplies should be sufficient for the main line S&C, however a new DNO supply will be required for the S&C within the depot to supply the arr/dep lines and the run round crossover at the southern end.
Key Network Rail Project Specification Requirements (PRS) are identified within Section 8 of this report and a full copy of the PRS appended for reference.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome) Manchester City Airport is immediately to the West of the new arrival and departure, and glide slopes for Runway 20 and 27 intersect with and form a key constraint for the proposed horizontal and vertical alignment. The design alignment has to consider both the initial, non electrified, phase of the development, and passive provision for future electrification of the arrival and departure lines. Runway 27 Within the reference design it has been assumed that an OLE envelope of 7.0m be considered above rail level to the highest point of proposed OLE equipment (i.e stanchions/ insulators etc) as a baseline, and that reduced clearance from rail level to 5.5m would be applied in the area affected by Runway 27 which is the main runway for the airport. The current alignment has moved the track as far east as practicable from this pinchpoint to maximise track height and hence keep track vertical gradients as shallow as possible, and clearances are within the required values. It is considered that no alteration is required for Runway 27 in either the initial (non electrified), and the final (electrified) conditions. In the former case the scheme only introduces OLE overrun protection and therefore will not affect Runway 27. Passive provision for full electrification has been allowed for in the design to give clearance to the glide slope, and discussions with the airport provisionally concluded that emergency switching for the OLE was not a requirement the airport wished to proceed with. This aspect of design will need to be concluded with the airport and responsible bodies should full electrification be introduced. It should be noted that discussions are ongoing with the Airport in respect of future improvements to the site and consideration is being given to foreshortening of the runway or moving it West away from the railway as part of those developments, however this may not be in place within the design period
Runway 20 At the North end the glideslope for Runway 20 intersects the nearest rail at c48m from the runway +30m threshold, giving a required AOD at the bottom of the glideslope of 24.245m. Rail level in the current design at this point is AOD 21.912, and this would need to be reduced to 18.745m AOD with 5.5m OLE clearance (17.245m at 7.0m OLE clearance) Rail level on the main line is 27.008m AOD and the worst case intersection point is 756m from the point at which the gradient could commence. To achieve 18.745m AOD within the available distance of 756m would require a gradient of 1:91 for 5.5m OLE, (Note - the wire gradient would be steeper still at c1:77). This presents an unacceptable vertical alignment. To move the track further to the east to clear the pinch point would require it to be moved c 60m and this would compromise the alignment to the main line, reducing the radii below the 250m acceptable to Network Rail. It is concluded therefore that an alteration to the Runway 20 is essential for the future development of the site to provide scheme to progress. This was not considered at the planning stage as the impact on the glide slope is as a result of passive provision for future electrification,
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
6. SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED GRIP 2 OPTIONS
The following options were discounted at GRIP 2:
Option 1 – Double Junction Layout A Double Junction configuration for both the east and west connections was considered, however following review of the both the installation and Track RAM concerns over future maintenance implications of either fixed diamond, or a switch diamond; this form of junction was not pursued. In addition the crossover within a flat junction arrangement (Options 3, 4 & 5) in addition to meeting the same operational parameters, offers potential operational benefits during times of perturbation on the main line and during engineering works. Maintenance of a diamond crossing if intrinsically more onerous than a flat junctions and hence has increased safety risk.
Option 2 – Goods loop on UP side parallel to main line: - An initial review considered the potential benefits of providing an arrival loop to the west of the motorway bridge to enable freight traffic to clear the up line whilst awaiting a timetable path to cross into the terminal. Analysis of the timetable opportunities identified that there would be no requirement for such provision, and indeed it could adversely affect services because of the signalling approach to the loop and time to start from a stand to rejoin and cross the main line. This option would also introduce additional embankment widening and hence potential requirements for stabilisation, have environmental impact on the adjacent land, significant increase OLE requirement to cover the length of the siding, and need two additional leads on the main line with associated maintenance costs. Safety implications included additional points on the main line – one of which would be a set of facing points, and the potential affect on Astley level crossing caused by a train slowing over it to enter the loop. In addition the fact that a train would be attempting to complete the movement across all lines starting from standing start would increase the risk of not meeting the available trainpath and causing delay to main line services and Increase the risk of main line services having to brake to protecting signals.
Options 6 and 7:-Separate arrival/departure roads and connections to east Option 6 was a development to provide separate arrival and departure connections to the east. This would allow simultaneous arrival and departure to/from the east within the same timetable opportunity. Option 7 was a further development of the east arrival to be a separate line all the way to the fixed red stop signal. The potential benefit of these options was considered to be limited, and far outweighed by the additional complexity of the layout, installation and maintenance costs, and signalling complication. Concern was raised over the safety implications of workload on the signaller to enable simultaneous movements to/from the depot and potential conflicting moves.
Options 8:- Additional stabling sidings on the arrival / departure alignment During strategy discussions, the option to have holding sidings adjacent to the arrival / departure lines rather than alongside the canal was put forward for review. The advantage of this option was that all sidings could be electrified rather than just arrival/departure, and hence greater flexibility in the future when using electric traction. However this arrangement would require a fundamental change to the accepted planning submissions and introduce significant adverse environmental impacts – requiring a far greater embankment width, increased noise and vibration from
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
shunting moves, ‘yard’ lighting, and the visual impact of multi-span OLE gantries. The available gradients would preclude their use as stabling sidings and the arrangement would significantly increase loading on the peat bog and hence construction costs. From a safety perspective this option would present greater hazard to airside operations at Manchester City Airport, and the signalling requirements would increase significantly which would present an unacceptable load onto the Eccles Signaller such that it would be likely that a depot Signalbox would be required introducing further complication and an additional interface to get trains to/from the main line. For these reasons it was recommended that this option not be taken forward for further development.
Other Options considered Post GRIP2 submission:- Following after submission of the GRIP 2 study further options were considered in principle and subsequently discounted: Arrival and Departure lines on the Down side parallel to the main line between M62 and M60. This option was considered to potentially improve opportunities for access / egress to the terminal with separate east and west junctions. The option was discounted as it would require resubmission for planning approvals, was not on land owned by Peel Holdings, and would be at the highest point of the embankment at the rear of neighbouring properties, all of which were significant obstacles to pursuing. Trainpath modelling showed that whilst this option would mean sidings were at grade with the main line there is currently no significant gradient constraints that affect departure to the main line, and because an arriving train would still be approaching a fixed Red signal there could be no increase in linespeed off the main line. From a safety perspective it would mean separation of the east and west junctions by 3/4m effectively introducing two completely separate junctions on the main line rather than one and increasing maintenance associated therewith and access thereto.
Western crossover relocated to the West of M62 bridge. This option would place the arrival crossover to the west (Liverpool side) of the M62 motorway bridge. This proposal would be outside the approved planning boundaries and could require resubmission, and would also require extension of the limits of embankment stabilisation. The slight advantage would be that it would enable the main line turnout to/from the West to be moved closer to the motorway bridge and hence theoretically a faster turnout could be used. However since an arriving train will be approaching a fixed Red signal speed off the main line cannot be increased, and modelling has indicated that a 30mph turnout as proposed (DV switches) does not restrict a departing train from reaching linespeed. Access to the crossover would require maintenance staff to cross over the M62 bridge increasing risk to safety.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
7. REVIEW OF GRIP 2 OPTIONS RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN FORWARD
The following options were recommended for further investigation at GRIP 2: All three of the following options follow the same basic premise whereby the connection of the proposed terminal to the Chat Moss line is immediately to the East of Br112A (M62 Motorway) and utilise a flat junction layout, with signalling of the arrival / departure lines. Indicative cost estimates were provided within Appendix I of the GRIP 2 report, and to avoid repetition have not been reproduced within this interim report. The indicative value for the main line connections ranged between £1.3m (Option 3), £2.7m (Option 4) and £3.2m (Option 5). The value of the contract will be reviewed and developed during the GRIP 3 process and will be updated to incorporate the formation works to the branch lines which was previously within separate design package. Details of proposed materials are contained within Section 9 of this report and are applicable to all options considered. Section 9 itself is the proposed Reference Design for Option 4 layout.
Option 3 – Single West side connection
M62
UP Dv15 To Manchester From Liverpool & WCML Option 3 was for a single connection to / DOWN Dv15 Min 250m Radius from the West as illustrated. This is considered as the ‘do minimum’ HEADSHUNT Bv Traps option and minimises the new Dv15 Crossover STR v v infrastructure on the main line. Since the proposed terminal is to be part of the Trans European Network and has e r u t l r received TEN-T funding as part of its a a v p i r e r D A
design development, it is essential that it
1 2 o o N N
maximises the options for future d d r r o o f f l l a a
S expansion of freight growth and is S
t t r r e g o o a P d P n capable of aligning with future a t S
m 0 0
8 development the freight growth strategy and development of links to East Coast ports aligned with proposed transpennine electrification opportunities. Placing a limitation on the terminal to receiving freight traffic to / from the West A57 Underbridge only, significantly restricts future growth
Cv 91/4 Crossover STR and capacity, places operational HEADSHUNT constraints aligned to WCML capacity Passive provision for non-electrified track to service warehouses in and availability, with no opportunity for Zone1 STOP & AWAIT alternate pathing in times of perturbation. INSTRUCTIONS
Passive provision for siding and run-round to service Warehouse
Passive provision for shunt neck to service Zone1
Wharf
Advantages The above layout has the following advantages: • Limited new infrastructure on main line • Reduced area required for stabilisation of main line
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
• Construction of one chord line embankment only required • Reduced signalling workload • Reduced installation costs and maintenance costs Disadvantages The above layout has the following disadvantages: • No facility to accommodate trains from the east thereby limiting opportunity to benefit from Northern Hub improvements and future Trans Pennine electrification upgrades • Constrains traffic to available West Coast Main Line train paths only, which may become increasingly limited • Precludes diversion route options when track to /from the west is blocked for possession works and maintenance • Prohibits terminal from being able to serve the whole of the North West / North East as one of the countries strategic freight hubs • Restricts arrival / departure to a single movement within each available timetable freight path
During review of the option the limitations imposed by the layout was considered unacceptable to efficient terminal operation and growth. Were it practicable to introduce this option as a Stage 1 layout, and develop and enhance the layout to introduce the necessary East connection at a later date, as traffic patterns increased, then it would be worthy of further consideration. However this would require subsequent disruption to the main line in future years, increase risks through the safety implications of introducing track, signalling and OLE in two stages, and limit organic growth of the terminal as it would require c2yr forward planning to implement once a potential client had registered interest
Option 4 – Single connection to both East and West
M62
Dv15 UP Dv15 To Manchester Option 4 provides for connections to both From Liverpool & WCML DOWN Dv15 Min Dv15 250m Radius East and West enabling the future development and expansion of the Dv15 Turnout STR
HEADSHUNT terminal. Bv Traps
Dv15 Crossover STR v v As with Option 3 the arrival and departure lines are fully signalled and bi-directional so that arrival / departure can be routed to either line. e r u t l r a a v p i
r It is possible that Option 3 could be e r D A
1 2 o o installed as phase one of the terminal and N N
d d r r o o f
f the East connection within l l a a S S
t t r r e g o Option 4 added at a later stage. However o a P d P n a t S
m the works required to subsequently install 0 0 8 the East side S&C and undertake the associated embankment stabilisation, OLE, signalling installation and commissioning required are considered to be prohibitive in terms of cost, disruption to Network Rail and Train Operators, and A57 Underbridge additional safety import of what effectively
Cv 91/4 Crossover STR would be two schemes. HEADSHUNT
Passive provision for non-electrified track to service warehouses in Zone1 STOP & AWAIT INSTRUCTIONS
Passive provision for siding and run-round to service Warehouse
Passive provision for shunt neck to service Zone1
Wharf
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Phased installation would also constrain the terminal’s operation as identified in Option 3 above, and timescales for planning and undertaking a ‘second’ installation would inhibit market growth in what is a time sensitive market. Furthermore the significant additional cost of a second installation would make the business case for the expansion aligned to a growth in the market share of freight arriving / departing to the East difficult to justify in terms of cost benefit.
Advantages The above layout has the following advantages: • Flexibility to adapt to growing freight opportunities to/from East aligned to Northern Hub and TPE improvements • Provides crossover facility to main line to support engineering works – which a double junction would not allow • Utilises (amended0 existing main line signals • Keeps the signalling workload for ‘depot’ operations to a minimum associated with arrival departure only i.e. no shunting moves • Meets operational requirements for 16 train per day capacity • Maximises distance from main line to Fixed Red to provide necessary braking distances aligned to speed off main line. • Provides passive provision for future electric traction operation • Provides cripple wagon facility
Disadvantages The above layout has the following disadvantages: • Does not allow simultaneous arrival / departure within the same train path opportunity Note: Operational review by Peel Strategy team has confirmed that it is sufficient to meet the 16trains per day requirement and further lines would increase the impact on Manchester City Airport glides slope. Also available gradients of the branch line preclude the use of standing sidings
Option 4, fully designed and installed from the start, is considered the preferred option in terms of operational flexibility, ability to meet 16 trains per day (775m) and future expansion, and this option is therefore explored in more detail in the subsequent sections together with reference design and draft scheme plans etc..
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Option 5 – Single connection to East and double connection to the West
M62 Option 5 is a development of Option 4 with
Dv15 UP Dv15 the addition of a second connection on the To Manchester From Liverpool & WCML DOWN Dv15 Min Dv15 Down line. This option could enable 250m Radius simultaneous arrival / departure of trains Dv15 Turnout STR within a single pathing opportunity.
Bv Traps Dv15 Crossover STR It provides greater flexibility and by using a v v separate departure line it reduces the number of train movements in a facing direction over the Down line points. e r u t l r a a It does introduce additional installation and v p i r e r D A
1
2 annual maintenance costs, and the extra o o N N
d d r r set of points on the main line is not o o f f l l a a S S
t
t preferred by the Track RAM. r r e g o o a P d P n a t S
m Whilst indicative budget costs of £1/2m for 0 0 8 installation over and above Option 4 are not prohibitive, the potential advantage of this extra turnout for departure would only be fully realised with the addition of a 3rd arrival / departure line so that a run round facility is always available even with A57 Underbridge simultaneous arrival departure.
Cv 91/4 Crossover STR rd HEADSHUNT However the 3 line would place further
Passive provision for non-electrified workload on the signaller, require track to service warehouses in Zone1 increased embankment width, encroach STOP & AWAIT INSTRUCTIONS
Passive provision for siding on the flightpath of Manchester City and run-round to service Warehouse Airport (Barton Aerodrome). Also a second Passive provision for shunt neck to service Zone1 bridge over the A57 would be required with attendant impact on the Western Wharf Gateway Improvement Scheme and future road operations. For these reasons it is considered that the benefit to the terminal operation and flexibility is significantly outweighed by the installation and subsequent maintenance cost and hence this option has not been taken further forward. Advantages The above layout has the following advantages over and above that of Option 4: • Ability to enable simultaneous arrival and departure within available train path • Departure lead to the Down Main could be higher speed to reduce time taken for departing freight traffic to achieve full line speed**
** The main line connections have been designed for 30mph. Modelling analysis undertaken in April 2012 based on a 25mph turnout, aligned to provisional working timetable, indicated that there was sufficient time path opportunity for a train departing to the west without affecting other services. The increase to 30mph has improved this position further. Changing the DV turnout to EV or greater would not only give a mismatch of switches on the main line, but also potentially require the whole junction arrangement to move to the East, compromising planning boundaries to enable the flatter curve required for the EV switches to be aligned to a minimum 250m radii into the arrival / departure alignment.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Disadvantages The above layout has the following disadvantages: • Additional S&C on main line with associated increase in maintenance requirements • Widening of embankment with increase to formation costs • Would need further widening to recreate the headshunt • Would also introduce further signalling complexity to the layout • Increase conflict with Runway 20 The provision of an additional turnout on the Down Main would give some operational benefit, however this would need to be carefully considered against the extra installation and maintenance costs involved, and increased safety issues related to having the additional S&C. Overall it was not considered the operational benefit would be justified unless the lead was of a higher speed, and the affects of trying to accommodate same with respect to alignment of the junctions would preclude its installation. Therefore Option 4 remains the recommended solution.
Option Selection – Geotechnical In all the above options the geotechnical requirements and issues to be resolved are broadly similar, with only the extent of the stabilisation and embankment construction required differing. In Option 3 this would be limited to the areas between Br 112A and the rear of the turnout into the depot, and of course a single chord line. In Option 4 and 5 the stabilisation required would be the same.
Option Selection – Train Modelling Analysis In all the above the modelling analysis for arrivals / departures to the West is the same. Option 5 had an additional departure turnout for potentially higher speed, however the modelling analysis has demonstrated that 30mph turnout is sufficient and this is satisfied by Option 4
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
8. PRS – SUMMARY OF KEY REQUIREMENTS
Main issues identified by Network Rail which are required to be addressed within the design are summarised below. These requirements are considered within this reference design; however a limited number of the issues with respect to signalling have yet to be formalised and agreed with Network Rail and are being addressed within the ongoing GRIP3 development. A copy of the full GRIP2 PRS is attached for reference as Appendix G
Track • All installation must be compliant with W12 clearance • As far as is reasonably practical scissors, tandems and switch diamonds shall not be used. • As far as reasonably practical S&C shall be on straight track with standard track intervals (6’ and 10’). • Any S&C is to be a minimum of 20m clear of any structure or ancillary item (excluding Overhead Line Equipment [OLE] • 42m between S&C units (toe to toe & heel to heel distances to be considered); • 40m from S&C toes and Last Long Bearer (LLB) to a change in horizontal or vertical alignment or change in geometrical element e.g. transition or cant change
Signalling • Design shall support future application of Automatic Route Setting • Current control from Eccles is to re-controlled to the LNW(N) Railway Operations Control Centre (ROC) in 2019 • SPAD alarms are to be provide • Event Monitoring is to be provided • Condition Monitoring is to be provided • Train Describer requirements from Depot to Eccles SB The PRS asks for a number of items to be investigated and appropriate options to be selected. This will require additional work to study and provide input into a Final Option Selection Report. The items are: • Whether the existing panel at Eccles can be modified to accommodate the new layout or whether a new VDU is required. • Whether the existing Interlocking can be amended or whether a remote interlocking is required. Interlocking to Eccles SB is preferred option • Whether the alterations to Eccles panel is classified as major in accordance with NR/SP/SIG/11130. It should also be noted that the PRS requests for all movements to and from the Chat Moss lines to be main aspects and to provide a slot from the Network Rail signalling control centre to the Port Salford signal control centre to enable a route from the Main Lines to the Departure Road. It is understood that there is no intention to provide a control centre at Port Salford. Therefore, we are proposing that a main route be provided from the Chat Moss lines to the Arrival Road and a shunt route be provided to the Departure Road if the Arrival Road is occupied. This facility should negate the need for the slot interface between the Network Rail and Port Salford control centres.
Telecoms • The operational telephone provision proposals shall be in accordance with strategies set out by the TAMANS group.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
• The FTN network is the preferred method of supporting the communications requirements for this scheme. • GSM-R coverage to limits of NR movements authority
M&E • Point Heating is required for all signalled points. • 110V supply installation of strip heating shall be installed as Class II, utilising enhanced non armoured cables. • It should be noted that the electrical distribution system in the area will be renewed as of the Northern Hub project; however there is currently no firm timetable for this.
OLE • The line is currently being electrified at 25kV as part of the NEP scheme, and design for the proposed new junction, overrun protection, switching and feeder arrangements need to be integrated with current design • Passive provision for electrification needs to consider how it will be fed, and switching arrangements such that main line operations will not be compromised
Geotechnical (Embankments and Earthworks) • Local, and where appropriate Global, earthwork stability shall be considered within design proposals where earthworks are subject to modifications or changes to imposed loadings • Minimum default values for design life for permanent works shall be: 120 years for new earthworks 120 years for bored pile schemes for earthwork remediation 120 years for sheet piling schemes for earthwork remediation 60 years for gabions, soil nails, reinforced soil, ground anchors used for earthwork remediation
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
9. OPTION 4 - REFERENCE DESIGN OVERVIEW
The reference design taken forward is based on Option 4 layout introduced in Recommended Options section. Reference design drawings and technical specifications are provided within the following Appendices Location Discipline Location Discipline Appendix A Track Appendix F Timetable Path Analysis Appendix B Signalling Appendix G Network Rail PRS Appendix C OLE Appendix H Design Assumptions Appendix D Telecoms Appendix I Designer Risk Assessment Appendix E M&E Appendix J Sectional Appendix Appendix K GRIP 3 Programme
Horizontal & Vertical Alignment overview During the development of the GRIP2 report, and subsequent review thereof, aligned with discussions with Planning Authorities, Port Salford Tri Modal Freight Terminal Manchester City Airport, Indicative Layout Peel Ports and Western Gateway Infrastructure For illustration only Not to Scale 25MP 25 1/4mp 25m 1/2mp Scheme (WGIS) the Deal St œ Edge Hill (Chat Moss) M62 Br 112A horizontal and vertical M62 Motorway UP alignment has been From Liverpool & W CML Dv15 Dv15 To Manchester DOW N Dv15 Dv 10.75 Min adjusted a number of times 250m Radius Gantries shown for illustration only and not representative of actual position to meet fixed constraints -
Engine Release Dv15 such as planning Bv Trap boundaries, Network Rail
v v Dv15 main line, airport glide
Runway 20 slopes, A57 bridge Glideslope alignment, together with consideration of neighbours and other affected parties, and achievement of design parameters such as turnout speed, length of trains, and Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome) operational capabilities. Runway 27 Airport Glideslope Key constraints and issues for the scheme were described within Section 5 above. The following is a summary of the specific alignment constraints and
A57 Underbridge the actions taken during the design development to Cv 91/4 Crossover STR Cripple Siding accommodate the areas of
Passive provision fixity and optimise the for non-electrified track to service warehouses in layout for both rail Zone1 STOP & AW AIT INSTRUCTIONS operation and its potential Passive provision for siding and run-round to service W arehouse impact upon neighbours.
Passive provision for shunt neck to service Zone1
W harf Phase C W harf Phase D 775m standage + Run Round
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Horizontal Alignment The scheme is constrained by: • Planning LOD • Original planning application approvals • The existing M62 Motorway bridge on the Chat Moss Line (Br112A) • The interface with Manchester City Airport glide slopes for Runways 20 and 27 • The alignment of the proposed A57 road bridge (rail over road) WGIS scheme • Minimum curve radii off main line • Transitions between curves • Maximising turnout speed – hence radii of turnout The design alignment has remained within the Planning LOD, however it has been adjusted from the submitted alignment of the original planning application approval as this was based on a straight line onto OS tile mapping, and was not workable in that it clashed with a number of key constraints and did not provide acceptable curve or transition radii. Starting from the north at the main line interface and working south along the proposed horizontal alignment design has: • Allowed at least 20m from Br112A, which fixes the westernmost point of the toes of the crossover and hence the position at which the chord line curve starts and ends. • Provided 30mph turnouts and 250m radii chords • Ignored the impact of Runway 20 and assumed that this will be adjusted by the airport to accommodate the new alignment, The reason for this is that realigning the track horizontally to accommodate the glide slope could not be achieved within the LOD, and realigning the track vertically to get beneath it could not be achieved with any practicable gradients off the main line that would allow for future provision of OLE. Runway 20 is understood to be a cross wind runway that accounts for <5% of flight operations during abnormal wind conditions, and adjacent Runway 14 could accommodate some of that 5% • Placed the arrival / departure S&C on a straight alignment and 1970mm spacing between tracks • Maintained 6m clearance from the nearest rail to the existing cemetery fence line. This allows for 3.5m clearance from rail to the security fencing for the new terminal and 2.5m for a footpath between the two fences. • Kept the track as far west as practicable in the area of Runway 27 to maximise separation and hence safety zone, whilst remaining within the LOD and allowing space for acoustic and visual barriers between the new lines and adjoining properties. The closer the track to Runway 27, which is the main runway for Manchester City Airport, the greater the risk to air traffic. Also moving closer to the runway requires the track to be lower increasing both gradients either side, and also the environmental impact of excavation on the underlying formation, and the need for retaining structures. • Provided straight alignment over the new A57 bridge and for the S&C on the far side • Allowed for a minimum 200m radius curve to the wharf sidings. Discussions with the Planning authority are currently ongoing with respect to the horizontal alignment between the A57 bridge and Runway 27 where it is closest to neighbouring properties. To reduce environmental impact of noise and vibration of train movements, idling locomotives and coupling operations a review of the reference design in respect of moving the Stop and Await Instruction Board the southern crossover and the headshunt south of the A57 bridge is to be explored further during the design development..
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Vertical Alignment The scheme is constrained by: • Track levels of the existing M62 Motorway bridge on the Chat Moss Line (Br112A) • Original planning application approvals for 19.5m – 20.5m AOD at new A57 road bridge • The existing levels on the approach to the M62 Motorway bridge on the Chat Moss Line (Br112A) • The interface with Manchester City Airport glide slopes for Runways 20 and 27 • Minimising gradients to the main line with respect to enabling acceleration to full line speed for departing trains • Minimising standing gradients on arrival / departure lines
Starting from the north at the main line interface and working south along the proposed vertical alignment design has: • Aligned the new track to existing track levels on the Chat Moss • Provided 30mph turnouts and 250m radii chords • Maintained consistent gradient through S&C • Ignored the impact of Runway 20 and assumed that this will be adjusted by the airport to accommodate the new alignment, • Maintained best practicable gradient to achieve clearance to runway 27 glide slope (CAP 168 compliance) with reduced OLE* * reduced height of OLE supporting arrangements at 5.5m not reduced wire height • Maintained best practicable gradient to reach A57 road bridge with rail level at 20.5m AOD. • Maintained consistent gradient through S&C
Discussions on the critical vertical alignment interface with A57 bridge (WGIS scheme) are currently ongoing with respect to the final rail heights. The planning application allows between 19.5m and 20.5m AOD for rail level. The lower the track, the steeper the road gradients required to get beneath the rail bridge and hence the greater impact on road profiles, drainage, and excavation into the underlying formation.
Interface with Other Projects Network Rail are currently progressing a number of schemes that will, or may have an interface with the proposed Port Salford Terminal and associated main line connections: • National Electrification Programme (NEP) • Northern Hub • Transpennine Line Speed Improvements • Western Gateway Improvement Scheme (WGIS) NEP Electrification Network Rail are actively progressing a scheme to provide overhead electrification of the route by 2013 using NR series 2 equipment, under the NEP programme. The main line will be electrified in advance of the construction for the Port Salford terminal, with passive provision made for the portal gantries appropriate for the proposed new junctions. Design for electrification of the new junction and overrun protection itself is within the scope of this contract, and the Contractor will need to liaise with the NEP team to during detailed design and installation to ensure integration of design including switching and feeder arrangements. Passive provision only is required for future-proofing electrification of the Terminal itself, and this will require acceptance by Network Rail of the proposed arrangements for switching and feeder supplies..
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
The NEP scheme also introduces an increase in train paths with electrified services to/from the West Coast Main Line, however this is reflected within the Northern Hub indicative timetable Version 4A+ Off- Peak December 2018 used for the Study. Northern Hub Network Rail are also progressing the Northern Hub project to implement a series of infrastructure and operational improvements within the Manchester area. Currently being progressed at GRIP 3 level the Northern Hub scheme is understood to be considering the following packages that may interface with the Port Salford scheme either directly or indirectly through construction constrains on the timetable and available possessions: • Chat Moss Capacity • Core Manchester performance –including Ordsall Chord • Astley Level Crossing • Huyton Four Tracking TPE Linespeed Improvements Network Rail are currently proposing to raise the linespeed to 75mph (60mph Freight), and this may require alterations to the current signalling, signalling headways, and timings at Astley Level crossing. Western Gateway Improvement Scheme (WGIS) WGIS is a highways scheme to improve the motorway and local road network within the Port Salford and Trafford area, to provide improved links from the new Freight Terminal to the M60 motorway, and alterations to the motorway itself for traffic to/from the Trafford Centre and surrounding local roads. The A57 is to be realigned as part of the WGIS scheme, and a new rail underbridge (rail over road) built to enable access to the Port facility. It is currently proposed that the new bridge will be constructed as part of the advance works to underside of ballast, however the construction of this bridge may be varied into this Contract. Section B2 of the Tender Documents details the proposed A57 Rail Bridge Works
Track Existing Materials The existing line comprises FB113A CWR on F27 concrete sleepers. It is twin track ballasted non- electrified line with a permanent speed restriction, due to formation conditions, of 60mph for passenger services and 40mph for freight. Proposed Materials All material on Network Rail controlled infrastructure, or that will be under Network Rail maintenance is to be installed new. Existing material where recovered is to be removed from site and disposed of in accordance with Network Rail requirements. Switches and Crossings It is proposed to introduce a new NR 56V DVS15 facing crossover and trailing DVS 10 ¾ turnout to form the West Junction and a trailing DVS15 crossover and facing DVS15 turnout to form the East Junction to access/egress the freight terminal, giving a maximum turnout speed of 30mph
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
y y 6 3 y y y y E 7 5 7 6 0 7 6 1 8 S 6 7 3 6 7 7 1 1 1 m m m 5 m m m 1 4 4 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 0 7 0 1 S E
The proposed S&C on the main line will be laid straight with parallel, coplanar, alignment at a standard 1970mm track interval where practicable based on existing alignment The proposed S&C on the main line will have Cast Manganese crossings, High Tensile joints and switches welded all round. S&C within the terminal will be semi-welded. The toe of the Western connection crossover will be at least 4.5m from the nearest abutment of the M62 underbridge (Br112A) The Turnout to the West / East Chords will be DV15 / Dv10 ¾ full depth and the crossover between the arrival and departure road will also be full depth DV15 switches to maintain 30mph turnout speed. The Traps will be BV8 All S&C under signal control will be on concrete bearers with in bearer clamplock operation. It is proposed that the main line S&C be of modular construction to facilitate ease of installation. Plain line renewal on the main line is limited to the twist rails of the S&C, it is not proposed to renew the plain line between the S&C units All signalled S&C will have Schwihag rollers and points heating with Remote Condition Monitoring back to Eccles Signalbox Rail All new plain rail will be CEN 56 (113A) Note: It is not proposed that the plain line between the west and east connections be renewed, and the existing materials in this areas would be connected to and remain in-situ. The curve onto the branch line will be a minimum 250m radius new CEN56 CWR Insulated Joints Insulated joints on the main lines will be 36ft new 6 hole glued joints, and within the depot shall be new 4hole 30ft glued joints Sleepers and Bearers All S&C shall be of modular construction on concrete bearers All plain line shall be G44 Concrete Ballast Ballast shall be compliant with NR/L2/TRK/8100 and; • 300mm below bearer bottom under main line S&C • 250mm below sleeper bottom on main lines • 250mm below bearer bottom under the terminal S&C • 200mm below sleeper bottom within the arrival / departure lines
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Track Geometry Alignment on the main line is straight The curve onto the branch line will be a minimum 250m radius Track interval is c1970mm, although there is some variation on the main line approaching underbridge 112A Gauging It is not proposed to alter the alignment (horizontal or vertical) over any structure and therefore gauging of bridge 112A is not considered to be required at this GRIP stage. Deviations / Departures from Standard There are no proposed deviations or departures from Standard Long Lead Items Long lead items that would be required as part of these works are as follows: • Concrete bearer kits • S&C Units including In Bearer Clamplocks • Rail • Schwihag Roller Plates
Signalling Due to the requirement to maximise speed to/from the main line, there is a requirement to signal the arrival and departure lines down to a Stop and Await Instructions Board at the south end to enable route setting off the main line. It is currently assumed that their will be no signalling required within the Freight Terminal beyond Network Rail Controlled infrastructure. Movement authority will be given by voice commands either via radio or telephone communications. Hence the following sections deal with the Network Rail controlled area and the interface arrangements. General Signalling shall be provided to allow movements between the Main lines and the new Freight Terminal. The layout and signalling shall be arranged to accommodate a minimum of 8 trains a day in and out from the West and 1 train a day in and out from the East. The arrangement shall be such that it minimises the disruption to other Main line services. It is also essential that the signalling is arranged such that, in the future, Automatic Route Setting can be applied for movements both on and off the Main line. It is intended for the Up and Down Chat Moss lines to be electrified prior to this project, therefore all signalling equipment and its positioning shall be compatible with the requirements for Overhead line electrification. Controlling Signalbox The NX Control Panel at Eccles Signal box will require alterations to depict the new infrastructure layout. SPAD alarms shall be provided for the new signals controlled from Eccles Signal Box. Existing TPWS failure alarm indications at Eccles Signal Box are of the retro style fitment and under this project it is not proposed to renew this to modern re-signalled fitment. New TPWS failure alarm indications will be designed as per the re-signalled arrangement. Therefore a derogation against Network Rail Standard NR/SP/SIG/10133 ‘Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) Signalling Interface Design Requirements’ will be required for inter-mixing of TPWS failure alarms. A survey of Eccles Signal Box will determine whether the existing Control Panel can be modified to accommodate the new layout or whether it will require replacing. Should a replacement be required then a VDU control system should be considered that must be compatible with the LNW(N) Railway Operations Control centre (ROC) strategy.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Alteration to existing Signals Existing automatic signal ES105 positioned on the Down Chat Moss line will be altered to a controlled signal and will be equipped with a Junction Indicator POS 1, Miniature Indicators and a Position light signal. It is proposed that the Position light signal and associated Miniature Indicator are provided to give Permissive and Non-Permissive routes to both the Departure and Arrivals lines. Existing automatic signal ES112 positioned on the Up Chat Moss line will be altered to a controlled signal and will be equipped with a Junction Indicator POS 4, Miniature Indicator and a Position light signal. It is proposed that the Position light signal and associated Miniature Indicator are provided to give Permissive and Non-Permissive routes to both the Departure and Arrivals lines. New Signals New signals will be provided on both the departure (ES123) and arrival (ES121) lines with Standard Indicators to allow for flexibility for routes back onto the Main Lines towards Astley or Manchester Piccadilly. Signal ES123 will additionally be provided with a Position light aspect to allow movements forward into the Head Shunt. Ground Position Light signal ES204 will be provided to allow Permissive and Non-permissive movement from the Head Shunt to the Arrivals line Signal ES122 will be provided on the Arrivals line with a fixed red main aspect for movements up to it from the Main line and an associated Position light aspect to allow trains to pass forward towards the Freight Terminal. A Ground Position Light signal ES206 will be provided on the Departure line to allow shunt movements up to it from the Main line or the Headshunt and to allow forward movements towards the Freight Terminal. Signal ES201 is a new Ground Position Light with a Miniature Indicator providing Shunt routes from the Port Salford Reversible Line to both the Departure and Arrivals lines. Note that alterations to all existing and proposed new signals will be subject to signal sighting committee recommendations at further GRIP stages. Train Movements Trains exiting Main line entering Port Salford Freight Terminal The signalling from the Chat Moss lines into the new facility will be under the control of Eccles SB and will be routed from existing signals ES105 and ES112 located on the Up and Down Chat Moss lines. Routes from both ES105 and ES112 signals into Port Salford will be main class routes, with (MAR) Main Approached Controlled from Red, to a new fixed red signal ES122 located on the Arrivals line. This fixed red signal has been positioned to accommodate a train length of 775m. Network trains will arrive on the Port Salford Arrivals line and be routed up to ES122 signal. Still under the control of Eccles Signal Box the engine will decouple and be routed via a shunt movement towards a Stop Board on the Port Salford Reversible Line where it can then be set back from signal ES201 along the Port Salford Departure line and exit back onto the main lines via ES123 signal. Alternatively rather than exiting onto the Main line the engine could be routed into the Head Shunt if required to wait for the next Departing train. The Freight Terminal Engine would now be called past the Stop Board by instruction via Telephone from Eccles SB up to ES201 signal. Once coupled the train can now be routed from ES122 towards the Stop Board at which time contact with the Freight Terminal is required to gain authority to pass.
Trains exiting Port Salford Freight Terminal and entering Main line At the Freight Terminal the Head code for the next exiting train will be input to the TD system, this will be displayed at Eccles SB alerting the signaller. The train will pull up to the Stop Board and contact the Signaller who will give instruction to proceed to ES201 signal. The train will then be routed to ES123 on the Departure line. Note that with the current layout these movements will have to be propelling movements. This will enable the Freight Terminal engine to decouple and a Network Rail engine can then be routed up to the train (from either the head shunt or the main line) at which time it can be coupled to the train and be routed from ES123 out on to the Main line. An alternative layout option would to be to provide an additional crossover from the Head Shunt to the Arrivals Road (whilst also providing trapping protection for the main lines) which would enable the Freight
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Terminal engine to pull the train out of the depot and up to ES123 signal, to uncouple and then be routed back into the Freight terminal via the Head Shunt and the Arrivals Road. The Network Rail engine could then be routed out of the Head Shunt or from the main lines to the Departure Line to couple with the train. It is the intention that this option be investigated/developed as the design progresses.
Train Detection The detection in the area is a mixture of TI21 frequency and medium voltage DC type track circuits. At this stage it is proposed to use digital TI21 type track circuits for any new or altered train detection. It is envisaged that a number of track circuits will require name changes in these cases the existing track circuit type will be retained. Point Operation and Detection All the new points identified on the scheme plan shall be power operated by in bearer clamplocks with electrical detection indicated to the signaller at Eccles SB. New switches shall be provided with strip heaters with climatic controls and possibly override from Eccles SB, this is yet to be determined. Condition monitoring shall be provided for all new point ends as part of this project. The equipment used for condition monitoring shall be compatible with the LNW North Intelligent Infrastructure programme. The local maintainer shall be consulted in determining the type to be used. Interlocking The area affected is controlled by a Route Relay Interlocking (RRI) housed in an REB (ES27/3) adjacent to Eccles SB. The interlocking was commissioned circa 1999 and it is proposed to make alterations to this interlocking to accommodate the new layout and signalling. It is understood that there is sufficient capacity, however this is to be confirmed as part of the ongoing GRIP 3 study. This option is preferred over a new remote interlocking as it will reduce the required equipment at a later date when control is centralised into the forthcoming LNW(N) Railway Operations Control centre. Event monitoring of the interlocking shall be provided for the new control area. The project shall consult with the Route Asset Manager (Signals) with a view to providing passive provision for the existing relay interlocking. The equipment used for event and monitoring shall be compatible with the LNW North Intelligent Infrastructure programme. The local maintainer shall be consulted in this decision. Equipment Housing A number of lineside equipment housings within the project area will be affected as follows: Eccles SB, ES27/3 (REB), ES23/1, ES24/2, ES24/3c/s, ES24/4, ES25/1, ES25/2, ES25/3c/s and ES26/1. It should be noted that as ES25/3c/s is a cut section location hence all functions passing this between the new layout and the signal box will require new relays. An additional case may therefore be required to accommodate the new equipment. As this project is to be designed for Overhead electrification all signalling line circuits are limited in length to 2km. At this stage it is anticipated that six new location areas will be required to house the new signalling equipment. Additionally Power / point heating cubicles will be required that shall be determined as the project develops. Automatic Warning System (AWS) AWS magnet associated with Signal ES110 located on the Up Chat Moss line will require relocating to accommodate the new turnout. Additionally a new AWS for signal ES110 will be required for movements from Port Salford due to the restriction on positioning of the new turnout. Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) As ES105 and ES112 signals will become controlled signals protecting the new connections these will be equipped with TPWS. None of the other signals within the new terminal will require TPWS as they are excluded by code ‘F’ or ‘S’. Lineside Signs New speed boards will be required for the connections between the Main line and Port Salford, the provision of which is subject to Signal Sighting Committee approval.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Cable Routes The existing signalling cable route runs along the Down Chat Moss cess and will require diversion through two new UTX’s to accommodate the new connections. A new cable route will be required along the new formation it is anticipated at this stage that this will be located in the Down Port Salford cess. The new route will join with the existing route in the vicinity of the Eastern connection. Cables crossing the track will be routed in accordance with Network Rail Company Standard NR/SP/SIG/19812 Cross Track Cable Management. Note the use of orange pipe is prohibited. On completion of the works all new or affected Cable Routes shall have a minimum of 20% spare capacity. Reasonable access to cable routes will be maintained during the works. Upon completion of the works, cable routes must be accessible and clear of ballast. All tail cables made redundant by this project will be fully recovered from the cable route. A cable management and cable route survey will be undertaken by the Principal Contractor in order to ascertain the level of temporary recovery or protection required to cable route whilst the site works for the scheme are in progress. Block System The existing Up and Down Chat Moss lines are operated under the Track Circuit Block regulations and this project will not alter this. The connections to and from the Main line and areas under the control of Eccles SB shall also be operated under these regulations. Staff Warning Systems It is not proposed at this stage to provide any new Staff Warning systems. Level Crossings It is not proposed at this stage to provide any new level crossings and it is currently assumed that Astley User Worked Gate crossing will not be affected. It is understood that the increased traffic flow for the terminal will need to be considered by Network Rail in conjunction with proposed line speed increase
OLE This section identifies the specification for the equipment type to be used on the project, and should act as a guide to the GRIP 4 / 5 designer. Type of Equipment The equipment type will be designed from the new Series 2 range currently under development by Network Rail. It should be noted that this will be subject to approval by Network Rail and consideration needs to be given to the interface with the main line ‘series 2’ equipment type. Support Structures
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Numerous new structures of varying style are required to provide a compliant economical design. The proposed styles of structure are as follows: • 305DC masts with 305DC booms (main line portal structures, two with anchor ties). • 203UC style masts with ‘flying tail’ style support and registrations • 203UC style masts with ‘pull-off’ style registrations • 203UC style masts with cantilever style support and registrations (four with anchor ties) • 305DC (OR 308UC) style masts with single cantilevers and switching • 305DCstyle masts with twin cantilevers for support and registration (overlap locations)
No changes to the feeding arrangements will be required for the wiring of the cross overs and provision of over run.
It is unknown at this time what the Power requirements of the Terminal will be. It is likely that Network Rail will want the Terminal to have its own separate Power supply to eliminate risks to their infrastructure on the main line. A separate power supply would add major costs to the future passive wiring of the Terminal. The cost is partially dependent of where the power supply is brought in from (distance involved, how much cabling, cable routing etc) and this element is considered outside the scope of this report other than to identify a likely requirement.
If a separate power supply is to be installed for the passive wiring of the Terminal then this will require a neutral section to be installed. The location or structure types to cater for this scenario have NOT been considered as part of this exercise.
Due to the very tight radii curves of the main line the location of a neutral section could be quite onerous to efficiently place at a location that meets with OLE design principles as well as satisfying NEP requirements / preferences.
Further design work will most likely be required when the requirement of a neutral section(s) is formerly identified. This would more than likely require additional structures to create smaller spans to provide acceptable staggers suitable for a Neutral section location.
Telecoms Cable Route The existing cable route that runs in the cess along the Down Chat Moss Line will fall foul of the new junction to Port Salford Depot. Consequently it will be necessary to divert the cables via two new UTX’s to allow the branch line to be constructed. Due to the additional cable lengths required to pass through the two new UTX’s it will not be possible to divert the cable without installing new lengths of cable. It is proposed to install a new location cabinet on the Astley side of the junction near 24m70ch. The existing cable route shall be interfaced with the new cabinet. A new section of route shall be constructed up to the first new UTX. It is proposed that the existing C/1/8 cable route is reused between the UTX’s as far as possible. Each UTX shall consist of 12 subducts to cater for the existing cabling (approximately eight) and new cable requirements. On the Patricroft side of the junction, the existing cable route shall be reused from the new UTX onwards. A new cable route shall be required down the branch line to serve the operational cable requirements. A C/1/8 SCT shall be installed in the cess of Port Salford Depot No. 2 Line from the Depot Control Centre up to the cable route on the Down Chat Moss line. The cable routes shall interface with each other to allow cabling to be run back to Eccles from the Depot. Copper cables Existing cables shall be cut at Location cabinet A (24m70ch) on the Down Chat Moss Line and terminated within the new loc. A new section of cable shall be installed through the UTX’s as far as a new Location cabinet B (25m30ch), where it shall be terminated. The existing cable at Loc B shall also be
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
terminated into Loc B so that the existing circuits on the 30pr cable can be re-patched onto the new section of cable. The old cable shall be recovered, a distance of approximately 800m. See Fig 5-A below. A new 20pr copper cable shall be installed from a new Location cabinet E up to Loc B on the Down Chat Moss Line. A new 10pr copper cable shall be installed from Location cabinet E down to the Location cabinet F outside the Depot Control Centre.
Fibre Cables Existing fibres will need to be diverted via the two new UTX’s. It is proposed to replace the FTN cable (ID: F-MJSA-MNCC-A) from the joint F-MJSA-MNCC-A-13 at 24 ¼ MP + 355m through to joint F-MJSA- MNCC-A-12 at 25 ¼ MP + 288m and route the new cable through the new UTX’s, a total distance of 1542m. See Figure 5-B. It may be possible to add a fibre joint in the vicinity of Loc A without compromising the link budget of the cable. This possibility shall be explored at the detailed design phase with the FTN group as it would reduce the length of new cable required from 1542m down to 885m. Optical fibre cables are not currently proposed for the branch line to the depot. Port Salford Fibre Cable Diversions Schematic
Up Chat Moss
Down Chat Moss
Cable to be Fibre Joint New 1542m recovered F-MJSA-MNCC-A-13 Section of Fibre Joint 24 ¼ MP +355m FTN cable F-MJSA-MNCC-A-12 25 ¼ MP +288m
Location Cabinet It is envisaged that four location cabinets shall be required along the branch line to take the terminations of the required SPT’s, and to keep the tail cable lengths below 100m maximum as specified in FTN standard SP/FTN(D&D)/009. See Figure 5-C. Two more location cabinets shall be required on the Down Chat Moss Line to allow the termination of the diverted cables through the new UTX’s.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Operational Telephones New operational telephones shall be required as follows: SPT Location Tail cable details ES204 Xxm* before GPL ES204 Hollow sleepers to cross tracks to Port Salford Depot No. 2 line. Terminate in Loc B, approx cable length TBC ES121 Xxm* before ES121 Terminate in Loc B, approx cable length TBC ES123 Xxm* before ES123 Hollow sleepers to cross tracks to Port Salford Depot No. 2 line. Terminate in Loc B, approx cable length TBC ES206 Xxm* before ES206 Hollow sleepers to cross tracks to Port Salford Depot No. 2 line. Terminate in Loc C, approx cable length TBC ES122 Xxm* before ES122 Terminate in Loc C, approx cable length TBC Stop and Await At Stop and Await Instruction board Hollow sleepers to cross tracks to Port Salford Instruction Phone Depot No. 2 line. Terminate in Loc D, approx cable length TBC Control Centre to Port Salford Control Centre Terminate in Loc F, approx cable length TBC Eccles SB DL * To be determined at Signal Sighting All tail cables shall be 0.9mm conductor diameter 2pair cable and shall be less than 100m in length. Each circuit shall use the new copper cables back to the Chat Moss Line, and then route on the 30pr copper cable back to Eccles Signal Box to terminate on the signaller control panel. There are currently 14 spare keys on the panel, with 7 remaining after the completion of this project. All telephones shall be Gaitronics CB type mounted on a post. The exact locations and provision of walkways shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Signal Sighting Committee.
GSM-R It is assumed that the Chat Moss Line shall have full GSM-R coverage by the time this project is complete. Coverage levels shall be determined at GRIP 5 detailed design to ensure that adequate coverage of the branch line is provided.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Provisioning for Future Electrification As the intention is to electrify the Chat Moss Line in the future, control of undesirable effects is required on the branch line as follows: • Metallic armoured cables shall have sheath gapes at cable joints, and before entry into cabinets and buildings. • Moisture barriers shall be isolated at cabinets and buildings. • A screening conductor shall be installed along the branch line along the limits of electrification.
M&E The new Points Heating at Port Salford will require a new supply from a DNO Power Distribution Cubicle and 3 new separate Point Heating Control Cubicles to supply the individual transformers.
Each cubicle shall be of stainless steel construction (316 grade steel) with a marine ply back board which is capable of housing all the equipment required for the supply and control of switch heating at this location. The cubicle manufacture will ensure there is a sufficient space envelope for the provision of future remote monitoring equipment
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
There are a total of 10 sets of points at the site which are signalled and require Points Heating. At this stage the type of switches proposed on the main line turnouts are DV type therefore 10 no. 10kVA transformer are required. All transformers shall be the dual wound secondary type.
The strip heaters shall meet the design standard and be installed in compliance with NAT/REP/MPI/ENG/EP3736860 Issue 04: 2011 and NR/GN/ELP/45002. Rail Clips shall be designed to secure electric heaters onto the rail switches at an adequate pressure to ensure that optimum heat transfer is achieved. Consideration should also be given to the installation of heat retainers on the strip heaters as per NR/BS/LI/249.
Cable Route The use of secured troughing shall be considered in order to mitigate the risk of theft and vandalism. Where there is a requirement for cables to cross the track at voltages greater than 110V then a new UTX shall be installed. This will consist of a minimum 4 no. 150mm ducts and shall be subject to a separate Civils design and approval. Hollow steel sleepers shall be utilised where 110V cables are required to cross the track.
. The earthing system shall comply with B.S. Code of Practice BS7430: Earthing and BS7671 17th Edition Requirements for Electrical Installations. The freight depot will be electrified using the autotransformer method at 25-0-25kV and as such, all electrical equipment located within OLE contact zone should be bonded to avoid dangerous touch potentials arising (in accordance with BS EN 50122-1: 2011 Railway Applications Fixed Installations). All bonds shall be suitably sized in order to accommodate the maximum prospective fault current arising under fault conditions.
Civils and Structures
Civils and Structures Civils works within this design and build package include: • Minor lineside civils (cable routes etc) It is proposed that existing cable routes be used where these are available, complete and have sufficient capacity to accommodate both the new cables required and allow for required remaining percentage spare capacity • Drainage The existing track on the main line is on embankment and drainage is achieved by shedding off the embankment to a ditch at the foot of the embankment. It is proposed that this existing
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
drainage be maintained in its current arrangement with the ditches affected by the construction of the chord lines being culverted through the chord line embankments. New drainage will be provided for the chord lines and the arrival / departure lines which will be independent of the main line and carry drainage south to outfall adjacent to the new A57 road bridge. • UTX No new UTX’s are proposed for the main line New UTX’s are proposed beneath the chord line embankments for existing lineside services on the main line to be diverted and maintained • Retaining structures There are no proposed retaining structures on the main line. Retaining structures for the arrival / departure lines – if any - are anticipated to be small and will be finalised during GRIP 4-5 design to determine the optimal solution that incorporates landscaping and acoustic barrier requirements • OLE bases, signal bases, Location bases etc OLE bases on the main line are to be installed as part of the NEP project OLE bases to the chord line to overrun protection will be standard OLEMI design on piled foundations OLE provision for future electrification of the branch line will be on piled foundations to suit the ground conditions • Acoustic barriers There are no proposals for acoustic barriers to the main line Acoustic barriers will be required for the area close to the neighbouring properties at the south end of the arrival / departure line. The form and requirements for this will be determined following consultation with the local authority, undertaking of noise and vibration review and aligned to landscaping proposals. It is anticipated that any barriers will be outside the fenceline and will be completed under a separate contract. • Fencing and security The boundary to the proposed chord lines and the arrival / departure line will be high security palisade (or similar fencing) to maintain boundary security to the new works. This will matched to the existing fencing at the intersection of the new chord lines with the Down Chat Moss line There is no proposal to amend the existing fence on the UP Chat Moss.
• Access Vehicular access is required to the new junction to enable maintenance and faulting access.
Geotechnical (Embankments & Earthworks) Geotechnical solutions to the embankment are currently being developed. Key issues are:
• Stabilisation of existing embankment to ensure that the new S&C remains stable Notes: 1)It is not proposed to carry out stabilisation to the area between the West and East junctions 2)The current level of GI is assumed to be acceptable for this GRIP stage • Embankment interface between the existing embankment and the new embankments required to form the chord lines, and mitigating potential differential settlement. • Embankment stabilisation considers the newly installed OLE mast supports
Geotechnical risks to the increased dynamic loads and the construction of a new embankment butting onto the existing earthworks structure are considered to be:
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
• Settlement of the existing rail lines including points to be introduced as part of this scheme • Short term performance of the proposed embankment • L< ong term performance of the proposed embankment • E< mbankment construction over soft –compressible soils. • D< ifferential movement between different treated zones of the existing embankment
Environmental See Environmental Assessment provided within the GRIP 2 report which will form the basis for further review and development to satisfy requirements of GRIP3
Train Path Analysis Discussions have been held with Network Rail to review the train path opportunities for freight to / from the new terminal. The key requirement identified during analysis was for trains leaving the depot to be able to accelerate and reach linespeed as quickly as possible. For this reason the proposed main line S&C has been designed for 30mph. Analysis to date has been undertaken in conjunction with Network Rail (Rhys Bowen / Lee Mowle) against the 2018 model which includes for proposed linespeed upgrade and NEP electrification of the Chat Moss line. The findings indicate that against timetable of 9 trains per hour, suitable headway (technical margins) between the Depot and Wigan North Western / Warrington are available. Further analysis is ongoing for trains arriving / departing to / from the East. There is already a timetable slot for freight, and departing to the east would utilise a path similar to arrival from the West. Given that the analysis was carried out against the 2018 (post Phase 2) model, this would assert that against the current timetable (3 trains per hour) and Phase 1 (5 trains per hour) the proposed layouts meet requirements A copy of the interim draft report rveiwed in conjunction with Network Rail has been included as Appendix F for reference. This analysis will be ongoing throughout the design period.
Technical Specifications For Reference Design drawings and Technical Specifications refer to the following Appendices Discipline Location Document Track Appendix A Reference Design Layout Technical Specification Signalling Appendix B Draft Signalling Scheme Plan Technical Specification OLE Appendix C Reference Design Layout Telecoms Appendix D Technical Specification M&E Appendix E Technical Specification Trainpath Modelling Appendix F Draft Modelling report Network Rail PRS Appendix G Technical Specification Civils and Structures To be developed during GRIP 3 Geotechnical To be developed during GRIP 3
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
10. OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION REMIT
Remit The Contractor is to take forward and develop the reference design to GRIP Stage 5 (Form 002) and obtain the necessary Network Rail approvals for works affecting the operational infrastructure. Once approval has been obtained the Contractor will be responsible for taking forward through GRIP stages 6 – 8 construction, installation and commissioning, and is responsible for achieving handover to Network Rail maintenance.
Design Overview As an overview the works shown below form the outline scope for this contract. For associated Reference design drawings and Technical Specifications refer to the following Appendices Location Discipline Location Discipline Appendix A Track Appendix F Timetable Path Analysis Appendix B Signalling Appendix G Network Rail PRS Appendix C OLE Appendix H Design Assumptions Appendix D Telecoms Appendix I Designer Risk Assessment Appendix E M&E Appendix J Sectional Appendix Appendix K GRIP 3 Programme
Track Main Line : The Contractor is to provide new CEN 56E1 plain line on new G44 concrete sleepers, and new Vertical Shallow Depth S&C on concrete bearers. Ballast shall be installed to a minimum depth of 250mm to underside of plain lines sleepers and 300mm to underside of S&C bearers. All insulated joints shall be new 36’ 6hole glued Arrival / Departure: The Contractor is to provide CEN 56E1 (new) or BS113A (serviceable)plain line on new G44 concrete sleepers or F27 (serviceable) sleepers. All S&C shall be new Vertical Full Depth S&C on concrete bearers. Ballast shall be installed to a minimum depth of 200mm to underside of plain lines sleepers and 250mm to underside of S&C bearers All insulated joints shall be new 30’ 4hole glued.
Track Drainage Any existing track drainage to the main line within the mileage of the new works is to be cleaned and re- used. This will include maintaining any existing drainage ditches on the Downside, which will need to be run through new culverts provided within the embankments of the new Chord lines. New Track drainage to the chord lines and the arrival / departure lines is to be installed and will be connected to the main carrier drain laid from the main line and falling to outfall adjacent to the new A57 bridge.
Signalling Signalling shall be provided to allow movements between the Main lines and the new Freight Terminal. The layout and signalling shall be arranged to accommodate a minimum of 8 trains a day in and out from the West and 1 train a day in and out from the East. The arrangement shall be such that it minimises the disruption to other Main line services. It is also essential that the signalling is arranged such that, in the future, Automatic Route Setting can be applied for movements off the Main line. It is intended for the Up and Down Chat Moss lines to be electrified prior to this project, therefore all signalling equipment and its positioning shall be compatible with the requirements for Overhead line electrification.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Draft Signalling Scheme Plan ref B1762900-03/SG.DRG/0001 showing the signalling requirements is provided within the Appendices
Telecoms Telecommunications design for Port Salford Tri Modal Freight Depot shall include all operational telecommunications requirements to facilitate the construction of the junction and branch line into the depot up as far as the Depot Control Centre. This shall include: • Diversion of cable route along Down Chat Moss Line • Cable route from mainline down into the Depot to the Depot Control Centre • All operational telephone requirements • GSM-R coverage of the branch line.
OLE OLE for over run Protection OLE design is required for the main line connections and overrun protection only. The arrival and departure lines will not be electrified as part of this Contract, and passive provision only is to be made. The Contractor’s attention is drawn to the need for OLE design at the limits of the overrun protection to be compatible with future electrification of the terminal arrival and departure lines, and consideration should be given to isolation arrangements and future feeder arrangements. The main lines are proposed by the NEP project to be electrified with the use of the new ‘series 2’ equipment range. The two main line crossovers and overrun protection will be designed to the current MkIIIB layout design specification for purposes of positioning structures etc, but will utilise the new Series 2 range which has been proposed for the NEP Liverpool to Manchester route. This will enable the interface with the mainline equipments to be compatible. A technical query has been raised to Network Rail to confirm this proposal and will be subject to Network Rail approval / NEP interface. Sectioning of the overrun protection wires will be provided by two (one in each spur) section insulators with 2 proposed motorized switches as close to the main lines as possible (see Layout plan drawing in Appendices). At the limit of the proposed overrun, it has been designed to enable a single point overlap to be provided for each wire from the main line. This will facilitate the future passive wiring of the terminal and associated wired tracks (along with use of the switches and the use of a ‘buffer section’) providing minimum impact or disruption to the main line. The use of ‘flying tail’ style structures with alternative ‘pull-off’ style structures are proposed to assist with the high radial loads incurred by the very tight radii curves and necessary downward catenary grading required to cater for the track grading from the main line (1:130) The main line proposed structures are of the Portal type as these are deemed most appropriate to interface with the envisaged NEP equipment and to suit the very poor ground conditions known to be present along the line. These have been placed at the ‘toe opening’ location appropriate to the ‘DV’ type S & C unit. Adjacent NEP designed structures along the main line will also be Portal style structures placed at compliant locations commensurate with the track geometry, calculated wind speed and complying to span differential criteria. At the termination of the cross over wires on the main line two tied portals are proposed with anti-fall balance weight assemblies. The main line termination structures have been deemed the most appropriate location (rather than being the ‘fixed end’) to assist with any possible ‘stichen’ and / or migration of the overrun wires caused by the 1:130 track grading down towards the terminal (fixed end being positioned at the termination of the overrun protection wires).
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
It is proposed that the main line cross overs use ‘cross contact’ style design as this traditional style of design provides the simplest compliant take over situation with the least risk of ‘hook over’. It also presents the designer with the good flexibility for achieving zero offset for each section insulator. Cross contact design is also currently still deemed acceptable for line speeds below 100MPH in accordance with specification W-STOAJN-1108. This will subject to Network Rail approval and a technical query has been raised. The aforementioned section insulators are provided to give sectioning between the Up & Down Chat Moss lines. Under bridge 112A to the west of the scheme supports the main lines over the M62 below. The slightly skewed Under Bridge has a foot print of over 70m and therefore requires a type of OLE support that will enable the structure to be spanned. It is proposed that a portal style structure be positioned on the bridge by a suitable attachment methodology, and it is anticipated that this will be undertaken within the remit of the NEP scheme. Provision of OLE wiring beyond the over run protection limits It is proposed that the two lines (Port Salford No.1 Departure & Port Salford No.2 Arrivals) leading to the Terminal from the Main Line will be wired from the overrun provision for a distance of approximately 1500 metres. The head shunt and cross over adjacent to the overrun provision are also to be wired. The timescales of this passive wiring are unknown at this time.
The proposed wiring of the passive two track section will consist of a simple OLE design as it is proposed that cantilever style structures are to be used supported as necessary via pile type foundations (due to the poor and ‘made up’ ground conditions). The single UC style masts will support and register the OLE equipment as necessary utilising ‘flying-tail’ style arrangement for high radial ‘pull-off’ locations and medium or high radial load style ‘push-off’ cantilevers on the tight radii curves as appropriate.
The third (non wired) track alignment has been designed further away from the No.1 Departure line (as compared to earlier GRIP2 P-Way design proposals) to generate an interval dimension large enough to enable the location of UC structures between tracks, as well as providing adequate clearances for the proposed walk way. This realignment design avoids the necessity for Portal style structures over all three lines. This will save considerable structure and installation costs. This will remain dependant on the foundation assessment due to the extremely bad ground.
A maximum OLE height of 5.50m has been imposed under the Flight / Glide path.
A comprehensive desktop design exercise was undertaken to evaluate the best style of structure to comply with the height stipulation above as well as being the most cost effective.
The desktop exercise ultimately determined that by proposing cantilever style structures the maximum height of any steel utilising a reduced design contact wire height of 4.30m with the full 0.90m system depth will result in a top of steel height of 5.45 (including for an allowance of 100mm of mast above the top mast bracket positions).
This height of top of steel was derived thus: • Contact wire height of 4.30m minus 0.30m results in a bottom mast bracket height of 4.00m. • Bottom mast bracket height of 4.00m plus 1.350m mast bracket (bottom to top) separation results in a top mast bracket height of 5.35m. • Add 100mm ‘spare’ tolerance above the top mast bracket dimension results in a final top of steel dimension of 5.45. i.e. 50mm spare to the maximum requirement of 5.50m.
The use of cantilever style structures as compared to the use of Portal style structures is also considered the best option to satisfy the maximum OLE height restrictions imposed by the ‘Flight / Glide path’ of the adjacent Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome).
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
M&E It is anticipated that the 10 number points shall require point heating. Due to the excessive distance between the junctions it is proposed to provide 3 number point heating control cubicles which will have their supply derived from a new dedicated DNO cubicle for; • Main Line points • Arrival /.departure (North) • Arrival / departure (South) Note: the requirements for any Points Heating to Arrival / departure S&C have yet to be confirmed with network Rail. For the purposes of the tender the Contractor shall assume requirement for all signal controlled points to be heated. The power consumption for point heating is considered to be approximately 120kVA which includes 20% spare capacity.
Civils and Structures This section of the report only considers the requirements for infrastructure above formation level, geotechnical information is contained within the earthworks and embankment section. Civils works within the design and build package will include: • Minor lineside civils (cable routes etc) • Drainage • UTX • Retaining structures • OLE bases, signal bases, Location bases etc • Acoustic barriers • Fencing and security
Geotechnical (Embankment & Earthworks) The works within the design and build package will include • Stabilisation of main line embankment • Construction of new embankments (and cuttings) • Formation preparation • Landscaping and Environmental works The proposed works consist of new chords from the Down line will require the construction of suitable formations over the existing redundant southern embankment which will require the infilling of the depression between the two embankment crests. From the southern shoulder of the existing embankment the new chords will combine and descend to the current field level at gradients to be confirmed of either 1 in 100 or 1 in 50. Embankments will require a minimum shoulder width of 3m beyond the outer running rail to facilitate OLE provision with associated cess, and will be of the order of 5m in height with side slopes of not steeper than 1 in 2. Existing Lines & Embankment There is an existing redundant embankment shoulder, approximately 10-15m width, extending 25m south of the mainline embankment, which is considered to have been constructed with the original railway and is thought to be a counterbalance berm to aid stability. The earthworks required to bring the southern “berm” to the required levels for the proposed chords is minimal with the exception of the infilling of the depression between the two crests. This will have a small impact on the existing rail lines. In addition new live loads will be applied.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
It is proposed to limit total and differential settlement between the existing embankment and the new embankments by strengthening the existing berm and main embankment by soil/cement mixing. This will improve the strength characteristics of the embankment fill and the weak natural soils underlying the existing embankment. Transition zones will be installed in which the treated areas are increased in spacing to prevent a step change occurring between the existing untreated and treated portions of the existing embankment. Drawing No MMD-293621-G-DR-00-XX-11030 provides details of the proposals.
New Embankment from exiting Embankment to Ch 40850 The new chords will be supported by two separate embankments until they combine into the single embankment which accesses the Port Salford Site. The embankment will be a maximum of 5m in height reducing to at grade at Ch 40850 and will be at grade or low embankment Ch 41870. The ground investigation revealed that peat exists from the existing rail embankment to Ch 41350 to a depth of up to 2m and is underlain by sands/silts which are loose to medium dense. The strength of the peat is low and the rapid construction of an embankment will overstress the peat and lead to failure or unacceptably high deformations. To prevent serviceability or limit state failure of the embankment the following strategies were considered: • Staged and monitored construction • Removal of peat beneath the earthworks footprint and replacement with structural fill • In-situ strengthening of the weak foundation soils • Support earthwork on a structural solution The thickness of the peat adjacent to the exiting rail is generally less than 2m. With such limited thicknesses of peat the best short and long term performance can be achieved by removal of the peat and replacement with a suitable engineered fill. Groundwater levels should be maintained at the natural ground water level to avoid drainage and settlement of adjacent land. Suitable rockfill should be used to enable placement underwater. Fill also has to be placed on the existing loose to medium dense sand/silt and significant penetration of rockfill is anticipated. The bearing capacity of the medium dense sands and underlying firm to stiff glacial clays will be sufficient to support the load associated with a 5m embankment of normal density fill.
Proposed New Embankment from Ch 40850 to Ch 41870 The new route traverses made ground and natural soils and will be on shallow embankment, at grade or shallow cutting. The soils at formation level and the particular geotechnical measures are as follows: • Ch 40850 to Ch 41350: Peat Excavate peat and replace with suitable granular fill • Ch 41350 to Ch 41810: Alluvial Gravel or firm to stiff Cohesive Made Ground. No special measures required • Ch 41810 to Ch 41850: Former Salteye Brook Engineered backfill. The engineered backfill with have a minimum undrained strength of 50kPa. • Ch 41850 to Ch 41870 Made Ground, dredged silt clay. Vertical drainage and surcharge
OLE Foundations Existing Embankment. The soil cement mixing will be capable of supporting the OLE foundations. Some enhancement of the pattern may be necessary locally.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
New Embankment/Cutting/At Grade Sections. The new embankments will be constructed of suitable fill and will be constructed to enable standard OLE bases to be installed. Cuttings and at grade sections are anticipated to have final conditions of sufficient capacity to accommodate standard OLE bases.
Environment The contractor will be required to review the Environmental report and address issues identified therein. The contractor shall produce a Site waste Management Plan and shall seek to maximise the use of sustainable transport solutions in considering delivery to/from site. This project is seeking CEEQUAL and BREAM excellence and the contractor will be required to develop and implement strategies consistent with, and fully supporting the project aims.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
11. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
Development of the Reference design is currently ongoing to achieve an agreed GRIP3 AIP single option recommendation. Key assumptions made in the preparation of the reference design include: • Rail level for A57 Road bridge to be at 20.5m AOD • Rail level adjacent to Runway 27 to allow minimum 5.5m below Glide slope • Arrival and Departure lines to be signalled throughout • Main line connections to be 30mph minimum • New connections required for access / egress to/from both west and east directions • Full operation required to cater for 16No trains per day • Arrival / Departure to be capable of accepting 775m trains • Embankment stabilisation will be required to main line where new S&C is to be installed • OLE on main line and overrun protection is required, with passive proviso only to be made for arrival/ departure lines • All signalled points to be power operated and fitted with points heating • Train Path modelling is accepted and paths made available within the existing and future timetables
For clarity and reference a full listing of assumptions made in preparation of the reference design are appended as Appendix H
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
12. DESIGNERS RISK ASSESSMENT
Designers Risk Assessments (Designer Hazard Elimination and Risk Reduction (HE & RR) Form is appended as Appendix I Key Risks identified made in the preparation of the reference design include: • Signalling alterations to the main line including alterations to wiring and condition of existing equipment • New S&C to be installed on main line including facing points • Existing embankment is in poor condition with 60/40 PSR and will require stabilisation for new S&C to be installed • New embankment will abut existing embankment and construction risk of movement and differential settlement • Track will be founded on unstable formation (peat bog) • Interface with other Projects requires detailed integration of design including NEP electrification of main line and construction of A57 Rail bridge • New OLE to be installed on a line that is currently being electrified under a different scheme • OLE foundations will be needed on unstable ground (peat bog) • The new line impacts upon the operation of Manchester City Airport (Barton Aerodrome) and in particular operation of aircraft to Runways 20 and 27
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
13. PROGRAMME
GRIP 3 AIP Design Programme Activity Duration FROM TO Outline Option Selection Report based on ER 10 days 01/10/2012 12/10/2012 Trainpath modellling analysis 1 13 days 11/10/2012 08/01/2013 Gap Analysis ER v GRIP3 PRS 10 days 15/10/2012 26/10/2012 NR Review Outline OSR 20 days 15/10/2012 09/11/2012 GRIP 3 Design ~ Initial (PRS change) 11 days 29/10/2012 12/11/2012 IDR 1 (Design Fix) 1 day 13/11/2012 13/11/2012 GRIP 3 Design 19 days 14/11/2012 10/12/2012 Surveys 10 days 19/11/2012 30/11/2012 IDR 2 (Design Freeze) 1 day 11/12/2012 11/12/2012 GRIP 3 Design ~ Finalise 15 days 12/12/2012 10/01/2013 IDC (Design Check) 1 day 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 GRIP3 Design ~ Close Out 5 days 14/01/2013 18/01/2013 CRAV 4 days 21/01/2013 24/01/2013 Print and Issue 1 day 25/01/2013 25/01/2013 NR Review 19 days 28/01/2013 21/02/2013 NR Issue DRN Comments 1 day 22/02/2013 22/02/2013 Respond to DRN Comments 4 days 25/02/2013 28/02/2013 NR Sign Off AIP 1 day 01/03/2013 01/03/2013
A copy of the indicative GRIP3 programme is attached as Appendix K
Grip 4-8 Indicative Programme Timescales Based on sign off of the GRIP 3 by the beginning of March 2103 the indicative projection for GRIP4 -8 would be as below Activity Duration FROM TO Prepare OJUE Notice 40 days 13/02/2013 09/04/2013 OJUE Tender Period 40 days 10/04/2013 04/06/2013 OJUE Appraisal 20 days 05/06/2013 02/07/2013 Appoint Contractor 5 days 03/07/2013 09/07/2013 GRIP 4&5 D&B Design 20 wks 10/07/2013 26/11/2013 NR Approval 28 days 27/11/2013 03/01/2014 Site Works 26 wks 06/01/2014 04/07/2014
Provisional Possession Applications (52wks out) 1 day 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 Possession Firm Up (36wks Out) 1 day 29/04/2013 29/04/2013
The reference design has been developed based on the following approach to construction:
Advance works by others NEP Electrification As part of the electrification of the main line under the NEP scheme, new Portal Gantries will be constructed on the main line and OLE installed and energised for plain line only. The Contractor within this contract will be required to design and instal OLE for the new junction and overrun provision to the chord lines.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
A57 Road bridge As part of the WGIS highways scheme a new rail bridge (rail over road) will be constructed to the track design alignment and level. The Contractor is to ensure close liaison with the WGIS contractor to co-ordinate and integrate. Drainage outfall As part of the WGIS highways scheme new drainage is to be installed adjacent to the A57 road bridge, and this will form the outfall for the track drainage installed under this contract. The Contractor is to ensure close liaison with the WGIS contractor to co-ordinate and integrate.
Early / Enabling Works Early / Enabling works under this contract will include both possession dependent and ‘off line’ construction activities. Possession dependent activities will include: • Embankment stabilisation to main line – consideration must be given to ensuring that installed OLE foundations are not disturbed by the Contractors proposed methods. In addition track monitoring will be required prior to, during and after stabilisation work has been undertaken. • Construction of approach embankments tie ins – these will interface with the existing main line embankment, and consideration must be given to differential settlement. • Provision of UTX’s within the new chord lines as required for diversion of existing services to the Downside • Diversion of existing railway services – the existing services on the Down Line will need to be diverted into the new UTX’s within the chord line embankments. • Provision of new DNO supply for Junction (if required)
Off Line activities will include: • Construction of chord line embankments and trackbed formation including formation drainage • Construction of trackbed formation for arrival / departure lines, including any necessary embankment or cutting and retaining structures, and formation drainage • Fencing and security – Contractor to maintain site security, including prevention of unauthorised access to Network Rail infrastructure at all times. • Install arrival / departure lines and chord lines up to NR operational boundary limits including track drainage • Instal new signalling equipment and signal posts / location cases etc on arrival / departure and chord lines up to NR operational boundary limits • Install driver walking route / cess path including low level lighting • Divert of existing public footpath – by others. Contractor to liaise
Main Possessions Construction and installation of new track, signalling, OLE, Telecoms, M&E and Civils and earthworks to include: • Reballast and replace main line plain track with new S&C to from west and east junctions. S&C to be modular construction • Install associated Signalling, & telecoms including alterations to Eccles Signalbox • Install associated OLE • Install associated M&E • Tamp and line S&C including follow up Tamp
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
• Stress S&C and Plain line • Test & Commission It should be assumed that Blockade working will not be permitted for installation of the new main line connections. It is proposed that the works affecting the operational railway are undertaken and installed using existing Rules of the Route possessions and a limited number of 29hr possessions. It is essential therefore that the Contractor develops the design and construction methodology to suit the above limitations. It is recommended that the contractor consider off line construction of the S&C on the new chord line embankments, or off site and installation in modular format. Indicative requirements are identified below, but it should be stressed that these have not been applied for, and actual opportunities which could be more restrictive than shown below will be confirmed by Network Rail during the finalisation of the GRIP3 stage. Civils and Structures Embankment Stabilisation (main line) 6wks – 8hr nights + track monitoring Construct Connecting Embankment West 2x16hr+ track monitoring Construct Connecting Embankment East 2x16hr+ track monitoring Install UTX to chord lines for diversion of services
Preliminaries Divert Services into UTX 1x16hr TBA (service info) Track (modular construction) Possession Requirement UP Reballast & instal ½ crossover (West Jcn) + ½ crossover 1x29hr (East Jcn) inc 4-6hrs wheels free for signalling DN Reballast & install ½ crossover + Turnout (West Jcn) 1x29hr inc 4-6hrs wheels free for signalling DN Reballast & install ½ crossover + Turnout (East Jcn) 1x29hr inc 4-6hrs wheels free for signalling S&C Tamp(West Jcn) 1x16hr S&C Tamp(East Jcn) 1x16hr Stressing UP Line 1x16hr Stressing DOWN Line 1x16hr S&C Follow Up Tamp (West Jcn) 1x16hr S&C Follow Up Tamp (East Jcn) 1x16hr
Signalling Signalpost alterations 2x8hrs Install new signalposts 2x8hrs Testing and Commissioning 1x29hrs wheels free
Telecoms ICW signalling 2x8hrs
OLE Instal bases and erect OLE Portal Gantries on main line Installed by NEP
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
Instal bases and erect OLE cantilever poles / portal gantries on None – Method of working chord lines Catenary and Contact Wire (West Jcn & overrun) 1x29hr Catenary and Contact Wire (East Jcn & overrun) 1x29hr
M&E Install points heating (West Jcn) 1x16hr (icw Track) Install points heating (East Jcn) 1x16hr (icw Track)
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
14. ROGS REGULATIONS
Compliance with ROGS and Safety Verification Safety Verification is a requirement of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006. A ‘PDF’ version of the ROGS Regulations and an associated guide may be found on the ORR Website www.rail-reg.gov.uk It is the authorisation process to bring new or changed infrastructure into operation (unless interoperability applies). The introduction of new infrastructure onto the operational railway will form part of this project, and compliance with ROGS Regulations 2006 will be intrinsic to the design process. Safety Verification seeks to ensure that a project has identified all relevant risks arising from the changes being implemented and that these risks have been mitigated so far as is reasonably practicable. The full requirements for the process of Safety Verification within Network Rail can be found in NR/L2/RSE/100/02 (formerly NR/L3/RSE/0001) This includes: • The process of safety verification. • The need to register a project with NRAP for the purposes of establishing whether or not a CIP (Competent Independent Person) is to be appointed to carry out safety verification. • The categorisation of the works. • The requirement to establish a ‘Written Scheme of Safety Verification’ between the Project Team and the appointed CIP (NR/L2/RSE/100/02/F03). • Guidance on the scope of the CIP’s review
Network Rail have appointed a Competent Independent Person for the Port Salford Scheme and the Contractor will need to liaise with the CIP and provide the necessary documentary evidence to demonstrate that the proposed design has adequately considered and mitigated the additional risks associated with altering the existing Network rail infrastructure and bringing new infrastructure onto the Network. During the review of the project, the CIP will their record findings and share these with the Sponsor and Project Team as an ongoing record of progress. The safety verification review should result in the provision of a “Statement of Safety Verification” at each of the following four stages. Provision of each SSV is intended to give the Sponsor and Project Team confidence that the CIP has considered the project’s observance of corporate safety and risk control principles and processes applicable at each stage and that progression to the next stage will not be compromised by the development undertaken thus far. GRIP 3 (Interim SSV) Issue of a GRIP3 Interim SSV should occur prior to the GRIP stage gate review. The GRIP 3 process shall: • Provide evidence to show how Option Selection has been carried out in the development of the project identifying how each option has been evaluated on the basis of safety, cost, build-ability, deliverability, maintainability and operability. • Provide evidence that the Sponsor and Project Team have thought through the nature and scope of the project and identified the significant facets of the project that could result in the introduction of risk or difference. Such facets should be documented and kept under review such that they can be eliminated, controlled or mitigated so far as is reasonably practicable prior to EIS later in the life of the project. This review should lead to the production of the project Risk Register and be undertaken hand-in-hand with the option selection process. • The application of GE/RT8270 Assessment of Compatibility of Rolling Stock and Infrastructure – an initial assessment of compatibility and the likely implications arising for other Infrastructure Managers or Railway Undertakings.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
• The EMC strategy for the project the project scope and definition. Often this will involve the review of: - The Client and /or Sponsor’s remit to the PM - The specification of the project including: outline project specification, operational requirements specification - A review of those appointed to undertake specific roles and responsibilities within the project to ensure only those with relevant authority are signing off documents related to the project. This includes the Sponsor, PM and the ‘02009’ forms for DPE, PEs, CEM and CREs.
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
15. CONSULTATION
Name Organisation Role/Title Phil Kerridge Peel Holdings Project Director Ed Burrows Peel Holdings Client Project Sponsor Ian Taylor Peel Holdings Client Project Sponsor David Huck Peel Ports Head of Port Operations Douglas Coleman Peel Ports Programme Director David Baker Baker Rose PH Strategy Group Terminal Operational Requirements Laura Sutton Baker Rose PH Strategy Group Terminal Operational Requirements Andrew Fulluck WSP PH Strategy Group Terminal Operational Requirements Lloyd Edmonds Mott MacDonald Lead Consultant Andy Stockton Urban Vision Planning Mike Green WYG Engineering Power supplies Jeremy Meredith Innov8 Safety Nicola Uijen Sheer Performance Ltd CDMC Yasser Tufail Buro Happold Environmental Sinead McMahon Buro Happold Environmental David Sweeting TEP Environment Tracie Fairfoot Network Rail Sponsor Marie Brady Network Rail Asset Protection (Scheme PM) Alan Shaw Network Rail Asset Protection (Scheme DPE)
Mike Garratt MDS Transmodal Train Path Planning Bob Castledon Network Rail Train Path Planning Lee Mowle Network Rail Train Path Planning Rhys Bowen Network Rail Train Path Planning Limited consultation has been undertaken at early stages of GRIP2 with the persons below. As the GRIP 3 is developed full consultation with NR RAM and DPE/ Project Engineers will be integral to success. Roy Hickman Network Rail RAM - Track ( Julian Harms Network Rail RAM - Geotechnical Tony Butler Network Rail Earthworks Asset Territory Engineer Stephen Kearns Network Rail Linespeed Improvements
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
16. APPENDICES
Appendices Appendix A Track Appendix B Signalling Appendix C OLE Appendix D Telecoms Appendix E M&E Appendix F Timetable Path Analysis Appendix G Network Rail PRS Appendix H Design Assumptions Appendix I Designers Risk Assessment Appendix J Sectional Appendix Appendix K Indicative GRIP3 Programme
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012
+Intentionally Blank
PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012