How fast could the Calder Valley get?

[willgreen]

That isn't going to justify the cost of the curve. At a rational level, no one would use the Calder Valley route to travel throughout from Leeds to Manchester. The only reason people do so at the moment is for a slightly cheaper fare. Offering cheaper fares doesn't justify spending money on infrastructure.

I genuinely don't fully get this. The Calder Valley even now is only around 20 minutes slower than via Huddersfield. An enormous sum of money is being spaffed on speeding up the latter route with fairly minimal time savings. Surely it makes sense to at least consider how another route, not much slower and with far more significant intermediate populations, might be improved?

 

[Neptune]

I’m seriously confused at what the OP is wanting here.

If you don’t want to reduce the Bradford - Manchester service and it’s all about speeding up Leeds - Manchester then there are 3 viable solutions and 2 of them currently exist. Either via Huddersfield/Ashton, via Huddersfield/Guide Bridge or via Brighouse by introducing a fast that way (the latter would be totally pointless by the way but far less pointless than reinstating Bowling curve).

Is this just another one of those misty eyed ideas to reinstate something just because it used to be there so must be put back thus ignoring the current options that actually exist or am I missing the point (if there is one).

Like I said, I’m confused at what this thread is trying to achieve. Solution looking for a problem perhaps?

 

[Bantamzen]

I genuinely don't fully get this. The Calder Valley even now is only around 20 minutes slower than via Huddersfield. An enormous sum of money is being spaffed on speeding up the latter route with fairly minimal time savings. Surely it makes sense to at least consider how another route, not much slower and with far more significant intermediate populations, might be improved?

I think its pushing it a bit far calling the TRU "spaffing", especially when trying to justify a long forgotten, partly built over, major city avoiding route to save a few minutes that nobody is asking for. The North TP route is the major route across the Pennines, hence all the money being spent on it, and by the time all the works are done it will be even quicker still making any perceived gains from a Bowling curve negligible in comparison. Once TRU is complete, then its time to consider wiring the Calder Valley which will probably give more savings than Bowling.

 

[willgreen]

I think its pushing it a bit far calling the TRU "spaffing", especially when trying to justify a long forgotten, partly built over, major city avoiding route to save a few minutes that nobody is asking for. The North TP route is the major route across the Pennines, hence all the money being spent on it, and by the time all the works are done it will be even quicker still making any perceived gains from a Bowling curve negligible in comparison. Once TRU is complete, then its time to consider wiring the Calder Valley which will probably give more savings than Bowling.

No of course and I appreciate that reinstating Bowling is not going to happen. To be honest I wouldn't really advocate it either especially in the current climate. I was more questioning whether the Calder Valley could ever be sped up to get close to the Huddersfield route - if there was a similar level of investment as there has been via Huddersfield it'd be interesting to see the outcome. But appreciate this may not have come across in the thread!

I’m seriously confused at what the OP is wanting here.

If you don’t want to reduce the Bradford - Manchester service and it’s all about speeding up Leeds - Manchester then there are 3 viable solutions and 2 of them currently exist. Either via Huddersfield/Ashton, via Huddersfield/Guide Bridge or via Brighouse by introducing a fast that way (the latter would be totally pointless by the way but far less pointless than reinstating Bowling curve).

Is this just another one of those misty eyed ideas to reinstate something just because it used to be there so must be put back thus ignoring the current options that actually exist or am I missing the point (if there is one).

Like I said, I’m confused at what this thread is trying to achieve. Solution looking for a problem perhaps?

Hope the reply above explains a bit more on my reasoning (and don't worry it's not an aversion to buffer stops).

 

[Bantamzen]

No of course and I appreciate that reinstating Bowling is not going to happen. To be honest I wouldn't really advocate it either especially in the current climate. I was more questioning whether the Calder Valley could ever be sped up to get close to the Huddersfield route - if there was a similar level of investment as there has been via Huddersfield it'd be interesting to see the outcome. But appreciate this may not have come across in the thread!

The problem is with the Calder route is that it is inherently slower than the North TP, with no real opportunities for fasts to overtake stoppers. On the North TP stoppers have a natural splitting point at Huddersfield, there really isn't anywhere on the Calder to do the same. So sooner or later fasts, or at least semi-fasts have to stop at more places so as not to start tripping over slower services in front, which bakes in slower journey times. And there are not a lot of places you, if any, where overtaking provision could be made available. The route is generally on quite a narrow footprint in a narrow valley (which is also prone to flooding) meaning a TRU type project would probably end up being as expensive, or even more so and you still would probably not get anything like the journey time reductions hoped under TRU.

So wiring the Calder Valley is the next best thing, allowing slightly better acceleration times whilst reducing the number of diesel paths in the valley. But that isn't going to even start to be considered for many years, and will likely not have a hope in hell's chance of actually happening for at least another decade.

 

[Neptune]

No of course and I appreciate that reinstating Bowling is not going to happen. To be honest I wouldn't really advocate it either especially in the current climate. I was more questioning whether the Calder Valley could ever be sped up to get close to the Huddersfield route - if there was a similar level of investment as there has been via Huddersfield it'd be interesting to see the outcome. But appreciate this may not have come across in the thread!


Hope the reply above explains a bit more on my reasoning (and don't worry it's not an aversion to buffer stops).

Ok I got you now.

In short, no, it will never compete with the Huddersfield route on time. Despite linking Leeds with Manchester the Calder Valley has an important role in connecting the 2 cities and points in between with each other. Many people do choose the Calder Valley end to end due to the cheaper (dare I say it more student friendly) advance fares but its prime task is linking all those major towns and cities together. Best to leave the fast end to end journeys to the route more suited to it.

As others have said the best we can hope for is electrification. Leeds - Bradford Interchange and Manchester - Rochdale will be a good start. In between would be a big job but I imagine it can be done.

 

[YorksLad12]

The problem is with the Calder route is that it is inherently slower than the North TP, with no real opportunities for fasts to overtake stoppers. On the North TP stoppers have a natural splitting point at Huddersfield, there really isn't anywhere on the Calder to do the same. So sooner or later fasts, or at least semi-fasts have to stop at more places so as not to start tripping over slower services in front, which bakes in slower journey times. And there are not a lot of places you, if any, where overtaking provision could be made available. The route is generally on quite a narrow footprint in a narrow valley (which is also prone to flooding) meaning a TRU type project would probably end up being as expensive, or even more so and you still would probably not get anything like the journey time reductions hoped under TRU.

Aye. Barring a major rebuild of Halifax (Rochdale probably the Lancashire equivalent) to add in a couple of platforms to allow overtaking, a two-track, long-distance railway with few loops is always going to have problems.

 

[WAO]

I can't agree that the Calder Valley route is "inherently slower". As I've pointed out previously it has gentle curves and gradients and so could have high permitted speeds. While it is essentially two track, there have been 4 track or siding sections at Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden, Littleborough and Smithy Bridge, as well as the disused spaces at Rochdale and Halifax stations. Other two-track railways in the UK can support fast, semi-fast and stopping services, in this manner.

This would give Bradford and the west Peninines a much faster route, more practical than the high speed proposal, even including reversal to Leeds. What it is not is a substitute for TPU, which has to use the inferior LNWR route.

I am biased of course!

WAO

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As myself and a few others have said, the idea of reopening the Bradford avoiding line rather misses the wood for the trees. It reminds me of the suggestion that I think used to be regularly made in the early years of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade thread that some services should omit Huddersfield calls in order to give a slightly faster journey between Leeds and Manchester. In both cases it neglects that both Bradford and Huddersfield are significant markets for trains along their respective routes. The only real difference is that omitting Huddersfield wouldn't cost much (if anything) to enable. The fact that there are no plans to do so should tell you all you need to know about the idea.
Extra overtaking opportunities could help speed up Calder Valley services, if a suitable location could be identified for loops to be added. Unfortunately the locations most suitable would be at Halifax and Rochdale, which are both places where you wouldn't actually want to run fast through due to being significant markets on the route. If both fasts and slows are calling, you end up slowing the stoppers down more as they have to wait longer for the fasts to clear the next signalling block.

 

[WAO]

I think that we are still stuck in the Beeching mindset that there should be only one route between major centres and that others don't count. Also we tend to forget that physical and economic geography does not easily permit some rail links, such as in the Pennines.

We should make the best of what we have.

WAO

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think that we are still stuck in the Beeching mindset that there should be only one route between major centres and that others don't count. Also we tend tend to forget that physical and economic geography does not easily permit some rail links, such as in the Pennines.

We should make the best of what we have.

WAO

I think some are too stuck in an "anti-Beeching" mindset of looking at secondary routes and wanting them to be in competition with the parallel primary route, even when that makes little sense. That's one reason the daft Skipton to Colne idea refuses to die.

 

[WAO]

Agreed. I don't understand the Bowling curve reinstatement either.

WAO

 

[Neptune]

I think some are too stuck in an "anti-Beeching" mindset of looking at secondary routes and wanting them to be in competition with the parallel primary route, even when that makes little sense. That's one reason the daft Skipton to Colne idea refuses to die.

Yes that does appear to be many a mindset. Other than Leeds - Manchester they serve totally different markets but too many only appear to see the ends of the route and not the vitally important bits in between, without which the Calder Valley would have closed in the 1960’s.

For most public transport connectivity is far more important than speed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agreed. I don't understand the Bowling curve reinstatement either.

WAO

The only sensible reason I could see for the Bowling curve would be if the routes through Mirfield was going to be closed for longer, which would perhaps give a case for freight to be diverted via Bowling. Though even then, it would force those freight trains to run via Leeds and wouldn't allow use of the Whitehall curve.

 

[30907]

It's perhaps worth noting that express services via the Calder Valley disappeared under the auspices of the LMS - a quick check of a pre-WW1 timetable shows a number of workings that ran fast Manchester-Sowerby Br or Halifax, in the post-WW2 era (steam AND diesel) there are barely any trains that omit Todmorden and none that omit Rochdale.
I had wondered whether there would be a case for running non-stop Halifax-Rochdale, but - in the light of the timetable history - I suspect you would be lucky to sustain an hourly service on that basis.

 

[WAO]

If you go further back to L&Y days then Bradford (and the smaller towns) did have good services. The decline came with the merger with the LNWR and then the Midland to form the LMS (the clue to policy is in the first letter, "L").
How much that also contributed to the industrial and commercial decline of the wool and cotton towns....but we now do believe that better rail services stimulate local economies.

WAO

 

[D6130]

While it is essentially two track, there have been 4 track or siding sections at Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden, Littleborough and Smithy Bridge, as well as the disused spaces at Rochdale and Halifax stations.

Extra overtaking opportunities could help speed up Calder Valley services, if a suitable location could be identified for loops to be added. Unfortunately the locations most suitable would be at Halifax and Rochdale,

Don't forget the one-and-a-half mile four track section that used to exist between Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd until the late '60s/early '70s. Part of the Up Slow (about a third of a mile) still exists as Hebden Bridge Up Refuge/Engineers' siding. I've heard from a number of sources that there are plans to reconnect it as an Up loop in the next Control Period by laying in a new set of facing points about midway between the two stations. In the longer term it may also be feasible to reinstate the Down Slow as well, finance permitting.

 

[willgreen]

In fairness four-track sections would probably make more realistic sense than the Bowling curve - I was musing on how to speed up Leeds-Manchester on the Calder Valley and cutting out Bradford does speed that up significantly. In the real world though four-tracking and express services is a far more politically palatable (and probably economically sensible) option.

 

[Bevan Price]

If anything needs to be improved on the Calder Valley route, we should forget about Manchester / Leeds (it already has a fastish - if flawed_ service), and concentrate on Manchester / Halifax / Bradford. Electrification would be highly desirable, but our "wonderful" DfT will do their best to delay that for as long as possible. Likewise, easing some curves and increasing speed limits is probably considered unaffordable.

If feasible, I think that an hourly fast service might be desirable, calling only at Manchester Victoria, Rochdale, Halifax & Bradford. That could alternate with an also hourly semi-fast, calling additionally at Todmorden, Hebden Bridge & Sowerby Bridge. (Both could extend from Bradford to Leeds, but fast timings over that section would be less important than timings at the Manchester end.).
One or two "all stations" service per hour would serve other (less busy) stations.

 

[johntea]

You might get to Manchester 20-30 minutes faster via Huddersfield (probably not at the moment of course!) but you’ll certainly have a more relaxing journey via the Calder Valley services in my experience anyway, probably one of the best examples of a line rather significantly improved by the introduction of new rolling stock compared to the previous potential offering of a 142 too!

A couple of bonus points for not having to battle through the Platform 16 crowd at Leeds (and then almost always packed to the brim at least until you reach Huddersfield where it tends to die down a bit) and a tram from Victoria can be caught at platform level rather than an underground bunker and is arguably quicker than the slow crawl out of Piccadilly (suppose it depends where you're wanting to go though in this case)

It does surprise me no company has ever proposed the idea of a small catering service for the route (similar to the Settle - Carlisle), it isn't a particularly long journey but I'm sure they would make a decent few quid from it

 

[JonathanH]

It does surprise me no company has ever proposed the idea of a small catering service for the route (similar to the Settle - Carlisle), it isn't a particularly long journey but I'm sure they would make a decent few quid from it

Catering doesn't make money on much longer routes than this one.

 

[Bantamzen]

If anything needs to be improved on the Calder Valley route, we should forget about Manchester / Leeds (it already has a fastish - if flawed_ service), and concentrate on Manchester / Halifax / Bradford. Electrification would be highly desirable, but our "wonderful" DfT will do their best to delay that for as long as possible. Likewise, easing some curves and increasing speed limits is probably considered unaffordable.

If feasible, I think that an hourly fast service might be desirable, calling only at Manchester Victoria, Rochdale, Halifax & Bradford. That could alternate with an also hourly semi-fast, calling additionally at Todmorden, Hebden Bridge & Sowerby Bridge. (Both could extend from Bradford to Leeds, but fast timings over that section would be less important than timings at the Manchester end.).
One or two "all stations" service per hour would serve other (less busy) stations.

I like the idea of having a fast (preferably the Leeds - Chester one), semi-fast and stopper. The problem is that you still have to factor in the Bradford - Huddersfield, Leeds - Wigan & Blackburn - Rainford services as well as the Rochdale - Blackburn services at the western end. All this means a lot of stoppers to jump around, and although I'm sure there might be a way to do it on a spreadsheet, actually making it work (especially with 150s still in the mix) is going to prove challenging to say the least. I remember the days of the Leeds - Wigan using the North TP and being on a Liverpool bound TPE charging down on it & ultimately losing up to 10 minutes before it could peel off towards Piccadilly.

So it really comes down to trying to speed up the stoppers as much as possible, either with eventual wiring sometime in the next decade, or making sure whatever DMU / DEMU / BEMU stock displaces the Sprinter stock can get up an away quicker so that there is less chance of faster services catching up. This then may make the fasts you suggest more practicable.

 

[D6130]

Likewise, easing some curves and increasing speed limits is probably considered unaffordable.

In fairness there has already been a considerable increase in linespeeds - for multiple units at least - since the 2017/18 resignalling at either end of the line. Previously, the blanket restriction for all trains was 70 from Manchester to the regional boundary about 3/4 miles West of Hebden Bridge, then 60 from there to Halifax and Heaton Lodge - with a 55 limit from Halifax to Bradford and 60 from there to Leeds. Since resignalling, multiple units are permitted to do 80 between Moston and Rochdale - with a couple of miles of 90 on the Up line; 75 on the Down from the regional boundary to Milner Royd Junction and 80 on the Up from Milner Royd to Mytholmroyd, then a mixture of 55,65,70 and 80 between Halifax and Bradford. For the foreseeable future the 70 limit remains between Rochdale and Hebden and 60 between Milner Royd and Halifax/Heaton Lodge, with an actual reduction in speed from 60 to 55 on the Down from Bankhouse tunnel (Halifax) and Milner Royd due to a combination of steep falling gradient and signal braking distance. The class 195 units - with their EMU-standard acceleration and braking - are able to take good advantage of these easements.

All this means a lot of stoppers to jump around, and although I'm sure there might be a way to do it on a spreadsheet, actually making it work (especially with 150s still in the mix) is going to prove challenging to say the least.

In my experience, as a regular user of the line, the biggest cause of Down direction delays is caused by catching up with late-running (class 150/156-formed) stoppers from Clitheroe between Moston and Rochdale.

 

[Bantamzen]

In fairness there has already been a considerable increase in linespeeds - for multiple units at least - since the 2017/18 resignalling at either end of the line. Previously, the blanket restriction for all trains was 70 from Manchester to the regional boundary about 3/4 miles West of Hebden Bridge, then 60 from there to Halifax and Heaton Lodge - with a 55 limit from Halifax to Bradford and 60 from there to Leeds. Since resignalling, multiple units are permitted to do 80 between Moston and Rochdale - with a couple of miles of 90 on the Up line; 75 on the Down from the regional boundary to Milner Royd Junction and 80 on the Up from Milner Royd to Mytholmroyd, then a mixture of 55,65,70 and 80 between Halifax and Bradford. For the foreseeable future the 70 limit remains between Rochdale and Hebden and 60 between Milner Royd and Halifax/Heaton Lodge, with an actual reduction in speed from 60 to 55 on the Down from Bankhouse tunnel (Halifax) and Milner Royd due to a combination of steep falling gradient and signal braking distance. The class 195 units - with their EMU-standard acceleration and braking - are able to take good advantage of these easements.

In my experience, as a regular user of the line, the biggest cause of Down direction delays is caused by catching up with late-running (class 150/156-formed) stoppers from Clitheroe between Moston and Rochdale.

I have a similar experience that its always these units that cause the biggest slow downs in each direction, and its not really surprising given just how much quicker off their heels the 195s are. So hopefully in time Sprinter replacement (whenever that starts) will ease some of these issues, so long as they aren't old, knackered cascades of course!

 

[WAO]

Perhaps the way ahead is incremental as with the ECML. As the 195's have 100mph capability then line speed upgrades are indicated (where they can be made use of). Also if 150/156's are causing delays then a passing facility is indicated.

When we think of how much is being spent between Huddersfield and Dewsbury...

WAO

 

[GingerSte]

Like most on here, I think that the S-E Bowling curve isn't the best of ideas. We don't need the Calderdale line as a fast alternative to the transpennine route through Huddersfield.

That said, a bit of four-tracking on the existing alignments between Bradford Interchange and Leeds would open up possibilities for a few new stations on this stretch, namely Wortley, Stanningley and Laisterdyke. The four-tracking would allow a Leeds to Bradford Interchange shuttle serving these (plus Bramley and New Pudsey, obviously) a number of times per hour, with Leeds to Manchester services speeding on by. Maybe the shuttle could extend to Halifax, even if the four-tracking doesn't. In this case, maybe it could justify new/reopened stations at West Bowling, Wyke and Hipperholme.

Some sort of service pattern like this, is what I envisage:

• Leeds, Wortley, Bramley, Stanningley, New Pudsey, Laisterdyke, Bradford Interchange
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Bradford West Bowling, Low Moor, Wyke, Hipperholme, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Myholmroyd, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Rochdale, Manchester Victoria
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Todmorden, Walsden, Littleborough, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale, Castleton, Mills Hill, Moston, Manchester Victoria

(Apologies if I've missed stations out - it wasn't intentional. Obviously I've excluded services which leave the Calderdale line from the above, eg at Todmorden. I'm not saying whether the above should be hourly, twice-hourly or what.)

Going a bit more radical, I also envisage a new chord at the Armley Gyratory, to remove conflict with the Leeds-Wakefield line, and new approach lines for the Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate Lines into Leeds Station. These would also probably require new platforms north of the existing platform 0 at Leeds. These would require fairly minimal land take, especially on land already built on. It would also give the step change in frequency that would be required to really tempt people out of their cars.

Going even more radical, we could start talking about reopening the line from Low Moor for a Bradford-Wakefield service calling at Low Moor, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Dewsbury Moor, Thornhill Lees, Horbury Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate and Wakefield Westgate. However, that would be a) outside the scope of this, and b) probably a bit too radical!

 

[willgreen]

Like most on here, I think that the S-E Bowling curve isn't the best of ideas. We don't need the Calderdale line as a fast alternative to the transpennine route through Huddersfield.

That said, a bit of four-tracking on the existing alignments between Bradford Interchange and Leeds would open up possibilities for a few new stations on this stretch, namely Wortley, Stanningley and Laisterdyke. The four-tracking would allow a Leeds to Bradford Interchange shuttle serving these (plus Bramley and New Pudsey, obviously) a number of times per hour, with Leeds to Manchester services speeding on by. Maybe the shuttle could extend to Halifax, even if the four-tracking doesn't. In this case, maybe it could justify new/reopened stations at West Bowling, Wyke and Hipperholme.

Some sort of service pattern like this, is what I envisage:

• Leeds, Wortley, Bramley, Stanningley, New Pudsey, Laisterdyke, Bradford Interchange
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Bradford West Bowling, Low Moor, Wyke, Hipperholme, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Myholmroyd, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Rochdale, Manchester Victoria
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Todmorden, Walsden, Littleborough, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale, Castleton, Mills Hill, Moston, Manchester Victoria

(Apologies if I've missed stations out - it wasn't intentional. Obviously I've excluded services which leave the Calderdale line from the above, eg at Todmorden. I'm not saying whether the above should be hourly, twice-hourly or what.)

Going a bit more radical, I also envisage a new chord at the Armley Gyratory, to remove conflict with the Leeds-Wakefield line, and new approach lines for the Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate Lines into Leeds Station. These would also probably require new platforms north of the existing platform 0 at Leeds. These would require fairly minimal land take, especially on land already built on. It would also give the step change in frequency that would be required to really tempt people out of their cars.View attachment 132887

Going even more radical, we could start talking about reopening the line from Low Moor for a Bradford-Wakefield service calling at Low Moor, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Dewsbury Moor, Thornhill Lees, Horbury Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate and Wakefield Westgate. However, that would be a) outside the scope of this, and b) probably a bit too radical!

Unfortunately the blue line strays onto a residential building site, the sand coloured area on the map. If you're trying to fit new approach lines in you would need to totally remodel the whole junction as you can't build anything north of what's currently there (there *might* be room for one track on the north side). Agree that Leeds West junction is a tricky one though.

 

[YorksLad12]

Like most on here, I think that the S-E Bowling curve isn't the best of ideas. We don't need the Calderdale line as a fast alternative to the transpennine route through Huddersfield.

That said, a bit of four-tracking on the existing alignments between Bradford Interchange and Leeds would open up possibilities for a few new stations on this stretch, namely Wortley, Stanningley and Laisterdyke. The four-tracking would allow a Leeds to Bradford Interchange shuttle serving these (plus Bramley and New Pudsey, obviously) a number of times per hour, with Leeds to Manchester services speeding on by. Maybe the shuttle could extend to Halifax, even if the four-tracking doesn't. In this case, maybe it could justify new/reopened stations at West Bowling, Wyke and Hipperholme.

Some sort of service pattern like this, is what I envisage:

• Leeds, Wortley, Bramley, Stanningley, New Pudsey, Laisterdyke, Bradford Interchange
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Bradford West Bowling, Low Moor, Wyke, Hipperholme, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Myholmroyd, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Rochdale, Manchester Victoria
• Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Todmorden, Walsden, Littleborough, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale, Castleton, Mills Hill, Moston, Manchester Victoria

(Apologies if I've missed stations out - it wasn't intentional. Obviously I've excluded services which leave the Calderdale line from the above, eg at Todmorden. I'm not saying whether the above should be hourly, twice-hourly or what.)

Going a bit more radical, I also envisage a new chord at the Armley Gyratory, to remove conflict with the Leeds-Wakefield line, and new approach lines for the Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate Lines into Leeds Station. These would also probably require new platforms north of the existing platform 0 at Leeds. These would require fairly minimal land take, especially on land already built on. It would also give the step change in frequency that would be required to really tempt people out of their cars.View attachment 132887

Going even more radical, we could start talking about reopening the line from Low Moor for a Bradford-Wakefield service calling at Low Moor, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Dewsbury Moor, Thornhill Lees, Horbury Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate and Wakefield Westgate. However, that would be a) outside the scope of this, and b) probably a bit too radical!

Neptune will be along in a minute to explain why the car parks are going nowhere. Plus, there'd be no way to get off your new platform, unless you truncated P0 or built a whoe new, gated, staffed entrance.

Your new stations proposal is covered by Mass Transit, as is Bradford-Dewsbury-Wakefield (after a fashion).

An additional approach to separate out Harrogate Line and Airedale & Wharfedale lines services has been thought of by NR; I can't remember if they decided against or decided to hold off until 2040-ish. As mentioned above, yet-more flats are going up in that gap between Globe Road and Whitehall Road, so the curve can't be eased either.

 

[willgreen]

Neptune will be along in a minute to explain why the car parks are going nowhere. Plus, there'd be no way to get off your new platform, unless you truncated P0 or built a whoe new, gated, staffed entrance.

Your new stations proposal is covered by Mass Transit, as is Bradford-Dewsbury-Wakefield (after a fashion).

An additional approach to separate out Harrogate Line and Airedale & Wharfedale lines services has been thought of by NR; I can't remember if they decided against or decided to hold off until 2040-ish. As mentioned above, yet-more flats are going up in that gap between Globe Road and Whitehall Road, so the curve can't be eased either.

IIRC the car parks 'passively' provide for platforms -1 and -2 in the sense that new platforms *could* be built there. But a lot of money has been spent on the multi storey so not exactly a cheap job - unless you build short 3-car platforms which sort of defeats the point.

 

[Greetlander]

The Calder Valley (and Rochdale Canal) route suffered from Beeching in being downgraded in favour of the assessed primary route via Diggle, between Manchester and Leeds. This went too far, as did much outside of the South East. Major population centres can merit multiple routes between them because of intermediate traffic, like Glasgow and Edinburgh (and Liverpool and Manchester).

The L&Y route, described in Nock's "Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway" is a much better route across the Pennines, mostly with gentle gradients of c1:300 (and at one time water troughs!), except for a modest climb to Castleton and descent from Summit Tunnel. It is an early George Stevenson line with gentle curves so should be capable of upgrading to 100/125mph. However it is only two track and must provide for the sizable settlements spaced along the route. Faster trains would need to be able to overtake. Rochdale and Halifax would have helped but they have been cut back savagely in a way that BR and DfT would never have dared, South of Watford.

While I would not suggest this as an alternative to the TP upgrade, surely the aim should be to get the best out of what this line can offer, particularly for Bradford's sake.

The detailed service other posters are advocating would be thus enabled.

WAO

Rochdale is expanding again isn't it? Is there room for another platform?

If the will was there it's not beyond the realms of possibility to return Halifax to 4 platforms. You could even cut a bay into the Leeds end of platform 3 for complete overkill. I'm in favour of overkill obviously, but I realise my box of crayons does not make a business case.