I really appreciate your regular photographic updates - thankyou very much.
From February's Modern Railways; they have "fast" lines as they are now, rather than the way I thought they would be (in my mind I equate "fast" with "straight").
If that's the official plan now, it's a big mistake unless there's a good reason for it I'm not aware of. You're introducing conflicting moves in the throat that don't need to happen, and presumably enforcing slower entry and exit speeds for down fast services due to the curvature into current platform 8/future platform 4.
You've removed conflicts at Ravensthorpe and Mirfield, which means the conflicts at the Manchester end of Hudds station can be timetable to work without too much dependency.
I think the diagram also slightly misleads as the through line in grey between the lines in pink does remain.
Those were being removed anyway- what's being discussed is simply which platform at Huddersfield is for down fast services and which is for the down slows. The plan as shown introduces conflicts that don't need to be there.
Of course, but the point is that the conflicts that have been introduced at Huddersfield can be accommodated in the timetable, and part of the reason for that is that they don't have to also time round conflicts at, say, Ravensthorpe. Fundamentally, if you want to run more trains you need more track and if you have more tracks you will inevitably introduce more conflicts unless you spend very, very large amounts of money.
But the platform use as originally proposed still has fewer conflicts than the one posted above. Some conflicts are inevitable as you say, but the ones being introduced are avoidable.
I'm not sure- as things stand the only source for this current update is the article in Modern Railways.
None technically. From what I’ve seen the advantage is flexibility. What Modern Railways have published is pretty much as expected.
A feature I like in the layout is the 'right turn lane' platform (#4) for eastbound fasts. This distributes the fast/slow crossing and merge conflicts over both ends of the station, which should help to make them more manageable in both timetable planning and realtime operations.
www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk
This is an impressive photo record you're creating. It has been a substantial engineering exercise.
My thoughts exactly too. Thanks again to @Batley Lad
Drystone walling is quite an art (even if it is actually mortared). I wonder if they have specialists doing this?
I’ve not noticed a particular company associated with the drystone wall works, but the workmanship looks very good.
Going to pop down next week for a look and take some pictures, depending if the buses in leeds are on strike.
If it's any of those it'll be the first, I'd imagine. Can't see Slaithwaite being a boundary between workstations, and if Springwood junction was one they'd surely just call it Huddersfield.
