Electrification will be a challenge. Can anyone name a route of similar or longer distance with a higher percentage of its mileage in tunnels than that between Bradford and Manchester? In the most tunnel-heavy section (Bradford > Halifax) the in-tunnel mileage must be getting on for 50%.
Not only that but the services along it arn't simple. It isn't just a enclosed line like the harrogate line for example/
For example if it was wired we we would then have a situation where a york blackpool is only not under the wires for todmorden to preston.
I think Caldervale is correct for the line, but Calderdale for the area/council???
Good idea re: Scarborough. They could maybe still get to Man Airport via Rochdale, better than Blackpool surely.
I was born and brought-up in Halifax and the Calder Valley in the 50s and 60s.
"Caldervale" is a West-Yorkshire Metro name which does no justice to the steep, precipitous, millstone-grit Pennine crags and valleys through which the railway was formed.
It was, and always will be, the Calder Valley.
Google "Calder Valley" and "Calder Vale" and compare the results.
Google "Calder Valley" and "Calder Vale" and compare the results.
As for more London trains, GC have applied for a 4th Bradford path, operating from Mirfield/Wakefield to London via Bradford, Leeds and Garforth, and it is the company's eventual aim to run a two-hourly clockwork timetable, so one can only wait and hope.
Really? Is the service really doing that well? Every time I've been on it its been quite empty.
If nothing else happens then I expect that some of the displaced TPE 185s will move onto the Caldervale line (some Leeds - Manchester services are currently Pacer run, so a 185 would be a big upgrade) - there's scope for the unelectrified Caldervale to gain services to Scarborough/ Middlesbrough etc (to retain direct links to Manchester/Leeds) if the TPE wiring means that these places lose their existing "via Huddersfield" services.
In the June 2012 issue of Modern Railways, on page 65, there is a paragraph in the section headed "Cascades", that states when the Class 350 units are in service, the displaced Class 185 units will be used not only to strengthen the existing Class 185 operated service patterns, but there is mention made of the newly-proposed Liverpool to Newcastle service which will require a certain number of these units to meet the operational requirements of that particular route.
GC have applied for a 4th Bradford path, operating from Mirfield/Wakefield to London via Bradford, Leeds and Garforth, and it is the company's eventual aim to run a two-hourly clockwork timetable, so one can only wait and hope.
In the June 2012 issue of Modern Railways, on page 65, there is a paragraph in the section headed "Cascades", that states when the Class 350 units are in service, the displaced Class 185 units will be used not only to strengthen the existing Class 185 operated service patterns, but there is mention made of the newly-proposed Liverpool to Newcastle service which will require a certain number of these units to meet the operational requirements of that particular route.
I think the suggestion of the Caldervale line receiving 185s is for post TP North electrification.
Hasn't the fifth TPE North Core service been selected as Liverpool to York?
Hasn't the fifth TPE North Core service been selected as Liverpool to York?
In any case I think the suggestion of the Caldervale line receiving 185s is for post TP North electrification.
The 5th service will be Newcastle to Liverpool via Victoria and the Chat Moss, with the current service via the CLC being cut short to York and the previous Newcastle path likely being extended to Scarbrough, or trading places with the Hull service although the latter is not as likely.
Newcastle will lose a direct airport link though, although it will be a 5min connection at Huddersfeild.
I have no wish whatsoever to reopen the "can of worms" that is the loss of the direct Manchester Airport to Newcastle service, as this has had many postings in the past regarding the rail operational advantages this decision has. However, with the matter of future airline passenger flights, from 2014 onwards, taking passengers from Newcastle to Orlando, etc, from the Newcastle area, will the package holiday companies be seeking to keep the rail option open by arranging Middlesbrough to be the direct service rail hub for "North-East" Manchester Airport-bound travellers?
I have no wish whatsoever to reopen the "can of worms" that is the loss of the direct Manchester Airport to Newcastle service, as this has had many postings in the past regarding the rail operational advantages this decision has. However, with the matter of future airline passenger flights, from 2014 onwards, taking passengers from Newcastle to Orlando, etc, from the Newcastle area, will the package holiday companies be seeking to keep the rail option open by arranging Middlesbrough to be the direct service rail hub for "North-East" Manchester Airport-bound travellers?
It's not really up to the package holiday operators though. And changing to a Middlesbrough TPE service to the Airport is no different to whether the Airport train came from Scarborough/Hull - it's one simple change at Huddersfield (etc).
Just how many of these package holiday passengers are there? What has to be done is what is best for the majority of the ridership, without also causing operational headaches et al on the technical side. The whole TPE North timetable recast can't be moulded around a few North East holiday package companies...
So with Blackpool to York presumably going to have more local stops, will we be seeing a fast service that can best 2 hours or is this just a dream that's never going to happen?..and where would it call?