How do you solve a problem like Mirfield?

[61653 HTAFC]

Something that crops up a lot on threads about Northern and TPE is Mirfield station. The island platform is in a state due to subsidence and will be difficult to make step-free. The walk between the island and P3 is a pain, and can be confusing for unfamiliar folk. There's also the issue of congestion through the stretch between Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe, with many suggesting 4-tracking as this section is essentially two mainlines squeezed into one (and a half)...

So, for those amateur (or indeed professional!) engineers among us, how would you solve the issues? I'd hope that 4-tracking is being considered as part of the electrification/upgrade but I'm not holding my breath!

Ideally the whole island platform (and the rather rickety P3) would be abandoned, 4-tracking between the two junctions with curves eased around 2 new island platforms on the Dewsbury side of the Station Road bridge, giving 4 platform faces. The Eastbound island with P1 on the North side for (based on the proposed timetable) most stopping services, and P2 for non-stopping services and some calls in the peak (though with crossovers allowing all services to use either line if required). On the Westbound side, the southernmost face (P4) served by most stopping services with P3 for passing services and some calls by semi-fasts, though again with flexibility. This would entail lines being paired by use from Heaton Lodge junction (crossovers being provided just as the dive-under rejoins the main formation) with the 4-tracking being, from North to South, Eastbound slow, Eastbound Fast, Westbound Fast, Westbound Slow. A staffed ticket office to be provided at street level under the bridge (this would require excavation, of course) with lifts and stairs to both islands. Car parking has long been an issue so would be expanded possibly by relocating the NR engineers yard North of the formation to somewhere in the Cooper Bridge area. Beyond the station towards Ravensthorpe would be another set of crossovers on both sets of tracks followed by a flyover with the northernmost line becoming the Wakefield Line, rising up and over the Westbound line from Dewsbury, starting the incline just after the bridge over the Calder, and returning to track level just before the two routes diverge at Ravensthorpe. Ideally platforms would be provided on the Wakefield line but they're probably only needed if there's a flurry of housebuilding in the immediate vicinity. The advantage of such a move would be to remove the bi-directional line between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe and to remove all conflicting movements, as well as maintaining the overtaking facility Westbound and adding one Eastbound that's a bit more practical than Dewsbury station loop which is too short to be of use if the route is to be so intensively used. Going back to Heaton Lodge junction, the Westbound Slow line would have a crossover to the fast for services heading towards Brighouse, and would curve away from the L&Y alongside the Huddersfield line where these would come together with a higher speed turnout around the area of the Mamas and Papas factory rather than the painfully slow zigzag manoeuvre required at present.

Now, I'm not an engineer so such a thing may well be unfeasible even before we get into the cost, but I've started this thread simply for discussion. Perhaps those with better knowledge than myself can suggest something better...

 

[bluenoxid]

I would suggest four tracking but pair the TPE lines and the Brighouse to Wakefield lines. I would recommend giving all four tracks Bi Di flexibility so that trains can overtake.

However I wouldn't put a flyover in at Ravensthorpe due to expense

 

[Railsigns]

So, for those amateur (or indeed professional!) engineers among us, how would you solve the issues?

5-aspect speed signalling!

 

[Senex]

I would suggest four tracking but pair the TPE lines and the Brighouse to Wakefield lines. I would recommend giving all four tracks Bi Di flexibility so that trains can overtake.

However I wouldn't put a flyover in at Ravensthorpe due to expense

If you paired by route rather than by direction, why would you need a flyover at Ravensthorpe? The gain of pairing by route is that you have two two-track main lines effectively independent of each other, but at the cost of a slightly worse alignment at Ravensthorpe (unless a quite small re-alignment were done) and the need to solve the Mirfield problem of the eastbound line curving quite badly past the island platform. The loss is that the benefits of what would be effectively long dynamic loops on both sides between Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe are lost.

While we're at it, what about putting the L&Y lines back to their original high-speed alignment through the relics of Healey Mills Yard?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

While we're at it, what about putting the L&Y lines back to their original high-speed alignment through the relics of Healey Mills Yard?

+1!

Easier said than done, of course... Healey Mills is a massive site though, I could imagine some sort of eco-town development there (including a station, of course!).

 

[QueensCurve]

Something that crops up a lot on threads about Northern and TPE is Mirfield station. The island platform is in a state due to subsidence and will be difficult to make step-free. The walk between the island and P3 is a pain, and can be confusing for unfamiliar folk. There's also the issue of congestion through the stretch between Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe, with many suggesting 4-tracking as this section is essentially two mainlines squeezed into one (and a half)...

To set this in context, here is the SA page for Mirfield.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

^Much appreciated, thanks.

 

[QueensCurve]

I would suggest four tracking but pair the TPE lines and the Brighouse to Wakefield lines. I would recommend giving all four tracks Bi Di flexibility so that trains can overtake.

However I wouldn't put a flyover in at Ravensthorpe due to expense

There is a divunder at Heaton Lodge Jct so implies pairing by direction. Lack of grade separation at Ravensthorpe implies pairing by use.

Could the existing Divender at Heaton Lodge take 2 tracks or be converted to do so? If so the Huddersfield to Dewsbury route could be routed without conflict in a paired by us arrangement.

Edit: the Google Earth view of Mirfield, though not very clear, implies you could get 2 tracks through the diveunder.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From memory, the dive-under at Heaton Lodge has space for two tracks (single arches under the Calder Valley line) though electrification might throw issues up there with regard to clearance. Heaton Lodge was of course a far more complex junction in years gone by, with the Leeds "New Line" also diverging there.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Heaton Lodge is very likely to have a full rebuild for the inpending electrification anyway.

So you could hvae two track underneath popping out on the North side and straight through to Dewsbury. The problem with this of course is that the Leeds bound Huddersfield stopper would now be in the way unless it cross all the lines to the other pair and then crosses back to go to Dewsbury.... In the Huddersfield direction easier as the line is currently there to take it to Huddersfield.

I think any solution is going to need a compromise or a change in the local services in the area!

 

[QueensCurve]

From memory, the dive-under at Heaton Lodge has space for two tracks (single arches under the Calder Valley line) though electrification might throw issues up there with regard to clearance. Heaton Lodge was of course a far more complex junction in years gone by, with the Leeds "New Line" also diverging there.

It would seem that there were formerly 2 tracks under the diveunder.

Source: http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/leeds new line 1.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Heaton Lodge is very likely to have a full rebuild for the inpending electrification anyway.

So you could hvae two track underneath popping out on the North side and straight through to Dewsbury. The problem with this of course is that the Leeds bound Huddersfield stopper would now be in the way unless it cross all the lines to the other pair and then crosses back to go to Dewsbury.... In the Huddersfield direction easier as the line is currently there to take it to Huddersfield.

I think any solution is going to need a compromise or a change in the local services in the area!

Could it be looped and overtaken at Dewsbury?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Dewsbury down loop isn't really fit for purpose, as any overtaking service will be on yellows until the stopper enters the loop, meaning the stopper is then held for longer than is ideal.

 

[Crossover]

I think it has been noted, but I do believe Thornhill LNW Jn to Heaton Lodge Jn did used to be 4 tracked in the past. Dewsbury also used to be 4 track through the station before being rationalised to 2, with the third added in recently (I seem to recall a member here being part of the team that did some work round that area).

The loop at Dewsbury is mostly used in times of disruption, but there are a couple of scheduled passes. I have been on a stopper that got passed during disruption and we were waiting a while as, of course, the Express, by then, had got cautioned and didn't come past us at any great speed

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I commented on another thread about how reinstating the other fast line through Dewsbury would cause more problems than it would solve due to the alignments (though it would reduce incidents of PUT). Additionally when the wires eventually arrive I'd expect the space between the platform loop and the through line to be used for mast bases.

 

[Starmill]

I thought it was relatively unlikely that there will continue to be a Leeds <> Huddersfield all stations service in the timescale we're discussing?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I thought it was relatively unlikely that there will continue to be a Leeds <> Huddersfield all stations service in the timescale we're discussing?

That is the plan, at least until the wires are up. The only Northern services on that corridor will be Leeds to Manchester Victoria (and beyond) via Brighouse and Hebden Bridge and Huddersfield to Castleford (an alteration to the current Wakefield Westgate service). Once the wires are up, the reintroduction of stoppers from Huddersfield to both Leeds and Manchester (presumably Piccadilly rather than Victoria as at present) will be subject to a business case.

 

[deltic08]

From memory, the dive-under at Heaton Lodge has space for two tracks (single arches under the Calder Valley line) though electrification might throw issues up there with regard to clearance. Heaton Lodge was of course a far more complex junction in years gone by, with the Leeds "New Line" also diverging there.

From memory, the dive under at Heaton Lodge was singled to raise line speed to 70mph which was the maximum of DMUs at the time. There is room for higher speeds and retain grade separation but a completely new junction would have to be built closer to Mirfield and quadtracking from Heaton Lodge to Huddersfield to pass stopping trains at Deighton. Bradley Junction would be a problem but reversible working from here into Huddersfield on the outer 'slow' line could work.

 

[Welshman]

5-aspect speed signalling!

Did anyone ever understand how that worked?

 

[deltic08]

That is the plan, at least until the wires are up. The only Northern services on that corridor will be Leeds to Manchester Victoria (and beyond) via Brighouse and Hebden Bridge and Huddersfield to Castleford (an alteration to the current Wakefield Westgate service). Once the wires are up, the reintroduction of stoppers from Huddersfield to both Leeds and Manchester (presumably Piccadilly rather than Victoria as at present) will be subject to a business case.

The route from Leeds to Ravensthorpe is a headache due to stations at Cottingley, Morley, Batley, Dewsbury and Ravensthorpe. Morley Tunnel east end prevents higher speed due to curvature and 70mph west end is not high enough.

Transport for the North must bite the bullet and make the route quad track from Morley Tunnel to Ravensthorpe with additional viaducts at Batley and Dewsbury. There is room with a little rock blasting.

Additionally reinstate the line through Upper Batley and through Gildersome Tunnel, Farnley Junction and over the long Leeds New viaduct in Leeds for TPEx. This will need some demolition of industrial units but not as many as the Leeds HS2 station will require.

 

[Crossover]

I think quadding either side of Dewsbury station would be prohibitively expensive - to the Leeds side, you're on a hefty viaduct with the Ring Road to one side and apartments on the other. To the Manchester side, you immediately cross at least 5 bridges (with the line at a high level mostly) and I can't think there will be space to add another two there either

 

[JohnB57]

I think quadding either side of Dewsbury station would be prohibitively expensive - to the Leeds side, you're on a hefty viaduct with the Ring Road to one side and apartments on the other. To the Manchester side, you immediately cross at least 5 bridges (with the line at a high level mostly) and I can't think there will be space to add another two there either

You think that's the expensive part? It pales into insignificance compared to this...

Additionally reinstate the line through Upper Batley and through Gildersome Tunnel, Farnley Junction and over the long Leeds New viaduct in Leeds for TPEx. This will need some demolition of industrial units but not as many as the Leeds HS2 station will require.

Your're kidding, right?

That's not reinstatement - it's a whole new line. The Upper Batley (Batley to Bradford) line never connected with the line through Gildersome Tunnel into Leeds and there's nothing left of either it or the Leeds New Line anyway.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

In my view the secion of line between Heaton and Thornhills LNW Junctions, quad track it and for Mirfield a new station that is laid out as two island platforms complete with ramped overbridges, similar to what Stainforth and Hatfield us laid out is.

Sticking a line through Gildersome Tunnel is going to be a bit difficult since one end of it have been used as point for flytipping, plus you've got the M62 to contend with.

 

[bluenoxid]

Is there anything to be gained from creating a new rail corridor between Leeds and Huddersfield? Potentially open up new options for railheads.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is there anything to be gained from creating a new rail corridor between Leeds and Huddersfield? Potentially open up new options for railheads.

There's lots to be gained (bringing Heckmondwike, Cleckheaton, Birstall back onto the network for example) but unfortunately the costs would be far too high. This Northern Powerhouse nonsense is just window-dressing after all...

 

[jimm]

Is there anything to be gained from creating a new rail corridor between Leeds and Huddersfield? Potentially open up new options for railheads.

Where do you suggest it should go?

Even building the Leeds New Line in the late 1890s was a difficult job, including driving a viaduct through Mirfield, and created a round-the-houses route with some stiff climbs - and a lot more of West Yorkshire has been built on since then, including parts of this route itself, as noted above.

 

[55z]

Why all this spectulation for Mirfield. In the end it is what Network Rail can & will do and what the government is prepared to spend. Problems at Mirfield is the subsidence on platforms 1 & 2 due to the bad in filling of the old cellars but work has started to sort this out. Car parking is a major problem in the surrounding streets. One solution looked at is to demolish the existing island platform and build a new platform in what is now a builders merchants yard (leased as well) and solve disabled access problem as well and increase the car park. As for Platform 3 if it is rickety then that implies it is not safe - it is perfectly safe and in good order, there are far worse stations and platforms.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why all this spectulation for Mirfield. In the end it is what Network Rail can & will do and what the government is prepared to spend. Problems at Mirfield is the subsidence on platforms 1 & 2 due to the bad in filling of the old cellars but work has started to sort this out.

Just out of curiosity what was the role of the cellars?

 

[deltic08]

Your're kidding, right?

That's not reinstatement - it's a whole new line. The Upper Batley (Batley to Bradford) line never connected with the line through Gildersome Tunnel into Leeds and there's nothing left of either it or the Leeds New Line anyway.

Never more serious. Apart from former Farnley Junction to the West end of Leeds New viaduct the route is still undeveloped. Gildersome Tunnel is just earthed up at both ends. The earthworks and stone abutments for the grade separated junction at Batley are still extant. Just a small amount of off line new build is required at the southwest end of Gildersome tunnel.

Morley Tunnel is stopping any capacity increase on this line so how else can stopping and non-stopping trains be accommodated between Leeds and Huddersfield/Calder Valley in the numbers required in the next ten years without something like this?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...
Morley Tunnel is stopping any capacity increase on this line so how else can stopping and non-stopping trains be accommodated between Leeds and Huddersfield/Calder Valley in the numbers required in the next ten years without something like this?

Shortened signalling headways would be a start, and will come (eventually) with ETCS. Electrification will bring faster acceleration, and sensible use of the wider trackbed between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe (such as 4-tracking the section this thread is focused on) would allow paths to be flighted efficiently. All for far less than building a new railway or indeed rebuilding an old one.

Don't get me wrong, the Leeds New Line should never have been closed and I'd love to see it reopen but the day it does, I'll show my bare backside on Huddersfield Town Hall steps!

 

[Mr Mean]

It’s not just Mirfield that needs sorting, but the whole section between Huddersfield and Leeds/Wakefield.

Starting at Huddersfield, there needs to be more and longer through platforms and longer east facing bays. The route from there should be four tracks aligned so they are 1 slow east, 1 fast east, 1 fast west, 1 slow west. The slow east should be bi-directional to the Bradley junction to Halifax so any Hudds-Halifax services don’t need to cross any other lines – this shouldn’t cause much operational difficulty as the run to Huddersfield is less than 5 minutes. Deighton would need to be rebuilt but there is a lot of land around the station that can be used.

The two east bound tracks would use the fly-under at Cooper Bridge swinging round towards Mirfield, with the fast east joining the east bound from Brighouse. The slow line would have points to allow connection to the line from Brighouse – all slow trains can be routed to Mirfield on the outermost track leaving plenty of fast line overtaking opportunities. The west bound route to Huddersfield would diverge from the Brighouse line and follow the existing route to Hudds. At Mirfield I wouldn’t have two island platforms, but a new platform face at either side of the railway and an island for peak time fasts. I would position east of Station Road where the Network Rail outpost is, adjoin the new Lidl car park. Parking at Mirfield would be positioned where the current lorry/tamker depot and taxi office is rather than the Jewson site. There is much more room at this side of the site. Access would be through ramps rather than lifts to reduce costs. A ticket office would be included along with proper waiting facilities.

Moving beyond Mirfield to Ravensthorpe which would remain as 4 track towards Dewsbury and 2 to Wakefield. Platforms would be provided on the Wakefield line. There is ample room for parking here and so a proper park and ride facility could be introduced. After the station the lines would reduce to 2 towards Leeds to prevent new viaducts, bridges etc needs towards Dewsbury. Dewsbury would remain as it is due to the alignment of the through line. The two tracks could become 4 again after the Batley viaduct with a new 2 platform station to allow overtaking. 4 tracks could continue to Morley tunnel and then back to 2 lines through the tunnel. At Morley the station should be rebuilt and the track straightened through the rock and farmers fields. More parking could be provided where the old gas works was and a potential new road built to connect Morley station to White Rose centre that runs parallel to the railway. It has to be 2 tracks through Cottingley but could become 4 tracks again soon after with a potential new station at Wortley near the ringroad. It looks at though from this point there is room for possibly 3 lines into Leeds as opposed to 2, but don’t think that 4 would fit.

It’s all wishful thinking but the whole area around Mirfield is a bottleneck for the railways with pent up demand (the roads are always busy). No idea how much this would cost, but as there is no real new major infrastructure in my ideas, I wouldn’t imagine costs would be completely prohibitive.