The TRU has a target journey time of 44 minutes from Manchester Victoria to Leeds with one stop. However trains are already timetabled to do this in 47 minutes.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
superkev
Established Member
Yes Bradford with its widely recognised "wild west" driving standards and grid locked roads is a dump where I unfortunately have to live, but, it is around the 6th largest UK City.
As I said earlier the cost of the tunnels to any sort of city centre station would be frightening.
Personal view is a quality link to the NPR at Brighouse. Possibly a Aire Valley - Bradford -Brighouse Tram tram.
As for the NPR I would follow the route of the M62 with as much in tunnel as possible. i.e. Leeds, Brighouse, Oldham Manchester HS2.
K
Killingworth
Established Member
I'd just point out that any service that provides increased speeds and increased capacity will need bigger stations with more car parking and better access. Its not just tracks and rolling stock.
Observing the quantity of private cars, vans and HGVs on the M62 and other roads across the Pennines I'd estimate well under 10% is going by rail, maybe less than 5%.
When projecting future traffic flows there are many factors to take into account. All past experience says the faster and more comfortable the journey the more people will travel.
All the delays to improve Victoria railways won't get much traffic away from roads. We need to bite the bullets. New lines, mostly tunnelled through hills and built up areas, to go as directly as possible between centres.
Back in 1839 the Victoria Tunnel was being built to take coal over 2 miles below Newcastle to the Tyne. 180 years later we should have developed this type of idea a lot further.
Observing the quantity of private cars, vans and HGVs on the M62 and other roads across the Pennines I'd estimate well under 10% is going by rail, maybe less than 5%.
When projecting future traffic flows there are many factors to take into account. All past experience says the faster and more comfortable the journey the more people will travel.
All the delays to improve Victoria railways won't get much traffic away from roads. We need to bite the bullets. New lines, mostly tunnelled through hills and built up areas, to go as directly as possible between centres.
Back in 1839 the Victoria Tunnel was being built to take coal over 2 miles below Newcastle to the Tyne. 180 years later we should have developed this type of idea a lot further.
Bantamzen
Established Member
I have to ask, why would tunnelling under Bradford be more frightening than tunnelling under the alignment of the M62? A long Transpennine tunnel, especially one designed for high speeds would need large bores, ventilation and escape routes, possibly even parallel service tunnel. Adding a sub-surface station would add cost, but certainly not frightening as you suggest when looking at 30-40 miles of tunnel through some very challenging geology.
59CosG95
Established Member
Indeed - it's worth mentioning that Turin has a similar situation with Porta Susa, and the buildings in that city are even more ancient & traditional than Bradford. Also worth mentioning is that it's a new station there, not one intending to completely replace its other station (Porta Nuova).
I do of course realise that this is essentially comparing Yorkshire apples to Italian oranges...
Bantamzen
Established Member
One of the challenges of building underground stations is actually accessing the area from the surface. In the case of Bradford it was suggested that the new sub-surface station would be located underneath the Interchange. So were the idea to go ahead, there would a large piece of land currently used for the bus station that could be used, relocating the bus services around the city centre until the site could be closed. In some ways it might be easier than somewhere like Turin.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,928
Can’t wait to see what hidden flooded mine works these tunnels hit IF built.......
Meanwhile I’m interested in the upgrade of the current route.
Meanwhile I’m interested in the upgrade of the current route.
Yes agreed. I think it's time to leave the speculation around base tunnels and various links in or around Bradford to other threads in the Speculative Ideas sub-forum. This thread is concerned about what is actually happening in terms of the TransPennine Route Upgrade not what people wished was happening.
Any further posts that are speculative in nature are liable for deletion.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
There's more than the hourly Wakefield/Castleford stoppers to avoid clashes with... freight such as the multiple daily Biomass trains from Liverpool to Drax, the Manchester to Scunthorpe Binliners (and the corresponding return empties) is more of an issue. The bi-directional middle track between Mirfield East Junction and Thornhill LNW Junction (Ravensthorpe) is a big capacity eater whenever an eastbound freight runs.
A grand total of 5 freight trains have passed through the area between 7am and 7pm today. The amount of freight that can ever run even with a fancy flyover at Ravensthorpe is severely limited by the capacity to squeeze them in on the Calder Valley and then through Manchester. Would a flyover achieve a significantly greater capacity increase than would be gained from closing Ravensthorpe?
grumpyoldman01
Member
The L&Y considered shortening the route through the Calder Valley by building a cut-off between Sowerby Bridge and Littleborough; in the end, it only got as far as Rishworth, but structures were built for two tracks.
Does anyone know if the abandoned trackbed has been considered at all as part of a "new" route between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford?
Round about the beginning of the twentieth century, the LNWR "four-tracked" its route between Stalybridge and Leeds. Some of this was "conventional", simply widening the solum so that it could accommodate a four-tracked railway instead of a two-tracked one, but in other locations completely new alignments were constructed for the two extra tracks; these works comprised the Micklehurst Loop between Stalybridge and Diggle, and the Leeds New Line between Heaton Lodge and Farnley Junction.
I appreciate both routes have been blocked at various places, but does anyone know if either one or both have been considered for re-opening to provide extra capacity across the Pennines as part of the upgrade programme?
I remember travelling along the Leeds New Line in a 'Trans Pennine' DMU when they were quite new, and my recollection is that it wasn't suitably aligned for fast running; of course, I'm thinking back nearly 60 years, but does anyone know if what I believe I remember is correct?
At privatisation, I know that at least one bidder considered tilting trains for fast Manchester - Leeds services; if the section between Standedge and Huddersfield was also restored back to four tracks, could two tracks be created between Standedge and Ravensthorpe for use only by tilting trains, and how much time would be saved between Manchester and Leeds if tilting trains using dedicated tracks on the eastern side of the Pennines were to be operated? Would extension of two tracks for use only by tilting trains westwards from Standedge through the tunnel to Diggle Junction be possible at reasonable cost, and does anyone have any idea how much more time would be saved between Manchester and Leeds from such an extension?
Does anyone know if the abandoned trackbed has been considered at all as part of a "new" route between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford?
Round about the beginning of the twentieth century, the LNWR "four-tracked" its route between Stalybridge and Leeds. Some of this was "conventional", simply widening the solum so that it could accommodate a four-tracked railway instead of a two-tracked one, but in other locations completely new alignments were constructed for the two extra tracks; these works comprised the Micklehurst Loop between Stalybridge and Diggle, and the Leeds New Line between Heaton Lodge and Farnley Junction.
I appreciate both routes have been blocked at various places, but does anyone know if either one or both have been considered for re-opening to provide extra capacity across the Pennines as part of the upgrade programme?
I remember travelling along the Leeds New Line in a 'Trans Pennine' DMU when they were quite new, and my recollection is that it wasn't suitably aligned for fast running; of course, I'm thinking back nearly 60 years, but does anyone know if what I believe I remember is correct?
At privatisation, I know that at least one bidder considered tilting trains for fast Manchester - Leeds services; if the section between Standedge and Huddersfield was also restored back to four tracks, could two tracks be created between Standedge and Ravensthorpe for use only by tilting trains, and how much time would be saved between Manchester and Leeds if tilting trains using dedicated tracks on the eastern side of the Pennines were to be operated? Would extension of two tracks for use only by tilting trains westwards from Standedge through the tunnel to Diggle Junction be possible at reasonable cost, and does anyone have any idea how much more time would be saved between Manchester and Leeds from such an extension?
It's more than 3 minutes - it's up to 15 mins between Man Vic and York. It's also capacity allowing the overtaking of trains which is nigh on impossible currently resulting in performance issues. It's allowing more local services to serve growing conurbations. It's more than just one Wakefield train that a flyover would use - it is Grand Central's and freights too. And as for a dozen passengers on Wakefield trains, you clearly don't travel on them like I do - full on a two car pacer not too long ago in the off-peak. Plus there is the remodeling of Huddersfield station, which is badly needed as it just can't cope with the volume of trains, especially if there is any disruption.
I use TPE regularly for my work and travel all over the north. This is very much welcome and needed as the infrastructure cannot cope currently. It's about time there was a bit of brass spent on the Huddersfield line and while the Windermere branch might be more cost efffective, the volume of customers (which is what we are) would much rather welcome better connectivity over the pennines which this would provide.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
To add to that: Maybe I've misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the plans included rebuilding/moving Ravensthorpe station so that trains to Wakefield could call there? Can anyone confirm? If I am correct, it seems reasonable to expect that will increase the numbers of people on those trains, perhaps to the point where a greater frequency than 1tph would be both justified and - because of the new flyover - possible to run?
The plans do include moving Ravensthorpe, so Wakefield trains could call, but the quietest station in the area is unlikely to overwhelm any train with excess passengers.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I've been involved in assessment of the Micklehurst Loop for possible re-use (though not as part of TRU) and I can say emphatically it's not going to happen. Six viaducts have been demolished including those over Stalybridge and Greenfield, and housing encroaches at Uppermill.
I get the impression four tracks are easier to restore east of Huddersfield as the alignment is straighter, and also more necessary because this section has more trains. No idea if tilting trains would make much difference to journey times.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Looking at the satellite views, most of the trackbed to Rishworth looks more or less intact, but with some builds across it at Sowerby and Ripponden. However there has been no indication that it would be a viable option for a new alignment. It's not clear where any proposed extension to Littleborough and Rochdale might have been laid / bored, so I don't know if it would make for a case for a new route.
Again this is all very interesting but it's not part of the package of works that is currently proposed with the TransPennine Route Upgrade. If anyone wants to talk about their idea for re-opening line x or y or building a base tunnel through the Pennines then please do so on a new thread in Speculative Ideas.
The published target is 67 minutes between Victoria and York with 2 stops. Trains are currently timetabled to do this in 71 minutes. That's 4 minutes improvement, not 15. Grand Central has only 4 trains/day each way and as pointed out by 158756 above freight is also negligible. The Wakefield-Huddersfield trains were originally kept on to provide connections to Kings Cross at Westgate. Since they no longer serve Westgate they have lost those passengers and , from my experience, mainly carry fresh air.
I am not sure what is meant by serving "growing conurbations". If it means population growth then the solution should be to lengthen existing trains, not incur the costs of more train crew and take up more paths. A lot of the problems(operational and financial) with railways in the north are as a result of running too many uneconomic short trains.
I can see the benefit of an additional through platform at Huddersfield and some cost-effective journey time improvements but the benefits currently on the table don't justify anything near £3bn. If Boris/Shapps were to announce a programme to electrify the lines in my earlier post, plus a few more such as the Calder Valley, trim the TRU budget to under £1bn, and save £1bn for other things then I would suggest this would be more widely supported by communities in the north.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
In the middle of a mini heatwave in August, so that's obviously representative of year-round peak demand for biomass trains to Drax.
Also, many (though not all) of the freight trains through Mirfield could avoid central Manchester entirely by running via Copy Pit and Blackburn or via Denton.
NorthernSpirit
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,184
There's no chance that the Micklehurst loop is ever going to reopen as two tunnels on the route have also been lost. So any looping for the TRU would have to be done between Manchester and Stalybridge and between Diggle or Marsden and Ravensthorpe.
Last edited by a moderator:
So let's stop banging our heads against a brick wall then. Neither route out of Manchester can be adapted to give what is needed, so simply recognise that a new alignment would be quicker and easier to build, faster (without going for any super-high speed) and less disruptive into the bargain.
More passenger capacity can be delivered as quickly as rolling stock can be built (and commissioned!) and serious lengthening of platforms to 8- or 10-car lengths isn't really needed if you run half-hourly long trains stopping only at key locations with shorter local/stopping trains in between.
Electrification of all lines is needed anyway, but a new line could protect longer-distance travel across the region from the difficulties and even prolonged closures discussed up-thread, which make you wonder if it is worth doing at all.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There is over 1km of former 4-track formation between the Diggle portal and where the Micklehurst Loop diverged, so an Up loop could be added here and possibly a Down loop to replace the shorter one at Diggle Junction box. These wouldn't be dynamic, although an Up freight train could accelerate more quickly out of the loop on the downgrade. There's probably also space to add a dynamic Down loop in the Marsden area, although it's less necessary if four-tracking starts at Huddersfield.
Maybe the timetable is different in winter, but all bar one of the daytime paths to Drax was used. They could go via Copy Pit, but Drax don't have much interest, talking instead about Colne-Skipton (would Copy Pit require a different loco to cope with the hills?).
In any case, with the timescales involved and likely major shifts in electricity generation, it is very far from certain that Drax will still be open by the time any works are completed, or that imports will still be via Liverpool if it is.
Ploughman
Established Member
That would not need to be a separate loop if Standedge tunnel is requadrified. The 4 tracking could absorb this length.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
No, but loops would be a lot cheaper and easier.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
What is the condition of the unused Standedge tunnels at present?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
One of the two disused (for rail) tunnels is maintained as emergency access for the canal and active rail tunnels. If the two disused tunnels are to return to rail use, this current use may both help and hinder progress.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
And I assume the Farnworth Tunnel type approach to Standedge tunnel(s) would be horrendously expensive?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I would imagine so! Track lowering as much as possible without disturbing the canal tunnel (which is at a lower level) and rigid conductor bar in place of wires would seem the best way forward.
Why would this be necessary? It was reported upthread that electrifying Standedge isn't seen as a major problem