61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
To be fair that name could be applied to the whole centre: if it didn't already exist there's no way it would be built today.
-
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
If it’s needed at all White Rose is more of a tram stop rather than another stopping point on what is currently the main Trans-Pennine route.
It really is time Leeds got a grip of it’s transport infrastructure strategy and stopped this over cautious bit by bit approach which reflects badly on the City and especially it’s management.
It really is time Leeds got a grip of it’s transport infrastructure strategy and stopped this over cautious bit by bit approach which reflects badly on the City and especially it’s management.
59CosG95
Established Member
NR have now included a raft of proposed layouts for the Huddersfield - Ravensthorpe work on their website. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...te-upgrade/huddersfield-to-westtown-dewsbury/
Interesting OLE points raised are the presence of a new Feeder Station in the Ravensthorpe Triangle, and the preparation of Huddersfield (i.e. Springwood) Tunnels for electrification.
Interesting OLE points raised are the presence of a new Feeder Station in the Ravensthorpe Triangle, and the preparation of Huddersfield (i.e. Springwood) Tunnels for electrification.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,928
One thing that's just hit me is that the old formation North of Ravensthorpe could be used to provide better foot/cycle access to the new Ravensthorpe station, particularly useful once it gains trains to and from Wakefield.
59CosG95
Established Member
Well, the consultation's still open, so it's certainly worth raising this with NR...
jonesy3001
Established Member
are they still extending the electrification to stalybridge from victoria or is that not happening now?
Mirfield station is above road level so why are the proposing a footbridge from the non-town side? That’s an annoyingly long way round.
I know project creep is a bad thing but whilst everything is closed how much more work would it be to extend fourtrack to the Dewsbury loops to remove slowing/accelerating stoppers from the fast lines?
I know project creep is a bad thing but whilst everything is closed how much more work would it be to extend fourtrack to the Dewsbury loops to remove slowing/accelerating stoppers from the fast lines?
Interesting that the tunnels to the west of Huddersfield a 'prepared for' electrification (different to actually electrifying it?). Why would they do this if there is for sure going to be a gap between Stalybridge and somewhere in the Huddersfield area and presumably no 100% electric service planned west of Huddersfield (I assume they terminate at Huddersfled from the east rather than say Marsden). I can think of a few reasons:
* Take advantage of no trains running through the tunnels anyway during closures elsewhere on assumption that the lines will eventually need electrification
* Actually electrify and then TPE bimode departures to the west can accelerate through the tunnels on electric. Possibly arrivals from the west can 'pan up' through this section.
Any other thoughts? Thoughts, not 'I wish...'
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I see what you mean about Mirfield, I can see objections from some of the new housing South of the station once they realise a big footbridge will allow the public a birds-eye view of their garden...
On Dewsbury, the plans published a few weeks back appeared to show the current Eastbound non-platform line being removed. Adding a Westbound fast line would actually slow services down, as the current platform 2 track (the only up line) and the down fast both have a smooth alignment either side of the station. Having two fast lines up the middle would mean fast services in both directions having to dogleg through the junctions... unless you replace the viaduct and completely rebuild the embankment on the Ravensthorpe side of town.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Only if Springwood junction is completely ripped up and started again: as there's no way to get from the up to the down or v/v. The two lines are also quite spread out there, so any crossover would be at quite an angle.
It seems a weird way of doing it rather just needing one lift from underneath!
Will really irritate those walking from Mirfield - rather than one set of steps as they get to the station they have to walk beyond the station, along a bit, then up at least twice the height, back on themselves and down again.
Fair enough re Dewsbury. It would require a fair bit of land take and moving the northbound platform further back. Lots of cost and planning issues
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
I thought it was being four-tracked from Huddersfield to the west portal of Morley tunnel with new additional viaducts at Dewsbury and Batley to allow stopping services to be overtaken by non stoppers?
Now that would be costly. I don't think the land is there for 4 tracking from Thornhill junction onwards in all honesty.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I don't think that has been seriously proposed since the "Railway Mania" days. There's no room for a second viaduct at Dewsbury as buildings and roads already occupy all free land either side of the existing viaduct. Immediately after Thornhill LNW junction heading towards Dewsbury, there is room for the four tracks to taper gradually into two, but you'd need to be back to the current formation width (two tracks) by Westtown bridge.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
It wouldn't offer much benefit for the cost either: 4-tracking from Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe will provide enough overtaking opportunity, so any further extension of the 4-tracking won't be necessary. All freight (barring the odd overnight service) runs via Healey Mills so won't be getting in the way after Thornhill. Dynamic loops at Batley (starting East of the viaduct and relocating the station to East of the bridge carrying Soothill Lane over the railway) would provide a better overtaking opportunity than doing anything at Thornhill or Dewsbury.
Costly? Would you care to remind us how much NPR or HS3 might cost - compared to Crossrail and HS2?
Small fry mate.
Exactly.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,928
Just a gentle nudge as I don't really want to get into all this again......
While one doesn't like to blow one's own trumpet I feel that I may have said it best when I said:
We had a few posts on Bradford Crossrail appear on this thread. They would have been totally suitable for a thread in Speculative Ideas however they are totally off-topic for discussion here on the Transpennine Route Upgrade thread where we're concerned with what is actually happening.
We had a few posts on Bradford Crossrail appear on this thread. They would have been totally suitable for a thread in Speculative Ideas however they are totally off-topic for discussion here on the Transpennine Route Upgrade thread where we're concerned with what is actually happening.
Good point. What is actually happening now (or has happened)?
Now that we are nearly at post 2400 how about a summary of the story so far?
Liverpool to Manchester electrified via Chat Moss
Manchester Vic electrified
to be wired to Stalybridge?
Staly via Standedge (to Huddersfield?) paused indefinitely
alignment and upgrades in W Yorks, electrification being planned
Leeds to the ECML progressing?
59CosG95
Established Member
That's basically the situation as it stands.
Based upon the Skyscrapercity linked posts earlier in the thread, Keltbray are doing *at least some* work for wiring preapration between Man Vic and Stalybridge.
The "Transpire Alliance" of BAM Nuttall, Amey & Arup are doing the Huddersfield - Leeds upgrade work (under the "West of Leeds" contract awarded in April 2017).
Another unknown design consultant is supposedly working on Leeds - York; VolkerRail, Murphy & Siemens have the East of Leeds package since October 2014.
Last edited:
What is the scope for Leeds to York?
I would hope they aren’t fixing the current layout with just two tracks - surely whatever happens with NPR and HS2 it needs to be quadrupled out of Leeds?
Personally I think they should build the bit of HS2 that cuts the corner off as it would have immediate use for XC and TPE
I would hope they aren’t fixing the current layout with just two tracks - surely whatever happens with NPR and HS2 it needs to be quadrupled out of Leeds?
Personally I think they should build the bit of HS2 that cuts the corner off as it would have immediate use for XC and TPE
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There are various NPR options east of Leeds which probably need to be decided before anything is committed on the existing route.
All bridges are electrification ready between Colton Junction and Church Fenton and then electrification was not paused but cancelled. There is no active electrification work being done on this route since electrification was cancelled over 2 years ago.
There are eight bridges between Church Fenton and Neville Hill that need lifting, track lowering or demolishing altogether including one station footbridge, but the Church Fenton cut off needs doing asap regardless of HS2 to allow 125mph continuous running as TPE, LNER and XC operate trains on the route that are capable of this speed on or off electric.
Four tracking is essential from Leeds to at least Garforth to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers at Garforth, Thorpe Park and Cross Gates. North of Garforth is a vertical sided cutting for quite some distance that would be not be cheap or easy to open out for 4 tracks.
Moving the platforms at Micklefield to the other side of the junction as a four platform station would also reduce congestion on the two track section.
Then electrify, which could be as much as 15 years away. Disgraceful as this route is at capacity despite being optimised.