Extra platforms/capacity at Huddersfield?

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by alexl92, 28 May 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    Didn't want to hi-jack the thread on first class lounges, so thought I'd start a fresh one.

    A while back the Huddersfield Examiner reported that there were plans being considered for a 'Platform 9' where the sidings are now beyond plat 8, to increase capacity for Leeds-bound trains.

    Does anyone know if anything has come of that? Are there any other proposals to increase capacity? I'd have thought that wider infrastructure changes to the whole line were needed before a new platform really.

    Also, why wouldn't they just re-instate the old platform 3 (now part of pl 1) instead?
     
  2. snowball

    snowball Established Member

    Messages:
    3,594
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2013
    Location:
    Leeds
    Looking at the thread title, do they have platfroms for departures and plattos for arrivals?
     
  3. Andyh82

    Andyh82 Member

    Messages:
    686
    Joined:
    19 May 2014
    Reinstating Platform 3 and platform 7 would probably provide the same capacity increase that a new platform 9 would for presumably far less cost.
     
  4. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    :lol::lol::lol: My mistake. Trying to type too fast!

    Three, yes. Seven would need lengthening - probably into where the signalling room is - to accommodate anything longer than a 153 (which don't work alone into Huddersfield)
     
  5. Iskra

    Iskra Established Member

    Messages:
    1,206
    Joined:
    11 Jun 2014
    Location:
    Chapeltown, Sheffield
    Were 3 & 7 through platforms? As that's where the capacity shortage (if any) seems to be?

    Sheffield, Wigan/Blackpool, Leeds/Bradford and Wakefield stoppers all seem to be able to languish in the various bays (or platforms that are essentially used as bays) for reasonable periods of time, so there can be no capacity shortage there, or they wouldn't be allowed to do that.

    The only capacity issues I see are:

    -when one TPE gets delayed, which causes the following service to crawl-in/wait until the platform is free. However, a P9 would only alleviate this Eastbound, Westbound services would cause more problems using it.
    -when the new London service starts in 2019. However, that's 4 years away and only a very limited service intitially.

    ...Personally, I don't think there's any point creating more platforms at Hudds until capacity is increased on the lines either side of it. Electrification alone won't increase the amount of trains calling at Hudd that dramatically surely?
     
  6. Andyh82

    Andyh82 Member

    Messages:
    686
    Joined:
    19 May 2014
    No 3 is a bay at the east end and 7 would be a bay at the west end.

    The lack of through platforms would be solved if the services which currently use platform 4 as two bays could move to those other bays. There would also be the benefit of 4 being bidirectional whereas a 9 would presumably be eastbound only.

    I wonder what would be more expensive, extending platform 7 which would include the relocation of the signalling room, or building platform 9 would would have to include an extension to the subway and a new lift.
     
  7. yorksrob

    yorksrob Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,777
    Joined:
    6 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Yorks
    I'm not bothered what they do, so long as they don't touch the buffet !
     
  8. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,609
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    This.

    Other than when things go belly up, there isn't a major problem with capacity at Huddersfield with the current service pattern. Looking into the future, the length of platforms 2 and 5 will need sorting, 5 is only 40m and isn't used often, but if services increase after electrification it'll become an issue. Even 6 is only 3x23m so might need work too.
    3 was used for parcels, then for stabling a spare loco in later years before being removed. I don't think it was ever that long, and as extending the Penistone bay will mean extending P1 towards Leeds it's unlikely to be reinstated.
    Presumably the signal box will be transferred to either Manchester or York ROC sooner or later, which means a new P7 might be an option for the Manchester stopper if it comes back after the wiring, hub, etc.. Some of the buildings on the island platform is grade II listed, not sure if this includes the signal box, I'd guess not though. That, along with making both Eastbound bays a decent length, could free up P4 to become a bi-directional through platform at times of disruption or during the peaks. Off peak it could berth the new London services.
     
  9. yorksrob

    yorksrob Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,777
    Joined:
    6 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Yorks
    I'm inclined to agree with this. For a busy station on a very busy line, I don't recall ever being held waiting for a platform there. This suggests to me that unless you have a major alteration in the service pattern (something like London trains terminating there for example) there's not going to be much cause to change.
     
  10. DarloRich

    DarloRich Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,681
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2010
    Location:
    Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
    this with bells on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Or the pubs!)
     
  11. Class 170101

    Class 170101 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,642
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2014
    Another problem with Platform 9 where it is proposed to be sited is what you would do with the stabled rolling stock? If the north is anything like the south stabling space is probably at a premium already.
     
  12. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,609
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    When there was the old plan for new vehicles for the North, what remains of the former Hillhouse shed site near Huddersfield was considered as a possible site for a satellite/light maintenance depot. How far this went before the plans changed I have no idea though.
     
  13. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    Another good point - and I don't have an answer!
     
  14. Starmill

    Starmill Established Member

    Messages:
    8,876
    Joined:
    18 May 2012
    Location:
    Manchester
    Is more capacity in the platforms, rather than using them differently the answer? The approaches to Huddersfield are all tortuously slow - they need speeding up.
     
  15. 55z

    55z Member

    Messages:
    135
    Joined:
    21 Nov 2014
    Speculation is rife again. The current plans for Huddersfield are
    PLATFORM 2 to be extended eastward in order to accomodate the equivalent of a 3 car 158.
    PLATFORM 1 to extended at the Leeds end to compensate for the shortening at the west end.
    PLATFORM 3 no go
    PLATFORM 7 no go as signal box in way and would probably not be long enough for even a small garden shed in view of current regulations
    PLATFORMS 5 & 6 to be extended and straightened to take a 4 car EMU
    PLATFORM 8 to be straightened at east end to accomodate the extension of platform 6.
    PLATFORM 9 dead as a dodo and no reason for it.
     
  16. Senex

    Senex Established Member

    Messages:
    1,291
    Joined:
    1 Apr 2014
    Location:
    York
    In the westbound direction the alignment should be fine for better speeds -- the original main lines ran through between platforms 1 and 4 and those platforms were on loops. Building platform 1 forward to provide the Sheffield bay simply means that platform 1 is now on the original through alignment pointing straight into the old tunnel, through which a bit better speed ought to be possible.

    It's in the eastbound direction that things are an utter mess, in that the alignment would bring the line from Manchester in alongside what is now the westbound main line but the present track layout brings it through the new tunnel into platform 8 with very low entry and exit speeds. There's plenty of space to get better speeds, but no money and no inclination. And the works proposed as listed here see to be designed just for the commuter traffic and not to improve timings for long-distance trains at all.
     
  17. noddingdonkey

    noddingdonkey Member

    Messages:
    326
    Joined:
    2 Nov 2012
    Easiest way to free up platform space is to revert to the previous situation where the Man Vic stopper and the Wakefield stopper are one through service that calls at platform 1 and platform 8 rather than sitting in P4 for so long.

    Until that service was split P4 was unused for most of the time, but very handy when there was disruption. Like when a 156 died in Platform 8.
     
  18. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,609
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    There were less services overall then, though. Only 3, then 4 North TPE services, and the aforementioned MCV-Wakefield along with the Leeds stopper. There's now 5 expresses an hour plus the Brighouse/Bradford service.
     
  19. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    Should the question therefore be 'how could capacity on the lines either side be improved?' ?
     
  20. Mark62

    Mark62 Member

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    3 Apr 2014
    Have the main platforms at Huddersfield been shortened? 12 coach trains used to stop there without problem in the 70s. I remember being on the Sheffield to Llandudno Saturday train and it got on easily. Today's trains are very short by comparison.
     
  21. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    Platform 1 has. Part of it was extended out to create the current Plat 2.
     
  22. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,609
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    I believe P8 also lost some length at the Manchester end, possibly because the curvature was likely to cause problems once the services switched to 23m carriages. The 6-car stop board is right at the very end of the platform as a result.
     
  23. DaiGog

    DaiGog Member

    Messages:
    192
    Joined:
    23 Oct 2013
    It's a shame the buildings on the island platform are listed. If they were not, one possible solution would be to demolish the lot and rebuild a bit further towards platform 1, utilising the space where the through road used to be. This would speed up the approaches from the west, allow platform 7 to be reinstated and 5/6 easily lengthened, and even a platform 9 which may only take up the space of one of the current siding roads if the island had been shifted away from its current location. The relocated platform 4 might then be a useful bi-directional through platform as well.
     
  24. Senex

    Senex Established Member

    Messages:
    1,291
    Joined:
    1 Apr 2014
    Location:
    York
    Why for heaven's sake are the island platform buildings listed? The main buildings are of course one of the finest stations buildings we have, but those on the island ....? Aren't they just pretty normal railway architecture?
     
  25. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,609
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    I kind of agree with you there. It's an attractive building (at this point I'm assuming just the partially timbered building facing facing the subway steps is listed- not the signal box and associated structure) but it's hardly unique. Then again that's probably why it's only grade II listed whereas the fine main building is one of only two working stations outside London to be grade I listed. *beams with pride*

    In any case though, completely shifting the island platform would require the subway to be altered or replaced (along with those expensive lifts!) and would involve diverting all services via Brighouse and Rochdale for quite some time. Even if the time savings once finished were significant, there's no way it would either be cost effective; or be worth over-riding the listed building protection whether it is deserved or not.

    I was last at Huddersfield on Saturday, and saw how tight the space is leading from platform 8 and the sidings over John William Street. It looks like that may destroy some of the "Crayonista" schemes myself and others could come up with on here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page