How about extending the Hull to Halifax service to Huddersfield?

[61653 HTAFC]

A week or three ago, we had a thread in this section about services which could be combined in order to provide additional journey opportunities. I suggested that merging the Hull to Halifax with the Huddersfield to Bradford, as this would allow the latter to return to an hourly frequency without requiring any additional rolling stock: an additional diagram would be required for the Hull to Halifax circuit, but this could use the unit freed up by no longer needing a unit to do the currently bi-hourly Huddersfield to Bradford. The Halifax to Hull journey would be lengthened slightly with the addition of a call at Low Moor, but what's a few minutes between friends?

Of course things are never as simple as they seem, and you'd need to consider conflicts with TPE fasts at Bradley Junction, but this would seem on the face of it a "quick win" if it could be made to work. So my query on the subject is basically, what else have I overlooked? Are there any insurmountable (or particularly difficult) obstacles to such a move, such as crewing? One issue could be traction and route knowledge I suppose, as the Hull service uses 170s and 155s which Huddersfield crews (who currently operate the HUD-BDI) presumably no longer sign.

 

[skyhigh]

One issue could be traction and route knowledge I suppose, as the Hull service uses 170s and 155s which Huddersfield crews (who currently operate the HUD-BDI) presumably no longer sign.

I'm pretty sure there's no Hull-Halifax trains booked as a 170 any more, but yes 155s would be a problem as far as I'm aware.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm pretty sure there's no Hull-Halifax trains booked as a 170 any more, but yes 155s would be a problem as far as I'm aware.

Presumably the conversion/refresher training for 155s is a relatively simple one for crews who already sign 150s and 158s? Still costs money of course.

 

[skyhigh]

Presumably the conversion/refresher training for 155s is a relatively simple one for crews who already sign 150s and 158s? Still costs money of course.

Yes it's a simple conversion but the issues would be releasing staff to do it and keeping on top of it with the small number of services that run with 155s. They might turn up more regularly though when they transfer from Neville Hill to Botanic Gardens, which would help.

 

[Neptune]

From December both services are back to hourly. All Hull - Halifax services are either booked as either 3 or 4 car 158’s, the HUD-BDI using a 158 on one diagram and 150 on the other.

It’s a reasonable idea but west of Halifax it needs to fit in properly with the rest of the network as it wouldn’t work with the current BDI - HUD and vv path.

 

[mike57]

Also has merit given the unreliable nature of TPE services out of Hull.

 

[Neptune]

Also has merit given the unreliable nature of TPE services out of Hull.

I think regardless of that fact nobody would use Hull - Huddersfield via Bradford as a direct service. They’d change at Leeds as they would do now.

 

[mike57]

I think regardless of that fact nobody would use Hull - Huddersfield via Bradford as a direct service. They’d change at Leeds as they would do now.

Westbound I agree, but Eastbound the change at Huddersfield is likely to be much easier (level?) so if you have luggage or mobility issues it makes sense, depending on how much longer it takes. Not enough of flow to warrant changes on the back of it though.

 

[Neptune]

Westbound I agree, but Eastbound the change at Huddersfield is likely to be much easier (level?) so if you have luggage or mobility issues it makes sense, depending on how much longer it takes. Not enough of flow to warrant changes on the back of it though.

Of course but not all people travelling on the route would have mobility issues or are travelling with heavy luggage. That would probably be quite a small percentage in fact.

If it is timed right there might be a better change at Garforth in any case.

 

[mike57]

If it is timed right there might be a better change at Garforth in any case.

I try to change at Garforth rather than Leeds if possible. I know its been discussed before, but the booking systems always make your change at Leeds, York or Manchester, rather than one of the intemediate stops where it will be 'same platform'. At the very least I dont know why there isnt an 'easy change' option when booking, which based on booked platforms for services will try to give the easiest change where there are multiple options.

 

[Neptune]

I try to change at Garforth rather than Leeds if possible. I know its been discussed before, but the booking systems always make your change at Leeds, York or Manchester, rather than one of the intemediate stops where it will be 'same platform'. At the very least I dont know why there isnt an 'easy change' option when booking, which based on booked platforms for services will try to give the easiest change where there are multiple options.

Garforth options will be increased in December with the 1Bxx Blackpool services calling there as well.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From December both services are back to hourly. All Hull - Halifax services are either booked as either 3 or 4 car 158’s, the HUD-BDI using a 158 on one diagram and 150 on the other.

It’s a reasonable idea but west of Halifax it needs to fit in properly with the rest of the network as it wouldn’t work with the current BDI - HUD and vv path.

If it's going back to hourly, the reason for the suggestion is moot I suppose. I did see that the paths for the present services don't connect at Halifax.

I think regardless of that fact nobody would use Hull - Huddersfield via Bradford as a direct service. They’d change at Leeds as they would do now.

I wasn't really suggesting it with the thought that loads of people would switch to using it- just a way of bringing back the hourly service for Huddersfield to Bradford without needing an extra unit. You'd almost certainly use false destinations at certain places along the route anyway to avoid long-distance passengers ending up going the long way round, particularly at Huddersfield.

No doubt if it ran there would be some people (many of us on this site) who would use it simply because they could. Didn't we once have a Forum Event for the so-called "Grand Tour" service (which funnily enough this idea almost revives)?

 

[Neptune]

If it's going back to hourly, the reason for the suggestion is moot I suppose. I did see that the paths for the present services don't connect at Halifax.

If a path was found to continue the HUL - HFX service on to Huddersfield and bring it back within an hour to pick up the next HFX - HUL path that would require just 1 additional unit. Of course it would also have to take account of a Low Moor stop too.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If a path was found to continue the HUL - HFX service on to Huddersfield and bring it back within an hour to pick up the next HFX - HUL path that would require just 1 additional unit. Of course it would also have to take account of a Low Moor stop too.

Indeed my reason for suggesting it was that it would (a) require one additional unit; and (b) also release that unit, as there would be no need for the separate Huddersfield to Bradford service. The Low Moor call would of course add a few minutes to the overall journey time, though I'd be surprised if that was a deal-breaker. The main problem to overcome would be finding a suitable path through Bradley junction, as the rest of the junctions traversed (Dryclough, Greetland and Bradley Wood) are nowhere near as congested.

One added bonus would be the freeing up of a path between Bradford and Halifax, which could be used for an additional Bradford to Manchester service.

 

[Neptune]

Indeed my reason for suggesting it was that it would (a) require one additional unit; and (b) also release that unit, as there would be no need for the separate Huddersfield to Bradford service. The Low Moor call would of course add a few minutes to the overall journey time, though I'd be surprised if that was a deal-breaker. The main problem to overcome would be finding a suitable path through Bradley junction, as the rest of the junctions traversed (Dryclough, Greetland and Bradley Wood) are nowhere near as congested.

Yes or you could have the 5th unit diagram as a pair of 158’s with the additional 158 replaced by the freed up 150.

One added bonus would be the freeing up of a path between Bradford and Halifax, which could be used for an additional Bradford to Manchester service.

I honestly don’t think there’s a need for an additional Bradford - Manchester service on top of the current Calder Valley services and pathing beyond Halifax could be complicated, especially when you get beyond Rochdale.

Plus that would bust the theory about saving units out of the water.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes or you could have the 5th unit diagram as a pair of 158’s with the additional 158 replaced by the freed up 150.

I honestly don’t think there’s a need for an additional Bradford - Manchester service on top of the current Calder Valley services and pathing beyond Halifax could be complicated, especially when you get beyond Rochdale.

Plus that would bust the theory about saving units out of the water.

When I thought of the idea, I was unaware that the Huddersfields will be going back to hourly from the next timetable change so was assuming that you'd only be freeing up one unit (which is almost always a 158 currently). The aim wasn't to save a unit, it was to improve services without needing an additional one.

You're right about pathing an extra into Manchester from Rochdale of course, and that suggestion was always going to be dependent on finding a path. As much as anything it was just a way of using the path that you've freed by merging the two services under discussion. Given how much Bradford likes to go on about being the "ginger stepchild" of West Yorkshire an additional Manchester service would go some way to make up for not being part of the TPE network.

 

[cle]

Either a fast could be pathed somehow - flighting 1tph - or possibly the path could be used for a second tph around the Todmorden curve? If beyond is full.

 

[Neptune]

When I thought of the idea, I was unaware that the Huddersfields will be going back to hourly from the next timetable change so was assuming that you'd only be freeing up one unit (which is almost always a 158 currently). The aim wasn't to save a unit, it was to improve services without needing an additional one.

It’s certainly a good idea to link the services up. It would also restore Brighouse’s second hourly service to Leeds.

You're right about pathing an extra into Manchester from Rochdale of course, and that suggestion was always going to be dependent on finding a path. As much as anything it was just a way of using the path that you've freed by merging the two services under discussion. Given how much Bradford likes to go on about being the "ginger stepchild" of West Yorkshire an additional Manchester service would go some way to make up for not being part of the TPE network.

A freed up path does not necessarily mean it has to be filled for a negligible service. Bradford - Manchester’s half hourly service is booked for 3 or 4 car 195 formations meaning somewhere between 408 and 496 seats per hour per direction and that’s before you add in all the other services connecting intermediate stops throughout the route. I honestly don’t think that particular corridor needs any additional services especially if it reduces the reliability of other services.

Either a fast could be pathed somehow - flighting 1tph - or possibly the path could be used for a second tph around the Todmorden curve? If beyond is full.

West of Tod curve is the issue. If the path must be used I’d rather see a service to Blackburn allowing for a call at Rose Grove to connect with the Colne services. It might help SELRAP to understand that the quickest way to West Yorkshire is via the existing route which they don’t seem to think exists.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A freed up path does not necessarily mean it has to be filled for a negligible service. Bradford - Manchester’s half hourly service is booked for 3 or 4 car 195 formations meaning somewhere between 408 and 496 seats per hour per direction and that’s before you add in all the other services connecting intermediate stops throughout the route. I honestly don’t think that particular corridor needs any additional services especially if it reduces the reliability of other services.

Of course, and keeping a "spare" path to allow for disruption might well be the best option. However if you could find a decent path for it I don't think a third Manchester service would be a "negligible" service. What you would really be doing is switching out a marginal service (the BDI-HUD) for one which might get closer to washing its face financially, and doing so without cutting anything in terms of what journeys are possible.