How do you solve a problem like Mirfield?

[jp4712]

Did anyone ever understand how that worked?

I think the joke went right over the heads of most people here, but I thought it was funny! For the benefit of the callow youths on the forum, I'll leave this link here: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/xml/signals/LMS-1932/index.shtml

 

[4SRKT]

Lots of youngster on here! It barely seems any time since I regularly rode on peak hauled trains diving under in both directions at Heaton Lodge!

 

[bluenoxid]

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.

My first view was direct although it would be a tunnel job. My second view is under Ossett and north to East Ardesley. I cannot remember enough of the topography round there.

 

[jimm]

My first view was direct although it would be a tunnel job. My second view is under Ossett and north to East Ardesley. I cannot remember enough of the topography round there.

Lots of tunnelling would be involved, whatever you did, but there's not a cat in hell's chance of anyone spending money on such a scheme with the idea of yet another Woodhead tunnel looming on the horizon for 'HS3' or whatever it's called this week. Chuck in high-speed links to Leeds and Sheffield at the eastern end of said tunnel, removing fast Leeds-Manchester trains from the Huddersfield route, and you have lots of paths to play with through Morley tunnel.

In the meantime, if someone wants to chuck enough money at the problem, it is perfectly possible to reinstate quadruple track all the way from Huddersfield to Thornhill LNW junction, and as said above, provide more quad track around Batley and somewhere between Morley and Leeds - at considerably less expense than trying to invent a Leeds New Line 2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

The 1860s rebuilding of the station saw the island platform built under an overall roof which also straddled the tracks passing the platform. The buildings ran the full length of the platform and contained a hotel, refreshment rooms and even a billiard room. The cellars were provided to serve these facilities.

The buildings and roof lasted until the late 1970s, though by then precious little of the buildings were in use bar the booking office and waiting room. There's a picture here showing the demolition under way in 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirfield_railway_station#/media/File:Mirfield_10_77384_1.jpg

 

[deltic08]

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!

I hope you are young enough to see it happen. I can't wait to be part of the crowd in Huddersfield.

Surely the whole point of upgrade is to increase linespeed and capacity at the same time? How can 6 fast, 2 Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers stopping at 5 stations to Ravensthorpe, 2 Leeds-Hebden Bridge trains stopping at same stations and a Leeds-Dewsbury-Rochdale-Manchester Vic semi fast fit on a two track line every hour? I would say impossible.

As Morley Tunnel prevents quad tracking, reinstating another parallel route is the only possibility by bypassing three stations Cottingley, Morley and Batley. As for cost, HS3 is estimated at £4billion to save less than 10 minutes between Manchester and Leeds. Use £250m of this funding instead and scrap HS3.

 

[jimm]

I hope you are young enough to see it happen. I can't wait to be part of the crowd in Huddersfield.

Surely the whole point of upgrade is to increase linespeed and capacity at the same time? How can 6 fast, 2 Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers stopping at 5 stations to Ravensthorpe, 2 Leeds-Hebden Bridge trains stopping at same stations and a Leeds-Dewsbury-Rochdale-Manchester Vic semi fast fit on a two track line every hour? I would say impossible.

As Morley Tunnel prevents quad tracking, reinstating another parallel route is the only possibility by bypassing three stations Cottingley, Morley and Batley. As for cost, HS3 is estimated at £4billion to save less than 10 minutes between Manchester and Leeds. Use £250m of this funding instead and scrap HS3.

You won't get much for £250m these day and certainly not a line bypassing Cottingley, Morley and Batley.

 

[deltic08]

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.

My thoughts are along similar lines, particularly Mirfield platform arrangement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You won't get much for £250m these day and certainly not a line bypassing Cottingley, Morley and Batley.

We are looking at only six miles from Farnley Junction to Batley of which over a mile is Gildersome Tunnel. One mile of new build would be required to connect former two routes south of the tunnel. £40m per mile is more than it costs to build a six lane motorway so should be enough for a two track railway.
Borders rail was about £12m/mile.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We are looking at only six miles from Farnley Junction to Batley of which over a mile is Gildersome Tunnel. One mile of new build would be required to connect former two routes south of the tunnel. £40m per mile is more than it costs to build a six lane motorway so should be enough for a two track railway.
Borders rail was about £12m/mile.

I always tend to avoid making comparisons with that particular pet project of the Scottish Government who attached a certain mode of proof of costs that so coincided with their Transport budgetary provision.

Who are those in England who need convincing that the spending of £40m/mile on the abovementioned rail project is to be on a par with other departmental spendings such as Mental Health, etc.

 

[deltic08]

I always tend to avoid making comparisons with that particular pet project of the Scottish Government who attached a certain mode of proof of costs that so coincided with their Transport budgetary provision.

Who are those in England who need convincing that the spending of £40m/mile on the abovementioned rail project is to be on a par with other departmental spendings such as Mental Health, etc.

Great Western is spending £250m on the Cotswold Line in the Prime Ministers constituency to improve capacity. He even spoke at the launch so no influence there. If it can happen in Oxfordshire why not spend the same amount for the same problem between Leeds and Batley?

West Yorkshire Combined Authority are very slow to respond to infrastructure requirements.

 

[Grumpy]

My thoughts are along similar lines, particularly Mirfield platform arrangement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We are looking at only six miles from Farnley Junction to Batley of which over a mile is Gildersome Tunnel. One mile of new build would be required to connect former two routes south of the tunnel. £40m per mile is more than it costs to build a six lane motorway so should be enough for a two track railway.
Borders rail was about £12m/mile.

A parkway station at LS27 would soon pay for all this

 

[Old Yard Dog]

On my one and only visit to Mirfield station two or three years ago, there was no information whatsoever as to which platform trains for Brighouse departed from - and no time to dash down the subway between the two westbound platforms if I got it wrong.

Has this lack of signage been rectified yet?

 

[Iskra]

On my one and only visit to Mirfield station two or three years ago, there was no information whatsoever as to which platform trains for Brighouse departed from - and no time to dash down the subway between the two westbound platforms if I got it wrong.

Has this lack of signage been rectified yet?

Yes, there is PIS now. However, they are a bit buggy.

 

[Crossover]

Yes, there is PIS now. However, they are a bit buggy.

At least they both work now!

 

[jimm]

Great Western is spending £250m on the Cotswold Line in the Prime Ministers constituency to improve capacity. He even spoke at the launch so no influence there. If it can happen in Oxfordshire why not spend the same amount for the same problem between Leeds and Batley?

West Yorkshire Combined Authority are very slow to respond to infrastructure requirements.

Maybe try reading the story about the Cotswold Line on the Oxford Mail website more carefully. GWR is not spending anything. It is all proposals at this stage, nothing more than that. They are now going to go on to build a business case.

And that's an estimated £275m to improve an existing railway line - and presumably including a few million for several extra Class 800s - not to reinstate/build part from scratch through hilly terrain in an area that is also heavily built up. It could cost that much to get a railway anywhere near Gildersome tunnel again considering how much of the approaches from Leeds have been obliterated, not least by the M62/M621 interchange. And do you know what sort of shape the tunnel is in anyway? Thought not...

 

[deltic08]

A parkway station at LS27 would soon pay for all this

Is that north or south of Gildersome Tunnel? Yes, that would be a good idea but I suggested this route for the 6 tph non-stop TPEx trains to avoid stoppers at Batley, Morley and Cottingley. There wouldn't be room for a frequent parkway stopping service and non-stop TPEx.

 

[158801]

Would there be any point upgrading the line between Leeds and Normanton / Wakefield Kirkgate / Huddersfield to allow faster journeys?

This could put Wakefield on the TPE network and reduce congestion on the line through Morley - but doesn't solve the Mirfield issue.

 

[Senex]

Would there be any point upgrading the line between Leeds and Normanton / Wakefield Kirkgate / Huddersfield to allow faster journeys?

This could put Wakefield on the TPE network and reduce congestion on the line through Morley - but doesn't solve the Mirfield issue.

A fine alignment suitable for high speed, but the distance is so much longer that even much higher speeds would never let it equal the ex-LNW route.

 

[lejog]

Would there be any point upgrading the line between Leeds and Normanton / Wakefield Kirkgate / Huddersfield to allow faster journeys?

This could put Wakefield on the TPE network and reduce congestion on the line through Morley - but doesn't solve the Mirfield issue.

In the longer term, if HS3/NPR happens and direct Manchester to Leeds traffic is removed from the line then the Huddersfield line could play a new role along with an upgraded/electrified 90mph Calder Valley line (original route) to provide better links between the major cities/towns in West Yorkshire other than Leeds - Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford and also between these places and Manchester. This was touched on recently in another thread - Leeds forms only 30% of the population of the West Yorkshire built up area and is far from its geographic centre.

As ever Bradford is the problem, I'm not sure whether the existing Halifax - Bradford line is up to this purpose or indeed is suitable geographically.

In this case, the section of the line from Dewsbury to Leeds caters only for West Yorkshire to Leeds traffic, both from the existing stations and faster services from Halifax and the Upper Calder Valley towns. Current capacity should be fine even in the long term.

In the short term, the only extra services planned for the line under the new franchises are a few Chester services a day and these are not certain. Otherwise the service from Dewsbury to Leeds remains at 7tph. While this may be a high fgure, its obviously not full to capacity - when there are delays or engineering works on the Calder Valley line it seems that Northern have been allowed to add a couple of tph to that figure. I was on a non-stop Hebden Bridge to Leeds service via Dewsbury in December.

 

[Crossover]

Is that north or south of Gildersome Tunnel? Yes, that would be a good idea but I suggested this route for the 6 tph non-stop TPEx trains to avoid stoppers at Batley, Morley and Cottingley. There wouldn't be room for a frequent parkway stopping service and non-stop TPEx.

LS27 is Churwell I think (going from memory of visiting a friend up that way). I guess the poster is driving at something around the White Rose area

 

[deltic08]

Maybe try reading the story about the Cotswold Line on the Oxford Mail website more carefully. GWR is not spending anything. It is all proposals at this stage, nothing more than that. They are now going to go on to build a business case.

And that's an estimated £275m to improve an existing railway line - and presumably including a few million for several extra Class 800s - not to reinstate/build part from scratch through hilly terrain in an area that is also heavily built up. It could cost that much to get a railway anywhere near Gildersome tunnel again considering how much of the approaches from Leeds have been obliterated, not least by the M62/M621 interchange. And do you know what sort of shape the tunnel is in anyway? Thought not...

Maybe try reading what I posted. It is not from scratch through hilly terrain. Apart from a mile where admittedly new build is required the rest of the former trackbed from Farnley Junction to Batley in still present of which over a mile is through Gildersome tunnel. From memory the M62/M621 interchange is on top of the tunnel. Do you know that the tunnel is not in good shape? Thought not...

No smoke without fire. Why have a very public launch in the presence of the Prime Minister? Why build a business case? Upgrade is either necessary or it isn't. Doesn't matter whether it is to an existing route, reinstatement or new build. Work must have been done already to come up with a costing of £250m.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the longer term, if HS3/NPR happens and direct Manchester to Leeds traffic is removed from the line then the Huddersfield line could play a new role along with an upgraded/electrified 90mph Calder Valley line (original route) to provide better links between the major cities/towns in West Yorkshire other than Leeds - Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford and also between these places and Manchester. This was touched on recently in another thread - Leeds forms only 30% of the population of the West Yorkshire built up area and is far from its geographic centre.

As ever Bradford is the problem, I'm not sure whether the existing Halifax - Bradford line is up to this purpose or indeed is suitable geographically.

In this case, the section of the line from Dewsbury to Leeds caters only for West Yorkshire to Leeds traffic, both from the existing stations and faster services from Halifax and the Upper Calder Valley towns. Current capacity should be fine even in the long term..

IF is about right for HS3. We can't wait until HS3 opens in 2040 if at all. The capacity problem with North Trans Pennine is now not in 25 years time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
At least the track from Thornhill Jnc to Heaton Lodge would be in the right place but as you say it is a much longer route and a stop at Wakefield Kirkgate would be obligatory adding to journey time.

The dogleg around the island platform at Normanton is worse than that at Mirfield. An arrangement as at Dunbar would be required here.

It would be a good idea to route 1 TPEx tph this way anyway and possibly 1tph Manchester-Huddersfield-Wakefield Kirkgate-Castleford-York avoiding Leeds.

 

[jimm]

Maybe try reading what I posted. It is not from scratch through hilly terrain. Apart from a mile where admittedly new build is required the rest of the former trackbed from Farnley Junction to Batley in still present of which over a mile is through Gildersome tunnel. From memory the M62/M621 interchange is on top of the tunnel. Do you know that the tunnel is not in good shape? Thought not...

No smoke without fire. Why have a very public launch in the presence of the Prime Minister? Why build a business case? Upgrade is either necessary or it isn't. Doesn't matter whether it is to an existing route, reinstatement or new build. Work must have been done already to come up with a costing of £250m.

Maybe you should contemplate the following web pages to see why what what you propose is a non-starter - on a monumental scale.

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/gildersome-tunnel-leeds-welcome-to-hell.t22824
http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/gallery/gildersome.html

And you'll fix all that, replace missing trackbed west of Farnley, remove all the things built on the GN line tracked at Howden Clough and Upper Batley and rebuild a railway on it, and all for £275m? As that's the figure given for the Cotswold Line, not £250m - and on a living, working railway, not needing an inch of new build, never mind an impossible tunnel reopening.

Nurse your fantasy if you like but it's never going to happen.

 

[Grumpy]

LS27 is Churwell I think (going from memory of visiting a friend up that way). I guess the poster is driving at something around the White Rose area

I was too slapdash in my posting. I meant to post JUnction 27, not Ls27. The junction being on the M62. I seem to recall the tunnel entrance was somewhere near the Showcase cinema car park hence the suggestion of a parkway station close to the motorway,perhaps on undeveloped land beyond the cinema

 

[deltic08]

Maybe you should contemplate the following web pages to see why what what you propose is a non-starter - on a monumental scale.

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/gildersome-tunnel-leeds-welcome-to-hell.t22824
http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/gallery/gildersome.html

And you'll fix all that, replace missing trackbed west of Farnley, remove all the things built on the GN line tracked at Howden Clough and Upper Batley and rebuild a railway on it, and all for £275m? As that's the figure given for the Cotswold Line, not £250m - and on a living, working railway, not needing an inch of new build, never mind an impossible tunnel reopening.

Nurse your fantasy if you like but it's never going to happen.

Why do posters always call suggestions fantasies thinking it reinforces their superiority and opposition to a suggestion. Not a fantasy. Just trying to find a practical solution to a massive problem of increasing capacity through two miles of twin track Morley Tunnel with a mix of stopping and non-stopping trains.

Despite being closed and not maintained for 50 years, apart from ingress of water and debris blocked drainage preventing water draining away, the brickwork is in excellent condition in Gildersome tunnel. Certainly not a non starter. You have shot yourself in the foot by posting photos of the tunnel condition. Drainage is easily sorted as it is on a slope.

If you are so down to earth, how would you increase capacity between Leeds and Dewsbury in the next 5-10 years as electrification won't if growth continues at 6% per annum? I have not seen a solution on here yet.

 

[jimm]

Why do posters always call suggestions fantasies thinking it reinforces their superiority and opposition to a suggestion. Not a fantasy. Just trying to find a practical solution to a massive problem of increasing capacity through two miles of twin track Morley Tunnel with a mix of stopping and non-stopping trains.

Despite being closed and not maintained for 50 years, apart from ingress of water and debris blocked drainage preventing water draining away, the brickwork is in excellent condition in Gildersome tunnel. Certainly not a non starter. You have shot yourself in the foot by posting photos of the tunnel condition. Drainage is easily sorted as it is on a slope.

If you are so down to earth, how would you increase capacity between Leeds and Dewsbury in the next 5-10 years as electrification won't if growth continues at 6% per annum? I have not seen a solution on here yet.

Maybe that's because there isn't an easy solution, hence no one has posted it.

Reopening Gildersome is a fantasy - end of story. Did you miss the bit about 30,000 tonnes of colliery waste being tipped into 528 yards of the tunnel at the west end as reinforcement, due to the weight of the motorway interchange sitting on top - waste which also buries the portal - and the picture of the large bulkhead inside the tunnel that holds all that material in place? That's on the forgottenrelics page in case you haven't seen it

How on earth anyone can look at that and suggest that you could ever run a railway through there again escapes me.

 

[deltic08]

Maybe that's because there isn't an easy solution, hence no one has posted it.

Reopening Gildersome is a fantasy - end of story. Did you miss the bit about 30,000 tonnes of colliery waste being tipped into 528 yards of the tunnel at the west end as reinforcement, due to the weight of the motorway interchange sitting on top - waste which also buries the portal - and the picture of the large bulkhead inside the tunnel that holds all that material in place? That's on the forgottenrelics page in case you haven't seen it

How on earth anyone can look at that and suggest that you could ever run a railway through there again escapes me.

There you go again with that word fantasy.

Only 30,000 tons? Network Rail has just removed 50,000 tons of hillside that slipped onto the Hexham-Carlisle line in only three weeks.

 

[jimm]

There you go again with that word fantasy.

Only 30,000 tons? Network Rail has just removed 50,000 tons of hillside that slipped onto the Hexham-Carlisle line in only three weeks.

Yes, there I go again, because I really can't think of any other word to use.

In what way is shifting a landslip out of a cutting related to digging a load of stuff out of a tunnel?

Material that was put in there precisely to reinforce the tunnel bore because of the weight of all the concrete and tarmac of the interchange sitting on top.

Take the material out and what might happen next? Answers on a postcard...

 

[Haydn1971]

Material that was put in there precisely to reinforce the tunnel bore because of the weight of all the concrete and tarmac of the interchange sitting on top.

In engineering terms, it's possible, but to what end ? The real problem is a lack of a fast route between Leeds, Manchester and importantly for me, Sheffield - in my eyes, the only reasonable option is an entirely new line allowing very high speeds and vitally, missing out the intermediate Victorian era infrastructure limitations.

Where ? I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd take a direct line from the HS2 line south of Barnsley, directly into Manchester City centre in the straightest mostly tunnelled line, popping out west of Manchester and continuing onwards to Liverpool. It's a longer route, but isolation from classic rail allows for speeds of up to 250mph - route is about 90km, at an average of 200mph, would yield the target 30 minute point to point time between Leeds and Manchester, freeing up the existing line for more stoping services.

 

[lejog]

If you are so down to earth, how would you increase capacity between Leeds and Dewsbury in the next 5-10 years as electrification won't if growth continues at 6% per annum? I have not seen a solution on here yet.

A big if there. Perhaps a 60% increase in train length from 3 car to 5 car may help? Or perhaps doubling existing 3 cars units up to 6 for the stoppers? Where are the additional services you say are necessary in the new franchise announcements? As I said the service from Dewsbury to Leeds remains at the current level of 7tph, despite there being scope for a small increase.

A decision on what upgrades necessary for the line is due in the short term (2017?). Since I doubt the taxpayer is magnanimous enough to fund both a major upgrade to the line and a new cross-Pennine tunnel effectively a choice between the two will have to be made then. And new tunnelling is an option being considered for the line.

Manchester to Leeds – All options for moving towards the 30 minute journey time ambition, including options for tunnelling where necessary to improve speeds, will be considered to inform decisions for the next rail control period (2019-24).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In engineering terms, it's possible, but to what end ? The real problem is a lack of a fast route between Leeds, Manchester and importantly for me, Sheffield - in my eyes, the only reasonable option is an entirely new line allowing very high speeds and vitally, missing out the intermediate Victorian era infrastructure limitations.

Where ? I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd take a direct line from the HS2 line south of Barnsley, directly into Manchester City centre in the straightest mostly tunnelled line, popping out west of Manchester and continuing onwards to Liverpool. It's a longer route, but isolation from classic rail allows for speeds of up to 250mph - route is about 90km, at an average of 200mph, would yield the target 30 minute point to point time between Leeds and Manchester, freeing up the existing line for more stoping services.

Neither am I a betting man, but if I were I'd bet on a new rail tunnel to be built along side the new road tunnel, whatever route is chosen. Note this is currently planned for the mid 2020s not 2040.

 

[deltic08]

A big if there. Perhaps a 60% increase in train length from 3 car to 5 car may help? Or perhaps doubling existing 3 cars units up to 6 for the stoppers? Where are the additional services you say are necessary in the new franchise announcements? As I said the service from Dewsbury to Leeds remains at the current level of 7tph, despite there being scope for a small increase.

That still leaves only one stopping service per hour between Leeds and Huddersfield (7 stations) where nearly every other route out of Leeds is between two and four.

Are 6tph between Manchester and Leeds really necessary when 4tph would do?

 

[Iskra]

That still leaves only one stopping service per hour between Leeds and Huddersfield (7 stations) where nearly every other route out of Leeds is between two and four.

Are 6tph between Manchester and Leeds really necessary when 4tph would do?

No, and that's where TPE shoot themselves in the foot by attracting more passengers than they can accommodate and vastly increasing the staffing costs. 4 longer trains per hour would make much more sense. Or do they make more on Orcats this way?