How do you solve a problem like Mirfield?

[lejog]

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.

You are evading the question. Where are the additional services you say are necessary in the new franchise announcements? There are of course aren't any, the ITT didn't specify any extra services, it specified extra seats. The winning bidders specified longer trains not extra trains. It's my opinion that that your plan is a solution lacking any sort of requirement in the short term, medium term or long term.

Anyway, rarely have I seen so much misinformation in one short sentence. There won't be any stopping services between Huddersfield and Leeds under the new franchises - however there will be 2 TPE skip/stop services plus a Northern skip/stop service from Mirfield to Leeds. According to the ITTs there will be the following calling patterns.

Deighton 1tph + 1 to Wakefield
Mirfield 2tph + 1 to Wakefield
Ravensthorpe 1tph
Dewsbury 4tph
Batley 2tph
Morley 2tph
Cottingley 1tph

This seems reasonable enough given passenger numbers at each stop - Deighton, Ravensthorpe and Cottingley have <100k passengers a year.

Which lines into Leeds will have 4 stopping services per hour? As far as I can see none have more than 2tph - Harrogate (2 fast, 2 stopping), Ilkley(2), Skipton(2), Bradford Forster Square(2), Calder Valley (4 Northern Connect, 2 stopping), Doncaster (1), Castleford (2) and Micklefield (2).

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

I have no idea how many services are necessary between Leeds and Manchester - I am content to leave that to the planners/the TOCs etc. Those that know the passenger figures.

 

[deltic08]

You are evading the question. Where are the additional services you say are necessary in the new franchise announcements? There are of course aren't any, the ITT didn't specify any extra services, it specified extra seats. The winning bidders specified longer trains not extra trains. It's my opinion that that your plan is a solution lacking any sort of requirement in the short term, medium term or long term.

Anyway, rarely have I seen so much misinformation in one short sentence. There won't be any stopping services between Huddersfield and Leeds under the new franchises - however there will be 2 TPE skip/stop services plus a Northern skip/stop service from Mirfield to Leeds. According to the ITTs there will be the following calling patterns.

Deighton 1tph + 1 to Wakefield
Mirfield 2tph + 1 to Wakefield
Ravensthorpe 1tph
Dewsbury 4tph
Batley 2tph
Morley 2tph
Cottingley 1tph

This seems reasonable enough given passenger numbers at each stop - Deighton, Ravensthorpe and Cottingley have <100k passengers a year.

Which lines into Leeds will have 4 stopping services per hour? As far as I can see none have more than 2tph - Harrogate (2 fast, 2 stopping), Ilkley(2), Skipton(2), Bradford Forster Square(2), Calder Valley (4 Northern Connect, 2 stopping), Doncaster (1), Castleford (2) and Micklefield (2).

Not evading any questions. You are not accepting current facts that you have already stated in this post.

It has been publicly stated for the last six or seven years to my knowledge that Northern wished to introduce 2tph between Leeds and Huddersfield but were unable to because TPEx hogged all the paths. This is why Cottingley, Ravensthorpe and Deighton only have 1tph to/from Leeds and why footfall is low at these stations.

There isn't room in the timetable to stop at Cottingley and Ravensthorpe in the Leeds-Dewsbury-Calder Valley service because of the following TPEx service. Reducing TPEx to only 4 tph would assist this aim. Combining/dividing Hull and York at Leeds would be a start.

As you have mentioned Doncaster, there is only 1tph Leeds-Doncaster also because of capacity issues, again publicised in the Yorkshire Post by Network Rail. With so many stations on the route, 2tph is desirable and would have been implemented had there been paths. There are 2tph between Adwick and Doncaster which is South Yorkshire.

Quad tracking from Adwick to Doncaster would not only allow 2tph stoppers from Leeds but also reduce East Coast journey time between Leeds and Doncaster by allowing overtaking.

You question which radial routes out of Leeds have 4tph? Just look at a timetable. But to spell it out to you, the Aire Valley between Bradford and Shipley, Shipley and Skipton and between Ilkley and Guiseley. When Kirkstall Forge is fully developed in a few years time, Leeds-Shipley may also see 4tph stopping trains.

This is why growth on Aire Valley routes is soaring.

Leeds-Harrogate will see 4 tph from December 2017 not currently as you state.

 

[Jezza]

I am sorry to be joining the party at a late stage, but there seems to be some side-stepping of our local politicians by network rail which is a cause for concern
My personal view is that although high speeds are technically possible with much investment, however the relatively short distance between Leeds and Manchester would mean time savings would be only moderate.
The problem that prevail is more to do with capacity. High speed is fine and the advantages are more to do with predictable speeds and headways.
Contemporary main lines are at the mercy of a tightly worked timetable so if your train misses it's booked "slot" then crawling behind a stopper negates any advantage of speed enhancements.
Although Mirfield has and will always be a critical site within the northern Transpennine route, the whole railway suffers from limited overtaking points which coupled with the many and varied originating stations / destinations means there is little capacity to increase the service to the local community.
The main problem with delays is not speed per se but the inability to overtake,
I agree with previous correspondence that to increase line speeds significantly a massive investment would be necessary with a significant amount of new railway. However it should be relatively easy to optimise timings by increasing the opportunities to overtake.
As there are to be improvements at Huddersfield, which I presume will not alter to the overall arrangement of having the fast lines on the outside of the formation.
Four tracking is essential from Huddersfield to a point east of Ravensthorpe (just short of the bridge over the Calder River). Deighton and Ravensthorpe stations would be island platforms in the Centre. A Bi-Di 5th line From Huddersfield to Bradley Junction to serve the Calder valley, with or without separate platform at Deighton.
At Heaton Lodge Junction, where the Calder Valley Line meets the Huddersfield Line, either the second bore of the dive under for the former Leeds New line would be relaid to take the slow line, creating a grade separated junction at Heaton Lodge, or the formation could be eased to create the same with higher speeds with new tunnel(s)
Mirfield station (formerly six platforms and an overall roof, hotel and billiard room!) would remain an island platform (or two if increased service volumes are envisaged!) serving stoppers and all Calder Valley services.
The current Eastbound face could be trimmed to allow the Fast line to pass unhindered on the outside while accommodating the stoppers.
21st Century access could be provided including lift and escalators etc. in the centre and serious consideration to retail facilities at Platform level.
West bound services would use the other face and with reduction of the excessive platform width the whole formation would not be as broad including the fast Westbound Line which would be plain line from The Calder River Bridge west of Dewsbury (approx 33 miles from Manchester) to Huddersfield EXCEPT for:
Thornhill LNW junction! The savings in pointwork in the above plan could be spent on a flyover carrying the Westbound fast line over / under the original L&Y line to Healey Mills. This would allow a simple double junction at Thornhill more or less as now.
The savings in width of the permanent way formation at the station would allow a massive increase in parking. The existing space could be expanded, a retaining wall away from the tracks and the abandonment of Platform 3 could more than double the capacity. The carpark could then be extended parallel to the track westwards, using the redundant railway bridge all the way along past the limit of the platforms.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Now what about Tram train from Huddersfield to Marsden on a re-laid Bi-Di with passing loops?
Why has connecting Bradford Forster Square to Interchange never been suggested? this would avoid every train having to pass through Leeds from Manchester and the majority of West Yorkshire to get North/ LB Airport?

 

[JohnB57]

Why has connecting Bradford Forster Square to Interchange never been suggested? this would avoid every train having to pass through Leeds from Manchester and the majority of West Yorkshire to get North/ LB Airport?

I think this possibly sums up the research behind your undoubtedly well meaning but, frankly, fantasy post. There is neither the political will nor the money to justify 99% of what you propose.

Various schemes for Bradford have been discussed for many years, including on these forums. Maybe hit Google a bit harder?

However, welcome!

 

[AndyW33]

Why has connecting Bradford Forster Square to Interchange never been suggested? this would avoid every train having to pass through Leeds from Manchester and the majority of West Yorkshire to get North/ LB Airport?

It has been suggested frequently for well over a century, starting long before Interchange even existed, when Exchange was still open, and ever since.
There are significant problems with differences in levels that make it a lot harder than looking at a map would suggest. Try arriving by train at Interchange down the steep gradient and then walking to Forster Square and you'll understand better. A viaduct right across the city centre would be inevitable. Of course in the present state of Bradford City Centre it might be seen as an improvement.
Back in pre-nationalisation days nobody could make a financial case for it even with generous government funding for unemployment relief in the 1930s, and nobody has ever been able to make a financial case for it since.
The arrival of Leeds-Bradford Airport might I suppose have made a difference had anyone been able to fund a rail link into the airport from the Ilkley line, and were the airport big enough to draw passengers from a wider area than it does. As it is, LBA had 3.4 million passengers arriving or departing last year, as against MAN's 23.0 million. Is it any wonder that the focus is on providing links to MAN?

Links to the North not via Leeds - well, given stock and paths, there's nothing whatever to prevent trains from either the Hebden Bridge or Huddersfield lines continuing through Wakefield to York and points north without going near Leeds. Come to that a service could start at Interchange, serve Halifax and go that way too. Yes, this doesn't provide a link to the Settle & Carlisle or Morecambe lines, but just how many people would use it if provided?

 

[Crossover]

As an aside, the island has finally been fixed!

The first photo was taken on Sat 20th Feb (I did take some the night before but it was off the last train so it was dark)

The second photo was taken on Sunday 28th Feb off the last train. I had departed Mirfield at lunchtime on Fri 26th and it looked similar to the photo of the 20th but with metal stake like things in a line so it all happened fairly quickly over the weekend to part finish it. Just the steps were left to sort after my last visit a week or so ago

 

[deltic08]

It has been suggested frequently for well over a century, starting long before Interchange even existed, when Exchange was still open, and ever since.
There are significant problems with differences in levels that make it a lot harder than looking at a map would suggest. Try arriving by train at Interchange down the steep gradient and then walking to Forster Square and you'll understand better. A viaduct right across the city centre would be inevitable. Of course in the present state of Bradford City Centre it might be seen as an improvement.

The difference in height between original Forster Sq. buffer stops and Exchange buffer stops was only 15-20 feet. Exchange station was a lot lower than Interchange is now and there was no problem with a Black 5 lifting 8 coaches up the slope to St Dunstans.

Connecting the two stations would not have created a significant problem with gradient.

Try walking now from the Law Courts to Forster Sq. is a better comparison than from Interchange.

 

[AndyW33]

Connecting the two stations would not have created a significant problem with gradient.

Try walking now from the Law Courts to Forster Sq. is a better comparison than from Interchange.

The issue was and is that the streets in the city centre have to be crossed somehow. Obviously this couldn't be at street level so the only possibilities were tunnel or viaduct.
The viaduct would have worked fine physically from a railway point of view (and still could), but would have involved purchasing and demolishing a large number of buildings. The proposal that came closest to being built, and did get parliamentary approval in the early years of the last century, was a viaduct. There's probably less preventing a viaduct being built now than there has been for many years as many of the buildings in the way have been removed for other reasons.

For a tunnel, the 15-20 ft height difference meant that the gradient down from St Dunstans would need to be considerably steepened to not only lose that difference, but get sufficient clearance for the line to get below street level before leaving the Exchange site.

Emerging from tunnel, or dropping down from viaduct isn't a problem at the Forster Square end where the line is close enough to level.

So the problem that remains is that the City Council doesn't want a viaduct, although there doesn't seem to be a lot going on with the vacant land much of it could cross, that nobody has come up with a convincing plan for train services to use it that doesn't inconvenience at least as many people as it benefits, and of course that the routes into Interchange need to be electrified as part of the project to make through running across Bradford a reality. No doubt they will be eventually anyway, but it all adds to the cost.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think this possibly sums up the research behind your undoubtedly well meaning but, frankly, fantasy post. There is neither the political will nor the money to justify 99% of what you propose.

Various schemes for Bradford have been discussed for many years, including on these forums. Maybe hit Google a bit harder?

However, welcome!

Some of the things Jezza suggested would be useful and indeed do-able, but the whole lot was a bit extreme. As for Bradford Crossrail that's just the ultimate crayonista dream, the main reason it won't happen is not the cost or disruption but because there's no real demand for the journeys it would enable. Avoiding Leeds is something that could be done today by running via Castleford but it doesn't happen because Leeds is the main draw on this side of the hills.

As an aside, the island has finally been fixed!

The first photo was taken on Sat 20th Feb (I did take some the night before but it was off the last train so it was dark)

The second photo was taken on Sunday 28th Feb off the last train. I had departed Mirfield at lunchtime on Fri 26th and it looked similar to the photo of the 20th but with metal stake like things in a line so it all happened fairly quickly over the weekend to part finish it. Just the steps were left to sort after my last visit a week or so ago

Just wait until the next heavy rain and it starts sinking again. They've barely scratched the surface of the structural issues beneath the island!

 

[deltic08]

Some of the things Jezza suggested would be useful and indeed do-able, but the whole lot was a bit extreme. As for Bradford Crossrail that's just the ultimate crayonista dream, the main reason it won't happen is not the cost or disruption but because there's no real demand for the journeys it would enable. Avoiding Leeds is something that could be done today by running via Castleford but it doesn't happen because Leeds is the main draw on this side of the hills.

There is plenty of demand for travel from Aire Valley to Calder Valley and at the moment it requires a hike on foot across Bradford in all weathers or travel via a congested Leeds.

Turnround time of trains at both Bradford stations would be more than halved by through running. Annual time savings could be enormous in increased productivity of trains and crew. The value could be greater than the cost of construction.

I don't understand your reference to Castleford in relation to a cross Bradford rail connection saving a journey via Leeds.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There is plenty of demand for travel from Aire Valley to Calder Valley and at the moment it requires a hike on foot across Bradford in all weathers or travel via a congested Leeds.

Turnround time of trains at both Bradford stations would be more than halved by through running. Annual time savings could be enormous in increased productivity of trains and crew. The value could be greater than the cost of construction.

I don't understand your reference to Castleford in relation to a cross Bradford rail connection saving a journey via Leeds.

Jezza mentioned avoiding Leeds, and cited Bradford Crossrail as a solution to travel via Leeds- quite what Bradford Crossrail has to do with issues of capacity via Mirfield is a mystery to me too but that's what I was responding to. Avoiding Leeds via Castleford is marginally more relevant to this thread, but still not really worthwhile considering the amount of traffic Leeds generates.