Huddersfield Station: Future

[alexl92]

TPE's capacity issues at peak times have been discussed many times before, and whilst they're not expected to get any extra trains for the York to Manchester section any time soon, it seems inevitable that at some point, longer trains will have to be used, at least at peak times.

For York, Leeds and Manchester this probably won't be a problem. However, I've noticed recently that at Huddersfield, 6-car 185 pairs take up more or less the full length of platforms 1 & 8, the through platforms that TPE use.
This means that even loco-hauled services would be limited to Loco + 4 coaches + DVT/DBSO/Loco

The station site is not large and is limited by the tunnels under Trinity Street at one end and the viaduct at the other end - so how could Huddersfield station be adapted to increase capacity? Bearing in mind that there are already calls to create more platform capacity for local services too.

As far as I can tell, you could possibly move Plat 2 back to its old position on the opposite side of the platform to where it is now, and either extend Plat 1 along there or move the line back to where it used to be, in line with the current platform 2, but the latter would create problems with platform capacity and the subway entrances/lift.

Platform 8 could, with a little re-working be extended along towards the old platform 7, now a flower bed at the Trinity Street end, but the curvature could be an issue there.

Alternatively, 1 + 4 could become through platforms with 8 going to local services. This would also fit in with plans reported some time ago by the examiner to add an extra platform opposite platform 8, where the sidings are presently. However both 1 + 4 would probably need some degree of extension.

Could the old platform 3 be re-opened as a bay for Leeds-bound services?

Really interested to hear whether anyone has any thoughts on what might be done here.

(Plans for 'Platform 9': http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-railway-station-needs-new-4930165)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

TPE's capacity issues at peak times have been discussed many times before, and whilst they're not expected to get any extra trains for the York to Manchester section any time soon, it seems inevitable that at some point, longer trains will have to be used, at least at peak times.

For York, Leeds and Manchester this probably won't be a problem. However, I've noticed recently that at Huddersfield, 6-car 185 pairs take up more or less the full length of platforms 1 & 8, the through platforms that TPE use.
This means that even loco-hauled services would be limited to Loco + 4 coaches + DVT/DBSO/Loco

The station site is not large and is limited by the tunnels under Trinity Street at one end and the viaduct at the other end - so how could Huddersfield station be adapted to increase capacity? Bearing in mind that there are already calls to create more platform capacity for local services too.

As far as I can tell, you could possibly move Plat 2 back to its old position on the opposite side of the platform to where it is now, and either extend Plat 1 along there or move the line back to where it used to be, in line with the current platform 2, but the latter would create problems with platform capacity and the subway entrances/lift.

Platform 8 could, with a little re-working be extended along towards the old platform 7, now a flower bed at the Trinity Street end, but the curvature could be an issue there.

Alternatively, 1 + 4 could become through platforms with 8 going to local services. This would also fit in with plans reported some time ago by the examiner to add an extra platform opposite platform 8, where the sidings are presently. However both 1 + 4 would probably need some degree of extension.

Could the old platform 3 be re-opened as a bay for Leeds-bound services?

Really interested to hear whether anyone has any thoughts on what might be done here.

(Plans for 'Platform 9': http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-railway-station-needs-new-4930165)

I've wondered about this myself...

Platform One I think could be extended towards Leeds by perhaps a carriage length or two, but doing so would rule out reviving the old platform three. However platform three would require a conflicting move for departures towards Leeds and could probably only hold 3x23m anyway, so probably won't happen. At the Sheffield/Manchester end there's the old carriage (which recently had its own thread) in the original platform two, but that’s not insurmountable. It would probably need the old portal under Westgate (not Trinity Street ) reopening to allow it to be a reasonable length, but that would allow platform one to be extended a good 46m. The starter signal would need moving, but if we're rebuilding the platforms that much the whole station would need resignalling anyway.

On the island, like you say the curvature of the current platform eight means extension towards the West would be tricky. There's some room for realignment but not much. If platform nine (or rather seven, as they'd likely be renumbered) is built there's not a huge amount of room to extend the current 8 at that end, but it doesn't look as though it would be impossible.
Ideally the two bays (5&6) could be extended, there appears (to my untrained eyes) to be at least some wiggle-room. In the future, Mk3-based EMUs will likely be running the local services to Leeds, so 80m would be ideal. The current platform five is only 40m or so, too short even for a 3-car 144.

 

[Wild Swan]

Operationally, there are benefits to keeping the through trains on 1 and 8 with terminators sandwiched between in 4, 5 and 6 to reduce the number of conflicting movements. There is some scope to extend platform 1 towards Leeds, but not a great deal - but you could accommodate 8x23m and lengthen platform 2 in its current guise to accommodate 3x23m on the Penistone Line.

Platform 8 has a disused section at the west end which could be reactivated subject to building clearances from the signal box and relay room. Extending 4, 5, 6 and 8 at the east end is possible, but would entail extensive remodelling on the bridge deck at the east end. There is room to do this, but it might require substantial strengthening work to the bridge, as only part of the formation is currently in use.

Mid-platform signals on platform 4 would enable better use by terminating services from east and west, without having to come in on position light signals as now.

Additional platform(s) to the north of platform 8 aren't under active consideration as they don't really provide the solution.

 

[Grumpy]

Well in early diesel days it managed with class 40's plus 10 coaches on the Newcastle-Liverpool trains

 

[alexl92]

Well in early diesel days it managed with class 40's plus 10 coaches on the Newcastle-Liverpool trains

That's well before the station was reconfigured twice. In current format, 6 (maybe 7 at a stretch) is the absolute maximum it could take.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You might get 8x20m, which would have been the length of carriages in Mk1/Mk2 days.

 

[Senex]

Operationally, there are benefits to keeping the through trains on 1 and 8 with terminators sandwiched between in 4, 5 and 6 to reduce the number of conflicting movements.

There's a conflict between the operational benefit which is just as you say and the lousy alignment into and out of platform 8 which imposes unnecessary very slow speeds on TPE services. This is a disadvantage even with all trains stopping in Huddersfield, and would be significantly more of a time-waster if any trains ever do offer non-stop Manchester-Leeds running. (Platform 1 is reasonable and could be better from the east and could very easily be significantly better heading out to the west.)

 

[alexl92]

You might get 8x20m, which would have been the length of carriages in Mk1/Mk2 days.

Does that include the loco though?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Does that include the loco though?

Would it need to stop adjacent to the platform? Could it not go past the end a bit? The driver wouldn't normally need to get off (and in any case there'd be steps for that eventuality).

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I thought platform 1 could hold up to no more than nine coaches (3x 185's)?

The best thing to do would be to rebuild the station - so that platform 1 would include the current platform 2 which would be renumbered as platform 1 (so a single length platform).

Trains from Sheffield would be permanently diverted into platform 4a / 4b, ultimately renumber that as platform 2, retain that as bi-di and extend at the eastern end where the crossing use to be to lift the platform height.

Current platforms 5, 6 and 8 - renumber them as 3, 4 and 5 and make 5 (8) bi-di. Then where the sidings are, build two island bay platforms (numbered as 6, 7, 8 and 9) . Extend the Sheffield service to Marsden in order to keep the new platform 2 (4a / 4b) free. Platform 3 (5) for off peak Wakefield Shuttle, peak shuttles from 4 (6). Services to Halifax could go from the new platform 6 and platforms 7, 8 and 9 can be then used by the Leeds stoppers along with any new terminating services at Huddersfield.

 

[edwin_m]

Looks to me as if platforms 8 could be extended eastwards by quite a bit if the sidings were rearranged and 8 realigned to pick up approximately the line of what is now the nearest siding track over John William Street and marge back into the Down line via a reasonable speed turnout beyond. I'm not sure if the bridge girder is high enough to project through the platform surface though. Doing this and abolishing 5 would also allow 6 to be extended. I presume this is something like the modification Wild Swan is suggesting.

The aerial mapping isn't too clear at the west end but it looks as if there was a short bay that could be infilled to extend 8 across it. I agree the original bay could be restored for Penistone trains and platform 2 infilled to extend platform 1 westwards.

 

[55z]

Such speculation. It would be difficult to rebuild as the whole station is listed (grade 1* the main building and grade 2 the older buildings on platforms 4& 8. The plan is to extend platform 1 towards Leeds and shorten at the Marsden end so that Platform 2 bay can take longer trains. Platforms 5 & 6 to be extended to take 4 car units (EMU) towards Leeds with platform 8 being straightened at the Leeds end to enable Platform 6 to be extended and there is always Selective Door Operation.

 

[9K43]

It is not so long ago that the original number 1 platform was taken away, I spent many hours at Huddersfield messing about with with track upto Standage Tunnel.
This was dequading the lines up to this tunnel into double track. I think that whoever did this was barmy.
there was 4 tunnels at Marsden, and some one deicied to give just one.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The suggestion that P1 could be narrowed, with the track serving it in line with the current P2, would probably not be possible due to the new staircase to the subway. It also wouldn't be desirable, as Huddersfield is recommended as the Interchange point for Newcastle/Hull/Scarborough journeys to Manchester Airport, being the only guaranteed same-platform change. Narrowing this platform would increase congestion and possibly be a safety risk. I'm also unsure what the gain would be, there's no need for a non-platform line but the space created would not be wide enough for a new island platform to be created even if listed building consent could be granted. Westbound trains would also need a dogleg to serve P1, which recreates one of the issues with the Eastbound line.
I may be biased, but I'd also argue that there's no case for skipping the stop at HUD, especially if HS3 happens which most likely won't serve Huddersfield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not so long ago that the original number 1 platform was taken away, I spent many hours at Huddersfield messing about with with track upto Standage Tunnel.
This was dequading the lines up to this tunnel into double track. I think that whoever did this was barmy.
there was 4 tunnels at Marsden, and some one deicied to give just one.

I don't think the changes at Huddersfield were "barmy", as I stated above the old platform 1 was rather narrow, and Sheffield services had to cross the Up main to access P4 (once the original P2 was taken OOU). On Standedge, there was a plan to reopen the two single bores but this was superceded by the electrification decision. I'm not sure how easy they'd be to wire, an and one of them is used for emergency access to both the canal tunnel and the live rail tunnel. Whether this could be maintained with trains running (some sort of tramway style surface perhaps?) would be difficult. As for reducing the route to double track, it did allow linespeeds to be raised, though whether some extra overtaking opportunities could have been retained is worth considering.

 

[Tomnick]

I thought platform 1 could hold up to no more than nine coaches (3x 185's)?

The best thing to do would be to rebuild the station - so that platform 1 would include the current platform 2 which would be renumbered as platform 1 (so a single length platform).

Trains from Sheffield would be permanently diverted into platform 4a / 4b, ultimately renumber that as platform 2, retain that as bi-di and extend at the eastern end where the crossing use to be to lift the platform height.

Thus introducing a conflict between those trains, twice an hour, and five or six westbound TPE trains. Is the existing trailing crossover within the overlap for trains arriving in P1 from the east? That'd compound the issue to the point of unworkability. Far better to look at whether it's possible to extend the existing P1 and relocate the existing Penistone bay behind it (as it used to be?).

Current platforms 5, 6 and 8 - renumber them as 3, 4 and 5 and make 5 (8) bi-di. Then where the sidings are, build two island bay platforms (numbered as 6, 7, 8 and 9) . Extend the Sheffield service to Marsden in order to keep the new platform 2 (4a / 4b) free.

The sum of the platform occupation of the two reversals wouldn't be too far off the existing platform occupation of the Sheffield service! I'd guess that there's not much flexibility in the pathing over the single line, so they're almost certainly stuck with that pattern through the day - i.e. not enough time to go to Marsden and back.

Platform 3 (5) for off peak Wakefield Shuttle, peak shuttles from 4 (6). Services to Halifax could go from the new platform 6 and platforms 7, 8 and 9 can be then used by the Leeds stoppers along with any new terminating services at Huddersfield.

That'd mean that arrivals would conflict with eastbound through services, whereas at present they can run into 4, 5 and 6 in parallel with the latter. A new island (6 and 7 by your numbering, or 9 and 10 following on from the existing numbering) and a bit of remodelling at the east end might, however, allow terminating trains to run into the existing 8 (and possibly the additional 9) in parallel with through trains on the far side of that additional island though.

Generally, it's far better to concentrate through services on the outer platforms in each direction, and use the 'middle' platforms for terminating services - with the exception of the Penistone bay which is best kept largely independent of the rest of the operation.

I'm not sure that mid-platform signals on the existing platform 4 would help much either, although I can certainly see why they've been proposed. The lack of overlap (with the further half of the platform occupied) would almost certainly require a delayed yellow at the signal in rear anyway, so it wouldn't be much less restrictive than the existing arrangement - and rather less flexible in terms of the positioning of trains to accommodate strengthened sets too.

 

[Iskra]

Operationally, there are benefits to keeping the through trains on 1 and 8 with terminators sandwiched between in 4, 5 and 6 to reduce the number of conflicting movements. There is some scope to extend platform 1 towards Leeds, but not a great deal - but you could accommodate 8x23m and lengthen platform 2 in its current guise to accommodate 3x23m on the Penistone Line.

Platform 8 has a disused section at the west end which could be reactivated subject to building clearances from the signal box and relay room. Extending 4, 5, 6 and 8 at the east end is possible, but would entail extensive remodelling on the bridge deck at the east end. There is room to do this, but it might require substantial strengthening work to the bridge, as only part of the formation is currently in use.

Mid-platform signals on platform 4 would enable better use by terminating services from east and west, without having to come in on position light signals as now.

Additional platform(s) to the north of platform 8 aren't under active consideration as they don't really provide the solution.

That seems the obvious solution to me. Turn one of the DMU stabling sidings into a through line with a long platform. The only problem here would be disabled access I think.

In the other direction it wouldn't be too hard to extend P1 Eastwards if you were prepared to spend some money.

Job done.

 

[Wild Swan]

if you were prepared to spend some money.

The CP5 Delivery Plan includes expenditure of £13-15m on Huddersfield Station capacity. Works on the bridge at the east end could easily swallow a big chunk of that if strengthening works are found to be necessary. Similarly with platform 9, the subway would need to be extended beneath platform 8 to serve the new platform. I don't know what that would cost, but it's unlikely to be cheap. I seem to recall (but could be wrong) that with platform 9 there were problems fitting in a suitably long platform on a suitably fast alignment.

 

[DarloRich]

The CP5 Delivery Plan includes expenditure of £13-15m on Huddersfield Station capacity.

that wont buy you the kind of works being suggested here