Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by GRALISTAIR, 9 Aug 2013.
Thanks and thanks Tim_UK, its great to see a bit more of the detail of these plans!
Taken from 'Station Boards' , 'Huddersfield to Westtown (Dewsbury) Phase 2. https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/huddersfield-to-westtown-dewsbury-phase-2/
Thank you halifaxlad. I have just looked at the Consultation using the link you kindly provided. It looks well explained, including the choices and their effects- eg houses to go or not (forgotten where that was-sorry!- esp for whoever is rendered homeless thereby).
Hoping to see more of this level of investment in 'levelling up', whether with flyovers or diveunders or not.
I really don't want them to keep that roof, it's awful and makes the station look nowhere near as good as it can be. Perfect opportunity to give Huddersfield a proper roof.
It’s apparently of “historical significance”
But should it have an overall roof or would it be better with canopies over the platforms instead ?
As long as they clean it up and reglaze it, including the smoke ventilation gap which is now over platform 1!
Are you talking about the existing trainshed roof, or the proposed new canopy designs?
Siemens has won the contract to provide Traffic Management for the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade.
This is as part of the ECML re-signalling project, where they have a similar role.
They have also won the very large contract for the ETCS level 2 re-signalling on the southern part of the ECML (King's Cross-Stoke Summit).
This will roll out in the next decade and remove lineside signals, with all rolling stock fitted for ETCS.
Unless it has escaped me, I haven't noticed a contract award for the TP re-signalling itself - probably still in development.
But Siemens must be in pole position for this as well.
It isn't clear how much of the TP route is involved, it might be all of it (Liverpool-York), or just the eastern section (Stalybridge-York, ie just the area to be controlled by York ROC).
I thought that signals were removed at ETCS level3 not level2!
The Cambrian is level 2 and has had signals removed, and it's the same on various high speed lines in Europe.
Presumably it's a design choice to retain fixed signals or not.
Off-topic for the TP scheme though, until we discover what signalling is proposed.
It's the fixed blocks that are removed when upgrading from ETCS Level 2 to Level 3.
At Level 2 the signals are optional. If fitted they allow non-ETCS trains to run, though possibly at lower frequencies because the ETCS blocks can be shorter than the blocks between signals. This is the case on the Thameslink core, whereas on the Cambrian there are no signals and only ETCS-fitted trains can operate.
For TP they could remove the signals between Stalybridge and Huddersfield and fit all of the TPE fleet with the necessary equipment (all except the 185s should already have the necessary equipment space and connections). The only other user will be freight, which is to be fitted under a separate nationwide programme. Further east and west it gets a lot more difficult, as if Northern keep their current random unit allocation most of their fleet would need to be fitted in case it found itself on that route.
Except that DFT currently anticipate the Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers to revert to Northern in the medium term. Recent platform extensions between Stalybridge and Huddersfield are designed to accommodate 4-car Class 150s.
Sigh. They'll probably finish those just as the 150s rust away entirely. I suppose that might be about the time the 769s come into service though - any other 4-car would be too long.
As the 150s and 769s share the same Mk3 body shell, won't they meet the same fate at the same time? Besides, they received rust repair work whilst they were being refurbished.
Back on topic, most of these platforms should easily accommodate a 4 car 23 meter EMU - I think they can accommodate a 6 coach 185, perhaps someone who has access to a sectional appendix can prove me wrong.
No access to the Sectional appendix, but as a regular passenger at Slaithwaite, I can assure you that the platforms do not accommodate 6-car 185s. They have been extended for 4x24m sets. I was recently on a 6-car service from Hull when all passengers in the rear set were made to move to the front at Huddersfield, as the train crew had not yet had appropriate SDO training.
The 319s were built a few years later I think, and the bodyshells may last a bit longer without the constant vibration from the diesel engine (before they were converted to 769s).
I presume therefore that all other stations have been extended to a similar length where feasible, so should be compatible with 4-car units of any class likely to use them.
Why do we persist in only building a platform to fit a specific unit type and quantity?
Should it not be that the platforms are built to match not just the quantity of coaches but should also be built to match the longest example of any stock in use.
So by the above exampes a 4 car platform should be built to accomodate a 4 car Eurostar equivalent, rather than a 4 car 150.
I think future proofing is what you call it.
May be off topic but move if you need to.
I'm assuming your Eurostar example is hyperbole, but the 4-car 170-equivalent (NOT 150) length was planned some time back. It allows 6-car 185s to call with both units in use, by using selective door opening.
East of Huddersfield the platforms at local stations will mostly need rebuilding and moving, so the interim solution of 4-car platforms was less wasteful than building an extra 50m of platform for at most 5 years of use and only a handful of services using the whole length each day.
They built the platforms extensions pretty quickly. They could add a bit more on if there was a need and if there is room.
I don't think they need to be longer if they can get the Selective Door Opening in proper use.
And I agree, for a long term capacity uplift the stations will need rebuilding with platforms on the Slow lines or in loops. (purely speculative, I know of no plans, but it might be a logical next step after the Westtown to Huddersfield work is done.)
You extend to what you expect usage is likely to be in the design timeframe - I’d argue that 4 carriage stoppers would be a reasonable at this point, 6 carriage stoppers are many years, probably decades away... it’s like road building, you build a new road for 20-25 year forecast, you don’t build a motorway where a two lane dual carriageway will do this job for 20-30yrs forecast
Yeah but, no but...
The discussion was originally around ECTS between Manchester and Huddersfield, and the speculation that only Class 185 units would have to be retrofitted.
If Northern are to operate on the route, ECTS compatibility would be more complicated, since all their stock tends to be diagrammed on a wide variety of routes.
And... far from being many decades away, 6-car stoppers are already in operation
However we have no idea either how long the pandemic will last or how long it will take afterwards for numbers to recover
I don't think that's a reason to stop everything until we have some idea what is going to happen, and delay the project by yet more months or years. The design work is under way and the people doing it might as well carry on with something that will almost certainly be useful in the long term, when the alternative would be to lay them off so they end up being paid for doing nothing. While we will need more people in various roles to tackle the current situation, railway engineers don't have any particular aptitude for those roles and there is a surplus of workers displaced from other sectors, some more directly relevant, who can be re-deployed.
Once the electrification from Huddersfield to Leeds is completed, a Northern-operated stopper would clearly not be resourced from today's Northern fleet. The current Northern/OLR "quasi-franchise" will have elapsed by then, and it will be a future franchise (if franchises survive at all) that will be responsible for providing stock for such a service.
The provision of the Huddersfield to Leeds locals will likely involve input from a future devolved authority/mayor anyway.
The current 6-car stoppers are the result of the emergency timetable due to COVID-19. Without those changes there would be very few 6-car workings calling at places like Marsden and Mirfield.
Cos we're the United Kingdom, and that's how we roll.
'Just in time' is the state religion & over-capacity & contingency are deadly sins.
That's why our trains are overcrowded & none of our supermarkets currently have sufficient stockrooms to cope with a modest jump in demand.
Oh come on. Near trebling, which is what has been seen for some products, is not a ‘modest jump’.
Not strictly correct.
Hull - Manchester Piccadilly services currently do all stops between Huddersfield and Manchester in the peaks. From last December, both of the stoppers (Man - Hud and Hud - Leeds) were supposed to also go to six cars. This wasn’t possible due to Platform 0 not being built on time at Leeds and TPE not having enough spare Cl185s.
From May, the MAN - HUD stopper has been extended to Wakefield Kirkgate. This is to allow it to run as 6 cars (as there isn’t enough capacity at HUD). Leeds will have to wait until there is adequate platform capacity. This is something that RNP are very keen to see as there is definitely sufficient demand at peak.
Could this be extended from Wakefield to Leeds to satisfy the TPE franchise agreement of 6tph between Leeds and Manchester? Or is this theory completely unrealistic due to a lack of platform space at Leeds? Still good for Wakefield to have a direct service to Manchester.
By the way, due the current three car Huddersfield to Manchester shuttles get busy by Stalybridge?