• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
Good to see the process continuing - looking good that we'll start seeing some work in the near future. Just looking at the plans though, I can't help but think they have missed a chance to future proof Huddersfield station with an additional bay platform.

Given post TRU there's going to be 2 x stoppers to Leeds an hour, a Bradford service, Wakefield service, along with up to 6 fasts an hour, it seems strange to me not to have an additional bay - just in case.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Good to see the process continuing - looking good that we'll start seeing some work in the near future. Just looking at the plans though, I can't help but think they have missed a chance to future proof Huddersfield station with an additional bay platform.

Given post TRU there's going to be 2 x stoppers to Leeds an hour, a Bradford service, Wakefield service, along with up to 6 fasts an hour, it seems strange to me not to have an additional bay - just in case.

I think it did say an additional bay platform facing Leeds was being added?
 

Tim_UK

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Messages
151
So reading the consultation documents, the key bits that pop out:
  • Temporary platforms at Hillhouse are mentioned
  • Hillhouse will have permanent sidings for train stabling with facilities for train drivers. (track layout not shown in the diagrams though)
  • John William Street Bridge - seems like the are doing a pretty much like for like replacement as far as cars and pedestrians. All the narrowings and central pillars gone
  • Electrification will go through the tunnels (3 tracks shown, 2 Marsden, 1 Sheffield)
  • Deighton station seems simpler - same location as existing station, no houses going.
  • New bridge for Leeds road (I don't remember that last time)
  • I think the Mirfield station plans are simplified. Looks like less of a complete re-build ?
  • At Ravensthorpe, the fast lines to Leeds will go over the top of the Wakefield lines and then land in the middle of the Leeds slow lines.
I'm presuming the tunnels are being wired because the station will be shut for so long.

One is, but the two current Leeds-facing bays (5&6) will be filled in. 5 isn't a great loss as it's only short though.

There will be the same number of platforms as currently, 6. Currently 3 through platforms, 2 Leeds bays and 1 sheffield bay.

New plan is 4 through platforms, 1 Leeds bay, 1 sheffield bay.

And they will all be really long. I think the new bay will be around 3 times longer than the current platform 6 - so a gain in space. (that's a rough guess from looking at the plans and google maps)
 
Last edited:

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
I think it did say an additional bay platform facing Leeds was being added?

One is being built, but I wonder why not build two? Future proofs the station for a very long time, especially as there's plans for another fast service and stopping service through Huddersfield. Who knows, Horbury curve may reappear and new opportunity for a direct fast service to Sheffield? Obivously with everything there's a Covid caveat but, TRU won't be done until the end of the decade I believe, so who knows where we will be.

Anyway, that's just nit picking and conjecture by me. I'm just happy to see this progressing.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
One is being built, but I wonder why not build two? Future proofs the station for a very long time, especially as there's plans for another fast service and stopping service through Huddersfield. Who knows, Horbury curve may reappear and new opportunity for a direct fast service to Sheffield? Obivously with everything there's a Covid caveat but, TRU won't be done until the end of the decade I believe, so who knows where we will be.

Anyway, that's just nit picking and conjecture by me. I'm just happy to see this progressing.
The slow through platforms will probably have a fair bit of capacity to terminate and start services, in addition to the 2tph likely to use them as through platforms.

With regards to the refreshment room being relocated, I expect this means it'll end up being a rubbish Pumpkin-type outlet unfortunately.
 

Tim_UK

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Messages
151
One is being built, but I wonder why not build two? Future proofs the station for a very long time, especially as there's plans for another fast service and stopping service through Huddersfield.

I don’t think there is room. The new tracks are right up against the old wagon lift. Which is used as a road tunnel for road access to Brian Jackson House.

I suppose nothing is impossible.

The new bay platform in Rochdale was built to reverse services rather than Manchester Victoria. You could do the same by adding a centre bay anywhere to the West of Huddersfield. I think even Lockwood would work. Or a new station.



With regards to the refreshment room being relocated, I expect this means it'll end up being a rubbish Pumpkin-type outlet unfortunately.

The current buffet is listed, so maybe the style will be maintained.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
I'm presuming the tunnels are being wired because the station will be shut for so long.
Due to the fairly constrained nature of the station site, it would be easier to actually wire the tunnels than to tension a ton of "open route" & crossover wire runs on a pair of structures at the tunnel mouth. It also adds scope for future-proofing the route to Sheffield (via Penistone) and Man Vic. But you are right - with how long the station will be shut, one might as well make use of the closure!
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Perhaps someone can disabuse me of my confusion/ignorance here, but the tunnels that are planned to be wired... specifically which tunnels are being considered?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Perhaps someone can disabuse me of my confusion/ignorance here, but the tunnels that are planned to be wired... specifically which tunnels are being considered?
These are the two tunnels immediately to the west of Huddersfield station; Gledholt Tunnels (North & South and Huddersfield Tunnels (North & South) from west to east.

Outside of the specific Ravensthorpe - Huddersfield area, only Morley Tunnel has been officially earmarked for wires so far.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
I know one thing I deliver around there on a part time basis and the traffic is going to be a nightmare when they start closing some of those bridges for rebuilding.

Still looks a fairly grandiose scheme for the benefit that will be gained even if it looks to have been simplified a bit for some of the stations.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I don’t think there is room. The new tracks are right up against the old wagon lift. Which is used as a road tunnel for road access to Brian Jackson House.

I suppose nothing is impossible.

The new bay platform in Rochdale was built to reverse services rather than Manchester Victoria. You could do the same by adding a centre bay anywhere to the West of Huddersfield. I think even Lockwood would work. Or a new station.

The current buffet is listed, so maybe the style will be maintained.
A turnback at Lockwood would have a distinct disadvantage that anything using it would have to pass over Paddock viaduct twice, and if that service was formed of 185s or LHCS it would be restricted to 10mph on said viaduct. There is possibly room for a turnback siding in Paddock, the other end of Gledholt tunnel on the Manchester line, if a turnback is needed at all.

The building on the island platform is listed, unfortunately it isn't possible to "list" the business itself. One saving grace is that SSP might not survive the post-COVID period, which means there's less chance of one of their low-effort brands being forced upon the station. First tried to force the independent buffet out at the start of the first standalone TPE franchise but thankfully were unsuccessful.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
These are the two tunnels immediately to the west of Huddersfield station; Gledholt Tunnels (North & South and Huddersfield Tunnels (North & South) from west to east.

Outside of the specific Ravensthorpe - Huddersfield area, only Morley Tunnel has been officially earmarked for wires so far.

Thanks
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,875
Location
Leeds
So reading the consultation documents, the key bits that pop out:

For me it was that they can't spell Penistone. Look at the station plan :rolleyes:
With regards to the refreshment room being relocated, I expect this means it'll end up being a rubbish Pumpkin-type outlet unfortunately.

It doesn't seem to be moving anywhere new, on that plan, which is confusing the bejesus out of me!
 

plarailfan

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2013
Messages
172
Location
56D
I went along to the Network Rail event, at the Huddersfield stadium this afternoon.
They were proposing having a temporary, single platform at Hillhouse, either on the main line, or perhaps, located on a siding - they are not sure at this stage.
The Huddersfield - Wakefield route, will dive underneath the Dewsbury lines at Ravensthorpe. It should look quite spectacular, having the four track Leeds lines on an embankment and then continuing along the motorway style viaduct at Scout Hill, Dewsbury !
There were some members of the public at the event, with the attitude "well there used to be four lines at Bradley and Mirfield, in the 1960's so why can't you just pop it back to how it was without all this fuss" !
They completely missed the point that the route is being upgraded for a much higher speed than anything that was regularly achieved, along the route, in the steam age !
There will be a huge construction job at Heaton Lodge, as the dive under will be dug out and a brand new one installed on a slightly different alignment.
Also, the "up" lines, that run past the row of houses at Heaton Lodge, will be realigned along a less severe curve, right where the houses are located, which, I guess, is a shame for the people who live there. I know I would be very disappointed, but I suppose it's progress !
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I can't quite rationalise this major upgrade with what might happen west of Huddersfield (and particularly west of Diggle).
It will cost a huge amount to get that up to a similar 100mph.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I think they are salami slicing. A section here a section there. All individually costed as a separate scheme all to build up confidence and get it signed off by the treasury. The end result is it all will eventually get done. A bit here and a bit there. I expect the same with TDNS btw. GWML cost overruns effect is still being felt I feel. Especially with HM Treasury!
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
I think they are salami slicing.

GWML cost overruns effect is still being felt I feel. Especially with HM Treasury!

The TransPennine Route Upgrade approach is frustrating, but it's probably the way forward right now. HM Treasury and DfT lost confidence in Network Rail, many within Network Rail lost a bit of confidence in themselves and the organisation too - now is the start of putting it right, and by doing the TRU in sections, with a lot of attention to the design at the very beginning, there's a great opportunity to really show a big project can still be completed well by NR.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
In a way, hasn’t the trans pennine route upgrade, particularly electrification been salami sliced for years already? Starting with Manchester to Liverpool (albeit a part of the north west schemes).
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I wonder, would such a grand scheme as this Huddersfield-Ravensthorpe scheme have been planned if they were doing the whole route in one go? Perhaps the team behind it (as an aside, is it Network Rail employees, consultants or both?) have been able to pay more attention to it and thus come up with a more comprehensive scheme than otherwise.
Having looked at the plans, they really do seem beyond anything I've seem before in the (admittedly short) time I've been old enough to properly understand such things. One question I have is why is the slow line junctions at Heaton Lodge grade separated, but the Ravensthorpe one isn't? The main reason I can think of is that the fast lines are on the other side at Ravensthorpe compared to Heaton Lodge, so get in the way, and unlike a road junction you can't just stick a 75m radius loop in to solve it! (As another aside, are 75m radius curves permitted on railways? If not, what's the minimum?)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I can't quite rationalise this major upgrade with what might happen west of Huddersfield (and particularly west of Diggle).
It will cost a huge amount to get that up to a similar 100mph.
I wonder, would such a grand scheme as this Huddersfield-Ravensthorpe scheme have been planned if they were doing the whole route in one go? Perhaps the team behind it (as an aside, is it Network Rail employees, consultants or both?) have been able to pay more attention to it and thus come up with a more comprehensive scheme than otherwise.
If your target is to achieve a certain journey time saving between say Manchester and Leeds, you probably aim to spend the money where it can bring most benefit rather than bringing the whole lot up to the same standard. Northeast of Huddersfield the terrain is somewhat easier so it is less costly to increase speeds. Also there are extra trains between Huddersfield and Leeds so more need for extra tracks, and introducing grade separation gives a capacity benefit for the other services that pass through Mirfield.

There are several sets of consultants working on the scheme but Network Rail is leading it.
One question I have is why is the slow line junctions at Heaton Lodge grade separated, but the Ravensthorpe one isn't? The main reason I can think of is that the fast lines are on the other side at Ravensthorpe compared to Heaton Lodge, so get in the way, and unlike a road junction you can't just stick a 75m radius loop in to solve it! (As another aside, are 75m radius curves permitted on railways? If not, what's the minimum?)
It would be very difficult to provide grade separation of the slow lines at Ravensthorpe while also providing a grade separated connection for trains from Leeds to join the Slow towards Mirfield (it would probably need three levels or another grade separation nearby). The latter is probably more important because the Leeds line is more intensively used with a mix of fast and slow trains. Only the less frequent trains towards Wakefield cause a potential conflict, and if a slow train from Leeds has to wait for that to happen then it can do so on the connecting curve without blocking the Fast lines.

At Heaton Lodge there is space to provide grade separation on the Slow lines (functionally similar to the current layout) so no conflict between trains towards Brighouse and those coming from Huddersfield.

Modern schemes try to stay above 200m radius if possible, and even that would have a speed restriction of 30mph or less.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
If your target is to achieve a certain journey time saving between say Manchester and Leeds, you probably aim to spend the money where it can bring most benefit rather than bringing the whole lot up to the same standard. Northeast of Huddersfield the terrain is somewhat easier so it is less costly to increase speeds. Also there are extra trains between Huddersfield and Leeds so more need for extra tracks, and introducing grade separation gives a capacity benefit for the other services that pass through Mirfield.

There are several sets of consultants working on the scheme but Network Rail is leading it.

It would be very difficult to provide grade separation of the slow lines at Ravensthorpe while also providing a grade separated connection for trains from Leeds to join the Slow towards Mirfield (it would probably need three levels or another grade separation nearby). The latter is probably more important because the Leeds line is more intensively used with a mix of fast and slow trains. Only the less frequent trains towards Wakefield cause a potential conflict, and if a slow train from Leeds has to wait for that to happen then it can do so on the connecting curve without blocking the Fast lines.

At Heaton Lodge there is space to provide grade separation on the Slow lines (functionally similar to the current layout) so no conflict between trains towards Brighouse and those coming from Huddersfield.

Modern schemes try to stay above 200m radius if possible, and even that would have a speed restriction of 30mph or less.
Thanks, very interesting.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I can't quite rationalise this major upgrade with what might happen west of Huddersfield (and particularly west of Diggle).
It will cost a huge amount to get that up to a similar 100mph.
Presently all services stop at Huddersfield, so it makes sense to split the upgrade into smaller sections to eliminate the pinch points. As the saying goes, the secret to going quickly is to avoid going slowly, so removing the conflicts and pinch-points from the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe section should have a fair impact on the overall journey time between Leeds and Manchester.

My only concern is that if NPR/HS3/whatever it's called this week is going to happen, it would be short-sighted to focus on long-distance journey time reductions at the expense of local capacity if the long-distance flows will ultimately disappear from the 'classic" network with NPR.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Presently all services stop at Huddersfield, so it makes sense to split the upgrade into smaller sections to eliminate the pinch points. As the saying goes, the secret to going quickly is to avoid going slowly, so removing the conflicts and pinch-points from the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe section should have a fair impact on the overall journey time between Leeds and Manchester.

My only concern is that if NPR/HS3/whatever it's called this week is going to happen, it would be short-sighted to focus on long-distance journey time reductions at the expense of local capacity if the long-distance flows will ultimately disappear from the 'classic" network with NPR.

On your concern, if the biggest journey time savings are being made from the increase from the lowest speeds traveled then chances are the local services would also benefit from those speed increases (i.e. increase a speed limit from 20 to 60 then all benefit a lot, not so much when it's 70 to 110).

The removal of fast services would likely increase capacity anyway as by not needing paths either side of a local service for the fast service to overtake you could have more services. However as long as you've got a reasonable frequency (2tph as a minimum, but ideally 3tph) on any corridor then extra capacity is generally better in the form of longer trains rather than more frequent. As long as there's platforms suitable at the key stations and ASDO at those with less than 1 million passengers a year where platform lengths are less than 6 coaches (3tph, although less is possible depending on how much below 1 million passengers a year) then it should all work fine.
 

plarailfan

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2013
Messages
172
Location
56D
While I was at the event at the football stadium in Huddersfield yesterday, I mentioned the HS3 line and it was explained to me, that it is unclear at the present time, which route HS3 will take, or if HS3 will be constructed and so the Huddersfield to Westtown project, etc, is going ahead without taking account of what might or might not happen with the HS3 idea.
I was rather hoping that they might know if there was any possibility of a HS3 interchange station at Dewsbury, or something like that for example, as the area would really benefit from improved transport links. The useful, Wakefield to Bradford line was closed in the 1960's and today, much the of the area would benefit from some decent regeneration projects
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,882
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
The big risk with using pinch points as boundaries between schemes is that they can inhibit what can be done.
Say one scheme ends at a location, then a designer will aim to match in to the existing at that location rather than continue a realignment scheme through. Then the next scheme starts from that point etc.
It would be hoped that there is sufficient overlap between schemes to overcome this. Even if it means doing the same bit of overlap twice.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
The big risk with using pinch points as boundaries between schemes is that they can inhibit what can be done.
Say one scheme ends at a location, then a designer will aim to match in to the existing at that location rather than continue a realignment scheme through. Then the next scheme starts from that point etc.
It would be hoped that there is sufficient overlap between schemes to overcome this. Even if it means doing the same bit of overlap twice.
Taking the OLE as an example of this, the steelwork immediately west of the Gledholt tunnels stretches from cess to cess (i.e. over the existing two tracks and any potential 3rd & 4th tracks) for contingency. There's also 2 anchor portals there, despite only needing one at this juncture, so that wires can easily continue west.
A similar thing has been done on the MML north of Kettering, with the northernmost overlap on the Fast lines having a ready-made anchor point for the first wire runs northward.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
While I was at the event at the football stadium in Huddersfield yesterday, I mentioned the HS3 line and it was explained to me, that it is unclear at the present time, which route HS3 will take, or if HS3 will be constructed and so the Huddersfield to Westtown project, etc, is going ahead without taking account of what might or might not happen with the HS3 idea.
I was rather hoping that they might know if there was any possibility of a HS3 interchange station at Dewsbury, or something like that for example, as the area would really benefit from improved transport links. The useful, Wakefield to Bradford line was closed in the 1960's and today, much the of the area would benefit from some decent regeneration projects

A new line from Leeds to Manchester through Northern Powerhouse Rail (if that’s what you mean by ‘HS3’), if it happens, is at least 20 years away.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
Presently all services stop at Huddersfield, so it makes sense to split the upgrade into smaller sections to eliminate the pinch points. As the saying goes, the secret to going quickly is to avoid going slowly, so removing the conflicts and pinch-points from the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe section should have a fair impact on the overall journey time between Leeds and Manchester.

My only concern is that if NPR/HS3/whatever it's called this week is going to happen, it would be short-sighted to focus on long-distance journey time reductions at the expense of local capacity if the long-distance flows will ultimately disappear from the 'classic" network with NPR.
Indeed that's why the politicians need to make their mind up about HS3 one way or the other, because if HS3 were to go ahead then I'm nor sure we need this scheme certainly in this form, we could end up spending vast amounts upgrading this route only for it to be superseded by HS3 as the main TPE route.
 

Top