Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[hwl]

Newton Heath is marked in an unusual position.

manchestertostalybridge.co.uk

This domain may be for sale!

manchestertostalybridge.co.uk

The position of Newton Heath is the default google maps position (google maps is used as base layer.)

 

[507020]

The position of Newton Heath is the default google maps position (google maps is used as base layer.)

And refers to the area of Newton Heath itself, not to Newton Heath TMD.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And refers to the area of Newton Heath itself, not to Newton Heath TMD.

That was the bit I found confusing.

 

[59CosG95]

TransPennine Wiring East Progressometer Post 10.0 - accurate to 17/08/21.
Route announced as 'to be wired' in CP6: Church Fenton - Colton Jct.

E1. Church Fenton North Jct (NOC/CFM 10m 36ch) to Colton Jct (NOC 5m 41ch/ECM4 182m 79ch)
Electrification work underway.
Southern limit of OLE confirmed to be short of Church Fenton Stn itself due to
a) HS2 Phase 2b works; and
b) the Common Ln Overbridge/Rose Lane UWC situation (i.e. "Steventon with S&C")
With completion scheduled for October 2022; steelwork up in May 2021 (Normanton side only) & wires up in Jan 2022.
Leeds side steelwork originally planned for Autumn 2021, but work has been brought forward.

Colton Jn - Colton Lane O/B:

• 3 S1 TTC pairs up (at a guess: NOC/09/07, NOC/09/09 & NOC/09/11 over the Normanton lines, with NOC/09/08, NOC/09/10 & NOC/09/12 over the Leeds lines), followed by a S1 Monoboom (NOC/09/13), a UKMS Std portal (NOC/09/14), another S1 TTC pair (NOC/09/15 & NOC/09/16 over the Normanton & Leeds lines respectively), a second Monoboom (NOC/09/17), then 4 TTC pairs to bridge NOC-12 (Colton Lane O/B) over both the Leeds & Normanton Lines. The monobooms signify an overlap. Monoboom NOC/09/13 has all its cantilever stovepipes, plus one of its 4(?) Tensorex stovepipes fitted now, possibly also its earth wire clamps. NOC/09/14 & NOC/09/15 have their stovepipes fitted for the Normanton lines (although 09/15 lacks mast brackets for the Up Normanton), and NOC/09/17 has all 4 cantilever stovepipes.
• Over the Normanton lines, all 4 TTCs south of the overlap are Series 1 (NOC/09/18, NOC/09/20, NOC/10/01 and NOC/10/04); the TTCs over the Leeds lines include a UKMS Std TTC (structure no. NOC/10/02) which also appears to cover the DL/UL crossover. The other 3 Leeds lines' TTCs (NOC/09/19, NOC/09/21 plus NOC/10/03) are Series 1.
• On the Normanton side, mast brackets for the cantilevers are now starting to appear - these will be of the Siemens "SICAT SA" type seen at Stevenage P5 & Paisley Gilmour Street - Gourock. The brackets are going up on the mast legs for the Up Normanton, and on stovepipes (where fitted). Earth Wire brackets are also appearing now.

Colton Lane O/B - Brumber Hill O/B (i.e. Colton South Ladder)

• All steelwork appears to have been installed between Colton Ln & Brumber Hill (i.e. over Colton South Ladder); the TTCs are all Series 1 except for two over the Leeds lines (NOC/10/06 & NOC/10/08) and one over the Normanton lines (NOC/10/18). NOC/10/06 - NOC/10/09, NOC/10/11 & NOC/10/13 all have their stovepipes, mast brackets & EW clamps fitted.
• Another structure on the Normanton side (NOC/10/11) has been fitted with a 'tongue' for a strut tie, and mounting brackets for Tensorex units facing towards Normanton/Leeds; its twin on the Leeds side (NOC/10/12) has them too, but facing towards York. This makes me think that Colton Sth Ladder might be tangentially wired rather than with a traditional "cross contact" arrangement. NOC/10/11 now has its backtie fitted.
• Immediately north of Brumber Hill O/B (NOC-13), a UKMS 'vierendeel' portal (similar to those used on the GWML in the 1990s) has been installed, possibly for MPA use.

Brumber Hill O/B - Bolton Percy O/B (Oxton Lane?):

• South of Brumber Hill Bridge, almost all S1 TTCs appear to be up and boomed as far as signals Y745 (DL)/Y746 (UL)/Y747 (DN)/Y748 (UN).
• S1 monoboom NOC/11/03 now has in-running stovepipes over all 4 lines, and brackets have been installed on those over the DN & UN. Its overlap compadre (NOC/11/08), 3 spans south, is now fully boomed, but the strut on the Leeds side is still outstanding. Both NOC/11/03 & NOC/11/08 have Tensorex drop tubes attached for the DN & UN lines too.
• South of that overlap are 7 S1 TTC pairs, followed by a UKMS Std PF DC portal (at a guess) for a mid-point anchor (MPA). A further 2 pairs of S1 TTCs are up south of that, along with two additional S1 TTCs on the Leeds side (NOC/12/02 & NOC/12/04).
• NOC/12/02 & NOC/12/04's twins on the Normanton side of the line (NOC/12/01 & NOC/12/03) await installation; as far as I can make out, 12/01 is another S1 TTC, while 12/03 is a UKMS Std TTC.
• A handful of masts (UKMS standard I think) are up between the Normanton lines on the old site of Bolton Percy station; those adjacent to the Up Normanton (NOC/12/05; NOC/12/08; not NOC/12/11) are taller to allow increased Earth Wire heights over the RRAP at Bolton Percy. EW clamps have already been attached.
• The masts for the Dn Normanton (NOC/12/06; NOC/12/09; NOC/12/12) are shorter as they have no earth wire and will be bonded directly to the traction return rail. NOC/12/06 also has a back-tie pile north-east of it.
  The corresponding masts for the Leeds lines are S1 TTCs (NOC/12/07; NOC/12/10; NOC/12/13). Another mast (NOC/12/14) is in next to the bridge, and will support OLE over the Up Normanton.
• From the MPA portal, SPS fitment (Earth wire clamps, cantilever bracketry and drop tubes) are complete on the Leeds lines south to Bolton Percy O/B.

Bolton Percy O/B (Oxton Lane?) - Ulleskelf:

• Between Bolton Percy & Ulleskelf, around 7 S1 TTCs, 5 S1 single track masts and a monoboom (now boomed) are up.
• Immediately south of bridge NOC-15 (Bolton Percy/Oxton Lane O/B)), there are two more structures presumed to have gone in; NOC/12/17 (probably a SSA mast for the Up Normanton) and NOC/12/18 (a monoboom for the other 3 tracks).
• Two UKMS Twin Cantilever masts (pre-fab double channels/PF DCs) are in next to the Normanton lines south of Oxton Ln; these are NOC/12/19 & NOC/12/20. A further two are up behind them; these are NOC/12/22 & NOC/12/23. On NOC/12/19 & NOC/12/22 (both Up Normanton), the brackets for the overlap cantilevers are in place. NOC/12/19 & NOC/12/23 (Dn Normanton) also have EW brackets.
• The two S1 TTCs opposite the Normanton Lines' pairs of Twin Cantilever masts (NOC/12/21 in line with 12/19 & 12/20; NOC 12/24 in line with 12/22 & 12/23) both have twin stovepipe assemblies for overlap cantilevers assembled for the Up Leeds line.
• On the Normanton Lines, south of signals Y741 (DL)/CF742 (UL)/Y743 (DN)/CF744 (UN) and north of the bridge over the River Wharfe (NOC/17N), 4 S1 TTCs have gone up (with booms). An additional one is up on the Leeds side (sans boom).
• South of the Wharfe, there are 4 UKMS Std STC masts acting as anchors; no's are at a guess NOC/13/23 (UN), NOC/13/24 (DN), NOC/13/25 (UL) & NOC/13/26 (DL). These are followed to the south by 2 S1 TTC pairs with overlap brackets on the mast legs; NOC/13/27 (Normantons) + NOC/13/28 (Leeds'), then NOC/13/29 + NOC/13/30 as above. A S1 Monoboom Anchor (presumably NOC/13/31, over all 4 tracks) completes the overlap.
• South of the overlap above, two more S1 TTCs are up over the Normantons; the Leeds lines have a corresponding pair but I've seen no sign of masts atop them yet. No's are presumed to be NOC/13/32 (Normantons) + NOC/13/33 (Leeds') then NOC/13/34 + NOC/13/35 as above.
• Past the 14km mark, to the north of New Rd (B1223) O/B, there are 3 STC masts in the UN cess (NOC/14/01; NOC/14/03; NOC/14/05) - each of these has a partner 3-track TTC in the DN cess covering the DN and both Leeds lines (NOC/14/02; NOC/14/04; NOC/14/06).
• Within Ulleskelf itself, 3 single track masts are also in place for the Up Normanton; one between the road bridge & the footbridge (presumed NOC/14/07), one just north of the 'Wernick Hire' welfare units (possibly NOC/14/13?), and one opposite the green Murphy containers), and a pair south of the station that are very tall indeed (perhaps to give aerial clearance over the RRAP which they sandwich) - one of which is confirmed to be NOC/14/17. Two or three 3-track TTCs (masts by the Dn Leeds, booms over both Leeds lines & Up Normanton) are also up in the station now; roughly parallel with the STCs. Parallel to NOC/14/17, there is another STC (NOC/14/18?) for the Dn Normanton, and a S1 TTC for the Leeds lines (presumed NOC/14/19).
• There is also, in the 6-foot between the DN & UN, a mast for a UKMS Std Portal (probably another MPA) - the portal is now complete and spans the Leeds lines plus the Dn Normanton.

Ulleskelf - Church Fenton North Jn (Limit of Wiring):

• Between Ulleskelf & CF North Jn, around 20 or so masts (mainly S1 TTCs) are up on the Up Normanton side. Oddly enough, a standard UKMS mast (either a PF double channel or a UC - it's hard to tell from a telephoto shot) is up north of the current CF726/CF724 gantry. It is assumed that all the masts for this have now gone up, as photos of progress are thin on the ground!
• South of the MPA at Ulleskelf (see above), a pair of S1 TTCs are in; one between the UN & DN, the other in the DL cess. The former of these looks like it has mast brackets for 'back-to-back' registration of the UN, as well as registering the DN from its boom. South of that, a UKMS Std TTC is present (prev. mentioned above) - it gives adequate signal sighting for signal CF 738 (UN). A S1 TTC is parallel to it on the Leeds side.
  Another pair of S1 TTCs are up south of the two structures mentioned above.
• At Church Fenton North Jn, 4 masts have gone up south of the signal gantry supporting signals CF726 (UN) & CF724 (UL); these are 2 no. Tensorex Monoboom Anchor masts sandwiching 2 pairs of S1 style hook-and-pin TTC masts. This must be for an overlap - potentially the southern limit of works. Both overlap monobooms have been fully masted & boomed.

Track Sectioning Cabin to be built in Church Fenton.

Compounds established at:
Church Fenton;
Ulleskelf;
Bolton Percy (Oxton Lane);
Braegate Lane;
Earfit(ts) Lane;
Copmanthorpe (Moor Lane);
Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe (by A64); and Dringhouses (Model Railway).
(N.B. All dates are subject to alteration, whether due to COVID-19 or otherwise)

E2. Leeds Departures (presumed Leeds - Neville Hill - Cross Gates) - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E3. Cross Gates to Micklefield - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.

E4. Micklefield to Church Fenton - Development of final scheme scope to GRIP 3.
Landowners in the area of Rose Lane UWC (10m 79ch from York), Poulters UWC (11m 14ch) & Adamsons UWC (11m 36ch) have been notified of details to close the crossings and build a flyover & associated new highway.

Other works: track renewals are taking place further along the Normanton route (currently in the Burton Salmon/Hilliam areas) to facilitate diversions during the main TRU works east and west of Leeds.

Do let me know if I've missed anything!

 

[Driveroopnorth]

It's to be 55 on completion. Dunno what it is now.

All line speeds are currently EXACTLY the same as pre works for now, and in exactly the same places. No change at all.

 

[Halish Railway]

All line speeds are currently EXACTLY the same as pre works for now, and in exactly the same places. No change at all.

Although it will later become 55mph.

Out of interest, will any driver retraining be required for the significant increase in linespeed?

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, will any driver retraining be required for the significant increase in linespeed?

Any change in linespeed, or track layout changes, requires drivers to be briefed. A briefing can be as simple as reading a couple of pages of documentation. For larger changes, VR videos and even on site training are necessary. This change will be closer to the former than the latter.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Although I'm not 100% piling seems to be increasing especially around the level crossing (the name of which escapes me apologies). Plenty of piling RRVs around at access points, devegtation ongoing and pile locations sprayed up. Impressed with progress recently. Hopefully the steelwork won't be too far behind.

 

[snowball]

My copy of the September Modern Railways arrived yesterday. It has half a page on TRU on p. 18. Referring to the recent blockade it says it included installing some masts, which I think is jumping the gun a bit.

The rest of the article seems to be largely based on the minutes of a Network Rail board meeting on 12 May (are these in the public domain?). Apparently two options called F1 and G were about to be submitted to DfT to increase the scope of TRU (though presumably DfT is not compelled to accept either). It seems F1 is full electrification and G includes some additional work. "This is understood to include additional scope relating to NPR and for additional freight paths, potentially incorporating further sections of 3- or 4-tracking".

Originally TRU was estimated at £2.9 billion, it is now estimated at £4.5 billion, which could increase further if option G is approved.
.
It says that TRU is (or was at the time of the May meeting) only funded to September 2021. Does this mean that the £589M announced in Jul 2020 was due to be spent by September!!?? Perhaps it explains why a further £317M was announced in Jul 2021.

Roger Ford also has some comments on the cost and management of electrification and decarbonisation on pages 32-41 as part of his column, including a page on the staggering progress achieved in India (though I think their electricity supply is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel).

 

[Codville]

My copy of the September Modern Railways arrived yesterday. It has half a page on TRU on p. 18. Referring to the recent blockade it says it included installing some masts, which I think is jumping the gun a bit.

The rest of the article seems to be largely based on the minutes of a Network Rail board meeting on 12 May (are these in the public domain?). Apparently two options called F1 and G were about to be submitted to DfT to increase the scope of TRU (though presumably DfT is not compelled to accept either). It seems F1 is full electrification and G includes some additional work. "This is understood to include additional scope relating to NPR and for additional freight paths, potentially incorporating further sections of 3- or 4-tracking".

Originally TRU was estimated at £2.9 billion, it is now estimated at £4.5 billion, which could increase further if option G is approved.
.
It says that TRU is (or was at the time of the May meeting) only funded to September 2021. Does this mean that the £589M announced in Jul 2020 was due to be spent by September!!?? Perhaps it explains why a further £317M was announced in Jul 2021.

Roger Ford also has some comments on the cost and management of electrification and decarbonisation on pages 32-41 as part of his column, including a page on the staggering progress achieved in India (though I think their electricity supply is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel).

Minutes of a meeting of the Board held on Wednesday 12 and Thursday 13 May 2021

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Roger Ford also has some comments on the cost and management of electrification and decarbonisation on pages 32-41 as part of his column, including a page on the staggering progress achieved in India (though I think their electricity supply is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel).

Along with the concern that Network Rail were not achieving the construction cost profiles required (covers MML as well as TRU).
The discussion on 6m pile lengths, and 100% test excavations, was interesting, to say the least.

 

[CdBrux]

Originally TRU was estimated at £2.9 billion, it is now estimated at £4.5 billion, which could increase further if option G is approved.

Is that increase for the same scope and with the same base (i.e. in 20xx costs)? If so that seems to be very concerning

 

[john.aston.96]

what’s included in option G? Is it full electrification, some additional lines like 4 tracking Cross Gates to Garforth?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Still waiting for my modern railways so await with interest. Is it suggesting we are already failing to keep costs under control?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is that increase for the same scope and with the same base (i.e. in 20xx costs)? If so that seems to be very concerning

The extensive rebuild and four-tracking East of Huddersfield (and Huddersfield Station improvements) are all later additions from the original proposals I believe.

 

[snowball]

Is that increase for the same scope and with the same base (i.e. in 20xx costs)?

No idea.

Still waiting for my modern railways so await with interest. Is it suggesting we are already failing to keep costs under control?

Roger Ford is, re both TRU and MML.

The extensive rebuild and four-tracking East of Huddersfield (and Huddersfield Station improvements) are all later additions from the original proposals I believe.

This may be a matter of which original you mean by original. If you look back 6 years or so, as I understand it, virtually no track upgrades were included, but Hudds to Westtown must have been in the scheme for several years by now for it to have reached the state of design maturity for two or three rounds of consultation to have been held and for the TWA Order application to have gone in. So it may have been part of the scheme at the time of the £2.9 billion estimate.

what’s included in option G? Is it full electrification, some additional lines like 4 tracking Cross Gates to Garforth?

No idea.

Minutes of a meeting of the Board held on Wednesday 12 and Thursday 13 May 2021

Thank you. Is there a place on the NR website where one can look for the latest minutes without knowing an exact pathname in advance?

 

[zwk500]

Thank you. Is there a place on the NR website where one can look for the latest minutes without knowing an exact pathname in advance?

Our information and data - Network Rail

Explore our information and data below. You’ll find data sets we’re publishing for the first time and links which make pre-existing content easier to find.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Click on the 'Board Meetings - minutes' dropdown, then links are at the bottom of the section.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Still waiting for my modern railways so await with interest. Is it suggesting we are already failing to keep costs under control?

Yes, and that NR doesn't seem to have really "learnt lessons" from the GW overrun.
It's the conflict between "it costs what it costs", and "the budget is £2.9 billion" (or whatever).
The railway (not just recent NR) has a history of blowing budgets and overengineering projects.
It can't afford to do that this time.
Roger wants an electrification supremo appointed.

 

[Grumpy]

Perhaps they need to trim some of the "nice to haves but commercially barmy". For example the flyover at Ravensthorpe-the purpose of which seems to be to avoid conflicts with the Castleford-Huddersfield trains which largely convey fresh air. Better to simply cut this service which really lost its purpose when it ceased to give connections from Westgate

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps they need to trim some of the "nice to haves but commercially barmy". For example the flyover at Ravensthorpe-the purpose of which seems to be to avoid conflicts with the Castleford-Huddersfield trains which largely convey fresh air. Better to simply cut this service which really lost its purpose when it ceased to give connections from Westgate

It also avoids conflicts with the several freight services that run between Heaton Lodge and Healey Mills each day. Not to mention providing a dynamic overtaking opportunity in the down direction, much better than the awkward short loop at Dewsbury station.

The Castleford to Huddersfield service carries a lot of school and college traffic to and from Wakefield as well as the handful of commuters: Which is why the peak services have largely continued to run throughout the pandemic. Rather than looking for things to cut we should be looking for opportunities to make the most of the investment. The Castleford should first return off-peak, with a view to extending to York if a business and environmental case can be made... though 2tph on the Leeds to Hudds stopper is more of a priority IMO.

 

[snowball]

A kind person who wishes to remain anonymous has sent me the following explanation of the options:

The current approved (Grayling era scope) partial electrification option is "C" .
"F" and later lettered options include full electrification.
"F" is full electrification + 6tph TPE passenger service (Leeds - Stalybridge) + Northern stopper Leeds - York with EMU e.g. base case full electrification
"F1" is F +1 tph freight path each way (Liverpool -) Manchester - Raventhorpe (then via Healey Mills and Normanton, avoiding Leeds) - Church Fenton - York a pretty cheap add on to F. Quite where the freight services are going to appear from is another matter!
G is throwing a few more obvious extras in that make lots of sense if you do them at the same time (cost significantly more to do later)

 

[The Ham]

A kind person who wishes to remain anonymous has sent me the following explanation of the options:

Can you thank that kind person for allowing you to share this and thanks for sharing.

 

[Class 170101]

A kind person who wishes to remain anonymous has sent me the following explanation of the options:

in Reference to F1 would that not be the biomass trains that run from Liverpool Docks to Drax? Haven't they been looking for more attractive paths for years?

 

[CdBrux]

Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at cost management, or lack of, however if the initial number is clearly too small this is also a problem, perhaps the 2.9bn was a significant underestimate. Either way, not a good look

 

[Grumpy]

It also avoids conflicts with the several freight services that run between Heaton Lodge and Healey Mills each day. Not to mention providing a dynamic overtaking opportunity in the down direction, much better than the awkward short loop at Dewsbury station.

I looked at Realtime trains. Between 0700 and 1900 today I counted 12 eastbound trains, of which 3 were TPE ECS running from Leeds to Manchester via Wakefield and Rochdale. I assumed these to be route learners and not a long term business. There were only 4 freights (inc 3 biomass). I haven't seen any estimates for the cost of the flyover but must be 10's of £ millions.

The Castleford to Huddersfield service carries a lot of school and college traffic to and from Wakefield as well as the handful of commuters: Which is why the peak services have largely continued to run throughout the pandemic. Rather than looking for things to cut we should be looking for opportunities to make the most of the investment. The Castleford should first return off-peak, with a view to extending to York if a business and environmental case can be made... though 2tph on the Leeds to Hudds stopper is more of a priority IMO.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the schools attended given the stations are in different local authority areas. Are the pupils travelling to Quegs and Wakefield Girls( ie 2 private schools)? Most private schools in Yorkshire organise coaches.

 

[SuperNova]

I looked at Realtime trains. Between 0700 and 1900 today I counted 12 eastbound trains, of which 3 were TPE ECS running from Leeds to Manchester via Wakefield and Rochdale. I assumed these to be route learners and not a long term business. There were only 4 freights (inc 3 biomass). I haven't seen any estimates for the cost of the flyover but must be 10's of £ millions.

Well given that TPE, like most TOC's, are still running a temporary timetable and are still coming from a position where they are thousands of training days behind then of course it's not long term. But the idea that a flyover shouldn't be built, because it costs money, is a pretty thin argument. Especially when there will be segregation between fast and slow lines - a flat junction doesn't solve the problems at Heaton Lodge junction.

The railway is also future proofing, which is why extra paths for freight over the Pennines are being looked into. Just because there were 4 today, doesn't mean there won't be 10 in 2031. Not only have you got freight, but the Wakey/Cas stoppers, Grand Central services and potentially diverted Sheffield services that are avoiding the Hope Valley. And when the timetables start increasing again - there's no room over the Pennines for extra freight. So by not building a flyover you fail to solve the conflicts.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the schools attended given the stations are in different local authority areas. Are the pupils travelling to Quegs and Wakefield Girls( ie 2 private schools)? Most private schools in Yorkshire organise coaches.

Stand on Huddersfield station in a morning and you'd see the busy nature of services for kids coming in/out for HE purposes. Plenty of those who went to the Private schools over in Wakefield actually end up going to Greenhead in Huddersfield as it's a bloody good college.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The usual complaint on this forum regarding any project is "Why aren't they doing XYZ at the same time" involving scope creep and lots more £££ that would typically make a project unaffordable.

When NR tries to do a proper job the chorus is "Why is the cost going up so much, when a basic scheme would be so much more affordable?"

Which I think broadly reflects the dilemma that those seeking to improve the railway are up against.

 

[D6130]

in Reference to F1 would that not be the biomass trains that run from Liverpool Docks to Drax? Haven't they been looking for more attractive paths for years?

There are up to four biomass trains per day in each direction....plus two Knowsley-Wilton Binliners, one and sometimes two stone trains from Arcow Quarry or Rylstone to one of three Manchester area terminals, the Doncaster-Peak Forest Cemex and the Lindsey-Preston bitumen tanks. If we want to future-proof the local infrastructure for additional freight services to assist with decarbonisation, a flyover/diveunder will be essential.

 

[snowball]

The usual complaint on this forum regarding any project is "Why aren't they doing XYZ at the same time" involving scope creep and lots more £££ that would typically make a project unaffordable.

When NR tries to do a proper job the chorus is "Why is the cost going up so much, when a basic scheme would be so much more affordable?"

Which I think broadly reflects the dilemma that those seeking to improve the railway are up against.

Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at cost management, or lack of, however if the initial number is clearly too small this is also a problem, perhaps the 2.9bn was a significant underestimate. Either way, not a good look

I suggest people read Roger Ford's column before expounding here.

 

[Roast Veg]

Stand on Huddersfield station in a morning and you'd see the busy nature of services for kids coming in/out for HE purposes. Plenty of those who went to the Private schools over in Wakefield actually end up going to Greenhead in Huddersfield as it's a bloody good college.

This is correct, the catchment area for that particular sixth form college is very wide and does attract people even from the next local authority over. Having that peak rail service is something of a necessity.