Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Senex]

Dare I even ask, what is the current journey time of a diverted express train on the Caldervale line? Could an express train ever achieve Leeds to Victoria in 40 minutes without billions of spending? Probably not I guess but it is possible it would reduce the capacity issue.

I assume you mean the Calder Valley line from Manchester to Thornhill Jn and then the Dewsbury line, not the Calder Valley line Great Way Round via Normanton. The best time possible on the Huddersfield line seems to be 48 minutes including 1½ minutes stopping at Hudderfield and a 2-minute recovery allowance, which suggests to me a non-stop time of 46 minutes over a route that has already seen some measure of improvement.

A night-time train (1P02) runs non-stop through Victoria and then via the Calder Valley and Dewsbury. This passes Victoria at 0106 and reaches Leeds at 0158½, including the same 2-minute recovery allowance as the day-time trains, so 52½ minutes or 53½ minutes if starting from Victoria, which makes 7½ minutes more than via Huddersfield. But who knows what could be achieved over the Calder Valley line? It is one of the earliest main lines, characterised by gentle curvature, which suggests that high speeds ought to be possible. Has anyone seen a curve-diagram for the line?

There are at present two severe speed-restrictions, at Rochdale to 30 down and 40 up, and on the Charlestown Curve from 22¼ to 22⅓ miles to 55. Otherwise, speeds have recently been raised to a pretty jagged profile between Manchester and Rochdale but remain as they have been for very many years north of Rochdale, with 70 to the boundary at 22¾ miles and then 60 to Heaton Lodge Jns at 37¼/37.6 miles. There are two breaks down to 65 in the 70 area, from 16½ to 17, and from 18¾ to 19½. There is also, of course, a distance-penalty for using the Calder Valley route.

It would be fascinating to know if any study has ever been done of just what maximum speeds could be obtained on the Calder Valley line, and what journey-times these would deliver, though it does seem pretty unlikely that 13-odd minutes could be saved to get to 40 minutes. But then getting 8 minutes out of the Huddersfield line timings to get 40 minutes including the Huddersfield stop seems likely to cost a pretty substantial sum.

 

[Chester1]

I assume you mean the Calder Valley line from Manchester to Thornhill Jn and then the Dewsbury line, not the Calder Valley line Great Way Round via Normanton. The best time possible on the Huddersfield line seems to be 48 minutes including 1½ minutes stopping at Hudderfield and a 2-minute recovery allowance, which suggests to me a non-stop time of 46 minutes over a route that has already seen some measure of improvement.

A night-time train (1P02) runs non-stop through Victoria and then via the Calder Valley and Dewsbury. This passes Victoria at 0106 and reaches Leeds at 0158½, including the same 2-minute recovery allowance as the day-time trains, so 52½ minutes or 53½ minutes if starting from Victoria, which makes 7½ minutes more than via Huddersfield. But who knows what could be achieved over the Calder Valley line? It is one of the earliest main lines, characterised by gentle curvature, which suggests that high speeds ought to be possible. Has anyone seen a curve-diagram for the line?

There are at present two severe speed-restrictions, at Rochdale to 30 down and 40 up, and on the Charlestown Curve from 22¼ to 22⅓ miles to 55. Otherwise, speeds have recently been raised to a pretty jagged profile between Manchester and Rochdale but remain as they have been for very many years north of Rochdale, with 70 to the boundary at 22¾ miles and then 60 to Heaton Lodge Jns at 37¼/37.6 miles. There are two breaks down to 65 in the 70 area, from 16½ to 17, and from 18¾ to 19½. There is also, of course, a distance-penalty for using the Calder Valley route.

It would be fascinating to know if any study has ever been done of just what maximum speeds could be obtained on the Calder Valley line, and what journey-times these would deliver, though it does seem pretty unlikely that 13-odd minutes could be saved to get to 40 minutes. But then getting 8 minutes out of the Huddersfield line timings to get 40 minutes including the Huddersfield stop seems likely to cost a pretty substantial sum.

Yes I meant Calder Valley. I get mixed up with Calderdale Borough and Calder Valley and this time I merged to the two! I think your right that there are some obvious improvements to be made but 40 minutes would be very costly. However, it wouldn't need to be the fastest route, just faster than now. For instance, if 50 minutes for Victoria-Leeds via Calder Valley with one stop was enabled then it would allow 1tph to stop at Dewsbury. That would enable the station to be removed from express servives via Stanedge. Perhaps controversially Stalybridge and Huddersfield could only be served by the skipped stop services allowing 4tph to run non stop from Manchester to Leeds via Standedge. Based on your calaculations that would reduce the required time saving to 6 minutes. Ravensthorpe to Leeds bottleneck would still a capacity nightmare though. I have used Morley station many times and I have thought that it is surprising that a complete rebuild of the station with through tracks has not been proposed. There is sufficient low value non residential land around the station to have 770m passing loops and two platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

The way speeds were increased so significantly west of Huddersfield by the former Eastern Region (who did so much more with their section of the route than the London Midland did with its) was by using the space of the four-track formation to get a faster alignment for the remaining two tracks.

To give the LM its due, it didn't have that option as there was virtually no former four-track formation on its part of the route. Although they could probably have done more to simplify some of the surplus ironmongery around Victoria and Stalybridge long before they actually did.

A lot of people seem to be saying that the various express bi-modes now being acquired will not have the power/weight ratios that present-day diesels of Classes 185, 220, etc have and so will be inferior in performance to modern stock. Does anyone have the actual details at their fingertips? (For example, I've seen it said that whereas a bi-mode might match an HST on the MML, it would be no match at all for a 222 and so could not deliver the times that apply today.)

I did a quick check from published data on this forum a month or so back, possibly on this very thread. It showed to my own satisfaction at least that the 80x on diesel and 68+LHCS formations both had less power:weight than a 185, so almost certainly poorer acceleration and gradient climbing. I don't think I looked at a 222 but it has the same engine as a 185 and is slightly lighter so its power:weight will be a bit worse. With the 222 being a diesel-electric with AC motors the fact it is "geared" for 125mph doesn't much affect the acceleration at lower speeds.

It was also mentioned somewhere that Hitachi were looking at an 80x variant for the MML with a diesel in one of the end cars to give four engines in a five-car unit rather than three in the GW and presumably the TPE versions.

 

[Greybeard33]

The requirement for a 15min frequency clockface 4tph fast Leeds to Manchester service will not allow for Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers even if they are EMUs rather than DMUs. A fast service takes 19/20mins, a stopper currently takes 39/40 mins (and West Yorkshire want to build another station at White Rose Centre). There is no way a stopping service will fit into a 15minute window between fasts. Thats one reason why 3 skip-stop services (2 TPE, 1 Northern Brighouse) are replacing 2 stoppers next May, to reduce the difference in journey times and (supposedly) to allow movement towards a clockface timetable for Huddersfield and Leeds, not the stopping statons of course.

Will the May 2018 skip-stop services allow movement towards a clockface timetable? The skip-stoppers will have to stay ahead of the following fast all the way from Leeds to Stalybridge, so I should think they will need as large a gap between fasts as the current Huddersfield to Manchester all-stations stopper.

DfT/Rail North originally proposed the two TPE skip-stoppers as a temporary expedient to improve punctuality, pending electrification. Post-electrification, the plan was that all six TPEs would become fast, with a Northern EMU stopper serving all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge.

Even without other infrastructure interventions, electrification can substantially reduce the journey time of a stopper, due to the better acceleration and hill-climbing of an EMU. This increases line capacity for express services without compromising the service between the intermediate stations. Surely this benefit is at least as important as a few minutes off the Leeds to Manchester journey time?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Will the May 2018 skip-stop services allow movement towards a clockface timetable? The skip-stoppers will have to stay ahead of the following fast all the way from Leeds to Stalybridge, so I should think they will need as large a gap between fasts as the current Huddersfield to Manchester all-stations stopper.

DfT/Rail North originally proposed the two TPE skip-stoppers as a temporary expedient to improve punctuality, pending electrification. Post-electrification, the plan was that all six TPEs would become fast, with a Northern EMU stopper serving all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge.

Even without other infrastructure interventions, electrification can substantially reduce the journey time of a stopper, due to the better acceleration and hill-climbing of an EMU. This increases line capacity for express services without compromising the service between the intermediate stations. Surely this benefit is at least as important as a few minutes off the Leeds to Manchester journey time?

I think the plan is for the skip-stoppers to be overtaken by the following fasts at the relatively long 3-track section between Mirfield East Junction and Heaton Lodge junction, at least as long as the current infrastructure remains in place. This should work heading Westbound in theory, and then Marsden offers another overtaking opportunity westbound too, as does Stalybridge station. It's eastbound that's the problem, with only Huddersfield station itself (P4 freed up by removing stoppers) and Dewsbury station's awkwardly short platform loop as opportunities for overtaking.

 

[Spartacus]

There used to be another relief line from Leeds to Huddersfield. The former LNWR Leeds new line was opened in 1900 and closed in the 1950s. I was reminded of it last Sunday when visiting a cemetery near Gildersome - the embankment of this former line still survives overlooking the cemetery. A small section was re-utilised to provide an underpass to enable Huddersfield to Leeds trains to avoid crossing the ex L&Y Sowerby Bridge-Wakefield main line near Mirfield.

Could any of its formation be reused as an alternative route, given that Manchester-Leeds traffic has mushroomed since the 1960s and early 1970s when I used to travel on this route?

Not really, the SW portal of Gildersome tunnel is somewhere under J27 of the M62, there's a cutting in filled with houses on it near Birstall, houses at Gomersall, Littletown & to a lesser extent Ravensthorpe too.

 

[Senex]

Although they could probably have done more to simplify some of the surplus ironmongery around Victoria and Stalybridge long before they actually did.

And when the infrastructure authority finally did get round to Stalybridge they did the wrong job!

 

[Senex]

I have used Morley station many times and I have thought that it is surprising that a complete rebuild of the station with through tracks has not been proposed. There is sufficient low value non residential land around the station to have 770m passing loops and two platforms.

And if the platforms weren't where they are on the curve, then maybe a properly-canted curve and a significantly higher speed might be possible. Move the platforms a little to the east?

 

[Iskra]

Not really, the SW portal of Gildersome tunnel is somewhere under J27 of the M62, there's a cutting in filled with houses on it near Birstall, houses at Gomersall, Littletown & to a lesser extent Ravensthorpe too.

Birstall station is also built over and there are numerous bridges that would need re-installing or replacing. I doubt it was ever a very fast route either to be honest. I would personally love for that line to reopen along a modified route, but it will never happen.

 

[Chester1]

And if the platforms weren't where they are on the curve, then maybe a properly-canted curve and a significantly higher speed might be possible. Move the platforms a little to the east?

The priority should be to put the platforms on passing loops to provide an opportunity for express trains to overtake stoppers between Ravensthorpe and Leeds. Reopening the viaduct into Leeds could be useful too. If rebuilding Morley allows a higher line speed then that would be great but extra capacity on this section should be the priority, same with Stalybridge to Diggle. Line speed should be the priority for parts where 4 tracking or diverting services is possible. Ideally Ravensthorpe-Leeds needs capacity for a half hourly Huddersfield - Leeds stopper so that the stops can be removed from all other services.

 

[lejog]

Will the May 2018 skip-stop services allow movement towards a clockface timetable? The skip-stoppers will have to stay ahead of the following fast all the way from Leeds to Stalybridge, so I should think they will need as large a gap between fasts as the current Huddersfield to Manchester all-stations stopper.

I've been told that this is the plan, but I don't know what's happening until we see the timetable, hence the careful phrasing of my post. TPE's franchise journey time requirements for Manchester to Leeds for May 18, 4tph @50min, 1tph @60min and 1tph @70min implies 1 semi-fast just fitting in a 15min window (allowing for 3mins headways) and the other being looped somewhere between Leeds and Stalybridge.

East of Leeds, the Leeds to Micklefield stoppers just about fit in a 15minute window, and departures from May 18 are planned at xx.24 and xx.56 which would fit with a clockface TPE service. These are starting from Leeds rather than running through from the Calder Valley, which should aid reliability.

DfT/Rail North originally proposed the two TPE skip-stoppers as a temporary expedient to improve punctuality, pending electrification. Post-electrification, the plan was that all six TPEs would become fast, with a Northern EMU stopper serving all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge.

Was there ever a "plan"? All I remember that the service would be reviewed after the project. Meanwhile AIUI, confirmed by the project management in the status video, the capacity requirements for the project are 4tph fast at clockface intervals and 2tph semi-fast.

Reliabilty requirements are more complex to calculatecand may require some 4 tracking, which in turn may allow the service to be reviewed. Of course the journey time improvements of the fast services will also affectthe size of the windows for stoppers.

I'm fully aware that local politicans want improved journey times and clockface services and the restoration of stopping services and to build new stations, but don't have the money to pay for these. I have such a politican as a neighbour.

Even without other infrastructure interventions, electrification can substantially reduce the journey time of a stopper, due to the better acceleration and hill-climbing of an EMU. This increases line capacity for express services without compromising the service between the intermediate stations. Surely this benefit is at least as important as a few minutes off the Leeds to Manchester journey time?

These are generalisations, exactly how many minutes would be knocked off the Huddersfield to Leeds stopping service journey time? Assuming that the fast service journey time reduces to 15mins, could you reduce to 25mins to fit into the new 15min window allowing for headways?

Anyway, you can argue as long as you like that about the benefits of your favoured solution, the facts are the project requirements are what they are, not what you would like them to be. Changing requirements mid-project is well known as one of the top causes of project failure, as someone has commented previously.

 

[lejog]

I think the plan is for the skip-stoppers to be overtaken by the following fasts at the relatively long 3-track section between Mirfield East Junction and Heaton Lodge junction, at least as long as the current infrastructure remains in place. This should work heading Westbound in theory, and then Marsden offers another overtaking opportunity westbound too, as does Stalybridge station. It's eastbound that's the problem, with only Huddersfield station itself (P4 freed up by removing stoppers) and Dewsbury station's awkwardly short platform loop as opportunities for overtaking.

Ah thanks, I was wondering about an eastbound looping opportunity but had forgotten the newly vacant platform at Huddersfield.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Ah thanks, I was wondering about an eastbound looping opportunity but had forgotten the newly vacant platform at Huddersfield.

There will still be Bradford and Wakefield stoppers. Can they both be accomodated in the bays? I am aware the bays are short.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ah thanks, I was wondering about an eastbound looping opportunity but had forgotten the newly vacant platform at Huddersfield.

The issue with both Huddersfield and Dewsbury as overtaking points is that it requires the semi to arrive and have an extended dwell while the following fast arrives and unloads (HUD) or passes (DEW) and then clears the next signalling section before the semi can follow on. Westbound at Mirfield the dual section is longer so in theory the overtaking is more dynamic, if that's the right word.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There will still be Bradford and Wakefield stoppers. Can they both be accomodated in the bays? I am aware the bays are short.

P6 holds 3x23m so should be ok. P5 on the other hand is max. 2x20m so is somewhat restrictive. With 1tph on each stopper P6 should cope with both as long as they're evenly spaced.

P.S. If P5 is required (it's only used a few times a day at present) the stock that could be used is just a 2-car 150 (Pacers and 153s are going) so that would be an issue going forwards as the current plans see many of the 150s being reformed into 3-car units.

 

[DimTim]

A clock face timetable from Leeds is dependent on trains arriving on time from Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough. Are we looking at a longer dwell time in Leeds to ensure we can hit the correct departure time if timings forward are so tight - similarly at Manchester Victoria to allow for any delays trough Piccadilly, Victoria approaches?

 

[Greybeard33]

I've been told that this is the plan, but I don't know what's happening until we see the timetable, hence the careful phrasing of my post. TPE's franchise journey time requirements for Manchester to Leeds for May 18, 4tph @50min, 1tph @60min and 1tph @70min implies 1 semi-fast just fitting in a 15min window (allowing for 3mins headways) and the other being looped somewhere between Leeds and Stalybridge.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. However, I think that attempting to fit the "60 minute" (presumably Hull) service into a 15 minute window between two "50 minute" services will risk timetable resilience. If the preceding fast is late leaving Leeds, the semi will be delayed, eating into the window, and the following fast will catch it before Stalybridge, so that will be delayed too.

I expect the "70 minute" semi-fast will be lightly loaded between Leeds and Huddersfield. Passengers from Leeds for Huddersfield and beyond will have a quicker journey if they take the following fast, if necessary changing to the semi at Huddersfield. Eastbound passengers will get to Leeds quicker if they change from the semi to the overtaking fast at Huddersfield. Not a very efficient use of capacity.

Was there ever a "plan"? All I remember that the service would be reviewed after the project. Meanwhile AIUI, confirmed by the project management in the status video, the capacity requirements for the project are 4tph fast at clockface intervals and 2tph semi-fast.

See p27 of the Stakeholder Briefing Document and Consultation Response, published in 2015 with the franchise ITTs:

We consulted on whether we should specify that TPE services between Manchester and Leeds be increased from five trains per hour to six trains per hour, while also preserving existing Northern stopping services. We are clear that this increase will be needed in the medium term to provide more capacity on the route; the infrastructure enhancements that are planned for the route, including electrification and line speed improvements, will make this possible.

We are also clear there is a need to improve upon today’s service pattern to improve punctuality and reliability performance as soon as possible before the electrification infrastructure can be delivered. We cannot be confident that the route can accommodate more trains than it does today without risking a significant further drop in performance. We are therefore requiring bidders to assume that from December 2017....

The document then went on to outline the proposal for 4 fasts plus 2 semis with no Northern stoppers.

It seems to me that the capacity requirements for the Transpennine Route Upgrade project have been morphed since then, to suit the political imperative to de-emphasise electrification.

Anyway, you can argue as long as you like that about the benefits of your favoured solution, the facts are the project requirements are what they are, not what you would like them to be. Changing requirements mid-project is well known as one of the top causes of project failure, as someone has commented previously.

The requirements have already changed mid-project, as can be seen from the above document. In 2015 the priorities for the stakeholders were increased capacity and improved reliability, with no specific target for Leeds-Manchester journey time improvement mentioned. Two years is a long time in politics!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Naturally I have a vested interest in the plans for this route, but I do worry that the smaller stations are being essentially pushed aside in favour of headline figures (SIX trains an hour! Leeds to Manchester in 50 minutes!) that don't actually do much good. Trans-Pennine routes along with HS3 or whatever it's called make good political headlines but then get forgotten about... even Huddersfield which has a fair amount of inbound commuting as well as outbound, is in danger of being left behind. Improved fixed transport links are one of the most effective tools for regeneration but places like Deighton, Dewsbury and Batley- those most in need of regeneration, are being neglected in favour of boosting the more middle-class, longer-distance commuters who will travel across the country for business meetings that could be done over the internet.

I welcome any investment in the route, but it really ought to be made in a way that benefits all users. That means the abandonment of the unnecessary 6 trains an hour, unless capacity can be increased to still maintain an adequate stopping service of 2tph to ALL stations*.

*=except Ravensthorpe, which is something of an anomaly in that it has significantly lower usage than all the others, with not much housing in the immediate surroundings and due to the former uses of the surrounding land, little chance of any major house building nearby too. I don't like to advocate closure of stations but given the low usage and the cost of making it accessible, closure could be an option.

 

[muddythefish]

r business meetings that could be done over the internet.

.

Internet has been around for about 20 years now yet rail usage has ballooned in that time.

Conclusion: people are travelling more than ever despite technological advances such as the internet, skype and mobile phones.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Internet has been around for about 20 years now yet rail usage has ballooned in that time.

Conclusion: people are travelling more than ever despite technological advances such as the internet, skype and mobile phones.

Only yesterday I had to travel from Huddersfield to Liverpool to visit the Passport office- something which has to be done in person. Both out and return I had to stand almost the whole way in the "ballroom" area in the composite coach (and this was off-peak both ways, too). I could look through into first class and see that both there and back there was ONE person travelling in First! This is another example of the "private sector enterprise and innovation" that tries to run before it can walk. And before anyone pipes up with the old "first-class fares keep Standard class fares low" chestnut, not with only one person per train using them they don't!

Yes, I know that this anecdotal evidence doesn't signify a trend, the very idea of having fancy, luxuriant first-class areas while ordinary folk are crush-loaded just feet away demonstrates the attitude of the decision makers towards regular "punters". :roll:

 

[swissrailpassion]

Most 185s are full and standing from Manchester to Leeds between 0730 and 2100

 

[snowball]

Who needs electrification? The Northern Powerhouse Partnership (prop. Geo. Osborne) is now talking about portable nuclear reactors:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41433176

 

[NorthernSpirit]

...except Ravensthorpe, which is something of an anomaly in that it has significantly lower usage than all the others, with not much housing in the immediate surroundings and due to the former uses of the surrounding land, little chance of any major house building nearby too. I don't like to advocate closure of stations but given the low usage and the cost of making it accessible, closure could be an option.

Raventhorpe could always be downgraded to a parlamentry service - e.g. five services during the week and nothing at the weekend which would speed up a majority of services if/when the line gets the sparks treatment.

I do honestly think that Raventhorpe will eventually end up as a Pilning or possibly a Wedgewood.

 

[IanXC]

If the need to rebuild/realign the platforms at Ravensthorpe were to come up, I would be strongly in favour of rebuilding the whole station in the Wakefield lines rather than the Leeds lines. Then the Huddersfield-Wakefield service could call, rather than a service having to come to a stand on the TPML.

 

[Spartacus]

I welcome any investment in the route, but it really ought to be made in a way that benefits all users. That means the abandonment of the unnecessary 6 trains an hour, unless capacity can be increased to still maintain an adequate stopping service of 2tph to ALL stations*.

*=except Ravensthorpe, which is something of an anomaly in that it has significantly lower usage than all the others, with not much housing in the immediate surroundings and due to the former uses of the surrounding land, little chance of any major house building nearby too. I don't like to advocate closure of stations but given the low usage and the cost of making it accessible, closure could be an option.

I fully agree with the first point, no need for 6 train an hour at all, it shouldn't be considered unless trains making use of the whole platforms are getting full. On the second though there's a lot talk about housing being built between Raventhorpe station and the area towards Sands Lane (mostly on established and recently planted woodland and other greenbelt) and I think some behind Ravensthorpe Road which might do for Ravensthorpe what the new houses did for Cottingley, though at quite a significant environmental cost.

 

[Chester1]

I fully agree with the first point, no need for 6 train an hour at all, it shouldn't be considered unless trains making use of the whole platforms are getting full. On the second though there's a lot talk about housing being built between Raventhorpe station and the area towards Sands Lane (mostly on established and recently planted woodland and other greenbelt) and I think some behind Ravensthorpe Road which might do for Ravensthorpe what the new houses did for Cottingley, though at quite a significant environmental cost.

Reducing the number of services means reducing the number of places with through trains to Manchester. The northern hub and northern powerhouse concepts are based around tieing the region together with Manchester as the regional centre. 4tph fast and 2tph semi fast is not particularly high for a mainline. I agree the long term aim should be 2tph all stops EMU service but passing loops would provide sufficient capacity at a low cost. More than 6 carriage express and 3 carriage stopping services would require platform extensions at most stations which would be a significant investment too.

 

[edwin_m]

Reducing the number of services means reducing the number of places with through trains to Manchester. The northern hub and northern powerhouse concepts are based around tieing the region together with Manchester as the regional centre. 4tph fast and 2tph semi fast is not particularly high for a mainline. I agree the long term aim should be 2tph all stops EMU service but passing loops would provide sufficient capacity at a low cost. More than 6 carriage express and 3 carriage stopping services would require platform extensions at most stations which would be a significant investment too.

Indeed. Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Hull each get 1TPH off the Transpennine core and Newcastle will get 2TPH with one continuing to Edinburgh. 5TPH is an awkward number to accommodate given that most other services repeat on a 20min or 30min "grid" so an extra Leeds terminator is added. The alternative would be to cut through services (probably at York due to lack of terminating capacity at Leeds), send them to other destinations such as Calder Valley, or go for some kind of split/join arrangement.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm not sure how the current 5 vice 6 services means less places served to Manchester: there's only 5 destinations East of Leeds anyway, nor are passing loops cheap or likely, especially when you factor in the costs of resignalling.

A more sensible solution is to get all the current expresses up to 5 and 6 car and all the locals up to 3 car THEN see if there's need to implement a 6th path that'll risk destroying performance as well as disrupting the customers of stopping services with no need for any loops or platform extensions.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes I'm almost not fussed what gets wired as long as we keep wiring something. The crucial thing is to avoid another cliff edge where the supply chain and skills we've redeveloped in the last eightish years is allowed to wither away again. If that means not wiring Standedge tunnel right now so be it!

I'm fussed about it... Standedge tunnel is borderline poisonous already - just with the current services. Double the length of the existing Diesel trains and/or increase the frequency and it will often be unacceptable, especially on windless days. Wire the railway from Manchester to Leeds ASAP! Even if it just uses the existing layouts and old locos and stock it would give the capacity upgrade needed - whether or not it is any faster.

I don't understand why Standedge is seen as an obstacle anyway... There are multiple bores that will allow the wiring of successive lines without impacting on those in use, none are unusually small - and it seems that extra tracks through it/them are planned or under consideration so wiring them in turn would not be wasted investment..

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Interesting regarding the comment about 1st class, my experience last week when I was on back shift duties was 1st class was full from Newcastle to manchester with 1st class passengers unable to get a seat in 1st between York and huddersfield. This being on the 14:02 15:08 and 16:06 departures from NCL yet STD didn't have capacity issues until YRK