What is the purpose of Bradford to Leeds electrification?

[Bigman]

I don't think Interchange can handle 10 car trains either. I seem to remember seeing 2 Grand Centrals in the platform and the rear one was 1 coach off the end of the platform. They could of course extend the platforms.

 

[Ken H]

Does this work?
Bradford-leeds-york. Pure EMU
Leeds - Manchester/blackpool via Calder valley. DMU later bimode maybe extend to selby/hull if that helps Leeds station capacity.
Bradford-Hebden Br shuttle. - DMU

Or get some new bimodes for Calder valley. How many? Would need serious grunt in diesel mode tho.

 

[37424]

Purpose? Potential to run LNER services to Interchange rather than Forster Square? FS has platform capacity issues and platforms too short for ten unit sets.

That could also poasibly meet the 12 minute Leeds to Bradford 'promise'.

I expect that is the main reason behind it Shapps talked about a 30 min Journey time reduction from Bradford to London in the commons yesterday, so with the alleged moderate ECML speed improvement plus the 12 min Journey to Interchange instead of Foster Square would probably achieve that, and perhaps with reduced out and back times to Bradford it might justify a more frequent service perhaps hourly to London which is what the city should really have.

 

[317 forever]

Maybe some Doncaster - Leeds services could be extended to Bradford Interchange. Some other local services from the west or south west could however be curtailed at Bradford instead of continuing to Leeds.

 

[30907]

Maybe some Doncaster - Leeds services could be extended to Bradford

That seems sensible, and is a small tick in the box, though I would prioritise Bradford-York once the wires are up.

Does this work? Bradford-Hebden Br shuttle. - DMU

Some other local services from the west or south west could however be curtailed at Bradford instead of continuing to Leeds

(Sorry for the formatting there!)

Hebden Br has enough trains already IMO; splitting services at Bradford would be highly incovenient - except possibly the Huddersfied train.

 

[Andyh82]

The approach into the Interchange seems painfully slow, as it has to be to some extent due to the downwards slope and the buffer stops, then there is the slow change of ends, and then the slow incline up the curve towards Leeds. Even with electrification I’m not sure how any of that could be avoided.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

Maybe some Doncaster - Leeds services could be extended to Bradford Interchange. Some other local services from the west or south west could however be curtailed at Bradford instead of continuing to Leeds.

Customers in the Calder valley itself would kick up a fuss if they had less trains to Leeds than currently

Of course if there was capacity they could send more via Dewsbury to compensate for other services terminating at Bradford, this would also enable Brighouse to have more than 1tph to Leeds. I’m sure it’s one of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s aspirations that stations should have at least a half hourly service.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course if there was capacity they could send more via Dewsbury to compensate for other services terminating at Bradford, this would also enable Brighouse to have more than 1tph to Leeds.

Then again, that's now going to be the NPR route...

 

[tbtc]

It's a bit tokenistic at face value (given that the are no existing services that will run wholly under the wires, and no bi-modes in the current Northern fleet - obviously things will change at some stage), but we have a situation where the Calder Valley route from Leeds to Manchester seems to have a poor business case for electrification (only two trains per hour ran Leeds - Bradford - Manchester pre-Covid reductions), but there were...

• four per hour from Leeds to Bradford Interchange
• five per hour from Bradford Interchange to Halifax (plus occasional GC services)
• three per hour from Halifax to Sowerby Bridge
• four per hour from Sowerby Bridge to Todmorden junction
• four per hour from Todmorden junction to Rochdale
• six per hour from Rochdale to Manchester

...given the messy combination of routes (e.g. some of the Leeds - Rochdale - Manchester trains ran via Dewsbury instead of Bradford, some of the Leeds - Bradford - Hebden Bridge services ran on to Blackpool, there's the hourly Bradford - Halifax service that ran through to Huddersfield)...

...so, pure EMUs wouldn't free up many DMUs if you "only" wire up Leeds - Bradford - Manchester route (unless you started chopping the routes up, e.g. running the Blackpool services via Dewsbury, which would upset Bradford folk since the'd lose their Lancashire link), but the bi-modes would allow a lot of services to run on electric mode for at least part of the journey - so, someone needs to make a start somewhere on this - Leeds to Bradford Interchange seems a good place to start - that'll then improve the case for wiring Rochdale into Manchester (which would then mean fewer diesel emissions in Leeds/ Bradford/ Manchester city centres), which then improves the case for wiring the bits in between

I'd forget about through trains to various "new" places for now - but if it speeds up the speed of Leeds - Bradford services, improves air quality in Leeds/Bradford and makes the acceleration out of Bradford Interchange less painfully slow then I'm all for it

 

[Glenn1969]

It's a bit tokenistic at face value (given that the are no existing services that will run wholly under the wires, and no bi-modes in the current Northern fleet - obviously things will change at some stage), but we have a situation where the Calder Valley route from Leeds to Manchester seems to have a poor business case for electrification (only two trains per hour ran Leeds - Bradford - Manchester pre-Covid reductions), but there were...

• four per hour from Leeds to Bradford Interchange
• five per hour from Bradford Interchange to Halifax (plus occasional GC services)
• three per hour from Halifax to Sowerby Bridge
• four per hour from Sowerby Bridge to Todmorden junction
• four per hour from Todmorden junction to Rochdale
• six per hour from Rochdale to Manchester

...given the messy combination of routes (e.g. some of the Leeds - Rochdale - Manchester trains ran via Dewsbury instead of Bradford, some of the Leeds - Bradford - Hebden Bridge services ran on to Blackpool, there's the hourly Bradford - Halifax service that ran through to Huddersfield)...

...so, pure EMUs wouldn't free up many DMUs if you "only" wire up Leeds - Bradford - Manchester route (unless you started chopping the routes up, e.g. running the Blackpool services via Dewsbury, which would upset Bradford folk since the'd lose their Lancashire link), but the bi-modes would allow a lot of services to run on electric mode for at least part of the journey - so, someone needs to make a start somewhere on this - Leeds to Bradford Interchange seems a good place to start - that'll then improve the case for wiring Rochdale into Manchester (which would then mean fewer diesel emissions in Leeds/ Bradford/ Manchester city centres), which then improves the case for wiring the bits in between

I'd forget about through trains to various "new" places for now - but if it speeds up the speed of Leeds - Bradford services, improves air quality in Leeds/Bradford and makes the acceleration out of Bradford Interchange less painfully slow then I'm all for it

5 million passengers a year used Calder Valley stations pre Covid. As a Halifax resident I would say the whole line needs wiring as soon as practical

 

[Kite159]

It's a bit tokenistic at face value (given that the are no existing services that will run wholly under the wires, and no bi-modes in the current Northern fleet

Other than the small number of 769s out on the Southport line

 

[tbtc]

5 million passengers a year used Calder Valley stations pre Covid. As a Halifax resident I would say the whole line needs wiring as soon as practical

I'm all for electrification, but the problem is that (with pure EMUs) you'd only be replacing two DMUs per hour if you "only" wired Leeds - Bradford - Manchester, given the messy combination of hourly routes - so we'd either need to chop services around a bit (e.g. Bradford loses through trains to Blackpool? Brighouse loses direct trains to Manchester?) or electrify a lot more (the line through Brighouse, the line from Todmorden to Preston, the line from Leeds to Hull)

At least wiring up the Leeds - Bradford Interchange section will allow EMUs to provide better acceleration and improve air quality in the two big West Yorkshire cities, whilst improving the case for wiring more sections of the line (Rochdale to Victoria next? Maybe just Bradford - Halifax) - but it's about fifty miles just to do the main Leeds - Bradford - Manchester bit of line (without counting the Brighouse line or the other routes that Calder Valley services extend onto), which seems a lot to ask the Government to stump up at a time when there are a number of other routes that also have decent cases for wiring

Bi-modes allow us to focus on electrifying the biggest problems (air pollution in city centres, sluggish acceleration at busy stations, faster speeds etc) without needing to pay for a "perfect" solution on each line IMHO

Other than the small number of 769s out on the Southport line

Oops, sorry (I forget about them sometimes!)

 

[37424]

As I have already said I think its main purpose is for an upgraded London service, and given that according to the phasing map shown its probably not going to be completed until after 2030 I expect there will probably be some kind of Bi-mode Hydrogen train in the pipeline for Northern by then.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

5 million passengers a year used Calder Valley stations pre Covid. As a Halifax resident I would say the whole line needs wiring as soon as practical

It was certainly number 1 priority on the Northern Sparks Report by an all party committee of northern MPS about 5 years ago iirc

 

[YorksLad12]

It was certainly number 1 priority on the Northern Sparks Report by an all part committee of northern MPS about 5 years ago iirc

You remember correctly (while I just had nightmares): https://transportforthenorth.com/reports/electrification-task/ has a link to the final report. In summary, electrification is a Good Thing, but there's no money for it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

However, in line with the title of the thread - Calder Valley electrification gets a start but at the eastern end. They have to start somewhere.

 

[YorksLad12]

However, in line with the title of the thread - Calder Valley electrification gets at start but at the eastern end. They have to start somewhere.

True - but I don't think Leeds to Bradford Interchange *and no further* is a good start. Halifax is only 10 minutes further down the line.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Exactly my thinking too.

and mine!

I expect in a few years there will be a later announcement to then extend from Bradford Interchange via Halifax to join the wires at Huddersfield. Probably announced just before an election !

The best way to do it, a while ago there was talk (I believe) of wiring Rochdale so more services could terminate there instead of Man Vic.

No doubt wires from Leeds to Bradford Interchange will get the Cross Bradford Link people going again...

Well it might address the platform capacity issue at Forster Square. (Sorry)

Though once you've done the TPE line via Huddersfield and you start doing the Calder Valley, filling in the gaps (Heaton Lodge to Milner Royd junctions plus the Bradley and Salterhebble curves) is a pretty quick win.

Wiring the Salterhebble curve will cost many many millions! For what is worth it maybe better off having bi-modes for the services that use it!

I don't think Interchange can handle 10 car trains either. I seem to remember seeing 2 Grand Centrals in the platform and the rear one was 1 coach off the end of the platform. They could of course extend the platforms.

I think 2 out of the four platforms could fit 10 car trains. It would be nice to see the other two extended to match and possibly another created in the car park adjacent to the run-round loop.

Thinking about this now I suspect Bradford Interchange was also chosen because its the interchange! They may also be the slight benefit of not having to deal with capacity issues facing the Aire Valley line or Forster Square station.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wiring the Salterhebble curve will cost many many millions! For what is worth it maybe better off having bi-modes for the services that use it!

I know there's a couple of short single bore tunnels there, but I wouldn't have thought it would be in the "too difficult" box. If it is it's a shame, as it's quite a steep gradient where electric traction would be a big help.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

True - but I don't think Leeds to Bradford Interchange *and no further* is a good start. Halifax is only 10 minutes further down the line.

Agreed but start somewhere and then yes Halifax would be the next logical place/piece of the jigsaw.

 

[Glenn1969]

My view is Halifax should be wired.

Then wire Rochdale to Manchester and maybe the Brighouse line which would mean Sowerby Bridge onwards got wired if Salterhebble cutting is too complicated for wires past Halifax

 

[Andyh82]

The problem is unless there is going to be a programme started to wire the entire network, some of these sections only see 1 or 2 trains an hour, so will never get anywhere near the top of the list when there are so many lines fighting to be at the top.

 

[matacaster]

and mine!



The best way to do it, a while ago there was talk (I believe) of wiring Rochdale so more services could terminate there instead of Man Vic.



Well it might address the platform capacity issue at Forster Square. (Sorry)



Wiring the Salterhebble curve will cost many many millions! For what is worth it maybe better off having bi-modes for the services that use it!



I think 2 out of the four platforms could fit 10 car trains. It would be nice to see the other two extended to match and possibly another created in the car park adjacent to the run-round loop.

Thinking about this now I suspect Bradford Interchange was also chosen because its the interchange! They may also be the slight benefit of not having to deal with capacity issues facing the Aire Valley line or Forster Square station.

It may be called the interchange, but many busses go nowhere near it. That's why it was scaled back a few years ago, bus operators didn't like the charges to use the interchange, so they didn't.

 

[30907]

It may be called the interchange, but many busses go nowhere near it. That's why it was scaled back a few years ago, bus operators didn't like the charges to use the interchange, so they didn't.

Those that don't - the cross-city ones - almost all stop 200m away in Hall Ings or nearby.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My view is Halifax should be wired.

Then wire Rochdale to Manchester and maybe the Brighouse line which would mean Sowerby Bridge onwards got wired if Salterhebble cutting is too complicated for wires past Halifax

I think @Halifaxlad was referring to just the lower set of lines towards Dryclough Greetland junction and Brighouse, not the upper pair towards Sowerby, as being particularly troublesome.

 

[JKF]

Electrification and improved acceleration/speed up the climb out of Leeds for local stoppers might mean further stations could be added, say Armley Moor, Stanningley and something at the Bradford end, without too much impact on the timetable. That would be a good addition to Leeds Metro.

 

[YorksLad12]

Electrification and improved acceleration/speed up the climb out of Leeds for local stoppers might mean further stations could be added, say Armley Moor, Stanningley and something at the Bradford end, without too much impact on the timetable. That would be a good addition to Leeds Metro.

I disagree. If you improve linespeed and accelleration, but then add in more station stops, you're back to where you were.

It it were me I'd have a Leeds-Bradford tram route, as it would closely follow the railway line because of the topology. Stops at Armley, Bramley (practically next to the rail station), Stanningley, (New) Pudsey/Owlcoates and Laisterdyke. Electrify the railway route, close Bramley station, reduce calls to New Pudsey and you'll speed things on that route. Maybe it's best I'm not in charge

 

[Roast Veg]

I disagree. If you improve linespeed and accelleration, but then add in more station stops, you're back to where you were.

It it were me I'd have a Leeds-Bradford tram route, as it would closely follow the railway line because of the topology. Stops at Armley, Bramley (practically next to the rail station), Stanningley, (New) Pudsey/Owlcoates and Laisterdyke. Electrify the railway route, close Bramley station, reduce calls to New Pudsey and you'll speed things on that route. Maybe it's best I'm not in charge

WYCA suggest Wortley instead of Armley (not that it matters very much), and don't mention Stanningley. I agree that reducing calls to both New Pudsey and Bramley is a wise idea if the mass transit gets built.

 

[JKF]

I disagree. If you improve linespeed and accelleration, but then add in more station stops, you're back to where you were.

It it were me I'd have a Leeds-Bradford tram route, as it would closely follow the railway line because of the topology. Stops at Armley, Bramley (practically next to the rail station), Stanningley, (New) Pudsey/Owlcoates and Laisterdyke. Electrify the railway route, close Bramley station, reduce calls to New Pudsey and you'll speed things on that route. Maybe it's best I'm not in charge

I did say for ‘local stoppers’, assuming there would be faster trains running ahead of them. I do agree it would be a good tram route, as much of it is formerly four tracked with little obstruction so trams run parallel to the heavy rail, though I’d take it into Pudsey proper to terminate, which would be a bit pricey getting across the bypass etc. At the other end is more complicated, but I know the council do want to rebuild Armley Gyratory at some point to free up land.

 

[HSTEd]

I disagree. If you improve linespeed and accelleration, but then add in more station stops, you're back to where you were.

Well I don't think you are quite back where you started, because you still get the benefits of the extra stops!

But I take the point.

 

[YorksLad12]

Well I don't think you are quite back where you started, because you still get the benefits of the extra stops!

Well, yes, true!