Why no crossovers between Leeds and Huddersfield?

[alexl92]

I noticed today that as far as I can tell, there are no crossovers between the two tracks between Leeds and Huddersfield. What would happen if for some reason a train needed to reverse a considerable distance, if they can't switch it over to the other line?

 

[55z]

They can be specially authorised to reverse running wrong line. BUt
There are crossovers between Huddersfield & Leeds
1. Bradley Jn
2. Mirfield East Jn/Thornhill LNW Jn
3. Holbeck/Whitehall Jn

 

[edwin_m]

There may be no crossovers on their own, provided only to allow trains to reverse. This is not too surprising as trains don't normally terminate at the intermediate stations between Leeds and Huddersfield.

The crossovers that 55z mentions are all part of junctions, but the layout and probably the signalling would allow them to be used to turn back a train if that was necessary.

 

[Welshman]

There may be no crossovers on their own, provided only to allow trains to reverse. This is not too surprising as trains don't normally terminate at the intermediate stations between Leeds and Huddersfield.

The crossovers that 55z mentions are all part of junctions, but the layout and probably the signalling would allow them to be used to turn back a train if that was necessary.

That was certainly the case about 20 years ago at the Mirfield East/Thornhill Junction complex, when a Leeds-Manchester service I boarded at Huddersfield had to be diverted at short notice because of a bridge-strike near Greenfield.

This was before the Bradley/Bradley Wood spur was re-opened, so the train re-traced its tracks to Mirfield East/Thornhill Junction, stopped on the reversible stretch of line, and then went back via Mirfield, Brighouse and the Calder Valley.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One would hope that some form of true bi-directional provision would be included within the route upgrade that comes with electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

One would hope that some form of true bi-directional provision would be included within the route upgrade that comes with electrification.

It becomes more necessary as there will (initially at least) be no electrified diversionary route.

 

[ianhr]

The electrification proposal as published so far does NOT include ANY additional infrastructure. I'm not sure whether the delay implies any revision of this short sighted policy although I think there is a proposal to link platforms 13 & 14 at Leeds to make an additional long through platform.

 

[Senex]

The electrification proposal as published so far does NOT include ANY additional infrastructure. I'm not sure whether the delay implies any revision of this short sighted policy although I think there is a proposal to link platforms 13 & 14 at Leeds to make an additional long through platform.

I'd heard that part of the reason for the delay is indeed that DfT has thrown back at NR their electrification scheme on the grounds that it is far too limited to deliver securely the level of service aspired to.

 

[Taunton]

I'd heard that part of the reason for the delay is indeed that DfT has thrown back at NR their electrification scheme on the grounds that it is far too limited to deliver securely the level of service aspired to.

Goodness. Commonsense from DfT. Whatever next?

 

[HSTEd]

And then the project gets canned because the additional resources kill the benefit:cost on the scheme.

Welcome to the world of gold-plate or nothing, which all to often means nothing.

 

[Taunton]

I don't think that's a fair analysis, and we need to recognise that there is a sensible mid-point between cripplingly under-featured and gold plated; neither of these should be acceptable.

From the days when there were large quantities of pointwork etc at every station, which really cannot have cost vast sums to install and maintain, we seem to have gone to the other extreme where one extra crossover costs £10m, requires rewiring the whole power box, and takes five weekend possessions to implement. If you look at overseas systems they don't seem to have got to this position to anything like the same extent.

Are there no sensible, professional, efficient PW/S&T designers left?

 

[ainsworth74]

Are there no sensible, professional, efficient PW/S&T designers left?

Yes! But most of them left the country once Railtrack made it impossible to maintain a steady workflow and instead offered a 'feast and famine' approach to procurement. Same thing with electrification engineers/designers.

The ones that are left are snowed under with work as Network Rail catch up on work that should have been done previously as well as an ambitious upgrade program.

 

[QueensCurve]

It becomes more necessary as there will (initially at least) be no electrified diversionary route.

Bidirectional signalling should be provided on all major 2 track routes as is the case in most Western European Countries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that's a fair analysis, and we need to recognise that there is a sensible mid-point between cripplingly under-featured and gold plated; neither of these should be acceptable.

From the days when there were large quantities of pointwork etc at every station, which really cannot have cost vast sums to install and maintain, we seem to have gone to the other extreme where one extra crossover costs £10m, requires rewiring the whole power box, and takes five weekend possessions to implement. If you look at overseas systems they don't seem to have got to this position to anything like the same extent.

Are there no sensible, professional, efficient PW/S&T designers left?

The number of crossovers - mostly high speed and regularly used for bidirectional signalling - in Switzerland is phenomenal. One is left wondering why it should be so unaffordable here.