Should the TransPennine Upgrade project include more line speed raising and four tracking?

[Halish Railway]

moderator note-split from

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

Well it was suggested in the Manchester - Liverpool Electrification thread that we have a seperate Transpennine thread. Now I know that Manchester - Stalybridge is actually part of the Northern Hub project , but to me, haulage bashing Peaks in the 1970s-1980s - Liverpool-Newcastle was classed as...

www.railforums.co.uk

Good acceleration and braking means you can keep some lower speed restrictions because the train recovers back to a higher linespeed very quickly. A class 802 on electric is rapid to 90mph compared to legacy diesel stock such as 158's etc.

But the flip side is also true that it’s worth having more higher speeds if modern traction like the 802s can get up to speeds in excess of 100mph very quickly.

Yes the good acceleration of 802s negates the need to go out of boundary when increasing the linespeed through Church Fenton, but it also makes increasing the linespeed between Church Fenton and Cross Gates worthwhile, especially if the most potentially problematic asset, the turnout at Micklefield was designed for a linespeed of 100mph.

 

[Railperf]

But the flip side is also true that it’s worth having more higher speeds if modern traction like the 802s can get up to speeds in excess of 100mph very quickly.

Yes the good acceleration of 802s negates the need to go out of boundary when increasing the linespeed through Church Fenton, but it also makes increasing the linespeed between Church Fenton and Cross Gates worthwhile, especially if the most potentially problematic asset, the turnout at Micklefield was designed for a linespeed of 100mph

It seems to me that the infrastructure upgrades - with a view to increasing line speeds - is done with an overall view on what timetable can be delivered after the works. York to Leeds line speeds could be much faster, but little use if you cannot deliver a path through the station without a lengthy wait outside the station for a platform or a wait in the station for a path out.
Then of course, the ECML timetable changes and then you are governed by the slots available through there too - and then any changes to paths through York. You are also governed by the average speeds of the slower services stopping at all or most stations between Leeds and York. Even if the stoppers are served by high powered EMUs they will not be able to make use of the higher speeds. And then there will still be slower DMU's running between Leeds and Selby that neither accelerate quicky or hit more than 75 or 90mph. In those instances maybe a maximum line speeds of 100 or 110mph are sufficient.

 

[AndrewE]

2 things occur to me: all these problems highlight the fact that a 4-track raiway is essential if we want to run lots of express trains and a network of stoppers, and
as we keep being told, the secret of going fast is not to go slow! Smart operating and timetabling can ony achieve so much...

 

[Spartacus]

2 things occur to me: all these problems highlight the fact that a 4-track raiway is essential if we want to run lots of express trains and a network of stoppers, and
as we keep being told, the secret of going fast is not to go slow! Smart operating and timetabling can ony achieve so much...

Large proportions of the route were never 4 track in the first place though.

 

[AndrewE]

Large proportions of the route were never 4 track in the first place though.

so we need to make them 4-track now then (or work towards it as part of a rolling programme.)

 

[edwin_m]

Large proportions of the route were never 4 track in the first place though.

It was sort of 4-track between Leeds and Stalybridge if you included the Leeds New Line and the Micklehurst loop. But there's basically zero chance of either of those coming back, hence focusing on the middle section where the wider formation is basically still there.

 

[Spartacus]

It was sort of 4-track between Leeds and Stalybridge if you included the Leeds New Line and the Micklehurst loop. But there's basically zero chance of either of those coming back, hence focusing on the middle section where the wider formation is basically still there.

If you include alternative routes you could say it's already 4 track between Ravensthorpe and Church Fenton due to the services now going via Kirkgate and Castleford.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If you include alternative routes you could say it's already 4 track between Ravensthorpe and Church Fenton due to the services now going via Kirkgate and Castleford.

Or even from Manchester Victoria to York (via Diggle/Morley or Todmorden/Castleford) once the shared route through Mirfield is re-quadrupled.
But line speeds are lower on the Calder Valley route (with a lot of 60mph via Wakefield/Castleford).

 

[AndrewE]

Or even from Manchester Victoria to York (via Diggle/Morley or Todmorden/Castleford) once the shared route through Mirfield is re-quadrupled.
But line speeds are lower on the Calder Valley route (with a lot of 60mph via Wakefield/Castleford).

but you can't have stopping trains on one of them if you want to route the expresses that way. Just because there are 2 routes doesn't mean you don't need quadruple track.
Even if a new town was built (e.g.) between Roade and Hanslope Daventry you couldn't afford to put a station in...

 

[Bald Rick]

things occur to me: all these problems highlight the fact that a 4-track raiway is essential if we want to run lots of express trains and a network of stoppers

Do ‘we’ want that?

 

[D6130]

Or even from Manchester Victoria to York (via Diggle/Morley or Todmorden/Castleford) once the shared route through Mirfield is re-quadrupled.
But line speeds are lower on the Calder Valley route (with a lot of 60mph via Wakefield/Castleford).

Although line speeds for multiple units on the Calder Valley have improved significantly since the 2018 resignalling East of Hebden Bridge:

Man.Vic-Miles Platting: 50. (unchanged)
Miles Platting-Moston: 70. (unchanged)
Moston-Castleton: 80 Down/90 Up.
Castleton-Hebden Bridge: 70 (unchanged).
Hebden Bridge-Milner Royd Jn (Down): 75.
Milner Royd Jn-Mytholmroyd (Up): 80.
Mytholmroyd-Hebden Bridge (Up): 70.
Milner Royd Jn-Heaton Lodge Jn: 60 (unchanged).

 

[mike57]

The question has to be what are the easy wins, I can remember the two through tracks at Crossgates, for example.

I think the with the improvements between Dewsbury and Huddersfield, and possible 3 tracking up to Marsden the bottleneck is going to be Leeds York, certainly over many years of travelling this route that section is a prime spot for picking up delays 'following a stopping train'

So reinstate the 4 track formation through Crossgates, and keeping within the railway boundary how far could the 4 tracks extend towards Leeds, my guess would be to within a mile of Leeds station. This would surely help if the stopper leaves Leeds as now a few minutes after a fast service, if the fast service is slightly late it can still overtake the stopper all the way to Crossgates. Less cumulative disruption, where a few minutes late at Leeds then becomes 10 minutes + by York.

The section from east of Garforth to Church Fenton is pretty much constrained by development over the Leeds end, the only bit in really open country is the Church Fenton - Micklefield section, and I cant see much benefit in 4 tracking that unless you going to substantially increase line speeds from the current (90mph??). Over the rest of the route (Leeds Dewsbury, Marsden Manchester) any 4 tracking is going to be a major project, which in the current climate will not happen.

So what else would be easy wins, we can all draw lines on maps, and I think its fair to say NPR is dead for the time being, so a dedicated high speed transpennine route will not happen in the foreseeable future. Something I have mentioned before, running 3 coach long distance services through the Transpennine core is bad for capacity, surely the first and easy win (compared to major civil engineering) is to ensure that the long distance services are at maximum length for the major calling stations to ensure we get the most out of what we have.

And of course the elephant in the room, full electrification. Current progress is glacial, a big win would be to actually finish that, but whilst completion dates are sometimes aired the reality is with current progress its years off.

 

[Senex]

Or even from Manchester Victoria to York (via Diggle/Morley or Todmorden/Castleford) once the shared route through Mirfield is re-quadrupled.
But line speeds are lower on the Calder Valley route (with a lot of 60mph via Wakefield/Castleford).

Though speeds don't have to be lower. The majority of the Calder Valley line is very well aligned — a typical early railway. But the problem is that it misses Leeds, and I can't imagine anyone is ever going to want to run Liverpool - Manchester - York - Newcastle (and nowhere else). And if you turn off at Ravensthorpe you've got both the penalty of extra distance and of the slow line thence to Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

The line can't fundamentally escape the limits of its geometry. It will never be a truly fast railway because it's rather bendy, and many of those bends are hemmed in by construction.

The only way to deliver a fast railway would be a new alignment.
Four tracking is all very well but it would become ruinously expensive.

And if the expresses still have to crawl along an unsuitable alignment it won't even deliver that much in the way of benefits.

 

[Zomboid]

And of course the elephant in the room, full electrification. Current progress is glacial, a big win would be to actually finish that, but whilst completion dates are sometimes aired the reality is with current progress its years off.

Would be nice, but the current approach of eating the elephant one bite at a time works well with bi modes and prevents a GWEP style collosal overrun.

 

[Railperf]

The line can't fundamentally escape the limits of its geometry. It will never be a truly fast railway because it's rather bendy, and many of those bends are hemmed in by construction.

The only way to deliver a fast railway would be a new alignment.
Four tracking is all very well but it would become ruinously expensive.

And if the expresses still have to crawl along an unsuitable alignment it won't even deliver that much in the way of benefits.

It does not need to be much faster, but trying to path at least four TPE trains through per hour - and some of those stop frequently - creates unreliability if anything starting at Manchester or Leeds is late. The other day a faster TPE from Liverpool was 10 late into Manchester only for the stopper to be let out ahead of it across the Pennines. Let's say the delayed service didn't regain much time. So any third and fourth tracking where possible are welcome.
Also a signalling system that might allow parallel overtaking would be useful. This happens in Italy quite a bit to allow faster express trains to overtake slower stoppers.

 

[edwin_m]

The other day a faster TPE from Liverpool was 10 late into Manchester only for the stopper to be let out ahead of it across the Pennines.

There are three through platforms at Stalybridge so there is the opportunity to overtake there. Obvously can't say why that didn't happen in this case. Similarly overtaking is possible at Huddersfield.

 

[Railperf]

There are three through platforms at Stalybridge so there is the opportunity to overtake there. Obvously can't say why that didn't happen in this case. Similarly overtaking is possible at Huddersfield.

Only left a few min behind the stopper, so was catching it up before Standedge tunnel due to long signal blocks

 

[geoffk]

Or even from Manchester Victoria to York (via Diggle/Morley or Todmorden/Castleford) once the shared route through Mirfield is re-quadrupled.
But line speeds are lower on the Calder Valley route (with a lot of 60mph via Wakefield/Castleford).

The turnout before Marsden to reach platform 3 is, I believe, set at 20 mph, or was when I travelled on the line a few years ago. There's plenty of room to install a higher-speed turnout, even 40 mph would be acceptable if the train is stopping anyway. Is platform 3 still used? I also remember a 20mph turnout north of Church Fenton used by stopping trains to Leeds.

 

[AndrewE]

a 4-track raiway is essential if we want to run lots of express trains and a network of stoppers, ...

Do ‘we’ want that?

I think we do. NPR (as I understand it) is looking for a grid of fast services to help grow the economy throughout the region and on top of that the fastest practicable Metro/suburban services to provide something better than buses (which add to the congestion by grinding their way through all the town and city centres.)
The Liverpool to Newcastle axis should be just the start, with Sheffield top priority for linking in to it by something better than the odd XC/inter-city train which happens to go through it.

 

[cle]

The outcome of many of these schemes (wiring, esp in hilly areas and frequent stops) - is to be able to call at more stations and keep timings. Helps not upset the whole timetable.

Manchester-Leeds journey times are the PR piece here, but ultimately more capacity is also needed. So if people can make piece with 48 instead of 44 mins, or whatever it was - select stations get a third TPH. Sounds like 2tph each side of Huddersfield as stoppers, and 2 that call Stalybridge and Dewsbury. 4 fasts (Hudds only).

If the calls were spread a little more evenly you might see a better service across the board, for the money, as well as not sacrificing faster journeys between Manc and Leeds. Otherwise, the local stations aren't really getting any benefit and you're not addressing congestion / rail demand by better service.

 

[Halish Railway]

If the calls were spread a little more evenly you might see a better service across the board, for the money, as well as not sacrificing faster journeys between Manc and Leeds. Otherwise, the local stations aren't really getting any benefit and you're not addressing congestion / rail demand by better service.

But for Leeds to York, four tracking Neville Hill to just outside of Garforth gives you most of the benefits of an improved local service whilst increasing the linespeed for fast services services by providing the opportunity to have dynamic overtaking and I think most importantly more flexibility in creating timetables and timetable resilience if a fast train can leave Leeds immediately after a stopping train and overtake it later.

People have spoken about cost, however it’d be a fairly short but useful four track section where the alignment is fairly wide and hasn’t been built on, the current and planned intermediate stations have provision for four tracks, there’s no need to go out of boundary to increase linespeeds and access appears to be much easier easier than Dewsbury to Huddersfield and Huddersfield to Marsden (providing that happens).

 

[nr758123]

The turnout before Marsden to reach platform 3 is, I believe, set at 20 mph, or was when I travelled on the line a few years ago. There's plenty of room to install a higher-speed turnout, even 40 mph would be acceptable if the train is stopping anyway. Is platform 3 still used?

Platform 3 is not in regular use, but very occasionally used to enable overtaking. I was on a stopping train last week which was diverted to Marsden platform 3 to allow a delayed express to overtake.

 

[Martin Lee]

2 things occur to me: all these problems highlight the fact that a 4-track raiway is essential if we want to run lots of express trains and a network of stoppers, and
as we keep being told, the secret of going fast is not to go slow! Smart operating and timetabling can ony achieve so much...

The tunnels to the West of Huddersfield station might limit the total capacity for a four track railway as the southern one is used by trains on the Huddersfield -Peniston line.

Could some of that potential problem be fixed with electronic signaling such as ETCS for both lines. The shared tunnel is relatively short.

 

[Zomboid]

Even keeping the Penistone line separate would give potential (depending on space for OLE) for 3 running lines, and if there were 4 tracks chances are it wouldn't be necessary to keep it separate anyway.

 

[Martin Lee]

The outcome of many of these schemes (wiring, esp in hilly areas and frequent stops) - is to be able to call at more stations and keep timings. Helps not upset the whole timetable.

Manchester-Leeds journey times are the PR piece here, but ultimately more capacity is also needed. So if people can make piece with 48 instead of 44 mins, or whatever it was - select stations get a third TPH. Sounds like 2tph each side of Huddersfield as stoppers, and 2 that call Stalybridge and Dewsbury. 4 fasts (Hudds only).

If the calls were spread a little more evenly you might see a better service across the board, for the money, as well as not sacrificing faster journeys between Manc and Leeds. Otherwise, the local stations aren't really getting any benefit and you're not addressing congestion / rail demand by better service.

Would increasing to four lines from Marsden to Huddersfield allow more stopping trains and freight. I guess it would but at what expense? Electrifying the Rochdale, Todmorden route principally for freight and making the line via Huddersfield passenger only might be a cheaper option.

 

[mike57]

4 fasts (Hudds only).

I would argue that 4 fasts + 2 semi fast per hour would be better delivered by 3 fasts and 1 semi fast per hour, running at maximum length that can be accomodated at the major stops, with limited door opening at any minor stops at the outer ends of the route as happens at Seamer now with anything more than 5 car. The more you try to push through, even with improvements, the less robust the timetable is, and even a minor incident can then have knock ons right across the network. (which was proven in 2018). More rolling stock for longer trains has to be a better option than more trains at current length. You also need less staff. The Newcastle - Liverpool axis shares a good bit of its route with the ECML, and thats another route that is close to capacity, and again running less than full length trains makes no sense.

I dont know what the maximum length that could be accomodated at the main stops, my guess would be 8 cars. Thats an immediate 60% increase, and with 3+1 tph you have a 15 min interval service between Leeds and Manchester, and leave room for some stoppers. going to 4+2 results in a 10 minute interval, but would passengers really notice the difference in 5 minute less wait as long as the train has the required capacity. 15 min interval is pretty much turn up and go.

 

[Zomboid]

Longer trains don't do much to generate demand, whilst frequency is proven to. And it's not just the core section that matters, If you're running 4tph through the core, that's only 4 destinations per hour at either end. Which will mean a relatively infrequent service to all of them, especially on the eastern side.

Obviously there's a limit to what can realistically be done, but these are some of the UKs biggest cities that TPE are linking.

 

[mike57]

Which will mean a relatively infrequent service to all of them, especially on the eastern side

Problem with both Scarborough and Middlebrough is that the routes required to get them to their destinations eat up capacity on the already crowded ECML. Hull is less of a problem, and Newcastle is really the primary destination anyway. Scarborough could benefit from 2tph from York (there are already extra services on summer weekends), but the second train will probably be best being a York shuttle. Middlesborough has the same problem, with northbound services crossing the southbound ECML at Northallerton, so the extra services eat into capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

Using the Class 395 as an example of what a high performance unit can achieve, is there any way to model what would happen if such a unit was put on the stoppers?

The limiting factor on two track lines is the slowest service (at least on average), which is likely to be a stopper