How to solve capacity issues between Marsden and Huddersfield?

[edwin_m]

The capacity issue between Marsden and Huddersfield is similar to that between Ravensthorpe and Leeds after completion of the four-tracking from Huddersfield. The 8TPH of fasts doesn't have to be regular, it can include a couple of longer gaps for a stopper in between. Assuming electrification via Stalybridge that stopper will be an EMU, so quicker off the mark than it is today. There might also be some semi-fasts via Stalybridge, but these would be non-stop on the shared section so would be able to keep up with the NPR trains.

I wonder if the third track is more about freight.

 

[Glenn1969]

The capacity issue between Marsden and Huddersfield is similar to that between Ravensthorpe and Leeds after completion of the four-tracking from Huddersfield. The 8TPH of fasts doesn't have to be regular, it can include a couple of longer gaps for a stopper in between. Assuming electrification via Stalybridge that stopper will be an EMU, so quicker off the mark than it is today. There might also be some semi-fasts via Stalybridge, but these would be non-stop on the shared section so would be able to keep up with the NPR trains.

I wonder if the third track is more about freight.

Might? Surely the existing service will continue and needs factoring in

 

[edwin_m]

Might? Surely the existing service will continue and needs factoring in

I don't suppose that's been decided but I don't think we can assume they will stay. The existing 4TPH Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds service will be replaced by 8TPH with a better journey time so a semi-fast would only be of use for Stalybridge and any extra stops it makes east of Huddersfield. I suspect there would be no capacity for it between Ravensthorpe and Leeds, because the timetable could be written round fitting it between NPR services on one section but it gets much harder to do it twice on the same journey, and there would probably still be Calder Valley trains to fit in via Dewsbury. A Manchester-Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Bradford semi-fast might be a judged to be a good political move, and one to Wakefield would also be an interesting idea.

 

[Roast Veg]

A Manchester-Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Bradford semi-fast might be a judged to be a good political move, and one to Wakefield would also be an interesting idea.

We can but dream!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The capacity issue between Marsden and Huddersfield is similar to that between Ravensthorpe and Leeds after completion of the four-tracking from Huddersfield. The 8TPH of fasts doesn't have to be regular, it can include a couple of longer gaps for a stopper in between. Assuming electrification via Stalybridge that stopper will be an EMU, so quicker off the mark than it is today. There might also be some semi-fasts via Stalybridge, but these would be non-stop on the shared section so would be able to keep up with the NPR trains.
I wonder if the third track is more about freight.

It's decidedly unclear what the arrangements at Marsden will be.
Will NPR reuse the old bores of the Standedge tunnel or bore a new one on a possibly different alignment? One 2-track bore or two single track bores?
How will the TRU and NPR routes converge at Marsden, ie grade separated or not?
I think it's a fair bet that legacy TRU trains will have a slower run through the area, on top of the 45mph on the curves at the eastern end of the tunnel.
2-up, 1-down tracks, all bi-di with ETCS, would make sense for a 3-track Marsden-Huddersfield section, but the new 3rd track will have to wander about a bit.
The existing 2-track route changes sides on the old formation, and in places there were essentially two separate 2-track routes.
It will be an interesting design.

 

[Glenn1969]

I don't suppose that's been decided but I don't think we can assume they will stay. The existing 4TPH Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds service will be replaced by 8TPH with a better journey time so a semi-fast would only be of use for Stalybridge and any extra stops it makes east of Huddersfield. I suspect there would be no capacity for it between Ravensthorpe and Leeds, because the timetable could be written round fitting it between NPR services on one section but it gets much harder to do it twice on the same journey, and there would probably still be Calder Valley trains to fit in via Dewsbury. A Manchester-Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Bradford semi-fast might be a judged to be a good political move, and one to Wakefield would also be an interesting idea.

Stalybridge will still need a service of more than just stoppers. TfGM also want 2tph at at least one of Greenfield and Mossley. So I think we have to assume they wil stay in some form

 

[snowball]

It's decidedly unclear what the arrangements at Marsden will be.
Will NPR reuse the old bores of the Standedge tunnel or bore a new one on a possibly different alignment? One 2-track bore or two single track bores?

I think all HS2 bored tunnels are single track per bore? So if NPR is new tunnels it'll probably be the same. Remember the ridiculous claims that Fillie was "the biggest TBM in the country" because it was of 2-track diameter?

How will the TRU and NPR routes converge at Marsden, ie grade separated or not?

If it was guaranteed to be four tracks all the way to Huddersfield it would probably be best to have the fast lines (off NPR) on the south, to match the layout beyond Hudds. But as it probably won't be like that, grade separated will probably be better.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think all HS2 bored tunnels are single track per bore? So if NPR is new tunnels it'll probably be the same. Remember the ridiculous claims that Fillie was "the biggest TBM in the country" because it was of 2-track diameter?

…and as anyone could see it wasn’t really a “tunnel boring machine” in the modern sense anyway.

 

[Greybeard33]

Stalybridge will still need a service of more than just stoppers. TfGM also want 2tph at at least one of Greenfield and Mossley. So I think we have to assume they wil stay in some form

IIRC the TRU spec for Huddersfield - Stalybridge (pre-NPR) is 4tph fast, 2tph semi-fast and 2tph stoppers. The IRP suggests that the new NPR Marsden - Piccadilly line will carry 6tph, 4tph to Liverpool via Warrington and 2tph to Birmingham. But the capacity charts imply 8tph total between Leeds and Manchester, so presumably 2tph semi-fast to Victoria via Stalybridge, plus 2tph stoppers and a freight path.

Of course, service planning can only be indicative so far in the future!

 

[Glenn1969]

IIRC the TRU spec for Huddersfield - Stalybridge (pre-NPR) is 4tph fast, 2tph semi-fast and 2tph stoppers. The IRP suggests that the new NPR Marsden - Piccadilly line will carry 6tph, 4tph to Liverpool via Warrington and 2tph to Birmingham. But the capacity charts imply 8tph total between Leeds and Manchester, so presumably 2tph semi-fast to Victoria via Stalybridge, plus 2tph stoppers and a freight path.

Of course, service planning can only be indicative so far in the future!

The current (pre Covid) service is 5tph not counting the stopper.

 

[hwl]

IIRC the TRU spec for Huddersfield - Stalybridge (pre-NPR) is 4tph fast, 2tph semi-fast and 2tph stoppers. The IRP suggests that the new NPR Marsden - Piccadilly line will carry 6tph, 4tph to Liverpool via Warrington and 2tph to Birmingham. But the capacity charts imply 8tph total between Leeds and Manchester, so presumably 2tph semi-fast to Victoria via Stalybridge, plus 2tph stoppers and a freight path.

Of course, service planning can only be indicative so far in the future!

Agree on that interpretation.

I suspect at some point the Northern Man Vic - Stalybridge services element could be combined with the TPE stopper with an extra stop at Ashton

 

[YorksLad12]

It's decidedly unclear what the arrangements at Marsden will be.
Will NPR reuse the old bores of the Standedge tunnel or bore a new one on a possibly different alignment? One 2-track bore or two single track bores?
How will the TRU and NPR routes converge at Marsden, ie grade separated or not?
I think it's a fair bet that legacy TRU trains will have a slower run through the area, on top of the 45mph on the curves at the eastern end of the tunnel.
2-up, 1-down tracks, all bi-di with ETCS, would make sense for a 3-track Marsden-Huddersfield section, but the new 3rd track will have to wander about a bit.
The existing 2-track route changes sides on the old formation, and in places there were essentially two separate 2-track routes.
It will be an interesting design.

I'd put money on their being new bores, even though that might cost a bit more.

The other thing to remember about Marsden is that as well as the hill to the west there's also the fairly steep hill from Manchester Road up to the station site and beyond, so it might be as simple as dropping in betwwen the existing tracks or to one side.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd put money on their being new bores, even though that might cost a bit more.

The other thing to remember about Marsden is that as well as the hill to the west there's also the fairly steep hill from Manchester Road up to the station site and beyond, so it might be as simple as dropping in betwwen the existing tracks or to one side.

If I had any money I'd also put it on new bores, but continue them through the hill NW of Marsden (Huck Hill according to the OS map) to join near Netherwood Lane. Depending how the gradients and evacuation arrangements work, there might be a very short open air section across the valley near the existing portal. This extension avoids several slow curves as well as the station itself, so there's only one station on the shared section* until Huddersfield where everything will stop anyway, and after which the fast lines will bypass the stations.

*I recall discussions on reopenings too - Golcar springs to mind - but there's probably scope to accommodate another one and not break the timetable.

 

[hwl]

I'd put money on their being new bores, even though that might cost a bit more.

The other thing to remember about Marsden is that as well as the hill to the west there's also the fairly steep hill from Manchester Road up to the station site and beyond, so it might be as simple as dropping in betwwen the existing tracks or to one side.

Agreed. One of the big issues is the current bores and the alignment resulting in low line speed and being listed so more difficult to change.

Having a new bores emerge mid way between Marsden and Slaithwaite (and with level tunnels for comparison) would have the rail level just over 30m lower than the current tunnels, in reality new bore slope down to the west at ~1:250 would be a realistic starting point. In terms of alignment new bore might be 400-500m to the south of the existing ones to minimise distance and curvature.

 

[Ken H]

Agreed. One of the big issues is the current bores and the alignment resulting in low line speed and being listed so more difficult to change.

Having a new bores emerge mid way between Marsden and Slaithwaite (and with level tunnels for comparison) would have the rail level just over 30m lower than the current tunnels, in reality new bore slope down to the west at ~1:250 would be a realistic starting point. In terms of alignment new bore might be 400-500m to the south of the existing ones to minimise distance and curvature.

But what is the geology like?
I imagine they will be going through the Millstone Grit. The geological map seems to say that.
Tunneling through that stuff will be hard.

 

[snowball]

But what is the geology like?
I imagine they will be going through the Millstone Grit. The geological map seems to say that.
Tunneling through that stuff will be hard.

I'm not an expert but tunneling is often easier through harder rock and most difficult through softer ground which is liable to collapses. I remember reading about Penmaenbach westbound tunnel on the A55 in the 1980s where the middle section went quickly by drill and blast, with one blast every evening, but the ends went slowly, requiring hand tools and a shield.

 

[Killingworth]

I'm not an expert but tunneling is often easier through harder rock and most difficult through softer ground which is liable to collapses. I remember reading about Penmaenbach westbound tunnel on the A55 in the 1980s where the middle section went quickly by drill and blast, with one blast every evening, but the ends went slowly, requiring hand tools and a shield.

There must be hundreds of miles of long road tunnels built through hard rock in Norway, most within last 60 years. Makes it look very easy!

 

[InOban]

Not to mention the new base tunnels through the Alps.

 

[Bald Rick]

Will NPR reuse the old bores of the Standedge tunnel or bore a new one on a possibly different alignment? One 2-track bore or two single track bores?

I'd put money on their being new bores, even though that might cost a bit more.

I’d bet my house on it being new tunnels, which would be cheaper than trying to use the old ones.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I’d bet my house on it being new tunnels, which would be cheaper than trying to use the old ones.

Almost certainly less disruptive too I would have thought.

 

[tomuk]

New tunnels with the portals just after the station in the area of Marsden Skate Park. Then reinstate/expand the route from there through Slaithwaite to 4 track.

 

[Greybeard33]

I suspect at some point the Northern Man Vic - Stalybridge services element could be combined with the TPE stopper with an extra stop at Ashton

Indeed. The stoppers (whether operated by TPE or Northern) might well run through Victoria from Huddersfield to Wigan, making use of the electrified Bolton - Wigan line.

 

[MarkyT]

I’d bet my house on it being new tunnels, which would be cheaper than trying to use the old ones.

If new bore(s) was/were routed parallel and quite close to existing unused bores, then regular cross passages might be created to allow an unused bore to function as an emergency/maintenance access route, as I believe one already does to the current double track rail bore (and the canal tunnel).

I'm not an expert but tunneling is often easier through harder rock and most difficult through softer ground which is liable to collapses.

I've seen than opinion expressed by tunnellers in documentaries about Swiss Gotthard base and Albula replacement tunnels. Solid hard rock is predictable and safe, self supporting, until the TBM runs into something unexpected!

 

[Brooke]

Agreed. One of the big issues is the current bores and the alignment resulting in low line speed and being listed so more difficult to change.

Having a new bores emerge mid way between Marsden and Slaithwaite (and with level tunnels for comparison) would have the rail level just over 30m lower than the current tunnels, in reality new bore slope down to the west at ~1:250 would be a realistic starting point. In terms of alignment new bore might be 400-500m to the south of the existing ones to minimise distance and curvature.

This is my quiet bet as well; basically new two-track tunnelling that emerges in the Boothbanks area (I.e. north of Sparth Res.), pointing straight down the valley in alignment with the current tracks towards Slawit.

My guess it’ll be as cheap as reusing the existing, and it deals with the very slow corner into the tunnels at the Marsden end.

From a quick glance at OS map the current tracks drop about 20m between those two points, which I figure is enough to allow my new tunnel to pass under the old lines.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If new bore(s) was/were routed parallel and quite close to existing unused bores, then regular cross passages might be created to allow an unused bore to function as an emergency/maintenance access route, as I believe one already does to the current double track rail bore (and the canal tunnel).

Yes. I can’t see the old bores being reused for exactly that reason: there’d no longer be an access/rescue tunnel for the canal tunnel, and HSE were insistent that was provided as a condition of the canal reopening.

 

[Brooke]

Yes. I can’t see the old bores being reused for exactly that reason: there’d no longer be an access/rescue tunnel for the canal tunnel, and HSE were insistent that was provided as a condition of the canal reopening.

Yep, that’s what I reckon as well, that there’s two big reasons for new bore:

(1) Safety - The old tunnels are already used to support the existing rail and canal tunnels which no one doing a risk assessment etc. will want to undo. And I guess they will not meet current day standards anyway, which again people will want & would be expensive to retrofit

(2) Tunnel End - The tight bends there obviously compromise speed / capacity, why would you keep that compromise for the future, when it can be done away with via new bores in different alignment / levels.

 

[hwl]

Yep, that’s what I reckon as well, that there’s two big reasons for new bore:

(1) Safety - The old tunnels are already used to support the existing rail and canal tunnels which no one doing a risk assessment etc. will want to undo. And I guess they will not meet current day standards anyway, which again people will want & would be expensive to retrofit

(2) Tunnel End - The tight bends there obviously compromise speed / capacity, why would you keep that compromise for the future, when it can be done away with via new bores in different alignment / levels.

And the old bore dimensions will be poor causing aerodynamic issues if trying to run at high speeds.

 

[Brooke]

And the old bore dimensions will be poor causing aerodynamic issues if trying to run at high speeds.

One more: And there’s no space to work at Tunnel End / access is a pain from the A62. Further down at Boothbanks, there’s more space and easier A62 access.

 

[SuperNova]

The obvious one is that NPR won't be having any 45mph curves to pass. Quite clear to achieve the journey time requirements that NPR will be new bores on a new alignment. I'd guess the new route will diverge from before Marsden crossing the valley rather than running near the existing station itself.

 

[edwin_m]

It would be pretty difficult to get to anywhere useful from Diggle either. There's a lot of development that would make continuing down the Tame valley very difficult, so you'd need a lot of tunneling anyway to continue towards Manchester. It's not immediately obvious how you'd do even that without demolishing large parts of Diggle, Dobcross or Uppermill. A new tunnel gives the flexibility to head directly towards Manchester if desired.