Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Purple Orange]

The "solution" here would be to revert the Airport services to Piccadilly, which would free up a path for the stopper to return to Victoria as well as reducing movements through Castlefield. The real solution would be to stop planning services to run on infrastructure that hasn't been built yet (Castlefield plus P15 & 16 at Pic). Adding back the two tracks between Huddersfield and Marsden/Standedge should be possible though.



Last summer it was mentioned to me that the project would last seven-ish years, so well into CP7. It's a big project, but breaking it up into smaller packages that in of themselves bring some benefits is a good thing, I think.

Was that 7 years for the Huddersfield-Dewsbury/Leeds bit or 7 years for Manchester to York?

 

[Elecman]

The political cycle doesn't help.
NR gets funded in 5-year chunks, and the current one (CP6) is 2019-24.
So you're not going to get any clarity on anything after that until the next round for which the negotiation cycle starts in 2022.
Then there's the much bigger Treasury Spending Review which is supposed to come out before Christmas (it will set DfT budgets).
I'd expect that to be the trigger for things like NPR commitments.
Covid and its impact on finances doesn't help.

Funding Major Enhancement projects like this are now outside of the 5 year funding control periods which are just for Maintenance of the existing infrastructur3

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Funding Major Enhancement projects like this are now outside of the 5 year funding control periods which are just for Maintenance of the existing infrastructur3

And a post Covid economy boost also changes things as hopefully does the commitment to net zero carbon

 

[SuperNova]

Any reinstatement? Sure, re quadrupling all along the extant formation (Hudds-Diggle Jn) would lead to lower line speeds as there’s been a fair bit of slewing east of Marsden. I’m also not convinced it would achieve much, as you’d still be stuck with a two track section westwards to Stalybridge.

Joining the existing (and not terribly useful) loops at Marsden and Diggle into one lengthy bi-directional third track could surely be achieved without impinging on line speeds, but would provide meaningful extra capacity.

But is your loop long enough to achieve much relevancy given most loops need to be a certain length to achieve capacity/line speed (ETCS may arrive though)? Would the cost of undoubtedly reopening the disused diggle tunnel be deemed worthy enough? And how would this loop work? Surely you'd have eastbound services using that loop crossing the westbound track at both Diggle at Marsden?

 

[YorksLad12]

Was that 7 years for the Huddersfield-Dewsbury/Leeds bit or 7 years for Manchester to York?

I assumed it was as far as Leeds, given the stopping service would have to be diesel under wires and the proposed White Rose Station would need passive provision for electrification anyway. I understand that the comms teams are based in York and Leeds, rather than just York.

 

[Mikey C]

And a post Covid economy boost also changes things as hopefully does the commitment to net zero carbon

And lots of newly won seats in the north that the Conservatives will be defending at the next election in 2024

 

[Spartacus]

But is your loop long enough to achieve much relevancy given most loops need to be a certain length to achieve capacity/line speed (ETCS may arrive though)? Would the cost of undoubtedly reopening the disused diggle tunnel be deemed worthy enough? And how would this loop work? Surely you'd have eastbound services using that loop crossing the westbound track at both Diggle at Marsden?

I’m pretty sure that when it was studied one problem was that to prevent conflicts the Up lines would have to go through the single bored and the Down lines through the twin bore. This would not only cause gauge restrictions in the Up direction but be a maintenance headache as ideally you’d want to close either the new or the old when work was required, diverting through the other, not possible with the above arrangement without investing in some form of expensive bi-directional signalling.

All that was irrelevant though as it doesn’t offer any real gains. Unlike in the past when the slowest traffic was an unfitted freight, far slower than an express, the slowest traffic is now the local service, what freight there is, is usually faster than it, and often not much slower than an express. The local’s slow because it stops, and quadrupling where there are no stops is all but pointless.

 

[CW2]

The way I see it could work would be to route the westbound line through the old (reopened) tunnel, freeing up the existing westbound line to become a bi-di centre relief line.
I'd have all three lines bi-di on resignalling (with ETCS). It would need some appropriately-speeded crossovers at either end of the tunnel, but it would give a valuable capacity boost at a particular bottleneck.

 

[Bald Rick]

Funding Major Enhancement projects like this are now outside of the 5 year funding control periods which are just for Maintenance of the existing infrastructur3

Yes... and no. Funding for enhancements is indeed a separate ‘pot’ from the operations / maintenance / renewals funding, and decided on a project by project basis. However, it still falls within the overall funding available in the Control Period settlement. For the current control period, the amount for enhancements is £10.4bn - and not a penny more. (continues....)

And a post Covid economy boost also changes things as hopefully does the commitment to net zero carbon

.... much more likely is a post Covid financial squeeze. Particularly when many of the enhancement projects are there to increase capacity for long distance or commuting services, for which the need is rather less pressing that it was. Personally I can’t see any big decisions being taken on these projects for some time, and that means some of them will be delayed, and that means spend not happening. Heathrow Western Access is a case in point.

 

[Spartacus]

The way I see it could work would be to route the westbound line through the old (reopened) tunnel, freeing up the existing westbound line to become a bi-di centre relief line.
I'd have all three lines bi-di on resignalling (with ETCS). It would need some appropriately-speeded crossovers at either end of the tunnel, but it would give a valuable capacity boost at a particular bottleneck.

And the difference in speed between the fastest and slowest services is still at it’s lowest, so an increase in track capacity is still at it’s least useful. You’ve still got a loop that from a planning perspective is virtually useless.

 

[waverley47]

And the difference in speed between the fastest and slowest services is still at it’s lowest, so an increase in track capacity is still at it’s least useful. You’ve still got a loop that from a planning perspective is virtually useless.

Not entirely. Virtually no freight goes over that line currently due to frequency and speed of the passenger services, and a distinct lack of paths at either end. While it is true that the speed differential between fast and slow passenger trains would be lowest through the tunnel, the differential between passenger and freight is likely to be highest.

Just like pathing freights over the WCML, it's a slow process getting up the hill, and stopping on the level at the top is an attractive prospect. In a future world, with more freight paths over the Stalybridge line, it might be beneficial to send a freight up the bank, and loop it on the level through the tunnel before awaiting a path down the other side. A single bi-di line in the middle would work almost perfectly for this.

Now, all of this is entirely redundant given the lack of freight paths over the summit, and on the two track sections either side, but in a future world with infinite money, you never know.

Personally, I'd agree it's almost entirely useless, but we can dream.

 

[SuperNova]

Not entirely. Virtually no freight goes over that line currently due to frequency and speed of the passenger services, and a distinct lack of paths at either end. While it is true that the speed differential between fast and slow passenger trains would be lowest through the tunnel, the differential between passenger and freight is likely to be highest.

Just like pathing freights over the WCML, it's a slow process getting up the hill, and stopping on the level at the top is an attractive prospect. In a future world, with more freight paths over the Stalybridge line, it might be beneficial to send a freight up the bank, and loop it on the level through the tunnel before awaiting a path down the other side. A single bi-di line in the middle would work almost perfectly for this.

Now, all of this is entirely redundant given the lack of freight paths over the summit, and on the two track sections either side, but in a future world with infinite money, you never know.

Personally, I'd agree it's almost entirely useless, but we can dream.

Also with a fully electrified railway, acceleration is increased - the major issue with stopping service, again making any loop effectively redundant unless it is significant in length, which Marsden to Diggle isn't (around 3 to 3.5 miles).

 

[CW2]

Well it all depends on how you intend to use your loop. I think that creating a loop such as this would enable some freight paths to be created via Diggle. Having bi-di on all 3 lines would make maintenance much easier (and possibly reduce the need to divert via the Calder Valley overnight / weekends). It's not much cop for allowing an express to overtake a stopper unless you time the stopper to sit overtime at Marsden - as TPE already do with some services at Dewsbury.

 

[Spartacus]

I think we've gone off topic again into something that should be in the speculative ideas as there's no current plans to reactivate either of the two single bores.

 

[CW2]

I think we've gone off topic again into something that should be in the speculative ideas as there's no current plans to reactivate either of the two single bores.

Alas, you are probably correct.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Reactivation of both bores probably isn't possible anyway due to one of them being used as emergency access to the two "in use" bores (the current double track railway and the canal tunnel). One could perhaps use a "tramway" style surface to retain this facility if it was absolutely necessary to 4-track through the tunnel, but a raised surface for road vehicles wouldn't interact so well with the wires- clearance would be tight in a single-bore and fire appliances are rather chunky!

As has been said, most cross-Pennine freight runs via Calder Valley. If there were paths available via Standedge they'd probably cause further issues nearer to Manchester anyway.

 

[Revaulx]

I’m pretty sure that when it was studied one problem was that to prevent conflicts the Up lines would have to go through the single bored and the Down lines through the twin bore. This would not only cause gauge restrictions in the Up direction but be a maintenance headache as ideally you’d want to close either the new or the old when work was required, diverting through the other, not possible with the above arrangement without investing in some form of expensive bi-directional signalling.

All that was irrelevant though as it doesn’t offer any real gains. Unlike in the past when the slowest traffic was an unfitted freight, far slower than an express, the slowest traffic is now the local service, what freight there is, is usually faster than it, and often not much slower than an express. The local’s slow because it stops, and quadrupling where there are no stops is all but pointless.

Lots of good points here. Though I wasn’t proposing quadrupling; merely joining together the two existing loops. One of which starts east of Marsden station, so that’s one stop taken care of!

 

[Class 170101]

Just like pathing freights over the WCML, it's a slow process getting up the hill, and stopping on the level at the top is an attractive prospect. In a future world, with more freight paths over the Stalybridge line, it might be beneficial to send a freight up the bank, and loop it on the level through the tunnel before awaiting a path down the other side. A single bi-di line in the middle would work almost perfectly for this.

Don't go there concerning the Bi-Di Freight loop because one knows exactly what would happen the timetable would become virtually impossible to construct because the freights would inevitably meet each other going in opposite directions and thus wanting to use your Bi-Di Loop at the same time.

 

[Revaulx]

Also with a fully electrified railway, acceleration is increased - the major issue with stopping service, again making any loop effectively redundant unless it is significant in length, which Marsden to Diggle isn't (around 3 to 3.5 miles).

It must be around 6 miles between the outer ends of the existing loops.

 

[edwin_m]

You wouldn't connect a third track to the Diggle Junction loop because it's on the opposite side of the other two tracks from the Marsden loop. You'd probably use some of the unused trackbed on the other side at Diggle, which continues for a mile or so before diverging off into Butterhouse Tunnel as the former Micklehurst Loop. Part of this is probably straight enough for a decent speed junction, and if desired to re-align the Up Main through one of the unused bores with the existing Up Main becoming a bi-directional center Slow line.

At the Marsden end the three-tracking would have to extend another mile or so to reach a fairly straight section, and over about half of this part the remaining tracks have been slewed across onto the former Slow alignments. This suggests either that there is a structure/earthwork problem on the other side, or that this was done to increase speed and it would have to be reduced again on the Down line if it was put back on its original trackbed.

 

[Revaulx]

You wouldn't connect a third track to the Diggle Junction loop because it's on the opposite side of the other two tracks from the Marsden loop. You'd probably use some of the unused trackbed on the other side at Diggle, which continues for a mile or so before diverging off into Butterhouse Tunnel as the former Micklehurst Loop. Part of this is probably straight enough for a decent speed junction, and if desired to re-align the Up Main through one of the unused bores with the existing Up Main becoming a bi-directional center Slow line.

That all seems both useful and achievable. I'm not sure if electrification clearances in the single bore tunnel would be an issue?

At the Marsden end the three-tracking would have to extend another mile or so to reach a fairly straight section, and over about half of this part the remaining tracks have been slewed across onto the former Slow alignments. This suggests either that there is a structure/earthwork problem on the other side, or that this was done to increase speed and it would have to be reduced again on the Down line if it was put back on its original trackbed.

I'm fairly certain the slewing was done to increase speed; the ER/NER was keen on doing this wherever it could. You're right about the loop not starting in a great place speed-wise though.

 

[waverley47]

Don't go there concerning the Bi-Di Freight loop because one knows exactly what would happen the timetable would become virtually impossible to construct because the freights would inevitably meet each other going in opposite directions and thus wanting to use your Bi-Di Loop at the same time.

Now, that would certainly be a sight. Inevitably yes, although I think the overall shortage of freight paths might mean it ends up more of an unused asset than anything else.

The problem with freight over the Marsden route is that there just isn't really any demand for it, what little across-the-pennines freight there is goes over the Calder line or the Hope Valley. Personally, the three tracking is never going to happen through the tunnels, it's four track the full six miles or nothing.

I think bar stringing up knitting over the summit, which realistically we are likely to see announced in the next few years, it's the summit section is not going to see any dramatic improvements for the foreseeable future. Four tracking the whole way will wait until NPR if it happens at all.

 

[Killingworth]

The problem with freight over the Marsden route is that there just isn't really any demand for it, what little across-the-pennines freight there is goes over the Calder line or the Hope Valley. Personally, the three tracking is never going to happen through the tunnels, it's four track the full six miles or nothing.

When there are blockades for all the work planned alternative routes for freight and passenger traffic will be difficult. Loading gauge is a big issue for freight. The Hope Valley tunnels are fine for current stone and cement trains, but they're all that currently go that way. It was an issue brought up by local residents at the public inquiry who feared it would become a major 24/7 all purpose freight route. They were assured it wouldn't due to gauging.

 

[grangergranger]

I looked at a cab-ride video of a journey between Huddersfield and Manchester Vic.
Also looking at Google Earth, would there be provision for quad tracks between Huddersfield and Marston.
From my view it could just about be done , but remodelling is needed. (From my limited Knowledge, correct me if im wrong)
Plus, would it even be beneficial due to high costs and the low amount of stopper services??

 

[59CosG95]

I looked at a cab-ride video of a journey between Huddersfield and Manchester Vic.
Also looking at Google Earth, would there be provision for quad tracks between Huddersfield and Marston.
From my view it could just about be done , but remodelling is needed. (From my limited Knowledge, correct me if im wrong)
Plus, would it even be beneficial due to high costs and the low amount of stopper services??

4-tracking between Huddersfield & Marsden looks to be possible, certainly.
Limited headroom in the bores of the tunnels immediately west of Huddersfield may prove an issue (AFAIK each pair of bores in each pair of tunnels has carried two tracks before), but the main obstacle to 4-tracking SW of Hudds is the lack of space to 4-track SW of Marsden, through Standedge Tunnel and towards Stalybridge.
Standedge, theoretically, could carry extra tracks in the 2 disused single-track bores, but the central one is used to access the canal tunnel below the rail tunnels, as well as emergency access to the rail tunnel currently in use.
As for the finances, the cost of reopening the disused bores may be enough not to warrant 4-tracking at this stage.

Hope I haven't repeated too much of what everyone else has said!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Huddersfield to Diggle was four-tracked along the existing formation until the 1970s, so putting that back should be possible... however this would mean realignment to the previous profile, meaning a lower linespeed with more severe curvature (even as it stands today, the route isn't exactly straight).

The need for four-tracking throughout probably isn't there to be honest. Particularly with the improved acceleration of modern electric units once the wires are up. If there's anywhere on the climb up to Marsden where dynamic loops could be added without compromising linespeed too much, that'll be a help. There are aspirations for at least one new station between Huddersfield and Marsden (most likely a joint station for Milnsbridge and Golcar rather than separate ones at the same locations as the previous) which can't happen currently due to pathing constraints but might well be achievable once the wires are up.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is all very interesting, but would would 4 tracking of that section of route actually be for?

With electric trains, the difference in time between the services stopping and those running fast will be about 8 minutes between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. A stopper leaving 4 minutes after a fast will have plenty of time to be out of the next fast.

What am I missing?

 

[waverley47]

This is all very interesting, but would would 4 tracking of that section of route actually be for?

With electric trains, the difference in time between the services stopping and those running fast will be about 8 minutes between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. A stopper leaving 4 minutes after a fast will have plenty of time to be out of the next fast.

What am I missing?

Honestly nothing. There isn't a need for four tracking, there could be argued a hypothetical need for a long loop somewhere between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, but overall there's not really any pressing demand for a full four tracking.

If NPR is fudged as "new railway across the Pennines" which turns out to be just an upgraded Marsden line then maybe four tracking will happen, but it's unlikely that any interventions are needed.

My argument that it was four track or nothing was probably not very well worded. I meant that there isn't really a demand for a third track or a long loop style situation, instead it's going to be four track as part of NPR or nothing. Stringing the wires up over the top is most definitely going to happen, but announcement probably years away, simply because politically it's such a cheap and easy win. Anything else, unlikely until we know which way the HS2b eastern leg joint bill comes out in a couple of years .

 

[Halifaxlad]

Why not just put the stations on short loops like at Marsden but for services in both directions ?

 

[nr758123]

I think bar stringing up knitting over the summit, which realistically we are likely to see announced in the next few years, it's the summit section is not going to see any dramatic improvements for the foreseeable future.

The announcement is years away. Nine years to be precise. Autumn Statement 2011.

Plus, would it even be beneficial due to high costs and the low amount of stopper services??

The reason there is such an infrequent stopping service is because there isn't the capacity to run a half hourly stopper whilst maintaining the same frequency of expresses. Based on the data for station usage, there would be ample justification for an increase to half-hourly and both TfGM and WYCA support this, at least in theory.

The fact that the service is currently substandard is not a good argument against putting in the investment necessary to allow it to be improved to a frequency comparable with other routes within Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire.