Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Senex]

Slows on the North make sense. Would the Leeds to hudds slow dive under at heaton lodge or swing to the left with the 2 fasts?

It was originally slows on the north, wasn't it, with the fasts getting the unobstructed run past Mirfield? Presumably any re-quadding would extend no further west than Heaton Lodge, so if the new fasts were on the south side, they could run straight into the fasts to and from Huddersfield on the level. But what would then happen at Ravensthorpe? Also, wasn't a part of the formation there (of the original down slow) used after the reduction at that point to three tracks to ease the curvature to and from the LNW line and get a higher speed?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Slows on the North make sense. Would the Leeds to hudds slow dive under at heaton lodge or swing to the left with the 2 fasts?

The Huddersfield to Leeds stopper via Dewsbury is being axed. The original proposal was for it (and the equivalent HUD-Manchester stopper) to be reintroduced after electrification subject to a business case, but if we're not getting full electrification that goes out of the window.

 

[Spartacus]

I think originally the separation was more by route more than anything, and I think the down platform was within a loop too so expresses could pass locals.

Personally I think having the normal stopping service platforms on the South side might be best, that way would reduce the number of conflicts express services (which will be more frequent than stoppers) would have to a minimum.

Having expresses on the South would mean both up and down expresses conflicted with other services at Thornhill LNW Jn rather than just Up ones, and two conflicts on the Down around Heaton Lodge Jn. With the fasts on the North only the Down express would have any conflicts, one at Thornhill and one where the lines re-merged between Heaton Lodge and Bradley Jn. I dare say there would be less concern about Up schedules being temporarily held up at either as they would have to follow a stopper from Leeds or into Huddersfield anyway, most down services would have either already overtaken a stopper at Huddersfield or could overtake it at Dewsbury.

I'd be tempted to retain platforms on the North lines for use during disruption though.

 

[lejog]

The Huddersfield to Leeds stopper via Dewsbury is being axed. The original proposal was for it (and the equivalent HUD-Manchester stopper) to be reintroduced after electrification subject to a business case, but if we're not getting full electrification that goes out of the window.

Is it? As Grayling confirmed in his speech, the requirements for TPRU have driven to some degree by TfN/Rail North as opposed to the requirements for straight electrification which were derived from what Network Rail considered to be possble. If Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe is four tracked (and Ravensthorpe moved west or south), there would be only 4 stops on the two track stretch (Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Cottingley) and stoppers even diesel could easily fit between 4tph expresses at 15min intervals. Under the planned May timetable the Northern skip-stop service and the TPE eastbound slowest service were due to (and probably still will) run between between Leeds and Heaton Lodge before being passed by expresses running every 15min. Four tracking beween Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe should allow the reinroduction of skipped stops.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is it? As Grayling confirmed in his speech, the requirements for TPRU have driven to some degree by TfN/Rail North as opposed to the requirements for straight electrification which were derived from what Network Rail considered to be possble. If Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe is four tracked (and Ravensthorpe moved west or south), there would be only 4 stops on the two track stretch (Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Cottingley) and stoppers even diesel could easily fit between 4tph expresses at 15min intervals. Under the planned May timetable the Northern skip-stop service and the TPE eastbound slowest service were due to (and probably still will) run between between Leeds and Heaton Lodge before being passed by expresses running every 15min. Four tracking beween Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe should allow the reinroduction of skipped stops.

The stoppers were planned to be replaced with the TPE semi-fasts from May weren't they? Regardless of what eventually happens with the upgrade it's presumably too late to change that for over the summer. It does seem like the upgrades now been talked about are more comprehensive than was originally planned, so the stoppers might well be able to run without full electrification, as you say.
Northern's fleet plan will have been compiled on the basis of not running hourly stoppers to Leeds and Manchester from Huddersfield, so if the plans have changed there'll need to be adjustments to the fleet too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Original plan was 6TPE with them taking over the stoppers, once electrification was done. 6TPE with electric stoppers separate due to capacity increases.This was in the HLOS i believe for CP5.

 

[Class 170101]

Isn't there supposed to be a grid point at Ferrybridge being used for the Leeds to York / Selby / ECML wiring?

 

[snowball]

Isn't there supposed to be a grid point at Ferrybridge being used for the Leeds to York / Selby / ECML wiring?

Don't know but Ferrybridge is at least 7km from the nearest point on the Leeds-Selby line, 12km from the nearest point on the Leeds-York line, and 12km from the nearest pont on the ECML.

 

[Class 170101]

Melksham isn't exactly close to the nearest part of the GWML at Thingley Jn. Thats being done with a cable from the feeder station to Thingley junction isn't it?

If Grayling hadn't scrapped MML wiring I would have added the line from Sheffield to York via Pontefract (and Ferrybridge) as an infill scheme.

 

[IanXC]

Isn't there supposed to be a grid point at Ferrybridge being used for the Leeds to York / Selby / ECML wiring?

Gascoigne Wood I thought? (Previous electrical supply point for Selby Coalfield).

 

[snowball]

Gascoigne Wood I thought? (Previous electrical supply point for Selby Coalfield).

That sounds more like it than Ferrybridge. It's adjacent to the Leeds-Selby line and 3km from the ECML at Hambleton Junctions. If it was required to provide an independent feed to the Leeds-York line then that could be either 8km via Micklefield, or 7km via Sherburn-in-Elmet to Church Fenton.

 

[IanXC]

That sounds more like it than Ferrybridge. It's adjacent to the Leeds-Selby line and 3km from the ECML at Hambleton Junctions. If it was required to provide an independent feed to the Leeds-York line then that could be either 8km via Micklefield, or 7km via Sherburn-in-Elmet to Church Fenton.

As far as I have seen its always been Leeds to York/Selby so we're not talking of an 'extension lead'!

(Although for your via Micklefield or via Sherburn I would say I'd hope for both... hahaha!)

 

[snowball]

From Google satellite view and Streetview and OS mapping there does not appear to be an existing overhead grid supply to Gascoigne Wood. Perhaps there's a buried HV one, or perhaps they'll link to the existing overhead lines nearby at Hambleton. Not sure whether they're 400 or 275 kV or what.

 

[IanXC]

From Google satellite view and Streetview and OS mapping there does not appear to be an existing overhead grid supply to Gascoigne Wood. Perhaps there's a buried HV one, or perhaps they'll link to the existing overhead lines nearby at Hambleton. Not sure whether they're 400 or 275 kV or what.

Theres definitely one there somewhere. Gascoigne Wood was the pit head for the Selby 'super' coal field and of course a significant power supply is required for such a site. In addition there is currently a proposal to construct a 'peak demand power station' on part of the site which would put its output into the grid through the same grid supply point.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is it? As Grayling confirmed in his speech, the requirements for TPRU have driven to some degree by TfN/Rail North as opposed to the requirements for straight electrification which were derived from what Network Rail considered to be possble. If Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe is four tracked (and Ravensthorpe moved west or south), there would be only 4 stops on the two track stretch (Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Cottingley) and stoppers even diesel could easily fit between 4tph expresses at 15min intervals. Under the planned May timetable the Northern skip-stop service and the TPE eastbound slowest service were due to (and probably still will) run between between Leeds and Heaton Lodge before being passed by expresses running every 15min. Four tracking beween Heaton Lodge and Ravensthorpe should allow the reinroduction of skipped stops.

Currently the stoppers just about keep out of the way of most TPEs, but looking at the timings between say Ravensthorpe & Leeds, TPEs get around 20 mins whereas stoppers get around 24-26 mins timetabled, meaning that the fasts are often not much faster than the stoppers on that section. Not exactly mind blowing for what 20-25% of the Leeds-Manchester route is it? And no matter how much padding is built in, it is not uncommon for TPEs to quickly run up behind stoppers even if the latter are running only a couple of minutes late, which can quickly turn into a queue.

With the skip-stoppers this might be relived a bit, but it's pretty useless for people wanting to transit between called stations & the skipped ones, and as often happens on other skip-stop routes like Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester, often the skip-stoppers when running late are sped up by missing calls, with the fasts behind having to pick up the slack. And that is on a route with just 2 fasts & 2 skip stoppers, the Leeds-Ravensthorpe section will have up to 4 fasts semi-fasts, 2 skip-stoppers and at least one Northern Leeds-Southport to shoehorn in. At the risk of doubting the planners, it isn't going to work great even as it is, let alone converting the skip-stoppers back to all shacks. Even with any additional track improvements that might be proposed to give better speeds, the slowest diagrams will always dictate just how quickly fast services can operate.

This is why I bang on about full electrification throughout, give the slowest services better acceleration away from stations & signals to get them further down the line before the fasts catch up. Maybe there will be little benefit in terms of timings because the route will always be hamstrung by being a largely 2 track route with a combination of fast / semi / stoppers, but electrification will maximise efficiency and lower the risk of delays, alterations and cancellations. I think the long term strategy is better than Grayling's ticking plaster solution.

 

[rich r]

Gascoigne Wood looks sensible, and as I posted on Monday there has been recent work to build foundations for something large to be located lineside there:

Last Autumn a large platform was created alongside the embankment between Gascoigne Wood and South Milford (ie not far from the Milford junction). It's pretty substantial and has what looks to be be metal bases for some structure to bolt down to. Took Network Rail a few months to complete but I've been unable to find out what it's for. Perhaps it's related to future electrification?

 

[Senex]

Currently the stoppers just about keep out of the way of most TPEs, but looking at the timings between say Ravensthorpe & Leeds, TPEs get around 20 mins whereas stoppers get around 24-26 mins timetabled, meaning that the fasts are often not much faster than the stoppers on that section.

Coming the other way, the standard timing for TPE from Leeds to passing Thornhill Jn is 10½ minutes (16½ minutes to Huddersfield), for a Class 150 stopper missing Cottingley 19 minutes to Thornhill Jn, and for a Clas142 all-stations 23 minutes to that point. If a stopper is running late away from Leeds it can very quickly impact on the following TPE (worst of all when, as I have experienced, Leeds send out a late stopper literally straight in front of an on-time TPE).

 

[Bantamzen]

Coming the other way, the standard timing for TPE from Leeds to passing Thornhill Jn is 10½ minutes (16½ minutes to Huddersfield), for a Class 150 stopper missing Cottingley 19 minutes to Thornhill Jn, and for a Clas142 all-stations 23 minutes to that point. If a stopper is running late away from Leeds it can very quickly impact on the following TPE (worst of all when, as I have experienced, Leeds send out a late stopper literally straight in front of an on-time TPE).

I've made a bit of a mistake with my original figures, its more like 11-12 minutes towards Leeds for fast TPEs, 15-16 for Dewsbury stoppers, and 23-26 for all shacks & not calling at Cottingley.

But this and your timings out of Leeds just further highlight the problem, slower stoppers basically regularly getting in the way of faster trains along 2 track sections. And even if Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge / Huddersfield got 4 tracked to allow more passes, you'd then have another pinch point between Huddersfield & Stalybridge. So really the key to maximising this route is not just about increasing speeds for the fasts, this will just create more catch-ups, but to improve the speeds of the slows including using the best traction option for quick acceleration to get them away from services behind. Otherwise the £3Bn spent, not to mention the cost of the 68/MKV/802s will result in slightly faster timings in theory but all the same congestion problems as now, negating any benefits from the theoretical timings.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This does tie into the question of what rolling stock Northern are planning to use on this route once all their new and cascaded stock has arrived. Will it be mostly 195s and 170s?

 

[59CosG95]

This does tie into the question of what rolling stock Northern are planning to use on this route once all their new and cascaded stock has arrived. Will it be mostly 195s and 170s?

The Northern Unit Refurbishments thread has hinted that 170s will arrive first to reap the rewards of faster acceleration earlier on, and when the 195s arrive the 170s will be displaced onto the Harrogate Line.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-unit-refurbishments.128846/page-100#post-3368111

 

[Bantamzen]

This does tie into the question of what rolling stock Northern are planning to use on this route once all their new and cascaded stock has arrived. Will it be mostly 195s and 170s?

The Northern Unit Refurbishments thread has hinted that 170s will arrive first to reap the rewards of faster acceleration earlier on, and when the 195s arrive the 170s will be displaced onto the Harrogate Line.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-unit-refurbishments.128846/page-100#post-3368111

The use of 170s and/or 195s is probably in part driven by the need to get the units away from stations as quickly as possible with the timing pressures involved.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Coming the other way, the standard timing for TPE from Leeds to passing Thornhill Jn is 10½ minutes (16½ minutes to Huddersfield), for a Class 150 stopper missing Cottingley 19 minutes to Thornhill Jn, and for a Clas142 all-stations 23 minutes to that point. If a stopper is running late away from Leeds it can very quickly impact on the following TPE (worst of all when, as I have experienced, Leeds send out a late stopper literally straight in front of an on-time TPE).

The last point you make, that is done to maintain the connection at Dewsbury for Huddersfield from the Morley and Batley calls of the Victoria via Brighouse, I believe. From May, the via Brighouse will no longer serve Batley (thus ruining the near-even-interval service from BTL to HUD, annoyingly!)

 

[YorkshireBear]

I've made a bit of a mistake with my original figures, its more like 11-12 minutes towards Leeds for fast TPEs, 15-16 for Dewsbury stoppers, and 23-26 for all shacks & not calling at Cottingley.

But this and your timings out of Leeds just further highlight the problem, slower stoppers basically regularly getting in the way of faster trains along 2 track sections. And even if Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge / Huddersfield got 4 tracked to allow more passes, you'd then have another pinch point between Huddersfield & Stalybridge. So really the key to maximising this route is not just about increasing speeds for the fasts, this will just create more catch-ups, but to improve the speeds of the slows including using the best traction option for quick acceleration to get them away from services behind. Otherwise the £3Bn spent, not to mention the cost of the 68/MKV/802s will result in slightly faster timings in theory but all the same congestion problems as now, negating any benefits from the theoretical timings.

I believe opportunities for overtaking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge are being investigated. Although there is nothing at all firm coming out on this section as to what is planned. I know the old tunnels are having some serious survey work done (i can see it from my commute) but whether reopening these is being considered i do not know.

 

[Bantamzen]

I believe opportunities for overtaking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge are being investigated. Although there is nothing at all firm coming out on this section as to what is planned. I know the old tunnels are having some serious survey work done (i can see it from my commute) but whether reopening these is being considered i do not know.

Technically the Westbound section does have a small overtake option at Marsden, albeit rather too small to be effective especially when there are late running services. Reusing the two spare bores at Standedge would give a few miles more overtaking, however wasn't that ruled out a bit ago because (wait for it...) the line was to be electrified? Plus I seem to remember someone saying that they were in fairly poor condition compared to the main 1894 bore, and might prove expensive to bring up to running standard which was part of the justification for wiring the existing operational section in the first place?

 

[snowball]

According to the site linked in #972 the east-west power line 3km south of Gascoigne Wood is 400kV. Which is not surprising, as it must have been the main feed from Drax to most of the country. There's a mega-junction of power lines west of Monk Fryston.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Technically the Westbound section does have a small overtake option at Marsden, albeit rather too small to be effective especially when there are late running services. Reusing the two spare bores at Standedge would give a few miles more overtaking, however wasn't that ruled out a bit ago because (wait for it...) the line was to be electrified? Plus I seem to remember someone saying that they were in fairly poor condition compared to the main 1894 bore, and might prove expensive to bring up to running standard which was part of the justification for wiring the existing operational section in the first place?

Aye project has been a joke from start to now. No one knew what they actually wanted.

 

[Bantamzen]

Aye project has been a joke from start to now. No one knew what they actually wanted.

Then as a public project it's right on track......

(Sorry my work experiences mean I have a deeply cynical view when in comes to project planning & management in the public sector)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Then as a public project it's right on track......

(Sorry my work experiences mean I have a deeply cynical view when in comes to project planning & management in the public sector)

Mine too! Don't disagree with your cynicism at all.

One of my favourite things from Modern Railways is the if a project is announced as being completed in a season it will be late.

 

[rebmcr]

Then as a public project it's right on track......

(Sorry my work experiences mean I have a deeply cynical view when in comes to project planning & management in the public sector)

Reeks of certain* private sector behemoths as well.

*unfortunately it would be a bad idea for me to indicate which

 

[Ploughman]

Technically the Westbound section does have a small overtake option at Marsden, albeit rather too small to be effective especially when there are late running services. Reusing the two spare bores at Standedge would give a few miles more overtaking, however wasn't that ruled out a bit ago because (wait for it...) the line was to be electrified? Plus I seem to remember someone saying that they were in fairly poor condition compared to the main 1894 bore, and might prove expensive to bring up to running standard which was part of the justification for wiring the existing operational section in the first place?

I was talking to someone in the Northern office a number of years back now, when investigations into the reuse of the old bores was mooted.
One of the main reasons given for this was that in the main tunnel only one train allowed in the tunnel on each road at a time.
Any Marsden stopper would need to wait until the fast was out of the way before running through.
If one of the bores was reopened then the stopper could run the 3 mile through the tunnel and wait at the end of the loop if needed before following behind the fast saving 5 - 8 minutes.

I think the full proposal was South Single bore slow West, North Single bore Fast West, main bore Fast and Slow Eastbound.