Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[jonesy3001]

Is the line going to be single or double tracked?

 

[Bantamzen]

Although somewhat slower, the Leeds to Mirfield capacity issue could be addressed by going via Normanton.

I'd forgotten about that option, it could mean splitting the work out into 3 or 4 blocks, perhaps with the Mirfield section done in two bits means that during any Leeds-Ravensthorpe block, the Normanton route could be used by at least some of the TPEs, preferably the fasts subject to clearance (I think the 185s are cleared?).

 

[furnessvale]

I don't think they make any suggestion that they would help fund it. And no mention of how trains using that route would be pathed across the western approaches to Leeds. If they were really concerned about their supply chain they would fund a suitable shipping berth on their doorstep on the River Ouse and keep the traffic off the rail (and road!) network completely.

Companies regularly campaign for road improvements which will benefit their businesses. I never see any indication that they are willing to pay for those improvements.

 

[Killingworth]

Companies regularly campaign for road improvements which will benefit their businesses. I never see any indication that they are willing to pay for those improvements.

Peel have given very serious indications of potential financial support for the SELRAP scheme to get bio-mass across the Pennines to Drax. Liverpool is their preferred port and the shorter the rail journey times the more trips can be made by each wagon. See; https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/northern-powerhouses-missing-link/

However they keep their options open by taking shipments through Tyne and Humber (see; https://www.drax.com/sustainability/sustainable-biomass-crosses-atlantic-power-nation/ ) and possibly could use Teesside or Felixstowe. Cargoes coming across the Atlantic take longer to go round Britain to an east coast port, a lot more than the longest train trip from Liverpool.. They have to be loaded onto freight trains whichever port they arrive at so loading and unloading trains will be similar wherever they go, but Liverpool has specialised unloading equipment. Many do unload at Immingham, which is the shortest land route from a major port to Drax, but also on the Tyne.

Drax relies heavily on rail transport for coal and bio-mass, and also limestone for the scrubbers and removal of ash. More about railways and Dax at; https://www.drax.com/technology/drax-rail-history/

SELRAP may come about more quickly than some may think, but probably not as fast as promoters want. That's the British rail industry for you, however the DfT have already provided more than words in support, see the Prospectus;

26.2 Project Organisation In February 2018 it was confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, that the next stage of study, the Strategic Outline Business Cases (SOBC), would be taken forward by the DfT, working in partnership with TfN. This process will be implemented in accordance with the government’s recently published Rail Vision document and also the suite of documents collectively called the Rail Enhancements Delivery Guidelines."

Watch this space!
.

 

[Trapper]

interesting document from the digital Railways - Joint Development group :
http://digitalrailway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Transpennine-Route-Upgrade-SDO-01-Analysis-Report.pdf

Page 28 contains a diagram for Stalybridge to Cottingley. It seems to show the removal of Stalybridge Junction so that each incoming line has two through tracks and one bay merging at Stalybridge Tunnel Junction. This means Stalybridge would have 6 Platforms 3 to Victoria and 3 to Picadilly and would allow parallel moves into Stalybridge station from Victoria and picadilly.

It also shows the 4-tracking from Huddersfield as a 2 track FAST line bypassing Deighton, Heaton Lodge Junction, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations, then fly-over/Dive-Under the Wakefield line to rejoin at a new Ravensthorpe East Junction for the run into Dewsbury i.e. Huddersfield - Dewsbury DIRECT.

Very interesting are the pages referring to the staged introduction of ETCS :
2022/3 Diggle to Gledholt Little track works needed and therefore good to get their feet wet and would only need TPE and Freight to be kitted out.
2023 Stalybridge to Diggle To be done during Stalybridge trackwork changes.
2023/4 Dewsbury to Cottingley Another Straight piece that would need Northern to have ETCS stock.
2024 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe SLOW lines This would be an overlay implementation so existing stock would not need ETCS fitment for Huddersfield - Brighouse/Wakefield.
2025 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe FAST lines To be done during construction - NO SIGNALS. Only used by ETCS fitted stock..
2026 Huddersfield Station Platforms 1 and 4 ETCS only. Platform 2 Conventional signalling. Platforms 5, 6 and 8 conventional signalling with ETCS overlay.

If the new tracks are built alongside the existing tracks between Huddersfield and Dewsbury then there should be no problem in running services out of Huddersfield once the SLOW lines have been slewed over to make room.

 

[matacaster]

interesting document from the digital Railways - Joint Development group :
http://digitalrailway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Transpennine-Route-Upgrade-SDO-01-Analysis-Report.pdf

Page 28 contains a diagram for Stalybridge to Cottingley. It seems to show the removal of Stalybridge Junction so that each incoming line has two through tracks and one bay merging at Stalybridge Tunnel Junction. This means Stalybridge would have 6 Platforms 3 to Victoria and 3 to Picadilly and would allow parallel moves into Stalybridge station from Victoria and picadilly.

It also shows the 4-tracking from Huddersfield as a 2 track FAST line bypassing Deighton, Heaton Lodge Junction, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations, then fly-over/Dive-Under the Wakefield line to rejoin at a new Ravensthorpe East Junction for the run into Dewsbury i.e. Huddersfield - Dewsbury DIRECT.

Very interesting are the pages referring to the staged introduction of ETCS :
2022/3 Diggle to Gledholt Little track works needed and therefore good to get their feet wet and would only need TPE and Freight to be kitted out.
2023 Stalybridge to Diggle To be done during Stalybridge trackwork changes.
2023/4 Dewsbury to Cottingley Another Straight piece that would need Northern to have ETCS stock.
2024 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe SLOW lines This would be an overlay implementation so existing stock would not need ETCS fitment for Huddersfield - Brighouse/Wakefield.
2025 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe FAST lines To be done during construction - NO SIGNALS. Only used by ETCS fitted stock..
2026 Huddersfield Station Platforms 1 and 4 ETCS only. Platform 2 Conventional signalling. Platforms 5, 6 and 8 conventional signalling with ETCS overlay.

If the new tracks are built alongside the existing tracks between Huddersfield and Dewsbury then there should be no problem in running services out of Huddersfield once the SLOW lines have been slewed over to make room.

No mention of the new platform 9 at Huddersfield?

 

[Trapper]

No mention of the new platform 9 at Huddersfield?

No, but platform lengthening for the bays would be possible.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No, but platform lengthening for the bays would be possible essential.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Mollman]

interesting document from the digital Railways - Joint Development group :
http://digitalrailway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Transpennine-Route-Upgrade-SDO-01-Analysis-Report.pdf

Page 28 contains a diagram for Stalybridge to Cottingley. It seems to show the removal of Stalybridge Junction so that each incoming line has two through tracks and one bay merging at Stalybridge Tunnel Junction. This means Stalybridge would have 6 Platforms 3 to Victoria and 3 to Picadilly and would allow parallel moves into Stalybridge station from Victoria and picadilly.

It also shows the 4-tracking from Huddersfield as a 2 track FAST line bypassing Deighton, Heaton Lodge Junction, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations, then fly-over/Dive-Under the Wakefield line to rejoin at a new Ravensthorpe East Junction for the run into Dewsbury i.e. Huddersfield - Dewsbury DIRECT.

Very interesting are the pages referring to the staged introduction of ETCS :
2022/3 Diggle to Gledholt Little track works needed and therefore good to get their feet wet and would only need TPE and Freight to be kitted out.
2023 Stalybridge to Diggle To be done during Stalybridge trackwork changes.
2023/4 Dewsbury to Cottingley Another Straight piece that would need Northern to have ETCS stock.
2024 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe SLOW lines This would be an overlay implementation so existing stock would not need ETCS fitment for Huddersfield - Brighouse/Wakefield.
2025 Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe FAST lines To be done during construction - NO SIGNALS. Only used by ETCS fitted stock..
2026 Huddersfield Station Platforms 1 and 4 ETCS only. Platform 2 Conventional signalling. Platforms 5, 6 and 8 conventional signalling with ETCS overlay.

If the new tracks are built alongside the existing tracks between Huddersfield and Dewsbury then there should be no problem in running services out of Huddersfield once the SLOW lines have been slewed over to make room.

Thanks for this. Not sure about the Huddersfield layout. Interesting to see the eastbound fast line taken out at Dewsbury but Batley station placed on loops. Seems to also confirm that Standedge will remain 2-track.

 

[Spartacus]

Thanks for this. Not sure about the Huddersfield layout. Interesting to see the eastbound fast line taken out at Dewsbury but Batley station placed on loops. Seems to also confirm that Standedge will remain 2-track.

I'm really not sure how a down loop at Batley could work without quite a bit of disruption and rebuilding work, though Up would be easy.

 

[deltic08]

Thanks for this. Not sure about the Huddersfield layout. Interesting to see the eastbound fast line taken out at Dewsbury but Batley station placed on loops. Seems to also confirm that Standedge will remain 2-track.

It is nothing more than a cop out. When Morley is placed where Dewsbury should be I don't have any confidence in the scheme.

4 tracking should start immediately at the west end of Dewsbury viaduct with a rebuilt Dewsbury station or even better 4 tracking east of Batley. Admittedly some new structures would be needed but this scheme should be future-proofed for growth which it doesn't seem to be.

Nothing appears to be done to solve the problems with curvature at the east ends of Standedge and Morley tunnels. Increasing from 40 to 60mph is not enough causing braking down from 100mph. What a waste of energy and potential time saving. There is room at both to build a straighter alignment but they appear not to.

ECTS will be very limiting to non-fitted traction. This is shifting the costs of signalling from the state to the TOCS and operating costs. Is this deliberate. This is a much improved route for £3billion or a mish mash compromise. I fear the latter.

 

[matacaster]

It is nothing more than a cop out. When Morley is placed where Dewsbury should be I don't have any confidence in the scheme.

4 tracking should start immediately at the west end of Dewsbury viaduct with a rebuilt Dewsbury station or even better 4 tracking east of Batley. Admittedly some new structures would be needed but this scheme should be future-proofed for growth which it doesn't seem to be.

Nothing appears to be done to solve the problems with curvature at the east ends of Standedge and Morley tunnels. Increasing from 40 to 60mph is not enough causing braking down from 100mph. What a waste of energy and potential time saving. There is room at both to build a straighter alignment but they appear not to.

ECTS will be very limiting to non-fitted traction. This is shifting the costs of signalling from the state to the TOCS and operating costs. Is this deliberate. This is a much improved route for £3billion or a mish mash compromise. I fear the latter.

Yes, there is a very bad curve coming into Morley tunnel from Leeds end. It could quite easily be rectified as the adjoining area is fields - admittedly there would be a fair amount of digging to produce a gentler curve, but its hardly rocket science and a decent earth mover or two would easily fix it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is a much improved route for £3billion or a mish mash compromise. I fear the latter.

Having used the route countless times over the last 35 years I share your concern. But, I think that in reality this is a relatively short-term fix while a scheme for HS3 is put together: that would make the TRU appear almost irrelevant! Too bad I'll be well and truly old by the time it happens (I went grey many years ago!)

 

[snowball]

But, I think that in reality this is a relatively short-term fix while a scheme for HS3 is put together:

Assuming HS3/NPR happens. I think the government's degree of commitment to HS3/NPR is much less than for HS2 (even HS2 phase 2b), especially since May became PM and Osborne left the government. The great thing about the improvement via Hudds is that it does seem fairly certain that something will happen, and something quite big and quite soon.

 

[Spartacus]

Yes, there is a very bad curve coming into Morley tunnel from Leeds end. It could quite easily be rectified as the adjoining area is fields - admittedly there would be a fair amount of digging to produce a gentler curve, but its hardly rocket science and a decent earth mover or two would easily fix it.

I think they only way you'd cure that would be by tunnelling under Churwell and rejoining near the M621, it's a great S bend, with the curve near the White Rose as important as the one through the station. You would have to eliminate both curves, not just one.

It's a similar problem at Marsden, the tunnel from Manchester points northeast, but the valley at that point runs east-southeast, likewise the only alternative would be to cross the valley and plunge into another tunnel before rejoining the current formation somewhere near Kettle Lane, leaving Marsden on a loop.

I wouldn't fancy the chances of 4 tracking northeast of Batley, with Morley Tunnel in the way, one of the things that put the LNWR off. More chance of the Woodkirk line being rebuilt.

 

[deltic08]

I think they only way you'd cure that would be by tunnelling under Churwell and rejoining near the M621, it's a great S bend, with the curve near the White Rose as important as the one through the station. You would have to eliminate both curves, not just one.

It's a similar problem at Marsden, the tunnel from Manchester points northeast, but the valley at that point runs east-southeast, likewise the only alternative would be to cross the valley and plunge into another tunnel before rejoining the current formation somewhere near Kettle Lane, leaving Marsden on a loop.

I wouldn't fancy the chances of 4 tracking northeast of Batley, with Morley Tunnel in the way, one of the things that put the LNWR off. More chance of the Woodkirk line being rebuilt.

I meant start east of Batley but 4-track west towards Dewsbury and continue it to Ravensthorpe. It was badly put. Both Batley and Dewsbury would have be rebuilt and a second viaduct provided at Dewsbury but would provide slow lines for stopping trains.

 

[Ploughman]

Yes, there is a very bad curve coming into Morley tunnel from Leeds end. It could quite easily be rectified as the adjoining area is fields - admittedly there would be a fair amount of digging to produce a gentler curve, but its hardly rocket science and a decent earth mover or two would easily fix it.

The Leeds end emerges from the tunnel into Morley Stn Platforms, not fields.
The transition for the curve especially on the Up line was designed right on the limit for speed and clearance, to get any increase in speed half the platform would need to go.
Dewsbury end is into semi rural surroundings.

 

[matacaster]

How about reinstating the line from Bradford to Mirfield via Bailiff brigde? Ok I know they'd have to rebuild the viaduct, but wouldn't that offer a reduced journey time (in comparison to Calder Valley) if trains took the Standedge route Leeds -> Bradford -> Mirfield -> Huddersfield-> Manchester. An advantage here is that Bailiff bridge and the line from Low Moor? to Mirfield would not involve much disruption to existing railway. It would also offer a much quicker journey time from Bradford to Huddersfield which is poor at the moment.

 

[Spartacus]

How about reinstating the line from Bradford to Mirfield via Bailiff brigde? Ok I know they'd have to rebuild the viaduct, but wouldn't that offer a reduced journey time (in comparison to Calder Valley) if trains took the Standedge route Leeds -> Bradford -> Mirfield -> Huddersfield-> Manchester. An advantage here is that Bailiff bridge and the line from Low Moor? to Mirfield would not involve much disruption to existing railway. It would also offer a much quicker journey time from Bradford to Huddersfield which is poor at the moment.

There's be considerable difficulty crossing the Calder valley for a start, as well as housing on the line, have a look at google maps. Such a route MIGHT be used by Grand Central and ECS trains, nothing else, it'd miss out Halifax, Brighouse and soon hopefully Elland. This thread's getting more like a speculative ideas one by the day

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That's really quite a remarkable document, presumably paid for with the Chancellor's £500m fund for digital signalling, announced a year ago.
It must be a state of the art proposal with the imprint of Siemens, Hitachi and Arup.
They seem to be recommending an "ETCS-first" programme, which is very bold and puts all the eggs in one basket, but saves on the endless stageworks.
TPE stock would have to be fitted from the start (nearly all new, so shouldn't present a problem).
It doesn't quite get the 60m Manchester-York journey time.

I can see the DfT wanting to do this, but Network Rail (and maybe TPE) must be very nervous about committing so much new technology on a key route.
The recent record for implementing complex new signalling schemes (and realising the benefits) is not at all good.
Schemes often get descoped, deferred, defunded or partially implemented, losing the supposed benefits (like P15/16 at Piccadilly).
I note there is no analysis of the wider network issues around Manchester and Leeds.
The runes suggest that the DfT desire might be to offer this scheme for private funding (ie the contractors taking an equity share of the project with NR and even TPE).
As an NR LNE Route project it must tie in somehow with the future East Coast Partnership setup.
Very interesting. Look forward to Roger Ford's view on the technicalities.

 

[matacaster]

That's really quite a remarkable document, presumably paid for with the Chancellor's £500m fund for digital signalling, announced a year ago.
It must be a state of the art proposal with the imprint of Siemens, Hitachi and Arup.
They seem to be recommending an "ETCS-first" programme, which is very bold and puts all the eggs in one basket, but saves on the endless stageworks.
TPE stock would have to be fitted from the start (nearly all new, so shouldn't present a problem).
It doesn't quite get the 60m Manchester-York journey time.

I can see the DfT wanting to do this, but Network Rail (and maybe TPE) must be very nervous about committing so much new technology on a key route.
The recent record for implementing complex new signalling schemes (and realising the benefits) is not at all good.
Schemes often get descoped, deferred, defunded or partially implemented, losing the supposed benefits (like P15/16 at Piccadilly).
I note there is no analysis of the wider network issues around Manchester and Leeds.
The runes suggest that the DfT desire might be to offer this scheme for private funding (ie the contractors taking an equity share of the project with NR and even TPE).
As an NR LNE Route project it must tie in somehow with the future East Coast Partnership setup.
Very interesting. Look forward to Roger Ford's view on the technicalities.

What lines and relative degree of complexity have been successfully implemented with ETCS?? This looks like a chance to screw up royally!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What lines and relative degree of complexity have been successfully implemented with ETCS?? This looks like a chance to screw up royally!

As a starting point try reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System#Deployment. Lots of places have at least "dabbled" with the technology but seriously widespread introduction on anything other than high speed lines is lacking. As we found with retro-fitting the Cambrian 158s with the on-train kit it's the integration with rolling stock that creates the most difficulty.

I would suggest that the technology itself is robust enough but making rolling stock compatible is a process for which there does not seem to be any simple standard method beyond basic principles. In theory most, perhaps all, trains built in Europe nowadays are ready for ETCS equipment to be fitted on a more or less "plug and play" basis but there remains a large fleet of older trains for which fitment is an expensive process. The other significant variable is the degree of desired complexity in the supervising ERTMS for which there are various options but I'm not sure that all concerned are sure of just what they want or need.

Over the long term ETCS/ERTMS will surely be a good thing but the changeover period is proving to need much more time than originally expected.

 

[MarkyT]

...I would suggest that the technology itself is robust enough but making rolling stock compatible is a process for which there does not seem to be any simple standard method beyond basic principles. In theory most, perhaps all, trains built in Europe nowadays are ready for ETCS equipment to be fitted on a more or less "plug and play" basis but there remains a large fleet of older trains for which fitment is an expensive process. The other significant variable is the degree of desired complexity in the supervising ERTMS for which there are various options but I'm not sure that all concerned are sure of just what they want or need.

Over the long term ETCS/ERTMS will surely be a good thing but the changeover period is proving to need much more time than originally expected.

I think all the trains to operate over the line concerned will be modern stock, either already equipped with or natively capable of easily being retrofitted with ETCS (specified to be compatible in procurement), and freight locos (mostly EMD cl. 66s) will be dealt with by a large scale retrofit programme that is currently underway or imminent I understand, so the rolling stock risk is well contained. Small areas where other non fitted stock will interwork can be dealt with by selective overlay (or 'underlay') of a few conventional signals and legacy protection systems until all stock is eventually equipped) Most signalling suppliers and contractors now have extensive experience of the trackside technology in Europe and an enormous amount of UK experience and technique has now been gained through the pilot programmes and particularly the Thameslink core. While there will undoubtedly be challenges, I can see implementation being highly practical, and one mainline in the UK has to be the first major application. As detailed in the presentation, the capacity gains are relatively minor but extra block sections can be introduced selectively in targeted areas around stations to help platform reoccupation far more easily and cost effectively than with lights on sticks, and bidirectional facilities can also be added fairly cheaply, the latter not so much for day to day capacity enhancement but for resilience and flexibility during future track maintenance and renewal work during quieter times, as well as for the project stagework implementation.

 

[Boysteve]

Nothing appears to be done to solve the problems with curvature at the east ends of Standedge and Morley tunnels. Increasing from 40 to 60mph is not enough causing braking down from 100mph. What a waste of energy and potential time saving. There is room at both to build a straighter alignment but they appear not to

At Morley I grant you, a steeper straighter route appears possible although a lot of earthwork would be needed. If you limit the maximum deviation west of the current route by 200 metres then no tunnel would be needed but a route would still have speed restrictions but higher than present, might save 1 minute but might be cost effective long term.
Marsden is different. Very costly to maintain a higher speed as an expensive proper tunnel would be needed. I do not expect the cost/benefit ratio to pass any test. A CPO on some warehouses and realigning at Miles Platting for a 50/60 mph line speed would be very cost effective in comparison.
What is criminal (in my opinion) is that Stalybridge was rebuilt in 2012 with only 25mph turnouts towards Victoria, the Ordsall Chord was already planned at this stage. It now needs to be rebuilt for at least double that speed ripping up all the work from 6 years ago. This actually disgusts me.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What lines and relative degree of complexity have been successfully implemented with ETCS?? This looks like a chance to screw up royally!

Well there's the Cambrian line which has been running for 8 years, but it's a limited mainly single track network compared to a busy inter-urban railway like TP.
The Thameslink core section was implemented earlier this year for the ATO solution, but it is a short and specialised installation with only one train type (700).
The GW line out to Heathrow is in progress for Crossrail, but is not yet successfully installed.
The south end of the ECML, starting with the King's Cross remodelling, is in development and should roll out in the next 5 years, and will need several train fleets and loco types fitted.
TP should come next.

 

[Chester1]

I think all the trains to operate over the line concerned will be modern stock, either already equipped with or natively capable of easily being retrofitted with ETCS (specified to be compatible in procurement), and freight locos (mostly EMD cl. 66s) will be dealt with by a large scale retrofit programme that is currently underway or imminent I understand, so the rolling stock risk is well contained. Small areas where other non fitted stock will interwork can be dealt with by selective overlay (or 'underlay') of a few conventional signals and legacy protection systems until all stock is eventually equipped) Most signalling suppliers and contractors now have extensive experience of the trackside technology in Europe and an enormous amount of UK experience and technique has now been gained through the pilot programmes and particularly the Thameslink core. While there will undoubtedly be challenges, I can see implementation being highly practical, and one mainline in the UK has to be the first major application. As detailed in the presentation, the capacity gains are relatively minor but extra block sections can be introduced selectively in targeted areas around stations to help platform reoccupation far more easily and cost effectively than with lights on sticks, and bidirectional facilities can also be added fairly cheaply, the latter not so much for day to day capacity enhancement but for resilience and flexibility during future track maintenance and renewal work during quieter times, as well as for the project stagework implementation.

Do you know which category the 185s fall into? If Northern take over the stoping services then just using 195s would be the simplest solution, with an extra Connect service elsewhere being run with upgraded 158s.

 

[MarkyT]

Do you know which category the 185s fall into? If Northern take over the stoping services then just using 195s would be the simplest solution, with an extra Connect service elsewhere being run with upgraded 158s.

I expect the 185s are rather too old to be natively 'ETCS ready' although clearly anything is possible with sufficient expenditure. Perhaps an electric transmission/bi-mode conversion might be possible as suggested for other DMUs including 158s/159s, in which case a complete new traction/braking control system and cab refit would be required presumably.

 

[deltic08]

The Leeds end emerges from the tunnel into Morley Stn Platforms, not fields.
The transition for the curve especially on the Up line was designed right on the limit for speed and clearance, to get any increase in speed half the platform would need to go.
Dewsbury end is into semi rural surroundings.

No different to what is happening at Market Harborough. The alignment is being eased for speed and goes through the present platform. The platforms are being built on the new alignment.

Why not on the TRU? Probably because one end isn't London!

 

[deltic08]

Marsden is different. Very costly to maintain a higher speed as an expensive proper tunnel would be needed. I do not expect the cost/benefit ratio to pass any test.

A new tunnel was built at Farnworth as part of route upgrade, why not here? The tunnel boring machine is cheap and available, low mileage, one owner.

 

[Spartacus]

No different to what is happening at Market Harborough. The alignment is being eased for speed and goes through the present platform. The platforms are being built on the new alignment.

Why not on the TRU? Probably because one end isn't London!

Except Market Harborough is on a significantly less severe curve, more of a kink than the S bend that goes on at Morley and Tunnel End, and there's nowhere else to put the platform at Morley without eating into embankment and housing on top of that.