Todmorden Curve

[ianhr]

I think we have discussed the loco hauled short term option on this thread before. The best proposal being a loco hauled set on the S&T to release a couple of 158's for E.Lancs, but it seems Northern have no interest whatsoever of even contemplating proposals that are not DfT directed, and DfT have decided that E.Lancs can just 'put up and shut up' until Dec 2014 at the earliest.

 

[tbtc]

Given the shortage of DMUs and given that it is now a circular route in a way, Northern should copy Scotrail and use loco-hauled Mark 2s (of which there are lots going spare / in storage) and provide a circular route.

It's not a circular route though, and we've explained why a circular route wouldn't work (Darren R's point that it'd take 2h 5m to do a Manchester - Burnley - Manchester circle means that you'd muck everything up to try to squeeze it into a regular pattern).

I know that the answer is often "bring back loco hauled services", but I can't see an easy way of doing it here - especially as there'll be spare DMUs before long when Manchester - Chat Moss - Liverpool is electrified.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Sorry, but I'm at a loss as to where such a service would have to run round!
As far as I remember, Manchester Victoria-Rochdale-Todmorden-Todmorden curve-Burnley Manchester Rd-Rose Grove-Accrington-Blackburn-Bolton-Manchester Victoria may be undesirable/impractical from a commercial or operating standpoint, but would require no run-round.

Sorry thought you meant the service as suggested now ie terminate at Blackburn. Network Rail have said they do not want it to run beyond Blackburn and form a circle due to the impacts on punctuality. Not going to happen.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I know that a few months back that doubts were cast on this thread as to whether infrastructure improvements on the Calder Valley line were part of the Northern Hub project since the Northern Hub documentation failed to specifically mention them. Well I'm happy to see that page 38/39 of Network Rail's Draft CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan in its section on Northern Hub says:

Calder Valley JTI - Infrastructure improvements between Manchester and Bradford to provide journey time savings. GRIP 6 Start January 2016 GRIP 6 Complete August 2016. Available for December 2016 timetable change.

GRIP 6 I see means when the work is planned to be carried out.

 

[ianhr]

I know that a few months back that doubts were cast on this thread as to whether infrastructure improvements on the Calder Valley line were part of the Northern Hub project since the Northern Hub documentation failed to specifically mention them. Well I'm happy to see that page 38/39 of Network Rail's Draft CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan in its section on Northern Hub says:

Calder Valley JTI - Infrastructure improvements between Manchester and Bradford to provide journey time savings. GRIP 6 Start January 2016 GRIP 6 Complete August 2016. Available for December 2016 timetable change.

GRIP 6 I see means when the work is planned to be carried out.

Do we know exactly what infrastructure improvements are planned? There is a proposal for an extra platform at Rochdale. The north facing bay there seems to be redundant now that the Oldham line is part of Metrolink, so will the new platform be a loop allowing trains to pass as well as turn back towards Manchester, or will it just be a south facing bay?
We now have a cross over at Todmorden as part of the curve scheme.
Will there be any loops to allow the semi-fasts to overtake stopping trains? If so where? Sowerby Bridge or Hebden Bridge-Mytholmroyd (originally goods loops) have the space for this.
I think there was also talk of installing more intermediate signals to shorten the block sections to permit reduced headways.....?

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I don't think anything specific on improvements has been said since this rather cryptic post a couple of months ago. The "provision of a turnback facility towards Manchester" at Rochdale is provided for separately in the NR plan.

The Northern Hub plans were presented in W Yorks as allowing a service between Bradford and Manchester with a journey time of 50mins, while the current fastest service is 58mins. So a 15% increase in average speeds. What type of improvements would yield such a result?

I assume the 156s and 158s that run the semi fast services at present could easily achieve such a journey time, because I don't think there are many (if any) current stretches that allow 70mph, let alone 90mph.

 

[cle]

Could easily be through stopping patterns, but 'infrastructure improvements' implies something more. Signalling would be capacity (also needed) but possibly linespeed too?

An express pattern (Rochdale, Halifax, Bradford) might do it in 50 mins?

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Could easily be through stopping patterns, but 'infrastructure improvements' implies something more. Signalling would be capacity (also needed) but possibly linespeed too?

An express pattern (Rochdale, Halifax, Bradford) might do it in 50 mins?

The addition of a Burnley semi fast serving Tod and Rochdale in 2016 may herald a Bradford, Halifax and (hopefully!) Hebden Bridge service to Victoria without any further reductions in tph at any stations. But the Tod Curve wasn't part of the plan when the 50min service was envisaged and no the plan definitely says infrastructure improvements.

And the May 2014 changes to stopping patterns have already withdrawn direct journeys from Halifax/Bradford to stations south of Tod (except Rochdale) in the name of speeding up services, leading to much squealing from WYMetro, TfGM, residents etc.

 

[Deerfold]

Could easily be through stopping patterns, but 'infrastructure improvements' implies something more.

Definitely needs a bit more than stopping patterns - the current express only includes Hebden Bridge on top of your suggestion (below) but takes an hour.

I think the only way to do it with stopping patterns would be non-stop Bradford - Manchester.

Signalling would be capacity (also needed) but possibly linespeed too?

An express pattern (Rochdale, Halifax, Bradford) might do it in 50 mins?

 

[ianhr]

This is going to get complicated.
I think the Northern Hub concept would include a Bradford-Halifax-Hebden Br-Todmorden diagram continuing to MIA via the Ordsall chord. I would have thought that there is plenty of potential demand for this but a reasonable timing would need to miss all stops south of Tod except Rochdale.
The local stations south of Todmorden really deserve a more frequent service to Manchester and will no doubt feel 'short changed' if they do not get their own direct train to Oxford Rd, Piccadilly & MIA!
Perhaps what is needed is an additional turnback facility at Todmorden (there is plenty of space north of the viaduct) so that a train from West Yorks or E.Lancs can run fast to Rochdale & Manchester and then be immediately followed by an all stations local. I would not have thought that many people travel from Yorks to stations like Smithy Bridge, Mills Hill or Moston so I do not see that WYPTE would have too much to complain about. Anyone making such a trip could merely alight at Todmorden and wait on the same platform for a following stopping train. In the DOWN direction the local could leave Manchester ahead of the fast which would end up say 5 mins behind it at Tod.

btw Todmorden needs to have it's platform canopies reinstated now that it is getting busier. It can be a horribly bleak station to wait at in bad weather!

 

[Welshman]

Will there be any loops to allow the semi-fasts to overtake stopping trains? If so where? Sowerby Bridge or Hebden Bridge-Mytholmroyd (originally goods loops) have the space for this.

Originally, there was also an up [not sure about down] loop at Eastwood, and quite lengthy up and down goods loops between Mytholmroyd and Luddendenfoot station.

I'm not sure if there would now be room for the possible reinstatement of these. Certainly between Mytholmroyd and the site of Luddendenfoot station, the remaining up and down lines have been realigned to allow for faster speeds, and there is considerable tree-growth on either side.

 

[WatcherZero]

Another thing for those who advocate a circular service is that what the locals in East Lancs (Burnley/Blackburn) most want is a direct connection to the airport. Which is probably what the final form of the service would be post Ordsall Chord.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

This is going to get complicated.
I think the Northern Hub concept would include a Bradford-Halifax-Hebden Br-Todmorden diagram continuing to MIA via the Ordsall chord.

That was also presented in W Yorks at the time of the announcement of the Northern Hub, whether its going to happen is again unknown.

I would have thought that there is plenty of potential demand for this but a reasonable timing would need to miss all stops south of Tod except Rochdale. The local stations south of Todmorden really deserve a more frequent service to Manchester and will no doubt feel 'short changed' if they do not get their own direct train to Oxford Rd, Piccadilly & MIA!

Quite possibly but I've never seen any reference to plans for such a through service or indeed a more frequent service. Littleborough apart in 2016 when the Burnley service stops there in addition to Rochdale.

Perhaps what is needed is an additional turnback facility at Todmorden (there is plenty of space north of the viaduct) so that a train from West Yorks or E.Lancs can run fast to Rochdale & Manchester and then be immediately followed by an all stations local. I would not have thought that many people travel from Yorks to stations like Smithy Bridge, Mills Hill or Moston so I do not see that WYPTE would have too much to complain about. Anyone making such a trip could merely alight at Todmorden and wait on the same platform for a following stopping train. In the DOWN direction the local could leave Manchester ahead of the fast which would end up say 5 mins behind it at Tod.

Well that is effectively whats happening in May 2014, although I don't remember the time differences. The remaining Bradford stopper stops only at Rochdale after Tod and is followed by a new stopping service that turnbacks on the Tod curve. And what I said about squealing from WYMetro, TfGM, residents etc was factually correct, enough at least for 2 morning rush hour services to stop at Smithy Bridge, Littleborough and Walsden for commuters to Halifax and Bradford and two evening return journeys to be reinstated after consultation. And of course Walsden residents, who lose all direct services to Halifax where local council and hospital services described the changes as catastrophic and fear station closure
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The local stations south of Todmorden really deserve a more frequent service to Manchester and will no doubt feel 'short changed' if they do not get their own direct train to Oxford Rd, Piccadilly & MIA!

Another thing for those who advocate a circular service is that what the locals in East Lancs (Burnley/Blackburn) most want is a direct connection to the airport. Which is probably what the final form of the service would be post Ordsall Chord.

No doubt the people of not only northern Manchester but also East Lancs will take to the streets when they find out that Ordsall Chord has rather limited capacity and will not provide direct airport access from every station in Northern England.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And what I said about squealing from WYMetro, TfGM, residents etc was factually correct, enough at least for 2 morning rush hour services to stop at Smithy Bridge, Littleborough and Walsden for commuters to Halifax and Bradford and two evening return journeys to be reinstated after consultation.

Would you say that Littleborough should be viewed in a different light to the other two stations at Smithy Bridge and Walsden ?

 

[ianhr]

Would you say that Littleborough should be viewed in a different light to the other two stations at Smithy Bridge and Walsden ?

Well, I suppose it does serve a larger community, and unlike the other two it never closed. Smithy Bridge also seems to be well used. Walsden seems to be only lightly used but this might be due to it only having 1 tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That was also presented in W Yorks at the time of the announcement of the Northern Hub, whether its going to happen is again unknown.






No doubt the people of not only northern Manchester but also East Lancs will take to the streets when they find out that Ordsall Chord has rather limited capacity and will not provide direct airport access from every station in Northern England.

I think the Ordsall Chord could rapidly become a victim of it's own success. Many new through journey 'opportunities' will be created but probably not all will be efficiently fulfilled. It will be one side of a busy triangle with no grade separated junctions AND in close proximity to other junctions at Deal Street, Windsor Bridge, Castlefields/Deansgate ALL with multiple conflicting movements + the limited capacity of the Deansgate-Piccadilly viaduct. Capacity will be very constrained. The extra platform capacity at Oxford Road & Piccadilly will allow trains to back up in the stations to compensate for their dwell time but how quickly will they be able to negotiate the triangle and adjacent junctions? The only long term, robust and expensive solution will be to dust off the old plan for a Piccadilly-Victoria tunnel!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the Ordsall Chord could rapidly become a victim of it's own success. Many new through journey 'opportunities' will be created but probably not all will be efficiently fulfilled. It will be one side of a busy triangle with no grade separated junctions AND in close proximity to other junctions at Deal Street, Windsor Bridge, Castlefields/Deansgate ALL with multiple conflicting movements + the limited capacity of the Deansgate-Piccadilly viaduct. Capacity will be very constrained.

Has the final design stage for the Ordsall Chord now been approved or are there objections still to be heard ? I understand that the MOSI objection was handled by those acting on behalf of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society.

 

[ianhr]

Has the final design stage for the Ordsall Chord now been approved or are there objections still to be heard ? I understand that the MOSI objection was handled by those acting on behalf of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society.

Well, we could speculate from what we know. 2 tph from Leeds & beyond via the Standedge route to MIA can run through P 3/4 at Victoria via Deal Street & south side pair of tracks to the chord. 1 tph from Bradford/Halifax via the Calder Valley line will need to switch to the south side pair of tracks either at Miles Platting, east of Vic or at Deal Street + 1 tph from E.Lancs via Todmorden could do the same. This makes 4 tph which could be reasonably sustainable, with the trains from the Rochdale route having some flexibility where the conflicting moves are made and which platforms they are routed through at Vic. It seems the Liverpool lines will be re-routed through reopened platforms 3&4 at Salford Central, and these will be electric trains from Leeds or Stalybridge through any of 3,4, 5 or 6 at Vic. Diesel trains from Rochdale or the Calder Valley line will stay on the north side through 5&6 at Man Vic then 1&2 at Salford Central & continue on the ex L&YR to Wigan/Southport?

How many trains via the chord will stop at Salford Central? (where it seems there will also be a Platform 5). Will there be any capacity left between Deansgate and Piccadilly for stopping trains from North Manchester in addition to trains from the N.W., Liverpool, N.Wales & the CLC line?
Personally I would like to see the N.Wales trains routed to Man Vic where they can provide connections to Lancs, Yorkshire & the N.E. but I understand Arriva Trains Wales are opposed to this because they have a base at Piccadilly for their services from the Crewe/Shrewsbury direction.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I've found a reference to the infrastructure updates to the Calder Valley line on the Northern Hub website at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/northern-hub/ under the Bradford to Manchester Airport and Liverpool tab.

Calder Valley line improvements Facts: We're upgrading the infrastructure of the line to allow trains to travel faster. Benefits: Shorter journey times. Note that passing loops and similar (Chinley, Dore, Rochdale) all get a separate specific mention.

I would hope that the plans for Bradford MIA/Liverpool services were based on achieving the overall cost benefits of the project, and really doubt sending Bradford trains to Southport instead because its convenient and the trains are diesel would provide the same economic return. It'll be interesting to see what transpires.

 

[ianhr]

I've found a reference to the infrastructure updates to the Calder Valley line on the Northern Hub website at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/northern-hub/ under the Bradford to Manchester Airport and Liverpool tab.

Calder Valley line improvements Facts: We're upgrading the infrastructure of the line to allow trains to travel faster. Benefits: Shorter journey times. Note that passing loops and similar (Chinley, Dore, Rochdale) all get a separate specific mention.

Ok thanks for the link. This confirms that something will be done at Rochdale. It mentions a 3rd platform. Allowing through trains to pass terminating trains from Manchester could be a south facing bay at the south end of the existing platform (cheapest option) accessed by the existing stairway & ticket office. Re-opening one face of the abandoned east side island platform would provide a loop but be more expensive (therefore less likely) and require extending the subway, renewal of a stairway (plus disabled access ramps or lift) new waiting shelters etc. However, this HAS already been done at Blackburn.

They do not seem to explain how the faster journey times north of Rochdale will be achieved, unless I am missing something. Raising line speeds? but where and how?....more likely just with fewer stops, in which case signalling and service patterns will need altering to retain a good service to smaller stations. Mytholmroyd and Walsden seem most at risk, but then WYMetro want to ADD another station at Low Moor (I can't see why?).

 

[tbtc]

I would hope that the plans for Bradford MIA/Liverpool services were based on achieving the overall cost benefits of the project, and really doubt sending Bradford trains to Southport instead because its convenient and the trains are diesel would provide the same economic return. It'll be interesting to see what transpires

There's already more than enough capacity on the Airport - Piccadilly line (roughly thirty coaches per hour?) considering the number of passengers/ compared to other routes in northern England, so I don't think there's scope for any additional services per hour.

This begs the question - if you put trains from the Calder Valley line through to Manchester, then who looses their Airport service?

Also, electrifying lines like Liverpool to Manchester and then introducing new diesel services over them weakens the case for that electrification. The important thing (in my eyes) is improving the service from Bradford/ Calder Valley to Manchester - whether trains terminate at Victoria or extend to Southport/ Chester/ Airport/ wherever is a lesser consideration.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well two services which could be extended, you have the Man Pic-Airport shuttle which is a stopper (though only 5 minutes slower than expresses) and the Man Pic-Crewe service.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

There's already more than enough capacity on the Airport - Piccadilly line (roughly thirty coaches per hour?) considering the number of passengers/ compared to other routes in northern England, so I don't think there's scope for any additional services per hour.

This begs the question - if you put trains from the Calder Valley line through to Manchester, then who looses their Airport service?

Also, electrifying lines like Liverpool to Manchester and then introducing new diesel services over them weakens the case for that electrification. The important thing (in my eyes) is improving the service from Bradford/ Calder Valley to Manchester - whether trains terminate at Victoria or extend to Southport/ Chester/ Airport/ wherever is a lesser consideration.

There was a gap analysis performed on requirements for connectivity between the existing principal routes into Manchester and destinations within Manchester (including Airport) in the initial Technical Study. The Calder Valley line terminating at Victoria providing the majority of connectivity requirements unfilled by existing routes. The report even suggested that if the cheap option (i.e. no Ordsall Chord) was chosen that Calder Valley services should run to Piccadilly by reversing at Salford Crescent!

There was a specific requirement for ALL principal routes into Manchester to have direct services of at least 1tph through to Manchester Airport.

No idea where the service through to Liverpool came from, apart from a general requirement to link major cities in the North.

 

[edwin_m]

Re-opening one face of the abandoned east side island platform would provide a loop but be more expensive (therefore less likely) and require extending the subway, renewal of a stairway (plus disabled access ramps or lift) new waiting shelters etc. However, this HAS already been done at Blackburn.

There's a scheme, which I think is committed, to reopen the subway to another exit on the east side of the station which would improve access to the park and ride that was built there recently. This would do some of the things needed to reopen the eastern island.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was a specific requirement for ALL principal routes into Manchester to have direct services of at least 1tph through to Manchester Airport.

Don't let tbtc know of this as it will confirm his worst fears on that particular matter...

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Don't let tbtc know of this as it will confirm his worst fears on that particular matter...

It is obvious that the final solution may not meet all the requirements and this may be the case with the Airport connection. However since improving Calder Valley connectivity to destinations in Manchester to the same level as that already enjoyed by other principal routes was the second driver for building the Ordsall Chord and recommending the higher budget option, then it would be galling to see trains routed to Chester and Southport as some forum members think! Can we please have at least a Piccadilly service reversing at Salford Crescent:roll:

For information, the principal rail corridors are: Corridor 2 (serving Preston); Corridor 4 (serving Bradford/Halifax); Corridor 5 (serving Newcastle/Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds); Corridor 8 (service Sheffield/ South Humber/ and the East Midlands); Corridor 10 (serving London / Birmingham); Corridor 13 (serving Liverpool); Corridor 14 (service Liverpool/North Wales/Chester), Corridor 11 (Manchester Airport). The requirement for airport connectivity was 1tph (2tph for Corridor 5) direct link for each of these "on a 7 day/week basis, with service start and finish time giving 95% of air passengers the option of using rail for their journeys to or from the airport"

I'm aware that this is drifting off-topic and perhaps should be moved elsewhere. However, the Burnley route with 0 current passengers isn't a principal route and despite what some members think/want isn't going to magically jump the queue in terms of either reduced journey times or improved connectivity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

WYMetro want to ADD another station at Low Moor (I can't see why?).

I agree that Low Moor seems bizarre - the industry seems hell bent on sending stopping services anywhere but Bradford. But I suppose the Tod Curve experience shows that building a new station does not automatically guarantee that trains will actually stop there

 

[ianhr]

It is obvious that the final solution may not meet all the requirements and this may be the case with the Airport connection.

For information, the principal rail corridors are: Corridor 2 (serving Preston); Corridor 4 (serving Bradford/Halifax); Corridor 5 (serving Newcastle/Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds); Corridor 8 (service Sheffield/ South Humber/ and the East Midlands); Corridor 10 (serving London / Birmingham); Corridor 13 (serving Liverpool); Corridor 14 (service Liverpool/North Wales/Chester), Corridor 11 (Manchester Airport). The requirement for airport connectivity was 1tph (2tph for Corridor 5) direct link for each of these "on a 7 day/week basis, with service start and finish time giving 95% of air passengers the option of using rail for their journeys to or from the airport"

I'm aware that this is drifting off-topic and perhaps should be moved elsewhere. However, the Burnley route with 0 current passengers isn't a principal route and despite what some members think/want isn't going to magically jump the queue in terms of either reduced journey times or improved connectivity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


:

Maybe if E.Lancs were to make a bid for a direct train to the Airport, and grouping all its towns together it surely deserves one, it might be better to route it Colne-Nelson-Burnley Central-Accrington-Blackburn-Darwen and then via Bolton?

On the Piccadilly-MIA section there would then be:-
Liverpool 1tph electric
Southport 1tph diesel
Blackpool 1tph electric
Preston/Scotland 1tph electric
E.Lancs 1 tph diesel
Bradford/Hailfax/Rochdale 1tph diesel
Leeds/York/N.E. 2tph electric
Hope Valley/Sheffield/Cleethorpes 1 tph diesel

This may sound a bit excessive (9tph or an ~ 6-7 min headway) but not much more than the existing provision. Barrow/Lakes lose out. 3 tph would be routed via the Ordsall Chord. It makes better utilisation of the electrification than at present. Why not send the 2tph stopping trains to Wilmslow via Styal as formerly with a connection at Heald Green?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe if E.Lancs were to make a bid for a direct train to the Airport, and grouping all its towns together it surely deserves one, it might be better to route it Colne-Nelson-Burnley Central-Accrington-Blackburn-Darwen and then via Bolton?

East Lancashire area bids for rail improvement services to aid the invigoration of the area seem to be "jam tomorrow" as has been proved by their successful bid monies for the Todmorden Chord project that sees the infrastructure work proceeding....but no trains to run the service..:roll:

 

[ianhr]

East Lancashire area bids for rail improvement services to aid the invigoration of the area seem to be "jam tomorrow" as has been proved by their successful bid monies for the Todmorden Chord project that sees the infrastructure work proceeding....but no trains to run the service..:roll:

Yes, but at least it is built & the rolling stock must surely come in due course. The next step should be to get more of the Darwen-Bromley Cross section re-doubled. Is the funding for this agreed yet?

Following that they need a loop or a stretch of double line on the Colne branch.

Forget about SELRAP......these investments are more important in the short/medium term. Most people want to get to Manchester not Skipton! If any re-opening is to be done IMO greater benefit would come from restoring the Accrington-Haslingden-Bury-Clifton Jct line, although this would be very expensive and impact on the ELR.

 

[strowger]

Deleted

 

[spongsdad]

The trouble with Walsden is that eastbound commuters head for Todmorden (which has more trains, a ticket office, waiting rooms, the Wetherspoons, the magnificent cat, a car park, etc), and westbound commuters head for Littleborough (because it's in the GMPTE area so fares are drastically lower).

The eastbound platform at Todmorden is not wheelchair-accessible, whereas it is at Walsden. Although I've never seen a wheelchair user at Todmorden in years of daily station use, I think the shrill squealing from the disability-rights lobby is keeping Walsden alive. Provide flat access to the Leedsbound platform at Tod, and you can close Walsden. Very few people will miss it.

I hope that I may have misunderstood your comment about "the shrill squealing of the disability rights lobby" but it does read as rather prejudicial. My own wife is severely disabled and the effect on us is that we have to strategically plan all our journeys by public transport. Indeed, much of the rail system effectively remains inaccessible to us. Thank goodness that the "shrill" lobby is making itself heard. It needs to be. I can tell you from personal experience that disabled people are still largely invisible to the general public.