New Stateman article: North TPE trains are like distracted ponies

[Welshman]

It is difficult to see how it could be much improved given the PSRs at Bradley Wood and Greetland-Dryclough due to tight curvature.... Maybe, as well as access to Brighouse the main utility of this route is to open up connectional possibilities e.g. Bradford-Barnsley/Sheffield, Halifax-Man Picc (without using Metrolink) & MIA etc and so journey times are not so critical. Would there be some attraction if these trains ran through to Sheffield via Penistone as was the case until ~1965?

There was of course once a more direct route via Bailiff Bridge but I doubt it was either well used or much quicker.

Not only is there a severe PSR at Greetland Junction, but that is at the foot of a steep gradient up to Dryclough Junction. So, not having the advantage of a running start, this section of line has always been slow. In the days of steam it was commonplace for bankers to be used.

There used to be a service from Bradford Exchange to Penistone, which connected with the Woodhead electrics into Sheffield Victoria, giving a time of about 90 minutes from Bradford to Sheffield. Of course the direct route from Penistone into Sheffield Victoria is now lost, and I doubt the detour via Barnsley would give a very creditable time for any Bradford-Sheffield services.

The direct route between Bradford and Huddersfield via Bailiff Bridge [the Pickle Bridge line], was quicker than that via Cleackheaton or Halifax. I seem to remember reading times of about 30 minutes were possible, but unfortunately, I cannot now find the source of that information.

I think the main reason for the closure of this route [as early as 1948 to passenger traffic and totally in 1952] was not so much poor usage but the state of Wyke viaduct. Ironically, but for a difficult landowner refusing to allow the railway access to his land, the viaduct need never have been built in the first place. But it was built on poor ground and deteriorated so badly that fears for its safety increased, and by the time it was closed, a PSR of 5mph had been imposed.

 

[Waverley125]

The only solution I can see for speeding up Manchester - Leeds without seriously cutting local services is for a large amount of quadrupling. The alignment is built for 4 lines between Dewsbury and Diggle, as well as west of Stalybridge.

That leaves Diggle - Stalybridge and Leeds - Dewsbury as pinch points, which could be eased by reopening Diggle station as well as Batley's 3rd & 4th platforms to use as holding stations - local services pulled out of the way until the express behind them has passed, and dispatching them immediately after.

 

[edwin_m]

The only solution I can see for speeding up Manchester - Leeds without seriously cutting local services is for a large amount of quadrupling. The alignment is built for 4 lines between Dewsbury and Diggle, as well as west of Stalybridge.

That leaves Diggle - Stalybridge and Leeds - Dewsbury as pinch points, which could be eased by reopening Diggle station as well as Batley's 3rd & 4th platforms to use as holding stations - local services pulled out of the way until the express behind them has passed, and dispatching them immediately after.

That would require the local train to stop for 6-8 minutes - not really acceptable for a short journey. If you go that way, it's far better to timetable the locals so they can stay ahead of the fasts until the next four-track section. If Standedge tunnel had a bi-di third track laid as proposed a few years ago, then an all-stations could probably get between this and Huddersfield or Stalybridge without blocking the next fast.

I don't believe it was ever four-track west of Stalybridge, and looking at the Ashton area on Bing maps confirms that the bridges have only ever been double track. Guide Bridge to Piccadilly was four-track however. This area is less of a problem because if the fast trains go via Victoria the slow could to go to Piccadilly, effectively the opposite of what happens today.

 

[jimm]

The only solution I can see for speeding up Manchester - Leeds without seriously cutting local services is for a large amount of quadrupling. The alignment is built for 4 lines between Dewsbury and Diggle, as well as west of Stalybridge.

That leaves Diggle - Stalybridge and Leeds - Dewsbury as pinch points, which could be eased by reopening Diggle station as well as Batley's 3rd & 4th platforms to use as holding stations - local services pulled out of the way until the express behind them has passed, and dispatching them immediately after.

The quadruple track formation starts at Ravensthorpe, not Dewsbury, and if you reinstate quad track, especially from Huddersfield to Marsden, you would reduce speeds, by reinstating the tighter curves removed by the slewing of the double track using the full width of the formation in the early 1980s.

Stalybridge-Victoria was not quadruple track, though there are some places where loops and sidings have been lifted where you could probably fit loops in these days.

Why would you create a situation at Batley where you would have slow trains trailing across the main line, causing conflicting moves? One of the through lines was reinstated just a mile away at Dewsbury precisely to allow overtaking. You could reinstate the other line as well if necessary.

 

[ianhr]

The only solution I can see for speeding up Manchester - Leeds without seriously cutting local services is for a large amount of quadrupling. The alignment is built for 4 lines between Dewsbury and Diggle, as well as west of Stalybridge.

That leaves Diggle - Stalybridge and Leeds - Dewsbury as pinch points, which could be eased by reopening Diggle station as well as Batley's 3rd & 4th platforms to use as holding stations - local services pulled out of the way until the express behind them has passed, and dispatching them immediately after.

There were also 4 tracks Diggle-Stalybridge when the Micklehurst Loop was there. It would require BIG money to put this back as viaducts have been demolished and there is encroachment by housing estates, but the fasts could have been sent this way allowing a more frequent stopping service to Greenfield and Mossley (for which there is substantial demand).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would you create a situation at Batley where you would have slow trains trailing across the main line, causing conflicting moves? One of the through lines was reinstated just a mile away at Dewsbury precisely to allow overtaking. You could reinstate the other line as well if necessary.

but why not an UP loop at Batley on the east side for stopping trains allowing a fast to pass on the existing UP platform line? There is plenty of space for this if the platform was moved marginally further north and a 3rd platform face added on the east side. This would complement the DOWN loop at Dewsbury

 

[jimm]

There were also 4 tracks Diggle-Stalybridge when the Micklehurst Loop was there. It would require BIG money to put this back as viaducts have been demolished and there is encroachment by housing estates, but the fasts could have been sent this way allowing a more frequent stopping service to Greenfield and Mossley (for which there is substantial demand).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


but why not an UP loop at Batley on the east side for stopping trains allowing a fast to pass on the existing UP platform line? There is plenty of space for this if the platform was moved marginally further north and a 3rd platform face added on the east side. This would complement the DOWN loop at Dewsbury

Micklehurst is dead, buried, gone. A footnote in history, like the Leeds New Line from Heaton Lodge to Farnley via Gildersome - I'm surprised someone hasn't advocated reopening this yet - it's probably only a matter of time...

Did you miss the bit about Dewsbury being a whole mile away and with the room available to have through lines in both directions? Why would you bother with Batley, where you would need to spend money reopening/moving a platform? And annoy passengers heading to Dewsbury, who would be stuck for five minutes or so, a mile up the line from the place they're going to...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Micklehurst is dead, buried, gone. A footnote in history.

Does anyone know what the actual current conditions are like of the following three tunnels that were on the Micklehurst Loop Line:-
Butterhouse, Royal George, Stalybridge New.

The closing dates for passenger usage of the four stations on that line are:-
1917....Uppermill
1917....Friezland
1907....Micklehurst
1909....Staley and Millbrook

 

[HSTEd]

I think the best solution would probably be a line between Manchester Airport High Speed station and somewhere just short of Leeds New Lane is probably the best bet.
Despite the somewhat roundabout approach to Manchester you can make up for it by using the money you save to increase the amount of tunneling under the Pennines and in the Leeds Metropolitan Area.

More tunneling enables a straightening of the route and a consequent increase in speed to 320kph.

320kph could cover that distance in something like 20 minutes or so - blowing the current or post electrification timings out of the water. And the line would easily have capacity for 6tph.

If you want to have Liverpool trains without a reversal the cheap solution would almost certainly involve a link between this new line and the northbound Styal Line, allowing the trains easy access to the through platforms at Picadilly and hence the Liverpool lines.
Although you could build another ~20km of high speed track to join the line to Warrington around Birchwood, but that would mean Leeds trains would avoid Manchester altogether. (But would not compete with Manchester Airport-Manchester HS2 capacity).

 

[Wavertreelad]

I think the best solution would probably be a line between Manchester Airport High Speed station and somewhere just short of Leeds New Lane is probably the best bet.
Despite the somewhat roundabout approach to Manchester you can make up for it by using the money you save to increase the amount of tunneling under the Pennines and in the Leeds Metropolitan Area.

More tunneling enables a straightening of the route and a consequent increase in speed to 320kph.

320kph could cover that distance in something like 20 minutes or so - blowing the current or post electrification timings out of the water. And the line would easily have capacity for 6tph.

If you want to have Liverpool trains without a reversal the cheap solution would almost certainly involve a link between this new line and the northbound Styal Line, allowing the trains easy access to the through platforms at Picadilly and hence the Liverpool lines.
Although you could build another ~20km of high speed track to join the line to Warrington around Birchwood, but that would mean Leeds trains would avoid Manchester altogether. (But would not compete with Manchester Airport-Manchester HS2 capacity).

There is further discussion on this HS route on the HS2 thread, Northern Extensions. Higgins of course suggested a HS route between Liverpool and Hull. West of the Pennines my suggestion would be for the north south HS route to pass over the Mersey between Runcorn and Warrington with a junction to allow east/west and north/south connection to Liverpool and Manchester Airport. The line would tunnel to the Piccadilly as the existing planned route then tunnelling as you suggest.

 

[edwin_m]

Does anyone know what the actual current conditions are like of the following three tunnels that were on the Micklehurst Loop Line:-
Butterhouse, Royal George, Stalybridge New.

Butterhouse - still there but bricked up one end IIRC. The link below is incorrect, as I definitely walked through this tunnel several times in the 70s but I haven't been there since 1978 so although one end wasn't buried in the 60s it may have been by now.

http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/gallery/butterhouse.html

Royal George - buried, condition unknown though as it is shallow with a road above it was probably infilled.

Stalybridge New - Still extant, one end high up in the air where it used to go straight onto the demolished viaduct. Evidence of recent repointing when I visited in 2010, and likely to be maintained in good condition to avoid damage to buildings above.

As noted above, almost every structure has been demolished, including several major viaducts, and housing encroaches on the formation in Uppermill. I'd class it as a no-hoper.

 

[ianhr]

Did you miss the bit about Dewsbury being a whole mile away and with the room available to have through lines in both directions? Why would you bother with Batley, where you would need to spend money reopening/moving a platform? And annoy passengers heading to Dewsbury, who would be stuck for five minutes or so, a mile up the line from the place they're going to...

Ok if an UP through line can be put back at Dewsbury that may be a cheaper solution but can this be done without reducing current line speeds? The space at Dewsbury does appear to be quite restricted implying tighter curves and little opportunity to lengthen platforms. How many fast trains should call at Dewsbury, the present pattern seems to be rather haphazard?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Micklehurst is dead, buried, gone. A footnote in history, like the Leeds New Line from Heaton Lodge to Farnley via Gildersome - I'm surprised someone hasn't advocated reopening this yet - it's probably only a matter of time...
...

I'm sure sure you are right but the cost of rebuilding it on the original or part original/part new alignment somewhere along the west side of the valley would be peanuts compared with what some people are now proposing ....a HSL from MIA to Leeds! (The Leeds New Line is a more hopeless case and it was very indirect & difficult to operate......the only useful purpose it could serve might have been as a light rail route giving the Spen Valley towns better access to/from Leeds rather than the tedious bus services which take over an hour!)

 

[edwin_m]

The Micklehurst alignment basically isn't there any more with the exception of Butterhouse and Stalybridge tunnels. Between these points rebuilding it would face the same costs and degree of objections as building a new railway.

 

[HSTEd]

With almost non e of the benefits thanks to the terrible alignment built for low speed operation.

 

[Olaf]

Not sure Centre for Cities equals 'solid facts' but there you go.

Perhaps not, but it is a more detailed analysis than is available to Whitehall, which (ORR) has acknowledged that it's own models do not match growth and travel trends in the northern cities, while the analysis is also being more substantive than the misconceptions of the author of the article.

 

[Chris125]

Higgins of course suggested a HS route between Liverpool and Hull.

Did he? I remember him advocating, quite rightly, the need to further improve improve services across the North but I can't recall him actually suggesting a high speed line.

Chris

 

[jimm]

Ok if an UP through line can be put back at Dewsbury that may be a cheaper solution but can this be done without reducing current line speeds? The space at Dewsbury does appear to be quite restricted implying tighter curves and little opportunity to lengthen platforms. How many fast trains should call at Dewsbury, the present pattern seems to be rather haphazard?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm sure sure you are right but the cost of rebuilding it on the original or part original/part new alignment somewhere along the west side of the valley would be peanuts compared with what some people are now proposing ....a HSL from MIA to Leeds! (The Leeds New Line is a more hopeless case and it was very indirect & difficult to operate......the only useful purpose it could serve might have been as a light rail route giving the Spen Valley towns better access to/from Leeds rather than the tedious bus services which take over an hour!)

What tighter curves? The approach from the west is nice and straight and there is width to play with on the formation at the east end. Why would you want to extend the platforms? Unless there's a secret plan to go to operation with 12-car 23m trains, the existing platforms are fine for any likely future needs and could be extended at the east end if required.

The Leeds New Line looks like a long way round but timing-wise compared perfectly well with the Dewsbury route, especially with diesel traction in its last few years. I wouldn't in a million years advocate reviving it, never mind that the M621 obliterated part of the formation and you'd never get away with driving a viaduct through the middle of Mirfield in this day and age.

Anyone advocating a high-speed line is living in fantasy land. I suppose it would work if you dig a tunnel from the centre of Manchester to the centre of Leeds, but in the area between the existing railways and roads already follow pretty much any practical route, never mind the built-up areas - just look where they had to take the M62 to cross the Pennines. The row any such scheme would kick up would would drown out the HS1 protesters in an instant.

 

[HSTEd]

This i s a world where terrain doesn't mean terribly much.

Where we build tunnels to avoid angry NIMBYs.
The pennines are no particular challenge at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is a world where terrain doesn't mean terribly much....Where we build tunnels to avoid angry NIMBYs....The Pennines are no particular challenge at all.

There are times when careful financial cost allocation is totally ignored by those with their hands on the purse strings where certain needs are felt to over-ride normal matters.

The recent matter of the railway in the Dawlish area bears out this.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Did he? I remember him advocating, quite rightly, the need to further improve improve services across the North but I can't recall him actually suggesting a high speed line.

Chris

Chris, absolutely correct he actually wrote.

“In my discussions preparing this report, I have repeatedly been urged both to deliver the benefits the line will bring to the North sooner, and to start work there earlier. That is why I am proposing to extend the line to a new hub at Crewe by 2027, so that services through that interchange can be better and faster, sooner. I also believe that the rest of Phase Two is vital to realising the potential of the North as a whole; but it can only do that if it is done right.
For some areas in the North, capacity is as much an issue as in the South, but the bigger problem is connectivity – journey times are too slow. The key to improving those, particularly east to west, is to integrate HS2 into the existing network to improve connectivity between cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, Manchester and Leeds, Leeds and Hull, as well as Birmingham and Leeds. HS2 can help to address those issues – as the proposed route already does – but it cannot be the complete answer. HS2 and the future of the existing network need to be considered together to maximise the synergy between them – and both need to be considered as part of a much wider overview of how to regenerate the North as a whole.”

What I believe Higgins is actually saying is, lets build HS2 to Crewe first but before we build the rest of the west coast HS2 line to the north the authorities across the M62 corridor in particular need to bring forward proposals to improve connectivity which would of course be outside the remit of HS2.

The present North West and Transpennine electrification schemes will raise line speeds and journey times, but there will be little opportunity to increase capacity and improve the situation without further heavy investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. Assuming therefore you were to build or upgrade a route between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull it would be on the basis that line speeds could be considerably increased, albeit perhaps not to HS line speeds. With a total distance of just under 130 miles, and probably the need to include six or seven stops on the route it wouldn't really make sense too much sense to try, but certainly west of the Pennines it would be beneficial if the line could share links east / west lines of HS2 wherever these may be built. My comments were therefore in part based on this assumption.

 

[Bevan Price]

Leeds to Huddersfield via Leeds New Line was 18¾ miles, one mile longer than via Dewsbury.

(From 1922 Bradshaw) .Fastest time I can find between Bradford Exchange & Huddersfield is 28 minutes (semi-fast) via Pickle Bridge line - local trains took about 32 to 37 minutes. Next fastest route was via Cleckheaton & Mirfield, through trains taking just over 40 mins. Via Halifax mostly took about 60 mins - but with more stops than now. (All steam, of course.)

From NER 1962 timetable. For dmu local services, route via Cleckheaton was the quickest (around 35 mins.), but via Halifax was generally only 2-3 minutes slower than this.

 

[jimm]

This i s a world where terrain doesn't mean terribly much.

Where we build tunnels to avoid angry NIMBYs.
The pennines are no particular challenge at all.

So, like I said, that will have to be a tunnel from the middle of Manchester to the middle of Leeds, as there's a lot of terrain and buildings and people in the way.

So if you've got the odd 10bn Swiss francs (£6.8bn or so) knocking about, which appears to be the cost of the Gotthard base tunnel which clocks in at 35 miles, then you can probably have your tunnel...

 

[34D]

Peterborough and Milton Keynes are reported as the fastest growing cities in the 2014 report:
http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/2014/Cities_Outlook_2014.pdf

Liverpool is listed as one of the slowest growing cities in the UK, however it is correct in that Manchester is the UK's second city (base on Global City status):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

The order of British cities in that listing is:

London, Dublin, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Belfast, Southampton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Sheffield and Nottingham.

Seems bizarre to me. I mean, how could they forget Huddersfield?

 

[northwichcat]

The order of British cities in that listing is:

London, Dublin, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Belfast, Southampton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Sheffield and Nottingham.

Seems bizarre to me. I mean, how could they forget Huddersfield?

York's not listed either. Maybe you want TPE service to omit York as well as Huddersfield? North TPE isn't just for the benefit of Leeds even if BBC Look North try to give that impression.

 

[34D]

York's not listed either. Maybe you want TPE service to omit York as well as Huddersfield? North TPE isn't just for the benefit of Leeds even if BBC Look North try to give that impression.

Well there is an avoiding which is already electric which allows exactly that....

 

[Class 170101]

Sorry but Dublin is NOT a British City. Its an Irish City.

 

[LateThanNever]

Sorry but Dublin is NOT a British City. Its an Irish City.

And given the Irish Euro crisis I wonder how 'fast growing' it has really been!

 

[HSTEd]

Well for a certain pedantic definition of 'British' - within the British Isles it is correct.

But if the IRA find out you said that I advise you go on holiday :P

 

[northwichcat]

But if the IRA find out you said that I advise you go on holiday :P

Are you sure going on holiday would stop them? The IRA did plan a bombing in Marbella which was controversially prevented by the Thatcher government authorising the SAS to kill the IRA members involved while they on British soil in Gibraltar.

 

[34D]

Sorry but Dublin is NOT a British City. Its an Irish City.

Yes it is. As per above, I was referring to the British Isles.

Had I meant 'The united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' I would have said so, and excluded Dublin.

 

[northwichcat]

From their analysis on North TPE:

Greater Manchester is a key employment centre in the North West. Leeds and Huddersfield are also employment centres and drive demand on the route.

Their analysis also shows the following annual passenger usage:

Huddersfield-Manchester 470,000
Manchester-Leeds 809,000
Huddersfield-Leeds 3,702,000

I think that makes a very good case for all TPE services to call at Huddersfield.