Fastest Transpennine journey time using existing infrastructure

[lejog]

Hopefully Northern Powerhouse Rail will sort it out.

Hopefully, since its the only show in town. And I'd be amazed if it any of the options propose using any more than a small fraction of the existing infrastructure.

 

[paul1609]

You are not really comparing the towns of Brighton and Portsmouth/Southampton with the cities of Manchester and Leeds?
You should be comparing Brighton - Portsmouth to Blackpool - Southport

Im just countering the OPs claim that such schemes in the SouthEast would have unlimited funding fact is that other than the London routes rail investment in the southeast is non existent.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Mirfield is a pinch-point due to the stretch between Thornhill LNW junction and Heaton Lodge junction being effectively 2 routes squeezed into a 3-track stretch of 3-4 miles or so.

Ideally (and with a bottomless budget) you'd 4-track this section and grade separate Thornhill to remove the bi-directional line shared between up trans-pennine and down Wakefield services. Even with a big budget though, a flyover would be tricky due to overbridges while a dive-under would be at risk of flooding from the nearby Calder.

By all accounts when the route was de-quadded, the alignment was tailored within the original formation to increase linespeeds- however at Mirfield the up fast line has quite a kink to it around the island platform. It isn't noticeable if you stand on P2 and look at the line, but it is quite a surprise to many standees on the 185s. There's almost always one or two folk who end up giving those around them a face full of hair (stop sniggering at the back!)

The island platform at Mirfield is a pain in the proverbial for this reason but also because it keeps subsiding into the infilled basement beneath, as well as being very difficult to make accessible, if not impossible. It is quite good for photography though! From old photos it was once a fine station with an overall roof, but the current situation is inadequate for the 21st century.

Ideally along with 4-tracking the station would be completely rebuilt, with two island platforms serving all 4 lines (currently it is planned for TPE semi-fast services to call, along with the Castleford and Brighouse stoppers). A setup similar to the new Bromsgrove station (though without terminating facilities or the leaky roof) with fast trains on the outermost tracks, would suit the way the tracks come together at Heaton Lodge. You'd want sets of crossovers at the start and end of the 4-track section to allow "dynamic" overtaking of slower services. If space and money could be found to grade-separate Thornhill junction this would remove all conflicting moves between Stalybridge and Holbeck, bar the small issue of Bradley junction.

I can't see the restoration of a fast up line at Dewsbury working though, as the alignment either side of the station would mean non-stopping trains having to "dogleg" to access the fast lines, with the inevitable speed restrictions that would come with that. Indeed it would potentially reduce capacity rather than increase it.

 

[185]

Long before the days of data recorders, I think a 158 took the record. Allegedly. 41ish mins, non stop, out of service.

Recall my works bag and coffee flask decided to reinvent themselves as a washing machine at Batley.

Gravity + Slaithwaite = over 99ish according to the back clock.

 

[Lankyline]

The default answer to lack of infrastructure should be Blame Beeching, or substitute your favourite name or word eg BR, Labour, Tory, Marples, Castle etc

Yes I am being flipant !

 

[Mollman]

I can't see the restoration of a fast up line at Dewsbury working though, as the alignment either side of the station would mean non-stopping trains having to "dogleg" to access the fast lines, with the inevitable speed restrictions that would come with that. Indeed it would potentially reduce capacity rather than increase it.

I'd of thought the best thing for overtaking in the Manchester bound direction would be to rebuild Platform 2 at Batley into an island platform to allow overtaking there.

 

[bbrez]

Seeing this thread got me digging into the plans to improve the times between Manchester and Leeds via Huddersfield.

Anyway I found this... http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...-plan-change-control-april-september-2016.pdf

Which reads...

LNE001 b Transpennine Route Upgrade Intermediate Interventions
You are requesting the removal of the Huddersfield station capacity enhancement scheme
from the scope of this project. DfT, as funder, has requested removal of this scope from
the project as it is not well fitted to the route upgrade requirements and this was agreed at
portfolio board.
We approve the removal of this scope from the project.

 

[lejog]

IIRC, Huddersfield station capacity improvements mainly consisted of platform lengthening of platforms 1 and 8 to allow TPE to run 8*23m trains. Since the new franchise is only planning to run 5/6 car trains, this presumably is no longer necessary.

Lots of platform lengthening necessary at other stations on the line (well throughout the North) though.

 

[Bevan Price]

The current fastest times recorded by Railway Performance Society are

Leeds to Huddersfield 16m 23s
Huddesfield to Manchester 27m 37s (to Victoria)

and in the reverse direction

Manchester to Huddersfield 27m. 06s. (from Piccadilly)
Huddersfield to Leeds 16m 32s.

Allowing for the stop, and no recovery time, that would permit about 45 minutes between Leeds & Manchester in each direction. Further significant journey time improvement would be almost impossible with the current service pattern (including locals) - even with track improvements. Omitting the Huddersfield stop might reduce the Leeds / Manchester time to about 43 minutes (without recovery time.)

.

 

[edwin_m]

The current fastest times recorded by Railway Performance Society are.

Aren't you going to tell us these were recorded by Jubilees in 1953 or some such?

 

[superkev]

I believe the steam hauled expressed did Bradford Manchester via Rochdale in just 55min with 1 stop.
K

 

[QueensCurve]

If they want to speed up times how about ditching the ridiculous notion of running tains not stopping at Durham through the platform at Durham! (Or at Darlington for that matter)

Durham has only one through line dating I think from the time of electrification. It might be useful to put in high speed crossovers to allow the remaining through line to be used in both directions.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

This being the down main. However TPE non-stoppers are still routed through P2

The up main being P1. The line is SIMBIDS anyway and with the platform ends ajacent to the viaduct and the opposite end restricted by the bridge over Framwellgate Peth there simply isnt the space to fit any crossovers to create a bi-di loop

 

[YorkshireBear]

IIRC, Huddersfield station capacity improvements mainly consisted of platform lengthening of platforms 1 and 8 to allow TPE to run 8*23m trains. Since the new franchise is only planning to run 5/6 car trains, this presumably is no longer necessary.

Lots of platform lengthening necessary at other stations on the line (well throughout the North) though.

I think there is some fairly major lengthening going to be required for the local services which are likely to see lengths increased... the bays at the Leeds end are quite short!

 

[lejog]

I think there is some fairly major lengthening going to be required for the local services which are likely to see lengths increased... the bays at the Leeds end are quite short!

The responsibility for platform lengthening has passed to the TOCs and there seems to be no requirements for lengthening which could affect Huddersfield apart from running 3*20m services on the Penistone line, which I suppose could mean minor changes to the west facing bay. No mention of the Bradford or Wakefield services, so presumably no change to the existing arrangements for these or the east facing bays.

There will of course be major platform lengthening at other stations on the line for the new TPE Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds stoppers, not to mention 6*23m services on the Northern Brighouse-Leeds service.

 

[glbotu]

This being the down main. However TPE non-stoppers are still routed through P2

The up main being P1. The line is SIMBIDS anyway and with the platform ends ajacent to the viaduct and the opposite end restricted by the bridge over Framwellgate Peth there simply isnt the space to fit any crossovers to create a bi-di loop

Bi-di on the Down Main would be pointless anyway, the up main is just as fast. It's only the DPL (ie the platform) which is slow.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd of thought the best thing for overtaking in the Manchester bound direction would be to rebuild Platform 2 at Batley into an island platform to allow overtaking there.

If it could be done, that could work- but it is down trains that lack an overtaking opportunity rather than up trains. Mirfield is used in the up (Manchester) as it is a long stretch of 3-track running. The only place for overtaking on the down is Dewsbury station, which is only used during disruption as the loop is short- meaning the overtaking service is held at the previous signal until the one being overtaken is actually at the platform. In any case, I'd be surprised if there's space for the pointwork (to modern standards and satisfactory linespeeds) for your Batley loop between the platform end and the viaduct.

The current fastest times recorded by Railway Performance Society are

Leeds to Huddersfield 16m 23s
Huddesfield to Manchester 27m 37s (to Victoria)

and in the reverse direction

Manchester to Huddersfield 27m. 06s. (from Piccadilly)
Huddersfield to Leeds 16m 32s.

Allowing for the stop, and no recovery time, that would permit about 45 minutes between Leeds & Manchester in each direction. Further significant journey time improvement would be almost impossible with the current service pattern (including locals) - even with track improvements. Omitting the Huddersfield stop might reduce the Leeds / Manchester time to about 43 minutes (without recovery time.)

.

I doubt you'd gain much by omitting Huddersfield (though I would say that, of course!) heading towards Leeds, as apparently the line through platform 8 has a significant speed restriction due to the curvature. Once the stoppers are axed, running through platform 4 instead could help, but whether the gains would outweigh the lost revenue of missing Huddersfield, I doubt.

 

[xotGD]

I think there is a case for having an hourly 'superfast' Liverpool-Man Vic-Leeds-York-Darlo-Newcastle to minimise the longest distance journey times. Of course, it might just end up stuck behind the train in front before it reaches Leeds unless there is a chance to leapfrog at Hudds.

 

[matacaster]

Whilst appreciating its a significantly longer route, what times might be feasible from Leeds via is it Altofts junction? then Normanton, Wakefield Kirkgate, Mirfield, and onto L&YR route?

Clearly it is very slow at the moment, but aprat from a sharp bend at Altofts, its pretty straight with curves being long and sweeping. Surely, 125mph running ought to be possible (apart from Altofts), if the tracwork was straightened at Healey Mills and 4- tracked to separate the two lines through Mirfield.

Any takers?

 

[Senex]

Whilst appreciating its a significantly longer route, what times might be feasible from Leeds via is it Altofts junction? then Normanton, Wakefield Kirkgate, Mirfield, and onto L&YR route?

Clearly it is very slow at the moment, but aprat from a sharp bend at Altofts, its pretty straight with curves being long and sweeping. Surely, 125mph running ought to be possible (apart from Altofts), if the tracwork was straightened at Healey Mills and 4- tracked to separate the two lines through Mirfield.

Any takers?

Surely Altofts is OK? The junction was sorted as a well-aligned through route for the Midland and a high-speed (60mph) divergence towards York some 40 years ago. The problem is Normanton station, especially the bad curve past the platform in the up direction, where the planned fast lines were never put in.