• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Alternatives to NPR, could any existing alignments serve express trains better?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
I've been fairly against NPR, as I think that money could be better spent on more areas of the North, however after a recent trip involving the strech between Manchester and Leeds, I will admit it is rather slow and there doesn't seem much scope for line straightening!

So what are the alternatives to NPR that would speed up express services between Manchester and Leeds?

I don't think that some 125+mph route is necessary, but a steady 75 or so, peaking at 100mph would seem pretty reasonable.
Current route seems to hover around 50-60.

Could electrification boost acceleration up hills or perticularly tight curves?

It's interesting to think about, but honestly I don't know much about this route and would be interested to see what others have to think.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,410
So what are the alternatives to NPR that would speed up express services between Manchester and Leeds?
Closing the intermediate stations?

Realistically, the route between Manchester and Leeds is a sinuous curving route over the hills which is almost entirely two-track.

There are obviously plans to make the route between Huddersfield and Dewsbury into four track railway which will help but it still won't be a 125mph railway.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,064
Location
Reston City Centre
Without closing a few intermediate stations, there's a real limit to what kind of incremental improvements you can make.

Removing a few of the intermediate stations would allow services a faster run and make them more reliable - less chance of getting stuck behind something trundling along in front of you - but certainly wouldn't be popular!

Some bits of line can be four-tracked, but that may mean a *slower* alignment (as the four tracks would end up hugging the bends a lot tighter than the way that a two track line can skirt around that envelope).

You can't go particularly fast through Huddersfield, so it feels a fairly false economy to try to skip it.

For me, it's a case of either accepting the slow alignment and compensating by increasing the existing long distance services to something a bit longer than they currently are (post-Covid)... or build a brand new alignment capable of something closer to half and hour journey time for the forty mile distance (in which case all bets are off, but my personal preference would be only one intermediate station - at Brighouse - to interchange with the existing services towards Huddersfield/ Dewsbury/ Bradford/ Halifax).
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
It sounds to me rather like the alternatives you're describing are, in fact, NPR. At least, insofar as we know what NPR might grow to become as yet, which still isn't much and still won't be for a couple of years.

In particular your suggestion that a 'steady 75' permissible speed is broadly already met. There are plenty of stretches between Liverpool and York fit for more than 75 too.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,395
You might get a bit more performance out of the route if you gave the local service some sort of incredibly high performance tilting EMU.... not sure what kind of BCR you'd get on that though.

(Imagine a cross between a Class 395 and a Deutsche Bahn Class 611)
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
Yeah, electrification seems like it could help, especially in getting local services out the way of express trains.

Would having four tracks at just stations to allow for passing help, or can that need be avoided by some clever timetabling.

I don't know if anyone has an idea of the ballpark, but it would be interesting to know how much of the speed is lost due to curves and how much due to limited capacity?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
Yeah, electrification seems like it could help, especially in getting local services out the way of express trains.
You mean like what NPR would deliver?
Would having four tracks at just stations to allow for passing help, or can that need be avoided by some clever timetabling.
Yes if the train calling at the station always waits there for around 7 minutes. Longer potentially.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,938
Location
Birkenhead
The rail corridor across the Pennines needs to be improved. In all honesty, the best way of doing that is to build a new route, which can be more direct & take advantage of modern technology. NPR will do just that.

To upgrade existing routes, (or re-open old routes) would be nowhere near as cost-effective as building a new route for faster services. This has the additional benefit of releasing a significant amount of capacity on the classic lines, which allows for much better local services.

The Pennine routes are, for the most part, only double track. There's very little scope to widen formations, or to add extra platforms & passing loops. Upgrading a 19th century railway to 21st century requirements is not cheap or easy.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,442
Location
Yorks
It seems to me that what the trans-pennine route through Huddersfield needs is the same thing that it has needed for the past twenty years or so. Electrification facilitating longer trains.

In terms of speed, it's always struck me that the approach to Manchester from Stalybridge seems to be the slowest, most tortuous bit (both towards Victoria and, in years gone by towards Piccadilly), yet given the industrial nature of the land use in these areas, one would have thought that these stretches would be easier to sort out.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,632
Location
Torbay
You mean like what NPR would deliver?
Yes if the train calling at the station always waits there for around 7 minutes. Longer potentially.
A four-track section to segregate stoppers and fasts on an otherwise 2 track railway should ideally encompass at least two adjacent stations, so the slow service doesn't have to wait in a platform loop for such a long period for an express to pass. If (say) the superbly aligned Manchester end of the Calder Valley line was used as part of a new high-speed route, a 4 to 5 km widened section between Moston and Mills Hill could be useful for example.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,395
ETCS would possibly permit shorter waiting times for looped local trains.

Simply because the blocks can be much much shorter.
The local train can potentially start rolling a few seconds after the express charges through.

The limit can potentially be pushed down to the time to work the point machines.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,773
Location
Nottingham
ETCS would possibly permit shorter waiting times for looped local trains.

Simply because the blocks can be much much shorter.
The local train can potentially start rolling a few seconds after the express charges through.

The limit can potentially be pushed down to the time to work the point machines.
This is true, but the train in the loop would normally depart on a single yellow in that situation so the benefit is limited fi the signals are close together (as would normally be the case on routes busy enough to need looping). Benefit from ETCS might be somewhere around half a minute.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
A four-track section to segregate stoppers and fasts on an otherwise 2 track railway should ideally encompass at least two adjacent stations, so the slow service doesn't have to wait in a platform loop for such a long period for an express to pass. If (say) the superbly aligned Manchester end of the Calder Valley line was used as part of a new high-speed route, a 4 to 5 km widened section between Moston and Mills Hill could be useful for example.
Similar to the one likely to be delivered under Transpennine Route Upgrade, years before NPR? Where else might there be such an opportunity to do this?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,632
Location
Torbay
ETCS would possibly permit shorter waiting times for looped local trains.

Simply because the blocks can be much much shorter.
The local train can potentially start rolling a few seconds after the express charges through.

The limit can potentially be pushed down to the time to work the point machines.
ETCS doesn't necessarily shorten block lengths although it can do that more economically and in a targetted way more easily where that's desirable to minimise impact of such operations.
In continuous 3 or 4 aspect signalling, there is less impact from the signalling than generally appreciated. It is the track configuration itself that is the major constraint.
By way of example, here is my video of a passing manouevre at Dawlish Warren, in the Up direction
First, here's the layout, from Open Train Times:
Dawlish Warren.jpg
Here's my video, shot in October 2014

00:00 As the video starts, the squeal of brakes can be heard as a Sprinter comes to a halt in platform 2.
00:05 Sprinter is fully stationary at platform 2.
Ahead we can see (from left to right) signals E123 (up loop), E23 (up main) and E223 (fixed red at London end of down loop). All at red.
Through the wind-blown leaves of the tree on the far right of the frame, signal E25 can also be made out, showing green.
00:51 Signal E23 clears to green.
01:36 Sprinter releases brakes and starts to move slowly towards signal at E123, still at red and approx 340m beyond the platform ramp.
02:30 HST can be heard approaching.
02:35 HST enters, stage left, proceeds to pass the sprinter which is still moving towards E123 at red.
02:49 Signal E23 replaces to red as HST enters route.
03:00 Sprinter easing slowly towards E123.
03:11 HST passes signal E25 which replaces to red.
03:24 Signal E123 clear up to yellow. Sprinter is still moving at this point... it never actually stopped! Sprinter releases brakes, continues rolling, and begins to apply power.
03:49 Sprinter passes through the loop exit points continues towards signal E25 at red.
04:26 Signal E25 clears from red to yellow, as the HST must have cleared the overlap at signal UM202.
04:48 Sprinter passes signal E25 at yellow which replaces to red.
Note loop exit signal E123 clears to yellow only 35s after the HST has passed parallel signal E23. As soon as the fast train clears the loop exit points, they become free to move, so the route out of the loop can be 'over-set' in order that the signal is primed ready to clear to yellow as soon as the fast train clears the overlap of the signal ahead. If the express had been passing through at double the speed this time might be reduced significantly, possibly nearly halved to around 20s under a 4-aspect system with signal spacing adjusted accordingly. Passing times at E25 are separated by 97s, the gap between the trains opening out rapidly as the express continues to race ahead of the slowly accelerating local. By the time the local reached UM202, it may well have been showing a green, especially considering the train was also probably stopping at Starcross.
What can't be seen from this video is that the express is so close behind the local (about 180s) that it almost inevitably saw some adverse aspects on approach. This is the major risk of this type of operation, which is why so much time should be planned into the stopping train's schedule at the loop. Even only a short time lost in station duties at Teignmouth or Dawlish en-route can so easily knock on to a following express if the margin is too tight at the loop entrance. I suspect the local was running late in this case or perhaps the fast was out of path and signallers were attempting to keep it rolling most expeditiously.
 
Last edited:

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
647
Location
West Yorkshire
ETCS would possibly permit shorter waiting times for looped local trains.

Simply because the blocks can be much much shorter.
The local train can potentially start rolling a few seconds after the express charges through.

The limit can potentially be pushed down to the time to work the point machines.
One of the biggest capacity constraints is the single block section through Standedge Tunnel. The express has to clear the tunnel before a stopper in Marsden or Diggle loops can set off, which renders both loops close to useless.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,773
Location
Nottingham
One of the biggest capacity constraints is the single block section through Standedge Tunnel. The express has to clear the tunnel before a stopper in Marsden or Diggle loops can set off, which renders both loops close to useless.
I assume the loops were left when the other two tracks were lifted, to allow a freight to be got out of the way if it would otherwise hold up a passenger train in the tunnel section. As you say they don't work for passenger trains, especially as the Diggle one doesn't even coincide with a station (and if the station was put back it wouldn't be on the loop).
 

Halish Railway

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2017
Messages
2,177
Location
West Yorkshire / Birmingham
What you have to remember is that HS2 and NPR aren’t really about speed - Journey time savings are normally used for a bit of media spin and to aid the business case, however, they aren’t at the forefront of the business case.

These projects are really about capacity, future growth, to open up new markets and to attract investment into areas, the main beneficiary of NPR being Bradford and maybe Warrington.

Therefore, just straightning out the curves doesn’t solve any of these main issues.
 

Revaulx

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2019
Messages
527
Location
Saddleworth
Similar to the one likely to be delivered under Transpennine Route Upgrade, years before NPR? Where else might there be such an opportunity to do this?
TRU is a good start. Re-quadrupling westwards from Hudds to the site of Diggle Junction (where the Micklehurst loop began) would add a further chunk. As others have observed, the existing loops at Marsden and Diggle are pretty useless. Maybe joining them to create a bidirectional third track would help. Anything to improve the wretched stopping service Greenfield users currently endure.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
TRU is a good start. Re-quadrupling westwards from Hudds to the site of Diggle Junction (where the Micklehurst loop began) would add a further chunk. As others have observed, the existing loops at Marsden and Diggle are pretty useless. Maybe joining them to create a bidirectional third track would help. Anything to improve the wretched stopping service Greenfield users currently endure.
The cost of four-tracking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge without reducing any of the maximum permissible speeds would be enormous - this is literally one of the key reasons why NPR has reached the stage that it has.
 

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
647
Location
West Yorkshire
The cost of four-tracking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge without reducing any of the maximum permissible speeds would be enormous - this is literally one of the key reasons why NPR has reached the stage that it has.
In the recent past (1999 actually, but obviously 21 years and counting is too short a time to make a decision, let along start implementing it) there was a proposal to reopen the disused Standedge tunnels to provide a four track section to break up the two track section between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. It would enable stoppers to get out of the way of expresses, and as referred to in a previous post enable the stopping service at Greenfield etc to be improved to a frequency comparable with most other routes into Leeds and Manchester.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,728
Location
Leeds
In the recent past (1999 actually, but obviously 21 years and counting is too short a time to make a decision, let along start implementing it) there was a proposal to reopen the disused Standedge tunnels to provide a four track section to break up the two track section between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. It would enable stoppers to get out of the way of expresses, and as referred to in a previous post enable the stopping service at Greenfield etc to be improved to a frequency comparable with most other routes into Leeds and Manchester.
And then someone came along and said "you can have electrification, which will deliver the same benefits by speeding up trains and creating more paths." I wish we could have both... instead we have neither (yet).
 

Revaulx

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2019
Messages
527
Location
Saddleworth
The cost of four-tracking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge without reducing any of the maximum permissible speeds would be enormous - this is literally one of the key reasons why NPR has reached the stage that it has.
Oh I don’t doubt it. Surely there’s sufficient room within the old formation for one or more actually useful loops though?
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
What you have to remember is that HS2 and NPR aren’t really about speed - Journey time savings are normally used for a bit of media spin and to aid the business case, however, they aren’t at the forefront of the business case.

These projects are really about capacity, future growth, to open up new markets and to attract investment into areas, the main beneficiary of NPR being Bradford and maybe Warrington.

Therefore, just straightning out the curves doesn’t solve any of these main issues.
True, very good point. In some respects the main beneficiaries are not those who use the route, but those who get expanded local services once express trains are moved off them.
The cost of four-tracking between Huddersfield and Stalybridge without reducing any of the maximum permissible speeds would be enormous - this is literally one of the key reasons why NPR has reached the stage that it has.
That is reasonable.

Just to bring me and everyone up to speed, could someone give a quick updates on the route plan for NPR, or a link to an article/forum post on it?

I feel like NPR probably doesn't have to aim for 200mph or something silly. Curves can probably be designed with quite steep cants to make turning corners easier.

Speaking of which, would upgrades to track quality, bridge reinforcement and junctions be able to provide much improvement? Maybe some more canting in the bends, hopefully the pacers can go fast enough everyone doesn't fall over... ;]
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
There are no route options or proposed delivery dates in the public domain.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
The current route is fairly slow and clapped out Railway, no doubt it can be improved at significant cost as is being proposed between Huddersfield and Leeds, wasn't the section between Huddersfield and Marsden previously 4 track so that should be doable but no doubt it wont be cheap, and I guess it depends how much increased capacity you want to add relative the infrastructure costs, Huddersfield-Dewsbury looks quite expensive relative to the increased capacity you get, but I guess it needs to be done really.

Overall if you want a real game changer certainly for West Yorkshire then you need NPR and you need it to serve Bradford and properly serve Bradford at that, not a parkway miles away, but does the cost justify it i'm not sure it does, and maybe upgrading and electrification of the existing route followed by the Calder Valley route might offer the best value.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,364
Location
Bolton
Huddersfield to Marsden four-tracking would be almost impossible without reducing the max permissible speed. One reason among many why development on NPR is being worked on and is likely to represent better value.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,672
As another poster said, improving Manchester to Stalybridge to a quick journey would benefit almost many users, including those on the slows.

Calder hasn't been talked about. It's a slower route, but still important, linking a lot of decent sized places and commuters in both directions. Fairly good frequency too - nearing bunching and expresses being harder to path.

The OP didn't define expresses, so I would say that something running Victoria - Halifax - Leeds only - might be interesting (skipping the Bradford reversal). Bradford should have a separate express service.

Wires and the talked-about line speed upgrades would make a big difference. Local journeys being faster would help slot in more fast or skip stop ones. Plus same as Stalybridge, Manchester to Rochdale should be a short dash of ~10 mins or a little less. 15 mins for 10 miles non-stop is poor.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,957
Location
York
The Manchester & Leeds line was truly the northern equivalent of the Great Way Round and was bound to be superseded pretty early on by more direct alternatives. But it is one of the early Stephenson railways, laid out for gentle gradients and easy curves (except Charlestown!), and so ought potentially to be upgradeable for quite high speeds as others of the early lines have been. I wonder if a study of the potential of this line has ever been done. And how far might it be possible to get a time from Manchester to Heaton Lodge via Rochdale that was better than anything that could be achieved via Stalybridge and Huddersfield?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,375
Location
Yorkshire
The Manchester & Leeds line was truly the northern equivalent of the Great Way Round and was bound to be superseded pretty early on by more direct alternatives. But it is one of the early Stephenson railways, laid out for gentle gradients and easy curves (except Charlestown!), and so ought potentially to be upgradeable for quite high speeds as others of the early lines have been. I wonder if a study of the potential of this line has ever been done. And how far might it be possible to get a time from Manchester to Heaton Lodge via Rochdale that was better than anything that could be achieved via Stalybridge and Huddersfield?
It also didn't help that the route missed almost all the (then) centres of population it purported to serve. Other than Todmorden and Hebden Bridge (which was little more than a village at the time anyway), most places required a horse to get from the station to the town. Halifax wasn't served directly, nor was Bradford. Huddersfield had a station at Cooper Bridge (3 miles out of town). Then running via Wakefield and Normanton meant not serving Bradford or the then-thriving textile towns of the Heavy Woollen District (Dewsbury, Batley, Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top