185's for Huddersfield to Sheffield

[matacaster]

The 150/2s currently used have fairly poor acceleration and despite a refresh aren't particularly nice. The journey time is poor partly because of lack of passing loops, but also because of many station stops.

Could spare 185's be the answer (in due course). Much better acceleration, more capacity. May have clearance problems and platform length issues in a few places though.

Thoughts?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No. They're far too heavy and thirsty for a route that needs to keep costs down. They'd be subject to the 10mph PSR (Permanent Speed Restriction) on Paddock Viaduct just outside Huddersfield rather than the 55mph MU differential. Even with their quite sprightly acceleration, there are several other places with less severe differential speeds- I suspect, too many for the timetable to work with 185s.

Yes, the 150s have been struggling a bit of late with poor railhead conditions, but 185s aren't immune to this.
It's a shame to use 150s with their poor window alignment on what is quite a scenic line in places, 156s would be more suited in my opinion...but 185s would be a disaster (possibly quite literally: it's only a few months back that NR had to patch up the aforementioned viaduct after a business below reported ballast falling through).

P.S. One future possibility (which may or may not be taken up) is that Sunday services will switch to 2-car 195s from May next year, as they'll operate through to Lincoln beyond Sheffield. 195s are almost as quick off the mark as 185s, with the added bonus of not being too lardy for many of the structures.

 

[matacaster]

Actually had a 158 yesterday on 21.03 from Barnsley. Really pleasant, much better than 150/2 and arrived a minute or two early.

 

[Bletchleyite]

195s are the answer to Northern's stopping services being sped up until the wires catch up. They are ideal for them, very similar to the WMT 172s. As per the relevant thread, something else (e.g. 175s or more 158s, plus the 170s Northern already have) needs to be brought in for the expresses and the 195s deployed where they will bring most benefit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I suppose the hidden question in the OP's suggestion is "How do we reduce the journey time between Huddersfield and Meadowhall/Sheffield?"

Speculatively I can see a few possible solutions that aren't too outlandish- though all would require a capacity increase from Meadowhall to Sheffield which is a problem in itself.

• Reopen the Horbury curve, and route semi-fast HUD-SHF services via Mirfield, Healey Mills, Horbury curve, Barnsley. Still quite a circuitous route, and would need to use the slow lines from Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe post Upgrade.
• Additional loops on the existing route. At least one extra loop would be required for a second slow service- for the additional service to run semi-fast the position and length of the loops would have to be designed to support the desired service pattern. Complete redoubling would be too expensive with at least one station (Berry Brow) needing a complete rebuild.
• Don't know if the signalling would allow this, or if ETCS would allow it in the future... but flighting a semi-fast ahead of the existing stopper could work, as Penistone loop isn't timetabled to be used most hours. However this would be at the cost of the recovery option offered by a "spare" passing point. You'd also need additional platform capacity at Huddersfield, and there isn't much room for that without interfering with the Trans-Pennine fast lines (post upgrade).

Any plan using the existing Penistone route would have the issue of the dogleg to Barnsley- if the Deepcar route was reopened as far as Penistone (fat chance!) then you could avoid this but at the cost of serving Barnsley and, more importantly, Meadowhall.

 

[Starmill]

195s are the answer to Northern's stopping services being sped up until the wires catch up. They are ideal for them, very similar to the WMT 172s. As per the relevant thread, something else (e.g. 175s or more 158s, plus the 170s Northern already have) needs to be brought in for the expresses and the 195s deployed where they will bring most benefit.

A three car 195 might be a workable solution but is probably too long for the platform at Huddersfield. A three car 150 fits snugly though.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A three car 195 might be a workable solution but is probably too long for the platform at Huddersfield. A three car 150 fits snugly though.

The extensions along the route last year were working on the assumption of 3×20m sets... with hindsight, might've been worth doing an extra 10-15m just to be on the safe side!

 

[YorksLad12]

The extensions along the route last year were working on the assumption of 3×20m sets... with hindsight, might've been worth doing an extra 10-15m just to be on the safe side!

Have they extended P2 back towards the station building yet, or was that waiting for the TRU rebuild (when it becomes P1)?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Have they extended P2 back towards the station building yet, or was that waiting for the TRU rebuild (when it becomes P1)?

The buffers haven't been moved back as yet: AIUI the required length for 3-car 150s could be gained by extending at the other end. It's going to 3×24m that requires eating further into the current P1 (which in turn will be extended at the Leeds end to compensate)- which is part of TRU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The extensions along the route last year were working on the assumption of 3×20m sets... with hindsight, might've been worth doing an extra 10-15m just to be on the safe side!

It's certainly silly to use 20m DMUs or 3x20m EMUs as a basis for anything given how there are very few of them and for the DMUs the last remaining ones (other than three units based at Bletchley) are nearly 40 years old (150s). The same silly mistake was made on the Marston Vale, which has meant they couldn't use 2-car 172s which would make a lot more sense than the Class 230 microfleet.

 

[Roast Veg]

• Reopen the Horbury curve, and route semi-fast HUD-SHF services via Mirfield, Healey Mills, Horbury curve, Barnsley. Still quite a circuitous route, and would need to use the slow lines from Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe post Upgrade.

Well, while you're at it...

 

[fishwomp]

[..]
Speculatively I can see a few possible solutions that aren't too outlandish- though all would require a capacity increase from Meadowhall to Sheffield which is a problem in itself.

Blast the cutting and widen Attercliffe Viaduct - small beer compared to some of the tunnels and plans last week. Attercliffe property values won't be impacted by stilts..

• Additional loops on the existing route. At least one extra loop would be required for a second slow service- for the additional service to run semi-fast the position and length of the loops would have to be designed to support the desired service pattern. Complete redoubling would be too expensive with at least one station (Berry Brow) needing a complete rebuild.

In case others haven't seen - the local (Conservative) MP is making good noises (in addition to those on the Stocksbridge line): https://www.miriamcates.org.uk/news/upgrading-penistone-line - not sure her chances

 

[IanXC]

For a few weeks 150/2 and 153 were used on some services. When I saw that on platform 2 at Huddersfield it was clear that the very maximum you could get in currently is 63m.

 

[wellhouse]

I suppose the hidden question in the OP's suggestion is "How do we reduce the journey time between Huddersfield and Meadowhall/Sheffield?"

Speculatively I can see a few possible solutions that aren't too outlandish- though all would require a capacity increase from Meadowhall to Sheffield which is a problem in itself.

• Reopen the Horbury curve, and route semi-fast HUD-SHF services via Mirfield, Healey Mills, Horbury curve, Barnsley. Still quite a circuitous route, and would need to use the slow lines from Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe post Upgrade.

• 
  
  When TPE have operated planned Hope Valley diversions, they have extended the Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper to Sheffield via Wakefield Kirkgate and Barnsley. Subject to pathing constraints, this gives significantly faster journeys between Huddersfield and Barnsley.
  
  If capacity can be improved between Kirkgate and Sheffield, this route would allow the improved journey times and also relieve the loadings on Penistone Line services between Huddersfield and Barnsley.
  
  Work on the Penistone Line might permit increased capacity through improved frequency and/or longer trains, but can have only minimal impact on journey times.

 

[317 forever]

If anything, Huddersfield - Sheffield is the kind of self-contained line that could take 230s if enough D stock is still available for conversion.

 

[fishwomp]

If anything, Huddersfield - Sheffield is the kind of self-contained line that could take 230s if enough D stock is still available for conversion.

It needs reliability, and whilst the gradients are around 1 in 100 mostly, Summer Lane out of Barnsley is 1 in 42 at its worst, and good sections of 1:50 - 1:67. Add to that stops roughly every 2 miles from Huddersfield-Barnsley.

Something potent in terms of power, and resilient given the single track, would be better.

Obviously that means Class 55 for the twin engines, or a Castle-class HST - but we should probably consider a battery-hybrid - regen for the braking, and extra oomph for accelerating out of the many stops.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If anything, Huddersfield - Sheffield is the kind of self-contained line that could take 230s if enough D stock is still available for conversion.

Funnily enough, the Penistone line was used for computer modelling by Vivarail in the early stages of the 230 development. I think there were even a few renders of D-trains with "Huddersfield" on the destination board but I can't find them anywhere so I might be mistaken.

Of course when the Vivarail D-train project was first conceived, the line was almost entirely Pacer operated. At that time, I'd have welcomed the 230s with open arms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

Obviously that means Class 55 for the twin engines, or a Castle-class HST - but we should probably consider a battery-hybrid - regen for the braking, and extra oomph for accelerating out of the many stops.

As long as they're hauling compartment mk1s with decent ales on tap in the buffet, I'll accept the 55s... in fact in that case, the 10mph speed restriction between Lockwood and Huddersfield (for non-MU stock) would provide much-needed supping-up time!