Transpennine Improvements?

[tbtc]

Wouldn't it be better to invest the billions in:
a) quicker intercity routes like ... Manchester-Leeds (current avg. speed = 42mph)

This comment (on the thread about the Green Party) got me thinking: How would you improve transpennine links?

At the moment the three lines (Hope Valley, Marsden and Todmorden) are all very busy (both in terms of services per hour and in passengers per service).

Its hard to make easy improvements to capacity of these services as they are fairly long distance (going on to Norwich/Scarborough etc), there’s no space for more paths into Leeds City/ Sheffield Midland/ Manchester Picadilly.

A few “suggestions”:

1. Return the Marsden route to four tracks through the tunnel. Possible, but would mean slowing down the line speed, as the current two tracks are generously slung across the trackbed to allow a faster speed

2. Run the Huddersfield services to Manchester Victoria. The eastern end of Victoria is a lot quieter, you avoid the slow section through Guide Bridge, none of the congestion at Piccadilly. However, means losing the direct services to Manchester Airport and the connections at Piccadilly (unless/until the proposed chord is build at Salford)

3. Open the Colne – Skipton line. Wouldn’t free up much passenger capacity on the Todmorden/Huddersfield lines (it’d still be quicker to do Keighley – Manchester via Leeds, for example), precious little space to divert any freight through Shipley either.

4. Open the Woodhead line. Would need a reopening of Sheffield Victoria, potential to get stuck behind 323s between Piccadilly and Hadfield, may cause problems with services “east” of Sheffield (e.g. if the TPE service went this way it’d not be able to serve Meadowhall)

5. Electrification of TPE North. Would be pointless without also wiring to Middlesbrough/Scarborough/Hull, unless you plan to scrap direct trains from these places to Manchester.

6. Skip stopping the Manchester – Huddersfield – Leeds services. At the moment these have to contend with “all stops” services from Staleybridge to Huddersfield and from Huddersfield/Mickfield to Leeds. Scrapping the stopper and getting the TPE services to make alternate calls at places like Greenfield would allow more “fast” trains to run, but would slow them down slightly (and mean the end of “local” journeys like Marsden to Slaithwaite)

Hmm, any better ideas?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The woodhead line to myself is an obvious no brainer, except for the millions it would need to reopen, butthe main problem is the national grid and their cables running through the tunnels, the majority of the trackbed is there and stuck behind stoppers wouldn't happen if they reinstated some of the quad track, I can't ever see it happening tho

 

[RichW1]

I'd make them 125mph trains to stop this silly nonsense of 100mph when going to Scotland from northern England, either that or introduce Intercity trains on routes that are, well...Intercity routes and not for regional trains to be doing!

Electrification of route, making them 5 car trains and giving them 125mph capability anyway would be my dream for areas where they can get speed up, and if you can, why not - any tin can can do 125 these days.

 

[tbtc]

I'd make them 125mph trains to stop this silly nonsense of 100mph when going to Scotland from northern England, either that or introduce Intercity trains on routes that are, well...Intercity routes and not for regional trains to be doing!

Electrification of route, making them 5 car trains and giving them 125mph capability anyway would be my dream for areas where they can get speed up, and if you can, why not - any tin can can do 125 these days.

Where could you get to 125mph on Transpennine routes? Even assuming you get rid of all "stoppers", the line speeds won't be up to it

 

[RichW1]

There are sections on the East Coast Main Line north of York where the fast tracks are definitely not being used at capacity. So, if you're going to make regional trains be the only option between certain major cities then I'd at lease do the courtesy of reducing journey times even if only by a few minutes. If you can do 125, then do it, it's not like it's difficult. Like I say, any tin can can reach 125 these days; it's no longer high speed and doesn't look it either to be honest in my view as obviously just like doing 60mph it would've once seemed quick.

I have no problem if there was an alternative to trans-Pennine between certain cities if they want to be 100mph 3 coach trains, but as they have the monopoly then they might as well reach 125mph where possible. I dare say there's a few straights between Carlisle and Glasgoe where short nimple fast accelerating trains without tilt could hit it too but that really is a guess.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd at lease do the courtesy of reducing journey times even if only by a few minutes.

It's not going to be a few minutes as by the time these new trains get to 125mph they're going to need to brake for the next stop. TPE call from York at Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham and Chester-le-Street (not all call at everything but at least 3 for most). You're going to get a time saving, perhaps of a minute and I'm not sure it would even be that.

Like I say, any tin can can reach 125 these days

Of the trains built post privatisation the 125 or faster are 180s, 22xs, 390s, 395s. Everything else does 100mph. These 125+ trains are in the minority by a long way.

 

[RichW1]

I get they're in the minority but as lines fast sections speed up to 125 over the years as with improvements we've already seen in key areas, but if you have a train using 125mph track or can do, then I see no reason why you should be pegged to 100mph which isn't exactly going anywhere fast now is it?!! It's fine for outer-suburban use or regional use in many instances but not over hundreds of miles. I don't object, only where there's no alternative and there's no alternative to Trans-Pennine between key cities which deserve Intercity services.

In that context I still think what I said about lengthening, faster top speed but I'm always a little sceptical when some say there's be no saving because of the time it would take to reach top speed by which time they'd be slowing down again. I mean, even with the stops mentioned I'm sure there's a few minutes saving between York and Darlington with 2 stops in between over 44track miles.

 

[Failed Unit]

The North Transpennie route is probably a bit easier to resolve on paper. I would definately electrify the route.

I don't how easy it would be to do in practise but as the Northern Local and the TPE express service are regular interval you just need a reasonable loop (or one at a station) where the express can past the local easily. I know this happens now, is it as Dewsbury? But in the event of late running they have problems.

The EMUs should make the local service a bit less of a problem as they will be able to get back up to speed quicker.

 

[WatcherZero]

I would scrap the existing routes and start a new one from scratch, its the only way your ever going to get any serious speed improvements. With modern tunnel boring machines its nowhere near as hard as it used to be using explosives to tunnel a couple of meters a day.

 

[RichW1]

Well how about this thought then..... High speed 2 reaches Manchester and Leeds. So, now following on from the success of Southeastern high speed regional services, the same practice is employed on transpennine services by doing the above stated by WatcherZero and upgrading a section between both Sheffield and Manchester and Leeds and Manchester, thus creating a 'Peak District Metropolitan Area loop' of high speed services that start in Liverpool or Manchester and loop to Leeds or Sheffield then round the high speed sections to Birmingham and back up to Manchester and Liverpool as well as then onward to other destinations via a north Transpennine route line and vice versa. A metropolitan city region served by regional high-speed services linking a metropolitan area of 16 or 17 million people. Well....it might happen you know

 

[Welshman]

Has the trackbed of the old Micklehurst loop between Stalybridge and Diggle been lost?
That, along with the Manchester Victoria-Stalybridge section, plus the much talked-about idea of re-opening the single track bores through Standedge and re-quadrifying down the Colne Valley would give 4 tracks almost all the way from Manchester to Huddersfield.

Also, could the Calder Valley route be used more intensively? If so, how about restoring a Liverpool -Earlestown-Manchester Victoria-Rochdale-Sowerby Bridge-Mirfield-Wakefield-Castleford-York/Hull service? This may need the restoration of four tracks through Mirfield, but would take a lot of pressure off the existing north TPE services, and avoid the pinchpoints at Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds.

 

[umontu]

On purpose I get on the TPE service out of Huddersfield to avoid the Northern service that stops at Victoria, every time I go through Victoria it's slower, that and Piccadily has a much better feel to it for me.

Also from what I've seen the other Standedge tunnels have some structural issues. I've seen a picture somewhere showing some sort of bridge like structure inside the two other tunnels, this would limit loading gauge. (Looked, couldn't find it again.).

I would have longer trains, I read TPE were meant to get extra carriages but haven't, I was on the 16:26 out of Huddersfield this friday, two 185's (That suprised me and they were the oposite way round from normal.) and very few seats, normally it's a single 185 and I have to stand pressed against the door. Last week it was a 170... that was painful and hot.

Infact I normally have to stand on my weekly journeys from Huddersfield to the Fylde until I get on the Northern service at Preston which is only 10 minutes long so there is no point!

 

[Sapphire Blue]

On purpose I get on the TPE service out of Huddersfield to avoid the Northern service that stops at Victoria, every time I go through Victoria it's slower, that and Piccadily has a much better feel to it for me.

Also from what I've seen the other Standedge tunnels have some structural issues. I've seen a picture somewhere showing some sort of bridge like structure inside the two other tunnels, this would limit loading gauge. (Looked, couldn't find it again.).

I would have longer trains, I read TPE were meant to get extra carriages but haven't, I was on the 16:26 out of Huddersfield this week, two 185's (That suprised me and they were the oposite way round from normal.) and very few seats, normally it's a single 185 and I have to stand pressed against the door. Last week it was a 170... that was painful and hot.

Infact I normally have to stand on my weekly journeys from Huddersfield to the Fylde until I get on the Northern service at Preston which is only 10 minutes long so there is no point!

Got it in one.

Just make the trains bigger.

4 six car 185's or equivalent per hour peak from Leeds to Manc via Hudds. 2 into Picc and then one to Airport, 2 into Vic and then 1 to Lime St (and to be radical 1 to Holyhead)

 

[ainsworth74]

It's shame TPE never got what they wanted (and were initially promised) which was 60x 4 car 185s that would have dealt with all but the worst of the overcrowding I would have thought. Instead they got 51x 3 car 185s and 9x 2 car 170s and if that wasn't enough also got to run Manchester to Scotland services with no extra stock. It's not surprising that most of TPEs routes are overcrowded as a consequence.

 

[cslusarc]

I'd like to see a plan developed to progressively improve the North TransPennine Line through a series of linespeed improvements to 125 mph and eventual complete electrification by 2025.

 

[RobShipway]

Here is a far reching idea for TPE. Once the GWML is electrified and IEP trains have been introduced, move some of the available HST trains to TPE. But I guess perhaps First may have all ready thought of that idea as they 6 of the HSTS sets!

 

[Anvil1984]

I woud agree with that if they swapped the routes around and they put them on Newcastle - Liverpool services, may have to shorten the sets for a few stations though

 

[MCR247]

Here is a far reching idea for TPE. Once the GWML is electrified and IEP trains have been introduced, move some of the available HST trains to TPE. But I guess perhaps First may have all ready thought of that idea as they 6 of the HSTS sets!

HSTs would be rubbish for TPE

 

[Masbroughlad]

I would like to see HSTs on TransPennine-north or south.

 

[MCR247]

I would like to see HSTs on TransPennine-north or south.

Why? They wouldn't be any good!

Jeez, what's with the obsession with HSTs to TPE

 

[ainsworth74]

Jeez, what's with the obsession with HSTs to TPE

No idea, I gave up explaining why they would be a bad idea some time ago as those that want them don't seem to be able to listen to anything but HSTs = Good on TPE.

 

[RobShipway]

No idea, I gave up explaining why they would be a bad idea some time ago as those that want them don't seem to be able to listen to anything but HSTs = Good on TPE.

Well, how do you answer the people who say that the TPE trains need to be longer and quicker?

I think you will find that even the Government acknowledge the point that the TPE trains need to be longer and quicker in doing the Manchester - Scotland services which is the TPE route I would recommended them to be used on, because as you have said before they would not be any good for the other TPE services whuch at some point in time will probably become part of the Northern Franchise anyway.

 

[MCR247]

I don't think HSTs would make TPE any quicker really, and they aren't suited for the route

 

[tbtc]

Well, how do you answer the people who say that the TPE trains need to be longer and quicker?

I think you will find that even the Government acknowledge the point that the TPE trains need to be longer and quicker in doing the Manchester - Scotland services which is the TPE route I would recommended them to be used on, because as you have said before they would not be any good for the other TPE services whuch at some point in time will probably become part of the Northern Franchise anyway.

Manchester - Scotland will be EMU in a few years

TPE needs longer faster trains, yes, but with good acceleration (given the hills, the stopping pattern etc) and with wide doors to deal with the loadings at Manchester/ Huddersfield/ Leeds etc.

 

[Pumbaa]

Short term though, assuming that there is no electrification imminent, I'd like to do the following...


- Curtail South TPE to Piccadilly, thus removing one set from this route. Rejig the return journey to make it run earlier from Cleethorpes, thus having a reasonable turn-round time at Piccadilly.
- Swap the Middlesbrough/Newcastle services around, ie xx27 to Middlesbrough, xx57 to Newcastle. Keep the Middlesbrough service going to Airport, cut the Newcastle one.
- Extend this new Newcastle service to/from Liverpool, thus creating an extra Liverpool -Manchester express service (which Northern RUS recognises as needed) and opening up the well used links that already exist.
- Swap the paths round on Hull/Liverpool. The market for Liverpool to Scarborough must be tiny, compared to Hull. Send the existing Liverpool service to Hull, run the existing Hull service to Scarborough. I would give York - Scarborough to Northern, but they don't have enough units to run their own services.
- Using the generous layovers on the Hull services, re-timetable them to save 2 units; one by re-jigging the Hull path, and one by rejigging the Scarborough path.

Net result - the units freed up run the extra Liverpool service and provide an extra spare unit too for strengthening. As to which route gets 170s though...! I was knocking up a loose plan of what time everything would pass through Piccadilly, leaving the Preston/Blackpool/Windermere/Barrow/Scotland services as is.

Thoughts?

 

[bluenoxid]

Rubbish. You have slotted Manchester Airport on the North Transpennine and South Transpennine route.

I agree with the responses about HST's they are going to be slower than a Pacer on Transpennine

Improving Transpennine requires a root and branch review of the route particularly between Leeds and Manchester. A big issue is identifying what services can be pushed off the route and diverted. For example, one option might be to push some services on to alternative routes or to extend some trains via those. One might be via Wakefield Kirkgate and past Castleford into Leeds. This might be an option for the Northern stopper from Victoria.

Another infrastructure improvement would be to rearrange the lines through Mirfield to speed up services through there.

 

[Aictos]

If the Liverpool to Scarborough route was going to be amended to be a Liverpool to Hull route instead then instead of having a Hull to Scarborough route and a Scarborough to York route could not there be a York to Hull via Scarborough service instead run using TPE 170s which would then mean Northern leaving the coast to bolster their services elsewhere.

 

[Bevan Price]

Short term though, assuming that there is no electrification imminent, I'd like to do the following...



- Swap the paths round on Hull/Liverpool. The market for Liverpool to Scarborough must be tiny, compared to Hull. Send the existing Liverpool service to Hull, run the existing Hull service to Scarborough. I would give York - Scarborough to Northern, but they don't have enough units to run their own services.

Thoughts?

The main market from Liverpool is Manchester, Leeds and York, not Hull. Tacking York to Scarborough adds a market from Huddersfield & Leeds to Scarborough, mainly in the tourist season. If the Liverpools were to be diverted anywhere, returning them to Newcastle would be more sensible than sending them to Hull.

If I were recasting the TPE service with existing infrastructure (but more trains), I would reduce the number of trains per hour between Manchester & Leeds - this would enable some acceleration as there would be fewer pathing clashes with the stopping services.

I would have (each once per hour):-
Liverpool - St. Helens Junction - Manchester Victoria - York (6 car, splitting at York with Newcastle & Scarborough portions)
Manchester Airport - Leeds, 6 car, splitting at Leeds with Hull & Middlesbrough portions.
Manchester Airport - Newcastle, 6 cars to York, 3 continuing to Newcastle.
Liverpool - Warrington Central - Manchester Piccadilly - Sheffield - Doncaster (6 cars, splitting here with portions for Cleethorpes & Hull, the latter replacing the NT Sheffield - Hull service).

Bevan

 

[tbtc]

Liverpool - Warrington Central - Manchester Piccadilly - Sheffield - Doncaster (6 cars, splitting here with portions for Cleethorpes & Hull, the latter replacing the NT Sheffield - Hull service)

Excellent suggestion, providing capacity on the core section and smaller trains on the eastern extremities
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Improving Transpennine requires a root and branch review of the route particularly between Leeds and Manchester. A big issue is identifying what services can be pushed off the route and diverted. For example, one option might be to push some services on to alternative routes or to extend some trains via those. One might be via Wakefield Kirkgate and past Castleford into Leeds. This might be an option for the Northern stopper from Victoria

I agree that something needs doing, and it'd need to be something clever to get round all the bottle necks.

As an example, suppose you want an additional service from Manchester to York - this could run via Wakefield Kirkgate and Castleford, to avoid constraints at Leeds. Think outside the box...

Say (once the chord is built in Salford to allow services from Manchester AIrport to run via Piccadilly to Victoria) run a ten minute service from Manchester Victoria to Huddersfield (three stop at Staleybridge, the other three stop at one of the stations between Staleybridge and Huddersfield*, providing a uniform pattern of service, two per hour run on to Mirfield/ Wakefield Kirkgate/ Castleford/ York, the other four continue to Leeds, with the 10/20 minute frequency allowing the half hourly Brighouse/Huddersfield - Dewsbury - Batley - Leeds stoppers a clearer run...

(yes, there are *four* stations from Staleybridge to Huddersfield, so my example isn't perfect, I know...)

 

[Bomber]

Some direct services to Manchester Airport could do just that, go direct via Guide Bridge and Denton, miss out Picc completely, that would mean less congestion at Picc and a much quicer service from the East to the Airport. Or is this just to simple and logical to be considered.