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!
This does seem to confirm quadrupling, not just to the previous limit of Cross Gates but beyond, seemingly to Micklefield. Also indicated is the arrangement of tracks, with fasts in the centre, i.e., paired by direction, there being only two outer (permanent) platform faces, with no lift shaft to the temporary platform. Fly-over at Micklefield?
Will there be equal provision in OLE mast/stanchion siting?
I saw a plan in a Leeds city council doc a while ago which suggested four tracking from before Cross Gates to after Thorpe Park. I don’t think the plan was to go all the way to Micklefield - that would cost a fortune through Garforth particularly, and if you plan the timetable so that fast trains can overtake the stopper on the four-track section, you would still get most of the benefit of full quadrupling. I do wonder if they will uplift the stopper frequency to 2tph though.
Local media reports that the Hillhouse temporary station is not going to happen, they are going to divert the funding into permanent upgrades for Brighouse
Work is also progressing well at Hillhouse where five lines of track and welfare facilities are being installed to replace the current station sidings with a light maintenance depot and enable a future freight site proposition.
Recently completed work includes the installation of five new sidings with crossings to enable trains to move between each siding, concrete foundations for overhead line equipment, drainage equipment and troughing to carry electrical cables.
Once complete, the depot will provide a new and improved, fully electrified location for trains to be cleaned and tanked. It will have the capacity to hold up to 24 carriages, for example, eight trains with three carriages each, to provide better flexibility and growth for the railway in Huddersfield.
The depot is also a key part of the upgrades between Huddersfield and Leeds and will facilitate engineering trains, the storage of materials and the fabrication of parts required for the work.
Change of scope
Hillhouse was also originally planned to be used as a temporary station during the remodelling of Huddersfield station from September 2025, for services that couldn’t be diverted via the Calder Valley line.
This has now been descoped from the programme and instead, customers will use Brighouse station during a 30-day closure of Huddersfield station, which is required for the remodelling work. A bus service will be in place to transport customers between Brighouse and Huddersfield during this period to connect with trains.
The use of Brighouse as an interchange station, instead of Hillhouse, means that more direct trains can run per hour between Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds and it also provides a more consistent train plan for customers throughout the 30 days.
To support this customer handling plan, additional station enhancement works are proposed at Brighouse station.
UPCOMING WORK AT HUDDERSFIELD
Major canopy repair works on the roof at Huddersfield station are planned to continue throughout 2025. This includes grit blasting, painting, steelwork, installing new roof coverings and restoring the glass lanterns.
Engineering work will also continue along the route between Huddersfield and Leeds, including the installation of new track, upgrade work on bridges, tunnels and retaining walls, drainage work and the installation of overhead line equipment.
To facilitate work, some railway line closures will be required. We have provided the dates of the closures that are planned up until the end of March 2025, below.
On the following dates, upgrade work near Huddersfield means that no trains will stop at Huddersfield station.
Saturday 4 January & Sunday 5 January
Saturday 11 January & Sunday 12 January
Saturday 18 January & Sunday 19 January
Saturday 25 January & Sunday 26 January
Saturday 1 February & Sunday 2 February
Saturday 8 February & Sunday 9 February
Saturday 29 & Sunday 30 March
On the following dates, upgrade work near Leeds will mean that fewer trains than usual will stop at Huddersfield station:
From Monday 3 to Friday 7 March
From Monday 10 to Friday 14 March
From Monday 17 to Friday 21 March
Huddersfield station – 30-day closure
From 30 August to 29 September 2025, Huddersfield station will be closed to complete an important phase of remodelling work, before opening with three platforms temporarily in use in the Autumn 2025. At this point, scaffold towers will be installed to continue the roof canopy restoration.
Another 30-day closure is forecast to take place in early 2027.
This does seem to confirm quadrupling, not just to the previous limit of Cross Gates but beyond, seemingly to Micklefield. Also indicated is the arrangement of tracks, with fasts in the centre, i.e., paired by direction, there being only two outer (permanent) platform faces, with no lift shaft to the temporary platform. Fly-over at Micklefield?
Will there be equal provision in OLE mast/stanchion siting?
Four tracking will end shortly after thorpe park, the embankment to Garforth would cost a fortune and then the route between Garforth and East Garforth wouldn't accomodate 4 tracks.
I saw a plan in a Leeds city council doc a while ago which suggested four tracking from before Cross Gates to after Thorpe Park. I don’t think the plan was to go all the way to Micklefield - that would cost a fortune through Garforth particularly, and if you plan the timetable so that fast trains can overtake the stopper on the four-track section, you would still get most of the benefit of full quadrupling. I do wonder if they will uplift the stopper frequency to 2tph though.
A refresher scan on Google Maps does indeed seem to show enough room (in theory) for 4 tracks from Neville Hill and through Cross Gates. Thorpe Park could easily be a decent regulation point, especially as the configuration of the Fasts & Slows seems to be à la ECML (i.e. DS/DF/UF/US).
I don't know/can't recall if the viaducts east of Leeds will cater for quadruple track (and my assumption is no), so the DS/DF/UF/US arrangement works better if that doesn't come to pass.
I don't know/can't recall if the viaducts east of Leeds will cater for quadruple track (and my assumption is no), so the DS/DF/UF/US arrangement works better if that doesn't come to pass.
I saw a plan in a Leeds city council doc a while ago which suggested four tracking from before Cross Gates to after Thorpe Park. I don’t think the plan was to go all the way to Micklefield - that would cost a fortune through Garforth particularly, and if you plan the timetable so that fast trains can overtake the stopper on the four-track section, you would still get most of the benefit of full quadrupling. I do wonder if they will uplift the stopper frequency to 2tph though.
I concur this is the most likely option from a logic standpoint. Four tracking anything else would require monumental works beyond even the scale of Huddersfield to Dewsbury so I think we can say it's off the cards. Cross gates to thorpe park four tracking, with two stations within it seems to me gain a lot. Two station calls gives plenty of time for slows to be overtaken without the situation at Dewsbury on the Down we currently have.
Has consideration been given to the addition of a bay platform at Thorpe Park? It would be a nice option to to terminate additional stoppers from Bradford FS and/or Ilkey to free up platform capacity at Leeds.
Has consideration been given to the addition of a bay platform at Thorpe Park? It would be a nice option to to terminate additional stoppers from Bradford FS and/or Ilkey to free up platform capacity at Leeds.
Which is difficult given that the platforms at Crossgates are on either side, as well as at Halton Moor/Osmondthorpe if there's any realistic chance of reopening that on the hypothetical slow lines.
Has consideration been given to the addition of a bay platform at Thorpe Park? It would be a nice option to to terminate additional stoppers from Bradford FS and/or Ilkey to free up platform capacity at Leeds.
I'd say that if you wanted more platform capacity for the Harrogate/Wharfedale/Airedale line services it'd be easier to expand into the car park opposite platform 0 at Leeds. The timetabling and performance of these services is constrained by a number of flat junctions, extended single-line sections and freight movements, so every effort should be put into a avoiding interactions with other service groups, although through running to London is a worthy exception to this rule.
Which is difficult given that the platforms at Crossgates are on either side, as well as at Halton Moor/Osmondthorpe if there's any realistic chance of reopening that on the hypothetical slow lines.
I'd say that if you wanted more platform capacity for the Harrogate/Wharfedale/Airedale line services it'd be easier to expand into the car park opposite platform 0 at Leeds. The timetabling and performance of these services is constrained by a number of flat junctions, extended single-line sections and freight movements, so every effort should be put into a avoiding interactions with other service groups, although through running to London is a worthy exception to this rule.
I've often wondered if after electrification of the Harrogate loop it would make Leeds - Harrogate - York - Leeds running as a loop with the timetabling buffer being at Harrogate or terminating and reversing in Leeds from the east would be a viable option to free up west facing bays at Leeds. I don't know if this would allow Leeds P8 to be freed from the terminating London trains so it can be used as a through platform for York to Harrogate via Leeds.
All speculative but a thought that has occurred to me before.
I've often wondered if after electrification of the Harrogate loop it would make Leeds - Harrogate - York - Leeds running as a loop with the timetabling buffer being at Harrogate or terminating and reversing in Leeds from the east would be a viable option to free up west facing bays at Leeds. I don't know if this would allow Leeds P8 to be freed from the terminating London trains so it can be used as a through platform for York to Harrogate via Leeds.
All speculative but a thought that has occurred to me before
Platforms 8, 9, 11 and 12D are the only through platforms accessible from the Harrogate line, so it would impose quite a rigid operating restriction on such services.
One thing to bear in mind when talking about hypothetical through-running is that one of the objectives of the TransPennine route upgrade is to improve reliability (I seem to remember 92.5% journeys being 0-5 minutes late being mentioned a few years ago) and simplifying operations will go a long way to achieve this. In addition, cross-Leeds flows from stations east of Leeds are already possible or easily achievable by planned services, e.g. the Hull to Halifax covers all stations to Pudsey, Bradford and Halifax and stopping one of the planned semi-fast trains at Garforth or Thorpe Park will enable direct service to Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Manchester.
If you were going to run any electric services through Leeds, the Doncasters would be easier to switch... though they too would have to cross some of the throat to avoid the platforms usually used by LNER. Of course nobody would use those services to travel between Doncaster and York in normal circumstances, but if it's about freeing up capacity in Leeds those would be the ones. Though that's a little off-topic really. Of course once the wires are up from Huddersfield and through to York, you'd have another set of services that could fill that role.
Sorry for not being able to catch up on this thread very often, but just wanted to say thank you very much for your super detailed reply!
Have spent ages poring over the notes, trying to get the acronyms to stick (why is this so much harder as we age?), and understand the relationship between the different types of mast.
I have some follow up questions, if I may?
I understand the different role played by the SSA, but why the constant changes from TTC to STC.
Do they have different advantages or disadvantages? There doesn't seem to be any pattern to it, often swapping one to the other as on the sweeping bend between the White Rose Centre footbridge and the Natasha Elliot footbridge for example. I would have thought simplicity and cost would mandate the use of TTC as often as possible? Less steel, fewer piles? What am I missing?
"mly07": 3 (possible) TTC foundations (all on the Dn), but this time they've gone for hydraulically-driven piles, 610mm in diameter. My hunch as to why they're TTCs is that the SSA in "mly06" is anchoring the earth wire (EW; more on them later) before the footbridge at Cottingley, so that would imply an SSA on both sides in "mly06" if the masts beyond weren't TTCs. There also appears to be a foundation on the Up for a possible Portal structure, likely to be used as a Mid-Point Anchor (MPA). Time will tell if it is!
These two foundations, the last before the viaduct both now have SSA attached to them:
Apologies I couldn't get the same shot as last week, but just as a was headed there a mothers meeting of smoking hoodies convened at that end of the Cottingley footbridge.
As you can see, the TTCs between Cottingley and Churwell Viaduct have been installed since last week.
As has one TTC on the Leeds side of the Cottingley footbridge:
Also now present are two brackets on either side of the Churwell viaduct:
And two of the portals over White Rose Station have had their beams attached:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And the two TTC masts either side of the White Rose Centre footbridge have had their beams added:
Nothing further has changed between here and Morley
I did spot something I missed last week, in position GFL 62.22 there is this pile with nothing attached:
Seems they have buried the wrong rebar structure here, as GFL 62.21 & GFL 62.23 have both been fitted with TTCs, and these form a run on a single side of the track with concurrent numbers. All the other TTCs are attached to 6-pin foundations.
Will be interesting to see how they fix this, assuming I'm right in my assumptions. Dig it out? Or put an extra unplanned STC opposite? But if they do that what number can they give it?! 22B?
One other odd thing I noticed in Morley old station, a signal cabinet with a makeshift scaffolding board shield around it:
Wonder what's so special about case A? Overheating? Or would this make overheating worse? Doesn't look like there's any work being done to the wall behind.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So, the curve really has nothing to do with it. As you say, move some earth here (nothing compared with Deighton for example, farmland as well) and you've created a more useful station at a cheaper price than the embankment-built station.
But, the key to this is Munro K (who own the White Rose office park) were part paying, so they got to specify where the station went.
Have a read of Land Securities (owner of the shopping centre) input to the planning application for the station. Not exactly positive? Effectively just whining about their car parks becoming an unofficial park and ride. I wouldn't hold my breath about them upgrading the path to the station on their property, a better surface and lighting might encourage its use.
Although, lets also not forget Munro K do not let pedestrians walk through the office park down Millshaw Park Lane, which would have shorted the walk from Cottingley to the White rose whilst the railway-side footpath was closed. Instead you have to walk down to and along the Ring Road, so pleasant.
I understand the different role played by the SSA, but why the constant changes from TTC to STC.
Do they have different advantages or disadvantages? There doesn't seem to be any pattern to it, often swapping one to the other as on the sweeping bend between the White Rose Centre footbridge and the Natasha Elliot footbridge for example. I would have thought simplicity and cost would mandate the use of TTC as often as possible? Less steel, fewer piles? What am I missing?
Firstly thank you for yet another comprehensive post and collection of photos!
Regarding advantages and disadvantages, a single track cantilever of course requires much less steel and is less visually intrusive, however, when placed on the inside of a curve they can block the view of signals, hence twin track cantilevers are used on the approach to signals, with the supporting post placed on the outside of the curve. This has been standard practice with electrification since the OLE renewals on the WCML and after the Ladbrooke Grove crash which brought OLE structure and signal placements in the spotlight in the early 2000s.
As part of TRU many curves will see their permissible speed increased, pushing rail cant and cant deficiency to its limits (as seen in your first photo) so designing mitigations like TTCs are vital in providing the driver an unobstructed view of signals on the inside of curves in good time.
Is there a timeline shared anywhere for all the work between Huddersfield and Leeds?
Interested to know when they are expecting to go live. Is the plan to be done with Dewsbury to Leeds pronto, track finished (is it already, or what's still to come?) and wired and in use, with Ravensthorpe and Heaton Lodge and the Huddersfield rebuild finished another couple (?) of years later?
I've pulled these from the Transpennine Upgrade site as it's really a wider question: I understand the different role played by the SSA, but why the constant changes from TTC to STC. Do they have different advantages or disadvantages? There doesn't seem to be any pattern to it, often swapping...
I echo the comment above regarding timescales. It would be good to know what the plans are!
Along the same lines, will the route be split whilst the works are ongoing, so Dewsbury becomes a terminus from Leeds and the new Batley cross over used with all Manc to Leeds services going through Wakefield Kirkgate?
Is there a timeline shared anywhere for all the work between Huddersfield and Leeds?
Interested to know when they are expecting to go live. Is the plan to be done with Dewsbury to Leeds pronto, track finished (is it already, or what's still to come?) and wired and in use, with Ravensthorpe and Heaton Lodge and the Huddersfield rebuild finished another couple (?) of years later?
I echo the comment above regarding timescales. It would be good to know what the plans are!
Along the same lines, will the route be split whilst the works are ongoing, so Dewsbury becomes a terminus from Leeds and the new Batley cross over used with all Manc to Leeds services going through Wakefield Kirkgate?
You can find timescale details at "https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/publications-and-resources/" - Scroll down to the "Enhancements Delivery Plan" part and click on the link to "Enhancements Delivery Plan - England and Wales Sept 2024". The TRU details start on page 8, W3 Huddersfield - Ravensthorpe and W4 Ravensthorpe - Leeds are dated Feb 2030, E234 Leeds - Church Fenton is dated April 2030. These dates are for TRU completion not electrification "Go Live" dates although those would usually be towards the end of the projects as the infrastructure changes come first.
You can find timescale details at "https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/publications-and-resources/" - Scroll down to the "Enhancements Delivery Plan" part and click on the link to "Enhancements Delivery Plan - England and Wales Sept 2024". The TRU details start on page 8, W3 Huddersfield - Ravensthorpe and W4 Ravensthorpe - Leeds are dated Feb 2030, E234 Leeds - Church Fenton is dated April 2030. These dates are for TRU completion not electrification "Go Live" dates although those would usually be towards the end of the projects as the infrastructure changes come first.
Thanks - interesting doc - but still a bit "it's all over when it's over"! I was hoping for more granular. After all, it's not 2030, but the Morley station, the bridge at Lady Ann crossing etc are in use. I am wondering what we have in terms of changes and earliest date to use the changes.
Some changes will have to be brought into use because they remove the existing formation. Four tracking Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge must be fairly soon..
Instead of investing in a platform at Hillhouse, which would only be used for a relatively brief period of time, project bosses are favouring a more sustainable option of upgrading Brighouse station. Passengers travelling between York and Manchester on trains diverted via the Calder Valley could get on and off at the improved Brighouse station and travel via a rail replacement shuttle bus to Huddersfield.
Thanks - interesting doc - but still a bit "it's all over when it's over"! I was hoping for more granular. After all, it's not 2030, but the Morley station, the bridge at Lady Ann crossing etc are in use. I am wondering what we have in terms of changes and earliest date to use the changes.
Some changes will have to be brought into use because they remove the existing formation. Four tracking Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge must be fairly soon..
Finding specific dates for TRU is difficult as their website doesn't include many, the page for Huddersfield station upgrade just says "over the next couple of years" for example, although it does now give the planned dates for the first Huddersfield station blockade as 30th August to 29th Sept 2025.
Regarding Ravensthorpe the public consultation suggest the current station would close "on or after 28 September 2025" and "The new station is planned to open in summer 2028." so that perhaps gives some guide to the four tracking time scales but I guess some of the new alignment will be used in part before the full completion. There are no dates or time periods given on the TRU website section for the Huddersfield to Dewsbury works.
Finding specific dates for TRU is difficult as their website doesn't include many, the page for Huddersfield station upgrade just says "over the next couple of years" for example, although it does now give the planned dates for the first Huddersfield station blockade as 30th August to 29th Sept 2025.
E1 (Church Fenton to York) This project will deliver electrification and line speed increase and enhancement of Leeds and Normanton lines between Church Fenton and York. EIS Infrastructure Authorised Apr-26 n/a – project is on target On target
Instead of investing in a platform at Hillhouse, which would only be used for a relatively brief period of time, project bosses are favouring a more sustainable option of upgrading Brighouse station. Passengers travelling between York and Manchester on trains diverted via the Calder Valley could get on and off at the improved Brighouse station and travel via a rail replacement shuttle bus to Huddersfield.
W4 – Ravensthorpe to Leeds
This project delivers full electrification of the route between Ravensthorpe and Leeds. It also delivers linespeed improvements through track and signalling changes including moving and rebuilding new accessible station and closure of level crossing.
EIS Infrastructure Authorised Feb-30 n/a – project is on target On target
How does it take 5 years to electrify a route such as Leeds to Church Fenton considering they seem to be throwing up masts quite rapidly? 2 years-ish, sure but 5?
How does it take 5 years to electrify a route such as Leeds to Church Fenton considering they seem to be throwing up masts quite rapidly? 2 years-ish, sure but 5?
Sorry if dumb question.
E234 Leeds – Church Fenton
This project will deliver full electrification between Leeds & Church Fenton as well as line speed improvements. The scheme requires a major closure of the Neville Hill Depot in order to deliver this work, so a programme of temporary depot facilitation is required to enable.
This scheme enables the closure of multiple level crossings
EIS Infrastructure Authorised April-30 n/a – project is on target On target
How does it take 5 years to electrify a route such as Leeds to Church Fenton considering they seem to be throwing up masts quite rapidly? 2 years-ish, sure but 5?
Hopefully someone somewhere has been doing some supply chain planning and has noticed that there's 140 miles of HS2 that will need electrification resource in the not too distant future.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.railforums.co.uk
www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk
