Not just paths. The ease of running a train in from Huddersfield on the high-platform side of Leeds (e.g. 12 - 16) doesn't immediately gel with the continuance to London, and vice versa. Add to that, Huddersfield, if it had a functioning train service (*) to Leeds as was supposed to be the case, e.g. four fast trains per hour (same to Manchester, albeit not all to Piccadilly) then you would find people would be mostly alright.
I can see the problem which is that Sudbury-Colchester town takes more than 30 mins so would require 2 units, but a through service to Colchester would be viable were the foot crossing closed, though that would likely cause accessibility issues.
Just reverse at Wakefield Kirkgate & Wakefield Westgate to attach to a Leeds-King’s Cross service at the latter, as they used to. So much easier today with units rather than loco-hauled stock. It could even start from Halifax first!
www.railforums.co.uk
If London is the target then go the other way and run via Manchester. Either as an extension of a Euston - Piccadilly or some new service via Victoria and Newton-le-Willows.
Once electrified, they could run the unit which currently forms 1H50 07:08 Crewe-Manchester to Huddersfield instead, currently it’s an ECS working from Longsight to Crewe first. Then run into the main station at Piccadilly and reverse to go to London, as happens today with 1H50 except it’s not an advertised through working of course.
Going via Penistone is by far the best way as it would give Barnsley its own direct service too.
Or not that at all, when you look at the layout at Piccadilly, you'd just need to be semi-sensible using platform 3 or 4 to do the reversal, and of course, with TRU, Piccadilly to Huddersfield is electrified.
Sunday services did it many moons ago with around a 90 minute frequency albeit with gaps. Level crossing issues were not so recognised back then however. Apart from that, constant movements onto and off the section through Chitts Hill seemed crazy performance wise.
Almost certain the line not being electrified is the biggest barrier to this; partly due to limited carriage length potential, but also Victoria bans diesel in the Southern platforms (hence why Uckfield services go to London Bridge). Had the line been fully electrified, and/or in future battery operation takes off, maybe some peak Reigate terminators could be extended towards Guildford.
Plus clogging up the Castlefield corridor even more. Think there is an operational issue with despatch with class 390s on Picc 13/14 as we speak.
That's what VT as open access proposed, isnt it?
That was Rochdale via Victoria, I think.
Looking at the Northern site, the marginally quicker way to London from Huddersfield seems to be via Wakefield Kirkgate and Westgate (2 changes) and at times this is significantly cheaper than other routes.
Just the small matter of paths over the single line sections and the weak viaduct just after Springwood Junction (10mph PSR for anything that would be likely to form your London service).
Might still be a decent offering even with the 10mph. The paths are likely to be the bigger issue, and finding sufficient 810s in due course (it'd have to be an extension of the Sheffield service to make any sense).
I can believe it, albeit I would have hoped, at some point, that when Open Access is gone we will be at a peak point where the GC services (some of which don't even go through Ponty anymore) can be got gone.
It would be quite atrocious, I would think. Really slow route, all that way to Sheffield and then going up the MML on a 5 car. You'd be a lot better directing people to turn-up-and-go services that fundamentally work to Manchester and Leeds, and then down to London.
I completely agree, but it there is to be a Huddersfield to London service...
But on that basis, the consideration of a service which leaves Huddersfield, simultaneously stops at Mirfield (people from Brighouse can change there as well), then goes to Kirkgate (where there is probably a stack of underserved transport need between that Mirfield and Huddersfield area and Wakefield), and down to Pontefract, and across to Doncaster, and runs every hour from Monday to Sunday, is oodles better than an irregular Open Access service.
If the forum had a "like", I'd click it.
I'm not sure how this fits into the Blunkett ideas, but given the slow lines will be segregated, and given the improved capacity, I don't think there's much excuse to offer a poor service for the likes of Huddersfield - Halifax - Bradford Interchange (definitely should be half-hourly), nor Huddersfield - Kirkgate (should likewise be half-hourly). And if you are running those sides of the 'triangle' as half-hourly, then Hebden - Brighouse - Mirfield - Dewsbury should be half-hourly as well, creating a 'web' of connections and making Mirfield a good-quality interchange.
They can rub into 19 and mabye a few others, they have extractor fans on the London end and the pullman services depart from their every other week. Might only be loco hauled allowed however since i only think theirs one vent per platform.
If Luton Airport is a permitted answer I'm having Ramsgate as my entry.
Doesn't Ramsgate have a direct rail link to each of London Victoria, London St Pancras, London Cannon Street and London Charing Cross? Seems quite well provisioned based on that.
Thanks for the clarification. Places situated a fair distance away from the railway station of the same name that purports to serve them, are perhaps worthy of an entirely separate discussion.
