Calder Valley Line - Historic track capacity

[alexl92]

Over the last few months, I’ve had reason to travel along the Calder Valley line from Leeds as far as Hebden Bridge (and occasionally right through to MCV) a handful of times.

One thing I have noticed is that there are places on the route where the track bed appears to be wide enough for four tracks, but then not too much further along there will be a section where it clearly could never have been any more than the current two. I know for example that even in the 1970s Sowerby Bridge had five platforms which included four through roads.

I’m really fascinated by this line at the moment; partly because as somebody with an love of industrial history, the Pennine Mill towns are really interesting to me, but also because of how strategically important the route is if for any reason the line through Huddersfield cannot be used.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how much and which parts of the Calder Valley west of Bradford (probably west of Milner Royd Junction I imagine?) previously had more tracks than currently?

If there are any good books on the CV line over the last 100 years or so I’d be interested too.

Thanks!

 

[46223]

A photo I took in 1966 near Luddendenfoot. D58 on the Scotswood-Redbank ECS.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

On the Yorkshire side there were loops at Eastwood, between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden, giving four tracks for a stretch.
As for books, you can do a lot worse than Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth century, by Eric Mason. It gives a description of the network as it was in the 1909-1920 era;

The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth Century: Amazon.co.uk: Mason, Eric: 9780711006560: Books

Buy The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth Century 3rd by Mason, Eric (ISBN: 9780711006560) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

amzn.eu

 

[D6130]

There were also four tracks between Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge. The current Up Refuge Siding at Hebden Bridge is all that is left of the one time Up Slow.

 

[Andy873]

I’m really fascinated by this line at the moment; partly because as somebody with an love of industrial history, the Pennine Mill towns are really interesting to me, but also because of how strategically important the route is if for any reason the line through Huddersfield cannot be used.

They are fascinating aren't they.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how much and which parts of the Calder Valley west of Bradford (probably west of Milner Royd Junction I imagine?) previously had more tracks than currently?

Even a quick look on the NLS georeferenced maps from circa 1909-14 shows for example from Hebden Bridge to Sowerby Bridge a good part of it was four track. The L&Y Society have a WTT section, you might find some clues here:

L&Y Society - Look for the 1920's Eastern Division / Section.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

On the Lancashire side Manchester Victoria to Newton Heath, Rochdale Station and Littleborough to Summit were quadruple plus various loops. I guess on the Yorkshire side the tightly constrained valley made quadrupling difficult. The L & Y did propose a new line from Littleborough via a long tunnel to the Rishworth branch (which had been constructed to main-line standards) as a relief, but WW1 intervened.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So I *think* that heading west from Milner Royd there were:

- loops at Sowerby Bridge station

- long loops (rather than true four tracking) between Luddenden Foot and Mytholmroyd - a couple of miles or so. These also had water troughs at some stage. Part of the old down loop close to Ludd Foot and part of the up loop near Royd are now used by the cycle path which is part of (from memory) NCN 66

- loops from just west of Mytholmroyd (approx Paddy Bridge I think) to just east of Hebden Bridge station - about a mile and a quarter. (The viaduct over Cragg Road at Mytholmroyd is the constraint stopping these two being linked)

- short loops at Eastwood. (A fascinating little site - its mad how much they squeezed into such a confined area)

- short loops between Hall Royd junction and Todmorden (ie on the base of the triangle with the Copy Pit line) along with various other sidings

- Summit west to Littleborough

- Rochdale

- Newton Heath - Miles Platting - Victoria

 

[Magdalia]

Over the last few months, I’ve had reason to travel along the Calder Valley line from Leeds as far as Hebden Bridge (and occasionally right through to MCV) a handful of times.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how much and which parts of the Calder Valley west of Bradford (probably west of Milner Royd Junction I imagine?) previously had more tracks than currently?

Geographically, only the Milner Royd Junction to Hall Royd Junction section is in the Calder Valley.

From Milner Royd Junction the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway's main line continued down the Calder Valley through Brighouse, Mirfield and Wakefield to join the North Eastern Railway at Normanton, not far from where the River Calder joins the River Aire.

Between Milner Royd Junction and Normanton how much was 4 tracks?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Geographically, only the Milner Royd Junction to Hall Royd Junction section is in the Calder Valley.

From Milner Royd Junction the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway's main line continued down the Calder Valley through Brighouse, Mirfield and Wakefield to join the North Eastern Railway at Normanton, not far from where the River Calder joins the River Aire.

Between Milner Royd Junction and Normanton how much was 4 tracks?

Brighouse to Normanton was quadruple, apart from a short section of double east of Wakefield Kirkgate.

 

[Bevan Price]

So I *think* that heading west from Milner Royd there were:

- loops at Sowerby Bridge station

- long loops (rather than true four tracking) between Luddenden Foot and Mytholmroyd - a couple of miles or so. These also had water troughs at some stage. Part of the old down loop close to Ludd Foot and part of the up loop near Royd are now used by the cycle path which is part of (from memory) NCN 66

- loops from just west of Mytholmroyd (approx Paddy Bridge I think) to just east of Hebden Bridge station - about a mile and a quarter. (The viaduct over Cragg Road at Mytholmroyd is the constraint stopping these two being linked)

- short loops at Eastwood. (A fascinating little site - its mad how much they squeezed into such a confined area)

- short loops between Hall Royd junction and Todmorden (ie on the base of the triangle with the Copy Pit line) along with various other sidings

- Summit west to Littleborough

- Rochdale

- Newton Heath - Miles Platting - Victoria

The Cheetham Hill line also provided extra capacity between Thorpes Bridge Junction (Newton Heath) and Manchester Victoria.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

- long loops (rather than true four tracking)

Is there an agreed definition of how long a "long loop" has to be before it's regarded as "true four tracking" ?

 

[WTT Gremlin]

Is there an agreed definition of how long a "long loop" has to be before it's regarded as "true four tracking" ?

Still a loop to 1km given maximum train length is 775m. Langham Jn to Oakham at about 2 miles I think would be fairly described as 4-tracked.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is there an agreed definition of how long a "long loop" has to be before it's regarded as "true four tracking" ?

I’ve no idea if there’s a formal definition but to my simple little brain I’d say “proper four tracking” allows two trains travelling in the same direction to travel independently of each other with neither being checked at signals. With loops under two miles long like at Ludd Foot and Royd that couldn’t realistically happen

 

[edwin_m]

In the past these loops may well have been worked permissively, meaning that several freight trains could be stacked nose to tail for a faster train to pass. This gave more capacity at the cost of some very slow freights and the occasional serious accident.

 

[yorksrob]

No doubt a lot of these loops were primarily for freight. However, I wonder if reinstating some of the longer four track sections could enable a better service on the route, enabling speedier services to overtake.

 

[Gloster]

Is there an agreed definition of how long a "long loop" has to be before it's regarded as "true four tracking" ?

I have always considered that a loop on Absolute Block is when both ends are controlled by the same signal box; if the ends are controlled by different boxes then it is a running line. There can be exceptions when ‘station working’ or Permissive Block is in operation. With Track Circuit Block it is less clear, but it is roughly that there are no intermediate signals between the entry and exit ones. (My definition is that of an old-style operator.)

 

[WTT Gremlin]

Of historical interest on the 4-track alignment that included Thornhill LNW Jn to Heaton Lodge Jn, Mirfield station had an overall roof until relatively recently, and the underpass which is now part of the grade separation from Huddersfield towards Mirfield was originally the route of a different line into Leeds with the Huddersfield/Calder Valley link via a flat junction on the south side of the formation (approx where the pre-TRU Huddersfield bound line diverged.

I have always considered that a loop on Absolute Block is when both ends are controlled by the same signal box; if the ends are controlled by different boxes then it is a running line. There can be exceptions when ‘station working’ or Permissive Block is in operation. With Track Circuit Block it is less clear, but it is roughly that there are no intermediate signals between the entry and exit ones. (My definition is that of an old-style operator.)

I hadn’t thought of it in that way but does make logical sense. Also, provides reminders that on principal routes historically there were more block sections and what was considered ‘long’ for regular freight is rather shorter than today.

Though rather nebulous, I think the intended/practical usage in the timetable also would play a role in categorisation - were all lines intended/planned as running lines or as somewhere to dwell. Though would create instances where theoretically the upper lengths of loop could be longer than some short 4-track formations.

Shall reserve commenting upon connecting lines and loops extending beyond the end of a wider formation to avoid getting too off topic.

 

[D6130]

No doubt a lot of these loops were primarily for freight. However, I wonder if reinstating some of the longer four track sections could enable a better service on the route, enabling speedier services to overtake.

The problem is that - with the exception of Sowerby Bridge in the Up (Manchester) direction - none of the loops/four track sections were at stations, so any slower passenger services that were to be looked would be subject to unacceptably-long running times between stops.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

No doubt a lot of these loops were primarily for freight. However, I wonder if reinstating some of the longer four track sections could enable a better service on the route, enabling speedier services to overtake.

The problem is that - with the exception of Sowerby Bridge in the Up (Manchester) direction - none of the loops/four track sections were at stations, so any slower passenger services that were to be looked would be subject to unacceptably-long running times between stops.

The 4-track section would need somewhere around an 8 minute delta* between the overall running times of slow line (inc any station calls) and fast line paths.

Absolute minimum to avoid being ‘looped’ would be dictated by the sum of diverging and converging headways at either end.

Having a thread the needle type situation like this would have consequential impact on the WTT (limited flexibility) and performance due to minimum margins and the interdependence.

For context looping at a station to enable a service to overtake would be in the range of 3-8 minute* longer dwell in a platform loop.

*Dependent on factors inc. track layout, line/crossing speeds, signalling, calling pattern & timetable rules

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Rochdale Station was quadruple (with platforms).

 

[edwin_m]

Rochdale Station was quadruple (with platforms).

I was just thinking that. I think the reinstatement of at least one loop there was looked at, but ended up just being a dead-end extra platform.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that - with the exception of Sowerby Bridge in the Up (Manchester) direction - none of the loops/four track sections were at stations, so any slower passenger services that were to be looked would be subject to unacceptably-long running times between stops.

The 4-track section would need somewhere around an 8 minute delta* between the overall running times of slow line (inc any station calls) and fast line paths.

Absolute minimum to avoid being ‘looped’ would be dictated by the sum of diverging and converging headways at either end.

Having a thread the needle type situation like this would have consequential impact on the WTT (limited flexibility) and performance due to minimum margins and the interdependence.

For context looping at a station to enable a service to overtake would be in the range of 3-8 minute* longer dwell in a platform loop.

*Dependent on factors inc. track layout, line/crossing speeds, signalling, calling pattern & timetable rules

I wonder, were any of the loops long enough to be "dynamic" ? Thinking Littleborough to Summit perhaps.

 

[Gloster]

I wonder, were any of the loops long enough to be "dynamic" ? Thinking Littleborough to Summit perhaps.

Again, this is really my understanding than any official definition: loops were loops in my day, full stop. My reckoning is that a dynamic loop only applies on single lines where a passing loop is sufficiently long for trains in opposite direction to be timetabled to pass without having to slow down more than is necessary to negotiate the points. A pair of line lines where a faster train can pass a slower train in the same directions are just loops, relief lines, slow lines or whatever.

 

[yorksrob]

Again, this is really my understanding than any official definition: loops were loops in my day, full stop. My reckoning is that a dynamic loop only applies on single lines where a passing loop is sufficiently long for trains in opposite direction to be timetabled to pass without having to slow down more than is necessary to negotiate the points. A pair of line lines where a faster train can pass a slower train in the same directions are just loops, relief lines, slow lines or whatever.

I thought it was more a loop long enough that a slow train could continue trundling along while a fast one overtook it. Rather like the extra line between Ravensthorpe and Mirfield.

A line on a single track would be a "passing loop".

 

[Gloster]

I thought it was more a loop long enough that a slow train could continue trundling along while a fast one overtook it. Rather like the extra line between Ravensthorpe and Mirfield.

A line on a single track would be a "passing loop".

On multiple track, any loop, relief lines etc., could be a dynamic loop by your description if the difference in speed is enough. To me a dynamic loop is a sub-type of passing loop on a single line. (Though, as I said, my experience dates from before there were many ‘dynamic loops’: Templecombe-Yeovil Junction was just a section of double-track (with a bi-directional Up line), Ascott-under-Wychwood-Moreton-in-Marsh, Cattal-Hammerton, Insch-Kennethmont, etc.)

 

[edwin_m]

I thought it was more a loop long enough that a slow train could continue trundling along while a fast one overtook it. Rather like the extra line between Ravensthorpe and Mirfield.

A line on a single track would be a "passing loop".

A pair of loops long enough for overtaking would almost certainly be long enough to qualify as a four-track section.

 

[zwk500]

Is there an agreed definition of how long a "long loop" has to be before it's regarded as "true four tracking" ?

To me, true four-tracking is long enough for the slow train to not need to slow down (see full green signals and be running at the normal line speed) to be overtaken. A dynamic loop allows the slow train to keep moving but at a slower speed or yellow signals, a normal loop requires the train to come to a stand for the following train to pass.

Functionally and for how it's shown in the timetable, there would be very little distinction between a dynamic loop and "full four tracking" (see Challow-Wantage Road on the GWML). Especially if it's a section where a stopping train makes 2-3 station calls as part of the overtake (See Huyton-Roby on the Chat Moss).

I suppose a dynamic loop would usually require the overtaking train to be tight behind the overtaken train, whereas full four-tracking would allow a bit more flexibility, but then you will get trains being held at a stand at the end of four-track sections because the onwards 2-track section requires a bigger gap than is immediately available, so it's not clear cut at all.

The specific length of each category would depend on the trains being overtaken and the relative speeds and signalling setup in the area.

And all of this is very much my personal view, not any 'official' definition.