Huddersfield Tunnels

[Andyh82]

It gets suggested frequently on here that TPE needs longer trains instead of more. Idly wondering if P1 can be extended towards the tunnel and the furthest platform (I forget the number at present) could be extended onto the viaduct by losing the sidings.

Platform 1 comfortably fits a double 185 on the platform, so extending this platform would be far down the list of issues with capacity on the line.

You can apparently fit 9 coaches in Platform 1

 

[edwin_m]

Well, maybe you can tell us all where the money tree is planted then?

Why do we need to save barely 15, and spend tens of billions?

The stupid thing about these high speed lines is that those not served directly by them, see their journey times increased.

I don't know where the money tree is either, but someone in authority thinks they have found it, and lengthening the platforms at Huddersfield is small beer compared with the options that bypass it. So if the solution involves longer trains then longer platforms may be essential for Huddersfield to have a decent service.

I can't see why you're being so negative about some musing on my part about lengthening the platforms.

 

[jbg]

I don't know where the money tree is either, but someone in authority thinks they have found it, and lengthening the platforms at Huddersfield is small beer compared with the options that bypass it. So if the solution involves longer trains then longer platforms may be essential for Huddersfield to have a decent service.

I can't see why you're being so negative about some musing on my part about lengthening the platforms.

Because you can already fit 9 car trains on P1.

You're trying to justify a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Bevan Price]

2 photos of the junction at Springwood being renewed in 1983.
Penistone line to the right.
Note LH tunnel has been single track for some time looking at the state of the ballast.

Originally they planned that Springwood Jn would be inside a tunnel - until it was decided that a junction within a tunnel was a bad idea, hence the gap between the two tunnels.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Because you can already fit 9 car trains on P1.

You're trying to justify a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Extending the Penistone line bay as planned will shorten P1 by around 1 car's length. As P1 is longer than the current maximum formation, this needn't be a major issue. If further lengthening is required in the future, there should be space at the Leeds end to do so. In the event of longer platforms being required, the Eastbound side is more of a problem. The current main platform (P8) is just long enough for 2x185, extending it will either affect the P6 bay or the sidings, or both; or extending at the Manchester end will hit issues due to curvature (the platform was shortened in the c.1989 rebuild). More likely would be using P4 which will be temporarily freed up most of the day, with the Leeds and Manchester stoppers being withdrawn.

The promised London service will be a VTEC service via Leeds, run with a 5-car 80x (never can remember which are which!). I'd expect this service will use P4 as this is the only one both reversible* and long enough to hold 5x26m.

Technically P1 is reversible, but only via a shunt signal and this is not passed for passengers. Such a use is highly unlikely to be timetabled regularly.

 

[Senex]

The stupid thing about these high speed lines is that those not served directly by them, see their journey times increased.

Isn't that almost inevitable, given that the whole point of the high-speed lines is to provide vastly improved connections between principal centres? The benefit for many places on the old lines is the oportunity to have more services and a much better local and inter-regional timetable through the released capacity.

 

[jbg]

Isn't that almost inevitable, given that the whole point of the high-speed lines is to provide vastly improved connections between principal centres? The benefit for many places on the old lines is the oportunity to have more services and a much better local and inter-regional timetable through the released capacity.

Yes, but as there are vast numbers of people who don't live in "principal centres" the majority don't win.

As for your second point, HS1 didn't do any such thing, other than putting fairs up.

 

[Moonshot]

Yes, but as there are vast numbers of people who don't live in "principal centres" the majority don't win.

As for your second point, HS1 didn't do any such thing, other than putting fairs up.

The vast majority of rail passengers are actually travelling to and from principal centres.

What evidence do you have that HS1 caused price rises? Fares go up every year anyway. HS1 is actually a high speed line to Europe - and has had some of its original outlay capital repayed to the taxpayer.

 

[jbg]

The vast majority of rail passengers are actually travelling to and from principal centres.

But not necessarily between "principal centres".

It's like when people try and say that it's quicker to fly between Leeds and London, and then ignore the early check-in, the journey to the Airport, and the journey from the Airport at the other end.

 

[Senex]

As for your second point, HS1 didn't do any such thing, other than putting fairs up.

(Doubtful as I still am about HS2) I don't think HS1 and HS2 make a fair comparison. HS1 removed a small number of Eurostar workings from an already overcrowded and very slow network. This obviously created some more capacity by removing the need to provide the "long" non-stop EST paths each hour, but not a huge amount. HS2, on the other hand, when it reaches Crewe will take the principal Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Scotland trains with their long non-stop runs off the London-Crewe portion of the WCML and will thereby create very considerable extra capacity which can be used to provide intermediate centres with a much better service than they get today.

Unfortunately we have no clear ideas yet as to what "HS3", if any such thing is ever created, is going to be and so no ideas as to what its implications for capacity and therefore for improved intermediate services is likely to be.

 

[jbg]

(Doubtful as I still am about HS2) I don't think HS1 and HS2 make a fair comparison. HS1 removed a small number of Eurostar workings from an already overcrowded and very slow network. This obviously created some more capacity by removing the need to provide the "long" non-stop EST paths each hour, but not a huge amount. HS2, on the other hand, when it reaches Crewe will take the principal Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Scotland trains with their long non-stop runs off the London-Crewe portion of the WCML and will thereby create very considerable extra capacity which can be used to provide intermediate centres with a much better service than they get today.

Unfortunately we have no clear ideas yet as to what "HS3", if any such thing is ever created, is going to be and so no ideas as to what its implications for capacity and therefore for improved intermediate services is likely to be.

As a local example, we will be getting yet another Trans Pennine Express through Batley, however, we will be loosing one of the stopping services.

Instead there should have been a longer Train on one of the current expresses.

So, faster services being to the detriment of locals.

 

[Senex]

So, faster services being to the detriment of locals.

No, lack of capacity working to the detriment of locals, which is part of the reason why extra capacity between Manchester and Leeds is so much needed.

 

[jbg]

No, lack of capacity working to the detriment of locals, which is part of the reason why extra capacity between Manchester and Leeds is so much needed.

But, as with HS1, when the "fast" trains get onto the "classic" lines, they absorb capacity.

 

[Senex]

But, as with HS1, when the "fast" trains get onto the "classic" lines, they absorb capacity.

Of course, which is why, if you want both types of service you need to provide adequate capacity. Swiss planning has long been based on deciding on the future timetable first and then providing the infrastructure to meet the needs. Other countries have moved or are moving in that direction. "Not invented here" syndrome as far as the British are concerned?

 

[bramling]

(Doubtful as I still am about HS2) I don't think HS1 and HS2 make a fair comparison. HS1 removed a small number of Eurostar workings from an already overcrowded and very slow network. This obviously created some more capacity by removing the need to provide the "long" non-stop EST paths each hour, but not a huge amount. HS2, on the other hand, when it reaches Crewe will take the principal Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Scotland trains with their long non-stop runs off the London-Crewe portion of the WCML and will thereby create very considerable extra capacity which can be used to provide intermediate centres with a much better service than they get today.

HS1 has also allowed the faster Ramsgate/Margate/Dover services to be re-routed into St. Pancras. In practice this hasn't resulted in the remaining routes getting that much of a better service. Indeed, non-London passengers have lost out in a number of cases. Nowadays a journey like Faversham-Bromley South or Ashford-Sevenoaks is a rather slow experience.

 

[jbg]

HS1 has also allowed the faster Ramsgate/Margate/Dover services to be re-routed into St. Pancras. In practice this hasn't resulted in the remaining routes getting that much of a better service. Indeed, non-London passengers have lost out in a number of cases. Nowadays a journey like Faversham-Bromley South or Ashford-Sevenoaks is a rather slow experience.

Exactly my point.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

HS1 has also allowed the faster Ramsgate/Margate/Dover services to be re-routed into St. Pancras. In practice this hasn't resulted in the remaining routes getting that much of a better service. Indeed, non-London passengers have lost out in a number of cases. Nowadays a journey like Faversham-Bromley South or Ashford-Sevenoaks is a rather slow experience.

Exactly my point.

Except your point ignores the fact that the local passengers who may gain little or no benefit are much smaller in volume than those making the longer journeys in many cases. To take the Huddersfield example if a HS3 service provided a 30 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester but avoided Huddersfield then the remaining services on the classic route could have far more seats available for the benefit of local passengers.

I have travelled over the TPE North route many times over a period in excess of 30 years and it is very noticeable when travelling east just how the number of passengers waiting to board at Huddersfield has grown enormously during that time, to the extent that there is often something of a scrum at the doors as people try to find one of the few available seats. And westbound there are often many standees on leaving Leeds but none after Huddersfield (most of the time!).

The key is to ensure that such remaining "classic" services provide the appropriate level of service once longer distance passengers have been syphoned off by a new HS route. In the case of HS1 the problem was that "the powers that be" wanted to establish premium fares for HS1 and reducing the classic services was part of that strategy. Public opinion does not seem to support such a strategy so it's not likely to be repeated on future HS schemes.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't imagine that HS3/NPR/whatever it's called this week will serve Huddersfield. However, the idea of services on the existing infrastructure omitting the Huddersfield stop is equally unlikely, as the only benefit would be to reduce demand and overcrowding. The time saving would be 2-3mins tops, and any service skipping HUD would be hot on the heels of the preceding service by the time it reaches Leeds or Manchester.

 

[QueensCurve]

Of course, which is why, if you want both types of service you need to provide adequate capacity. Swiss planning has long been based on deciding on the future timetable first and then providing the infrastructure to meet the needs. Other countries have moved or are moving in that direction. "Not invented here" syndrome as far as the British are concerned?

The Swiss approach has, in my view, much to commend it.

Having identified where the capacity pinches are, they put in relatively small infrastructure enhancements where they are needed rather than longer distance high speed lines, eg:-

• Gotthard base tunnel
• Lötschberg base tunnel
• Ceneri base tunnel
• Mattstetten to Rothrist
• Leuk to Salgesch

There are others.


Whilst the major base tunnels are massive - and expensive - projects, they are relatively short pieces of route. They are probably a lot cheaper than "HS2".

 

[jbg]

Except your point ignores the fact that the local passengers who may gain little or no benefit are much smaller in volume than those making the longer journeys in many cases. To take the Huddersfield example if a HS3 service provided a 30 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester but avoided Huddersfield then the remaining services on the classic route could have far more seats available for the benefit of local passengers.

I have travelled over the TPE North route many times over a period in excess of 30 years and it is very noticeable when travelling east just how the number of passengers waiting to board at Huddersfield has grown enormously during that time, to the extent that there is often something of a scrum at the doors as people try to find one of the few available seats. And westbound there are often many standees on leaving Leeds but none after Huddersfield (most of the time!).

The key is to ensure that such remaining "classic" services provide the appropriate level of service once longer distance passengers have been syphoned off by a new HS route. In the case of HS1 the problem was that "the powers that be" wanted to establish premium fares for HS1 and reducing the classic services was part of that strategy. Public opinion does not seem to support such a strategy so it's not likely to be repeated on future HS schemes.

Again, exactly my point.

 

[jbg]

I can't imagine that HS3/NPR/whatever it's called this week will serve Huddersfield. However, the idea of services on the existing infrastructure omitting the Huddersfield stop is equally unlikely, as the only benefit would be to reduce demand and overcrowding. The time saving would be 2-3mins tops, and any service skipping HUD would be hot on the heels of the preceding service by the time it reaches Leeds or Manchester.

I think what he was trying to say about Huddersfield was that the platforms were too short, (how a platform that is at least 50% longer than the longest train in regular service can be too short god alone knows), and if they don't serve Huddersfield, they can't serve anywhere, as every other platform is a good deal shorter still.

Just a fantasist looking to solve problems that don't actually exist.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think what he was trying to say about Huddersfield was that the platforms were too short, (how a platform that is at least 50% longer than the longest train in regular service can be too short god alone knows), and if they don't serve Huddersfield, they can't serve anywhere, as every other platform is a good deal shorter still.

Just a fantasist looking to solve problems that don't actually exist.

Oh dear, do you actually travel by train? Large parts of the country are rapidly approaching a significant rail capacity crunch which will inevitably see overcrowding become much worse than it is today unless things are done to provide additional capacity. This means both longer trains and additional tracks on the ground. However the former tends to need longer platforms (SDO is not a good solution for busy station stops) while the latter is generally more cost effectively provided by building new routes and possibly stations too. Whichever method is used, and in some cases both are needed, rail service patterns in the future will inevitably be different to those of today. I rather get the impression that you are not in favour of any significant changes because of a concern that your own locality may lose out.

 

[jbg]

Oh dear, do you actually travel by train? Large parts of the country are rapidly approaching a significant rail capacity crunch which will inevitably see overcrowding become much worse than it is today unless things are done to provide additional capacity. This means both longer trains and additional tracks on the ground. However the former tends to need longer platforms (SDO is not a good solution for busy station stops) while the latter is generally more cost effectively provided by building new routes and possibly stations too. Whichever method is used, and in some cases both are needed, rail service patterns in the future will inevitably be different to those of today. I rather get the impression that you are not in favour of any significant changes because of a concern that your own locality may lose out.

Not particularly.

Just Huddersfield doesn't need P1 extending, as it's far longer than it needs to be already.

And P4 needs the departure boards moving by a few yards.

A few hundred pound spent, not millions.

(And yes, I travel by rail regularly).