North TPE electrification

[neonison]

A word about Standedge.

Standedge (pronounced Stannedge) has three rail tunnels. A double track bore, currently used and two single bores which were the originals and previously used by freight using the Micklehurst loop and some other trains. There is a canal tunnel just lower than the rail tunnels and was used to carry spoil in the building of the railway tunnels.
All bores are intact and one of the single bores is used as an emergency relief for the canal tunnel and is used by BW diesel vans from time to time.
The trackbed both Marsden (E) and Diggle (W) sides is four track with presently a eastbound loop at Diggle and westbound loop at Marsden. Opening one or both of the single bores could be usefully used to extend a dynamic loop to accommodate stopping services and/or freight. The Marsden (E) side in four-track wide pretty well all the way to Huddersfield but the scope at the west end is much shorter.

 

[Nym]

Yep, to the West there isn't much scope for electrification, thanks to the origonal four tracking being provided by the Micklehurst loop, although there could be scope for re-opening this loop, but thanks to being a loop, it would need it's own stations to be able to be swallowed politically, that presents pathing issues as it would be desireable to have two tracks for express TPE services and two tracks for Frieight and Stopping passenger services, the loop would prevent this, the only solution I can see presenting it'self is if the Micklehurst loop provides the same kind of journey times as the current route via. Greenfeild, then you could effectively flight fasts infront of stoppers on both loops, if a station is provided at Diggle for some stoppers to terminate and others to wait then it could be quite easy to accomadate, (especially if some grade speration could be provided), with a timetable looking something like (between Stalybridge and Diggle)

4tph Fast, alternating between Greenfeild and Micklehurst, as soon as a fast has left down one of the routes, the stopper sets off from Diggle behind it, and has 30mins headway before the next fast wants to be down the loop, so you could proberbly fit in a slow passenger (electrified) between Diggle and Stalybridge via either route, and possibly a freight behind it too, (if it's only 1tph freight, this can run via Micklehurst as it's flatter than via Greenfeild).

So if the loop was re-opened, a clever junction layout employed at Diggle, and the two closed tunnels braught back into use, you could conseiverbly have, off Diggle or Stalybridge

xx00 Express via Greenfeild (Doesn't Stop, uses fast roads)
xx03 Slow via Greenfeild
xx06 Freight via Greenfeild
xx15 Express via Micklehurst (Doesn't Stop, uses fast roads)
xx18 Slow via Micklehurst
xx21 Freight via Micklehurst
xx30 Fast via Greenfeild (Doesn't Stop, uses fast roads)
xx33 Slow via Greenfeild
xx36 Freight via Greenfeild
xx45 Fast via Micklehurst (Doesn't Stop, uses fast roads)
xx48 Slow via Micklehurst
xx51 Freight via Miclehurst

That gives the freight 20mins longer to get over the loop before the fast catches it...

If thats too adventurous, then you can drop a slow and a freight from each half hour and either run a freight or a slow directly behind a TPE fast, it would of course need to run directly through the tunnels as four track, if 4tph slow, terminate half of these at Diggle, and have a full section of four track all the way over to Huddersfeild.

Electric freight could be seriously explored, depending on where the bin liners and long distance freight was going.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The matter of the Standedge Tunnels themselves was the body matter of a now-closed thread on the Infrastructure Forum..."Standedge Tunnels proposed re-opening"... back in May of this year, in which in posting # 2 on 18th May 2011, Ploughman made quite a detailed posting based on his actual working knowledge of inside them and of their associated problems.

 

[neonison]

Yep, to the West there isn't much scope for electrification, thanks to the origonal four tracking being provided by the Micklehurst loop, although there could be scope for re-opening this loop, but thanks to being a loop, it would need it's own stations to be able to be swallowed politically, that presents pathing issues as it would be desireable to have two tracks for express TPE services and two tracks for Frieight and Stopping passenger services, the loop would prevent this, the only solution I can see presenting it'self is if the Micklehurst loop provides the same kind of journey times as the current route via. Greenfeild, then you could effectively flight fasts infront of stoppers on both loops, if a station is provided at Diggle for some stoppers to terminate and others to wait then it could be quite easy to accomadate, (especially if some grade speration could be provided), with a timetable looking something like (between Stalybridge and Diggle)

As you say if politically expedient. You're talking about demolishing houses in well-heeled and politically marginal Saddleworth who would be more than happy with a decent P&R at a re-opened Diggle.

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect 2 x 158 would have more seats than 1 x 220 / 221 / 222 with 5-cars.

Are those refitted Cl158s that are DDA compatible, surely that should remove the seating advantage overall? Especially as such a train would need two DDA compatible toilets (one in each unit?)

 

[northwichcat]

Are those refitted Cl158s that are DDA compatible, surely that should remove the seating advantage overall? Especially as such a train would need two DDA compatible toilets (one in each unit?)

No they aren't fully DDA compliant. They still have the original toilets and haven't had a PIS installed.

 

[tbtc]

Are those refitted Cl158s that are DDA compatible, surely that should remove the seating advantage overall?

The "crumple zone" on Voyagers takes up a lot of space, which would be a bit of a waste when they weren't needed to run at 125mph on the service you suggest.

 

[HSTEd]

The "crumple zone" on Voyagers takes up a lot of space, which would be a bit of a waste when they weren't needed to run at 125mph on the service you suggest.

Well there are several sections you can run 125mph on the Liverpool Norwich service at this point. (Manchester-Stockport, Sheffield-Nottingham and Grantham-Peterborough).

EDIT: Im having trouble finding a seating plan for a refitted Class 158 or a DDA compliant two carriage 170.

 

[tbtc]

Well there are several sections you can run 125mph on the Liverpool Norwich service at this point. (Manchester-Stockport, Sheffield-Nottingham and Grantham-Peterborough)

How many minutes would you shave off Manchester - Stockport? You sometimes spend longer waiting for a platform (at either end) than you do travelling between the two.

125mph from Sheffield to Chesterfield? If there is then its not for long (plus you are stopping at Chesterfield etc).

Agreed on the ECML stretch, thats one of the headaches for this route. but is that long enough to justify the 125mph stock?

 

[HSTEd]

The ECML stretch is the source of more than a third of the total time saving I was able to calculate.

The question is whether the lesser speeds a 22x would be able to achieve over the other stretches of route that are Sprinter Differential rated (assuming the HST differential would be less) would be offset by the drastically improved acceleration.
Class 185s can manage this and they cant use any differential speeds at all, even hauling a trailer the Class 220 would have a similar power to weight ratio to it.

 

[WatcherZero]

No they aren't fully DDA compliant. They still have the original toilets and haven't had a PIS installed.

Thats two terms which shouldnt be used in the same sentence!