The North Transpennine Core: a quart in a pint pot?

[61653 HTAFC]

Having moved to Batley (from Huddersfield) in the last week, I have been making far more journeys along this route than I had been previously. It seems to be VERY rare that there isn't at least one of the TPE services due through HUD while I'm there isn't delayed, with obvious knock-on problems for the Northern local services. At 5tph it seems like there's just more services than the infrastructure can handle, let alone the planned 6 services.

For example earlier today I boarded the 1659 Huddersfield to Leeds service, which was first held to allow a late-running TPE through, then held again for the following TPE too. The guard was very helpful with announcements informing passengers for Dewsbury to take the second express. As I wanted Batley I chose to stay, preferring a seat on a 158 rather than being crammed onto a 185 only to change onto the same stopper at Dewsbury- though several passengers re-boarded the stopper there having switched.

Surely it would be better to have the first express held at Huddersfield to overtake the stopper at Dewsbury, as it isn't scheduled to call there... Does the fast line at Dewsbury ever get used for overtaking? It seems odd not to, considering that in the other direction fasts overtake slows at Mirfield? I imagine there's a good reason the timetable is the way it is, but I can't for the life of me work out what that reason might be!

 

[pdq]

As one who changes from the TPE to York onto the 1659 stopper at HUD, I'm glad the stopper will be held for a few minutes in the case of minor delay. In yesterday's case, the 2nd TPE was about 20 late and was directly behind the MAN/YRK so holding it back behind the HUD/LDS would only have exacerbated the delay. I assume the Northern would still have been able to make its next journey from Leeds more or less on time even with its 10min delay.

The Dewsbury through line is sometimes used, but that tends to happen when the stopper is late and a TPE (non stop DEW) has caught up.


I've been on more TPEs delayed due to following a late running stopper (though whether that itself is late because of waiting for a late express previously isn't divulged...) than the opposite.

But I have heard a few guards on both services saying that 5tph TPE is stretching the infrastructure.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To be fair, some of the changes made at the last TT change were a boon- the Leeds and Wakefield stoppers being separated by more than 5 minutes at HUD for example. I suppose that once the wires are up and we have perhaps 317s/319s/321s on the stoppers and some new-fangled Desiro City derivatives on the fasts, the improved acceleration will make things easier. With hindsight though, perhaps the increase in frequency should have been held back until then with more 6-car running instead.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe it'll be easier to do 6tph as the idea is the all-stops service between Manchester and Huddersfield will be withdrawn then 4/6 trains will do Victoria-Leeds with only a call at Huddersfield and 2/6 trains will do Piccadilly-Leeds making a total of 5 calls.

 

[D6975]

A few years ago the through line at Dewsbury was used once an hour during the daytime, a fast used to overtake a Hud-Lds. I know because I specifically did one of the fasts scheduled to do this to ensure that I got the line in. A recast of the timetable (in 2011?) saw it not scheduled for use as overtaking, but still used by the fasts that don't stop at Dews.
I suspect it will start happening again regularly when electrification comes.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Maybe it'll be easier to do 6tph as the idea is the all-stops service between Manchester and Huddersfield will be withdrawn then 4/6 trains will do Victoria-Leeds with only a call at Huddersfield and 2/6 trains will do Piccadilly-Leeds making a total of 5 calls.

I was under the impression that that solution was provisionally a temporary measure prior to electrification being completed. In any case the Leeds-Huddersfield stopper is AFAIK not being dropped, yet this section is busier in places than west of HUD, with the Wakefield, Manchester via Brighouse, and GC services also running in places.
I'm hoping that the semi-fasts you mention might have a couple of extra calls east of Huddersfield added, for example Batley and Mirfield... Though as I understand it, there's a difference of opinion between Metro and DfT on that front!

 

[yorksrob]

I was waiting at Dewsbury recently and saw two expresses use the through line in the space of half an hour.

 

[northwichcat]

I was under the impression that that solution was provisionally a temporary measure prior to electrification being completed.

I'm under the impression the solution could remain post-TPE electrification. Network Rail say a path would be available for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper post-TPE electrification with the disclaimer if demand exists for one.

I'm hoping that the semi-fasts you mention might have a couple of extra calls east of Huddersfield added, for example Batley and Mirfield... Though as I understand it, there's a difference of opinion between Metro and DfT on that front!

With the semi-fasts likely forming Selby/Hull services it might be adding too many stops to them might not go down that well with Hull City Council.

 

[47802]

Personally I think having 5 or 6 fast trains an hour is crazy anyway 4 trains an hour except in the peaks seems more reasonable to me which more 6 car trains if required.

 

[northwichcat]

Personally I think having 5 or 6 fast trains an hour is crazy anyway 4 trains an hour except in the peaks seems more reasonable to me which more 6 car trains if required.

And what service pattern do you propose? 3tph between Manchester/Huddersfield and York can't give a nice clock-face pattern if you retain a direct Manchester-Hull service.

 

[47802]

I sure a half hourly service is adequate between York and Manchester and there are other services between Leeds and York. In fact a half hourly service between Leeds and Manchester would be satisfactory if the trains had sufficient capacity. The pre May timetable was OK, the current timetable with the extra random to Victoria could be described as the silly season

 

[northwichcat]

I sure a half hourly service is adequate between York and Manchester and there are other services between Leeds and York. In fact a half hourly service between Leeds and Manchester would be satisfactory if the trains had sufficient capacity

Well if you're proposing significant service cuts I'm sure you could easily find trains that are long enough as you'll lose a significant number of passengers. A high frequency of service helps with connections to/from stations on less frequent routes e.g. you don't need to spend 28 minutes at Leeds if you're travelling between Harrogate and Manchester.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was waiting at Dewsbury recently and saw two expresses use the through line in the space of half an hour.

Lots of services use the fast line eastbound, but they very rarely use it while another service is in the platform, as an overtaking opportunity. This leads to what's happening right now- the Selby is delayed by at least 10mins, with the following stopper therefore being held back at Huddersfield platform 4 for over 20 minutes. Though the Selby does call at Dewsbury (where I am right now) so it wouldn't be able to overtake there.

EDIT: I'm now wondering what's happening at Huddersfield, as the PIS at Dewsbury is saying next service Leeds (Northern) but with no known arrival time... :roll:

EDIT 2: Well, I'm partly to blame for not finding out sooner on this occasion, as I had my headphones in, but Northern have had to cancel through no fault of their own, so I hope TPE will cover any penalties they've incurred!

 

[pdq]

Points failure at Mirfield tonight. I baled of at Hud and am on the bus to Batley, just as the trains started moving again.

 

[northwichcat]

but Northern have had to cancel through no fault of their own, so I hope TPE will cover any penalties they've incurred!

Just checked and what happened was a points failure left the 15:22 Liverpool-Scarborough service stranded on platform 8 at Huddersfield, which meant the Selby service had to arrive at platform 4 at Huddersfield but couldn't go in to that platform until the Northern service to Wigan had left. Then the delayed Selby service couldn't continue Eastbound until National Rail gave the OK. So Network Rail are responsible for compensating both TPE and Northern for the points failure - TPE are not to blame.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just checked and what happened was a points failure left the 15:22 Liverpool-Scarborough service stranded on platform 8 at Huddersfield, which meant the Selby service had to arrive at platform 4 at Huddersfield but couldn't go in to that platform until the Northern service to Wigan had left. Then the delayed Selby service couldn't continue Eastbound until National Rail gave the OK. So Network Rail are responsible for compensating both TPE and Northern for the points failure - TPE are not to blame.

Yeah, I realised that with pdq's post above... Just goes to show though, that the extra platform(s) at HUD can't come quickly enough! A 4th track between Heaton Lodge and Thornhill junctions would make a huge difference too, as it would provide an extra overtaking opportunity for Eastbound services.

 

[Welshman]

As you know, there used to be four tracks between Heaton Lodge and Thornhill Junctions [2 serving Mirfield station and two passing round the back. But that meant painfully-low speed restrictions [I seem to remember 20mph] at Heaton Lodge towards Huddersfield and Thornhill towards Leeds.

The present set-up of three tracks, whilst reducing capacity, has meant that speed limits can be significantly raised. I think re-instating a fourth track would be counter-productive, as that would mean a return to lower speeds, particularly over those junctions.

 

[deltic08]

Well if you're proposing significant service cuts I'm sure you could easily find trains that are long enough as you'll lose a significant number of passengers. A high frequency of service helps with connections to/from stations on less frequent routes e.g. you don't need to spend 28 minutes at Leeds if you're travelling between Harrogate and Manchester.

Thank you for your concern, but if Northallerton-Harrogate reinstatement comes about then Harrogate could have through trains to Manchester by diverting one Newcastle-Liverpool service this way out of the two-per-hour proposed post electrification. As this way is 15 miles shorter than via York there would be no time penalty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As you know, there used to be four tracks between Heaton Lodge and Thornhill Junctions [2 serving Mirfield station and two passing round the back. But that meant painfully-low speed restrictions [I seem to remember 20mph] at Heaton Lodge towards Huddersfield and Thornhill towards Leeds.

The present set-up of three tracks, whilst reducing capacity, has meant that speed limits can be significantly raised. I think re-instating a fourth track would be counter-productive, as that would mean a return to lower speeds, particularly over those junctions.

No it wouldn't. Four tracking is possible from just east of Ravensthorpe station all the way to Huddersfield paired by direction but Ravensthorpe, Mirfield and Deighton stations would need rebuilding/resiting. The dog-leg around the island platform at Mirfield is a handicap to higher speed at this point and needs removing.

 

[Welshman]

I still think re-instating an extra line to the trackbed at Heaton Lodge Junction[or 2 if the present underpass for eastbound trains is not reinstated to double track], would mean lower speeds, unless you're thinking about widening the trackbed.

But then I suppose if you're talking megabucks to do that and resite/rebuild Ravensthorpe, Mirfield and Deighton stations, then anything's possible.

 

[northwichcat]

Thank you for your concern, but if Northallerton-Harrogate reinstatement comes about then Harrogate could have through trains to Manchester by diverting one Newcastle-Liverpool service this way out of the two-per-hour proposed post electrification. As this way is 15 miles shorter than via York there would be no time penalty.

Harrogate-Manchester was just one example involving a change at Leeds. You wouldn't be able to give Manchester direct services to every place in Yorkshire than someone from the North West might want to visit, as well as giving Leeds direct services to every place in the North West that someone from Yorkshire might want to visit but having good connections doesn't make the train an unattractive option if there isn't a direct service between the two places you want.

 

[deltic08]

Harrogate-Manchester was just one example involving a change at Leeds. You wouldn't be able to give Manchester direct services to every place in Yorkshire than someone from the North West might want to visit, as well as giving Leeds direct services to every place in the North West that someone from Yorkshire might want to visit but having good connections doesn't make the train an unattractive option if there isn't a direct service between the two places you want.

Your "every place on Yorkshire" is nonsense. This is substituting One Yorkshire station for another on a proposed two trains per hour frequency Liverpool-Newcastle service. Who is to say Leeds-York has the capacity for an extra service per hour post 2018?

 

[BurtonM]

Delays are certainly rife - down at Stalybridge aside from the old problem of the Northern stopper being incapable of running to time, by the time it reaches here, this now causes the Liverpool service a mere four minutes behind it to be delayed too - it used to be that the Liverpool service could pass the stopper en route but this is no longer the case. The Piccadilly services ex-Hull also seem to be delayed by about ten minutes whenever I go to use them.

 

[ianhr]

As I have argued on here many times nothing is going to improve until more infrastructure is put in.

There are some people on here who think the ever increasing high frequency interurban tramway type service, with overcrowded 2 and 3 car DMUs (pretending to be 'Inter-City') which hardly ever run to time, is a great success and popular with the passengers. I think it is unfit for purpose.
In the short term there should be a maximum of 3 or 4 fast/semi-fast tph, but they should ALL be 6 car between Liverpool/MIA-York or 4 car Manchester-Hull. Attach/detach one unit at York for anywhere farther North or East. Only one unit out of 2 should be reservable, the basic need is for local or regional turn up and go regular passengers to/from work in the major population centres, including those from local stations, e.g. Mirfield, Marsden, Greenfield etc. TPE should find the extra stock by cutting back on frequency and their ambitions to serve Newcastle, there is little demand for journeys from Newcastle to west of the Pennines, and there is already over provision of good quality trains York-Newcastle. Make them change at York and concentrate on the core route where overcrowding and unreliabilty is worst.

When money can be found: 4 track Thornhill Jct - Heaton Lodge & Marsden - Diggle, add an UP loop at Batley to balance the DOWN loop at Dewsbury(there is plenty of space on the east side on the old GNR line), 3 track Heaton Lodge - Huddersfield (with one reversible line), create a turn back north of Greenfield on the Delph branch formation. None of these would need land purchase or demolition of property. Ideally Thornhill Jct should be grade separated but this would be more expensive. Mirfield station would need rebuilding to allow platforms on all 4 tracks and get rid of the curve around the wide island platform. Batley station would need some alteration. Along with electrification this would allow a more RELIABLE service to run with adequate frequencies of both fast and stopping trains, fasts could overtake and there would be some capacity to recover from late running. Electrification alone with the present infrastructure and timetable (which is what is currently intended) will improve nothing apart from passenger environment and air quality.

 

[northwichcat]

Your "every place on Yorkshire" is nonsense. This is substituting One Yorkshire station for another on a proposed two trains per hour frequency Liverpool-Newcastle service. Who is to say Leeds-York has the capacity for an extra service per hour post 2018?

Not one word of that post makes sense.

I was originally saying 61653 HTAFC's idea of reducing the frequency of Manchester-Leeds with longer trains to improve reliability wouldn't make sense as people make onward connections. I gave Harrogate as an example but it was not intended as the only possible example.

In response you say it's possible to give Harrogate a direct service to Manchester and I said it's not possible for every station in Yorkshire to have direct service to Manchester. You've now said that's nonsense. So maybe you can produce a timetable showing how every station in Yorkshire can have direct Manchester services? How many new lines and portion workings are you proposing?

Manchester-York is 4tph currently - no extra path between Leeds and York is required to change a Middlesbrough train to a Newcastle train or to terminate the Scarborough train at York. The extra service would be Manchester-Selby, which doesn't affect York directly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not one word of that post makes sense.

I was originally saying 61653 HTAFC's idea of reducing the frequency of Manchester-Leeds with longer trains to improve reliability wouldn't make sense as people make onward connections. I gave Harrogate as an example but it was not intended as the only possible example.

In response you say it's possible to give Harrogate a direct service to Manchester and I said it's not possible for every station in Yorkshire to have direct service to Manchester. You've now said that's nonsense. So maybe you can produce a timetable showing how every station in Yorkshire can have direct Manchester services? How many new lines and portion workings are you proposing?

Manchester-York is 4tph currently - no extra path between Leeds and York is required to change a Middlesbrough train to a Newcastle train or to terminate the Scarborough train at York. The extra service would be Manchester-Selby, which doesn't affect York directly.

Just a small point, my intention was not to permanently switch the focus of 'how to add capacity' from frequency to train length. Just that the increase to 5/6tph perhaps should be delayed until electrification is completed, with the improved acceleration it will bring. Additionally perhaps the few points along the route where overtaking can take place aren't being used as efficiently as they could be (disclaimer: I'm no expert!), the loops at Dewsbury (Eastbound) and Marsden (Westbound) in particular.

 

[deltic08]

Not one word of that post makes sense.

I was originally saying 61653 HTAFC's idea of reducing the frequency of Manchester-Leeds with longer trains to improve reliability wouldn't make sense as people make onward connections. I gave Harrogate as an example but it was not intended as the only possible example.

In response you say it's possible to give Harrogate a direct service to Manchester and I said it's not possible for every station in Yorkshire to have direct service to Manchester. You've now said that's nonsense. So maybe you can produce a timetable showing how every station in Yorkshire can have direct Manchester services? How many new lines and portion workings are you proposing?

Manchester-York is 4tph currently - no extra path between Leeds and York is required to change a Middlesbrough train to a Newcastle train or to terminate the Scarborough train at York. The extra service would be Manchester-Selby, which doesn't affect York directly.

Then I will try and spell it out for you. Most contributors think 6TPE tph on this route is overprovision without more infrastructure installation. I think 4tph is the maximum but extend train length to 2x3-car units. This will allow a Manchester-Huddersfield, Huddersfield-Leeds and Leeds-York Northern stopping service to operate between express TPE.

I suggested that when the Northallerton-Harrogate route is reinstated, one of the two Liverpool-Newcastle trains per hour proposed post 2018 could travel this way giving Harrogate a through service to Liverpool and Newcastle.

To maintain only 4tph over the core section trains would have to be portion worked joining/splitting at Leeds. I think we all agree that Scarboro' will not be electrified and will become an extension of York-Blackpool. Middlesboro' is also doubtful and may become a XC destination or part of a York-Teesside Northern service.

Post electrification and reinstatement of a Harrogate through route, the possibilities are:
1. XX00 Liverpool-York/Newcastle* splitting Leeds
2. XX15 MIA-York/Hull** splitting Leeds
3. XX30 Liverpool-York/Newcastle* splitting Leeds
4. XX45 MIA-York/Hull** splitting Leeds
* routed via Harrogate to Northallerton and Newcastle
** stopping additionally at Stalybridge and Dewsbury

This is not providing the whole of Yorkshire with a service to Liverpool.

 

[northwichcat]

Then I will try and spell it out for you. Most contributors think 6TPE tph on this route is overprovision without more infrastructure installation. I think 4tph is the maximum but extend train length to 2x3-car units. This will allow a Manchester-Huddersfield, Huddersfield-Leeds and Leeds-York Northern stopping service to operate between express TPE.

I suggested that when the Northallerton-Harrogate route is reinstated, one of the two Liverpool-Newcastle trains per hour proposed post 2018 could travel this way giving Harrogate a through service to Liverpool and Newcastle.

To maintain only 4tph over the core section trains would have to be portion worked joining/splitting at Leeds. I think we all agree that Scarboro' will not be electrified and will become an extension of York-Blackpool. Middlesboro' is also doubtful and may become a XC destination or part of a York-Teesside Northern service.

Post electrification and reinstatement of a Harrogate through route, the possibilities are:
1. XX00 Liverpool-York/Newcastle* splitting Leeds
2. XX15 MIA-York/Hull** splitting Leeds
3. XX30 Liverpool-York/Newcastle* splitting Leeds
4. XX45 MIA-York/Hull** splitting Leeds
* routed via Harrogate to Northallerton and Newcastle
** stopping additionally at Stalybridge and Dewsbury

This is not providing the whole of Yorkshire with a service to Liverpool.

You've tried to gloss over your omission in that York has a total of 4 direct Manchester services an hour already (as well as the hourly Piccadilly-Hull service) - there is no need for an extra Leeds-York path to run 6tph on North TPE. There's also no need for an extra Manchester-Huddersfield path given the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will go, so it's just between Huddersfield and Selby that an extra path is required. If a path can't be found on between Huddersfield and Selby than sending services via Harrogate will be of no use - it will only slow down what are supposed to be Intercity style services.

What you have to remember about 6tph on North TPE - the idea is for Victoria to get North TPE services as well as Piccadilly, not for Piccadilly to lose them at the expense of Victoria gaining them. While Victoria will gain more services the majority of people changing trains will still need to use Piccadilly.

Middlesbrough has never seriously been considered as an alternative XC destination. I suggested it could work if Liverpool-Newcastle went to 2tph a couple of years back and people have been saying it will happen since. Unfortunately, I don't have any control the franchise specifications so can't make it happen! The franchise spec for the next EC franchise includes the option for some direct services to Middlesbrough but DfT and Network Rail have never said anything about Middlesbrough being included in XC.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I've been on more TPEs delayed due to following a late running stopper (though whether that itself is late because of waiting for a late express previously isn't divulged...) than the opposite.

But I have heard a few guards on both services saying that 5tph TPE is stretching the infrastructure.

There was one Saturday earlier this year when due to engineering works between Halifax and Bradford there were two extra Calder Valley trains per hour running fast from Brighouse to Leeds as well as the existing stopper. So 7tph plus 2 stoppers between Mirfield and Leeds, with no problems I saw.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There was one Saturday earlier this year when due to engineering works between Halifax and Bradford there were two extra Calder Valley trains per hour running fast from Brighouse to Leeds as well as the existing stopper. So 7tph plus 2 stoppers between Mirfield and Leeds, with no problems I saw.

It is of course possible that the full planned frequency of services between Manchester and Leeds, including the assorted stoppers and semi fasts, will often run smoothly with minimal disruption... BUT:
The current infrastructure leaves very little flexibility to recover if things go wrong. In particular between Mirfield and Thornhill junction, the bi-directional middle line must be a huge pinch-point, being used for all Westbound services from the Dewsbury direction and all Eastbound services from Healey Mills and Wakefield.
Demand at Batley in particular is I imagine being significantly suppressed by only having 1tph to Huddersfield, although at the moment a convenient connection from the MCV service at Dewsbury does help, albeit only during the daytime.
As I said earlier, the use of overtaking loops could be better, the Dewsbury one in particular hardly gets any use compared to the one in the opposite direction at Mirfield, which on Saturday lunchtime had both a GC 180 at the platform and the Victoria 158 I'd changed from at Dewsbury a little further towards Heaton Lodge. The Dewsbury loop is rather short though, so that might limit its use.
The improved acceleration of EMUs should make things run more smoothly, and whatever stock the locals get (I'm hoping for 317s or 321s!) they should be more reliable at least... Though the Brighouse and Wakefield services will still be diesels and probably the very same diesels. In particular the pacers (along with overworked infrastructure) will still be the weak link that will cause things to go awry, I fear...

 

[wellhouse]

I sure a half hourly service is adequate between York and Manchester and there are other services between Leeds and York. In fact a half hourly service between Leeds and Manchester would be satisfactory if the trains had sufficient capacity. The pre May timetable was OK, the current timetable with the extra random to Victoria could be described as the silly season

Silly Season indeed.

At Hudderfield the interval between services now ranges from 6 to 19 minutes, so while there may be more capacity every hour, it does not correspond to an increased frequency.

Paths are precious, and the TPE service provision must not be at the expense of stopping services. The High Fare charged fro the section between Marsden and Greenfield through Standedge Tunnel artificially suppresses demand, and were the anomaly rectified, increased traffic would easily justify 2 stoppers per hour. (it is already busy with the Greater Manchester area)

THe RUS proposal to increase frequency was built around the existing 3-car Class 185 diesel fleet, but with electrification on the way, it makes far more sense to run 6-car trains through the core, with or without services joining and splitting at Manchester and Leeds. The TPE stations have the platforms already.