Todmorden Curve

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lancashire C C priorities (and the chance of them happening) could probably be ordered:

1. Todmorden
2. ELR commuter service
3. Burscough Curve
4. Kirkby-Skem Merseyrail extension
5. New heritage rail
6. Skipton

This posting was made on this thread on 20th May 2011. Fruition appears to be the case on item 1.

Has item 4 on this list now overtaken item 3 ?

 

[150222]

Why does the new curve at TOD need to be built on a new alignment? What is wrong with replacing like for like? If it's on the tight side fit it with a check rail. You're not gonna need to do much over 20 mph as it it. The crossover can be south of TOD station thus platform 2 would be bi-directional.

5tph through platform 2! Seriously?

 

[PR1Berske]

This posting was made on this thread on 20th May 2011. Fruition appears to be the case on item 1.

Has item 4 on this list now overtaken item 3 ?

1. Todmorden
2. ELR commuter service
3. Burscough Curve
4. Kirkby-Skem Merseyrail extension
5. New heritage rail
6. Skipton

1 is now underway

3 seems to be all but dead, to be honest. I think we all know what the coded messages mean.

4 seems to be more likely to happen in the long term (and this being northern England, that means 20+ years)

 

[John55]

1 is now underway

3 seems to be all but dead, to be honest. I think we all know what the coded messages mean.

4 seems to be more likely to happen in the long term (and this being northern England, that means 20+ years)

I have been following the Burscough Curve campaign since before most of the track was removed and am interested to know what the coded messages are. Could you elaborate?

 

[PR1Berske]

I have been following the Burscough Curve campaign since before most of the track was removed and am interested to know what the coded messages are. Could you elaborate?

I can't find the quotes at the moment, but in a wide ranging interview with RAIL, the spokesman from Lancashire CC was not entirely clear about the future of the scheme. He said something about the business case still being examined, which usually means, the paperwork has been put lower in the pile.

 

[John55]

I can't find the quotes at the moment, but in a wide ranging interview with RAIL, the spokesman from Lancashire CC was not entirely clear about the future of the scheme. He said something about the business case still being examined, which usually means, the paperwork has been put lower in the pile.

The quote on P70 of RAIL Feb 22nd was "........says the business case for even the most modest scheme does not give the required benefits". That is not coded it says it will not happen unless something changes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't find the quotes at the moment, but in a wide ranging interview with RAIL, the spokesman from Lancashire CC was not entirely clear about the future of the scheme. He said something about the business case still being examined, which usually means, the paperwork has been put lower in the pile.

The quote on P70 of RAIL, Feb 22nd was "........says the business case for even the most modest scheme does not give the required benefits". That is not coded it is really saying it will not happen unless something changes.

 

[John S2]

3 seems to be all but dead, to be honest. I think we all know what the coded messages mean.

I agree. 'The business case does not give the required benefits' is code for the fact that the County Council would prefer any available money to be wasted on road schemes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

4 seems to be more likely to happen in the long term (and this being northern England, that means 20+ years)

"4" being the proposed rail link to Skelmersdale....Is there any European Community classification for an area such as Skelmersdale, with the social housing that was constructed there, which would enable European Community part-funding of a rail link which Lancashire County Council could take into consideration in their deliberations on such a project.

 

[PR1Berske]

I agree. 'The business case does not give the required benefits' is code for the fact that the County Council would prefer any available money to be wasted on road schemes.

Indeed.

We really are cursed in Lancashire. A County Council that hates railways and a TOC which, erm, hates railways.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed.

We really are cursed in Lancashire. A County Council that hates railways and a TOC which, erm, hates railways.

Apart from the chord at Todmorden giving Burnley a direct service to Manchester (and Rochdale)...

...and all the electrification planned over the rest of the decade that involves Lancashire lines (and also electrification outside Lancashire which will give Lancashire EMU links to new places, like the line between Liverpool and Wigan, which will allow EMUs to run from Liverpool to Blackpool via Preston)...

...what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[Whistler40145]

Well, the Romans built some nice straight roads.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?o4y1cx

 

[WatcherZero]

Right through the middle of our town centres! and leaving us traffic nightmares centuries later, couldnt they have built bypasses too?
Problem is these roads cant be widened so are stuck in perpetual gridlock in rush hours.

 

[natureboy]

Because standards and safety margins have improved in the decades since it was removed. The original allignment doesnt meet modern codes.

These are nothing more than delaying tactics; excuses, and pretty lame ones at that. If the curve had been there all the time and had been in continuous use would these new rules mean it would have to be re-laid? I don't think so.
What about the curve into Carnforth from Wennington? And the curve leading off Crimple viaduct south of Harrogate? They're both pretty tight, but trains cope OK.
Honestly; it makes me want to spit blood when I here about all these so called 'modern standards'. What's next? Replace the Royal Albert Bridge over the Tamar just because it doesn't meet 'modern standards' - it's over 150 years old and will no doubt last for ever, because Brunel, an expert of the Victorian era, built it!
It's high time someone got their finger out and set to! :mad:

 

[YorkshireBear]

These are nothing more than delaying tactics; excuses, and pretty lame ones at that. If the curve had been there all the time and had been in continuous use would these new rules mean it would have to be re-laid? I don't think so.
What about the curve into Carnforth from Wennington? And the curve leading off Crimple viaduct south of Harrogate? They're both pretty tight, but trains cope OK.
Honestly; it makes me want to spit blood when I here about all these so called 'modern standards'. What's next? Replace the Royal Albert Bridge over the Tamar just because it doesn't meet 'modern standards' - it's over 150 years old and will no doubt last for ever, because Brunel, an expert of the Victorian era, built it!
It's high time someone got their finger out and set to! :mad:

I was under the impression that it was more due to the actually state fo the embankment rather than the radii of curve and due to this they decided to make the curve less tight rather than it being to do with the original radii of curve.
And if i am right i am glad they are doing it as while the victorians were good at building railways there knowledge of geotechnical issues was not great and thus a lot of the embankments and cuttings they made are not entirely stable. Better they do it this way make it stable and then it wont slip and cause ££££ of damage and a massive perlonged closure to fix it.

 

[tbtc]

These are nothing more than delaying tactics; excuses, and pretty lame ones at that. If the curve had been there all the time and had been in continuous use would these new rules mean it would have to be re-laid? I don't think so.What about the curve into Carnforth from Wennington? And the curve leading off Crimple viaduct south of Harrogate? They're both pretty tight, but trains cope OK.
Honestly; it makes me want to spit blood when I here about all these so called 'modern standards'. What's next? Replace the Royal Albert Bridge over the Tamar just because it doesn't meet 'modern standards' - it's over 150 years old and will no doubt last for ever, because Brunel, an expert of the Victorian era, built it!
It's high time someone got their finger out and set to! :mad:

Its the same way that we can have trains that are don't have full disabled access running around in 2012, with no Passenger Information Screens etc, yet all newly built trains have to conform to higher standards.

Similarly there are a lot of bits of infrastructure which wouldn't be allowed in today's regulations (look at the curves/ gradients on some stations). There was a thread on it a while ago - things that couldn't be built today.

 

[John55]

These are nothing more than delaying tactics; excuses, and pretty lame ones at that. If the curve had been there all the time and had been in continuous use would these new rules mean it would have to be re-laid? I don't think so.
What about the curve into Carnforth from Wennington? And the curve leading off Crimple viaduct south of Harrogate? They're both pretty tight, but trains cope OK.
Honestly; it makes me want to spit blood when I here about all these so called 'modern standards'. What's next? Replace the Royal Albert Bridge over the Tamar just because it doesn't meet 'modern standards' - it's over 150 years old and will no doubt last for ever, because Brunel, an expert of the Victorian era, built it!
It's high time someone got their finger out and set to! :mad:

A couple of points should be made here;

1 The awarding of the grant by the Government to allow the project to go ahead is the start of the detailed design work not the start of implementing the design on the ground. You don't commit to several man years of design effort for a project which is not certain to go ahead. Equally you don't let construction and manufacturing contracts until after the design is complete.

The expectation that if the line had remained in use nothing would need to be done is probably correct but of course there would have been 40 years of inspection and maintenance done which has not been done on that section of embankment.

2 Not all Victorian engineering was good. The famous structures which survive were well built and maintained but the ones that fell down or had to be replaced are largely forgotten apart form the Tay Bridge. The Royal Albert Bridge which Brunel built would have fallen down years ago or closed to all but the lightest traffic if the following generations hadn't significantly modified and strengthened the bridge successively over the years. In the highly unlikely event of the railway winning a contract to move tens of millions of tons of heavy freight across the Tamar I expect a new bridge would have to be built.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Oh, and "Kitson Wood" was the name of a block-post signal box about a mile uphill of Stansfield Hall and just one field away from our pre-1947 house. It allowed a second freight onbto the road to be "Got ready" whilst a first one was still climbing the bank.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As a boy with my parents I used to commute over the Todmorden West Curve every Saturday morning in the late 50s in transit from Burnley Manchester Road to Todmorden where my Dad had his office. We went back same route in the early afternoon on "The Blackpool". In those days the curve was double tracked, both roads check-railed, and (I think) the inner tighter track spawned a siding which crossed over the outer track into a fan of loco sidings inside the triangle. It was there that the Copy Pit bankers would wait for the next coal train from Yorks to Lancs. There would always be a couple simmering there when our train eased past and sometimes I would walk back to Stansfield Hall footbridge to watch them come squealing out to buffer up to the guards van of the goods, waiting at the foot of the bank. They were never coupled, they just pushed, and then dropped off at the summit at Copy Pit (we never called it that, it was "Windy Bridge" to us). Once dropped off, the banker (8Fs usually) would follow the departing goods slowly to the crossover, reverse and come clink-clanking back to Tod light engine, then ease over the FACING crossover (it's still there), take the west curve 'wrong road' and then take the siding, cross the 'right road' into the triangle and go back to sleep. I remembed also that there was an active 'coal drop' siding off the inner curve (I think - but it might have come off the Main) just beyond the signal box and on the very threshold of the viaduct. To come home, "The Blackpool" often started from "The Bay" - a buffer-stop platform on the Town side of the station - you can still see the supporting structure. On leaving, the train immediately crossed over onto the right line, then onto the viaduct, then onto the west curve. Just memories, but could be significant.

 

[Welshman]

Gosh - that brings back memories!

I remember as a child, travelling from Halifax on a steam-hauled Manchester service [ I think the 1.41pm from Halifax], and changing at Todmorden on to a Cravens dmu in the bay, waiting to go to Rose Grove and connecting from the Halifax train.

That train slowly followed the route you describe. I remember especially the Cravens dmu - it was one of what I now know to be a Rolls-Royce engined set with hydraulic transmission, and the large four-figure route indicator box. [class 113?]. I sat behind the driver, and was amazed that he didn't have to change gear!

It was my first and only trip on those units as they did not venture into West Yorkshire. I later learned they had a propensity to catch fire, and that they'd all been withdrawn by 1970.

 

[natureboy]

I was at Todmorden recently and I've seen the cleared embankment which is being prepared for the new curve.

Something that's been pointed out is the position for the trailing crossover. Placing it on the viaduct is possible, but not exactly easy. :-? I personally think it should go immediately south of the station; thus platform two would be bi-directional in similar fashion to Guide Bridge where Stockport trains (sorry train!) use one platform for both directions. With this in mind careful timetabling will need to be in place at Todmorden.

 

[L&Y Robert]

I was at Todmorden recently and I've seen the cleared embankment which is being prepared for the new curve.

Something that's been pointed out is the position for the trailing crossover. Placing it on the viaduct is possible, but not exactly easy. :-? I personally think it should go immediately south of the station; -

The Manchester end? Well, there used to be one there as well! There were two sidings on the 'hill' side of the line (i.e. not the canal side) reaching back towards Dobroyd level crossing, and there was a signal box controlling said crossover and access to the sidings. Empty coaching stock was sometimes stabled there, and many times I have sat on the hill above this layout, seen the tank engine, running light and bunker first, come back through the station, forward over the crossover, back into the siding to retrieve OUR train for Burnley. It waited there for the Manchester-Leeds to call, then eased out, as soon as the platform was clear, to collect connecting passengers. Had to get my skates on then!
Looking at Google Earth, there seems to be oodles of space to install a crossover between the station platforms and the start of the viaduct. There was one there once, as I have said. Dunno what the problem is!

 

[John55]

The Manchester end? Well, there used to be one there as well! There were two sidings on the 'hill' side of the line (i.e. not the canal side) reaching back towards Dobroyd level crossing, and there was a signal box controlling said crossover and access to the sidings. Empty coaching stock was sometimes stabled there, and many times I have sat on the hill above this layout, seen the tank engine, running light and bunker first, come back through the station, forward over the crossover, back into the siding to retrieve OUR train for Burnley. It waited there for the Manchester-Leeds to call, then eased out, as soon as the platform was clear, to collect connecting passengers. Had to get my skates on then!
Looking at Google Earth, there seems to be oodles of space to install a crossover between the station platforms and the start of the viaduct. There was one there once, as I have said. Dunno what the problem is!

From Google earth there is 55m from platform end to the viaduct. A random 20 mph crossover elsewhere is 75m long.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't know the proposed signalling layout - but a crossover within the overlap for any signal at the north end of the platform would be rather less flexible than one beyond the overlap.

 

[L&Y Robert]

From Google earth there is 55m from platform end to the viaduct. A random 20 mph crossover elsewhere is 75m long.

Thinking about it in the still of the night, I wondered why the crossover can't be located at the Leeds end of the viaduct. If the new West Curve is to be laid out to a competely fresh alignment, then it can be laid out to admit a trailing crossover on the Main after the junction turnout, but before the viaduct. What's wrong with that? It has the advantage too that no traffic would have to run "Wrong Road" over the arches, and the platforms at the station would serve traffic in the 'correct' direction.

Do you think that anybody on the Design and Engineering team reads this stuff that we write?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another point has occurred to me - the existing services Preston-Leeds could also call at Tod. It has been a sore point with the burghers of Tod (my sister is one of them) that they have to go to Hebden Bridge to use this service, and so, of course, they don't use it! (There was a time when there was a station at Stansfield Hall, at the Burnley end of the triangle, and that might be the reason why the facing crossover is such a long way up the line).
So: To Leeds, come off the new west curve, run wrong road over the arches, change ends in the station platform 2, and off to Leeds. Coming back, run into Tod station platform 1, change ends, run wrong road over the arches, take the crossover, then the west curve, and away up the hill to Burnley. How's that?

Is anybody in "Traffic" listening?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I doubt they are going to want to reverse.

 

[L&Y Robert]

I doubt they are going to want to reverse.

They'll reverse all right if it scoops up some traffic. Of course Tod - Leeds is already there, but Tod - Preston isn't. Interesting prtoposition - the westbound calls at Tod, but the eastbound doesn't!

 

[YorkshireBear]

They'll reverse all right if it scoops up some traffic. Of course Tod - Leeds is already there, but Tod - Preston isn't. Interesting prtoposition - the westbound calls at Tod, but the eastbound doesn't!

So you want people to be able to get from todmorden to preston but not be able to get back

Blackpool york is to me a TPE route and with tpe may have even less stops. I really dont think a reversal and extra station stop are a good idea for this service.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Do you think that anybody on the Design and Engineering team reads this stuff that we write?

Yes, we do . The crossover will go betwixt the single lead for the curve and the station. If it doesn't go there, all curve services would have to use the down platform, which is not going to help the line capacity one bit.

I doubt they are going to want to reverse.

Why would you reverse at Tod from any direction? if you were going to do it from Manchester you'd use the curve, and I suspect the business case relies on through services to Manchester, though where they go after Vic is a very good question. To Bolton, Blackburn and then to Tod seems a good idea. As to Preston - Tod (reverse) - Leeds, never, since both legs of this are (or will be) covered by other services.

I don't know the proposed signalling layout - but a crossover within the overlap for any signal at the north end of the platform would be rather less flexible than one beyond the overlap.

So far, the crossover is where it is because it isn't on the viaduct, a known problem structure. If you relocate it to the Bradford (Leeds) end of the viaduct it would be toe to toe with the turnout (and probably on a transition), neither of which are good for the maintenance chaps. To fix it, you'd push the turnout towards Leeds too, making for an even funnier geometry on the curve and (slightly possibly) shortening it so much that you can't stand a train on it clear at both ends.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Yes, we do . QUOTE]

Oh - that's nice to know. I'll be a bit more careful throwing ideas about from now on!!!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think the time penalty diverting YRK-BPN trains into Todmorden wouldn't be justified through the extra custom, especially as it would only be for the Fylde and Preston's real gain.

 

[Tomnick]

So far, the crossover is where it is because it isn't on the viaduct, a known problem structure. If you relocate it to the Bradford (Leeds) end of the viaduct it would be toe to toe with the turnout (and probably on a transition), neither of which are good for the maintenance chaps. To fix it, you'd push the turnout towards Leeds too, making for an even funnier geometry on the curve and (slightly possibly) shortening it so much that you can't stand a train on it clear at both ends.

Is the crossover planned to be between the viaduct and the station then, or Manchester side of the station? Sorry, not sure from the thread so far - I'd guessed from comments so far that it was definitely going on the viaduct (as unlikely as that sounded!)