Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

[Geeves]

This is the map I have been looking at for a few years, I am unsure if its currently still the finished plan

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/trans-pennine-route-upgrade-takes-shape

Looks to me like the slow line trains can come and go without affecting any trains on P5 thankfully

 

[Narrowgauge725]

So to me the best thing to refer to if you are wanting to know the future for Huddersfield is this presentation Better layouts for a better railway - James Hodge. This is set to start at the explanation of what the looked at and decided on

 

[superkev]

Re Baker viaduct. The latest Youtube shows most of the precast decking segments in place with just the River and canal section to do.
Some people have speculated an additional surface deck will be cast on top but I'm not so sure.
There's a usefull description at https://www.severfield.com/projects/baker-viaduct-transpennine-route-upgrade. Heres an extract "The decks are predominantly precast, with some in-situ elements introduced to navigate site-specific geometry".
I wonder if the if the rails fasten directly to the deck or the usual ballast, sleepers.
K

 

[chrisjackson]

There will be no addiional deck surface cast on top, the holes in the slabs will be filled to connect the steel beams to the concrete slabs and to join the ocncrete units together. The track will be the usual ballast and sleepers on top of the deck.

 

[superkev]

There will be no addiional deck surface cast on top, the holes in the slabs will be filled to connect the steel beams to the concrete slabs and to join the ocncrete units together. The track will be the usual ballast and sleepers on top of the deck.

Thanks, almost ready for the track then.
To me then the only remaining obstructions to completing the fast tracks look to be the Ravensthorpe flyover box, and demolition of Leeds road old bridge. Perhaps there more.
K

 

[bigbigcheese]

I think the most we get is six trains per hour at platforms 2, 3, 4, 5 (the other two being bays). That feels sufficient to me!

The Wikipedia page mentions P7 (and splitting the existing island in two - oh, the hilarity!) but it was never part of the TWAO (document NR15A).

It still makes no sense to me - even though it's shown in that document - that the fast eastbound services will cross to new P4, then cross the slow line to reach the fast one. The track through 2, 3, 4 and 5 is paired by direction, not speed. Yet, coming out of the tunnel into P3 will be slightly quicker than going into new P5 (no curve to negotiate) and you exit into the fast line. Perhaps that's why I work in comms, not planning...

If there's 4 fasts using P2 & P4, three terminators using P3 and P6, that leaves P5 to pick up the semi-fasts (two in each direction). But according to the track diagram (Figure 4.1.3b: Proposed schematic layout), you can only right-line run towards Marsden from platforms 2, 3 & 4. Which suggests that the semi-fasts will also use P2 & P4, with P5 and P6 turned over to wholly local, stopping services from the east.

I suspect, but have no way of confirming, that it's due to the fact that there's more space to the east for conflict avoidance during disruption than to the west.

You only have two tracks going into the tunnels to the west, whereas to the east you get four tracks. Therefore in order for trains to be able to get out of the way ASAP when travelling east they split into P4/5(/3) as required with P4 being the main option for fast and P5 for slow. The same occurs in reverse for queuing to get into the tunnels at P2/3(/4) as required.