Thanks for that. In regard to Thorpe Park Station, I’ve found an article from their development website proposing the date of the station opening.
thorpeparkleeds.com
I think the idea for the present Thorpe Park came after the suggested East Leeds Parkway (which was really just a way to clear trains away from Leeds Station by freeing up platform space) didn't happen. There wouldn't have been space in the timetable for both.
Four tracking definitely is not happening as part of TRU only passive provision in the construction of Thorpe Park Station. (Some bits of TRU may be passive provisioned too but not aware).
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway-photography.smugmug.com
railway-photography.smugmug.com
The station and its car park is planned there and in the foreground - I noticed on the way into Leeds the other day that all the OHLE piling was aside the existing 2 tracking, so they've definitely not created any provision for expansion. Whether piling for OHLE is particularly difficult or not I don't know, but I guess it's a little surprising that you wouldn't "do it once" - I guess there's expense in creating spans for 4 tracks if you're only using 2 for a while
Recent schemes have electrified 4-track sections with separate twin-track cantilevers on either side of the line where they could, rather than having portals right across all tracks. So if it ever was four-tracked, and if the existing tracks were far enough to one side to be out of the way of the new ones, then they would most likely just add more twin-track structures on the other side.
I will say this - the Series 1 TTCs do not have, have not had, and will not have the ability to bolt the booms together.
And no doubt there was extra expense in building the new road bridge to span a potential 4 tracks rather than just the 2 existing. On that occasion somebody showed some common sense.
Exactly. People are reading far too much into this. A quick look on an aerial map shows that there's space to the north (on the right side in the photo) and a housing estate to the south. Building two new tracks to one side of the current alignment has considerable efficiencies.
Nope. That end of the station is being used as a secondary means of fire escape. TRU want them gone too.
The plans are upthread, but I think the island platform is being slightly modified and there'll be 3 additional platforms (2 through and 1 Leeds-facing slow line bay) behind the current P3.
No doubt, but we are almost up to 10,000 posts on this particular thread and use of the 'search' function didn't immediately yield anything promising. So, where best to head off to?
I'm looking for them, but that's also why I outlined the headline changes.
Searching for "plan" in this thread gave me post #9532:
www.railforums.co.uk
I'm obliged. That's helpful. Fairly recent also!Searching for "plan" in this thread gave me post #9532:
Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates
Latest Sarah Bell YouTube shows track lifted in Huddersfield station. They didn't waste any time there! o_O Out of interest, does anyone have a track diagram for the 'interim' layout in the Hudderfield area from October onwards? (I've seen a few diagrams showing the proposed final layout in...
There is a crossover at the far end of the tunnel between the Branch and the westbound main line, so the Penistone Line will be able to use any of 1-4, assuming no further changes are made to the tracks further out.
