North TPE May 2014 proposed timetable

[Waverley125]

ok, even if you make it Selby & Brough only, you still have lots of places that can't get served on express services, and can't get a good service on stoppers.

 

[Max]

Indeed, Brough is a significant railhead for many people in the west-Hull villages and has good facilities including a booking office and large car park. Services should be enhanced if anything, not cut.

 

[tbtc]

The most optimum solution, therefore, is to run a 3-tier service, catering for both end-to-end demand, currently harmed by lack of capacity and a long journey time, and demand for fast services from intermediate destinations into the major centres.

That sounds nice, but it would mean trebling the number of Leeds - Hull services.

Bearing in mind that if(*) the line is electrified then the EMUs running on it should be roughly twice the capacity of the two coach 170s that currently run many/most Leeds - Hull services, and you are looking at a massive increase that cannot be justified.

What we need to do is sort out the "Local" stations east of Leeds (would it be more appropriate to "skip stop" on a few of these, to avoid one stopper clogging up a busy two-track railway?) and then use Selby as a "hub" (if the Hull - York service goes hourly, as has been suggested, and the Hull - London service is improved, as has been suggested, then there ought to be scope for Selby to be used as a connection on "slow" Leeds services that would terminate there).

(* - if it isn't then this debate about increasing services is academic)

 

[YorkshireBear]

That sounds nice, but it would mean trebling the number of Leeds - Hull services.

Bearing in mind that if(*) the line is electrified then the EMUs running on it should be roughly twice the capacity of the two coach 170s that currently run many/most Leeds - Hull services, and you are looking at a massive increase that cannot be justified.

What we need to do is sort out the "Local" stations east of Leeds (would it be more appropriate to "skip stop" on a few of these, to avoid one stopper clogging up a busy two-track railway?) and then use Selby as a "hub" (if the Hull - York service goes hourly, as has been suggested, and the Hull - London service is improved, as has been suggested, then there ought to be scope for Selby to be used as a connection on "slow" Leeds services that would terminate there).

(* - if it isn't then this debate about increasing services is academic)

I think theres room to put in the centre tracks at cross gates that could be an option? I think there are large local volumes on the east leeds commuter stations, so using an EMU to selby would help compared to the current poor acceleration deaccleration of the 142s and 158s (158s are good but not great at start stop services)

 

[tbtc]

I think theres room to put in the centre tracks at cross gates that could be an option? I think there are large local volumes on the east leeds commuter stations, so using an EMU to selby would help compared to the current poor acceleration deaccleration of the 142s and 158s (158s are good but not great at start stop services)

Good point about Cross Gates.

There are certainly decent volumes from some of the stations on the line (Garforth especially, based on anecdotal evidence), but I've rarely seen people use the train to do short journeys like Garforth to East Garforth - rather than having one stopper trying to serve every station on the line (and taking up a few paths) I'd suggest some of the other services take the strain too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Good point about Cross Gates.

There are certainly decent volumes from some of the stations on the line (Garforth especially, based on anecdotal evidence), but I've rarely seen people use the train to do short journeys like Garforth to East Garforth - rather than having one stopper trying to serve every station on the line (and taking up a few paths) I'd suggest some of the other services take the strain too.

Well yes fair enough, but i do see it. Whenever im on the blackpool service to york i do see a lot of people do it. I am not saying it is the majority it isnt but i think its enough to not start splitting up all services. Id say split them in the peak because then its is 98% leeds to home.

 

[Waverley125]

restoring 4 lines from Marsh Lane to Cross Gates is one of the many necessary improvements on the East Leeds line. Doing so would allow overtaking of stoppers between city and CG.

Also, I don't think quadrupling the number of Leeds-Hull services is a problem. Given the demand for fast trains into both from Hessle, Ferriby, Gilberdyke, Howden etc. a 'semi fast' service would definitely work, and given the congestion on the eastern end of the M62, I think a 45 minute headline time from Leeds to Hull would also draw significantly.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think quadrupling the number of Leeds-Hull services is a problem

When the EMUs are roughly twice the length of the DMUs that they replaced, that does seem overkill to me.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also, I don't think quadrupling the number of Leeds-Hull services is a problem.

No I'm with the others on this, I think 4tph is overkill between Leeds and Hull, especially when we're talking 3/4-car EMUs that would give 12-16 carriages per hour between the two which just seems like a heck of a lot of extra capacity. 2tph seems much more reasonable to me, a fast with the same calling pattern as the existing TPE service and then a new stopper service that provides a regular service to the smaller stations on the line. You could perhaps run some peak time only semi-fasts but throughout most of the day I'd say the basic pattern between the two should be 2tph.

 

[Waverley125]

But this completely misses the point! The fast is already full and standing for much of the way between Leeds & Hull, hence why many of them have been doubled to 4 coaches, and is still very heavily loaded. A faster service with more capacity would certainly be a draw, please see the huge loadings on the eastern M62 at all times of day.

Also, I'm only suggesting that 2 of those trains will be used for end-to-end journeys. It's likely that the half-hourly stopper will, given that it calls at Hessle, Ferriby, Brough and Howden, get overtaken before it gets to Leeds.

 

[ainsworth74]

hence why many of them have been doubled to 4 coaches, and is still very heavily loaded.

Please point out to me all these doubled up services as I must keep missing them and would rather like to catch them in future! The only time's I've seen doubled up 170s are on weekends (and then only rarely), during the week in the high peak at Leeds every 170 I've ever seen has been a single unit.

Whilst we must be mindful of the 'sparks' effect that has occurred every time the wires have gone up somewhere I still think that 4tph off the bat is going to be overkill 2tph as the base service level with a few peak time extras seems a far more sensible service level (and of course there is no reason why it wouldn't be possible to procure more rolling stock to allow for a permanent increase to 3tph should demand warrant it).

 

[34D]

Another thought, there's a once a day Beverley-York which goes via Sherburn so would cover this off.

You could always ensure that one East Coast/ XC service uses it as a diversionary route (Doncaster - Hambleton - joins the South Milford line westbound - takes the chord to Sherburn - Church Fenton - York)?

Then again, one problem with diverting all Hull - York services straight up the ECML after Selby is that you'd need fast stock to time between the Intercity services (admittedly an EMU should be better at this than a 75mph DMU!)

Both eminently sensible and fair suggestions - though let's no dismiss completely keeping a few York-Sherburn-Hull through trains.

Can't see much difference using Hambleton instead of Sherburn - either way they are on the ECML from Colton (and still crossing to bay plat 1 at York).

the Leeds-Selby half-hourly stopper is, I think, necessary to tap into currently unused demand from East Leeds & its suburbs into Leeds. Certainly if you factor in new stops at Thorpe Willoughby, Thorpe Park (P&R), Killingbeck and East End Park, a half-hourly service between Leeds & York/Selby will be required to give the necessary frequency of service at those stations.

Of the three proposed Leeds stations, I think Thorpe Park is realistically the only one likely to happen. The other two would be beset with vandalism problems due to their locations.

Leeds-Hull currently as a fast time is 55 minutes. Cut that down to just Selby, and you can probably make 50 minutes, if not 45 with EMU acceleration and an ability to run lighter trains at higher speeds over the line.

However, there are also several substantial settlements (Garforth, Howden, Gilberdyke, Brough, North Ferriby and Hessle) which can't be tacked onto an 'express' service, or onto an all-stopper to Leeds. The most optimum solution, therefore, is to run a 3-tier service, catering for both end-to-end demand, currently harmed by lack of capacity and a long journey time, and demand for fast services from intermediate destinations into the major centres.

Possibly another option could be all stations Leeds-Selby then non-stop Hull (hourly) and Leeds, Selby then all stations to Hull (also hourly), together potentially with Man-Leeds then non-stop Brough and Hull (hourly, yes omitting Selby).

What we need to do is sort out the "Local" stations east of Leeds (would it be more appropriate to "skip stop" on a few of these, to avoid one stopper clogging up a busy two-track railway?) and then use Selby as a "hub" (if the Hull - York service goes hourly, as has been suggested, and the Hull - London service is improved, as has been suggested, then there ought to be scope for Selby to be used as a connection on "slow" Leeds services that would terminate there).

I think theres room to put in the centre tracks at cross gates that could be an option? I think there are large local volumes on the east leeds commuter stations, so using an EMU to selby would help compared to the current poor acceleration deaccleration of the 142s and 158s (158s are good but not great at start stop services)

restoring 4 lines from Marsh Lane to Cross Gates is one of the many necessary improvements on the East Leeds line. Doing so would allow overtaking of stoppers between city and CG.

Cross Gates did have centre tracks until I think the 1960s. If passing facilities were considered necessary, I don't know that cross gates is the right place - potentially Thorpe Park or the (rumoured) remodelled Micklefield may be better.

I'm 90% sure that Marsh Lane to CrossGates was never four track (I have lived in the area all my life bar 5 years down south).

However, let's imagine the following departures from Leeds:
Xx00 fast to Selby
Xx02 stopper to Selby
Xx10 fast to York
Xx12 stopper to York (can get out the way at Church Fenton/Ulleskelf)
Xx20 fast to Selby

I'm assuming that 8 mins to Micklefield junction is sufficient for 3 (or 4) stops versus non stop.

 

[pdq]

Please point out to me all these doubled up services as I must keep missing them and would rather like to catch them in future! The only time's I've seen doubled up .170s are on weekends (and then only rarely), during the week in the high peak at Leeds every 170 I've ever seen has been a single unit.

I don't know about any others, but the 1642 from Piccadilly to Hull (1738 from Leeds) is nearly always 4 carriages, and the 0836 arrival from Hull (dep 0637) is usually a 3 car 185.

 

[D1009]

Please point out to me all these doubled up services as I must keep missing them and would rather like to catch them in future! The only time's I've seen doubled up 170s are on weekends (and then only rarely), during the week in the high peak at Leeds every 170 I've ever seen has been a single unit.

SX trains normally 2x2 car 170

0737 HUL MAN 0942 MAN HUL
0736 MAN HUL
1440 HUL MAN 1642 MAN HUL 1859 HUL LDS

 

[YorkshireBear]

SX trains normally 2x2 car 170

0737 HUL MAN 0942 MAN HUL
0736 MAN HUL
1440 HUL MAN 1642 MAN HUL 1859 HUL LDS

Not a lot unfortunately. Will be more once the 170s are removed from south TPE

 

[northwichcat]

Not a lot unfortunately. Will be more once the 170s are removed from south TPE

Based on the TPE revised application to ORR there won't be more 170s on Manchester-Hull as 170s will also be used on the new Manchester Airport to York service.

 

[IanXC]

Both eminently sensible and fair suggestions - though let's no dismiss completely keeping a few York-Sherburn-Hull through trains.

Can't see much difference using Hambleton instead of Sherburn - either way they are on the ECML from Colton (and still crossing to bay plat 1 at York).

Depending on the particular path theres about 15 minutes difference between the 2 routes.

It really depends whether a case can be made for wiring via Sherburn, if not Hull-York via Sherburn is a very substantial case of diesel under the wires. The other factor to consider is the proximity of South Milford station to Sherburn, and the service levels that may or may not be provided there.

 

[Anvil1984]

I think the case can be made for Church Fenton to Gascoigne Wood to have wires.

a) It would allow mre services to run on the Hull - York line, the single line section on Hamleton Jn which then crosses the ECML hampers capacity on this. It is a single line on Sherbrun Curve but in the long run it will be easier to double this curve than the Hambleton curve.

b) Sherburn is growing in terms of passenger numbers steadily so an increase in service quality would be welcome

c) this is slightly tenuous but it allows ror an extra electrfied small diversion for the ECML if you combine the line down Sherburn being electrified with Hambleton South being wired up to

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The plan is for 5tph:
1. Liverpool to Newcastle via Chat Moss and Victoria
2. Liverpool to Scarborough via Warrington
3. Airport to York
4. Airport to Middlesbrough
5. Piccadilly to Hull

There are expected to be changes to the timetable over the following few years.

Looking at the North-East to North-West service provision for 2014, stated above, why not have:-

Middlesbrough to Liverpool (via Manchester Victoria and Chat Moss)
Newcastle to Manchester Airport

Would the proposals as mooted, be able to be changed, prior to the granting of the new franchise?

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the North-East to North-West service provision for 2014, stated above, why not have:-

Middlesbrough to Liverpool (via Manchester Victoria and Chat Moss)
Newcastle to Manchester Airport

Would the proposals as mooted, be able to be changed, prior to the granting of the new franchise?

There's political reasons involved. DfT have announced how there will be a fast Liverpool-Newcastle service giving a time of 3 hours with Manchester-Liverpool possible in under 35 minutes and Manchester-Leeds possible in under 50 minutes.

If I remember correctly didn't you say previously that your wife takes advantage of the direct Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service that you are saying should change?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

If I remember correctly didn't you say previously that your wife takes advantage of the direct Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service that you are saying should change?

Durham service wasn't it?

 

[Anvil1984]

Depending on the particular path theres about 15 minutes difference between the 2 routes.

.

I would say 10 mins difference tops on journey time. The 1344 does York to Hull via Sherburn in less than an hour it may be timetabled to arrive at 1452 but as today it usually arrives at about 1447 and thats using a 142!! so if it was wired less than an hour is certainly possible

 

[IanXC]

I would say 10 mins difference tops on journey time. The 1344 does York to Hull via Sherburn in less than an hour it may be timetabled to arrive at 1452 but as today it usually arrives at about 1447 and thats using a 142!! so if it was wired less than an hour is certainly possible

Ah thats good to know. Its some time since I have been that way in the Hull to York direction, and by the time I'm coming home I'm not really watching the time!

Presuming theres no extra power feeds required, on that basis I'd support electrification via Sherburn.

 

[Nym]

Ah thats good to know. Its some time since I have been that way in the Hull to York direction, and by the time I'm coming home I'm not really watching the time!

Presuming theres no extra power feeds required, on that basis I'd support electrification via Sherburn.

Even if additional feeds are required, the're in a rather handy part of the national grid to get some juice from.

If it where intergrated into the inital project, it would proberbly be the case that the sites of feeders wouldn't change, but they may need to be slightly larger to accomadate Sherburn. And if possible, Castleford.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Durham service wasn't it?

You are most observant....and totally correct..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I remember correctly didn't you say previously that your wife takes advantage of the direct Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service that you are saying should change?

I think she would find that Durham is only featured on a Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough service on "fantasy" threads that surface on this forum from time to time....

 

[northwichcat]

I think she would find that Durham is only featured on a Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough service on "fantasy" threads that surface on this forum from time to time....

I'm not referring to Durham! You previously mentioned here wanting to get to Thirsk or Northallerton on a TPE strike day and she didn't like the idea of changing at both Leeds and York instead of catching the direct train. I remember it being either Thirsk or Northallerton because the alternative involved using Grand Central north of York.

 

[Gareth]

Looking at the North-East to North-West service provision for 2014, stated above, why not have:-

Middlesbrough to Liverpool (via Manchester Victoria and Chat Moss)
Newcastle to Manchester Airport

Why that way round? What's so superior about that as opposed to Middlesbrough-Manc Airport & Newcastle-Liverpool?

 

[Waverley125]

an obvious set of TPE North routes

1) Newcastle-Liverpool (Chester le Street, Durham, Darlington, York, Leeds, Huddersfield, Manchester Victoria, St Helens Junction)

2) Liverpool-Hull (St Helens Junction, Newton le Willows, Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, Garforth, Selby, Brough)

3) Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough (Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, Garforth, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby)

4) Manchester Airport-Newcastle (Piccadilly, Oxford Rd, Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester le Street)

5) Holyhead-Hull (Bangor, Llandudno Junction, Rhyl, Chester, Runcorn East, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, Selby, Brough)

6) Shrewsbury-Scarborough (Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Piccadilly, Oxford Rd, Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Malton, Seamer)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No Leeds call on the Newcastle-Liverpool train and no calls at Dewsbury whatsoever?

 

[Waverley125]

Leeds instated, obviously a typo. And yes, no Dewsbury or Stalybridge calls, all being dropped and replaced with semi-fast Leeds-Piccadilly services on a calling pattern something like:

Morley
Dewsbury
Mirfield
Huddersfield
Slaithwaite
Marsden
Greenfield
Mossley
Stalybridge
Piccadilly