Capacity problems Leeds

hrobertson1 said:

If im honest, I actually don't think Leeds to skipton and the Shipley triangle routes are generally that busy, I mean there's always a fair few seats left over even at peak times - so it isn't like everyone is squashed together - like the service in peak times to Lancaster from Leeds, on a 142/144 sometimes.

Click to expand...

I've commuted in the South-east and on these services. The volumes may be different but the density is much the same. 6 cars now. With platform extensions.

quantinghome said:

I've commuted in the South-east and on these services. The volumes may be different but the density is much the same. 6 cars now. With platform extensions.

Click to expand...

4 cars up here

hrobertson1 said:

If im honest, I actually don't think Leeds to skipton and the Shipley triangle routes are generally that busy, I mean there's always a fair few seats left over even at peak times - so it isn't like everyone is squashed together - like the service in peak times to Lancaster from Leeds, on a 142/144 sometimes.

Click to expand...

I’ll remember that next time there are 15 of us stood in a vestibule!

With regards to the Shipley Triangle, sorry for going off topic, is it actually possible to lengthen it to 6 car ?

Halifaxlad said:

With regards to the Shipley Triangle, sorry for going off topic, is it actually possible to lengthen it to 6 car ?

Click to expand...

Only platform 4 could be lengthened to 6 coach length. Platform 3 is already for east coast services but 1,2 and 5 can't be hence why the 331's have Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) fitted for when they run 2 sets together on the Leeds - Skipton services.

Northern do not help the capacity situation by the number of times they have trainsets lying idle in the station, sometimes waiting for a late running train crew, but other times for a scheduled extended layover.

TUC said:

Northern do not help the capacity situation by the number of times they have trainsets lying idle in the station, sometimes waiting for a late running train crew, but other times for a scheduled extended layover.

Click to expand...

We are going round in circles on this one. A major problem at Leeds is the virtual absence of accessible berthing sidings close to the station. Moving an empty set from the west end to Neville Hill (and back) would often consume far more capacity than it would release. What is Northern supposed to do in these circumstances?

Dr Hoo said:

We are going round in circles on this one. A major problem at Leeds is the virtual absence of accessible berthing sidings close to the station. Moving an empty set from the west end to Neville Hill (and back) would often consume far more capacity than it would release. What is Northern supposed to do in these circumstances?

Click to expand...

Indeed, Leeds' biggest problem is that the majority of siding capacity is on the wrong side of the station from where it is needed. This is not a new problem, prior to the last redesign there was one(?) siding available between P2-3 that was in regular use but often had services tripping up over each other. We will only know if P0 will help when it is completed, but I noted this afternoon that an arriving service from Harrogate used P6 shortly after an LNER service departed, where previously it used P4 just after a Carlisle service left. So the new timetable might include spreading out to use P6 a bit more when not occupied by LNER?

TUC said:

Northern do not help the capacity situation by the number of times they have trainsets lying idle in the station, sometimes waiting for a late running train crew, but other times for a scheduled extended layover.

Click to expand...

As in post #1....

Dr Hoo said:

We are going round in circles on this one. A major problem at Leeds is the virtual absence of accessible berthing sidings close to the station. Moving an empty set from the west end to Neville Hill (and back) would often consume far more capacity than it would release. What is Northern supposed to do in these circumstances?

Click to expand...

Well then how about laying a few sidings by Armley Jct ?



After all it did used to be sidings and one or two loops, from having a look at Old Maps. (https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/427899/433734/13/100431) Going by that you could easily get three, 300 meter long sidings in!

Bantamzen said:

So the new timetable might include spreading out to use P6 a bit more when not occupied by LNER?

Click to expand...

From my experience platform 6 is used by Northern a lot more now. There's often a Calder Valley and an Ilkley service going from there in the half hour when LNER don't require it

30907 said:

As in post #1....

Click to expand...

But I do wonder if there is more can be done in linking and inter-working of services to alleviate the issue.

I was on a service from Harrogate the other day and I noted some unused railway land between the river Aire and Wortley Junction. Perhaps some sidings could be put in at a fairly low cost to act as temporary stabling? Also avoids moves across the throat.

How far back is the new platform coming in towards the main entrance? Will it stop before the waiting room on platform one?

On a sour note, the blocking is still happening. Would you class 7.00pm as peak? A late running Harrogate blocked my Forster Square service for 10 minutes on platform one.

Interesting in two was a 2x 158 which I presume had just come off the Carlisle line.

TUC said:

But I do wonder if there is more can be done in linking and inter-working of services to alleviate the issue.

Click to expand...

How about combining this new ECML from Skipton with the Carlisle/Morecambe service ?

I have suggested this in another threat only to be met with criticism about the economic argument for LNER although my thoughts were to provide decent length trains upon the S&C.

Potentially it might even be possible to extend these services to Glasgow which is an aspiration of the 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Development Company' and the Friends Group.

Halifaxlad said:

How about combining this new ECML from Skipton with the Carlisle/Morecambe service ?

I have suggested this in another threat only to be met with criticism about the economic argument for LNER although my thoughts were to provide decent length trains upon the S&C.

Potentially it might even be possible to extend these services to Glasgow which is an aspiration of the 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Development Company' and the Friends Group.

Click to expand...

London - Leeds - Skipton - Settle - Carlisle? Really?

jayah said:

The problems at Leeds are common to a lot of other places north of Watford and the solution isn't to build a 12 track viaduct costing ££bn.

Too many tiny trains.

London gets the money because the trains are maxed out on length and height so you can only add capacity be removing seats, adding a second deck or digging new tunnels. This simply isn't true in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and others that are plagued by 2-3 coach micro trains.

Looking east, the off peak pattern is 9tph 4x TPE from York - 2x Newcastle, 1x, Scarborough, 1x Middlesbrough then a fast Hull, slow Selby, 2 more Northerns from York one fast, one slow and 1 XC.

This is not especially high density for a 2 line railway, but already far more than what is needed and not one of is them anything close to 'full length' - does Newcastle - Leeds really need 3tph and a fourth from Middlesbrough? The timetable needs what Gardeners World might call a rejuvenating prune

Click to expand...

Agreed - nine trains per hour at the eastern end is OTT - we'd be fine with half a dozen (four to York and a couple to Selby) *if* they were proper lengths.

Instead we increase the frequency (making services less reliable) by throwing more tiny trains onto infrastructure that can cope with longer trains (e.g. Northern recently doubled their Leeds - York frequency through Garforth by turning the Preston - Leeds - York - Leeds - Preston diagrams into Preston - Leeds - York - Leeds - York - Leeds -Preston diagrams (so there are now two short Northern DMUs per hour on that line between Leeds and York, when what we really need is all trains to be at least four coaches).

As we are seeing in/around places like Manchester/ Bradford though, politicians/representatives will always prefer new hourly services with a variety of destinations (which are therefore short services) instead of using resources to increase the length of existing services.

Places like London need additional infrastructure because there are only so many 200m+ long trains you can run on existing lines - places "up north" can generally cope with longer trains but instead we clog up lines with additional tiny ones.

jayah said:

This sounds a bit like the Southern entrance. It cost ££m but gets so little use it scarcely scratches the surface of the issue occuring around the main gateline. Opening the place up in the direction of Boar Lane would be far more effective.

Click to expand...

A proper entrance/exit near the eastern footbridge, linking it with the Brewery Tap etc, would be a great way to remove the current bottlenecks (and encourage people away from both the main entrance and the busy western footbridge)

markymark2000 said:

Leeds station doesn't seem like it is at capacity, i think it's just the track layout which makes it so hard for trains to get around eachother and a slight reluctance to use the split platforms. on 8, 9, 15 and 16. That could help with capacity if they called on and utilised the A/B platforms a little bit more. Passengers are happier in a station than sat outside.

Click to expand...

Agreed - we should have A/B platforms on all 200m+ platforms.

The track is generally fine, it's the complicated interworking of trains and service patterns, so that the throat has to be empty for a train getting from one side to the other (which we spent large sums of money avoiding at Manchester Piccadilly - the Scarborough to Liverpool service no longer crosses the full throat).

quantinghome said:

The overall strategy of cross-city services has long been advocated by Leeds CC and WYCA, with a turnback provided at Micklefield. This has now shifted to providing a new station at Thorpe Park, which will provide a similar function as your suggested station(s) at Scholes / Pendas Way. The turnback idea seems to have been dropped, presumably as NPR will provide separate fast and slow lines

Click to expand...

Thorpe Park makes a lot of sense - it'd also see commuters in both directions (given what an employment hub it is becoming) - so make more of a difference to roads.

jayah said:

Unfortunately the temptation is to ram even more 2-3 carriage trains down the same bottleneck and hope for the best

Click to expand...

Yes (sadly!)

beverleyonian said:

I am sure I saw a proposal related to the Transpennine route upgrade whereby Garforth and East Garforth stations would be replaced by a single four platform (or maybe four track with loops) station sited roughly in between them. There is no space for four tracks through the current Garforth station.

As a regular user of the line, somewhere for fast trains to pass the stoppers would be invaluable when services are running late. Currently stoppers can be held to allow fast trains to get a clear run, sometimes for ten minutes or more but even so fast trains can often crawl from Garforth to Micklefield. One less stop will help too. Furthermore if the Huddersfield to Leeds section is improved presentation times at Leeds ought to be more as per the timetable.

Similar things could be said about other lines in the area with a mix of services such as Leeds to Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of that but am in favour of it on all major lines into Leeds (shame there wasn't space at Kirkstall for this). Same would be great on the Wakefield Westgate line (especially as it'd mean the Leeds - Wakefield commuters wouldn't crowd onto the "stoppers" if they are overtaken at somewhere like Outwood)

Neptune said:

One solution could be for the Blackpool - York express and the future Leeds - Hull service to be routed via Castleford to partially relieve the real pinch-point between Leeds and Micklefield

Click to expand...

One problem is the lack of platform space for existing services on the Woodlesford line, so I'm not sure how running Hull services that way will help (given that we need any platform capacity for, e.g. Pontefract services)

hrobertson1 said:

If im honest, I actually don't think Leeds to skipton and the Shipley triangle routes are generally that busy, I mean there's always a fair few seats left over even at peak times - so it isn't like everyone is squashed together - like the service in peak times to Lancaster from Leeds, on a 142/144 sometimes.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't be running services like the Lancaster one all the way into Leeds at peak time, if it means a thirty/forty metre DMU taking up a path that an eighty+ metre EMU could be providing

There is a commuting need for the Lancaster - Leeds service though for passengers between Lancaster & Clapham (Giggleswick is close enough to Settle). Better usage would be to run it earlier and combine it with the early one from Carlisle at Hellifield or Skipton. Combine 2x2 car units and have a 4 car semi fast freeing the Lancaster path for a semi fast EMU from Skipton to Leeds.

Incoming services via Woodlesford can make as much progress as they want up until around the point where you can see the J Tomlinson building merchants from the window, then enjoy a 5-10 minute wait!

I can't believe some people don't believe Leeds is at capacity!

Imagine if everything was at least 6 cars!

Regarding Leeds over the long term: who thinks Leeds Central should be rebuilt ?

It would be ideal for Harrogate, Wharf Valley, Aire Valley and Bradford FS services!

Halifaxlad said:

I can't believe some people don't believe Leeds is at capacity!

Imagine if everything was at least 6 cars!

Regarding Leeds over the long term: who thinks Leeds Central should be rebuilt ?

It would be ideal for Harrogate, Wharf Valley, Aire Valley and Bradford FS services!

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the area around Leeds Central is earmarked for development already. The new buildings going up nearby are part of a new government hub that will see amongst others HMRC moving operations from places like Shipley, with talk of more operations going in further down the line. Given the reluctance of the current administration to invest in much needed projects in the north, a new station is completely off the cards.

Halifaxlad said:

I can't believe some people don't believe Leeds is at capacity!

Imagine if everything was at least 6 cars!

Regarding Leeds over the long term: who thinks Leeds Central should be rebuilt ?

It would be ideal for Harrogate, Wharf Valley, Aire Valley and Bradford FS services!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that there are now a lot of yuppie flats where Central used to be.

Neptune said:

There is a commuting need for the Lancaster - Leeds service though for passengers between Lancaster & Clapham (Giggleswick is close enough to Settle). Better usage would be to run it earlier and combine it with the early one from Carlisle at Hellifield or Skipton. Combine 2x2 car units and have a 4 car semi fast freeing the Lancaster path for a semi fast EMU from Skipton to Leeds.

Click to expand...

I agree. I certainly don't think cutting back the Lancasters to an irregular service would help things.

What I think may help would be if the section between Leeds and at least Crossgates was made bi-directional, at present if a Transpennine train or in recent cases a few TPE's are running late the common practise is to hold the Northern Stopper until the Expresses have gone through and it is not uncommon for the stopper to be held around 10 mins.
Making it bi-directional would allow the stopper to depart right time and the TPE's to overtake, and as to not completely block the line from York the disused sidings at Neville Hill could be used to allow trains from York to wait at Marsh Lane, only 2 signals outside Leeds, rather than waitinmg at Crossgates.
If that expense was not possible I would also put a through road in at Crossgates so TPE services could over take the stopping service as it waits in the station, this would be possible in both directions, not ideal but at least it would stop the Station at Leeds clogging up

Neptune said:

There is a commuting need for the Lancaster - Leeds service though for passengers between Lancaster & Clapham (Giggleswick is close enough to Settle). Better usage would be to run it earlier and combine it with the early one from Carlisle at Hellifield or Skipton. Combine 2x2 car units and have a 4 car semi fast freeing the Lancaster path for a semi fast EMU from Skipton to Leeds.

Click to expand...

The early Carlisle is booked 4 now and the Lancaster IIRC 3-144, which is adequate and the following Skipton emu isn't that busy. The 1725 ex LDS is a problem though. IF there were a spare emu ..

Meanwhile, in terms of platforms, I was in Frankfurt earlier today where the 24 or so terminal platforms seem to get about 1tph each ( admittedly on a holiday)...imagine working Leeds on that basis.

Neptune said:

There is a commuting need for the Lancaster - Leeds service though for passengers between Lancaster & Clapham (Giggleswick is close enough to Settle). Better usage would be to run it earlier and combine it with the early one from Carlisle at Hellifield or Skipton. Combine 2x2 car units and have a 4 car semi fast freeing the Lancaster path for a semi fast EMU from Skipton to Leeds.

Click to expand...

yorksrob said:

I agree. I certainly don't think cutting back the Lancasters to an irregular service would help things.

Click to expand...

It's comparing "nice to haves" with "essentials".

There might be three or four passengers at Giggleswick wanting to get into Leeds but that has to be seen against three or four hundred at stations further down the valley who could be soaked up by a full length EMU (four coach 333 or one day a six coach 331).

I'm all for combining the two "rural" services at Hellifield though, so that at least they provide a reasonable length of train on one of the scarce paths through Shipley - given how busy the line is we don't have the luxury of running all of these short trains just so small villages can all have direct services though.

43367 said:

What I think may help would be if the section between Leeds and at least Crossgates was made bi-directional, at present if a Transpennine train or in recent cases a few TPE's are running late the common practise is to hold the Northern Stopper until the Expresses have gone through and it is not uncommon for the stopper to be held around 10 mins.
Making it bi-directional would allow the stopper to depart right time and the TPE's to overtake, and as to not completely block the line from York the disused sidings at Neville Hill could be used to allow trains from York to wait at Marsh Lane, only 2 signals outside Leeds, rather than waitinmg at Crossgates.
If that expense was not possible I would also put a through road in at Crossgates so TPE services could over take the stopping service as it waits in the station, this would be possible in both directions, not ideal but at least it would stop the Station at Leeds clogging up

Click to expand...

I'm in favour of bi-di, I'm in favour of being able to overtake "stoppers" (whether that means a loop at Neville Hill or additional platforms at intermediate stations.

But I'd rather we focussed on removing some of the nine services per hour that run east of Leeds - there really is no need for that many short services. No wonder we get so much congestion.

30907 said:

The early Carlisle is booked 4 now and the Lancaster IIRC 3-144, which is adequate and the following Skipton emu isn't that busy. The 1725 ex LDS is a problem though. IF there were a spare emu ..

Click to expand...

A three coach 144 is broadly equivalent to a two coach 150 (given the short Pacer carriages), so around half a 333 (And a third of the proposed doubled up 331s) - I'd rather than a handful fo people from (e.g.) Giggleswick had to change at Skipton if it meant that the peak path was used by hundreds of additional commuters who wouldn't be able to fit onto the Pacer.

tbtc said:

It's comparing "nice to haves" with "essentials".

There might be three or four passengers at Giggleswick wanting to get into Leeds but that has to be seen against three or four hundred at stations further down the valley who could be soaked up by a full length EMU (four coach 333 or one day a six coach 331).

I'm all for combining the two "rural" services at Hellifield though, so that at least they provide a reasonable length of train on one of the scarce paths through Shipley - given how busy the line is we don't have the luxury of running all of these short trains just so small villages can all have direct services though.

Click to expand...

It's not just the villages though. The route gets quite a lot of through passengers these days (the majority whenever I'm on it). That said, combining with an S&C service could release a path as you say.

The new HMRC hub will see almost 6000 jobs moving into central Leeds, no commuter car parking, so rail increases inevitable from closing Shipley, Bradford, York, Sheffield etc, they currently have only a small office down Wellington Rd. Does central government bear any responsibility ?
The same policy nationally, concentrate in a few large cheap cities and close expensive town and small city offices in the name of efficiency.

What would be the time penalty for Settle and Lancaster line passengers if the two services were combine between Leeds and Skipton and vv?
Does the signalling at Skipton permit splitting and joining?

I'm guessing about 5 minutes for the Settle service assuming it leaves Skipton first and about 15 minutes for the Lancaster given the need to follow and the block section Skipton to Hellifield. Would that be an acceptable trade off to enable a couple more high capacity EMUs to operate along the Aire Valley in the peaks?

TheBigD said:

What would be the time penalty for Settle and Lancaster line passengers if the two services were combine between Leeds and Skipton and vv?
Does the signalling at Skipton permit splitting and joining?

I'm guessing about 5 minutes for the Settle service assuming it leaves Skipton first and about 15 minutes for the Lancaster given the need to follow and the block section Skipton to Hellifield. Would that be an acceptable trade off to enable a couple more high capacity EMUs to operate along the Aire Valley in the peaks?

Click to expand...

I've been on a train that's split at Skipton.

Halifaxlad said:

Regarding Leeds over the long term: who thinks Leeds Central should be rebuilt ?

Click to expand...

I don't. Leeds has a lot of connecting passengers and it would be a retrograde step to split services into two stations. The Hauptbahnhof concept works well and we shouldn't repeat the mistake of building multiple stations in city centres made by our railway pioneers.

Leeds station has room for a good 4 or 5 more platforms to the north up to the River Aire (the old Leeds Wellington site), and HS2 will add another 5-6 platforms. No one would be suggesting building a station on the Leeds Central site were it not for the fact there used to be a station there.