• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Leeds Station Improvement

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,895
Location
Leeds
Not possible - With the current timetable they are at Leeds at the same time.

Pants. Then again, given the number of times they're delayed arriving... 8-)

Leeds 1st was built to a price. Nevertheless the new bridge is far better than the underpass it replaced. I guess no one thought to design the thing for a tripling of passengers. Or they didn't have the money. Clogging it up with retail doesn't help much.

The whole footbridge is odd with lifts in the middle... until you consider that the southern entrance was supposed to be part of Leeds 1st, cut to reduce costs. Would love to see it widened somehow, and with down escalators, but would guess that the lift shafts are the determining factor given that the station is on arches over a river. Sadly, Network Rail earns quite a bit from the retail, even with high rents. Apart from Bagel Nash are all the others national chains?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
They've only just built the trainshed. Rather than replacing it again, build some new stations.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
Personally any new station built just outside of Leeds City should be built as a turnback facillity, hence why if Methley is ever rebuilt its business case should also include being used as a turnback, the same appiles for Marsh Lane, Seacroft or Seacroft Parkway (if ever built by using a section of the old Wetherby line) and White Rose, etc. As by having turnbacks at the next station out from Leeds City would help with capacity problems.

Going by Wikipedia Leeds had a station called Royal Gardens that was located between City and Burley Park, I wonder where that was located?
 

GoneSouth

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2018
Messages
770
I wouldn't say no to a glass roof though as it'll brighten up the platforms with natural light, maybe the developers could stick with that and widen the main footbridge wilst they're at it. Owt else will simply get in the way such as retail units or planters.
What I hated about the last redevelopment was that although the new roof did include glazing, it was all North facing and just didn’t let any light in.

The old roof was dirty and blocked out all natural light, the new one blocked it out by design. Hopefully next time they will allow us some sunlight!
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,718
Location
North
This comes up every few years. The first plan was for East Leeds Parkway near Micklefield, handy for the A1(M). Then there's the station at Thorpe Park to serve businesses and the new housing on the old Barnbow site, which might not come until electrification happens. But then one of Garforth or East Garforth might have to close, or they'd need to four-track. So who knows? Marsh Lane as a station has no business case; but as a turnback facility it might (although you'd hold everything up while units re-cross the tracks, unless you built a dive-under or flyover)...
No it wasn't. The first plan was in 1989 with four new stations between Leeds and Cross Gates (two each side of Neville Hill) and reinstating part of the Wetherby line to a P&R station on the A64 York-Leeds road operated by Pacers on the BradfordFS/Skipton/Ilkley corridors extended across-city.
The study showed that the line would have to be requadrupled to Cross Gates as four new stations would clog up the system on two tracks. The study gave the approval for reopening stations at Penda's Way, Scholes and P&R station.
Approval of Leeds NW electrification killed the project as beyond Neville Hill would have to be electrified at the expense of Leeds Metro who were not prepared to finance it. As a result, Leeds withdrew trackbed protection of this part of the Wetherby line in 2001 and now houses will obliterate the trackbed. That's logical thinking for you.
East Leeds Parkway at Micklefield was the next best thing as it is the last/first station in West Yorkshire and that is now replaced by Thorpe Park Parkway which is connected to Leeds East Development of 7,000 houses by a 4-mile £100m road instead of a station or stations bang in the middle of these houses.
Leeds City Council could not plan a party in a brewery successfully.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
They've only just built the trainshed. Rather than replacing it again, build some new stations.
Twenty years ago now and it'll be around for at least another 10 even if everything goes to plan. The old trainshed had only been in 30 odd years when they replaced it
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
Personally any new station built just outside of Leeds City should be built as a turnback facillity, hence why if Methley is ever rebuilt its business case should also include being used as a turnback, the same appiles for Marsh Lane, Seacroft or Seacroft Parkway (if ever built by using a section of the old Wetherby line) and White Rose, etc. As by having turnbacks at the next station out from Leeds City would help with capacity problems.

Going by Wikipedia Leeds had a station called Royal Gardens that was located between City and Burley Park, I wonder where that was located?

I can just about see the point of a turnback on the York line, but what's the point of a turnback at Methley or white rose? How does that help with capacity?
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,975
Location
Hope Valley
Me too, I don't think they are in danger of falling down.

It is probably PR spin on the part of NR.
Those who think that Midland Railway canopies are an easy fit with modern electrification clearances might like to take a trip to Kettering at the moment!

The (listed) station roof has had to be largely dismantled at huge expense, the remains currently being propped up by oodles of scaffolding. I am led to believe that 'truncated replicas' will be re-installed in due course.

The remaining Leeds fragment had lost all architectural context. If folk wanted to keep a bit they could have re-erected it outside as a taxi queue shelter or something, a bit like BR did at Kentish Town when we were electrifying St Pancras-Bedford back in 1978 (a fascinating project recalled from my early career in various other threads from time to time).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Those who think that Midland Railway canopies are an easy fit with modern electrification clearances might like to take a trip to Kettering at the moment!

The (listed) station roof has had to be largely dismantled at huge expense, the remains currently being propped up by oodles of scaffolding. I am led to believe that 'truncated replicas' will be re-installed in due course.

The remaining Leeds fragment had lost all architectural context. If folk wanted to keep a bit they could have re-erected it outside as a taxi queue shelter or something, a bit like BR did at Kentish Town when we were electrifying St Pancras-Bedford back in 1978 (a fascinating project recalled from my early career in various other threads from time to time).

Well, there's a whole discussion to be had about 'modern electrification clearances' as opposed to the fairly modern electrification clearances that have co-existed with the Midland railway canopy quite happily since 1989 without zapping anyone.

Perhaps this is really about our regulatory authorities failing to renew our own long established electrification standards and doing their bit to make electrification unaffordable.

I dread to think what hideous abomination will be in place next time I venture through Kettering.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,975
Location
Hope Valley
Well, there's a whole discussion to be had about 'modern electrification clearances' as opposed to the fairly modern electrification clearances that have co-existed with the Midland railway canopy quite happily since 1989 without zapping anyone.
(SNIP)
Sorry, Rob, but even in 1978 various surviving Midland canopies at places like Kentish Town, Radlett and Bedford had to go before the wires could go up. I had to deal with a lot of the vitriolic correspondence from civic amenity groups, MPs, etc.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Sorry, Rob, but even in 1978 various surviving Midland canopies at places like Kentish Town, Radlett and Bedford had to go before the wires could go up. I had to deal with a lot of the vitriolic correspondence from civic amenity groups, MPs, etc.

But our lovely canopy on platform 1 at Leeds (platform W for older travellers) has been next to the wires for over thirty years. It is clearly a perfectly safe design for OLE.
 

Gadget88

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2013
Messages
811
I was at Leeds the other day the main entrance looks a bit nicer but that’s about it not much else has changed.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,675
Location
Another planet...
But our lovely canopy on platform 1 at Leeds (platform W for older travellers) has been next to the wires for over thirty years. It is clearly a perfectly safe design for OLE.
Has it really been wired for 30 years? I'm not so sure. At the time of ECML electrification what is now platform 1 was not in public use, it was the parcels area. Not all areas were wired initially, including platform 12 (now 15) and the parcels area.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Has it really been wired for 30 years? I'm not so sure. At the time of ECML electrification what is now platform 1 was not in public use, it was the parcels area. Not all areas were wired initially, including platform 12 (now 15) and the parcels area.

You have a point.

I only moved to Leeds in '99, so I can only personally remember catching 308's from that platform in 99/01, so I can only vouch for twenty years. But I still think that twenty years is good enough to confirm its safety.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,675
Location
Another planet...
You have a point.

I only moved to Leeds in '99, so I can only personally remember catching 308's from that platform in 99/01, so I can only vouch for twenty years. But I still think that twenty years is good enough to confirm its safety.
That platform was wired when it reopened as W I believe. For a few years it was out on a limb until the "Leeds 1st" project added two extra platforms on the former sidings between W and (old) P1.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,895
Location
Leeds
No it wasn't. The first plan was in 1989 with four new stations between Leeds and Cross Gates (two each side of Neville Hill) and reinstating part of the Wetherby line to a P&R station on the A64 York-Leeds road operated by Pacers on the BradfordFS/Skipton/Ilkley corridors extended across-city.

That's a bit before my time, professionally-speaking. I do dimly recall reading RailPlans from the late 1980s that promised things such as a station at Osmondthorpe. Things'll be tight if they don't four-track between Leeds and around Micklefield way when the route is electrified. Then again, the only plans I've seen a consultation for are Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe, so we must be years off any solution.
 

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,536
I don’t know what the extent of the plans are, but it’s a shame they couldn’t rip it all out and start again with the bays, so all 6 of them all went all the way to the end.

It’s a right hotchpotch, Platform 3 in particular is ridiculous.

I bet Platform alterations at peak times cause havoc, as there are quite long distances to get from some platforms to another in this area, and many involve tight ramps and steps to get round the ends.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,088
I bet Platform alterations at peak times cause havoc, as there are quite long distances to get from some platforms to another in this area, and many involve tight ramps and steps to get round the ends.
You're not wrong there!

Especially when there is also a service with no platform allocated and there is a crowd of people at the base of P3/4 to fight your way through.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,675
Location
Another planet...
With hindsight, the new footbridge should have had a section bridging the lower-numbered bays to make interchanges easier... but it would have added a fair bit to the overall budget and might have made the addition of platform zero more complicated.

Just as that footbridge should have been kept clear of retail units, and had staircases and escalators on both sides to ease congestion.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,928
I don’t think the retail units are a particular problem, it’s the position of them, if they were up against the back window, with the lifts there too, they’d impair passenger flow a lot less, but I imagine it might not do a great deal for weight distribution.

I’ve no issue with having them full stop either, I can imagine the potential income of putting them there went a great deal to justifying the expense of building a new footbridge instead of just sticking with the lousy old subway.
 

ASharpe

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2013
Messages
1,000
Location
West Yorkshire
With hindsight, the new footbridge should have had a section bridging the lower-numbered bays to make interchanges easier...

I really don't think there is enough space on the low numbered platforms for stairs, escalators and lifts. And if there was the walk to platform 1A would be much further (I'm not missing it during these works).

But without a doubt the stairs and escalators are not suitable for a station that busy.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,675
Location
Another planet...
I really don't think there is enough space on the low numbered platforms for stairs, escalators and lifts. And if there was the walk to platform 1A would be much further (I'm not missing it during these works).

But without a doubt the stairs and escalators are not suitable for a station that busy.
You're probably right about the lack of space. Though I don't see how it would make the walk longer from the bridge to the country end of P1, as it would negate having to dogleg down the escalator and round the back of the buffer stops.
 

Wharfe106

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2019
Messages
50
Location
Wharfedale
With hindsight, the new footbridge should have had a section bridging the lower-numbered bays to make interchanges easier... but it would have added a fair bit to the overall budget and might have made the addition of platform zero more complicated.

Just as that footbridge should have been kept clear of retail units, and had staircases and escalators on both sides to ease congestion.
When 'Leeds 1st' was designed around the year 2000 it was the intention that the bridge would span the bay platforms, with a descent down onto 'W', later platform 1, as London trains were to depart from there, IIRC
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,895
Location
Leeds
When 'Leeds 1st' was designed around the year 2000 it was the intention that the bridge would span the bay platforms, with a descent down onto 'W', later platform 1, as London trains were to depart from there, IIRC
Somewhere at home, in a box buried under other boxes, I might have some of the Leeds 1st plans - I'll have a look sometime. The London bit doesn't sound right though, as they use C and D at West End; Platform 1 (W/6) is on A and B. I think the North of London Eurostars that GNER hired used to stable there overnight, which was why the platform was extended slightly (now removed). Being 14 coaches plus loco/DVT long there wasn't much space for them elsewhere!
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,071
Somewhere at home, in a box buried under other boxes, I might have some of the Leeds 1st plans - I'll have a look sometime. The London bit doesn't sound right though, as they use C and D at West End; Platform 1 (W/6) is on A and B. I think the North of London Eurostars that GNER hired used to stable there overnight, which was why the platform was extended slightly (now removed). Being 14 coaches plus loco/DVT long there wasn't much space for them elsewhere!
I seem to remember that part of the justification for platforms 2&3 (and possibly W in the first place) was to allow trains to move over from platform 5 and make space for the London train there. I don't remember anybody ever suggesting that the London trains should go all the way over to W, although my memory of the time was a bit hazy at the time, and by now I sometimes forget I spent 10 years living in Leeds at all
 

Halifaxlad

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
1,379
Location
The White Rose County
That's horrible canopy extension is on its way out tonight! Glad to see the back of it now praying that the Midland one will be saved. Got to say it's great to see this comming along even if its only one more platform. IMG_20200303_231018.jpg
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Somewhere at home, in a box buried under other boxes, I might have some of the Leeds 1st plans - I'll have a look sometime. The London bit doesn't sound right though, as they use C and D at West End; Platform 1 (W/6) is on A and B. I think the North of London Eurostars that GNER hired used to stable there overnight, which was why the platform was extended slightly (now removed). Being 14 coaches plus loco/DVT long there wasn't much space for them elsewhere!

I remember catching a White rose set from platform 1 early one morning.
 

Top