17.26 Leeds Skipton

[61653 HTAFC]

I was on this service a couple of weeks ago. Absolutely crammed and had to stand by the doors, along with a bike and a pram,until Shipley. However there were still people with bags on seats who had to be asked to move them. And don't mention the fat man sat in the middle seat of 3, taking up the whole row...

Eric Pickles is from that neck of the woods, isn't he?

 

[backontrack]

York-Leeds via Harrogate services have been known as 'Burley Park' trains on the screens for years.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Leeds have always been good at showing "false" destinations for slower trains. The Calder Valley trains in the 90s sometimes used to extend to Liverpool as all-stations via Newton-le-Willows, so they were always shown as "Edge Hill" on the monitors.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I noticed that once when I wanted to go from Leeds to York to clear track/stations they have the destination advertised as Poppleton. I get that it's probably so people don't jump on it by mistake and add an extra hour to their journey, but I'm sure it always used to be "York via Harrogate" but that obviously wasn't clear enough for some.

They seem to do that a lot nowadays, and not just at Leeds. The Great Northern route likes doing it - calling slow KGX-CBG trains as Foxton services, and the reverse as Finsbury Park. Interestingly the semi-fasts are "King's Cross via Stevenage".

 

[bluenoxid]

Interesting ideas, but from my experience shifting the times of a most loaded services will have little effect. In fact what would probably happen is that people would rush even more than before to get a 17:19 service, meaning a manic rush at the last few moments and resulting in more people trying to shoehorn themselves onto the last carriage. I'm afraid it is what it is, services along that route around the 17:00 mark are always going to be rammed. So either additional paths (and of course units / crews) need to found like your 16:40 to Keighley suggestion, or platform and unit lengthening needs to happen.

Train lengthening is probably the best suggestion, although a six car diesel is unlikely to be well received on an all electric route. The other option is to switch some services around and potentially send more Skipton bound and less Bradford bound with stops skipped up

Personally having used this service this week, I've found it busy but I move down into the centre of the carriage and stand to Saltaire.

 

[Grumpy]

Solution for this and other similar services in the area is to ask CAF to build some more trailers in order to create 5 car sets.

 

[AndyW33]

Lively perhaps, but I never had anything too exciting on them.

I don't mind the bins. We get a lot of them around Wakefield, but as you say, they suffer the design shortcomings of all the PEP derived stock - principally windows in the wrong places. Compared to the 333's, two loo's can be very good though!

PEP derived? Well, yes in the sense that they were built later than the 313/314/507/508 which actually are PEP derived designs, but 317/318/319/320/321/322/455 are part of the MK3 bodyshell family.

 

[yorksrob]

PEP derived? Well, yes in the sense that they were built later than the 313/314/507/508 which actually are PEP derived designs, but 317/318/319/320/321/322/455 are part of the MK3 bodyshell family.

I mean primarily in the sense of layout. I'm afraid that generation of rolling stock all looks the same to me.

 

[Amphora]

Shame be can't still have the old slam door 312s. You'd get a bit more space due there being 70+ doors! Elf n safety's gone a bit to far

 

[BantamMenace]

Solution for this and other similar services in the area is to ask CAF to build some more trailers in order to create 5 car sets.

I think that ship has long since sailed. Building 16 intermediate trailers for trains initially constructed 15 years ago would be incredibly expensive and offer few economies of scale.

A better solution would be to operate a 6-car railway on the AireWharfe lines and cascade the 333s to the Leeds to Selby, Huddersfield and both routes to York (via Garforth and Harrogate) once electrified.

Possibility of through working to free up bay platforms for the aforementioned 6-car units worth considering. Huddersfield - Selby via Leeds and a York circular out via Harrogate and back via Garforth the likely options.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think that ship has long since sailed. Building 16 intermediate trailers for trains initially constructed 15 years ago would be incredibly expensive and offer few economies of scale.

A better solution would be to operate a 6-car railway on the AireWharfe lines and cascade the 333s to the Leeds to Selby, Huddersfield and both routes to York (via Garforth and Harrogate) once electrified.

Possibility of through working to free up bay platforms for the aforementioned 6-car units worth considering. Huddersfield - Selby via Leeds and a York circular out via Harrogate and back via Garforth the likely options.

If Harrogate services and York via Garforth slows were combined, there would be the slight advantage of making use of the two East-facing bays at Leeds, which at present are underused. This could happen with diesels now, with say 153+155s leaving from the Wellington side and from the two East bays via Headingley and Garforth respectively. When the wires eventually go up, the Huddersfield stoppers could then be 333s running all-stops as far as Leeds, then semi-fast (calling Garforth and eventually East Leeds Parkway) to Selby or York. In the medium term the wires will be up from Leeds to York long before they're up through Dewsbury, so extending Airedale or preferably Doncaster (due to not having to cross quite as much of the Western throat, even less so if the Holbeck link was reopened) through to York would make sense on paper at least.
I've gone off topic a bit there, so bringing us back I think a skip-stop solution is going to be needed on the Skipton line, much like is planned for Leeds-Huddersfield.

 

[Grumpy]

I think that ship has long since sailed. Building 16 intermediate trailers for trains initially constructed 15 years ago would be incredibly expensive and offer few economies of scale.

A better solution would be to operate a 6-car railway on the AireWharfe lines and cascade the 333s to the Leeds to Selby, Huddersfield and both routes to York (via Garforth and Harrogate) once electrified.

Possibility of through working to free up bay platforms for the aforementioned 6-car units worth considering. Huddersfield - Selby via Leeds and a York circular out via Harrogate and back via Garforth the likely options.

I can understand your logic. I would argue that the 333's have probably another 25 year's life in them and buying 100 seat trailers, without driving cabs, toilets etc. should be the cheapest way of providing capacity. It wasn't a problem extending Pendolinos. I have no idea if CAF would be willing to build or the likely cost, however the design exists and they were willing to build a small batch for Heathrow Express. Also 5 car sets would probably need much less station modification than 6 cars.

There is a problem now which will get worse when Apperley and Kirkstall open. We cant wait till Harrogate via York is electrified-that might not happen for 15 years, if ever.

 

[BantamMenace]

I can understand your logic. I would argue that the 333's have probably another 25 year's life in them and buying 100 seat trailers, without driving cabs, toilets etc. should be the cheapest way of providing capacity. It wasn't a problem extending Pendolinos. I have no idea if CAF would be willing to build or the likely cost, however the design exists and they were willing to build a small batch for Heathrow Express. Also 5 car sets would probably need much less station modification than 6 cars.

There is a problem now which will get worse when Apperley and Kirkstall open. We cant wait till Harrogate via York is electrified-that might not happen for 15 years, if ever.

Pendolino carriage order was for about 100 i think, 333s will only be 16 so i doubt CAF would be as accepting as Alstom.

I dont think any of the stations that are ready for 5 but are not ready for 6-car operation (with the exception of Bingley maybe) so if extending all the others it makes sense to go from 4 car to 6 car in one piece of work instead of extending all to 5-car and then in another say eight years, extend all again to 6-car. The cost of design and setting up a work site before actually purchasing any materials should make extension to 6-car the economic option instead of extension to 5-car and then on to 6-car in years after.

 

[darloscott]

Everything is so short sighted in the UK... 6-car would make more sense to accommodate growth especially with the two new stations feeding in more passengers onto already overcrowded services.
If they did go 6 car is there enough spare capacity in Leeds though?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If only the original plan for more 323s to operate Airedale and Wharfedale had been followed through... Not only would we have more of these high-quality, high-capacity units around, but perhaps the Hunslet works would have survived long enough to benefit from the post-privatisation boom in new train orders, and could even still be building new trains in Yorkshire today...

 

[Grumpy]

Pendolino carriage order was for about 100 i think, 333s will only be 16 so i doubt CAF would be as accepting as Alstom.

.

They were willing last time when the units were lengthened from 3 to 4 cars.
Adding another TSO would increase the seating from 350 to 450 which is obviously quite a hike

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They were willing last time when the units were lengthened from 3 to 4 cars.
Adding another TSO would increase the seating from 350 to 450 which is obviously quite a hike

Though that was only a few years after the original build. Getting on for 15 years now, so the cost will be higher as the tooling etc. will have to be reactivated. An extra trailer would also affect acceleration, and that's more of an issue on stopping services the 333s run than it does on the HEx 332s which simply shuttle back and forth between Paddington and Heathrow.

 

[BantamMenace]

Everything is so short sighted in the UK... 6-car would make more sense to accommodate growth especially with the two new stations feeding in more passengers onto already overcrowded services.
If they did go 6 car is there enough spare capacity in Leeds though?

Im not sure but that is why i suggested some through running to York/Selby when electrification allows.

I think the timescales for this would negate the need to contact CAF for additional trailers. Around the time we'd need 6-car units should be around the time the 319s, 321s and 322s are life expired so the 333s can be displaced to operate those services and the 6-car units can be new build. I dont think the AireWharfe lines could ever accommodate services longer than 6-car without a colossal rebuild at Shipley and major upgrade at Bingley so the new 6-car units could spend their entire 40 or so year life on those lines.

 

[ashworth]

The service beyond Settle Junction is quite scarse. They probably don't want people to be left on the platform with a two + hour wait due to the train being full of Skipton passengers (who have a much more frequent service).

It's actually even more important than that because unbelievably there is not another train even in another 2+ hours. The 1645 is the last train of the day that runs through to Lancaster and Morcambe.

It's not even late enough for people who finish work in Leeds at 5pm. The service is of little use to anyone from Giggleswick and beyond who wants to travel to and from Leeds to work because in the morning the first train doesn't arrive in Leeds until 0904. I'm sure with an earlier train into Leeds in the morning and a later return in the evening, plus a regular 2 hourly service, passenger numbers even on this sparsely populated route could rise significantly throughout the day. Perhaps the answer is a more regular Skipton to Lancaster service with a guaranteed cross platform change at Skipton.

 

[yorksrob]

It's actually even more important than that because unbelievably there is not another train even in another 2+ hours. The 1645 is the last train of the day that runs through to Lancaster and Morcambe.

It's not even late enough for people who finish work in Leeds at 5pm. The service is of little use to anyone from Giggleswick and beyond who wants to travel to and from Leeds to work because in the morning the first train doesn't arrive in Leeds until 0904. I'm sure with an earlier train into Leeds in the morning and a later return in the evening, plus a regular 2 hourly service, passenger numbers even on this sparsely populated route could rise significantly throughout the day. Perhaps the answer is a more regular Skipton to Lancaster service with a guaranteed cross platform change at Skipton.

Goodness, that is quite poor really. I hadn't noticed that as I'm usually coming back the other way at that time.

 

[30907]

It has been like that for a generation, and while the service needs improving, frankly I doübt there's a significant market for commuting Bentham to Leeds - and Clapham village is a good way from the station and just off the A65....

 

[yorksrob]

It has been like that for a generation, and while the service needs improving, frankly I doübt there's a significant market for commuting Bentham to Leeds - and Clapham village is a good way from the station and just off the A65....

I can imagine there might be a good market for people spending a day in Leeds shopping, for example though.

 

[BantamMenace]

An extreme example of blue sky thinking

What about making Hellifield the new Skipton with extended electrification and a complete new build of the station adding an island platform to the west of the current station, where the steam trains take on water, and a reintroduction of the southern facing bay suitable for 100m trains.

If the Cliteroe trains are then also extended to Hellifield this gives a vast range of new connections for people living either side of the pennines. Such as Blackburn to Aire valley stations much faster than a change at Leeds.

The construction of this could also coincide with major housing developments in Hellifield (good commute to Leeds, Bradford, Blackburn, Bolton and Manchester) and Gargrave (good commute to Leeds and Bradford).

(A similar range of connections could be achieved by the much talked about Colne-Skipton reopening)

 

[Grumpy]

The cost of design and setting up a work site before actually purchasing any materials should make extension to 6-car the economic option instead of extension to 5-car and then on to 6-car in years after.

Quite possibly. The trade off is the increased costs of extending from 5 to 6 at some point in future, against the possibility that (if done now) the further extension might not be required for many years during which you've tied up the money (which might be spent on better things in the short term).

Probably the most economical time to extend a platform (in terms of initial cost) is when it's being built. So what have our forward thinking project sponsors in local government specified for Kirkstall and Apperley?

 

[bluenoxid]

Will we be wanting to squander increased capacity stopping at stations when alternative services could better serve the stations.

 

[Grumpy]

The construction of this could also coincide with major housing developments in Hellifield (good commute to Leeds, Bradford, Blackburn, Bolton and Manchester) and Gargrave (good commute to Leeds and Bradford).

It always shocks me to see the Gargrave car park virtually empty. Then I look at what passes for a train service and have the answer. Similarly Hellifield. Some of the Carlisle services pass through Gargrave but sit at Skipton for 5 minutes.

Given the shortage of DMU's, surplus of EMU's, and crammed peak trains out of Leeds perhaps Northern should take on a couple more 321's and not run DMU's south of Skipton. Turn units from Lancaster/Carlisle round at Skipton (possibly saving a couple of units). This would necessitate some timetable tweaking but at the same time try to provide an hourly interval service through the day to stations between Skipton and Settle.

Through DMU's to Leeds would continue outside the peak.

 

[BantamMenace]

Will we be wanting to squander increased capacity stopping at stations when alternative services could better serve the stations.

Too many journeys that dont begin or end at Leeds or Bradford for that in my opinion. Plenty of people commute to Keighley, Saltaire and Shipley as well as a few to Crossflatts for the old Bradford and Bingley Building Society HQ and some to Bingley.

(For example my father commutes from Crossflatts to Saltaire to work in Salts Mill for one of the businesses based there)

 

[crehld]

An extreme example of blue sky thinking

Ok, I'll bite.

What about making Hellifield the new Skipton with extended electrification

Yes please Rather Utopian though.

and a complete new build of the station

Not going to happen given the station's listed status.

adding an island platform to the west of the current station, where the steam trains take on water, and a reintroduction of the southern facing bay suitable for 100m trains.

If the Cliteroe trains are then also extended to Hellifield this gives a vast range of new connections for people living either side of the pennines. Such as Blackburn to Aire valley stations much faster than a change at Leeds.

The construction of this could also coincide with major housing developments in Hellifield (good commute to Leeds, Bradford, Blackburn, Bolton and Manchester) and Gargrave (good commute to Leeds and Bradford).

I think you might be over stating the level of development that will be taking place in Hellifield and Gargrave (i.e. very limited). That said there are already existing markets for commuters to Leeds and many, from both Hellifield and Gargrave, do indeed take the train - it's much quicker than the car. And the cost is pretty reasonable too. There is also a potential market for extending the Clitheroe services - even if it were in the morning and evening peaks (several of my neighbours work in Blackburn and a couple even in Manchester). This wouldn't need a need island platform, or the reopening of the bay at Hellifield. It will, however, require something to be done about the line speed to make it an attractive offer. Hellifield to Clitheroe is painfully slow!

For what it's worth there was talk a while back about making Leeds to Carlisle / Lancaster hourly, with a split at Hellifield or Long Preston to make the most of tight paths down the Aire Valley (I understand this is one of the things stopping a more frequent service). It's a good idea and the demand is sufficient. But as with all things Northern it comes down to the available rolling stock issue. At least the Northern ITT has specified additional services, albeit with a rather long wait!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It always shocks me to see the Gargrave car park virtually empty.

Why would you drive to the station when it is no more than a 10 minute walk away in both places? There is no real car parking facilities at either station anyway.

Then I look at what passes for a train service and have the answer. Similarly Hellifield. Some of the Carlisle services pass through Gargrave but sit at Skipton for 5 minutes.

This is a problem and explains why the 1645 Leeds to Morecame is still often standing room only past Skipton and often beyond - you miss that train you've got a long wait until the next one!

Given the shortage of DMU's, surplus of EMU's, and crammed peak trains out of Leeds perhaps Northern should take on a couple more 321's and not run DMU's south of Skipton. Turn units from Lancaster/Carlisle round at Skipton (possibly saving a couple of units). This would necessitate some timetable tweaking but at the same time try to provide an hourly interval service through the day to stations between Skipton and Settle.

Through DMU's to Leeds would continue outside the peak.

As I mentioned there was talk (just talk mind) to overcome the Aire Valley capacity issue a while back by splitting Carlisle and Lancaster services at Hellifield or Long Preston (thereby only taking up one path instead of two), but it still hinges on available stock.

 

[yorksrob]

For what it's worth there was talk a while back about making Leeds to Carlisle / Lancaster hourly, with a split at Hellifield or Long Preston to make the most of tight paths down the Aire Valley (I understand this is one of the things stopping a more frequent service). It's a good idea and the demand is sufficient. But as with all things Northern it comes down to the available rolling stock issue. At least the Northern ITT has specified additional services, albeit with a rather long wait!

Would be nice to see something of the sort.

Perhaps if Lancaster couldn't support hourly, you could have split alternate Carlisle trains.

 

[BantamMenace]

Would be nice to see something of the sort.

Perhaps if Lancaster couldn't support hourly, you could have split alternate Carlisle trains.

Could potentially be hourly to Lancaster and then one hour extends to Morecambe and the other hour extends to Barrow in place of the current Lancaster to Barrow. This allows a new through journey from Leeds to Barrow.