Capacity problems Leeds

[deltic08]

A new station close to Leeds Bus station/Minster, with a connecting covered footbridge would be beneficial to Leeds but the viaduct has to be widened to at least three tracks, preferably four, first to permit local cross city stopping trains to call. This would take some pressure off west end bay platforms by converting terminating trains into through trains with less station dwell time, but who is going to pay for all this new infrastructure to sort out overcrowding at Leeds?.

These cross city trains could terminate and turn round on the old Wetherby line beyond Scholes by the A64 as 10,000 houses are being built here but unfortunately Leeds City Council have no foresight and instead of future proofing the disused trackbed they propose to obliterate it by building houses across it. No wonder Leeds is the second most air polluted city in the UK 'cos the Council does not provide sufficient public transport for its needs relying on the internal combustion engine. 30-40 minutes from here by bus, train would be 10-15 minutes with stops at Scholes, Pendas Way, Cross Gates and Leeds Minster/Bus Station.

 

[markymark2000]

Is one issue the track layout for the north platforms at Leeds? You can't get into platform 6 from the A line and you can't get from P1-3 onto the B line without crossing the A line. A good thing to do in Leeds would also be mid platform points. Perhaps about 3/4 up platform 1, have a point over onto platform 2 and then the extreme end of platform 1 can have a small train which can sit there and not delay the rest of the services?

Also maybe a platform 0 at the extreme end in the long stay car park and then make the car park multi level so no spaces are lost? It only needs to be about 120m so then the local trains can use it.

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.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is one issue the track layout for the north platforms at Leeds? You can't get into platform 6 from the A line and you can't get from P1-3 onto the B line without crossing the A line. A good thing to do in Leeds would also be mid platform points. Perhaps about 3/4 up platform 1, have a point over onto platform 2 and then the extreme end of platform 1 can have a small train which can sit there and not delay the rest of the services?

Also maybe a platform 0 at the extreme end in the long stay car park and then make the car park multi level so no spaces are lost? It only needs to be about 120m so then the local trains can use it.

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.

Preliminary construction has recently begun on the platform 0 you suggest!

Prior to the rebuild, the 12 platforms were used intensively: off the top of my head there's at least 6 extra trains per hour today (2x Wakefield Kirkgate semi-fasts; 2x TPE (not including the stopper as that replaced the Northern one); one Kings Cross; and the Calder via Dewsbury) and 4 extra platforms (1 through, 3 bays).

I agree that the throat is part of the problem, and sending TPEs via a reopened Holbeck viaduct seems a convenient solution. However IIRC one of the reasons it closed (I believe its last use was mostly freight towards Wakefield Westgate via a chord) was the curvature being a bit too severe for Mk3/Mk4s. If that's the case, it probably puts the brakes on any re-use even if the costs of getting it to the Huddersfield line don't.

I seem to recall there was a plan to turn the viaduct into a "linear park" a few years back. If it isn't going to be used as part of a modern tramway, it may as well be a bit of greenery.

 

[jayah]

The viaduct originally carried Leeds-Huddersfield trains and should be reopened for TPE as it would in effect separate platforms 15/16 from approach lines A and B by a bit of new build viaduct at the eastern end. The western end would have to cross the Wakefield Westgate line and rejoin the current Huddersfield line near the former Farnley shed but that would need purchase of industrial properties along the original closed route and a new embankment.

For the viaduct to be used for London trains would require a severe curve and 25mph speed limit where currently speed limit is as high as 60mph.

The chord at Copley built during the rebuild does a very good job of segregating and grade separating the Huddersfield and Wakefield lines.

Some of the current difficulties include the lack of a ladder for Platform 1-3 meaning all trains leaving and arriving use a single turnout, increased occupancy times from approach control into bay platforms being used for daytime stabling and London trains using the bay platforms crossing over to and from the Aire platforms and breaking the usage of the three pairs of lines in the west - Aire / Wakefield / Huddersfield & Holbeck.

 

[30907]

Is one issue the track layout for the north platforms at Leeds? You can't get into platform 6 from the A line and you can't get from P1-3 onto the B line without crossing the A line. A good thing to do in Leeds would also be mid platform points. Perhaps about 3/4 up platform 1, have a point over onto platform 2 and then the extreme end of platform 1 can have a small train which can sit there and not delay the rest of the services?

A to 6 (and 8-10) is certainly possible. Mid-platform points on 1/2 would reduce capacity on both, just to give flexibility on one - you really need a middle road for that (as with 11/12) and there's no room.

....London trains using the bay platforms crossing over to and from the Aire platforms and breaking the usage of the three pairs of lines in the west - Aire / Wakefield / Huddersfield & Holbeck.

No Londons booked to use P1 these days (though that's what it was reopened for as W, full-length canopy and all) and 6 can be accessed direct from the Wakefield pair - it was extended to full length for London trains after all! Getting the Calder Valley terminators out of 1-5 would be good though - having them there is an interim measure admittedly.

 

[quantinghome]

These cross city trains could terminate and turn round on the old Wetherby line beyond Scholes by the A64 as 10,000 houses are being built here but unfortunately Leeds City Council have no foresight and instead of future proofing the disused trackbed they propose to obliterate it by building houses across it. No wonder Leeds is the second most air polluted city in the UK 'cos the Council does not provide sufficient public transport for its needs relying on the internal combustion engine. 30-40 minutes from here by bus, train would be 10-15 minutes with stops at Scholes, Pendas Way, Cross Gates and Leeds Minster/Bus Station.

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.

Looking at your specific idea, I'm guessing that Leeds City Council / WYCA / Network Rail are not pursuing this because they consider it impractical and of little or no benefit compared to providing a station at Thorpe Park, which would serve the business and retail park as well as the new housing developments. In terms of practicalities, what sort of junction are you proposing at Cross Gates? At peak times there are 10 trains through Cross Gates in each direction, so you'd almost certainly need grade separation. However, with only slightly over 400m between Cross Gates station and Austhorpe Road, there isn't the space to put one in. Perhaps some solution could be found, but there are significant constraints which means it's going to be expensive. Seems a disproportionately high cost to serve what would be a short stub branch.

 

[deltic08]

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.

Looking at your specific idea, I'm guessing that Leeds City Council / WYCA / Network Rail are not pursuing this because they consider it impractical and of little or no benefit compared to providing a station at Thorpe Park, which would serve the business and retail park as well as the new housing developments. In terms of practicalities, what sort of junction are you proposing at Cross Gates? At peak times there are 10 trains through Cross Gates in each direction, so you'd almost certainly need grade separation. However, with only slightly over 400m between Cross Gates station and Austhorpe Road, there isn't the space to put one in. Perhaps some solution could be found, but there are significant constraints which means it's going to be expensive. Seems a disproportionately high cost to serve what would be a short stub branch.

The solution is a single turnout from the current Down line at Cross Gates during quadrupling of Leeds-Micklefield with a ladder junction immediately south of the station to access both Up lines. This ladder junction is proposed south of a new turnback station at Thorpe Park which would now be unnecessary. Cross Gates Down Slow as it would now become would become bi-directional just in the platform. Where would the money come from for new rail infrastructure? Cancel the East Leeds Orbital, a four mile road costing £100m that is proposed to connect the East Leeds development to the M1 motorway. This is totally unnecessary and just encourages car commuting into Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford which adds to peak time motorway stagnation and air pollution already experienced at this point.

The West and North Yorkshire Rail Committee of Campaign for Better Transport have done a lot locally to promote this proposal with WYCA. Leeds CC had not even thought of it.

 

[deltic08]

Deleted

 

[quantinghome]

The solution is a single turnout from the current Down line at Cross Gates during quadrupling of Leeds-Micklefield with a ladder junction immediately south of the station to access both Up lines. This ladder junction is proposed south of a new turnback station at Thorpe Park which would now be unnecessary. Cross Gates Down Slow as it would now become would become bi-directional just in the platform.

That would work inasmuch as it would actually fit into the space. But as a flat junction it would reduce capacity, particularly if it crosses multiple lines. How many trains per hour are you envisaging using the branch? I'd imagine you'd want quite a high frequency if it was to serve a P&R site on the A64, otherwise the time benefit of a train service is lost. If that's the case, it would significantly reduce the capacity of the newly four-tracked Leeds-Micklefield route.

Where would the money come from for new rail infrastructure? Cancel the East Leeds Orbital, a four mile road costing £100m that is proposed to connect the East Leeds development to the M1 motorway. This is totally unnecessary and just encourages car commuting into Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford which adds to peak time motorway stagnation and air pollution already experienced at this point.

Well there's a case to be made against building new roads. However, ELOR is being substantially funded by the housing developers who may not agree with funding being diverted to other schemes. It's also a bit late now, to put it mildly. ELOR has been part of Leeds' transport plan, in one form or another, since the early 1990s. The contractor is now appointed, presumably with a hefty cancellation charge in the contract, and the initial phase of the road (through Thorpe Park) is due to open any day now.

The West and North Yorkshire Rail Committee of Campaign for Better Transport have done a lot locally to promote this proposal with WYCA. Leeds CC had not even thought of it.

What was WYCA's view on the proposal?

Personally, I cannot see a killer argument for this proposal being better than Thorpe Park station. Yes, it's closer to some of the housing developments, but it wouldn't serve the retail and office park. Thorpe Park would serve as a P&R for the M1; a station on the A64 would not, and might induce additional traffic using the A64 between the A1 and the P&R site.

 

[Eric]

This might be rather controversial but building another central station in Leeds should reduce the number of passengers using the existing station. For example if it is built in the March Lane area I suggest there are many local or regional passengers who might prefer to use a station there rather than walking from the existing station.
I, and I expect many others, use the most appropriate Manchester station - Piccadilly, Oxford Road or Victoria - depending on where I am going in the city or the connection I want to make.
To a certain extent I agree with the point about longer trains but this is likely to overload the facilities at the existing station.

With longer trains, they won't fit on the platforms with all the parked and stacked trains.

Another two 158s (one a ScotRail) parked up in platform five today.

 

[deltic08]

That would work inasmuch as it would actually fit into the space. But as a flat junction it would reduce capacity, particularly if it crosses multiple lines. How many trains per hour are you envisaging using the branch? I'd imagine you'd want quite a high frequency if it was to serve a P&R site on the A64, otherwise the time benefit of a train service is lost. If that's the case, it would significantly reduce the capacity of the newly four-tracked Leeds-Micklefield route.

Well there's a case to be made against building new roads. However, ELOR is being substantially funded by the housing developers who may not agree with funding being diverted to other schemes. It's also a bit late now, to put it mildly. ELOR has been part of Leeds' transport plan, in one form or another, since the early 1990s. The contractor is now appointed, presumably with a hefty cancellation charge in the contract, and the initial phase of the road (through Thorpe Park) is due to open any day now.

What was WYCA's view on the proposal?

Personally, I cannot see a killer argument for this proposal being better than Thorpe Park station. Yes, it's closer to some of the housing developments, but it wouldn't serve the retail and office park. Thorpe Park would serve as a P&R for the M1; a station on the A64 would not, and might induce additional traffic using the A64 between the A1 and the P&R site.

The same ladder junction is proposed at Thorpe Park for turnback on four tracks when that station is opened. How many local services turn back in the west end platforms at Leeds? Bradford FS, Skipton, Ilkley, Harrogate. That's eight an hour roughly, but not that many would be able to use a single platform both ways at Cross Gates unless they didn't make a stop there. Some kind of grade separated junction would be needed.

How can it be about to open? The Inquiry into objections was only held in February 2019. Are we talking about the same road? The trackbed of the old Wetherby line as far as the A64 was route protected by Leeds City Council until 2001 with the purpose of providing turnback for cross-city services and a P&R station on the A64 to take pressure off the old Leeds station. Electrification of Leeds North West killed off this scheme as LCC had to pay for electrification beyond Neville Hill as well as reinstating old lines, which was not their thing, and widening of the viaduct north of the station. If Manchester could have all this and a bridge why not Leeds?

A P&R site is still proposed on the A64 slightly further into Leeds so your extra traffic on the A64 from the A1 argument doesn't hold water. The only difference is that it will be bus instead of train into Leeds. Very green, I don't think.

I wasn't able to attend the meeting last year with WYCA having been in hospital following a major stroke but reports back were that they were gobsmacked that it had not been thought of this time. It would have provided three stations in the middle of the development where commuters could walk or cycle to and not have to drive to Thorpe Park producing even more air pollution in Leeds.

 

[quantinghome]

How can it be about to open? The Inquiry into objections was only held in February 2019. Are we talking about the same road?

I'm talking about the road running from M1 J46, bypassing Cross Gates and Seacroft, rejoining the existing A6120 west of the A58.

As I said, the initial section from the M1 to Manston Lane (including the critical bridge over the Leeds-York railway) is nearing completion. This is being funded and built by the developer of Thorpe Park separately to the rest of ELOR, but is an integral part of the scheme.

The main section being procured by LCC was submitted for planning in July 2017 and approved in December 2017. Balfour Beatty were appointed in June 2018 and have since been rebuilding some junctions on the A6120 in North Leeds which have been bundled into the same scheme. Site works on the main section are due to start later this year. Given we're a year into the contract the cancellation charges at this stage are likely to be prohibitive.

A P&R site is still proposed on the A64 slightly further into Leeds so your extra traffic on the A64 from the A1 argument doesn't hold water. The only difference is that it will be bus instead of train into Leeds. Very green, I don't think.

It would be interesting to see whether the A64 P&R site turns out to be located on the proposed route of the emerging mass transit scheme. But back to ELOR, the new road will provide a quick route for A64 traffic to get to the new P&R at Thorpe Park station. It will also include segregated cycle paths connecting into the new housing developments so that cycling to the station at Thorpe Park is a viable option.

I'll say it again, I can't see the killer argument for reopening the branch to the A64 against the alternative of the new station at Thorpe Park.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

A P&R site is still proposed on the A64 slightly further into Leeds so your extra traffic on the A64 from the A1 argument doesn't hold water. The only difference is that it will be bus instead of train into Leeds. Very green, I don't think.

WYCA should look at making this proposed park and ride as a rail based facility. The only place where one could go is near to Grimes Dike Farm which is near the A64 and is on the former Wetherby Line from Leeds, it only needs two and a half miles worth of track to be laid from the former junction east of Cross Gates to the point of where the A64 crosses the former line. Even then which services would be extended to serve the site at a realistic every 15 minute intervals?

 

[jayah]

A new station close to Leeds Bus station/Minster, with a connecting covered footbridge would be beneficial to Leeds but the viaduct has to be widened to at least three tracks, preferably four, first to permit local cross city stopping trains to call. This would take some pressure off west end bay platforms by converting terminating trains into through trains with less station dwell time, but who is going to pay for all this new infrastructure to sort out overcrowding at Leeds?.

These cross city trains could terminate and turn round on the old Wetherby line beyond Scholes by the A64 as 10,000 houses are being built here but unfortunately Leeds City Council have no foresight and instead of future proofing the disused trackbed they propose to obliterate it by building houses across it. No wonder Leeds is the second most air polluted city in the UK 'cos the Council does not provide sufficient public transport for its needs relying on the internal combustion engine. 30-40 minutes from here by bus, train would be 10-15 minutes with stops at Scholes, Pendas Way, Cross Gates and Leeds Minster/Bus Station.

Four tracking Leeds to Micklefield would cost £bn rather than £m but the appeal of an Oxford Rd type station to the East is obvious as is opening up the Wetherby axis completely cut off from rail.

For a few tens of £m you may get a through track at Cross Gates and some 4 track around Garforth station doesn't look impossible. But the trick is to use the existing paths where you already have far too many short trains doing the same job in different paint schemes. Privatisation wasn't meant to work like this.

 

[deltic08]

Four tracking Leeds to Micklefield would cost £bn rather than £m but the appeal of an Oxford Rd type station to the East is obvious as is opening up the Wetherby axis completely cut off from rail.

For a few tens of £m you may get a through track at Cross Gates and some 4 track around Garforth station doesn't look impossible. But the trick is to use the existing paths where you already have far too many short trains doing the same job in different paint schemes. Privatisation wasn't meant to work like this.

That is supposed to be happening and surely has been costed. The trackbed is four tracked already and was constructed that way as far as East Garforth but only two tracks were laid beyond Cross Gates.

 

[jayah]

That is supposed to be happening and surely has been costed. The trackbed is four tracked already and was constructed that way as far as East Garforth but only two tracks were laid beyond Cross Gates.

I have not heard of any committment to deliver and pay for 4 tracks even east of Neville Hill. Could you elaborate?

The Thorpe Park consultation offered passive provision for 4 tracks at that location and there was some kite flying by the Chamber of Commerce but I have seen nothing more concrete.

It would be hugely expensive and even east of Cross Gates would probably mean quite a few private residential homes being taken down.

 

[class 9]

I've also not read anywhere about any 4 tracking proposals. Although a relatively short stretch of 4 tracking from Crossgates to the M1 overbridge at Manston,(essentially 2 long loops serving Xgates & the new Thorpe Park station) could be done relatively cheaply without any demolition needed.

 

[jayah]

I've also not read anywhere about any 4 tracking proposals. Although a relatively short stretch of 4 tracking from Crossgates to the M1 overbridge at Manston,(essentially 2 long loops serving Xgates & the new Thorpe Park station) could be done relatively cheaply without any demolition needed.

This would improve regulation but not increase capacity since the latter is also a new station.

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

I am sure it will be compliant and work perfectly on paper.

 

[deltic08]

I have not heard of any committment to deliver and pay for 4 tracks even east of Neville Hill. Could you elaborate?

The Thorpe Park consultation offered passive provision for 4 tracks at that location and there was some kite flying by the Chamber of Commerce but I have seen nothing more concrete.

It would be hugely expensive and even east of Cross Gates would probably mean quite a few private residential homes being taken down.

The M1 overbridge east of the proposed Thorpe Park Parkway station was built to accommodate four tracks and that was designed 30 years ago, so was known about then.

Yes it would be expensive. The idea is to increase capacity between Leeds and Micklefield and separate stopping from non-stopping services as the stoppers take up a lot of capacity as stations are close together.

Only east of East Garforth would require demolition of a few former railway houses. Just fourtracking to and including East Garforth where the four track trackbed ends, would solve a lot of the capacity problems as it would include three of the four current stations on this line where overtaking can take place. Thorpe Park would make it four out of five stations. East Garforth platforms are built on the former trackbeds where I think there were loops at the junction of the Kippax line in steam days. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

Thorpe Park Parkway will most likely go ahead as Leeds City Council already has the funding for it from the cancelled trolleybus system.

 

[jayah]

The M1 overbridge east of the proposed Thorpe Park Parkway station was built to accommodate four tracks and that was designed 30 years ago, so was known about then.

Yes it would be expensive. The idea is to increase capacity between Leeds and Micklefield and separate stopping from non-stopping services as the stoppers take up a lot of capacity as stations are close together.

Only east of East Garforth would require demolition of a few former railway houses. Just fourtracking to and including East Garforth where the four track trackbed ends, would solve a lot of the capacity problems as it would include three of the four current stations on this line where overtaking can take place. Thorpe Park would make it four out of five stations. East Garforth platforms are built on the former trackbeds where I think there were loops at the junction of the Kippax line in steam days. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

Thorpe Park Parkway will most likely go ahead as Leeds City Council already has the funding for it from the cancelled trolleybus system.

There is a world of difference between passive provision and having the money in the bank.

The new station on the edge of the City Centre needs some serious demolition on the scale of the viaduct in Manchester. Otherwise you just have four tracks feeding into two.

 

[deltic08]

There is a world of difference between passive provision and having the money in the bank.

The new station on the edge of the City Centre needs some serious demolition on the scale of the viaduct in Manchester. Otherwise you just have four tracks feeding into two.

Yes it would but it is long overdue and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

 

[jayah]

Yes it would but it is long overdue and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Manchester is far longer overdue. They need to make better use of what they have and stop gridlocking the network with these low capacity trains.

 

[beverleyonian]

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.

 

[deltic08]

Manchester is far longer overdue. They need to make better use of what they have and stop gridlocking the network with these low capacity trains.

We are not discussing Manchester in this thread.

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.

If you look carefully at the groundworks at Garforth and East Garforth, the platforms are built on what were intended to be the outer two tracks of four. New stations would have to be built if this section is four-tracked. In the case of Garforth this would be slightly east where the station car park is as there is enough width here for the platforms.

The road overbridge would have to be demolished too as the arch is too low for four-tracking and electrification.

I have not heard anything about replacing both stations with one at Garforth.

 

[Ken H]

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.

Neville Hill - Crossgates was 4 tracks from 1910. I dot remember them so must have gone before 1970

 

[deltic08]

Neville Hill - Crossgates was 4 tracks from 1910. I dot remember them so must have gone before 1970

They were definitely there when the Wetherby line closed in January 1964 so went somewhere between then and 1970. Looking back it was a mistake. At least non-stoppers could overtake stoppers somewhere between Cross Gates and the foot of Marsh Lane cutting. Not so important the other way as stoppers could be held in Leeds station, although that would block use of a platform in Leeds whilst waiting for a late running fast to overtake.

Not so much of a problem when electrified as stoppers can get away faster from a stop.

 

[Grumpy]

Neville Hill - Crossgates was 4 tracks from 1910. I dot remember them so must have gone before 1970

Certainly there in the late 1960's. I used to commute from Leeds to York and don't recall them being lifted. The westbound slow line had what I understood to be short American rails which led to an unusual rhythm as the train wheels passed over the joints.

 

[yoyothehobo]

In my pure crayola mode, if you used tram trains to get onto the old wetherby alignment using 4 tracking from neville hill, at which point the line goes down towards the river down the extant head shunt through Cross Green, pops across the river coming out near the A61 and following that up towards Crown Point and the theoretical location for the HS2 station next to the main station in the centre of Leeds. You could extend the line past the station, onto the Holbeck viaduct out towards Armley as well to get the west and east near commuter areas which are poorly served in Leeds. You can would have to cross the main lines with grade separation somewhere east of Neville Hill. You could have local stopper tram trains continue to Garforth/East Garforth on new lines parallel to the original alignment.

 

[Neptune]

There was a proposal to close Garforth and East Garforth and create one station connected to the east end of Garforth car park and a footpath from the site of East Garforth for when Thorpe Park opened. This has now been shelved sadly.

A through road at Cross Gates is also a recurring theme which never gets beyond speculation.

4 tracking Neville Hill to Garforth with a new centralised Garforth station and Thorpe Park would be the best solution to the East Leeds capacity problem along with electrification to Colton Junction and Hull and complete resignalling. This costs millions, possible even billions today. Sadly everything appears to be cost neutral these days whereby the powers that be just want to carry on squeezing in more and more trains with the same infrastructure soon to be made even more tight with an additional station.

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.

White Rose station to be opened in 2021 will also create capacity problems on the transpennine route as Cottingley station will remain due to the recent mass new housing in the area.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I agree with rerouting the Hull services, though it wouldnt be a TP service to be cut as you wouldnt have a reversal on a TP service at Leeds as that would defeat the point. I assume you mean an upcoming Northern service.

It seems a sensible idea, assuming there would be no problem threading the services back together at the Colton Junction end.

I dread to think the number of times I have been waiting on a train held at Micklefield waiting for a TP from Hull, or when I have been on the Northern Stopper, being help at Church Fenton to let the XC services and TP services overtake into the 2 track section.