Capacity problems Leeds

[Sapphire Blue]

Has the proposal to join two bays (13 & 14) to form a through platform been shelved?

 

[Neptune]

Leeds - Hull wouldn’t touch Colton as it forks off at Milford Junction joining the Selby line at Gascogne Wood.

The Blackpool - York would have to reverse at Leeds which could cause a problem at the west end. It would rejoin the mainline at Church Felton for the booked stop which would avoid conflict with the Leeds direct route. Not a perfect solution but would cause some relief to the East Leeds two track section.

 

[Neptune]

Not heard merging 13 and 14 mentioned for a few years. It would help capacity to add a 7th through platform but 13 is the sensible place for the Huddersfield and Southport services and 14 is more useful since the Selby and York stoppers have terminated at Leeds (along with platform 7).

 

[nicolaboo]

The view from P6 last Friday.

You can't see much detail, but it at least shows workers on site.

 

[Neptune]

Yes we’ve lost most of riverside car park for staff parking but can use the multi storey.

 

[matacaster]

If Leeds to York was wired, wouldnt a Bradford Foster sq to York or even Newcastle make sense needing no reversal at leeds?

 

[oscarthecat92]

I was on the 1718 Leeds to Skipton yesterday which came in on 11C (presumably straight from Neville Hill). It departed on time but stopped at the A end of the platform to cross the throat and was 5 minutes late on arriving at Saltaire.

Looking at RTT it appears the same thing happened today, moves across the throat seem to be the main issue

 

[xotGD]

I was on the 1718 Leeds to Skipton yesterday which came in on 11C (presumably straight from Neville Hill). It departed on time but stopped at the A end of the platform to cross the throat and was 5 minutes late on arriving at Saltaire.

Looking at RTT it appears the same thing happened today, moves across the throat seem to be the main issue

Be grateful that the 17:18 actually ran! IT is usually the first to get the chop, when there isn't a unit at Neville Hill to send out.

 

[quantinghome]

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.

The consultation documents say no decision has been made on whether to retain Cottingley. However, given the location of White Rose station will be just over the other side of Elland Road, I can't imagine it will stay open. The relocated station won't inconvenience that many people, and will actually be quicker to get to from a significant number of the new houses.

 

[Grumpy]

The consultation documents say no decision has been made on whether to retain Cottingley. However, given the location of White Rose station will be just over the other side of Elland Road, I can't imagine it will stay open. The relocated station won't inconvenience that many people, and will actually be quicker to get to from a significant number of the new houses.

On the contrary I would have thought it would lead to the loss of a large proportion of the existing passengers. Whilst I accept that it may be closer to some houses, the consultation document is somewhat glib when it suggests an average 10 minutes extra walking time. This is to be achieved (looking at the sketch in the document) by providing a new footpath running from Elland Road alongside the railway line to the proposed station. All very easy when looking at a map view, but in reality a stiff uphill climb. Not very attractive, especially on wet/icy days. I suspect people will simply switch to the bus.

 

[quantinghome]

On the contrary I would have thought it would lead to the loss of a large proportion of the existing passengers. Whilst I accept that it may be closer to some houses, the consultation document is somewhat glib when it suggests an average 10 minutes extra walking time. This is to be achieved (looking at the sketch in the document) by providing a new footpath running from Elland Road alongside the railway line to the proposed station. All very easy when looking at a map view, but in reality a stiff uphill climb. Not very attractive, especially on wet/icy days. I suspect people will simply switch to the bus.

If Cottingley closes, clearly it's going to be an inconvenience for those who live within 5 minutes' walk of it, and around the northern bit of Cottingley Drive. But is the catchment area of the station really that small? I'm not local to the area but from the look of it, for most of Churwell a station at White Rose will be no less convenient. Then of course you have the advantages of it serving the business parks and White Rose centre.

 

[43074]

If Leeds to York was wired, wouldnt a Bradford Foster sq to York or even Newcastle make sense needing no reversal at leeds?

Bradford Int to York is possible at the moment, and I can't imagine Bradford to Newcastle being a massively significant flow, so, no?

 

[Ken H]

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.

Maybe a new station somewhere near Halton Moor. or maybe where the railway goes over Selby road?

 

[Grumpy]

If Cottingley closes, clearly it's going to be an inconvenience for those who live within 5 minutes' walk of it, and around the northern bit of Cottingley Drive. But is the catchment area of the station really that small? I'm not local to the area but from the look of it, for most of Churwell a station at White Rose will be no less convenient. Then of course you have the advantages of it serving the business parks and White Rose centre.

I honestly don't have any facts re the catchment area. I used to live in Churwell but that was 30 years ago. At that time the land west of Cottingley station was rhubarb fields.
There is no significant parking near the station to suggest lots of motorists from afar are using it for park and ride.
I agree that for most of Churwell residents a station at White Rose would be no less convenient. However this is because I suspect that most Churwell residents wont find the current Cottingley station very convenient. This is partly because Churwell basically sits on a hill, and to walk from Cottingley station to Churwell necessitates climbing the hill. Also because the train service isn't very appealing-the journey time to Leeds (approx. 8 minutes) is excellent but the service is sparse with, for example, no arrivals into Leeds between 0730 and 0830, and for most of the day only an hourly service. And then you have to factor in the walking time and the hassle of the hill. Meanwhile there is a roughly 10 minute interval bus service from Leeds to Churwell with convenient stops and no need to climb the hill.

Hence I strongly suspect, but have no hard facts to prove, that the vast majority of the users are from the top end of Cottingley estate and the housing built in recent years on the former rhubarb fields, the residents of this housing having generated most of the passenger growth.

 

[Plethora]

Bradford Int to York is possible at the moment, and I can't imagine Bradford to Newcastle being a massively significant flow, so, no?

But it's not about the flow, it's about moving excess stock to the other side of Leeds Station in a sensible manner so the westbound platforms aren't clogged.

It sounds to me like one possible short term measure that could be taken, though it in turn is reliant on a significant infrastructure upgrade. The north is getting a big rolling stock boost and extended stations on several routes, so I do wonder how long we will have to wait for the next tranche of investment.

(I also bear in mind that the Tories have received very little political benefit from this round of investment so far, which may affect their motivation going forward.)

 

[ASharpe]

But it's not about the flow, it's about moving excess stock to the other side of Leeds Station in a sensible manner so the westbound platforms aren't clogged.

The Aire Valley has trains that can achieve 100 mph under the wires. But TPE already clog up the ECML with their 100mph Desiros.

Even if there were enough passengers to justify the flow what diesel units could operate the such an intensive service on the Aire Valley and then be sent away for hours to run up to Newcastle. Do they all go up in a morning and then come back in the afternoon?

As a Shipley resident I think the Aire Valley needs high density trains with plenty of standing room and grab rails. But that would be inappropriate for the long distance service up to Newcastle.

The Wharfedale and Airedale lines need to be treated like a suburban line in around London would be, we all know the 'more seats' argument is a nonsense and are frustrated that standing passengers still fall down (if there is space) on the refurbed 333s.

I even think most people would be happy to give up on a timetable and just aim for a train every 10 minutes during the peak and not have them sat idle blocking platforms at all.

 

[xotGD]

The Aire Valley has trains that can achieve 100 mph under the wires. But TPE already clog up the ECML with their 100mph Desiros.

Even if there were enough passengers to justify the flow what diesel units could operate the such an intensive service on the Aire Valley and then be sent away for hours to run up to Newcastle. Do they all go up in a morning and then come back in the afternoon?

As a Shipley resident I think the Aire Valley needs high density trains with plenty of standing room and grab rails. But that would be inappropriate for the long distance service up to Newcastle.

The Wharfedale and Airedale lines need to be treated like a suburban line in around London would be, we all know the 'more seats' argument is a nonsense and are frustrated that standing passengers still fall down (if there is space) on the refurbed 333s.

I even think most people would be happy to give up on a timetable and just aim for a train every 10 minutes during the peak and not have them sat idle blocking platforms at all.

If more of the Shipleyites would sit down in the vacant middle seats instead of blocking the vestibules it would be a more comfortable journey for those who do end up standing.

And if more Shipleyites would catch the Bradford FS trains from Leeds it would free up more space for those of us travelling further up Airedale. Perhaps make a couple of the evening peak services first stop Saltaire?

Anyway, 6-car services can't come soon enough.

 

[Ploughman]

If Leeds - Selby ever gets wired, would this enable some Aire Valley services to work through and reduce stacking of units in Leeds Stn?
Similar situation on the York line as well.

 

[Grumpy]

If more of the Shipleyites would sit down in the vacant middle seats instead of blocking the vestibules it would be a more comfortable journey for those who do end up standing.

And if more Shipleyites would catch the Bradford FS trains from Leeds it would free up more space for those of us travelling further up Airedale. Perhaps make a couple of the evening peak services first stop Saltaire?

Anyway, 6-car services can't come soon enough.

The simple speedy low cost solution to all this is to simply reform some of the 333's by taking a trailer out of some sets (ie return them to the original 3 cars), and insert the trailers into other sets to make 5 cars (ie like the 332's). A 5 car 333 would have more seats than 2*331 in a 6 car formation. Put the 5 car sets onto the heaviest loaded peak services into Leeds, and put the 3 car sets onto the lighter loaded Bradford-Skipton/Ilkley runs.

 

[Neptune]

The problem is that all units in service run on all routes. Also I have worked some extremely packed services in and out of Forster Square over 20+ years whereby a 3 car would have been crush loaded. Plus how long until a 3 car drops on the 1718 LDS - SKI. Also no platform extensions are planned on the triangle and 333’s don’t have SDO fitted.

 

[hrobertson1]

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.

 

[northernchris]

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.

There are still some very busy services although better use of 321/2 and 333 diagrams would help. For example, the 1626 Leeds - Skipton is a very busy service and is diagrammed a 321/2 whereas many departures from Bradford post 1600 are allocated 333s.

 

[hrobertson1]

There are still some very busy services although better use of 321/2 and 333 diagrams would help. For example, the 1626 Leeds - Skipton is a very busy service and is diagrammed a 321/2 whereas many departures from Bradford post 1600 are allocated 333s.

the 1626 isn't always diagrammed a 321 is it? I thought it was a 333 mostly

 

[northernchris]

the 1626 isn't always diagrammed a 321 is it? I thought it was a 333 mostly

It's 321/2 now, seem to think it comes off the 0759 Doncaster - Leeds before going on to the Airedale / Wharfedale circuit

 

[hrobertson1]

It's 321/2 now, seem to think it comes off the 0759 Doncaster - Leeds before going on to the Airedale / Wharfedale circuit

Interesting.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A big problem is that the new trains are low-density units with tables and 2+2 seating, and won't be able to cram many standees in as a result. Once the platform extensions are done and 6-car workings are possible, 323s would be a better fit.

 

[xotGD]

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.

You must travel on different services to me!

 

[hrobertson1]

Although I remember just last week, coming back to Leeds from York (via Harrogate) and we were stuck at a red signal for a good 5 mins on the A path so we arrived into Leeds 7 late waiting for a platform and then ended up platform sharing with a 321.

 

[Neptune]

A big problem is that the new trains are low-density units with tables and 2+2 seating, and won't be able to cram many standees in as a result. Once the platform extensions are done and 6-car workings are possible, 323s would be a better fit.

There are no plans to extend the platforms on the triangle at present. Trains will use ASDO at short platforms.

 

[Eric]

Happened again last week on platform 5 with a Knaresborough service blocking my train to Bradford for a good 10 minutes.

Although rare I've seen LNER services go from platform 1