Could services through Leeds be improved, to better make use of the available capacity?

[ChrisC]

Moderator note: Split from

Leeds Station Improvement

Leeds Civic Trust newsletter refers to a new platform being added and small improvements to New Station Street. Not aware of any details online elsewhere?

www.railforums.co.uk

Will they ever stop messing about with Leeds station? It just feels like it’s been a constant state of construction chaos as long as I can remember.

It's one stage of a planned complete overhaul of the station, each stage of which is unfortunately separately funded, hence it's rather drawn-out.

It does seem to have been going on for years, and yet nothing yet has been done to resolve the situation of platform 17. Are there any plans for this in the near future?

The Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service really should be operated by 3 carriage trains. The current 2 carriages is not enough for a service linking 3 major cities. The last time I used it, on a Saturday morning, it was very overcrowded and leaving passengers behind south of Sheffield. The trains cannot be any longer than 2 carriages because of the capacity of platform 17. In addition to this, platform 17 is a terrible exposed place to have to stand on a cold wet windy day. This is not helped when the trains stand in the platform, locked to passengers until just a few minutes before departure.

 

[quantinghome]

It does seem to have been going on for years and yet nothing yet has been done to resolve the situation of platform 17. Are there any plans for this in the near future?

Yes, I believe there are.

The Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service really should be operated by 3 carriage trains. The current 2 carriages is not enough for a service linking 3 major cities. The last time I used it on a Saturday morning it was very overcrowded and leaving passengers behind south of Sheffield. The trains cannot be any longer than 2 carriages because of the capacity of platform 17. In addition to this platform 17 is a terrible exposed place to have to stand on a cold wet windy day. This is not helped when the trains stand in the platform locked to passengers until just a few minutes before departure.

All true. Sorting out Platform 17 is not straightforward of course given how narrow the platform is and that it's right on the edge of the viaduct which the station sits on. Nevertheless I understand plans are progressing. Don't know what the timeframe is though. As ever, funding is the problem.

 

[Iskra]

It does seem to have been going on for years and yet nothing yet has been done to resolve the situation of platform 17. Are there any plans for this in the near future?

The Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service really should be operated by 3 carriage trains. The current 2 carriages is not enough for a service linking 3 major cities. The last time I used it on a Saturday morning it was very overcrowded and leaving passengers behind south of Sheffield. The trains cannot be any longer than 2 carriages because of the capacity of platform 17. In addition to this platform 17 is a terrible exposed place to have to stand on a cold wet windy day. This is not helped when the trains stand in the platform locked to passengers until just a few minutes before departure.

We do have a new platform 0 though, which hardly gets used…

The P17 situation does need sorting, and I absolutely agree about the situation on the Northern semi-fast service. The entire capacity on the Leeds-Sheffield corridor needs reviewing urgently. However, it doesn’t have to involve infrastructure work. This could be resolved by swapping service destinations around so that (for example) the Blackpool-York services terminate at Leeds and the Nottingham services continue to York. Alternatively, the TPE platforms (15/16) could be used in the short term while they are under-utilised. It’s one of those things, like many, that where there’s a will there’s a way, but all we get is a constant stream of excuses. Another suggestion is that the Nottingham service becomes the one that does the Wakefield Kirkgate-Westgate line so it can use the lower numbered platforms at Leeds instead of the Knottingley service.

 

[quantinghome]

We do have a new platform 0 though, which hardly gets used…

P0 was built in anticipation of the Leeds NW lines expanding to 6-car trains. The necessary platform extensions along the Airedale and Wharfedale lines are now, finally, underway (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...dale-and-wharfedale-line-platform-extensions/). So we will see it used as originally intended albeit delayed.

The P17 situation does need sorting, and I absolutely agree about the situation on the Northern semi-fast service. The entire capacity on the Leeds-Sheffield corridor needs reviewing urgently. However, it doesn’t have to involve infrastructure work. This could be resolved by swapping service destinations around so that (for example) the Blackpool-York services terminate at Leeds and the Nottingham services continue to York. Alternatively, the TPE platforms (15/16) could be used in the short term while they are under-utilised. It’s one of those things, like many, that where there’s a will there’s a way, but all we get is a constant stream of excuses. Another suggestion is that the Nottingham service becomes the one that does the Wakefield Kirkgate-Westgate line so it can use the lower numbered platforms at Leeds instead of the Knottingley service.

I respectfully disagree; we can play around with the Leeds-Sheffield services all we like but ultimately it's trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. The infrastructure is completely inadequate to provide what is required - i.e. a fast and frequent service between Leeds and Sheffield (as part of the wider intercity network) and a frequent metro service for local stations. You won't be able to do that without new infrastructure.

 

[Iskra]

P0 was built in anticipation of the Leeds NW lines expanding to 6-car trains. The necessary platform extensions along the Airedale and Wharfedale lines are now, finally, underway (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...dale-and-wharfedale-line-platform-extensions/). So we will see it used as originally intended albeit delayed.


I respectfully disagree; we can play around with the Leeds-Sheffield services all we like but ultimately it's trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. The infrastructure is completely inadequate to provide what is required - i.e. a fast and frequent service between Leeds and Sheffield (as part of the wider intercity network) and a frequent metro service for local stations. You won't be able to do that without new infrastructure.

I’d like a permanent transformative infrastructure solution, but it isn’t a necessity to deliver a significant improvement on the lines towards Sheffield. There are a number of easy solutions that could be enacted quickly rather than just plodding on with the same poor service because that’s what we’ve always done since 1991. I’d suggest some tinkering would be a worthwhile starting point and deliver near-immediate improvement, before we start with the long-term stuff that takes years, is prone to being cancelled and causes chaos in the meantime.

 

[skyhigh]

We do have a new platform 0 though, which hardly gets used

The flexibility enhancements which came as part of the project are used pretty much constantly though... And as said above 0 will come into more intensive use when 6 car work begins.

 

[quantinghome]

I’d like a permanent transformative infrastructure solution, but it isn’t a necessity to deliver a significant improvement on the lines towards Sheffield. There are a number of easy solutions that could be enacted quickly rather than just plodding on with the same poor service because that’s what we’ve always done since 1991. I’d suggest some tinkering would be a worthwhile starting point and deliver near-immediate improvement, before we start with the long-term stuff that takes years, is prone to being cancelled and causes chaos in the meantime.

You can tinker if you like, but it will have consequences. For example your suggestion of stopping the Blackpool-York service at Leeds would cut all direct services from the Calder Valley, Halifax and Bradford to York.

IIRC the plan for Leeds-Nottingham around the time the Northern franchise was re-let was for it to run fast via Wakefield Westgate, which would have provided a second fast(ish) service from Leeds to Sheffield. However, that hasn't happened and the reason is unlikely to be lack of will or imagination, given that it was the original plan. It's a pretty obvious thing to do so there must be some underlying infrastructure or operational issue stopping it.

 

[Iskra]

You can tinker if you like, but it will have consequences. For example your suggestion of stopping the Blackpool-York service at Leeds would cut all direct services from the Calder Valley, Halifax and Bradford to York.

IIRC the plan for Leeds-Nottingham around the time the Northern franchise was re-let was for it to run fast via Wakefield Westgate, which would have provided a second fast(ish) service from Leeds to Sheffield. However, that hasn't happened and the reason is unlikely to be lack of will or imagination, given that it was the original plan. It's a pretty obvious thing to do so there must be some underlying infrastructure or operational issue stopping it.

I’m absolutely aware that such decisions are not made in a vacuum, but the Blackpool-York service doesn’t run fast between Leeds and York anyway, so forcing a change onto a faster train at Leeds may maintain the journey time. Additionally, the Halifax-Hull service could be sent to York instead to compensate, with another service such as the Chester service continuing to Hull instead. I don’t see breaking a Bradford/Halifax-York direct service as a dealbreaker either- there are plenty of places those two station’s don’t have direct trains to, so another is inconsequential considering the residents are presumably used to changing trains.

These are just indicative examples of what could be done. I have not done an exhaustive analysis of Leeds services, but clearly there is scope for tinkering to solve the Sheffield issue if it was truly desired.

 

[quantinghome]

I’m absolutely aware that such decisions are not made in a vacuum, but the Blackpool-York service doesn’t run fast between Leeds and York anyway, so forcing a change onto a faster train at Leeds may maintain the journey time. Additionally, the Halifax-Hull service could be sent to York instead to compensate, with another service such as the Chester service continuing to Hull instead.

You are now looking at replacing the Leeds-York leg of the Blackpool-York service with a Halifax-York service. So what happens to your original idea of a Nottingham-York service? BTW the Blackpool-York service is timetabled to run semi-fast from Leeds to York in 27 minutes, only 4 minutes slower than the fastest Transpennine, so making passengers from a large swathe of West Yorkshire change trains will certainly be slower, not to mention inconvenient.

These are just indicative examples of what could be done. I have not done an exhaustive analysis of Leeds services, but clearly there is scope for tinkering to solve the Sheffield issue if it was truly desired.

How do you know then?

 

[Iskra]

You are now looking at replacing the Leeds-York leg of the Blackpool-York service with a Halifax-York service. So what happens to your original idea of a Nottingham-York service? BTW the Blackpool-York service is timetabled to run semi-fast from Leeds to York in 27 minutes, only 4 minutes slower than the fastest Transpennine, so making passengers from a large swathe of West Yorkshire change trains will certainly be slower, not to mention inconvenient.


How do you know then?

Because whatever changes would be made, would not use any extra capacity, just the same as now but in a different way.

 

[quantinghome]

Because whatever changes would be made, would not use any extra capacity, just the same as now but in a different way.

It's unclear what you are actually proposing. But whatever it is, if you're proposing to rearrange existing capacity there will be winners and losers, and you would need to show that the losses in connectivity don't outweigh the gains.

I notice you've edited your previous post to claim that you don't see breaking a Bradford/Halifax-York direct service as a dealbreaker because "there are plenty of places those two station’s don’t have direct trains to, so another is inconsequential considering the residents are presumably used to changing trains". This is a really strange argument. Bradford is a large city with poor direct links to other cities. It needs more direct connections, not fewer. Reducing what direct links it does have is an decidedly odd idea, particularly so when it's a link to a major railhead like York.

 

[skyhigh]

Because whatever changes would be made, would not use any extra capacity, just the same as now but in a different way.

You might think that nobody cares - but that's not true. Nottingham services have consistently been top of the overcrowding tables for ages now. Lots of options have been explored, but they either run into problems with crewing/units that would be expensive to alter, or rob from elsewhere effectively transferring the issue to somewhere else.

Platform 17 will be extended and when that's done services will be extended. Unfortunately there are no other options that are practical or improve the overall picture at the moment.

 

[Mat17]

If you send the Nottingham - Leeds services through to York, what do you do with the Lincoln - Leeds services? Don't forget the services from Nottingham terminate at Leeds and then become Lincoln services.

 

[M1544]

I’m absolutely aware that such decisions are not made in a vacuum, but the Blackpool-York service doesn’t run fast between Leeds and York anyway, so forcing a change onto a faster train at Leeds may maintain the journey time. Additionally, the Halifax-Hull service could be sent to York instead to compensate, with another service such as the Chester service continuing to Hull instead. I don’t see breaking a Bradford/Halifax-York direct service as a dealbreaker either- there are plenty of places those two station’s don’t have direct trains to, so another is inconsequential considering the residents are presumably used to changing trains.

These are just indicative examples of what could be done. I have not done an exhaustive analysis of Leeds services, but clearly there is scope for tinkering to solve the Sheffield issue if it was truly desired.

You have to remember that Bradford and Halifax have been campaigning for more direct trains, I use the through York service and it actually runs semi fast - not completely local all stations and is useful for Calder valley through passengers. ( and also those who want to go towards Blackpool and north west towns from York) We don’t all want to change at Leeds. And Hull and Chester have been added in to the direct offering from Bradford to enhance the long for wanted connectivity which has been lacking from the Calder valley until recent years, so we’d rather not have it all undone by terminating our through trains at Leeds.

 

[quantinghome]

You might think that nobody cares - but that's not true. Nottingham services have consistently been top of the overcrowding tables for ages now. Lots of options have been explored, but they either run into problems with crewing/units that would be expensive to alter, or rob from elsewhere effectively transferring the issue to somewhere else.

Platform 17 will be extended and when that's done services will be extended. Unfortunately there are no other options that are practical or improve the overall picture at the moment.

Thanks, that's useful to have that confirmed. Do you know what happened to the plan announced at the time of the Northern franchise award (back in 2016) that Nottingham-Leeds would move to run fast via Westgate, and also be extended to Bradford? Was it ever viable?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Thanks, that's useful to have that confirmed. Do you know what happened to the plan announced at the time of the Northern franchise award (back in 2016) that Nottingham-Leeds would move to run fast via Westgate, and also be extended to Bradford? Was it ever viable?

Depends what you mean by "viable". It would certainly be possible tomorrow if it was still considered a priority. If it happened it would automatically solve the P17 problem, as it would no longer use the Holbeck/Woodlesford lines out of Leeds. However it would no longer be able to interwork with the Lincolns as it does today, so you'd need to find an extra unit from somewhere.

 

[ChrisC]

Depends what you mean by "viable". It would certainly be possible tomorrow if it was still considered a priority. If it happened it would automatically solve the P17 problem, as it would no longer use the Holbeck/Woodlesford lines out of Leeds. However it would no longer be able to interwork with the Lincolns as it does today, so you'd need to find an extra unit from somewhere.

Wasn‘t the Leeds to Nottingham via Wakefield Westgate train going to be a new service originating at Bradford? The Leeds-Sheffield via Barnsley part of the route was still to be retained and therefore could still interwork with those trains which run through to Lincoln. It would still require extra units even if it just ran Leeds-Nottingham without the Bradford extension.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn‘t the Leeds to Nottingham via Wakefield Westgate train going to be a new service originating at Bradford? The Leeds-Sheffield via Barnsley part of the route was still to be retained and therefore could still interwork with those trains which run through to Lincoln. It would still require extra units even if it just ran Leeds-Nottingham without the Bradford extension.

The 2016 plan was:

• Leeds to Nottingham service to start back at Bradford Interchange, and switch to the Wakefield Westgate route. These two changes were linked, as a service from Bradford still running via Woodlesford would have to cross the entire throat on its way into and out of Leeds. By comparison the Bradford and Westgate lines can use the same tracks in the throat.
• The semi-fast Sheffield via Barnsley service would retain the 2tph frequency, but would no longer form the hourly Nottingham service. It would be 1tph Lincoln, 1tph terminating at Sheffield.

How one describes these changes in terms of which bits are "new" and which bits are a diversion is just semantics.

 

[quantinghome]

The 2016 plan was:

• Leeds to Nottingham service to start back at Bradford Interchange, and switch to the Wakefield Westgate route. These two changes were linked, as a service from Bradford still running via Woodlesford would have to cross the entire throat on its way into and out of Leeds. By comparison the Bradford and Westgate lines can use the same tracks in the throat.
• The semi-fast Sheffield via Barnsley service would retain the 2tph frequency, but would no longer form the hourly Nottingham service. It would be 1tph Lincoln, 1tph terminating at Sheffield.

How one describes these changes in terms of which bits are "new" and which bits are a diversion is just semantics.

Given the improvements that this plan offered, do we know why it hasn't happened? Does the timetable not work? Are there rolling stock or staff shortages? Is Northern (understandably) focussed on stabilising the current service before implementing improvements?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given the improvements that this plan offered, do we know why it hasn't happened? Does the timetable not work? Are there rolling stock or staff shortages? Is Northern (understandably) focussed on stabilising the current service before implementing improvements?

My understanding is that it got "lost in the shuffle" of Covid, scrapping Northern Connect, and DOR/OLR taking over. There may be other complications which aren't as obvious to those of us not in the industry- things like redrawing the diagrams for units, platform allocation for the re-routed service, or even crewing issues brought about by the changes.
As I understand it, the path it would have used between Leeds and Bradford would be the one that was later freed up by the curtailing of the Huddersfield via Brighouse service.

 

[Iskra]

It's unclear what you are actually proposing. But whatever it is, if you're proposing to rearrange existing capacity there will be winners and losers, and you would need to show that the losses in connectivity don't outweigh the gains.

I notice you've edited your previous post to claim that you don't see breaking a Bradford/Halifax-York direct service as a dealbreaker because "there are plenty of places those two station’s don’t have direct trains to, so another is inconsequential considering the residents are presumably used to changing trains". This is a really strange argument. Bradford is a large city with poor direct links to other cities. It needs more direct connections, not fewer. Reducing what direct links it does have is an decidedly odd idea, particularly so when it's a link to a major railhead like York.

I’m proposing that the experts take a look and get creative, because there are clearly opportunities for improvement.

Bradford is obviously an unfortunate victim of (railway) geography. Does Bradford need direct services to everywhere if it has decent frequencies to places that do? A single change at any of Leeds, Shipley, Skipton, Preston, Manchester and Huddersfield seem to cover most options quite thoroughly, along with its direct services.

Anyway, we have gone off on a significant tangent that has probably been done to death already.

We both want to see better capacity on the Sheffield-Leeds corridor, so I’m not overly sure there’s much point in debating the specifics of how that may happen.

 

[MidsMike]

On Sundays during the past few weeks, I’ve seen 4 cars run on Nottingham-Leeds.

 

[skyhigh]

On Sunday’s past few weeks I’ve seen 4 cars run on Nottingham-Leeds.

Yes it happens on Sundays because there is more platform availability at Leeds to make it work.

 

[IanXC]

I've pondered for a while whether post electrification we could see a Bradford Forster Square to York service, with the Blackpool terminating at Leeds.

It rather depends the extent to which there is a desire to use the wires. That could be in conjunction with a York - Leeds stopper, thus eliminating Northern diesels running between Leeds and York. Or extending the Nottingham which would be diesel under the wires... (with current stock).

 

[D6130]

I've pondered for a while whether post electrification we could see a Bradford Forster Square to York service, with the Blackpool terminating at York.

I assume that you meant 'with the Blackpool terminating at Leeds'.

 

[IanXC]

I assume that you meant 'with the Blackpool terminating at Leeds'.

Absolutely!

 

[skyhigh]

I've pondered for a while whether post electrification we could see a Bradford Forster Square to York service, with the Blackpool terminating at Leeds.

It rather depends the extent to which there is a desire to use the wires. That could be in conjunction with a York - Leeds stopper, thus eliminating Northern diesels running between Leeds and York. Or extending the Nottingham which would be diesel under the wires... (with current stock).

It would require quite a large diagram re-write. Probably easier to wait for new bi-modes and run them off the OHLE from Blackpool-Preston and Leeds-York

 

[YorksLad12]

The P17 situation does need sorting, and I absolutely agree about the situation on the Northern semi-fast service. The entire capacity on the Leeds-Sheffield corridor needs reviewing urgently. However, it doesn’t have to involve infrastructure work. This could be resolved by swapping service destinations around so that (for example) the Blackpool-York services terminate at Leeds and the Nottingham services continue to York. Alternatively, the TPE platforms (15/16) could be used in the short term while they are under-utilised. It’s one of those things, like many, that where there’s a will there’s a way, but all we get is a constant stream of excuses. Another suggestion is that the Nottingham service becomes the one that does the Wakefield Kirkgate-Westgate line so it can use the lower numbered platforms at Leeds instead of the Knottingley service.

Where in Leeds would your service from Blackpool terminate? Or would it form a service elsewhere?

I respectfully disagree; we can play around with the Leeds-Sheffield services all we like but ultimately it's trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. The infrastructure is completely inadequate to provide what is required - i.e. a fast and frequent service between Leeds and Sheffield (as part of the wider intercity network) and a frequent metro service for local stations. You won't be able to do that without new infrastructure.

If you send the Nottingham - Leeds services through to York, what do you do with the Lincoln - Leeds services? Don't forget the services from Nottingham terminate at Leeds and then become Lincoln services.

We've had plenty of discussions on what to do with Hallam Line and associated services over the years. Extending P17 is the preferred infrastructure change; my preferred intervention would be some railings along P16 where the lift is, as it's jolly dangerous when you're heading past there against the flow. In terms of services, I think the general feeling is that introducing the proposed fast service Leeds-Westgate-Sheffield (I'd start it from York myself) would allow changes to the semi-fasts, which would allow changes to the stoppers and a wholesale recast for the Hallam Line.

For that we'd need rolling stock and... platforms. Especially at Leeds and Sheffield.

 

[quantinghome]

Bradford is obviously an unfortunate victim of (railway) geography. Does Bradford need direct services to everywhere if it has decent frequencies to places that do? A single change at any of Leeds, Shipley, Skipton, Preston, Manchester and Huddersfield seem to cover most options quite thoroughly, along with its direct services.

It's never going to have direct services to *everywhere* but it needs to keep the direct links it has at the moment and get more where practicable - e.g. the proposed direct service to Nottingham via Sheffield for example, and improved regular direct services to London. Direct services to main trunk routes are important - hence why Preston and York should remain.