Ideas for York - Leeds - Manchester improvements

[Halifaxlad]

Not a problem as the site is a wide and open park, although its reduction might be regretted.

What might be more tricky are the ground conditions as the cemetery was used for Cholera victims during Leeds' many sad epidemics.

Since you wouldn't be able to build an embankment now like that i.e. with graves they all would have to be moved first!

Which then goes back to rescinding that act of Parliament.

 

[WAO]

That's why I mentioned ground conditions as infection can survive a long time in the earth, a hazard if disturbed by exhumation.

WAO

 

[Halifaxlad]

Anyway back to the thread I can't think of much that could be delivered for £1 billion which isn't currently being proposed.

I do wonder how much it would cost to widen the viaducts at Dewsbury and Batley to enable four tracking to be extended from Ravensthorpe all the way to Batley ?

 

[WAO]

Fortunately the question is unlikely to arise, as four-tracking a line where all trains travel at the same speed brings little benefit - if you needed to regulate westbound trains a third track west of the Minster would suffice, unless you also wanted to revive the Leeds Parish Church station idea (under a new name!)

Agreed trains won't be approaching/leaving Leeds C at speed but parallel working here would surely help?

WAO

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Anyway back to the thread I can't think of much that could be delivered for £1 billion which isn't currently being proposed.

I do wonder how much it would cost to widen the viaducts at Dewsbury and Batley to enable four tracking to be extended from Ravensthorpe all the way to Batley ?

I'm no civil engineer, but I pass under and over both viaducts regularly. My estimate is... *sucks teeth* a lot!

There's a large residential building very close to the Dewsbury viaduct, which I think is listed. Therefore you probably need to put both additional tracks on the Up side, which means a second viaduct parallel to the existing one. No idea how you'd thread support pillars in amongst the roads, so good luck with that! You'd probably also have to go through the station buildings to get a decent alignment, and those are definitely listed.

 

[30907]

Agreed trains won't be approaching/leaving Leeds C at speed but parallel working here would surely help?

The point is not the actual speed, but the fact that all trains are travelling at much the same speed over that section. Quadrupling a section where there are 2 or more stations would be far more use.

 

[YorksLad12]

Fortunately the question is unlikely to arise, as four-tracking a line where all trains travel at the same speed brings little benefit - if you needed to regulate westbound trains a third track west of the Minster would suffice, unless you also wanted to revive the Leeds Parish Church station idea (under a new name!)

I see no problem with the name

Leeds Marsh Lane and Leeds Quarry Hill have also been suggested for a station in that area between the Parish Church and Marsh Lane (oddly enough). A new Marsh Lane station with an island platform and centre bay or bays facing west would have relieved platforms at Leeds. It would also have cost a fortune and served really not that many people - and you would still have had to cross a major road to get to Quarry House.

So as it stands it'll be TRU bringing the most improvments over the next decade.

 

[Austriantrain]

The point is not the actual speed, but the fact that all trains are travelling at much the same speed over that section. Quadrupling a section where there are 2 or more stations would be far more use.

Really depends what timetable you want to run eastwards of Leeds. What is a realistic scenario? 6 fast NPR trains to York? 2 fast to Hull? And 2 stoppers each to York and Selby? 12 trains an hour plus those going to Neville Hill should be easy on two tracks; even a couple more, for instance one train to London.

As you say, it’s where the local stations start that you would need four tracks.

 

[Ken H]

Really depends what timetable you want to run eastwards of Leeds. What is a realistic scenario? 6 fast NPR trains to York? 2 fast to Hull? And 2 stoppers each to York and Selby? 12 trains an hour plus those going to Neville Hill should be easy on two tracks; even a couple more, for instance one train to London.

As you say, it’s where the local stations start that you would need four tracks.

There is a proposal to have a station just west on Neville Hill. NL to Crossgates was 4 tracks till the 60's. If and when they wire that bit they should put in passive provision for 4 tracks.
The 4 track section ended just west of Crossgates stn where the Wetherby line diverged. What you do west of there i dont know. Garforth bypass or push 4 tracks through Garforth??

 

[YorksLad12]

There is a proposal to have a station just west on Neville Hill. NL to Crossgates was 4 tracks till the 60's. If and when they wire that bit they should put in passive provision for 4 tracks.
The 4 track section ended just west of Crossgates stn where the Wetherby line diverged. What you do west of there i dont know. Garforth bypass or push 4 tracks through Garforth??

I'm hoping you meant east of Cross Gates

Looking at Google Maps, the boundary (and the viaduct over Selby Road) look capable of still taking four tracks but we don't know what the ground conditions are on the embankments. Heading further east it's still four-trackable, and I'd like to think that the new East Leeds Orbital Road just east of where Thorpe Park Station will probably be has a bridge with a large enough span... though it doesn't look like it to me.

I'm with @Neptune on shuffling Garforth 200m eastwards and closing East Garforth, but realistically it's going to be tought having four tracks east of Thorpe Park to Micklefield. Might four tracks between Leeds/Marsh Lane/Neville Hill and Thorpe Park be enough to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers?

The other question is how to pair them; west of Leeds/Dewsbury they are by speed whereas Cross Gates was built with by direction in mind. No reason they have to be the same, of course

 

[Ken H]

I'm hoping you meant east of Cross Gates

Looking at Google Maps, the boundary (and the viaduct over Selby Road) look capable of still taking four tracks but we don't know what the ground conditions are on the embankments. Heading further east it's still four-trackable, and I'd like to think that the new East Leeds Orbital Road just east of where Thorpe Park Station will probably be has a bridge with a large enough span... though it doesn't look like it to me.

I'm with @Neptune on shuffling Garforth 200m eastwards and closing East Garforth, but realistically it's going to be tought having four tracks east of Thorpe Park to Micklefield. Might four tracks between Leeds/Marsh Lane/Neville Hill and Thorpe Park be enough to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers?

The other question is how to pair them; west of Leeds/Dewsbury they are by speed whereas Cross Gates was built with by direction in mind. No reason they have to be the same, of course

Yes. East. sorry.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The other question is how to pair them; west of Leeds/Dewsbury they are by speed whereas Cross Gates was built with by direction in mind. No reason they have to be the same, of course

If you're going to switch pairings without wanting to spend millions on a grade-separated transition, Leeds is as good a place as any to do it. Not least because I don't believe there are any plans to run the Dewsbury line stoppers beyond Leeds anyway, so your slow services are out of the equation. If you need to have conflicts, best to have them somewhere like Leeds where everything stops anyway so it's easier to regulate.

 

[Ken H]

If you're going to switch pairings without wanting to spend millions on a grade-separated transition, Leeds is as good a place as any to do it. Not least because I don't believe there are any plans to run the Dewsbury line stoppers beyond Leeds anyway, so your slow services are out of the equation. If you need to have conflicts, best to have them somewhere like Leeds where everything stops anyway so it's easier to regulate.

Look at Slade Lane Jct between Stockport and Manchester for the mess you get when you change over. Should have been grade separated long ago.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Look at Slade Lane Jct between Stockport and Manchester for the mess you get when you change over. Should have been grade separated long ago.

That's more complex than just swapping the fasts and slows over though: you've also got the Styal lines branching off. My point was that if you're going to have to end up with a transition on the flat, better to have it where everything is moving slower.

 

[YorksLad12]

That's more complex than just swapping the fasts and slows over though: you've also got the Styal lines branching off. My point was that if you're going to have to end up with a transition on the flat, better to have it where everything is moving slower.

Indeed. And in the case of Leeds, it's effectively one route in and one route out whatever the speed of service - you're separating the services further out from Leeds, so swapping at Leeds makes sense.

FWIW I wouldn't extend the Huddersfield stopper through to York. I might extend the Doncaster or Bradford stoppers though - and it's still one route in, one out. A separate discussion though

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Indeed. And in the case of Leeds, it's effectively one route in and one route out whatever the speed of service - you're separating the services further out from Leeds, so swapping at Leeds makes sense.

FWIW I wouldn't extend the Huddersfield stopper through to York. I might extend the Doncaster or Bradford stoppers though - and it's still one route in, one out. A separate discussion though

As much as cross-Leeds services have a place, for shorter local journeys Leeds is the primary destination. Therefore it makes more sense for the through services to be the longer distance ones, namely the TPE fasts and XCs as it is today. Once Leeds to York is wired however, there may be a case for the stoppers on that section to be extended electric services from Doncaster or Skipton/Bradford/Ilkley. Although the Airedale services tend to use the former Wellington platforms, and shifting them over to the through lines might cause more problems than it solves. That's less of an issue for the Doncasters but those are only hourly, and you'd want more than 1tph of stoppers. Leeds also has two York-facing bays, at least one of which barely sees any use- so perhaps a standalone 2tph Leeds-York all-stations EMU stopper would be the best way. As a added bonus this would allow the Blackpool to York to run fast or semi-fast.

 

[Neptune]

As much as cross-Leeds services have a place, for shorter local journeys Leeds is the primary destination. Therefore it makes more sense for the through services to be the longer distance ones, namely the TPE fasts and XCs as it is today. Once Leeds to York is wired however, there may be a case for the stoppers on that section to be extended electric services from Doncaster or Skipton/Bradford/Ilkley. Although the Airedale services tend to use the former Wellington platforms, and shifting them over to the through lines might cause more problems than it solves. That's less of an issue for the Doncasters but those are only hourly, and you'd want more than 1tph of stoppers. Leeds also has two York-facing bays, at least one of which barely sees any use- so perhaps a standalone 2tph Leeds-York all-stations EMU stopper would be the best way. As a added bonus this would allow the Blackpool to York to run fast or semi-fast.

The balance for the stoppers is probably right at the moment. There is enough cross Leeds traffic for the Hull - Halifax service with the York - Leeds stopper staying self contained using p7. The Blackpool - York has been a semi fast for several years now with just a Church Fenton call and the odd Cross Gates in the peak although it will be picking up Garforth from December which again I think is just right.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The balance for the stoppers is probably right at the moment. There is enough cross Leeds traffic for the Hull - Halifax service with the York - Leeds stopper staying self contained using p7. The Blackpool - York has been a semi fast for several years now with just a Church Fenton call and the odd Cross Gates in the peak although it will be picking up Garforth from December which again I think is just right.

Thanks, wasn't sure what the current stopping pattern is on the Blackpools, as it's been varied over the years and it's a good while since I went that way out of Leeds. I knew it was always (or at least usually) semi-fast west of Leeds.

 

[daodao]

The key way to improve Manchester-Leeds-York/Hull services via Standedge is for none of them to be routed via the Castlefield line.

• The fast services (2 tph) should be routed via Victoria to Liverpool and only call at Huddersfield in addition to Manchester/Leeds between Liverpool and York. They should extend alternately to Newcastle/Tees-side, and be run by the ECML franchise, with first-class provision and catering.
• Semi-fast services (2 tph) should call at Dewsbury/Huddersfield/Stalybridge/Guide Bridge between Leeds and Manchester and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly platforms 1-3. They should be run by Northern.
• Stopping services via Standedge should be run by Northern using 3-4 carriage trains and in Manchester terminate at Victoria platforms 1-2.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The key way to improve Manchester-Leeds-York/Hull services via Standedge is for none of them to be routed via the Castlefield line.

• The fast services (2 tph) should be routed via Victoria to Liverpool and only call at Huddersfield in addition to Manchester/Leeds between Liverpool and York. They should extend alternately to Newcastle/Tees-side, and be run by the ECML franchise, with first-class provision and catering.
• Semi-fast services (2 tph) should call at Dewsbury/Huddersfield/Stalybridge/Guide Bridge between Leeds and Manchester and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly platforms 1-3. They should be run by Northern.
• Stopping services via Standedge should be run by Northern using 3-4 carriage trains and in Manchester terminate at Victoria platforms 1-2.

Presumably that situation would (indirectly) lead to the abolition of the separate TPE franchise: with the services via Hope Valley going to the East Midlands franchise, and Manchester to Scotland going to the WCML?
I quite like the look of the service pattern suggested, though I'd hope to see a second stopper per hour either side of Huddersfield once the wires are up.

 

[mike57]

The key way to improve Manchester-Leeds-York/Hull services via Standedge is for none of them to be routed via the Castlefield line.

• The fast services (2 tph) should be routed via Victoria to Liverpool and only call at Huddersfield in addition to Manchester/Leeds between Liverpool and York. They should extend alternately to Newcastle/Tees-side, and be run by the ECML franchise, with first-class provision and catering.
• Semi-fast services (2 tph) should call at Dewsbury/Huddersfield/Stalybridge/Guide Bridge between Leeds and Manchester and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly platforms 1-3. They should be run by Northern.
• Stopping services via Standedge should be run by Northern using 3-4 carriage trains and in Manchester terminate at Victoria platforms 1-2.

I would agree with that, The fast services would be using 802s which are already similar to exsting ECML stock. My thoughts are:

How do you provide connectivity between Vic and Pic, include tram travel in the ticket where a cross station journey is indicated? Provide a local service aroumd Ordsall chord?

My other thought is that judging by loading even pre covid Liverpool services possibly dont justify 2 tph fast, so what to do with the second fast service, run it to Liverpool anyway because its a convenient end point, look at a different destination, may be Chester, (which also gives Warrington/WCML connectivity) taking over that bit of the Northern service which tends to run semi fast. I agree about keeping out of Castlefield, it just creates problems.

And sort of tied up with this how do you provide airport connections from the fast services. Over years of travelling to Manchester, of the western destinations the airport tends to be the most heavily used after Manchester city centre by those originating from east of the Pennines. Maybe combine Stalybridge Vic stopper with Pic Airport stopper and run it round Castlefield in place of transpennine services, timed to connect with fast services.

And this gets rid of TPE north who have failed to perform on a consistent basis for over 4 years now. What do you do with TPE south, I assume TPE anglo scottish would go to WCML operator

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If using @daodao 's model for Trans-Pennine as described above, I'd probably cover the Picc-Vic link with a local service from Manchester Airport to Stalybridge and/or Rochdale. This would also provide a single-change journey for passengers from Leeds etc. who would lose the direct service they have now.

 

[YorksLad12]

The balance for the stoppers is probably right at the moment. There is enough cross Leeds traffic for the Hull - Halifax service with the York - Leeds stopper staying self contained using p7. The Blackpool - York has been a semi fast for several years now with just a Church Fenton call and the odd Cross Gates in the peak although it will be picking up Garforth from December which again I think is just right.

I was thinking more about platform occupancy. Running the Huddersfield stopper on to York frees up P13 for 30 minutes. If the Wigan via Dewsbury services were run using bimodes it would free P13 up entirely so that longer trains could run on the Sheffield via Barnsley or Pontefract via Castleford routes (fasts from 13, stoppers from 17 - or vice versa). Or, the Doncaster stopper also runs through, and the Wigan stopper takes its platform.

Of course, by the time any of this happens the railway world will be completely different

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was thinking more about platform occupancy. Running the Huddersfield stopper on to York frees up P13 for 30 minutes. If the Wigan via Dewsbury services were run using bimodes it would free P13 up entirely so that longer trains could run on the Sheffield via Barnsley or Pontefract via Castleford routes (fasts from 13, stoppers from 17 - or vice versa). Or, the Doncaster stopper also runs through, and the Wigan stopper takes its platform.

Of course, by the time any of this happens the railway world will be completely different

That's not a bad idea for easing the Platform 17 problem, as the Dewsbury stoppers (both Huddersfield and Wigan) could relatively easily use a lower numbered platform, whereas those out towards Woodlesford can't really go any lower than 13. The downside is that anything leaving P13 towards Woodlesford has to cross over the lines to platforms 15 & 16, which isn't ideal.
One thing about Leeds is that it has more through platforms than there is capacity for services to run to the east. This does mean that turning services in through platforms doesn't necessarily eat into capacity for services towards York/Selby.

Would there be a case for shifting the main platforms for the TPE fasts over from 15 & 16 to 11 & 12? (Or even 9 & 11, either side of the same island). Obviously you'd have to rejig a few things, but this could allow the Nottingham (for example) to run from 15 or 16 and thus be longer than 2-car.

 

[bluenoxid]

With regards to shifting platforms over, one option would be 12 and 15. Another option post major revamp would be 15 and 13/14

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regards to shifting platforms over, one option would be 12 and 15. Another option post major revamp would be 15 and 13/14

Are they still planning on merging 13 & 14? I know that's been proposed a few times but thought it had been ruled out for safety reasons (narrow platforms and congested narrow stairs from the footbridge). Would also require the removal of the very handy gents' toilets, which will upset a fair few people.

 

[MisterSheeps]

everyone is talking about squeezing more trains through Leeds, but has anyone done any traffic analysis to see if the north cross pennine flow supports enough passengers to avoid Leeds? i.e. resurrect service on the L & Y mainline : York - Castleford - Wakefield - Huddersfield, say 2 tph.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

everyone is talking about squeezing more trains through Leeds, but has anyone done any traffic analysis to see if the north cross pennine flow supports enough passengers to avoid Leeds? i.e. resurrect service on the L & Y mainline : York - Castleford - Wakefield - Huddersfield, say 2 tph.

I'd be massively shocked if there was enough traffic for 2tph avoiding Leeds. A few of us back before the coof had been suggesting extending the Huddersfield - Castleford service to York, but were constantly being told it wasn't viable by those "in the know" on here. I still think it would be worth a try, but when even the Leeds stoppers from Huddersfield are only hourly, the idea of two trains per hour avoiding what is effectively the regional capital is cloud cuckoo land stuff.

We need to get the hang of walking before we try to run.

 

[mike57]

I'd be massively shocked if there was enough traffic for 2tph avoiding Leeds.

As a regular passenger through Leeds I would say that at up to 75% of the carriage I am sat in gets off/joins in Leeds. I also suspect it may be a slower journey

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As a regular passenger through Leeds I would say that at up to 75% of the carriage I am sat in gets off/joins in Leeds. I also suspect it may be a slower journey

I can see there being some value in having an hourly or bi-hourly extension of Huddersfield - Castleford to York, but it would probably be slower than going via Leeds. Rather than looking for a reason to avoid Leeds, we should maybe look at what such a move would actually gain. I can see the potential of linking depressed Castleford with prosperous York, and a slower but reliable alternative for Huddersfield to York in the event of disruption would be useful... however occasional use-cases don't really build a business-case.

In any case, we need to get the ordinary Castleford service back before we can start to experiment with extensions and the like.