Leeds 'HS2' station alternative use as ECML terminal

[EastisECML]

Pretty much given away my entire idea in the post title. But to add a bit more detail, part of the dropped east leg of HS2 could be resurrected to link this station to any or all of Wakefield, Sheffield, Doncaster and South of Doncaster. New Lane would then take LNER and XC services out of the current station. That is if XC decides Newcastle trains will only go via Doncaster and Leeds trains will terminate.

If NPR was to split up services at Leeds then a new line could be built from the Huddersfield line at Morley and maybe follow the M621 in if possible? And on the other side using the HS2 proposal there'd just need to be a North facing link following the M1 to where HS2 was going to join the existing line at Ulleskelf. NPR services would have to be split into Liverpool & Birmingham to Leeds via Manchester and Leeds to Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough & Hull.

This leaves the current Leeds station entirely for local and regional services.

 

[HST43257]

I’d rather see the new part of Leeds station that creates the T shape be given to services through Woodlesford so they don’t have to share tracks with any upgraded TPE/NPR stuff. Leave provision for any future part of HS2 to Leeds to also use this new section.

 

[EastisECML]

I’d rather see the new part of Leeds station that creates the T shape be given to services through Woodlesford so they don’t have to share tracks with any upgraded TPE/NPR stuff. Leave provision for any future part of HS2 to Leeds to also use this new section.

Of course, i forgot to mention those services. Anything South of Leeds into the New Lane section. So enough platforms for possibly LNER x 3tph, XC x 2tph, regional to Sheffield x 2tph/Doncaster x 2tph/Barnsley x 2tph/Castleford & Pontefract 2tph. Maybe seven would suffice?

NPR and regional services from Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax to York and Hull through rebuilt (and hopefully simplified) east-west through platforms. And regional trains from the North West into the terminating platforms.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I like the idea in principle although I'm not so sure on the feasibility of building a new line adjacent to the M621.

Perhaps NPR services could be routed via Wakefield and Woodlesford ?

As for connecting East of Leeds, it would probably be much cheaper if you constructed a short spur to join into the freight line just before Neville hill which could look like my quick drawing below!

 

[47444]

How do ECML services reach the HS2 station without ceasing to serve Wakefield?

 

[Halifaxlad]

How do ECML services reach the HS2 station without ceasing to serve Wakefield?

They could go via Woodlesford!

 

[EastisECML]

How do ECML services reach the HS2 station without ceasing to serve Wakefield?

New line from Wakefield following the M1 and briefly the M621 before taking up the HS2 proposed alignment to run into the new station.

 

[D365]

So what happens if HS2 East is belatedly revived?

 

[HST43257]

So what happens if HS2 East is belatedly revived?

Everything from the Woodlesford direction should use the new section, with HS2 segregated of course.

Assume max. 2tph per platform I guess.

My idea would have

High Speed:
2tph London
2tph Sheffield
1tph Birmingham

Regional:
2tph Barnsley fast
2tph Knottingley slow
1tph Barnsley slow

6 platforms required - yes? Maybe 8 for future service, or services on a link from the Outwood line.

 

[Halifaxlad]

6 platforms required - yes? Maybe 8 for future service, or services on a link from the Outwood line.

Don't forget initally it was going to be four 400m long platforms then a fifth got added, so essentially it could be 8/9 200m long platforms!

 

[EastisECML]

So what happens if HS2 East is belatedly revived?

In my idea New Lane would be bigger than originally planned, I think rather than building just enough platforms you should have enough for flexibility/emergencies/expansion of services. So from day one this station would be ready for HS2 to connect up to it. But also remember HS2 would likely see a reduction in LNER services.

View attachment 112935

Looks a decent way of effectively four tracking Leeds to Neville Hill.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Looks a decent way of effectively four tracking Leeds to Neville Hill.

Thanks,

Just been thinking if you wanted to add an extra bit we could divert all freight that way instead of through the existing station.

 

[47444]

New line from Wakefield following the M1 and briefly the M621 before taking up the HS2 proposed alignment to run into the new station.

What - reversing at Westgate?!

 

[EastisECML]

No, connecting with the existing mainline where it passes the M1. Just look at https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php and follow the HS2 Leeds branch out from the city to the M621 and imagine a line from here following the M621 and then the M1 south for a short stretch until it passes the existing Leeds to Wakefield line which is where the connection into Wakefield would be. In my head at least.

Edit: Managed a mock up on my phone, hopefully you can see the blue line. Wouldn't be that straight as it would need to slightly curve around some kind of nature reserve.

 

[YorksLad12]

I had, in a different thread, suggested building the 'T' station for anything that ran to or via Sheffield. Heading south you'd pass the former Midland station at Crown Point and join the exiting line there. That cuts the corner for Castleford and Barnsley services. East of Stourton you'd branch off via most of the former route through Robin Hood, parallel the motorway and rejoin the line just north of Outwood Station. That would be for Leeds-Sheffield/Doncaster stoppers and LNER terminating services. "W" track at Leeds so that services could run through to/from York and Huddersfield were a bit harder to fit in.

In the end, the planned extensions to P13 and P17 are the much cheaper option, and easier to deliver.

 

[EastisECML]

In the end, the planned extensions to P13 and P17 are the much cheaper option, and easier to deliver.

How far are they being extended? I think an extra pair of tracks on both sides of the station should be a not too distant future aim at least.

 

[YorksLad12]

How far are they being extended? I think an extra pair of tracks on both sides of the station should be a not too distant future aim at least.

Not too far (there's not that much space for them). Tracks to the south (where they are most needed) are difficult to fit in given the building work over the last few years - it was difficult enough getting the southern entrance built. Easier to the north but that's not where the capacity issues are, the six platforms from 0 to 5 can easily cope with everything to/from Harrogate, Ilkley, Skipton and Bradford FS.

Some sidings might be nice, to clear the platforms, but you'd have to pass through West End... and there's building work north of that junction as well. There's probably a whole siding v platforms thread to be had

 

[Neptune]

How far are they being extended? I think an extra pair of tracks on both sides of the station should be a not too distant future aim at least.

No need on the north side since the building of platform 0 with the associated track/signal works has increased capacity substantially (everyone needs to remember it wasn’t just an extra platform but a whole host of capacity enhancing schemes resulting in 1 extra platform together with boat loads more flexibility).

Whilst a platform 18 would be desirable on the south side there is no way to do it as it stands and once P17 is extended it renders P18 less beneficial.

 

[EastisECML]

There still appears to be room for more platforms on the north side of the station? And an extra pair of tracks on either side of the existing western approach. Might be useful if each route had its own set of tracks and platforms at Leeds. Two tracks for Northern electric services and Harrogate, Lancaster and Carlisle. Two for Bradford with an additional couple of tracks to keep them separate from LNER services. Then four for Huddersfield fast and locals, also shared with Castleford trains.

 

[Neptune]

There still appears to be room for more platforms on the north side of the station? And an extra pair of tracks on either side of the existing western approach. Might be useful if each route had its own set of tracks and platforms at Leeds. Two tracks for Northern electric services and Harrogate, Lancaster and Carlisle. Two for Bradford with an additional couple of tracks to keep them separate from LNER services. Then four for Huddersfield fast and locals, also shared with Castleford trains.

Pointless expense. Just because the land is there doesn’t mean to say it should be used. It would result in more platforms than is required.

The multi million pound remodelling that has just been completed allows for more moves in that part of the station and longer trains up to what was required before the downturn in traffic (ie probably over capacity in the new post covid world).

 

[Halifaxlad]

I believe the new platform zero was designed with future provision in mind for platform minus 1!

It may be useful creating another platform just for the Harrogate services as not so long ago the stabling of a 170 in front of a 333 held up a Skipton service because they couldn't find a driver to move the 170 out of the way.

I don't know how this happened but it happened!

 

[Neptune]

I believe the new platform zero was designed with future provision in mind for platform minus 1!

It may be useful creating another platform just for the Harrogate services as not so long ago the stabling of a 170 in front of a 333 held up a Skipton service because they couldn't find a driver to move the 170 out of the way.

I don't know how this happened but it happened!

There is no need for anymore platforms on the north side of the station. I’m not sure how many times I have to say this but the work done has created exactly what that part of the station needed before the pandemic and associated downturn in traffic. More flexibility for train moves, more and longer trains.

Just because a space exists doesn’t mean it must be used for railway purposes when the need for it isn’t required.

Leeds’ capacity issues are at the south side of the layout and 10 new north side bays extending into the Wellington Place development would not resolve it.

 

[YorksLad12]

Pointless expense. Just because the land is there doesn’t mean to say it should be used. It would result in more platforms than is required.

The multi million pound remodelling that has just been completed allows for more moves in that part of the station and longer trains up to what was required before the downturn in traffic (ie probably over capacity in the new post covid world).

Indeed. North is not where the capacity/platforming problems are.

I believe the new platform zero was designed with future provision in mind for platform minus 1!

Then you believe incorrectly (I believe). To add more platforms you'd have to knock down the multi-storey car park, otherwise there isn't a passenger route to the gateline. Unless you fill in 25m of P0, which would make it shorter and less useful... and any new platforms would consequently also be shorter. So a new platform next to P0 would only gain you half a platform in terms of units.

 

[EastisECML]

The multi million pound remodelling that has just been completed allows for more moves in that part of the station and longer trains up to what was required before the downturn in traffic (ie probably over capacity in the new post covid world).

Does it eliminate the York to Hebden Bridge service conflicting with LNER services as it crosses tracks?

Leeds’ capacity issues are at the south side of the layout

What are they?

 

[Neptune]

Does it eliminate the York to Hebden Bridge service conflicting with LNER services as it crosses tracks?

No which is why you create the timetable to eliminate conflicting moves.

You can’t have one separate track for each service.

What are they?

Platform 17 as mentioned many times is being extended due to the lack of ability to extend southwards to create a platform 18.

 

[EastisECML]

Fair enough. I guess the only other thing I can say is that I wonder if it would ever be feasible to simplify the through platforms into just six but wider and longer if and when New Lane gets added. I think that's what is happening at Amsterdam Centraal as an example. Although that's because they're going to send services to an enlarged Zuid station I think. Might work if Castleford and Barnsley services are diverted onto a new line from Rothwell to Neville Hill, approach from the East and join up with a service from West to become a through service?

 

[Neptune]

Fair enough. I guess the only other thing I can say is that I wonder if it would ever be feasible to simplify the through platforms into just six but wider and longer if and when New Lane gets added. I think that's what is happening at Amsterdam Centraal as an example. Although that's because they're going to send services to an enlarged Zuid station I think. Might work if they convert Castleford services to light rail and they are diverted?

There are currently 6 through platforms and with the through road and crossings between 11&12 this effectively helps make it 8 through roads. Losing that would massively reduce through capacity.

There has been talk of linking p13&14 in the past but this isn’t popular amongst planners and is unlikely to happen as it would reduce Leeds to a single east facing bay (p7) therefore reducing flexibility.

TPE returning to 4 clockface trains in either direction rather than trying to squeeze every ounce out of the TransPennine route would help Leeds station immeasurably.

 

[YorksLad12]

There has been talk of linking p13&14 in the past but this isn’t popular amongst planners and is unlikely to happen as it would reduce Leeds to a single east facing bay (p7) therefore reducing flexibility.

I did read somewhere (but can't remember where) of a proposal to fill in P14 to give more circulation space to P15. Anything for P14 could use P12D, as the whole of P12 seems to be the through platform that is most used by units heading in either direction (P8, P9 & P11 get used by CrossCountry and LNER; P15 & P16 by TPE). But yes, cutting the TPE services down to 4tph will certainly help.

 

[Neptune]

I did read somewhere (but can't remember where) of a proposal to fill in P14 to give more circulation space to P15. Anything for P14 could use P12D, as the whole of P12 seems to be the through platform that is most used by units heading in either direction (P8, P9 & P11 get used by CrossCountry and LNER; P15 & P16 by TPE). But yes, cutting the TPE services down to 4tph will certainly help.

No p14 is staying. Creating a more circulation space at the east end of p15 by sacrificing half of the east facing bays is a step too far.

TRU will rely on p14 rather a lot.

 

[EastisECML]

Do those 4tph TPE services include the stopper to Huddersfield? I'm guessing the other 3tph would be to Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Hull?