Leeds Station: What further improvements would you like to see?

[quantinghome]

There is a plan for Platform 17 going through WYCA approval at the moment. Has a hefty price tag so I expect it would be a more thorough sorting out than simply extending the platform.

 

[Killingworth]

There is a plan for Platform 17 going through WYCA approval at the moment. Has a hefty price tag so I expect it would be a more thorough sorting out than simply extending the platform.

Excellent news, I think. Just hope it's made easier to get to. But the cost is indeed hefty!

It may be hard to extract, so the following is copied and pasted from the WYCA website. Slightly concerning that a reasonably detailed cost benefit analysis cones out as medium value for money. Reasonably detailed, medium vfm?

Project Overview

Project Title
Leeds Rail Station Platform Extension

Main Funding Programme
City Regional Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) Fund
Current Forecast Project cost
£20,970,000 and £24,900,000
Funding Applied for from the Combined Authority
£10,000,000
Other public sector funding amounts and sources
£10,970,000 to £14,900,000 Department for Transport Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline Fund

Scheme Description
The scheme will increase rail and platform capacity for passengers travelling via Leeds trains station as part of a wider programme of station improvements. Works include a lengthened Platform 17, which will enable trains to increase the number of carriages, and provision of an improved passenger route between platforms 16 and 17 by relocating and improving the existing lift and staircases.
The scheme will reduce overcrowding and congestion on services and platforms at Leeds station helping improve customer satisfaction and support anticipated rail passenger growth.
The increased capacity and improved level of service anticipated from the proposed intervention is expected to increase the uptake of rail travel, with a switch from car travel, resulting in reduced carbon emissions and improved connectivity to education, employment, and housing opportunities by a more sustainable transport option.
Business Case Summary
Strategic Case
Network Rail has identified congestion and overcrowding issues at Leeds Station, in particular at platforms 16 and 17. This, against a forecasted recovery and growth in passenger numbers, is anticipated to exacerbate these issues and will undermine the aim of attracting people to travel on rail rather than by private car.
The scheme is expected to reduce the issues of overcrowding, congestion and improve safety and overall service reliability. As such, the overarching strategic importance of the scheme is recognised in improving the accessibility and inclusivity of the rail system for all, to aid connection to employment, education, and other social and leisure opportunities. This will also help facilitate a shift away from private car trips to contribute to the decarbonisation of transport. The scheme therefore aligns with several national, regional, and local policies and strategies.
Economic Case
The economic case summarised a small number of options being considered by Network Rail against objectives and key metrics. This identified a platform extension and improvements to the connections between platforms 16 and 17 as being the preferred scheme, with differing assumptions tested regarding the sourcing of additional vehicles to provide longer trains at the platform.
A reasonably detailed cost benefit analysis has been undertaken for the preferred option, which revealed the scheme would represent medium value for money.
Key benefits of the scheme include journey time benefits from reduced overcrowding, and positive impacts relating to air quality, noise, carbon emissions and road decongestion from people switching from car travel to rail.
Commercial Case
Procurement activities are to be carried out by Network Rail using its standard processes, procedures and pre-existing frameworks. Network Rail-specific infrastructure contracts, developed for its capital delivery works, are to be used as appropriate for this scheme.
Social value is evaluated and incorporated into the procurement process and contracts throughout project development in accordance with Network Rail’s social value framework.
Financial Case
The total scheme cost is estimated to be between £20,970,000 to £24,970,000 with funding comprising up to:
£10,000,000 – Combined Authority CRSTS fund
£14,900,000 - Department for Transport Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline Fund
Management Case
Network Rail will lead on the delivery of the scheme and has a dedicated project manager to ensure the project passes through Network Rail’s assurance process and submit the scheme business case to the Department for Transport (DfT).
Network Rail has experience of developing and managing schemes of this nature and will continually monitor the project’s risk profile and the risk response actions taken to mitigate.
Stakeholder engagement is to be progressed as part of the next activity of scheme development.

 

[YorksLad12]

For comparison, Haxby Station was also going to cost £24m...

This bit is interesting:

The scheme will increase rail and platform capacity for passengers travelling via Leeds trains station as part of a wider programme of station improvements. Works include a lengthened Platform 17, which will enable trains to increase the number of carriages, and provision of an improved passenger route between platforms 16 and 17 by relocating and improving the existing lift and staircases.

To me, that sounds as if they're moving lift the closer to the current top of the stairs, extending the platform back to where the lift currently is, thus removing that unsafe corner. Before the Southern Entrance opened there was a video which showed no lift... how we laughed at the space

 

[xotGD]

Yes, particularly when you have to leg it across town to get the last bus of the night !

Or in my case, when you are still in the pub and realise you have 5 minutes to reach Platform 3!

 

[yorksrob]

Or in my case, when you are still in the pub and realise you have 5 minutes to reach Platform 3!

Oh yes

I spend too much time running across Leeds !

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Regarding the former New Station Street exit mentioned upthread, I'd be slightly concerned about crowd management. I'm sure it could be opened in a way that would work safely, but it wouldn't be easy.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Regarding the former New Station Street exit mentioned upthread, I'd be slightly concerned about crowd management. I'm sure it could be opened in a way that would work safely, but it wouldn't be easy.

Is this the gate near old Parcels depot that is now home to BTP ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is this the gate near old Parcels depot that is now home to BTP ?

I assumed that's the place being referred to, if it isn't then my previous post can be disregarded.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I assumed that's the place being referred to, if it isn't then my previous post can be disregarded.

Im just not familar with Leeds station or rather how it used to be.

Surely the answer would be to demilish the old Parcels depot and put a decent gateline in ?

Do BTP need to be exactly where they are now ?

 

[YorksLad12]

The New Station Street exit is the one used by the catering vans, just off P7/P8. There's also the goods delivery entrance off P0, which leads to the car park where the parcels platforms used to be. Annoying for me when catching a train from the low-numbered platforms, as I still have to to walk through the North Concourse, South Concourse and gate line when I could have come in a quicker way.

The problem with either entrance being used is that you would have to do manual ticket checks while stopping people pushing past you. You couldn't install gates there if used by deliveries. They are also the emergency exits if something happens at the gate line (yes, I did a briefing once ).

 

[Halifaxlad]

You couldn't install gates there if used by deliveries. They are also the emergency exits if something happens at the gate line

Well if the old Parcels depot building was demolished presumably there would be enough room for a gateline alongside the emergency exit gates.

As for deliveries I wonder if a lift could be put in from Soverign place/Pitt row so they could access the goods bridge from the other end.

 

[Grumpy]

The New Station Street exit is the one used by the catering vans, just off P7/P8. (snip)

The problem with either entrance being used is that you would have to do manual ticket checks while stopping people pushing past you. You couldn't install gates there if used by deliveries. They are also the emergency exits if something happens at the gate line (yes, I did a briefing once ).

Simple. You give delivery vehicles a specific time window to deliver (which is how many distribution warehouses work) ie at off-peak times. You can do manual checks with the aid of simple, wheelable crowd barriers. As stated above, give it a try it would cost next to nothing.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This isnt the photo I was refering to earlier but it is another that shows what the link between the North & South concourses used to look like. Quite fancy really especially by comparison to today.

 

[Killingworth]

This isnt the photo I was refering to earlier but it is another that shows what the link between the North & South concourses used to look like. Quite fancy really especially by comparison to today.

View attachment 167281

Were there terminating platforms to the left or right? It may not have looked so very different in 1965.

 

[YorksLad12]

Were there terminating platforms to the left or right? It may not have looked so very different in 1965.

That looks like the North Concourse - I don't think the South Concourse would be as swish! In which case the platforms are to the right - they have the windows, it's the back of The Queens on the other side.

 

[Killingworth]

That looks like the North Concourse - I don't think the South Concourse would be as swish! In which case the platforms are to the right - they have the windows, it's the back of The Queens on the other side.

All comes back! I recall a wall of GPO telephone kiosks outside the Post Office facing the Queens. I'd been for a job interview and that over rode my interest in trains, too busy phoning home. Back to the present, enough nostalgia, must look forward.

 

[Grumpy]

Excellent news, I think. Just hope it's made easier to get to. But the cost is indeed hefty!

It may be hard to extract, so the following is copied and pasted from the WYCA website. Slightly concerning that a reasonably detailed cost benefit analysis cones out as medium value for money. Reasonably detailed, medium vfm?

So they want to squander more 10's of £m at Leeds. This really is a deplorable paper, full of repeated unquantifiable generalisations(eg "to aid connection to employment, education, and other social and leisure opportunities. This will also help facilitate a shift away from private car trips to contribute to the decarbonisation of transport"). There is no description of any alternatives considered.
If platform 17 is considered to be overcrowded, why not simply make better use of the other platforms? For example between 1700 and 1800 (which I guess might be busy times) platform 15 only has 3 trains, all passing through, and occupying the platform for 10 minutes in total. Platform 16 has 4 totalling 13 minutes (plus a Q path for a passing freight). Perhaps mixing the Sheffield/Lincoln units might help.

 

[30907]

If platform 17 is considered to be overcrowded, why not simply make better use of the other platforms? For example between 1700 and 1800 (which I guess might be busy times) platform 15 only has 3 trains, all passing through, and occupying the platform for 10 minutes in total. Platform 16 has 4 totalling 13 minutes (plus a Q path for a passing freight). Perhaps mixing the Sheffield/Lincoln units might help.

You forget, perhaps, that TP are not operating a full service - the full 15-min interval would leave no space for additional trains on either 15 or 16, certainly not for terminators.
It might be possible to (1) make more use of 13B or (2) rejig the via Methley services so the Castleford and Wakefield services alternated at 17, but - even if that can be made to work - it leaves no room for growth.

 

[Grumpy]

You forget, perhaps, that TP are not operating a full service - the full 15-min interval would leave no space for additional trains on either 15 or 16, certainly not for terminators.
It might be possible to (1) make more use of 13B or (2) rejig the via Methley services so the Castleford and Wakefield services alternated at 17, but - even if that can be made to work - it leaves no room for growth.

I take a 15-min interval service to be 4 trains/hr each way i.e. a total of 8. The example I quoted only had 7-but there were 8 TPE through trains in this period as the Scarb-Picc train ran via platform 13.
If all 8 ran via 15 and 16 and stopped for 3 minutes that's 24 minutes platform occupation out of 120.
As you suggest, use of 13b and some re-jig of the Methley line services might be necessary but surely this is worth looking at before spending £25m?

 

[Halifaxlad]

You forget, perhaps, that TP are not operating a full service - the full 15-min interval would leave no space for additional trains on either 15 or 16, certainly not for terminators.
It might be possible to (1) make more use of 13B or (2) rejig the via Methley services so the Castleford and Wakefield services alternated at 17, but - even if that can be made to work - it leaves no room for growth.

If this was about rail capacity then surely WYCA wouldnt be involved ?

 

[YorksLad12]

I take a 15-min interval service to be 4 trains/hr each way i.e. a total of 8. The example I quoted only had 7-but there were 8 TPE through trains in this period as the Scarb-Picc train ran via platform 13.
If all 8 ran via 15 and 16 and stopped for 3 minutes that's 24 minutes platform occupation out of 120.
As you suggest, use of 13b and some re-jig of the Methley line services might be necessary but surely this is worth looking at before spending £25m?

You forget, perhaps, that TP are not operating a full service - the full 15-min interval would leave no space for additional trains on either 15 or 16, certainly not for terminators.
It might be possible to (1) make more use of 13B or (2) rejig the via Methley services so the Castleford and Wakefield services alternated at 17, but - even if that can be made to work - it leaves no room for growth.

Thing to remember is that Leeds platform occupancy isn’t evenly distributed. There are XC layovers and crew changes while waiting for the next path out, north and south. LNER services occupy one platform for thirty minutes, three times every two hours. Terminating services don’t always pull out again three minutes later. It was said that Leeds was at 101% capacity before the pandemic - I have no reason to doubt that.

 

[Tge1435]

Leeds station works are definitely not as far away as you think. Bam are hoping to start the scheme very shortly. This includes opening up the subterranean plus various other elements including new footbridges, roof, platforms etc. More should be known by the end of the year.

 

[Grumpy]

Thing to remember is that Leeds platform occupancy isn’t evenly distributed. There are XC layovers and crew changes while waiting for the next path out, north and south. LNER services occupy one platform for thirty minutes, three times every two hours. Terminating services don’t always pull out again three minutes later. It was said that Leeds was at 101% capacity before the pandemic - I have no reason to doubt that.

I don’t think XC are that significant-they’re only one train/hour each way and seem to average around 5mins/stop. Presumably LNER occupation may go down when they run more trains to Bradford.

I’m not sure how 101% capacity is defined/calculated. Kings Cross deals with a similar number of passengers with a third fewer platforms

 

[Killingworth]

I don’t think XC are that significant-they’re only one train/hour each way and seem to average around 5mins/stop. Presumably LNER occupation may go down when they run more trains to Bradford.

I’m not sure how 101% capacity is defined/calculated. Kings Cross deals with a similar number of passengers with a third fewer platforms

Leeds has to deal with a lot more train movements of shorter trains!

 

[30907]

If all 8 (TPEs) ran via 15 and 16 and stopped for 3 minutes that's 24 minutes platform occupation out of 120.

But platform re-occupation times have to be added, which at least doubles it. You could maybe get 8tph at 15 or 16 provided (1) they were all going in one direction and (2) you could get the passengers on and off the platform, which is certainly an issue with 16. You couldn't use either for terminating trains.

As you suggest, use of 13b and some re-jig of the Methley line services might be necessary but surely this is worth looking at before spending £25m?

Depends what the scope of the project is - post #82 is interesting.

I don’t think XC are that significant-they’re only one train/hour each way and seem to average around 5mins/stop.

Agreed.

 

[xotGD]

You couldn't use either for terminating trains.

Unless they could add a turnback siding east of the station to get trains out of the way.

you would have to do manual ticket checks while stopping people pushing past you.

I've seen this done at Manchester Oxford Rd in the morning peak. A gate opened and manual checks, but only for use by season ticket holders.