• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

My idea for a reorganisation of services between Manchester/Nottingham and Lincoln/Leeds

Status
Not open for further replies.

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,387
Location
Wimborne
With HS2 potentially freeing up paths along several mainlines in the Midlands and North, I have been wondering whether there is any merit in a wider reorganisation of services along the East Midlands - Manchester/Leeds axis.

Firstly, with the HS2 eliminating the need for 2tph between Kings Cross and Leeds, you could use the freed up path on the Wakefield Line for a new Leeds - East Anglia service, as well as doubling of the Leeds - Doncaster stopper which would extend to Lincoln in place of the EMR shuttle. In the case of the latter, this would be a much quicker route between the two cities and allow the existing Lincoln - Leeds via Sheffield to be carved up to provide better connections elsewhere.

At the same time, I would also divert the Nottingham - Manchester service via Stoke-on-Trent. This would provide a doubling of frequency on the main part of the Derby - Crewe line and give Derby direct trains to Manchester. I am not sure if this route would be quicker than going via the Hope Valley, but it would avoid a reversal at Sheffield, while in a post-HS2/NPR scenario I would expect all Hope Valley services to pick up additional stops on that line anyway.

With the diversion of both the Leeds to Lincoln and Nottingham to Manchester away from Sheffield, you remove both reversals at that station and unlock four spare paths in each direction (1 each for Hope Valley, Hallam, Worksop and Erewash Valley lines). I would use these to create a brand new direct Manchester - Lincoln service, and a doubling of the Leeds - Nottingham to 2tph. The latter would call at the same stations as now but with the addition of 1tph alternating between Darton and Normanton to provide the much needed 2tph service to these.

To summarise, my proposed changes would consist of:

1tph Leeds - Lincoln
Outwood, Wakefield Westgate, Sandal & Abrigg, Fitzwilliam, South Elmsall, Adwick, Bentley, Doncaster, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, LINCOLN

2tph Leeds - Nottingham
Normanton (1tph), Wakefield Kirkgate, Darton (1tph), Barnsley, Meadowhall, Sheffield, Dronfield, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Langley Mill, Ilkeston, NOTTINGHAM

1tph Manchester Piccadilly - Lincoln
Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, Edale, Sheffield, Worksop, Retford, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, LINCOLN

1tph Manchester Piccadilly - Nottingham
Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke-on-Trent, Uttoxeter, Derby, NOTTINGHAM

Also under this plan, the Manchester - Cleethorpes service would call additionally at Hazel Grove, Chinley and Dore & Totley. This is in anticipation of dedicated NPR infrastructure being built between Leeds and Manchester, which would allow a direct high speed service between Sheffield and Liverpool.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,458
The East Midlands - North West corridor is badly served and having direct links between Derby and Manchester would be a step in the right direction.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
20,200
Location
Airedale
1. Wakefield will object to losing its excellent London service - you can't tell OA operators to increase their services. But in any case there is no great timetable problem about doubling the Leeds-Doncaster stoppers (though I imagine they would call at Outwood?).
2. I doubt there is sufficient demand Leeds-Lincoln for an hourly service with 4-car bimodes. The present Leeds-Sheffield-Lincoln service is primarily for operating efficiency and Meadowhall traffic, rather than catering for the end-to-end market, so I think you can split/divert it at Sheffield with a clear conscience.
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,387
Location
Wimborne
1. Wakefield will object to losing its excellent London service - you can't tell OA operators to increase their services. But in any case there is no great timetable problem about doubling the Leeds-Doncaster stoppers (though I imagine they would call at Outwood?).
2. I doubt there is sufficient demand Leeds-Lincoln for an hourly service with 4-car bimodes. The present Leeds-Sheffield-Lincoln service is primarily for operating efficiency and Meadowhall traffic, rather than catering for the end-to-end market, so I think you can split/divert it at Sheffield with a clear conscience.
If this is the case, maybe it would be better to combine Lincoln - Doncaster with the additional Wakefield Line stopper (which would call at Outwood by the way). That frees up a path so 1tph Kings Cross - Leeds can run via Westgate.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,105
Location
Leeds
Firstly, I was thinking all remaining classic London - Leeds services could run via Hambleton, which would free up the Wakefield line for a doubling of the Leeds - Doncaster stopper, as well as a new service to East Anglia and extension of the EMR Lincoln - Doncaster shuttle to Leeds. In the case of the latter, this would be a much quicker route between the two cities and allow the existing Lincoln - Leeds via Sheffield to be carved up to provide better connections elsewhere. Even though under this plan Wakefield Westgate would lose direct services to London, Kirkgate would still be served by the Bradford - London service which I would increase to hourly.
No. Wakefield is already up in arms about HS2(random letter) which passes through the area but doesn't call. There isn't anywhere to divert them from Westgate so they'd have to run to Kirkgate and then, potentially, on to Huddersfield if you didn't want them taking up platform space.

To summarise, my proposed changes would consist of:

1tph Leeds - Lincoln
Wakefield Westgate, South Elmsall, Adwick, Bentley, Doncaster, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, LINCOLN

2tph Leeds - Nottingham
Normanton (1tph), Wakefield Kirkgate, Darton (1tph), Barnsley, Meadowhall, Sheffield, Dronfield, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Langley Mill, Ilkeston, NOTTINGHAM
You've got the Lincoln service half under wires, are you assuming bi-modes as well? Leeds-Nottingham doesn't need to be 2-hourly just for a through connection, if you can already travel Leeds-Sheffield and Sheffield-Nottingham more quickly (such as on XC via Westgate).
 

1D53

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
2,735
You'd need TRU to do some magic to get the paths East of Leeds for your 2tph London via Hambleton.
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,387
Location
Wimborne
No. Wakefield is already up in arms about HS2(random letter) which passes through the area but doesn't call. There isn't anywhere to divert them from Westgate so they'd have to run to Kirkgate and then, potentially, on to Huddersfield if you didn't want them taking up platform space.


You've got the Lincoln service half under wires, are you assuming bi-modes as well? Leeds-Nottingham doesn't need to be 2-hourly just for a through connection, if you can already travel Leeds-Sheffield and Sheffield-Nottingham more quickly (such as on XC via Westgate).
Yes, the Lincoln service would use bi-modes. Surely this would be a requirement for all services running both under and away from wires by 2040 anyway?

As for Leeds - Nottingham, I just thought it would be convenient to have a regular interval service. You could alternatively send the extra 1tph to Derby, Leicester or Bedford instead, but then what do you do with the extra path between Sheffield and Nottingham?

Also, the fastest route between Leeds - Sheffield will eventually be via HS2 so there’s not much point in continuing with fast trains via Moorthorpe. I would propose adding additional calls at a reopened Rotherham Masborough and Meadowhall on this route at the very least.

You'd need TRU to do some magic to get the paths East of Leeds for your 2tph London via Hambleton.
I was only proposing 1tph via this route, not 2tph. HS2 will have eliminated the need for both.

Also, since writing my opening post, I have revised my proposal so that this 1tph now runs via Wakefield Westgate.
 
Last edited:

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
Rather than Manchester - Nottingham via Stoke, you could instead have a Manchester - Leicester via Stoke, with the Nottingham services remaining as they are via Sheffield.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
An hourly Leeds - Lincoln via Doncaster would be good for connectivity between the two cities but it would be a case of pathing. Only really realistic post-HS2.

Reopening Masborough seems to be the latest fashion on here (a bit like 442’s, and reopening Woodhead). There’s been a few posts mentioning it. I’m guessing those who do, don’t realise or chose to ignore the fact that it was closed due to its appalling location in relation to the town it served.

The only East Midlands city Leeds doesn’t have a regular direct service with is Leicester, the issue here would be pathing which I don’t think will be improved post-HS2. Good connections at Sheffield exist however.

Leeds - Bedford (is this another new fashion on here?) has been debunked on another thread.

Please can we stop attacking Wakefield? Another thread wants it to lose Cross Country services because of TPE wanting too many paths east of Leeds. Now the OP on here suggests it loses its London service (GC would never run hourly) because the London trains are also squeezing up east Leeds for no real reason (it wouldn’t save any time).
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
To summarise, my proposed changes would consist:

2tph Leeds - Nottingham
Normanton (1tph), Wakefield Kirkgate, Darton (1tph), Barnsley, Meadowhall, Sheffield, Dronfield, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Langley Mill, Ilkeston, NOTTINGHAM

1tph Leeds - Lincoln
Wakefield Westgate, South Elmsall, Adwick, Bentley, Doncaster, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, LINCOLN

Thoughts?
I would change the routing to 1tph:

Leeds, Wakefield Kirkgate, Barnsley, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Langley Mill, Derby, Loughborough, Leicester, Melton Mowbray, Stamford, Peterborough, MARCH using reinstated bay platforms at March.

Giving direct links between March, Peterborough, Loughborough, Derby that don't currently exist.

The other 1tph on the opposite half hour would use the existing routing to Nottingham.

As to Leeds to Lincoln, I would like to see it extended to Cambridge as 1tph linking the existing Leeds to Doncaster and Lincoln to Peterborough services but as a hourly service giving stations between Doncaster and Lincoln a more frequent service that also gives direct links for the stations that are aimed at local commuting as well as direct links between Cambridge and Lincoln etc calling at:

Leeds, Outwood, Wakefield Westgate, Sandal & Agbrigg, Fitzwilliam, South Elmsall, Adwick, Bentley (South Yorkshire), Doncaster, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, Metheringham, Ruskington, Sleaford, Spalding, Peterborough, March, Ely, Water each, Cambridge South, CAMBRIDGE.

The Leeds to Cambridge service would use a similar Bi Mode to the Class 755.
 

Bigman

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
297
Location
Leeds
Re Leeds - Lincoln. Once a day weekend extension to Skeggy would be useful.

Re Wakefield - needs a regular LNER Kings Cross service. Maybe the EMR St Pancras to Nottingham could be extended to Leeds to take the place of the Northern service, and then maybe the Kings Cross could then be dropped to hourly.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
Re Wakefield - needs a regular LNER Kings Cross service. Maybe the EMR St Pancras to Nottingham could be extended to Leeds to take the place of the Northern service, and then maybe the Kings Cross could then be dropped to hourly.
I would say that’d be totally unacceptable adding so much time on to the service by going to St Pancras via Nottingham. It also means Wakefield loses its intermediate calls such as Peterborough.
 

Bigman

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
297
Location
Leeds
I would say that’d be totally unacceptable adding so much time on to the service by going to St Pancras via Nottingham. It also means Wakefield loses its intermediate calls such as Peterborough.
Why would it lose it's intermediate stops? You would gain new intermediate stops at places like Loughborough, Leicester, Bedford and Luton, but couldn't the GCR service make some additional intermediate stops too?
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
Please can we stop attacking Wakefield? Another thread wants it to lose Cross Country services because of TPE wanting too many paths east of Leeds. Now the OP on here suggests it loses its London service (GC would never run hourly) because the London trains are also squeezing up east Leeds for no real reason (it wouldn’t save any time).
Is it attacking Wakefield really? Perhaps a different type of service pattern might benefit Wakefield and the populations at the surrounding stations far better?

As for XC, I’d terminate it at Leeds if possible. Until XC can get bi-modes, diesel running under wires all the way to Edinburgh or Newcastle is a disgraceful way to treat the planet. If there is alternative cleaner trains, they should be prioritised. Alternative would be curtailing TPE Scarborough and running XC there.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
Why would it lose it's intermediate stops? You would gain new intermediate stops at places like Loughborough, Leicester, Bedford and Luton, but couldn't the GCR service make some additional intermediate stops too?
Totally ignoring the massively extended journey time of the direct service.

Will GC be permitted to make stops at Peterborough? They’ve been told no in the past and can’t see a reason for that to change. It’s still going to be a massive market and GC will still not be permitted to raid it with their tiny 5 car trains.
Is it attacking Wakefield really? Perhaps a different type of service pattern might benefit Wakefield and the populations at the surrounding stations far better?

As for XC, I’d terminate it at Leeds if possible. Until XC can get bi-modes, diesel running under wires all the way to Edinburgh or Newcastle is a disgraceful way to treat the planet. If there is alternative cleaner trains, they should be prioritised. Alternative would be curtailing TPE Scarborough and running XC there.
I believe it is regularly targeted for having a reduced and less connected and inclusive service by several posters on this forum yes and I have no a vested interest in Wakefield before anyone asks.

It is a city which has been ignored by HS2 and every suggestion I seem to see for ‘improving’ what is left over seems to ignore the fact that Wakefield needs connectivity just like other cities. Why does everyone want to cut it off? Can anyone actually come up with a valid reason?

I said recently on another thread that terminating XC at Leeds makes matters a whole lot worse. You can’t turn them around in the time between the Northbound arrival and Southbound departure meaning a 1hr 5min layover in a through platform. With that you have 2 XC trains turning around in the through platforms for 5mins every hour. How does that help capacity? Stabling them out of the station takes longer than sending them through to/from York eastbound or clogs up the far busier west end throat of Leeds station.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
Totally ignoring the massively extended journey time of the direct service.

Will GC be permitted to make stops at Peterborough? They’ve been told no in the past and can’t see a reason for that to change. It’s still going to be a massive market and GC will still not be permitted to raid it with their tiny 5 car trains.

I believe it is regularly targeted for having a reduced and less connected and inclusive service by several posters on this forum yes and I have no a vested interest in Wakefield before anyone asks.

It is a city which has been ignored by HS2 and every suggestion I seem to see for ‘improving’ what is left over seems to ignore the fact that Wakefield needs connectivity just like other cities. Why does everyone want to cut it off? Can anyone actually come up with a valid reason?

I said recently on another thread that terminating XC at Leeds makes matters a whole lot worse. You can’t turn them around in the time between the Northbound arrival and Southbound departure meaning a 1hr 5min layover in a through platform. With that you have 2 XC trains turning around in the through platforms for 5mins every hour. How does that help capacity? Stabling them out of the station takes longer than sending them through to/from York eastbound or clogs up the far busier west end throat of Leeds station.
On Wakefield, it is the equivalent of Stockport or Sunderland in relation to it’s role in the wider city region - a town consumed by the bigger city. On a par with Huddersfield, Barnsley or Bolton. Apart from Stockport, residents in those towns are expected to connect through the main nearby city centre for many destinations and Wakefield seems to be no more be no less deserving. If a change of service provision benefits the wider travelling public, but a town like Wakefield or Stockport loses a direct service, then perhaps people are viewing it all through that lens.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
On Wakefield, it is the equivalent of Stockport or Sunderland in relation to it’s role in the wider city region - a town consumed by the bigger city. On a par with Huddersfield, Barnsley or Bolton. Apart from Stockport, residents in those towns are expected to connect through the main nearby city centre for many destinations and Wakefield seems to be no more be no less deserving. If a change of service provision benefits the wider travelling public, but a town like Wakefield or Stockport loses a direct service, then perhaps people are viewing it all through that lens.
The key to that being that Stockport and Wakefield are on the mainline between that big city and London and the others are not.

I’m not saying that the other places are less deserving, I’m just looking at geography and that cannot be changed.

MML tried a direct Barnsley to London service and binned it. Bolton is hampered by Castlefield and Huddersfield is to be an extension of the LGX - LDS servixe

We’ve still not clarified why it is deemed acceptable to have a London service to Wakefield but just not the fast direct one from the city centre station, nor why it should lose its direct service to north of Leeds just to pander to TPE and make Sheffield to York a bit quicker whilst clogging up Leeds station to the extent that it would reduce its capacity by a substantial amount.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
9,093
Location
Central Belt
I would say that’d be totally unacceptable adding so much time on to the service by going to St Pancras via Nottingham. It also means Wakefield loses its intermediate calls such as Peterborough.
Be interesting to watch when HS2 opens, as their is no reason that the East Coast operator could not compete with HS2 (keeping the same frequency). I mean Chiltern completes with the High Speed operator on the West Coast. Unless it is prohibited I can see head to head competition with a lot of people happy to pay less for the longer journey the traditional route will offer.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
Be interesting to watch when HS2 opens, as their is no reason that the East Coast operator could not compete with HS2 (keeping the same frequency). I mean Chiltern completes with the High Speed operator on the West Coast. Unless it is prohibited I can see head to head competition with a lot of people happy to pay less for the longer journey the traditional route will offer.
Absolutely. Whilst Leeds gains massively from HS2 people obviously forget that nowhere else between Leeds & London on the ECML benefits so why reduce their service because Leeds has gained. The benefits of HS2 must not make it worse elsewhere.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
. The benefits of HS2 must not make it worse elsewhere.

No, HS2 should be used to provide the best overall benefit to locations that remain served by classic trains. That does not mean that absolutely everywhere must keep its present level of service set in stone in perpetuity.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,625
Location
Yorkshire
No, HS2 should be used to provide the best overall benefit to locations that remain served by classic trains. That does not mean that absolutely everywhere must keep its present level of service set in stone in perpetuity.
HS2 is effectively a relief line for the WCML between London and Manchester via Birmingham so yes I agree that it unlocks the WCML which is a far busier line with far more local services throughout which will benefit.

The ECML is effectively an intercity only route between Doncaster and Peterborough. The Leeds branch is just a byproduct of HS2 and it benefits nowhere south of Leeds. So what you’ve said is that those who live near the ECML should suffer just because Leeds is benefitting.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,530
Be interesting to watch when HS2 opens, as their is no reason that the East Coast operator could not compete with HS2 (keeping the same frequency). . . . . . . Unless it is prohibited I can see head to head competition with a lot of people happy to pay less for the longer journey the traditional route will offer.
Particularly people who do not spend the whole of their journey gazing down at their phone or tablet. Those who look out of the window may find the long tunnels on HS2 provide uninspiring views and that the flat landscape and big skies of eastern England have more to offer.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
No, HS2 should be used to provide the best overall benefit to locations that remain served by classic trains. That does not mean that absolutely everywhere must keep its present level of service set in stone in perpetuity.
At the cost of breaking up existing well established flows? For the ECML no thanks, for the WCML sure as it would mean previous established flows would be able to be reinstated.
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,387
Location
Wimborne
Please can we stop attacking Wakefield? Another thread wants it to lose Cross Country services because of TPE wanting too many paths east of Leeds. Now the OP on here suggests it loses its London service (GC would never run hourly) because the London trains are also squeezing up east Leeds for no real reason (it wouldn’t save any time).
The only reason I made this suggestion was because of the possibility that GC (and other OAOs) may be required to hand the keys back to the DfT in a post-HS2 scenario, which would in turn allow them to increase the Bradford, Sunderland and Hull services to hourly.

Then I thought if Wakefield had an hourly service to London that way, would it still need another from Westgate post-HS2? Thinking about it, there are three (pre-Covid) services between Leeds and Doncaster at present: The two LNERs and the Northern stopper. If you remove one LNER, you can use the path for an extra stopping service, but you’d also want to consider wider connections to other destinations elsewhere. Therefore if Wakefield had an hourly London - Bradford service, the Kings Cross - Leeds (which should only be 1tph post-HS2) could be diverted via Hambleton to give the paths to my proposed new services to Lincoln and East Anglia. Under this plan, the Sheffield - Adwick service would also be curtailed at Doncaster and merged with the Scunthorpe stopper instead.

But I’m having second thoughts about this now following on from the feedback in this thread. OAOs may never hand back the keys to the DfT so it makes sense to retain 1tph from Kings Cross through Wakefield Westgate, especially in the event that the OAO may withdraw services at short notice with no replacement.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,323
No, HS2 should be used to provide the best overall benefit to locations that remain served by classic trains. That does not mean that absolutely everywhere must keep its present level of service set in stone in perpetuity.
This is going to be the key issue on the classic network. HS2 provides a once-in-a-century opportunity to revolutionise rail services. We need to be pushing for uniform service types on as many lines as possible. It's the only way to achieve the increase in capacity we need to get modal shift to rail. This means removing the jack-of-all-trades railway as much as possible. But there will be a big pushback to maintain current connections. Solving this will be difficult.

The Leeds-Doncaster/Sheffield corridor has massive potential for a metro-frequency service. 4 tph from Leeds to both Sheffield and Doncaster should be possible and would be truly revolutionary for local transport.

But, that leaves no room at Westgate for direct long distance services. Wakefield would feel like it's losing out, even though a turn-up-and-go service to Leeds and then onto HS2 gives a better long distance service than today. To remedy that, Wakefield Kirkgate should be revived as the station for long distance services. Post-HS2, Leeds-Kirkgate-Barnsley-Sheffield should be subsumed into a recast XC semi-fast service, maintaining Wakefield's direct XC connections and giving Barnsley new ones. The current OAO service should be expanded to hourly and route from Kirkgate to Doncaster upgraded to give a decent journey time. Ultimately the government controls whether and where OAOs can operate so I don't see this as a major issue. I believe this would make the best use of capacity whilst maintaining the necessary direct connections.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,105
Location
Leeds
Please can we stop attacking Wakefield? Another thread wants it to lose Cross Country services because of TPE wanting too many paths east of Leeds. Now the OP on here suggests it loses its London service (GC would never run hourly) because the London trains are also squeezing up east Leeds for no real reason (it wouldn’t save any time).
That other thread was about changes to services in the next few years, wasn't it? This one is so far in the future as to be wholly speculative. The class 150s will still be running, but apart from that...

I might have mentioned in the other thread (I can't remember) it also depends on the number of people making direct or indirect journeys from Wakefield to York, and whether that has to be with XC if a better solution can be found. Some of the suggestions here fall into the trap of making route connections that no-one wants to travel regularly.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
The key to that being that Stockport and Wakefield are on the mainline between that big city and London and the others are not.

I’m not saying that the other places are less deserving, I’m just looking at geography and that cannot be changed.

MML tried a direct Barnsley to London service and binned it. Bolton is hampered by Castlefield and Huddersfield is to be an extension of the LGX - LDS servixe

We’ve still not clarified why it is deemed acceptable to have a London service to Wakefield but just not the fast direct one from the city centre station, nor why it should lose its direct service to north of Leeds just to pander to TPE and make Sheffield to York a bit quicker whilst clogging up Leeds station to the extent that it would reduce its capacity by a substantial amount.

It’s all about competing priorities of course and as one or two others have pointed out, there is a once in a generation opportunity to completely change the timetable post HS2, rather than stick with the status quo. I think post HS2, many of the services that will be directly impacted could result in the status quo being a waste of capacity on the existing lines without there being changes to the service pattern. Secondly, in my view diesel running under wires should be a priority that needs to stop as much as possible. If HS2 takes away the majority of passengers from XC, I don’t see how a diesel service all the way to Edinburgh on the ECML can be justified.
  • If HS2 takes away most passengers from London and Birmingham to Leeds, York, Newcastle & Edinburgh, night it not be better to split one of the current XC paths for several shorter distance stoppers?
  • Is it not better to allocate paths from Wakefield to Leeds to stopping services rather than an express? The former can benefit a great many more people in West Yorkshire.
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,387
Location
Wimborne
I would change the routing to 1tph:

Leeds, Wakefield Kirkgate, Barnsley, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Langley Mill, Derby, Loughborough, Leicester, Melton Mowbray, Stamford, Peterborough, MARCH using reinstated bay platforms at March.

Giving direct links between March, Peterborough, Loughborough, Derby that don't currently exist.

The other 1tph on the opposite half hour would use the existing routing to Nottingham.

As to Leeds to Lincoln, I would like to see it extended to Cambridge as 1tph linking the existing Leeds to Doncaster and Lincoln to Peterborough services but as a hourly service giving stations between Doncaster and Lincoln a more frequent service that also gives direct links for the stations that are aimed at local commuting as well as direct links between Cambridge and Lincoln etc calling at:

Leeds, Outwood, Wakefield Westgate, Sandal & Agbrigg, Fitzwilliam, South Elmsall, Adwick, Bentley (South Yorkshire), Doncaster, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, Metheringham, Ruskington, Sleaford, Spalding, Peterborough, March, Ely, Water each, Cambridge South, CAMBRIDGE.

The Leeds to Cambridge service would use a similar Bi Mode to the Class 755.
I hadn’t really thought about combining the Doncaster - Lincoln with Lincoln - Peterborough. To be fair I can see merit in a through Redwing Line service but I don’t think it should extend south of Peterborough. The line speed averages only 55mph while the ECML is more than twice that (125mph), therefore a direct Leeds - Cambridge service would be better off via the latter if it is to compete with other routes.

Also why would you reverse a train from Leeds at Leicester only to then terminate at a Cambridgeshire settlement in the middle of nowhere? Especially as that settlement already has direct trains to Sheffield via a shorter and quicker route.
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I hadn’t really thought about combining the Doncaster - Lincoln with Lincoln - Peterborough. To be fair I can see merit in a through Redwing Line service but I don’t think it should extend south of Peterborough. The line speed averages only 55mph while the ECML is more than twice that (125mph), therefore a direct Leeds - Cambridge service would be better off via the latter if it is to compete with other routes.
It's about connecting intermediate stations then end to end connecting Leeds to Cambridge as a faster service would still be possible via connections at Peterborough.
Also why would you reverse a train from Leeds at Leicester only to then terminate at a Cambridgeshire settlement in the middle of nowhere? Especially as that settlement already has direct trains to Sheffield via a shorter and quicker route.
The reasoning behind terminating at March is it's a convenient location to terminate at and doesn't occupy a platform at Peterborough, also I have to correct you as March doesn't have already direct trains to Sheffield as it's mostly served by Cross Country who serves the route to Birmingham instead which goes nowhere near Sheffield.

Reversing at Leicester is nothing new, trains from Leeds to Preston etc have to do that every day at Bradford Interchange so it's not a big deal.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,154
I hadn’t really thought about combining the Doncaster - Lincoln with Lincoln - Peterborough. To be fair I can see merit in a through Redwing Line service but I don’t think it should extend south of Peterborough. The line speed averages only 55mph while the ECML is more than twice that (125mph), therefore a direct Leeds - Cambridge service would be better off via the latter if it is to compete with other routes.

Also why would you reverse a train from Leeds at Leicester only to then terminate at a Cambridgeshire settlement in the middle of nowhere? Especially as that settlement already has direct trains to Sheffield via a shorter and quicker route.
Line speed on the joint line has been increased to 75 mph in many places and where not 75 is generally higher than 55
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top