My Yorkshire Crossrail Proposal

[HSTEd]

How much would four tracking the viaduct east of the station actually cost?
You would need to totally reconstruct the throat as well.

 

[Bantamzen]

Tram trains would remove platform requirements at city station and distribute passengers throughout the centre instead.

YFs proposal you linked to has merits, all that I believe is an enabler for so called hs3 upgrade of transpennine services.

If you add tram trains (airedale, Harrogate lines > Scott Hall and easterly roads) you free up capacity in the city station plus you add 2 (or as many as you want) extra transport corridors.

Lots of options really, all that should be done in my opinion

And herein lies the problem for Leeds. It has long been argued that Leeds should have a tram system, but there simply isn't the money or political will to even get it off the ground. As said earlier even a trolleybus proposal has been kicked into touch. Put simply, trams are not going to happen there. Any new proposals to improve rail links wll have to centre around Leeds City, be it above ground or below. And as also stated the Aire / Harrogate lines are to see fairly regular VTEC services by the end of 2018, as well as the Aire line having 90mph sections which as I understand it are too fast for light tram-trains.

Ideally tram / tram-train solutions would operate along high density routes with regular stops. Not ideal if you plan to run regular fast and semi-fast long distance services on the same sections of track. If the Don Valley tram-train project is struggling to get off the ground with existing tram and lightly used heavy rail tracks, there is even less chance with heavily used routes with mixed traffic, and no light rail infrastructure. Basically its a non-starter I'm afraid.

 

[Bald Rick]

3000 square meters is a box 54 metres to a side.
That is enormous.
Two of them would be 6000 square meters.

It is enormous. It is also on the small side for space needed at ground level to construct underground main line stations. I was being optimistic.

Look at the space taken at Tottenham Court Road, Moorgate, Farringdon, Bond Street, Paddington, etc etc. Some of the Crossrail 2 stations will have even larger footprints for construction - at least one of those outside Zone 1 needs more than twice that, see the consultation leaflets.

It isn't the space for the finished product (although some of those are still large) but the space needed to build it. You need space to store materials, plant, spoil; space to get the vehicles that carry all this around in, out, parked, turned, cleaned; space for the cranes; space for the site offices; and space for a bloody big hole about 30 metres in diameter. And you can't take half a property. If you need the corner of an office block or warehouse, you have to have it all.

Now find two places near Leeds City station where you can take 3000 sqm, and suddenly a viaduct looks a whole lot more attractive.

 

[43021HST]

It is enormous. It is also on the small side for space needed at ground level to construct underground main line stations. I was being optimistic.

Look at the space taken at Tottenham Court Road, Moorgate, Farringdon, Bond Street, Paddington, etc etc. Some of the Crossrail 2 stations will have even larger footprints for construction - at least one of those outside Zone 1 needs more than twice that, see the consultation leaflets.

It isn't the space for the finished product (although some of those are still large) but the space needed to build it. You need space to store materials, plant, spoil; space to get the vehicles that carry all this around in, out, parked, turned, cleaned; space for the cranes; space for the site offices; and space for a bloody big hole about 30 metres in diameter. And you can't take half a property. If you need the corner of an office block or warehouse, you have to have it all.

Now find two places near Leeds City station where you can take 3000 sqm, and suddenly a viaduct looks a whole lot more attractive.

Yes 3000 sqm may look impossible in Leeds especially if you're housing the stations in a box construction but most of the stations in Leeds would be bored, thus keeping most of the work beneath ground without needing to take up a load of space above ground. Even the Crossrail stations you named don't take up that much space above ground in London, with the exception of Tottenham Court road which I understand, acted as a halfway point for the TBMs to be craned in and out of due to the sheer length of Londons Crossrail bores. Leeds Crossrail won't need such a halway point as the tunnels are far shorter, the TBMs can be be assembled on what is currently spare land to the south of Neville Hill yard and the carparks and brownfield land along Whitehall road.

Might I just suggest that the London Crossrail stations are built to be deliberately big, the Leeds Crossrail stations would be built on a slightly smaller scale. The space required for the tunnelling material and equipment is actually quite easy to find in Leeds, there's a lot more spare land than in London. Sites such as on the corner of Marsh Lane and Shannon street, the carparks and brownfield land along Whitehall road and a large tract of spare land to the south of Neville Hill yard.

May I just make the point that the Central focus of my scheme is to reduce the number of local services terminating in Leeds and joining up existing electrified lines with new electrification schemes. I think people are concentrating too much on the tunnelling aspect of the scheme. I proposed the tunnels, over other alternatives due to the serious increase in capacity that can be provided by tunnelling without the need for extensive demolition.

But as an alternative to tunelling, it wouldn't be entirely unfeasable to widen the existing viaduct at the eastern end of Leeds station as well as expanding Leeds station to the north, and building more through platforms on what is currently the station concourse, although this would reduce the amount of bus interchanges at Leeds Station as the new concourse would be built on what is currently Bishopgate Street. Furthermore expanding Leeds station rather than building additional stations within Leeds city centre, will not address the current chronic congestion issues there and will probably exacerbate the problem.

Yes the HS2 proposals would benefit Leeds City station, by providing more platforms but again they don't deal with the number of local services terminating in Leeds. All that's been proposed is for more terminating platforms to be provided.

I would suggest that the tram trains would mostly be beneficial to Leeds rather than Yorkshire as a whole, and should be viewed as a separate rather than alternative scheme for improving rail services in the area.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm afraid the spaces at the London Crossrail stations is that big. As mentioned earlier, for some Crossrail 2 stations it is more than twice the size. And this is for bored station tunnels, not a box; and you need the land right next to the shaft for the station. A box needs a truly enormous amount of space.

Yes, a Leeds Crossrail wouldn't have stations as big (although there would be an interesting discussion about future proofing. However it doesn't matter how big they are but the rate that work progresses that determines the size of the above ground space required. Typically, if you slow it down it costs more.

 

[HowardGWR]

May I just make the point that the Central focus of my scheme is to reduce the number of local services terminating in Leeds and joining up existing electrified lines with new electrification schemes.

Excuse a 'foreigner's comment' but would not the answer to terminating services be - not to terminate them? Could it be that present franchising arrangements preclude innovative changes to existing service patterns? Down in the SW, we certainly suffer from demarcation between SWT and GWR, IMO.

 

[matacaster]

Excuse a 'foreigner's comment' but would not the answer to terminating services be - not to terminate them? Could it be that present franchising arrangements preclude innovative changes to existing service patterns? Down in the SW, we certainly suffer from demarcation between SWT and GWR, IMO.

When the section from Leeds station to York is electrified, some ilkley / skipton trains could run straight through to York with improved signalling.This would reduce need for terminating train platforms and provide new through services.

Also, whilst people have mentioned using the station car park, surely the much bigger demolished former factory (now used as a car park) between old central station viaduct and leeds station presents an opportunityor either additional platforms, flyovers or two level section to Leeds station.

why not have a bi-level 4-track east of leeds by having a second level above the two tracksto the east of Leeds, as per the M1 in Sheffield. Costly, but avoids much demolition required for 4 tracks or muchmore costly tunnelling.

 

[najaB]

why not have a bi-level 4-track east of leeds by having a second level above the two tracksto the east of Leeds, as per the M1 in Sheffield. Costly, but avoids much demolition required for 4 tracks or much more costly tunnelling.

Are there examples of this being done previously that could be used to draw 'lessons learned' from?

 

[matacaster]

Are there examples of this being done previously that could be used to draw 'lessons learned' from?

Couldn't find any rail over rail examples, but several Rail on bottom deck, Road on top deck examples worldwide, but these have in fairness tended to be new structures. In theory, one could simply drive big piles adjacent to each side of the current viaduct and have a totally separate structure above the existing one.

The only real concerns I can think of would be opposiotion from offices etc whose views from the window would be lost / obsucred (however they wouldn't have located in this part of Leeds for the scenery!) and the necessary connections at each end. At the Leeds end this could be awkward for lower level lines BUT if only certain lines like those from Bradford Interchange and possibly ECML, which are already at sufficient elevation at what used to be Holbeck high level which used to go to Central station, were connected, that ought to be fairly easy except for the station roof which would obviously need modification. At the York end there is probably sufficient space available to drop down to conventional 4-track at or near Neville Hill.

 

[plarailfan]

In my view, the "Leeds new line" should be re-opened in some form, between the city centre and the M62 Junction 27 IKEA retail park at Birstall.
A park and ride scheme for commuters at this location is long overdue.
Gildersome tunnel is reported to be in a dangerous condition and it is probably unlikely that trains could run through it once again, as it has been filled with colliery waste where the M62 & M621, go over the top of the tunnel.
Maybe trains could run from Birstall to a re-opened station at Wetherby and some of the
TPE services could go from Huddersfield to York, via Healey Mills and Castleford to free up a bit of space at leeds station ?
A station at the White rose shopping centre would be good. Maybe a bay platform and a set of points could be installed there, for a high frequency commuter / shopper service ?

 

[JohnB57]

In my view, the "Leeds new line" should be re-opened in some form, between the city centre and the M62 Junction 27 IKEA retail park at Birstall.
A park and ride scheme for commuters at this location is long overdue.
Gildersome tunnel is reported to be in a dangerous condition and it is probably unlikely that trains could run through it once again, as it has been filled with colliery waste where the M62 & M621, go over the top of the tunnel.
Maybe trains could run from Birstall to a re-opened station at Wetherby and some of the
TPE services could go from Huddersfield to York, via Healey Mills and Castleford to free up a bit of space at leeds station ?
A station at the White rose shopping centre would be good. Maybe a bay platform and a set of points could be installed there, for a high frequency commuter / shopper service ?

Quite apart from the other flaws in this suggestion, where exactly would you put the line? The reason for the Gildersome Tunnel was the hill it goes under, which under your proposal the railway would, somehow, have to climb. Getting it that far would be a rebuild, not a reopening, then you are left with a long siding.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Leeds station is a nice place and has one of the nicest hotels in the UK next to it. Yorkshire definitely needs much more integrated transport and maybe also trams in Leeds again very soon! (But maybe unlike Manchester, the trams can be integrated into the heavy rail network!)

 

[lejog]

Excuse a 'foreigner's comment' but would not the answer to terminating services be - not to terminate them? Could it be that present franchising arrangements preclude innovative changes to existing service patterns? Down in the SW, we certainly suffer from demarcation between SWT and GWR, IMO.

Indeed. Running 2 extra Calder Valley trains per hour through Leeds to a turnback at Micklefield was part of the CP5 HLOS and initial CP5 plan releases for improving Leeds capacity.

However this disappeared with the Hendy review and the new Northern franchise now has only specified one extra Calder Valley train (which will reverse back towards Sheffield), along with train lengthening/platform extensions to six cars.

It does appear that capacity east of Leeds needs to be improved before anymore trains run through the station.

 

[quantinghome]

To those proposing tunnels or double-deck viaducts: please take a look on google maps at the buildings immediately to the south of the viaduct running east of Leeds station.

Widening would be required between Heaton's Court and Marsh Lane. Most of the route is actually free of adjacent buildings. The buildings that would need to be demolished do not appear to be particular notable and I would argue that their loss would not be particularly detrimental. Whilst there would certainly be a cost attached, I can't believe it's anything close to double-deck viaducts or tunnels.

 

[Blamethrower]

And herein lies the problem for Leeds. It has long been argued that Leeds should have a tram system, but there simply isn't the money or political will to even get it off the ground. As said earlier even a trolleybus proposal has been kicked into touch. Put simply, trams are not going to happen there. Any new proposals to improve rail links wll have to centre around Leeds City, be it above ground or below. And as also stated the Aire / Harrogate lines are to see fairly regular VTEC services by the end of 2018, as well as the Aire line having 90mph sections which as I understand it are too fast for light tram-trains.

Ideally tram / tram-train solutions would operate along high density routes with regular stops. Not ideal if you plan to run regular fast and semi-fast long distance services on the same sections of track. If the Don Valley tram-train project is struggling to get off the ground with existing tram and lightly used heavy rail tracks, there is even less chance with heavily used routes with mixed traffic, and no light rail infrastructure. Basically its a non-starter I'm afraid.

I agree with certain aspects, but not for the reasons you suggest.

Trolleybus was an utterly ridiculous suggestion, trying to use the money used in the planning for "supertram". Building all that catenary for something which is not required now the tech exists for battery/electric buses.

I cannot see more VTEC trains going up the airedale line because it involves a reverse at Leeds.

You seem a little defeatist, but then that's to be expected living up there. I did it for years and we were all talking about the same transport issues way back then.

You say lack of political will - isn't Leeds a split party council? It certainly was when I was there. If this is the case does this mean that Leeds (with such a mix of middle and working class inhabitants) will never unite and create what the city has been crying out for for years?

They've only just got an arena ffs

 

[MarkyT]

Widening would be required between Heaton's Court and Marsh Lane. Most of the route is actually free of adjacent buildings. The buildings that would need to be demolished do not appear to be particular notable and I would argue that their loss would not be particularly detrimental. Whilst there would certainly be a cost attached, I can't believe it's anything close to double-deck viaducts or tunnels.

Not to mention the cost of underground platforms, their access shafts etc. Spot on with your analysis of widening the existing route which could be done in a sensitive way like the Thameslink widening between London Bridge and Metropolitan Junction. The Leeds capacity problem is at least partly a circular argument. Track capacity to the east means no more trains can run through, therefore they have to terminate, which occupies platforms for longer and thus reduces overall capacity. If more trains were able to be run through to and from the east with shorter dwell times at Leeds, that could actually increase the potential capacity of the platforms there today.

 

[Gareth]

I think the problem is that the commuter rail into Leeds is utterly lopsided. Although the WY Metro map suggests lines run into Leeds from all four cardinal directions, a simple look at Google Maps suggests that the York-Selby line comes in from the east and that all the rest come in from the west. There's simply nowhere for the lines from the west to go after Leeds, for the most part.

If you were to look at tunnelling as a relief solution (cost & practicalities aside), then for such a lopsided system perhaps a balloon loop or 'tear drop' not so dissimilar to the Merseyrail Wirral Line could be a consideration. Helsinki has a plan to do this with its commuter rail, as all the trains enter the station from the north and there's nowhere to go south of there other than the Baltic Sea. How such a loop would look under Leeds and whether there'd be any additional stations on it is difficult to imagine by just looking at a map of Leeds. The station is not far east of where the incoming lines merge so there'd proabably not be enough space to fit a balloon loop which takes in just the main station and then returns. Perhaps a station under the main station and then a loop off northwards, perhaps with a station near the universities at its apex, with stations at either extremity of The Headrow on the way in and out. The main advantage other than relieving the main station would be better access to and from different parts of central Leeds. The thing is though, Leeds has a pretty compact city centre so the benefit may not seem so great. Also, trains would only have one terminus giving less opportunity for recovery time; something which is probably quite important on such a complex network of lines which has a mixture of fast and slow services.

One thing WYPTE certainly needs to do is improve its rail map. As someone not too familiar with the services in the area, the map doesn't tell me much, other than the consecutive order of the stations geographically on each line. That's fine on a true urban metro system with uniform traffic/stopping patterns but many WY Metro services skip stops. You could get on a train at Morely and go all the way to Liverpool without changing, if you took the map literally. A system denoting services rather than just physical lines would be far more useful. Maybe a system of giving services letters would be more helpful, as is common in certain other countries.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the problem is that the commuter rail into Leeds is utterly lopsided. Although the WY Metro map suggests lines run into Leeds from all four cardinal directions, a simple look at Google Maps suggests that the York-Selby line comes in from the east and that all the rest come in from the west. There's simply nowhere for the lines from the west to go after Leeds, for the most part.

If you were to look at tunnelling as a relief solution (cost & practicalities aside), then for such a lopsided system perhaps a balloon loop or 'tear drop' not so dissimilar to the Merseyrail Wirral Line could be a consideration.

Alternatively if you 4-tracked in from the east, you could also make a new connection from Neville Hill across largely open and industrial land to the Castleford line before Woodlesford (about 4km). That would help 'even out' the network, allowing trains from that direction to run across Leeds say from Pontefract to Bradford, Sheffield/Barnsley to Harrogate, without reversing. There could also be a new local station on the modified viaduct to the east side of the city centre.

One thing WYPTE certainly needs to do is improve its rail map. As someone not too familiar with the services in the area, the map doesn't tell me much, other than the consecutive order of the stations geographically on each line. That's fine on a true urban metro system with uniform traffic/stopping patterns but many WY Metro services skip stops. You could get on a train at Morely and go all the way to Liverpool without changing, if you took the map literally. A system denoting services rather than just physical lines would be far more useful. Maybe a system of giving services letters would be more helpful, as is common in certain other countries.

Or a line letter/number plus a service class designation with matching station categories. e.g. express or local. All trains stop at express, only local trains stop at local stations.

 

[glbotu]

One thing WYPTE certainly needs to do is improve its rail map. As someone not too familiar with the services in the area, the map doesn't tell me much, other than the consecutive order of the stations geographically on each line. That's fine on a true urban metro system with uniform traffic/stopping patterns but many WY Metro services skip stops. You could get on a train at Morely and go all the way to Liverpool without changing, if you took the map literally. A system denoting services rather than just physical lines would be far more useful. Maybe a system of giving services letters would be more helpful, as is common in certain other countries.

The thing is, West Yorkshire "Metro" is misleading already. I mean, none of the services actually have a "Metro" frequency in the slightest, except maybe Bradford Interchange to Leeds, which sees 4tph off-peak. Everything else on that map is just showing an hourly service.

Also, God knows what they're doing around Mirfield. It looks like from Leeds, you can get a train that terminates at Brighouse and there's some sort of regular Huddersfield to Blackpool train. Additionally, it looks like no services cross Leeds City and that there's maybe a direct Bradford Interchange to Bradford Forster square service. That map is just a nightmare and is functionally useless.

The problem is, what would you replace it with? Unless you severely rationalise all the services, you'd end up with one hell of a complicated map, especially if you want to include the useful fast services (are WYPTE tickets accepted on VTEC/XC/TPE too?).

 

[HowardGWR]

Alternatively if you 4-tracked in from the east, you could also make a new connection from Neville Hill across largely open and industrial land to the Castleford line before Woodlesford (about 4km). That would help 'even out' the network, allowing trains from that direction to run across Leeds say from Pontefract to Bradford, Sheffield/Barnsley to Harrogate, without reversing. There could also be a new local station on the modified viaduct to the east side of the city centre.

Could not a chord burrow under the point between west of Neville Hill and east of Saxton Gardens to join the line that runs down by the canal to the building materials depot and then cross over to the Woodlesford line? I see the HS2 East Phase 2 uses that latter part too, though. Is there room. I suppose so.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with certain aspects, but not for the reasons you suggest.

Trolleybus was an utterly ridiculous suggestion, trying to use the money used in the planning for "supertram". Building all that catenary for something which is not required now the tech exists for battery/electric buses.

Maybe so, but so far the use of alternatively powered buses in Leeds have been just a handful of First / Arriva services with frankly poor acceleration and ride quality. They've hardly trail blazed their way into the psyche of the public or council.

Then of course battery / electric buses are still not dealing with Leeds' major problem, chronic congestion on it's roads. I commute here every day and see it all the time. In fairness neither would trolley buses, although if new infrastructure had been needed for either them or trams, there would have been more of a case for looking at the current road infrastructure with a view to reshaping / widening the network into Leeds to accommodate the new type of transport. Converting to electric buses probably means they will just have to ram themselves into the rest of the traffic, with little hope for new infrastructure for the public part of it.

I cannot see more VTEC trains going up the airedale line because it involves a reverse at Leeds.

VTEC have a franchise commitment to operate bi-hourly services between Bradford FS & Harrogate from 2019, and are aiming for it to be in place by Dec 2018. And 91s do visit the Aire Valley twice a day already, with 1 a day from / to Bradford FS & Skipton. And Northern are having to look at how they use their new 331 & existing 333s to allow paths for the VTEC services.

You seem a little defeatist, but then that's to be expected living up there. I did it for years and we were all talking about the same transport issues way back then.

Perhaps I am reading that incorrectly, but it sounds a bit condescending? I hope I'm wrong?

You say lack of political will - isn't Leeds a split party council? It certainly was when I was there. If this is the case does this mean that Leeds (with such a mix of middle and working class inhabitants) will never unite and create what the city has been crying out for for years?

They've only just got an arena ffs

You only have to look at how the tram proposal fell apart to see the lack of will. Building a new tram system involves at lot of disruption even trying to build it onto existing heavy rail routes, let alone at street level. Once the NIMBYs got hold of the idea their "outrage" helped the costs spiral as planners tried to accommodate the objections, and then routes were cut back as popularity and funding waned. And despite a positive start, as objections grew politicians support waned. Whilst funding and eventually Darling's axe falling on the project in 2005 were the fatal blow, it is worth remembering that tens of millions had been spend around the city centre in preparation to receive Supertram so it wasn't a purely paper based project. Sadly the pressure from NIMBYs probably helped make Darling's decision that bit easier.

 

[tbtc]

How do you solve a problem like Leeds?

Not easily.

There’s certainly an argument that “other cities have had big infrastructure project, so why can’t we” (Manchester/ Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Newcastle/ Birmingham/ Edinburgh etc have light rail).

But even if there were a light rail scheme, it wouldn’t remove any train services at Leeds City Station. If people on here complain about Altrincham being an unacceptable distance on a tram then I don’t think it’s feasible to use trams all the way from Ilkley/ Harrogate/ Knottingley (and there generally aren’t any shorter services than those).

Might I just suggest that the London Crossrail stations are built to be deliberately big

Given the cost of doing anything in central London, I don’t think they’ll have built anything twice as big as it needs to be to meet projected demand over the next fifty years.

If the stations look “big” then it’ll probably be because some of them will be in the Top Fifty for heavy rail passengers (despite only having two platforms). Those passengers will need to circulate somewhere.

May I just make the point that the Central focus of my scheme is to reduce the number of local services terminating in Leeds and joining up existing electrified lines with new electrification schemes. I think people are concentrating too much on the tunnelling aspect of the scheme.

I think it’s a shame that you started with your maps of an underground line as that’s distracted the argument a lot. We were presented with a complicated “solution” to a “problem” (a solution which involved a double track electrified line from Knottingley to Goole) which tends to mean that people on here focus more on taking apart issues with the “solution” than agreeing with the “solution”.

There are a lot of services per hour terminating at Leeds.

At the moment, there are the following services from the east…

Edinburgh via York (XC)
Newcastle via York (TPE)
Middlesbrough via York (TPE)
Scarborough via York (TPE)
York (TPE)
York
Hull via Selby (TPE)
Selby

…and the following services from the west…

York via Harrogate
Harrogate
Ilkley
Ilkley
Skipton
Skipton
Carlisle/ Lancaster via Skipton
Bradford via Shipley
Bradford via Shipley
Blackpool via Halifax
Huddersfield via Halifax
Manchester Victoria via Halifax
Manchester Victoria via Halifax
Manchester Victoria via Dewsbury
Huddersfield via Dewsbury
Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly (TPE)
Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly (TPE)
Liverpool via Manchester Piccadilly (TPE)
Liverpool via Manchester Victoria (TPE)
Manchester Piccadilly (TPE)
Sheffield via Castleford
Knottingley via Castleford
Sheffield via Barnsley
Nottingham via Barnsley
Bristol via Birmingham (XC)
Sheffield via Moorthorpe
London via Doncaster (VTEC)
London via Doncaster (VTEC)
Doncaster via Bentley

…so twenty nine/ hour on one side, but only eight/ hour on the other side.

You could balance it up a little by running the “Sheffield via Castleford” and “Knottingley via Castleford” services through a new Kippax line (i.e. making them “east” services instead of “west” ones) to make it twenty seven versus ten, but that’s still an overbalance (and you’d have to deal with Woodlesford somehow).

And whilst eight/hour seems okay for double track railway to cope with (those in the Southern Region would be laughing at the idea that this were at capacity), the stock movements to Neville Hill and the differentials between the “fast” and “slow” services mean that capacity isn’t as carefully used as it might be elsewhere.

Ensure the everything to the east is electrified and therefore run by fast accelerating trains capable of 100mph and you’ll improve things (since all the Northern services have to be pathed with 75mph Pacers/ Sprinters in mind).

But then, that’s why Leeds has so many terminating bays from the east. The nine services an hour from the Armley side (Harrogate/ Ilkley/ Skipton/ Bradford F Sq) have their own bays at the north side of the station so they don’t conflict with other services. Run these through an expensive tunnel and what do you use the platforms at the north of the station for?

Take Armley services out of the equation and you’ve got twenty / hour on one side, and eight/ hour on the other side.

If the Woodlesford services (Sheffield via Castleford, Knottingley via Castleford, Sheffield via Barnsley and Nottingham via Barnsley) are pretty self contained on platform seventeen. Remove them from your equation (since they keep to the fringe of the station and don’t conflict with other services) and you’re down to sixteen versus eight.

So that’s eight per hour running from west to east (e.g. Bristol to Edinburgh, Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough, Blackpool to York, Liverpool to Newcastle), so only eight per hour terminating in the middle platforms.

Of those, two and London services which are always going to have to lay over at Leeds (unless you go back to the “electric horseshoe” plan and run London – Hambleton – Leeds – Wakefield – London circulars with minimal dwell time).

London – Leeds – Newcastle would be significantly slower than any current services via Great Heck, so little point dreaming up regular extensions of Kings Cross services (unless you run all via Hambleton and extend them to Bradford/ Harrogate etc, but then would those be additional services on the Bradford/ Harrogate side so that doesn’t really create any extra paths…).

Plus, running London services via Hambleton means Wakefield missing out (not just in terms of London to Wakefield but also taking a lot of seats off the Wakefield – Leeds corridor).

What’s left? The Huddersfield stopper and the Manchester Victoria via Dewsbury? A couple of stoppers from South Yorkshire (on the Westgate corridor)? A couple of Calder Valley services? If everything were capable of matching a common-or-garden EMU like a 321 (i.e. electrified and/or fast accelerating 100mph stock) then I’d suggest running those services through to Thorpe Park.

But otherwise, a tunnel under central Leeds seems a very expensive way of dealing with a handful of terminating services in the main shed of the station.

(I’m basing all of this on how things are now – I appreciate there’ll be various recasts over the next five years – e.g. the split between TPE and Northern changing, the new Bradford to Nottingham service)

Excuse a 'foreigner's comment' but would not the answer to terminating services be - not to terminate them? Could it be that present franchising arrangements preclude innovative changes to existing service patterns? Down in the SW, we certainly suffer from demarcation between SWT and GWR, IMO.

There is a lot of truth here.

The problems are that there aren’t a lot of neat short services that can be tied together and there will always be an imbalance between the “east” and “west” services (with services from the west outnumbering those from the east considerably)

Any non-terminating services would either require extra paths over the two track viaducts to the east or would mean services from the west reversing to link on to other services (which may mean crossing the throat – e.g. the much talked about “Nottingham to Carlisle” service…).

why not have a bi-level 4-track east of leeds by having a second level above the two tracksto the east of Leeds, as per the M1 in Sheffield. Costly, but avoids much demolition required for 4 tracks or muchmore costly tunnelling.

Would you have to close off the current tracks for long periods, as all of this infrastructure is built above?

In which case, I’m out.

In my view, the "Leeds new line" should be re-opened in some form, between the city centre and the M62 Junction 27 IKEA retail park at Birstall.
A park and ride scheme for commuters at this location is long overdue.
Gildersome tunnel is reported to be in a dangerous condition and it is probably unlikely that trains could run through it once again, as it has been filled with colliery waste where the M62 & M621, go over the top of the tunnel.
Maybe trains could run from Birstall to a re-opened station at Wetherby and some of the
TPE services could go from Huddersfield to York, via Healey Mills and Castleford to free up a bit of space at leeds station ?
A station at the White rose shopping centre would be good. Maybe a bay platform and a set of points could be installed there, for a high frequency commuter / shopper service ?

I think that if you were looking at providing a heavy rail service to match twenty first century demand in Leeds/ West Yorkshire then you’d have to look at the J27 retail park and White Rose Centre. Both see thousands of cars a day – that’s where people are travelling to these days.

Park and Ride off the Castleford line, near the M1/ M621 junction?

Thorpe Park?

Trouble is, these kind of threads tend to fixate on “what historic route can we re-open” rather than “what modern demand can we tailor services to meet”.

So Yorkshire threads end up being nostalgic ones about Ripon or SELRAP instead of looking at actual problems.

 

[MarkyT]

Hmm very complex.

4TPH (west side) in each direction go past Woodlesford according to RTT so that rebalances to 25 west/12 east by my reckoning if you could bring the Castleford/ Wakefield Kirkgate line in via the east, and I'd try to find a new alignment to the east of the city rather than resurrect the Kippax.

Attached is something that I hope isn't too crazy. New terminal platforms on old Wellington site (green) accessed via former grade separated alignment to old Central station, then across car parks and river. VTEC trains from Doncaster can terminate and reverse with little conflict. Portions can detach and run to Bradford Interchange easily with little conflict.

Turnouts from above alignment into northmost array of through platfroms for TPE and XC trains running through to the East (also VTEC empties running on to Neville Hill).

4 tracks across Leeds. 2 additional 'slow' tracks added to the south of existing viaduct as far as new Leeds West station at old goods depot where old formation widens again (passenger platfroms here also previously?) New station with platfroms on existing alignment only (slows). New 'fast' lines green without platfroms constructed curving across former goods depot.

4 tracks continue out to new junction just before Neville Hill. new 2 track line diverges to right (yellow, radius = 200m) with new freight chord (magenta) to access sidings and provide bypass for the Leeds centre. Alignment uses part of old freight line sidings, then crosses River Aire and canal, thence joining the Woodlesford Line via a new curve (radius = 250m). Another curve (magenta) provides alternative access to the west end of Leeds City and freight/bypass functionality.

Could allow all the Harrogate and Ilkley/Skipton axis trains to run across Leeds without conflict with VTEC, XC, TPE axis. Additional electrification required plainly. Castleford/ Wakefield lines would have uplift in service levels to match combined trains from West side lines , perhaps additional regular destinations such as Goole and some short terminators. I'd see this approach as more of a 'Thameslink' than a 'Crossrail'.

 

[lejog]

Having looked at the March 2016 version of the CP5 Enhancement Plan, while the Mickefield turnback has gone I note the following has been added:

Garforth Area Capacity Enhancements – Additional capacity in the Garforth area to enable longer trains and additional services to operate between Leeds and York

Okay, Platform on the Leeds-York route are to be extended to support 6*23m trains, but does anyone know/have ideas what could be done in the Garforth area to allow additional services? A passing loop maybe?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Having looked at the March 2016 version of the CP5 Enhancement Plan, while the Mickefield turnback has gone I note the following has been added:



Okay, Platform on the Leeds-York route are to be extended to support 6*23m trains, but does anyone know/have ideas what could be done in the Garforth area to allow additional services? A passing loop maybe?

I am surprised the Micklefield Turnback has bit the dust. I thought that was all part of a East Leeds Parkway?

 

[quantinghome]

I am surprised the Micklefield Turnback has bit the dust. I thought that was all part of a East Leeds Parkway?

The latest meeting minutes from WYCA indicate a new station at Thorpe Park may be preferred. Not sure if this would be a turnback.

There's also the issue of the nearby HS2 route and how this would interact with plans for HS3 services to the east of Leeds. If this results in the fast services being removed from the existing line, it would remove the need for a turnback as frequent local trains could run through to York and Selby without holding anything up.

 

[bluenoxid]

Having looked at the March 2016 version of the CP5 Enhancement Plan, while the Mickefield turnback has gone I note the following has been added:



Okay, Platform on the Leeds-York route are to be extended to support 6*23m trains, but does anyone know/have ideas what could be done in the Garforth area to allow additional services? A passing loop maybe?

Potentially it would be putting four tracks in through Crossgates towards Garforth.

How HS2 enters Leeds and interacts with local services is going to be a big driver. Do you create an Old Oak Common style point in Leeds.

 

[lejog]

I am surprised the Micklefield Turnback has bit the dust. I thought that was all part of a East Leeds Parkway?

AFAIK it was a cheap NR funded alternative to East Leeds Parkway that could be completed if the WYCTA funded station was not completed by the end of CP5, in order that the CP5 HLOS requirement of 2 extra Calder Valley trains into Leeds could be met.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The latest meeting minutes from WYCA indicate a new station at Thorpe Park may be preferred. Not sure if this would be a turnback.

There's also the issue of the nearby HS2 route and how this would interact with plans for HS3 services to the east of Leeds. If this results in the fast services being removed from the existing line, it would remove the need for a turnback as frequent local trains could run through to York and Selby without holding anything up.

Inded WYCTA then cooled on the idea of the Parkway station when they realised that if HS3 is built, it would likely be bypassed by fast trains and have changed their preference to Thorpe Park. And it seems to have been decided to run longer rather than more frequent Calder Valley trains into Leeds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Potentially it would be putting four tracks in through Crossgates towards Garforth.

How HS2 enters Leeds and interacts with local services is going to be a big driver. Do you create an Old Oak Common style point in Leeds.

I really doubt it would be possible to complete such a major project by 2019, especially after the Hendy review of CP5. I was thinking of something with a similar budget to the cancelled turnback.

 

[43021HST]

I think it’s a shame that you started with your maps of an underground line as that’s distracted the argument a lot. We were presented with a complicated “solution” to a “problem” (a solution which involved a double track electrified line from Knottingley to Goole) which tends to mean that people on here focus more on taking apart issues with the “solution” than agreeing with the “solution”.

Yes admittedly, the presentation of my argument may not have been great, I should have focussed on the main aim of my project first, before presenting my solution. But I do think presenting it like that has sparked off some genuine discussion, with some very viable alternatives to my tunnelling idea being presented.

This may sound naive but I fail to see why a double tracked electrified line from Knottingley to Goole is such a silly idea. It looks like the majority of the route can be easily re-double tracked, it would benefit the communities east of Knottingley, it would rejuvanate a very underused route and I think it's quite a logical extension of extending the existing Knottingly services to Hull as well as providing an alternative route from Leeds to Hull.

…so twenty nine/ hour on one side, but only eight/ hour on the other side.

You could balance it up a little by running the “Sheffield via Castleford” and “Knottingley via Castleford” services through a new Kippax line (i.e. making them “east” services instead of “west” ones) to make it twenty seven versus ten, but that’s still an overbalance (and you’d have to deal with Woodlesford somehow).

If you refer to the network map in the OP you would see, this is what I've proposed. Might I just add that re-opening the Kippax line would also remove the need for existing services to reverse at Castleford.

To deal with Woodlesford, you could still run some services west into Leeds and sending them to destinations such as Hull and York.

But then, that’s why Leeds has so many terminating bays from the east. The nine services an hour from the Armley side (Harrogate/ Ilkley/ Skipton/ Bradford F Sq) have their own bays at the north side of the station so they don’t conflict with other services. Run these through an expensive tunnel and what do you use the platforms at the north of the station for?

Those platforms could be freed up for use by any additional medium/long distance services that would terminate at Leeds.

Take Armley services out of the equation and you’ve got twenty / hour on one side, and eight/ hour on the other side.

If the Woodlesford services (Sheffield via Castleford, Knottingley via Castleford, Sheffield via Barnsley and Nottingham via Barnsley) are pretty self contained on platform seventeen. Remove them from your equation (since they keep to the fringe of the station and don’t conflict with other services) and you’re down to sixteen versus eight.

The issue with having this as a self contained operation is that it doesn't remove the issue of the reversal Castleford and it still means that the communities of Woodlesford, Pontefract and Castleford are left with what is currently an unsatisfactory and fragmented rail service. I don't think it's a good idea of isolating these communities from a scheme such and 'bunging them' on an isolated operation.

So that’s eight per hour running from west to east (e.g. Bristol to Edinburgh, Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough, Blackpool to York, Liverpool to Newcastle), so only eight per hour terminating in the middle platforms.

Of those, two and London services which are always going to have to lay over at Leeds (unless you go back to the “electric horseshoe” plan and run London – Hambleton – Leeds – Wakefield – London circulars with minimal dwell time).

London – Leeds – Newcastle would be significantly slower than any current services via Great Heck, so little point dreaming up regular extensions of Kings Cross services (unless you run all via Hambleton and extend them to Bradford/ Harrogate etc, but then would those be additional services on the Bradford/ Harrogate side so that doesn’t really create any extra paths…).

Plus, running London services via Hambleton means Wakefield missing out (not just in terms of London to Wakefield but also taking a lot of seats off the Wakefield – Leeds corridor).

What’s left? The Huddersfield stopper and the Manchester Victoria via Dewsbury? A couple of stoppers from South Yorkshire (on the Westgate corridor)? A couple of Calder Valley services? If everything were capable of matching a common-or-garden EMU like a 321 (i.e. electrified and/or fast accelerating 100mph stock) then I’d suggest running those services through to Thorpe Park.

But otherwise, a tunnel under central Leeds seems a very expensive way of dealing with a handful of terminating services in the main shed of the station.

(I’m basing all of this on how things are now – I appreciate there’ll be various recasts over the next five years – e.g. the split between TPE and Northern changing, the new Bradford to Nottingham service)

I think you're going on the assumption that I think services from the east and West, that terminate at Leeds are evenly balanced.

But do I see what you're saying about the lopsided nature of operations at Leeds and it is something I'm aware of and my idea does do something to address this.

By proposing to run such services as the Huddersfield stopper, The Airedale and Wharfdale services, The Manchester Victoria via Dewsbury services all to the destinations of Hull, Darlington and York in the east this would balance out the rail services as well as increase the frequency of services going to York, Hull and Darlington, this is something that is needed as I've experienced some very chronic overcrowding of trains, especially on the stoppers between Leeds and York.

It would also make it easier for passengers to get to these destinations from places like Manchester, West Yorkshire and Sheffield, without needing to change at Leeds.

Furthermore running services from the West through Leeds, could also mean the rejuvenation and creation of new rail links to the east, in order to even out the ratio of east to west rail services. A user earlier proposed reopening the Harrogate via Weatherby line, my own proposal to rejuvanate the Knottingley to Goole line, would contribute to evening out the services, and linking up these destinations with those in the West would considerably improve transport links far more than having these routes re-opened and operated as standalone operations.

Trouble is, these kind of threads tend to fixate on “what historic route can we re-open” rather than “what modern demand can we tailor services to meet”.

So Yorkshire threads end up being nostalgic ones about Ripon or SELRAP instead of looking at actual problems.

Agreed.
Vast swathes of Yorkshire since Beeching, particularly impoverished ex mining villages have been left with what are currently shoddy public transport services, making these places even more isolated. Re-opening a branch line or two and operating these as your typical branch line type operation, will not greatly improve matters. Which is why I think much of Yorkshire needs a more joined up network, which is what I've tried to propose.

Hmm very complex.

4TPH (west side) in each direction go past Woodlesford according to RTT so that rebalances to 25 west/12 east by my reckoning if you could bring the Castleford/ Wakefield Kirkgate line in via the east, and I'd try to find a new alignment to the east of the city rather than resurrect the Kippax.

I do like the idea of your Stourton - Neville Hill route.
My issue with that suggestion, is that it doesn't solve the issue of Knottingley services having to reverse at Castleford, which doesn't solve the potential for congestion at Castleford should the service frequency between Castleford and Knottingley be improved, by terminating more services from the west at places like Hull via Goole and Knottingley.

Which is why I prefer the idea of re-opening the Kippax line, as it means greater operating flexibility by removing a potential bottleneck at Castleford.

Attached is something that I hope isn't too crazy. New terminal platforms on old Wellington site (green) accessed via former grade separated alignment to old Central station, then across car parks and river. VTEC trains from Doncaster can terminate and reverse with little conflict. Portions can detach and run to Bradford Interchange easily with little conflict.

Turnouts from above alignment into northmost array of through platfroms for TPE and XC trains running through to the East (also VTEC empties running on to Neville Hill).

4 tracks across Leeds. 2 additional 'slow' tracks added to the south of existing viaduct as far as new Leeds West station at old goods depot where old formation widens again (passenger platfroms here also previously?) New station with platfroms on existing alignment only (slows). New 'fast' lines green without platfroms constructed curving across former goods depot.

4 tracks continue out to new junction just before Neville Hill. new 2 track line diverges to right (yellow, radius = 200m) with new freight chord (magenta) to access sidings and provide bypass for the Leeds centre. Alignment uses part of old freight line sidings, then crosses River Aire and canal, thence joining the Woodlesford Line via a new curve (radius = 250m). Another curve (magenta) provides alternative access to the west end of Leeds City and freight/bypass functionality.

Could allow all the Harrogate and Ilkley/Skipton axis trains to run across Leeds without conflict with VTEC, XC, TPE axis. Additional electrification required plainly. Castleford/ Wakefield lines would have uplift in service levels to match combined trains from West side lines , perhaps additional regular destinations such as Goole and some short terminators. I'd see this approach as more of a 'Thameslink' than a 'Crossrail'.

I like the rest of the idea and I appreciate you've created a viable alternative idea rather than just criticising my idea without creating any alternatives. I especially like the idea of creating new Wellington site platforms that go via the old Leeds Central viaduct and the creation of a new Leeds West station. Which also creates a new interchange station away from Leeds city.

Although to create these platforms you'd need to demolish some rather new and expensive office blocks which goes back to the problem I identified in a previous post. I do wonder though if your idea would be on a similar scale in terms of cost to my idea, due to the creation of a new rail chord and all the requisitions and demolition of existing property as well as existing expansion that will be needed.

 

[billio]

I have suggested this before, but with the decline of coal traffic I would suggest the line from Burton Salmon to Castleford should be re-opened to passenger services as a half hourly service. One of these being a fast TPE service avoiding Leeds, calling at Castleford and Wakefield. The development of services on this route would create an alternative to the route via Leeds, which is a bottleneck, and open up new journey opportunities for people living in this part of Yorkshire. The other service should be run from York to Castleford then on to Barnsley and Sheffield.

Further, I suggest a new line connecting Ferryhill along the the line into the old power station joining up with the Burton Salmon line after passing under the M1. It only requires an extra kilometre of new railway. ( I believe a Cross-Country 125 made a premature attempt to take this route several years ago . ) This new route would offer a much faster service to Goole and Hull without reversal at Castleford.

On a separate tack, whilst doing some research on train times, I noticed that in 1894 the L&Y and LNWR express services from Leeds to Manchester took almost the same time around 1 hour and fifteen minutes. Why aren't these two routes of equal importance and speed today ?.