• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Poor Northern excuse regarding platform length constraints delaying introduction of longer trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
Yes the document linked above suggests the additional fast via Wakefield Westgate is an additional service, although it says there is neither the capacity at Leeds or at Sheffield to provide such a service.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Wharfe106

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2019
Messages
50
Location
Wharfedale
Looking at it from a layman’s perspective, Platform 17 looks to be very easy to extend further out, at least by one carriage length, which would mean it could accomodate 2x3.

Does anyone agree? They could probably do it for about 100 million!
I think it is the case that to extend P17 the platform itself would need to be cantilevered out from the side of the viaduct on which this part of the station sits - that would be expensive and and tricky engineering and planning!
 

Wharfe106

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2019
Messages
50
Location
Wharfedale
Yes the document linked above suggests the additional fast via Wakefield Westgate is an additional service, although it says there is neither the capacity at Leeds or at Sheffield to provide such a service.
Yes, the Leeds-Nottingham via Westgate would indeed be an additional service, sorry for going off topic, as a way of providing a faster end to end journey time. But is is a long way off, certainly not until any new Northern arrangement is well bedded in and the operation is properly funded... not to mention platform and track capacity along the route.
 

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
A report just now on Calendar about rail services in the north

Main example used was overcrowding on the Hallam Line between Barnsley and Sheffield, with Northern being blamed and that they should be stripped of the franchise.

No mention that the reason they can’t use longer trains is due to lack of Platform capacity at Leeds (and probably in the bays at Sheffield as well)
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
A report just now on Calendar about rail services in the north

Main example used was overcrowding on the Hallam Line between Barnsley and Sheffield, with Northern being blamed and that they should be stripped of the franchise.

No mention that the reason they can’t use longer trains is due to lack of Platform capacity at Leeds (and probably in the bays at Sheffield as well)

There's still plenty of overcrowding on the Hallam line between Barnsley and Leeds as well.

Essentially, 2 carriage 185's have been replaced by 2 carriage 195's while 3 carriage 144's have been replaced by 2 carriage 150's.

Sounds like they need to extend platform 17 at Leeds soon !
 

nimbus21

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2018
Messages
30
Not enough to help. Why? because there are vastly more trains arriving in Leeds from the west end of the station than from the east end, and most of the ones that do arrive from the east already do run through to somewhere. So to extend a train to Bradford, you'd need to use one that arrives from the west, and reverse it in a platform. But reversing takes longer than just stopping....
Then there's the lack of platforms at the two Bradford stations, thanks to rebuilds which removed the spare capacity which existed at the end of the steam era.
Finally, there's a lack of paths between Leeds and Bradford, particularly across the Leeds west end station throat, but also on the Aire Valley line generally.
Well there are some possibly in the pipeline based on a couple of posts here which have noted that Leeds to Nottingham services are intended to extend to Bradford Interchange plus possibly some LNER extended to Forster Square.

I'd be surprised if reversing at Leeds adds significant additional time, mainly because of the significant time required simply to unload and load passengers.
 

tpjm

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
484
Location
The North
This isn't only affecting Northern. Leeds Platform 0 was supposed to have been completed in time for the Dec '19 TT in which TPE were going to run some 6 car 185 stoppers. As these services currently terminate in Platform 13, until Platform 0 exists and platform allocations shimmy around enough for it to be re-platformed, it will be staying as a 3 car.

2 carriage 185's
Eh?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
This isn't only affecting Northern. Leeds Platform 0 was supposed to have been completed in time for the Dec '19 TT in which TPE were going to run some 6 car 185 stoppers. As these services currently terminate in Platform 13, until Platform 0 exists and platform allocations shimmy around enough for it to be re-platformed, it will be staying as a 3 car.


Eh?

Sorry - 158's.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
I agree - obviously the thread title suggests that Northern are to blame - most people seem to assume that Northern are to blame for most things - but if they ordered trains on the basis that they'd be able to run six coaches on Airedale services and the infrastructure isn't there then maybe Northern aren't wholly to blame... the good news is that we should have a more reliable service once the extra platform is operational, parallel moves are permitted in the throat, longer platforms are finished and the new trains are doubled up... but in the meantime we seem to have a convenient scapegoat for these things not happening (even though most of the problems seem to be with Network Rail). Who are we going to blame for a complex combination of problems once the whipping boys (Arriva) exit stage left?

As usual, it's more convenient for some people to take a quote out of context than understand the large(r) number of root causes (obviously not a dig at @Dr Hoo , I can assure you!)
I was having a quick look through Northern’s franchise agreement for something unrelated to this thread but came across this:

Platform Lengthening

25. Agreement of the Franchisee with regard to the Train Lengthening Programme and related risk allocation and value for money

25.1 The Franchisee shall deliver the Train Lengthening Programme to achieve the capacity requirements contained in the Franchise Agreement. The Franchisee identified in its response to the Invitation to Tender a programme of platform extensions that it considered to be consistent with the delivery of the Train Lengthening Programme and set out its clear expectation that this programme of platform extensions will be deliverable as PEF Projects pursuant to paragraph 25 of Schedule 6.2 (Northern Franchise Specific Provisions) within the PEF (NE) Allocation and the PEF (NW) Allocation (as the case may be). It is however acknowledged that this expectation has not been validated by Network Rail at the date of the Franchise Agreement. The Franchisee acknowledges and agrees that:

(a) the Franchisee is taking risk in relation to the delivery of the Train Lengthening Programme and the steps it has proposed to meet this obligation including relevant platform lengthening works;

(b) accordingly if any part of the platform lengthening works of the Franchisee cannot be delivered within the PEF (NE) Allocation and the PEF (NW) Allocation (as the case may be) the Franchisee shall not be relieved of any of its obligations under the Franchise Agreement (including the obligations to include in its Timetable and Train Plan the capacity specified in the Train Service Requirement and deliver the Train Lengthening Programme) and the Franchisee shall bear any adverse financial consequences. Accordingly the Secretary of State shall have the right to refuse to permit a TSR (TDR) Amendment to be made pursuant to paragraph 5.7 of Schedule 1.1 (Service Development) to the extent that the reason that the Franchisee cannot obtain required timetable development rights is because of any failure to complete any PEF (NE) Project or PEF (NW) Project

Which, in English, says Arriva included plans to lengthen services in their bid that were reliant on Network Rail completing platform extensions but Network Rail hadn’t committed to extending them in the required timeframe.

So whose fault is that?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Well there are some possibly in the pipeline based on a couple of posts here which have noted that Leeds to Nottingham services are intended to extend to Bradford Interchange plus possibly some LNER extended to Forster Square.

I'd be surprised if reversing at Leeds adds significant additional time, mainly because of the significant time required simply to unload and load passengers.

I think it will add a lot of time.

At the moment, the "Hallam Line" services (in the current Nottingham service) are almost operationally independent of the rest of the services at Leeds - they have their own tracks coming into Leeds (from Hunslet), they have their own platform - they just have to deal with a short section of shared track in the throat but can pretty much arrive/ dwell/depart at times that best suit.

However, when you tag the Nottingham service onto a Bradford service (which was meant to be tagged onto the Bradford - Manchester Airport IIRC?) then it becomes a lot more complicated to try to fit the two together. You might want a three minute dwell at Leeds, but that might not fit with the timetable on the other route... plus, given the logistics of crossing over from the Westgate line to the Calder Valley line, you probably want more of a contingency time too.

Recipe for disaster. But the "stakeholders" of Bradford want to be seen to have more long distance destinations, so this kind of tokenistic service will have to be operated (even though we've just spent large sums of money to avoid trains having to regularly reverse at Manchester Piccadilly and cross the throat to get to the Airport branch).

I was having a quick look through Northern’s franchise agreement for something unrelated to this thread but came across this:



Which, in English, says Arriva included plans to lengthen services in their bid that were reliant on Network Rail completing platform extensions but Network Rail hadn’t committed to extending them in the required timeframe.

So whose fault is that?

Good digging.

People who expect things to improve (just because Arriva aren't around) are going to struggle...it seems silly to have one arm of the Government accept a bid based on the other arm of the Government delivering things... whilst that second arm hasn't committed to doing such... do we really want these people in charge?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
I think it is the case that to extend P17 the platform itself would need to be cantilevered out from the side of the viaduct on which this part of the station sits - that would be expensive and and tricky engineering and planning!

If you stand at the end of platform 17, the distance between the viaduct parapet and the track looks to be the same as for platform 17.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,864
Location
Airedale
However, when you tag the Nottingham service onto a Bradford service (which was meant to be tagged onto the Bradford - Manchester Airport IIRC?) then it becomes a lot more complicated to try to fit the two together. You might want a three minute dwell at Leeds, but that might not fit with the timetable on the other route... plus, given the logistics of crossing over from the Westgate line to the Calder Valley line, you probably want more of a contingency time too.
ISTR the Nottinghams won't use the Hallam line at all?
Given that the Westgate and Calder Valley routes basically share the same pair of tracks in and out of Leeds, it's surely not a big issue, though dwell times in Leeds may exceed 3 minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top