Should there be an hourly extension of the London-Sheffield service to Leeds?

[Neptune]

Neither, I’m saying run additional Sheffield-York services. I’m not bothered who or how, but I think that would relieve some of the issues on the Sheffield-Leeds-York flows without adding to capacity issues at Leeds.

Sorry I see what you’re saying.

If the Sheffield - York market is enough to cover the cost and there is the capacity for this additional service then why not. Sheffield’s capacity is a tight at the north end and York’s isn’t overly great at the south end but if the stars align and a company with excess stock and crew can run it and make it work then it’s a possibility.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think there may be gauging issues on the Penistone line for IET style stock.

Might be easier for the EMR version with their shorter vehicles perhaps?

 

[Iskra]

Might be easier for the EMR version with their shorter vehicles perhaps?

Good point

 

[JD2168]

The easiest solution would be to compel XC to run no less than 8 carriages on their via Leeds services. That would solve the issue.

A second IC quality train between Leeds and Sheffield, is not strictly necessary in my opinion but would be a decent aspiration and would probably help grow passenger numbers if it happened.

Something does need to change on this route though as the current service pattern is inadequate. The Northern semi-fast being 2 cars as the relief to the XC if that’s swamped is not a great situation, which does involve passengers being left behind at times, or forced on to the extremely slow stopping services. Both the XC and NT semi fast seem to leave Sheffield around the same time too, so a faster train with reasonable capacity at the other side of the hour would look beneficial.

Could Transpennine step in once they’ve found their feet again? They have the rolling stock, and sign some of the route already.

Going back to EMR running to Leeds: Could a better solution be that that XC run both their services via Leeds and EMR run to York via Doncaster. Or XC stays the same but EMR run to Leeds and then on to York to terminate there where there’s less platform capacity constraints?

Agree with the part about Northern semi-fast being two car, some if not all of them could do with becoming a three car version as these can be quite full even at the middle of the day along with peak hours.

 

[YorksLad12]

how long is the funky siding on the wakefield side of barnsley station? could they use that? if not build a new platform where the carpark is and use the railway land on the other side of the road for the carpark.

Depends on where you're measuring to/from. It's around 80m to what looks like an electrical cabinet, then a further 200m beyond that to the bridge over the road. As a fall back, depending on the timings, if it arrived in Barnsley after the Penistone service it could go up that way a bit. The crossover from north to south is south of the station though, so you'd be using the 'wrong' platform to head to Sheffield.

Unless you’re offering me unlimited funds that don’t exist to either tunnel under Leeds station for new platforms or for a new wider 4 track viaduct to the east of Leeds station then I’m sorry to say that it’s a no go for EMR, XC or anybody else.

Build the 'T' station

Neither, I’m saying run additional Sheffield-York services. I’m not bothered who or how, but I think that would relieve some of the issues on the Sheffield-Leeds-York flows without adding to capacity issues at Leeds.

Is that Sheffield-York via Doncaster, the Dearne Valley Line or Leeds? One of those isn't running at all at the moment, I think. I'm firmly in the 'via Leeds' camp, and not just because I use it.

 

[LLivery]

100% out of the question. An hourly ECS in either direction on the constrained 2 track section with the NL - LDS crossing the entire throat of NL would be just as bad for capacity than keeping the train in the platform.

I can’t emphasise enough (and I’ve done it so many times in the past) that Leeds does not have the capacity for another IC length train terminating there and as paths are so constrained to the east of Leeds running through doesn’t make it that much better. Running to NL is a bigger capacity crusher than a through service.

Unless you’re offering me unlimited funds that don’t exist to either tunnel under Leeds station for new platforms or for a new wider 4 track viaduct to the east of Leeds station then I’m sorry to say that it’s a no go for EMR, XC or anybody else.

How have we end up with most of the major cities with through running platforms reliant on 2 track sections in 2023? Our infrastructure spending is woeful. Of all of them, the Eastern Leeds approach looks like the easiest one to fix. It looks like only two buildings would acutally have to go. Now if only we'd have a government whose policy is to 'level up'...

Sorting out Leeds properly should be a national infra priority. HS2, NPR or not.

 

[Iskra]

How have we end up with most of the major cities with through running platforms reliant on 2 track sections in 2023? Our infrastructure spending is woeful. Of all of them, the Eastern Leeds approach looks like the easiest one to fix. It looks like only two buildings would acutally have to go. Now if only we'd have a government whose policy is to 'level up'...

Sorting out Leeds properly should be a national infra priority. HS2, NPR or not.

The solution is not solely an infrastructure one. Currently a lot of capacity on these two track sections is wasted by 2/3 car trains. It would probably be cheaper, easier and quicker to invest in enough rolling stock which could provide more capacity per train path. These two track sections aren’t exactly full, it’s more that the capacity is poorly utilised.

 

[JonathanH]

Currently a lot of capacity on these two track sections is wasted by 2/3 car trains. It would probably be cheaper, easier and quicker to invest in enough rolling stock which could provide more capacity per train path.

Thereby reducing frequency. Moreover, often it is platform lengths that restrict services to 2 or 3 coach trains, as well as availability of rolling stock.

 

[Iskra]

Thereby reducing frequency. Moreover, often it is platform lengths that restrict services to 2 or 3 coach trains, as well as availability of rolling stock.

Indeed, but I would argue that it’s capacity that’s more important and as long as the frequency remains reasonable it’s a worthwhile trade off, which has a side benefit of improved service reliability too. It’s certainly easier than 4-tracking long sections of elevated track in urban environments.

Of course, if splitting and joining were used you could still maintain frequencies away from core routes. And does a core route really need 6 small trains an hour when 4 long ones would provide a more reliable service, moving more people, not mentioning any names of course here…

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Sorry are you saying get rid of XC services via Leeds or get rid of services from Leeds - Scotland. Neither of these are a desirable result.

Long-term a better service pattern would be XC to Leeds always terminating there with a Scottish link being provided by going ahead with extension of a TPE service with minimum 5-car sets. Also have all (Manchester-) Huddersfield-Wakefield trains run through to York providing a wider choice of northward connections for Wakefield passengers than will ever be possible at Leeds. It would be a big improvement for Castleford too.

But all this discussion is about possible changes that are some years away at best. In the meantime we need to elect a government less hostile to rail and hope that XC can so completely wear out the Voyagers that their replacement by longer trains will become a no-brainer. It's also possible that some changes become easier due to the gradual elimination of all the separate TOCs.

 

[Neptune]

How have we end up with most of the major cities with through running platforms reliant on 2 track sections in 2023? Our infrastructure spending is woeful. Of all of them, the Eastern Leeds approach looks like the easiest one to fix. It looks like only two buildings would acutally have to go. Now if only we'd have a government whose policy is to 'level up'...

Sorting out Leeds properly should be a national infra priority. HS2, NPR or not.

Neither easy nor cheap in reality.

Sadly you can’t go around knocking down buildings without great expense (including relocation costs). There’s also the graveyard at Leeds Minster to consider. The only way around that is a cantilevered viaduct which will cost far more than a conventional structure. You also have to buy very expensive city centre land in the centre of Leeds for your widened viaduct.

Then at the end of the viaduct you’ve got a cutting with Neville Hill access to consider. It’s vital access to here is retained with the associated loops to keep ECS moves off the mainline so no room for 4 track running there unfortunately.

East of NL has the 4 track potential but the pinch point before it makes the idea of turning yet more IC trains nigh on impossible.

 

[LLivery]

Long-term a better service pattern would be XC to Leeds always terminating there with a Scottish link being provided by going ahead with extension of a TPE service with minimum 5-car sets. Also have all (Manchester-) Huddersfield-Wakefield trains run through to York providing a wider choice of northward connections for Wakefield passengers than will ever be possible at Leeds. It would be a big improvement for Castleford too.

But all this discussion is about possible changes that are some years away at best. In the meantime we need to elect a government less hostile to rail and hope that XC can so completely wear out the Voyagers that their replacement by longer trains will become a no-brainer. It's also possible that some changes become easier due to the gradual elimination of all the separate TOCs.

I think Newcastle and Edinburgh losing connections across the Western half of England would be a bitter pill, but in such a case, could it even be an idea to extend an LNER Leeds service to Edinburgh? Akin to Avanti via Birmingham, therefore giving the highest amount of capacity possible and leaving TPE to Northern England? I fail to see why they even need to run the Newcastle - Edinburgh service if I'm honest.

Neither easy nor cheap in reality.

Sadly you can’t go around knocking down buildings without great expense (including relocation costs). There’s also the graveyard at Leeds Minster to consider. The only way around that is a cantilevered viaduct which will cost far more than a conventional structure. You also have to buy very expensive city centre land in the centre of Leeds for your widened viaduct.

Then at the end of the viaduct you’ve got a cutting with Neville Hill access to consider. It’s vital access to here is retained with the associated loops to keep ECS moves off the mainline so no room for 4 track running there unfortunately.

East of NL has the 4 track potential but the pinch point before it makes the idea of turning yet more IC trains nigh on impossible.

I mean easier than Castlefield, Brum to Wolverhampton and the Edinburgh Eastern approach. Leeds would be easiest in construction terms, but not a proverbial easy project. Leeds is the only major city I've acutally never been to and I didn't notice the graveyard, which I assume is St Johns Park?

Considering TfN wanting to upgrade the railway east of Leeds for NPR, if we had a government that genuinely wanted to do these things, in principle, this wouldn't be too difficult to do. Expensive? Yes. But if this was Germany, and considering the likes of the great expense at Stuggart and Köln Hbf expansion for S-Bahn, it would've already been sorted. In fact, Leeds-Bradford would have a region-wide S Bahn. It always feels like there's always a reason to say 'no' and then we wonder why the UK economy is stagnant. You'd never believe we managed to six track railways into London and I would say this would be more important for the Leeds City Region than a tramway.

Access to Neville Hill and the loops while 4 tracking the viaduct seems like the biggest headache to me. Again, I don't know the area well, and it's going off topic now, but if the money was forthcoming, could we make better use of the freight sidings on the south side of main railway passing the depot, where on satellite looks like there are coal hoppers resting? Not rid of them entirely but rationalise the number of roads? Then 4 track out east. Given enough money, Network Rail can surely figure out a solution.

The solution is not solely an infrastructure one. Currently a lot of capacity on these two track sections is wasted by 2/3 car trains. It would probably be cheaper, easier and quicker to invest in enough rolling stock which could provide more capacity per train path. These two track sections aren’t exactly full, it’s more that the capacity is poorly utilised.

True, I always think 2-3 car trains in the North and West Midlands and 5 car Intercity trains in general, are a waste of capacity and a bizarre one on a railway that has bottlenecks all over the place.

 

[Neptune]

I mean easier than Castlefield, Brum to Wolverhampton and the Edinburgh Eastern approach. Leeds would be easiest in construction terms, but not a proverbial easy project. Leeds is the only major city I've acutally never been to and I didn't notice the graveyard, which I assume is St Johns Park?

I’ll be honest. You really need to visit Leeds and have a look at the east end. It’s just not a simple fix to widen the viaduct. It’s ok saying the space is almost all there but you’d have to build out from the current viaduct and it isn’t centrally placed all the way up. The graveyard (sorry don’t know it’s name but it’s opposite the Minster) would require an expensive cantilever solution, there are buildings in the way that even with compulsory purchase would be expensive as any business would need compensating for the extra costs incurred by their business. Then you’d have the space issue during construction. You can’t do this without taking up space around the viaduct in its entire length. How on earth do you get around that? It’s ok saying that money should be thrown at this but as it stands the reality is that the money isn’t there. Even if this money was there would it not be better to throw that money at mass electrification.

Access to Neville Hill and the loops while 4 tracking the viaduct seems like the biggest headache to me. Again, I don't know the area well, and it's going off topic now, but if the money was forthcoming, could we make better use of the freight sidings on the south side of main railway passing the depot, where on satellite looks like there are coal hoppers resting? Not rid of them entirely but rationalise the number of roads? Then 4 track out east. Given enough money, Network Rail can surely figure out a solution.

Neville Hill has enough space for now thanks to the reinstatement of Hull BG and after TRU with the addition of other stabling locations around West Yorkshire it would be pointless to split the site.

 

[Bantamzen]

I’ll be honest. You really need to visit Leeds and have a look at the east end. It’s just not a simple fix to widen the viaduct. It’s ok saying the space is almost all there but you’d have to build out from the current viaduct and it isn’t centrally placed all the way up. The graveyard (sorry don’t know it’s name but it’s opposite the Minster) would require an expensive cantilever solution, there are buildings in the way that even with compulsory purchase would be expensive as any business would need compensating for the extra costs incurred by their business. Then you’d have the space issue during construction. You can’t do this without taking up space around the viaduct in its entire length. How on earth do you get around that? It’s ok saying that money should be thrown at this but as it stands the reality is that the money isn’t there. Even if this money was there would it not be better to throw that money at mass electrification.

You are absolutely right in what you say about the potential costs at current and future rates as the industry stands. But at some point if the country is going to be serious about long term modal shift, these big ticket, big budget ideas are going to have to leave the realms of these speculative threads, and start to be seriously talked about by the decision makers. And they are going to to have to look at why such projects are costed so high, and why they take so damn long. It sometimes feels like the industries that supply the railways are like the dodgy builder who comes in, sucks air through his teeth, and tells you that your planned extension is "gonna cost you, need to get parts from China, going to take months rather than weeks mate....". I've long had my suspicion that railway projects are like other publicly funded projects where costs suddenly go up, and timescales go through the roof when public money and <cough> inexperienced public sector leaders are waived in front of some companies.

 

[cle]

True, I always think 2-3 car trains in the North and West Midlands and 5 car Intercity trains in general, are a waste of capacity and a bizarre one on a railway that has bottlenecks all over the place.

I could not agree more. We will not see the Leeds-east viaduct four-tracked in our lifetimes, but with the finite capacity we have on our railways, we should see 2>3 and 3>4 units upon replacement, platform extensions/SDO, and much longer intercity and regional trains as a rolling priority. With modular capability to add cars, even pan cars, into existing stock. That feels a lot more realistic.

TPE have learned this at least. I remember 2 and 3 car 158s being absolutely standard (and packed) through the 2000/2010s. XC is now shamefully lagging.

There is also a fairly basic 'new trains' factor for the civilians among us. They do attract (and call back) rail users. Wires also do this, through ride quality and journey times (we should also aspire to this) - but I think less noticeable to average rubes than new stock. Still, part of that 'try the train again' overall experience.

 

[Iskra]

I could not agree more. We will not see the Leeds-east viaduct four-tracked in our lifetimes, but with the finite capacity we have on our railways, we should see 2>3 and 3>4 units upon replacement, platform extensions/SDO, and much longer intercity and regional trains as a rolling priority. With modular capability to add cars, even pan cars, into existing stock. That feels a lot more realistic.

TPE have learned this at least. I remember 2 and 3 car 158s being absolutely standard (and packed) through the 2000/2010s. XC is now shamefully lagging.

There is also a fairly basic 'new trains' factor for the civilians among us. They do attract (and call back) rail users. Wires also do this, through ride quality and journey times (we should also aspire to this) - but I think less noticeable to average rubes than new stock. Still, part of that 'try the train again' overall experience.

You’d think that now the MML is getting its new trains, XC will be next up.

 

[LLivery]

I’ll be honest. You really need to visit Leeds and have a look at the east end. It’s just not a simple fix to widen the viaduct. It’s ok saying the space is almost all there but you’d have to build out from the current viaduct and it isn’t centrally placed all the way up. The graveyard (sorry don’t know it’s name but it’s opposite the Minster) would require an expensive cantilever solution, there are buildings in the way that even with compulsory purchase would be expensive as any business would need compensating for the extra costs incurred by their business. Then you’d have the space issue during construction. You can’t do this without taking up space around the viaduct in its entire length. How on earth do you get around that? It’s ok saying that money should be thrown at this but as it stands the reality is that the money isn’t there. Even if this money was there would it not be better to throw that money at mass electrification.

Neville Hill has enough space for now thanks to the reinstatement of Hull BG and after TRU with the addition of other stabling locations around West Yorkshire it would be pointless to split the site.

Fair enough, it's easy for me to look at Google Maps and do a quick mental sketch.

You are absolutely right in what you say about the potential costs at current and future rates as the industry stands. But at some point if the country is going to be serious about long term modal shift, these big ticket, big budget ideas are going to have to leave the realms of these speculative threads, and start to be seriously talked about by the decision makers. And they are going to to have to look at why such projects are costed so high, and why they take so damn long. It sometimes feels like the industries that supply the railways are like the dodgy builder who comes in, sucks air through his teeth, and tells you that your planned extension is "gonna cost you, need to get parts from China, going to take months rather than weeks mate....". I've long had my suspicion that railway projects are like other publicly funded projects where costs suddenly go up, and timescales go through the roof when public money and <cough> inexperienced public sector leaders are waived in front of some companies.

This 100%

I could not agree more. We will not see the Leeds-east viaduct four-tracked in our lifetimes, but with the finite capacity we have on our railways, we should see 2>3 and 3>4 units upon replacement, platform extensions/SDO, and much longer intercity and regional trains as a rolling priority. With modular capability to add cars, even pan cars, into existing stock. That feels a lot more realistic.

TPE have learned this at least. I remember 2 and 3 car 158s being absolutely standard (and packed) through the 2000/2010s. XC is now shamefully lagging.

There is also a fairly basic 'new trains' factor for the civilians among us. They do attract (and call back) rail users. Wires also do this, through ride quality and journey times (we should also aspire to this) - but I think less noticeable to average rubes than new stock. Still, part of that 'try the train again' overall experience.

Considering the changes in electrification and demand that makes a whole lot of sense. Nation-wide Intercity IETs makes a lot of sense too, but it just hasn't been executed right (yet).

 

[Neptune]

Fair enough, it's easy for me to look at Google Maps and do a quick mental sketch.

Looking at Google earth does give you a fair idea of what would be required but you can’t beat physically being at the location to realise the difficulty of widening a viaduct through a constrained site barely any wider than what would be required in a busy city centre. I think you’d be looking at a minimum 9 or 10 figure sum to achieve this (including the necessary 4 tracking east of Leeds) which if it was there would be better spent on electrification projects.

 

[YorksLad12]

Access to Neville Hill and the loops while 4 tracking the viaduct seems like the biggest headache to me. Again, I don't know the area well, and it's going off topic now, but if the money was forthcoming, could we make better use of the freight sidings on the south side of main railway passing the depot, where on satellite looks like there are coal hoppers resting? Not rid of them entirely but rationalise the number of roads? Then 4 track out east. Given enough money, Network Rail can surely figure out a solution.

The bit where the coal hoppers are showing on Google Maps/Earth has or will be where the main line runs in the future, to improve line speed.

I’ll be honest. You really need to visit Leeds and have a look at the east end. It’s just not a simple fix to widen the viaduct. It’s ok saying the space is almost all there but you’d have to build out from the current viaduct and it isn’t centrally placed all the way up. The graveyard (sorry don’t know it’s name but it’s opposite the Minster) would require an expensive cantilever solution, there are buildings in the way that even with compulsory purchase would be expensive as any business would need compensating for the extra costs incurred by their business. Then you’d have the space issue during construction. You can’t do this without taking up space around the viaduct in its entire length. How on earth do you get around that? It’s ok saying that money should be thrown at this but as it stands the reality is that the money isn’t there. Even if this money was there would it not be better to throw that money at mass electrification.

It's not often I disagree with you, but I think it is possible, even with the construction space required. It would be awfully expensive though, Leeds Civic Trust will raise merry hell about the headstones on either side of the current embankment and that'll be the end of that. West to east, you'd lose the two bars (would could reopen, they're low-rise buildings that would fit under the new span), businesses in the arches between Call Lane and Crown Street, Chancellors Court would have to completely go to provide a compound. After the Parish Church there are more under-arch businesses until you reach Railway Street.

Make that possible, but awfully expensive and awfully messy... no-one is going to pay for it. Also, we're drifting off topic.

 

[Neptune]

It's not often I disagree with you, but I think it is possible, even with the construction space required. It would be awfully expensive though, Leeds Civic Trust will raise merry hell about the headstones on either side of the current embankment and that'll be the end of that. West to east, you'd lose the two bars (would could reopen, they're low-rise buildings that would fit under the new span), businesses in the arches between Call Lane and Crown Street, Chancellors Court would have to completely go to provide a compound. After the Parish Church there are more under-arch businesses until you reach Railway Street.

Make that possible, but awfully expensive and awfully messy... no-one is going to pay for it. Also, we're drifting off topic.

Technically it’s all possible but the cost is so prohibitive as it stands.

 

[leytongabriel]

When (!) HS2 gives spare capacity on the ECML would there be any value in running some trains up the ECML either via Retford to Sheffield and on Leeds or even Grantham / Nottingham / Sheffield / Leeds?

 

[RailWonderer]

If we are talking about EMR extensions I think once every 2 hours or even two or three services per day to Mansfield from Nottingham would be in order given the catchment area of the town. It depends on platform lengths though.

 

[dk1]

I always thought DfT threw that out opting for Nottingham-Leeds Northern service instead. Now EMR no longer have operational reasons to serve Neville Hill what’s the point?

 

[JonathanH]

When (!) HS2 gives spare capacity on the ECML would there be any value in running some trains up the ECML either via Retford to Sheffield and on Leeds or even Grantham / Nottingham / Sheffield / Leeds?

The problem with both ideas is that the lines between the ECML and Sheffield via Worksop, and from Grantham to Nottingham are slow secondary routes, and have other traffic flows.

Moreover, the intermediate flows such as Peterborough to Doncaster and York have to be maintained.

If we are talking about EMR extensions I think once every 2 hours or even two or three services per day to Mansfield from Nottingham would be in order given the catchment area of the town. It depends on platform lengths though.

Depends on whether the positioning moves are worthwhile as well given the units are stabled overnight in Derby, not Nottingham. Also, to get daytime services through to Mansfield, the northbound and southbound units need to cross sensibly at Nottingham. The single track bits don't help either, as line capacity probably doesn't allow both a stopper and a train that doesn't do all the stops south of Mansfield.