Transpennine Upgrade - what should happen East of Leeds

[GRALISTAIR]

Discussion moved from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lectrification-cp6.88054/page-92#post-4565988

It was suggested that rather than clogging up the main thread on Transpennine Upgrade and electrification CP6 we should have a speculative ideas thread on what should happen East of Leeds. So here it is.

My suggestion - Rolling programme of electrification to Selby as a start.

 

[Mollman]

From what I've seen, the plans for Thorpe Park / East Leeds Parkway only shows two platforms rather than three. I am expecting it to be redrawn if the turnback plan is still going ahead however, how this will fit in with the TRU is anyones guess as Thorpe Park / ELP / whatever it'll be called (as the plans may end up changing) is suppose to open in 2023.

I'd hope that if we are looking for capacity it would become two island platforms with the line four-tracked all the way from Leeds (Marsh Lane).

 

[deltic08]

I'd hope that if we are looking for capacity it would become two island platforms with the line four-tracked all the way from Leeds (Marsh Lane).

The plans I saw showed two island platforms and four tracks.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd hope that if we are looking for capacity it would become two island platforms with the line four-tracked all the way from Leeds (Marsh Lane).

Hasn't someone relatively well-informed mentioned previously that 4-tracking from Leeds in the Neville Hill direction isn't required? That section isn't really comparable to the Castlefield corridor with multiple stations, flat junctions and diverging routes.

 

[Halish Railway]

Hasn't someone relatively well-informed mentioned previously that 4-tracking from Leeds in the Neville Hill direction isn't required? That section isn't really comparable to the Castlefield corridor with multiple stations, flat junctions and diverging routes.

Its still a massive liability when things go wrong - I know that the chances of this happening have decreased since the introduction of the Hull to Halifax stopping service, but the amount of times I've been on/seen a stopping service going into platform 7 being held up due to several eastbound trains being late is a bit silly. However, this problem could be sorted by just putting the stopping service into platform 14, which the signalers sometimes seem reluctant to do.

Looking at the bigger picture, I can tell you from experience that the performance of the 07:37 Ilkley to Leeds is pretty rubbish as the inbound train always seems to be stuck at Neville Hill due to delays on the York/Hull line, therefore meaning that the train is either delayed or outright cancelled. This sends the Wharfedale line into disaray, either due to overcrowding or causing every other train to be late due to the long block sections on the route.

 

[takno]

Its still a massive liability when things go wrong - I know that the chances of this happening have decreased since the introduction of the Hull to Halifax stopping service, but the amount of times I've been on/seen a stopping service going into platform 7 being held up due to several eastbound trains being late is a bit silly. However, this problem could be sorted by just putting the stopping service into platform 14, which the signalers sometimes seem reluctant to do.

Looking at the bigger picture, I can tell you from experience that the performance of the 07:37 Ilkley to Leeds is pretty rubbish as the inbound train always seems to be stuck at Neville Hill due to delays on the York/Hull line, therefore meaning that the train is either delayed or outright cancelled. This sends the Wharfedale line into disaray, either due to overcrowding or causing every other train to be late due to the long block sections on the route.

I haven't watched it a lot, but it seems like the Eastern throat at the station sees a fair number of crossing moves, and either the signals are set too early for those, or the moves themselves take a really long time. You'd probably want to look at those kinds of things, and potentially shorter blocks for congestion relief and service recovery before you built miles of new track

 

[Meerkat]

Hasn't someone relatively well-informed mentioned previously that 4-tracking from Leeds in the Neville Hill direction isn't required? That section isn't really comparable to the Castlefield corridor with multiple stations, flat junctions and diverging routes.

Any route that carries metro, regional, and intercity, services needs four tracks!
They could put two or three new metro stations in if there was the capacity.

 

[takno]

Any route that carries metro, regional, and intercity, services needs four tracks!
They could put two or three new metro stations in if there was the capacity.

A proposal to add a metro route into town would certainly require new tracks. It's not clear that you'd want to build them next to the existing ones though, either for reasons of station location, or costs of widening what is a fairly narrow corridor. In terms of accommodating current and currently anticipated traffic you'd be better off sorting out crossing moves and four-tracking the higher speed sections where the stoppers are rather more in the way of the fast trains

 

[Mollman]

A proposal to add a metro route into town would certainly require new tracks. It's not clear that you'd want to build them next to the existing ones though, either for reasons of station location, or costs of widening what is a fairly narrow corridor. In terms of accommodating current and currently anticipated traffic you'd be better off sorting out crossing moves and four-tracking the higher speed sections where the stoppers are rather more in the way of the fast trains

The section between Marsh Lane and Micklefield was has allowances for 4 track in most places already, however given the cost of rebuilding Garforth & East Garforth stations it is probably only practical as far as the M1 over-bridge which is about where the connection onto HS2 would be anyway.

 

[Spartacus]

Don’t forget that in many places 4 track would be brand new, though all bridges were built to allow 4 track it was by no means required.

 

[deltic08]

Don’t forget that in many places 4 track would be brand new, though all bridges were built to allow 4 track it was by no means required.

Marsh Lane-Garforth formation was built 4 tracks wide but only 4 tracks installed as far as Cross Gates until shortly after the Wetherby line closed in January 1964 then reduced to two tracks.
Leeds City Council (Metro) wanted three new stations between Leeds and Cross Gates in the 1980s but were told it was impossible on a busy two track railway. It is even busier now but still two track. The real bottleneck is the two track viaduct from Leeds station to Marsh Lane. The viaduct desperately needs widening to three of four tracks so a station can be built adjacent to the main bus station with a connecting footbridge. This is a very commercial quarter of Leeds and would relieve the main station in the peaks if services terminating in west end bay platforms could become cross city.

 

[IanXC]

Its still a massive liability when things go wrong - I know that the chances of this happening have decreased since the introduction of the Hull to Halifax stopping service, but the amount of times I've been on/seen a stopping service going into platform 7 being held up due to several eastbound trains being late is a bit silly. However, this problem could be sorted by just putting the stopping service into platform 14, which the signalers sometimes seem reluctant to do/.

Outside of peak time there is only one stopping service arriving (to terminate) into Leeds from the East, plus every Eastbound TPE departure from Leeds is booked to use 15 so doesn't conflict with use of 7. There will be some occasions where the XC and NT Halifax services conflict with the arrival of the ex York stopper, however replatforming one service could, depending on the time of day, result in a need to replan the east end of the station for the rest of the day!

 

[Halish Railway]

Outside of peak time there is only one stopping service arriving (to terminate) into Leeds from the East, plus every Eastbound TPE departure from Leeds is booked to use 15 so doesn't conflict with use of 7. There will be some occasions where the XC and NT Halifax services conflict with the arrival of the ex York stopper, however replatforming one service could, depending on the time of day, result in a need to replan the east end of the station for the rest of the day!

Fair enough - I suppose that a lot of my experiences come pre-December timetable change when there was only a five minute headway between the departure of a stopper and the arrival of a stopper, which was precarious at the best of times.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Wasn't they're talk about a new line between Leeds & York as part of NPHR not so long ago?

I remeber reading summat brief and I have created another thread with a suggested route for those interested in the SI forum.

 

[Mollman]

Wasn't they're talk about a new line between Leeds & York as part of NPHR not so long ago?

I remeber reading summat brief and I have created another thread with a suggested route for those interested in the SI forum.

Yes, it basically involved having a west to north cord onto HS2 to allow trains to avoid Garforth, Micclefield and Church Fenton.

https://transportforthenorth.com/northern-powerhouse-rail/

 

[twin turbo]

Yes, it basically involved having a west to north cord onto HS2 to allow trains to avoid Garforth, Micclefield and Church Fenton.

https://transportforthenorth.com/northern-powerhouse-rail/

Interestingly the first phase of electrification from York to Church Fenton stops just about where HS2 will join the existing tracks!!!

 

[quantinghome]

Marsh Lane-Garforth formation was built 4 tracks wide but only 4 tracks installed as far as Cross Gates until shortly after the Wetherby line closed in January 1964 then reduced to two tracks.
Leeds City Council (Metro) wanted three new stations between Leeds and Cross Gates in the 1980s but were told it was impossible on a busy two track railway. It is even busier now but still two track. The real bottleneck is the two track viaduct from Leeds station to Marsh Lane. The viaduct desperately needs widening to three of four tracks so a station can be built adjacent to the main bus station with a connecting footbridge. This is a very commercial quarter of Leeds and would relieve the main station in the peaks if services terminating in west end bay platforms could become cross city.

I've heard to the contrary. Apparently with modern signalling you can get the throughput over the viaduct. I haven't seen details but it seems to make sense given the speeds along the viaduct will be pretty uniform. This assumes there are no new stations built on the viaduct of course. Four-tracking from marsh lane onwards will allow separation of slow and fast services.

 

[deltic08]

I've heard to the contrary. Apparently with modern signalling you can get the throughput over the viaduct. I haven't seen details but it seems to make sense given the speeds along the viaduct will be pretty uniform. This assumes there are no new stations built on the viaduct of course. Four-tracking from marsh lane onwards will allow separation of slow and fast services.

Two tracks into Leeds from the east is a bottleneck now and has been since the 2009 RUS. Quad tracking will add to the two track bottleneck. If 'modern signalling' is a panacea why hasn't it been installed already?

 

[quantinghome]

Two tracks into Leeds from the east is a bottleneck now and has been since the 2009 RUS. Quad tracking will add to the two track bottleneck. If 'modern signalling' is a panacea why hasn't it been installed already?

Indeed. I'm reporting what I heard from a rail engineer who evidently had access to recent thinking on the project. I'm considering what may be driving this.

While quad tracking somewhere east of Leeds is no doubt required, the question is where is best to do it? The capacity constraint is due to the mix of services running at different speeds which means only 10 tph can run at peak times even with significant flighting in the timetable. However this issue of different speeds only affects the line from east of Marsh Lane. By contrast, trains on the viaduct all travel at the same (low) speed. It makes more sense to quad track where the trains are running at different speeds, then where they are running at the same speeds you install new signalling to increase the throughput. Presumably the high cost of acquiring land in central Leeds is also a consideration.

Why hasn't it been done already? You could ask the same question of dozens of rail schemes all over the country. However in this case I presume another reason is because new signalling on the viaduct will only work in combination with quad tracking east of Marsh Lane. There's no point equipping the viaduct to take 16 or 18 tph or whatever, but then having the current limit of 10 tph immediately to the east.

I'm not particularly enamoured of this approach to be honest. I'd like to see a new station built by Leeds bus station, which probably couldn't happen if the viaduct remained two-track with a high frequency of trains on it. But i can appreciate the constraints that engineering projects have to work with and sometimes you can't get what you want.

 

[edwin_m]

As to why "modern signaling" hasn't been done already, I would guess the Leeds viaduct already has the closest allowable spacing of four-aspect signals for whatever the permitted speed is. Any capacity improvement would probably require ERTMS to be fitted not only to the track itself but to all the trains that use it. While the new LNER, TPE and Northern fleets are already fitted or at least have provision for easy fitting, there are still older units such as Voyagers that probably don't.

Like so many things in the North the solution east of Leeds depends on NPR. IF for example it proves necessary to provide some extra NPR through platforms south of the station, the extra conflicts that would create for trains continuing eastwards may mean extending the viaduct carrying those platforms on to Marsh Lane.

 

[grangergranger]

This is borderline a wild speculation, but with the review of phase 2b could it be possible that phase 2b could build from church fenton to M1 colton junction in the short term. And then in 2035 - 2040 the HS2 phase 2b route from the south of leeds can connect to the already built route??
This would allow TPE + XC services in the short term to by pass local metro services
And then provide quadruple tracks from colton junction to around Marsh ln or neville hill depot??

 

[quantinghome]

Inspired by this https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lectrification-cp6.88054/page-92#post-4565988

It was suggested that rather than clogging up the main thread on Transpennine Upgrade and electrification CP6 we should have a speculative ideas thread on what should happen East of Leeds. So here it is.

My suggestion - Rolling programme of electrification to Selby as a start.

Given the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrade includes electrification then surely we would see at least Leeds - Church Fenton electrified and hopefully Leeds - Selby too?

In an ideal world we would establish the long term plan for NPR/HS2 east of Leeds as well, so that TPU can at least have passive provision for the later work.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If we are truly - and I mean truly- sincere and serious about decarbonisation, then the whole Leeds - York must be electrified. I would just love tp eventually see Manchester Airport - North east all electric service before I go to the great train graveyard in the sky.

 

[deltic08]

This is borderline a wild speculation, but with the review of phase 2b could it be possible that phase 2b could build from church fenton to M1 colton junction in the short term. And then in 2035 - 2040 the HS2 phase 2b route from the south of leeds can connect to the already built route??
This would allow TPE + XC services in the short term to by pass local metro services
And then provide quadruple tracks from colton junction to around Marsh ln or neville hill depot??

Marsh Lane to Neville Hill and Church Fenton to Colton Junction is already quad track and Neville Hill to Garforth was built as quad track, although is not now, so that leaves Church Fenton to Micklefield with no stations and Micklefield to Garforth inclusive with three stations.

 

[deltic08]

Inspired by this https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lectrification-cp6.88054/page-92#post-4565988

It was suggested that rather than clogging up the main thread on Transpennine Upgrade and electrification CP6 we should have a speculative ideas thread on what should happen East of Leeds. So here it is.

My suggestion - Rolling programme of electrification to Selby as a start.

I second electrifying to Selby.

Colton Junction to Church Fenton is being electrified now only because bridges were raised before Grayling cancelled all electrification not already started. Only the single arch Down line bridge at CF needs altering (because the pan would strike the arch due to cant) as there are no low bridges between CF and Micklefield to prevent wiring through to west of Micklefield.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Here's an idea, that I've been keen on ever since I read about it. It has been mooted before (about 3 year ago) but with a host of other idea's so I don't think it go the attention that it deserves. But essentially its a new Chord Neville Hill to the Wakefield line ?



The main benefit of this I see are...

Being able to send London services straight through without reversing and taking up vital paths. Obviously this would also require another much shorter chord to be created in Wakefield. Relieving of the West approach, from services to Castleford, Nottingham & Doncaster.

Generally just creating a whole lot of new routing opportunities without the need to reverse or approach Leeds from the West. Once TRU has been done and Huddersfield - Leeds electrified I would also electrify the line through Wakey and potentially send some Aire Valley & Bradford services all the way to Wakey and maybe onto Huddersfield. This may be quicker than by going via the Wortley Curve. (Obviously this would probably have to be done with four tracking to Nevile Hill)

A bonus is that it could be directly connected with the HS2 spur to Church Fenton, potentially removing the need to four track all the way to Micklefield (Not that Im against this)



Whilst it would require quite a few businesses to be relocated, the land could then be used as a new depot. Potential locations for a new depot are currently being looked at anyway.



Here's the article where I read about it, although the suggestion was for a line from Sturton but the principle is the same. The article : 'Here's how to fix the Leeds railway network' September 14th 2017 by Chris Sharpe. https://www.citymetric.com/transport/here-s-how-fix-leeds-railway-network-3328

 

[quantinghome]

Here's an idea, that I've been keen on ever since I read about it. It has been mooted before (about 3 year ago) but with a host of other idea's so I don't think it go the attention that it deserves. But essentially its a new Chord Neville Hill to the Wakefield line ?

[snip]

Whilst it would require quite a few businesses to be relocated, the land could then be used as a new depot. Potential locations for a new depot are currently being looked at anyway.

Here's the article where I read about it, although the suggestion was for a line from Sturton but the principle is the same. The article : 'Here's how to fix the Leeds railway network' September 14th 2017 by Chris Sharpe. https://www.citymetric.com/transport/here-s-how-fix-leeds-railway-network-3328

'Quite a few businesses' is putting it mildly. You're basically trashing the Lower Aire Valley area which Leeds has spent decades planning to redevelop. It would require major crossings of: Aire and Calder navigation canal, River Aire, M1, A63. Your route cuts through: a new motorway services, a new housing development, a new park and ride, the proposed location for HS2's rolling stock depot, Leeds University's new engineering and innovation centre, and countless other small/medium industrial units in the redevelopment zone.

I don't see what you'd be gaining for all this. Yes, through services helps relieve platform congestion. If it's practical to do so, it should be done. But this proposal looks to be significantly more destructive and expensive than the station masterplan which builds more platforms on the current station car park and the HS2 station extension removes the London (and Birmingham) services from the through platforms.

 

[Halifaxlad]

'Quite a few businesses' is putting it mildly. You're basically trashing the Lower Aire Valley area which Leeds has spent decades planning to redevelop. It would require major crossings of: Aire and Calder navigation canal, River Aire, M1, A63. Your route cuts through: a new motorway services, a new housing development, a new park and ride, the proposed location for HS2's rolling stock depot, Leeds University's new engineering and innovation centre, and countless other small/medium industrial units in the redevelopment zone.

I don't see what you'd be gaining for all this. Yes, through services helps relieve platform congestion. If it's practical to do so, it should be done. But this proposal looks to be significantly more destructive and expensive than the station masterplan which builds more platforms on the current station car park and the HS2 station extension removes the London (and Birmingham) services from the through platforms.

I am aware it will require breaking a few eggs.

Just to clarify I wouldn't kick businesses out but I would relocate them.

Maybe move a few to the former Power Station site.

As much as I believe a railway should take precedent over things that aren't yet built, if you went slightly further West via Stourton then you could miss out most of these. Although my preference is for a straighter alignment.

Regarding the new motorway services I wish that hadn't been built although I don't think it matters that much as you could around it by realigning the chord slightly.

 

[Meole]

Aren't we now discouraging rail use for passengers ? Road upgrades in this area will surely be the priority.

 

[Purple Orange]

Aren't we now discouraging rail use for passengers ? Road upgrades in this area will surely be the priority.

No. That is only a temporary state and we, as a society, can’t afford to encourage greater car usage.