Widening lines east of Leeds City

[Waverley125]

One of the main capacity issues at Leeds City is the narrow twin line east of the station through to Quarry Hill, which restricts the amount of traffic that can use it. With 4 TPE trains per hour, plus multiple Northern and AXC workings, it is basically at capacity for most of the day.

However, having taken a look at it via multimap, surely it could be expanded. 4 tracks is obviously impossible, but i would think there's certainly room for 3 all the way through. It would then be possible to run an up & down slow with a bi-directional fast.

This would then encourage NXEC to run northbound services (probably to Glasgow Central) from leeds, as well as making services to london via Hambleton much more likely.

 

[mumrar]

If they're gonna start widening lines won't we regret scrapping all the broad gauge stuff years ago??

 

[bluenoxid]

Oh yeah, yeah , yeah, yeah. Good idea there and the funding??? Could you tell us where the funding is and the ground conditions, land purchase costs, traffic planning, implementation, resignalling, electrification provision, etc. Cheers

I think it is feasible to four track Cross Gates to near Garforth as an initial stage. I would prefer to move East Leeds Parkway to between Cross Gates and Garforth but that's my preferences.

 

[Andrew]

How many trains per hour use this double track section? The MLs out of Paddington manage 13tph. Maybe resignalling is a better option if the lines are "at capacity" as they stand.

 

[yorkie]

Off peak:

2 stoppers (York/Selby)
4 TPE (3 York/1 Hull)
1 XC

It is common to get stuck behind stoppers.

And that's before you include ECS trains to/from Neville Hill.

 

[paul1609]

Off peak:

2 stoppers (York/Selby)
4 TPE (3 York/1 Hull)
1 XC

It is common to get stuck behind stoppers.

And that's before you include ECS trains to/from Neville Hill.

I'm unconvinced by claims that these regional lines are at capacity.
Compare the above to the Brighton Line south of Haywards Heath off peak:
2 tph FCC all stations
1 tph SN all stations
2 tph FCC limited stop
2 tph SN Brighton Express
2 tph SN Littlehampton
2 tph SN Eastbourne
and there are still spare paths for charters and engineering trains.

 

[bluenoxid]

Intensive 4 aspect signalling using electric trains with better accelerations. Most trains are similar and operate similar operating patterns. I may be wrong but there aren't really bottlenecks at either end of the line. Services also operate to a limited set of destinations

Compare this to mixed aspect signalling using diesels. Varied trains with differing operating patterns running at lower speeds with a major bottleneck at Micklefield. Also services serve most of the UK. So yeah it is probably possible to have an intensive service but the route needs resignalling and electrification to squeeze more services on as well as speed limit raising.

 

[paul1609]

Intensive 4 aspect signalling using electric trains with better accelerations. Most trains are similar and operate similar operating patterns. I may be wrong but there aren't really bottlenecks at either end of the line. Services also operate to a limited set of destinations

Compare this to mixed aspect signalling using diesels. Varied trains with differing operating patterns running at lower speeds with a major bottleneck at Micklefield. Also services serve most of the UK. So yeah it is probably possible to have an intensive service but the route needs resignalling and electrification to squeeze more services on as well as speed limit raising.

Sorry but I dont think thats the case.
i take your point about the the lower acceleration of the stopping services stock but a voyager (is/was) timetabled for superior acceleration over any dc EMU on the network and I imagine a 185 with its lower top speed would be even better. 158s and 170s are timetabled as 377s on the West Coastway and still manage to arrive a minute or so early at most stations.
I dont have any knowledge of the signalling systems east of leeds but the Brighton Line is only BR era 4 aspect signalling and if the signalling needs a boost fair enough but that must be cheaper than widening that was suggested in the op?
As to the network I understand that Windmill Junction north of East Croydon on the Brighton Main Line is the most intensively timetable flat junction on the Network rail system. you are not the first northerner in the last couple of days to assume that Littlehampton is a suburb of eastbourne when in fact they are further apart than York and Hull quoted as the destinations of your stopping services.

 

[tbtc]

It'd have been a good idea if the stations on the route were on loops, allowing the long distance trains to overtake the stoppers.

Realistically, this is always going to be a horrible bottleneck, with the ECS movements, NXEC potentially running via Hambleton, the AXC service doubling via Leeds, TPE wanting an additional hourly service to York etc etc.

As for NXEC running Leeds - Glasgow, I'm struggling to see the need, especially when Leeds already has an hourly service to Edinburgh. And nobody is going to waste time going KX - Doncaster - Leeds - York - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow

 

[bluenoxid]

Sorry but I dont think thats the case.
i take your point about the the lower acceleration of the stopping services stock but a voyager (is/was) timetabled for superior acceleration over any dc EMU on the network and I imagine a 185 with its lower top speed would be even better. 158s and 170s are timetabled as 377s on the West Coastway and still manage to arrive a minute or so early at most stations.
I dont have any knowledge of the signalling systems east of leeds but the Brighton Line is only BR era 4 aspect signalling and if the signalling needs a boost fair enough but that must be cheaper than widening that was suggested in the op?
As to the network I understand that Windmill Junction north of East Croydon on the Brighton Main Line is the most intensively timetable flat junction on the Network rail system. you are not the first northerner in the last couple of days to assume that Littlehampton is a suburb of eastbourne when in fact they are further apart than York and Hull quoted as the destinations of your stopping services.

I don't want to dig at Northern, but they have to take into account 142's drag on the network and timetable their stopping services appropriately. Compared to 333's which ply on the Triangle, the DMU's struggle to keep the very tight timetable so they aren't delivering the accelerations. Another thing is setting down time which the Pacers and Sprinters take longer to do.

Whilst Littlehampton and Eastbourne are further than York and Hull apart, you also have to take into account that other services (the majority) cover York - Manchester, and traipse as far away as Blackpool, Wakefield, Newcastle, Scotland and the South West of England.

Arriva are salivating at getting an extra path for their Crosscountry services.

Remember it's a mixture of services and the flighting hasn't been optimised for it.

 

[Waverley125]

There are reasons it's crowded

1)Northern pacers form most stoppers, and can't keep to times.

2)No passing loops at crossgates, Garforth, micklefield etc. which makes it impossible for on-time intercity services to pass late-running locals until Church Fenton

3)Lots of slow-running ECS movements out to Neville Hill from 225s & EMT HSTs.

4)Badly signalled route & poor timetabling usually results in a stopper going out immediatley before an intercity of some sort.

 

[1D53]

The main problem is the stopping service which takes so much away of paths with no loops.

For example the 10.15 Northern leaves Leeds for Selby and calls at Cross Gates (4mile), Garforth (7mile), East Garforth ( 8mile) and Micklefield (10mile). It gets to Micklefield at 10.33. The next TPE leaves Leeds at 10.27 is at Micklefield by 10.35. Even if the Northern is only one minute late the TPE is already on restrictive aspects at Garforth and ends up being about 2-3 minutes late. The 10.15 Northern will not be let out of Leeds until the 10.05 Edinburgh and 10.12 Scaborough have departed. If the Scarborough doesn't leave till 10.15 the Northern won't leave till 10.17/10.18 then the 10.27 will be stuck on restrictive aspects at Cross Gates and will lose around 5 minutes. In this case the 10.05 has come from Bristol, the 10.12 from Liverpool and the 10.15 from Manchester Victoria, it is very very easy for these services to arrive a little bit late.

With the stopper on the other side it is a xx.41 York which has to wait for the xx.38 TPE to Hull. The xx.57 TPE already catches the xx.41 by Micklefield (even though it stops at Garforth) and then just about follows it into York on double yellow signals. If the xx.41 stopper leaves 3 minutes late and has to call at Church Fenton then the xx.57 TPE can be up to 5-7 minutes late at York.

In times past the line from Marsh Lane right through to Cross Gates was 4 track, no reason why this can't be brought back. At a minimum the loops at Cross Gates should be restored to allow the stopper to leave on time and then be looped by late expresses there which would only cause minimal delay all round.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

There are reasons it's crowded

1)Northern pacers form most stoppers, and can't keep to times.....

......3)Lots of slow-running ECS movements out to Neville Hill from 225s & EMT HSTs......

Sorry, but this simply is not true. The majority of stoppers east of Leeds these days are 155/158 with occasional pacers. All these stoppers head down the Caldervale line following Leeds. I work right next to the line in Stanningley and rarely see pacers up and down the line now.

ECS movements may well run slow, but there are few during the hours of peak operation. It is also important to note that past Marsh Lane and into Neville Hill, the line becomes 3 wide. ECS does not provide issues with capacity. The lack of passing loops anywhere between Cross Gates and Micklefield does. I personally think that even if loops at Cross Gates were reintroduced, the section between Garforth and Micklefield could still prove troublesome. However, the benefits would be endless. Look how much the passing loop at Mirfield helps the Huddersfield Line.

 

[87015]

So is a two or three-car unit every 15 minute across the Pennines really the most sensible use of capacity? If the line is "full" with two or three car carts there is a lot of capacity really, London Bridge is somewhere which has capacity issues.

 

[Muttley]

So is a two or three-car unit every 15 minute across the Pennines really the most sensible use of capacity?

Too true. We went from 8 coaches hauled by 45`s every half an hour, alternating between Newcastle and Scarborough at one end, and North Wales and Liverpool at t`other, to a Sprinter every 15mins (allegedly). One giant leap backwards.

 

[bluenoxid]

So is a two or three-car unit every 15 minute across the Pennines really the most sensible use of capacity? If the line is "full" with two or three car carts there is a lot of capacity really, London Bridge is somewhere which has capacity issues.

Once again it comes back to the variety of trains. A mixture of stoppers are trying to ply their trade with Intercity services and semi fasts.

Whilst many of the trains are only 2 or 3 car, they serve a wide range of destinations. Many of the trains are running full but the route needs to take more services in order to deliver a better frequency service to East Yorkshire, the new East Leeds Parkway and take more Cross Country services.

London Bridge does have capacity issues but its issues are a little different and more difficult to solve than East of Leeds, which appears to be being held back by its traffic variety and restricted capacity.

 

[tbtc]

So is a two or three-car unit every 15 minute across the Pennines really the most sensible use of capacity?

No. Which is why I'm dissapointed by TPE's plan for a fifth Manchester - Leeds service each hour, when they'd be better running (for example) three five coach trains each hour than five three coach trains each hour over the Pennines (given how tight the lines around Leeds are for paths).

 

[Waverley125]

this would mainly be an improvement to reduce delays. Capacity would best be delivered by longer trains. If the TP Mainline is wired, train lengths need to at least double. Hopefully it'll be tandem desiros, giving us an 8 car service again

 

[whoshotjimmi]

this would mainly be an improvement to reduce delays. Capacity would best be delivered by longer trains. If the TP Mainline is wired, train lengths need to at least double. Hopefully it'll be tandem desiros, giving us an 8 car service again

Where would all these Desiros come from?

If the TP route were electrified, the only way there would be any kind of capacity improvement along the section of line would be if all stoppers then became EMU oriented. That would not necessarily be the case.

The situation would be much improved by passing loops at Cross Gates and possibly between East Garforth and Micklefield. Just the former would make a massive difference and allow better integration of the services.

 

[tbtc]

I suppose there's two "easy" options (by which I mean no new track/ loops/ electrification etc):

1. Split the "stoppers" at Leeds, using the bay platforms at the east end, making sure they are on time (rather than getting delayed reversing at Bradford, meaning knock on delays). There may be some through traffic from York to Bradford/ Halifax/ East Lancashire, but pretty minimal compared to the York - Leeds flow.

2. Speed up the "stoppers" by omitting (say) Garforth, and stopping a couple of additional TPE services there instead. Means less speed differential between the services (and, let's face it, nobody really wants to travel from Garforth to East Garforth by train).

Neither solve the problem, but at least make it sligtly more manageable, and don't cost anything significant.

 

[1D53]

With the exception of Garforth to East Garforth there is a lot of travel between intermediate stations such as Garforth to Cross Gates and Micklefield to Cross Gates so only part stopping doesn't work. Loops is the minimum needed.

 

[Waverley125]

all true Jimmi. Hopefully they'd come out of a new train procurement order for the newly-electrified line. For stoppers, a large number of 313s could be brought up from london as a stopgap before themselves being replaced.

 

[rower40]

Another difference between Haywards Heath - Brighton vs Leeds - Micklefield is that Leeds - Micklefield plays host to trains that have come from as far away as Penzance and Aberdeen, so have much more scope for accumulating delay. If a Brighton - Victoria train is late, it's much more likely to get cancelled and turned back short. But long distance trains have to keep going.

 

[yorkie]

So is a two or three-car unit every 15 minute across the Pennines really the most sensible use of capacity? If the line is "full" with two or three car carts there is a lot of capacity really, London Bridge is somewhere which has capacity issues.

There are more trains using this section than over the Pennines, but I can see the link as they obviously take up a lot of the capacity (50%?) on this section. I certainly agree it's a poor choice. At the risk of going off topic, I think that if this country was sane we'd have electrified the route and put cascaded 87s and Mk3s on a half-hourly service. Increased reliability and efficiency, faster acceleration and a superior ambience and higher capacity would all result. (I'm sure you'd agree! )

But back to the current problem east of Leeds...

1. Split the "stoppers" at Leeds, using the bay platforms at the east end, making sure they are on time (rather than getting delayed reversing at Bradford, meaning knock on delays). There may be some through traffic from York to Bradford/ Halifax/ East Lancashire, but pretty minimal compared to the York - Leeds flow.

Actually there is quite a lot of through traffic. Most people on board a Northern train departing York heading west are for beyond Leeds. It doesn't make much sense to get these to Leeds as they take longer. Last time I got on one, a TPE was in the next platform and there were delays. A handful of people got off to get the TPE for a faster journey but most stayed on as they were going to places like Bradford.

Bradford and Halifax are quite large places and there is a fair bit of demand for travel between those places and York.

2. Speed up the "stoppers" by omitting (say) Garforth, and stopping a couple of additional TPE services there instead. Means less speed differential between the services (and, let's face it, nobody really wants to travel from Garforth to East Garforth by train).

But already some TPEs call at this shack. And I suspect people from Garforth may go shopping in Cross Gates.

Neither solve the problem, but at least make it sligtly more manageable, and don't cost anything significant.

I think they cause more problems than they are worth to be honest.

Random fact: in c1998-2000 the 0743 HST from York to Swansea called at Cross Gates (pick up only)!

 

[tbtc]

Actually there is quite a lot of through traffic. Most people on board a Northern train departing York heading west are for beyond Leeds. It doesn't make much sense to get these to Leeds as they take longer. Last time I got on one, a TPE was in the next platform and there were delays. A handful of people got off to get the TPE for a faster journey but most stayed on as they were going to places like Bradford.

Bradford and Halifax are quite large places and there is a fair bit of demand for travel between those places and York

Fair enough, but the Selby service could definately be "split" - ensuring it runs on time from Leeds. Plus, the eastern end bay platforms seem quieter than demand for the "through" ones.

But already some TPEs call at this shack. And I suspect people from Garforth may go shopping in Cross Gates

The point remains for any station on the line. I'd rather the capacity was used to improve longer distance services than delaing them to cater for journeys of five minutes (when there's local buses for that kind of thing)

 

[1D53]

Fair enough, but the Selby service could definately be "split" - ensuring it runs on time from Leeds. Plus, the eastern end bay platforms seem quieter than demand for the "through" ones.

Once again you are cutting the through route which is popularly used. I would estimate there is demand for a 30 minute through services from Garforth through to Bradford etc.

 

[tbtc]

Once again you are cutting the through route which is popularly used. I would estimate there is demand for a 30 minute through services from Garforth through to Bradford etc.

Really?

It may be busy either side of Leeds, but not necessarily with people travelling the full length.

Not arguing about this example, but a lot of enthusiasts fall into the trap of assuming that there's actually (significant) demand from Norwich to Liverpool, or (say) Aberdeen to Cornwall, just because they had/ have a direct train service.

 

[bluenoxid]

JsT has a pretty level head on those shoulders and has experience of the services in the area for as long as I have known him. Of course, if you had the ticket and travel data, we would be able to make an educated guess.

The main problem is what level of passenger numbers should dictate whether a service should split or not? That doesn't usually, it is the operational convenience. Remember that unless a train pulls into P7 or P14 it uses a through platform.

How many extra trains will that split require?

 

[yorkie]

I'd be inclined to trust JsT's judgement, and given that he's a Northern Station Adopter and travels round a lot, he'll be on the stoppers on those routes fairly often I'd guess, so he would know! It also fits in with my, less frequent, observations.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

People have started talking about splitting stoppers.

This is essentially what was done in the early 90's. Stoppers to York and Selby would terminate at Leeds. Stoppers used to arrive from the Caldervale line as services from Halifax or Blackpool and also terminate. The semi fast services from Bradford Interchange used to run from Manchester or Liverpool and then ran to York with, I believe, a stop at Garforth.

On a personal note, I find the cross city services very useful. However, it is nearly always because I want to travel from New Pudsey or Bradford to York and very rare that it would be to one of the intermediate stops. With that in mind, I find it absolutely no bother to get the first train that arrives to Leeds and then change if necessary.

It seems as though the consensus here is that demand for travel between West Leeds and York is quite high, but between East Leeds and Bradford/Huddersfield etc is not. It would therefore, I believe, not be too much of a hardship to people if they were split, especially if they were timed correctly to ensure connections could be made.

What is important to note here is that the York stopper provides York with a valuable service to Blackpool which would be lost with splitting. I am also unsure how that would affect the deployment of the Northern fleet which already run some peculiar digarams to afford best efficiency.