The entire thread's comic. Comparing Leeds and Fenchurch St in the period 16.45 to 18.15, the four platforms at Fenchurch street handle 28 departures. Leeds platforms 1-4 manage 13. The need isn't new platforms, it's new managers. There were better things to spend money on than Platform 0.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Capacity problems Leeds
- Thread starter Eric
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Leeds 1st project around the turn of the century is the real problem 15-20 years on. Sadly the project was a classic case of building for today and not tomorrow.
Platforms 4 to 15 are essentially on the footprint of the old 1960’s station with some slight improvements such as a long platform 6 to take KX services and of course 5 additional platforms 4 of which were west facing bays, 1 of which was already there and lengthened (platform 1) and 1 additional through road.
Maybe with a bit more cash (shed loads more was spent on Manchester Piccadilly around the same time) they could have stripped away the old footprint and straightened the whole thing up and maybe made space for an extra through platform. As it is we are stuck with the current layout. With limited space to expand unless they dug underneath and created low level platforms a lá Berlin Hauptbahnhof.
Central is a no go due to the Wellington Place development.
Expanding towards the river would be difficult and also where would the staff park to get the trains in service! (Although I am liking the wider and more modern car friendly parking spots in the multi-storey).
The only other possible location for a 2nd station would be at Crown Point (does Leeds really need a horrible city centre retail park) which looking at google maps does appear to have a clear way from the Castleford lines at Hunslet.
Sadly Leeds is seriously constrained and there is simply no easy (or cheap) solution.
Platforms 4 to 15 are essentially on the footprint of the old 1960’s station with some slight improvements such as a long platform 6 to take KX services and of course 5 additional platforms 4 of which were west facing bays, 1 of which was already there and lengthened (platform 1) and 1 additional through road.
Maybe with a bit more cash (shed loads more was spent on Manchester Piccadilly around the same time) they could have stripped away the old footprint and straightened the whole thing up and maybe made space for an extra through platform. As it is we are stuck with the current layout. With limited space to expand unless they dug underneath and created low level platforms a lá Berlin Hauptbahnhof.
Central is a no go due to the Wellington Place development.
Expanding towards the river would be difficult and also where would the staff park to get the trains in service! (Although I am liking the wider and more modern car friendly parking spots in the multi-storey).
The only other possible location for a 2nd station would be at Crown Point (does Leeds really need a horrible city centre retail park) which looking at google maps does appear to have a clear way from the Castleford lines at Hunslet.
Sadly Leeds is seriously constrained and there is simply no easy (or cheap) solution.
Where is it in relation to the old one?
lots of houses built on the old rail yards and cattle market site. cant go north of the railway cos its national park. You could build a few between the railway and the A65 to the west may be feasable.
I believe that is earmarked as part of the Holbeck Urban Village part of the south bank scheme.
matacaster
On Moderation
As the river goes alongside, but then underneath the station, I suspect having additional platforms under the existing station might prove somewhat damp.
Exactly, I don’t know why the poster is so offended whenever one of these services uses a higher numbered platform.
Leeds doesn’t need an extra through platform, except for 15/16, the others have two trains each way and at other time are used as glorified west facing bays.
Extending Platform 17 outwards and maybe extending platform 13 inwards would probably be useful to allow 2 services to use both as previously, Platform 0 will help in the low numbered bays.
Eric
Member
Because I'm not a spring chicken anymore and when the people in control start stacking the services and one of the triangle services can't get on the platform it was originally allocated, people get annoyed having to go back and across the footbridge.
I use Leeds two to three times a week and the stacking of services is increasing as is waiting outside at red signals.
I started this thread to see what could be done about these problems
Eric
Member
There use to be two booths under the tunnel just before you got to Smiths on the right.
I think from posters comments on here that the new gate line is going back to the atms before Boots in the corner.
That will mean Smiths is on platform 8?
Not quite. When you next pass through, take a look over the hoardings where the coffee shop used to be & you'll see they've cleared the units out & you can now see daylight through the other side. Where these hoardings is will be where the new gateline will be, more or less on the same alignment as the old ticket booths, but extending from the wall close to WH Smits across to the wall close to where the ATMs are. This will give more room platform-side for people waiting for platform confirmations (I think, but can't be sure that there may be plans to put some seating here) whilst giving at least as many gates but in a straight alignment rather than the current dog-leg. I suppose from here it might even be possible to signpost gates for platforms 1-6 on the right as you approach from the concourse, and 7-17 on the left helping smooth the passenger flows.
Fenchurch has 1 route out. Leeds has 8 (Harrogate, Shipley, Bradford Int, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Woddlesford, Selby and York - Yes I know, probably should have said 7)
Fenchurch has 1 class of train. Leeds - er
fenchurch is one TOC
would be interesting going under. There is a canal and a river under Leeds station. You would probably have to go under city sq, then boar lane and rejoin the York line somewhere near Marsh Lane.
Bit more like Napoli Garibaldi than Berlin HBF.
Another problem the Aire line has is with services arriving with different stopping patterns down the valley meaning two or three can arrive in close proximity. For example as with the service I used this morning, you have services from Bradford FS, Skipton & Ilkley arriving at Leeds between 06:24 & 06:30, with two scheduled for turnarounds in under 10 minutes. When delays occur, as happened with the Bradford FS you can quickly get a parade of EMUs heading into Leeds because one service (the Bradford one) calls at both Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge, whilst the other two run fast from Shipley / Guiseley. With often quick (under 10 minute) turnarounds, its not always easy to have three free platforms to accommodate them all & get them back out in time. So queues start to form, leading to inevitable delays.
Of course one solution would be to change the turnaround times, although with Northern's Leeds based EMUs there isn't a lot of slack in the stock so this might not be easy until the 331s arrive in sufficient numbers to allow a bit more flexibility. Another might be to stop all Aire / Wharfe services at all available stations to prevent the concertina effect that is often seen, although this would in particular effect the Skipton services by slowing them down by several minutes. Or, as is being planned, increase the available platform capacity & usage to give Northern a few more options for when things don't run to plan.
Whilst not impossible, tunnelling under Leeds would be very expensive if you followed the existing alignment because as you rightly point out there are two waterways alongside and underneath the station (for anyone who has never seen it, a trip to the Arches underneath Leeds is an interesting one in just how good the Victorians where at engineering, with the Aire diverted at right angles directly under the station which is basically built on a large viaduct). There are also other smaller waterways in the immediate area, I believe there are some buried becks & of course extensive sewerage to navigate around or under (and maybe even some water tables being effectively in a flood plain). So we'd need some rather large, and very colourful crayons to make a case for this!
In terms of further expansion, Leeds has very limited options. It might be possible but shoehorn in another couple of bays to the North next to P0, with perhaps the multi-story rebuilt over the top, and P17 could be extended although the land directly behind it is at a much lower level in the canal basin so I can't see much scope in being able to use that. There of course could be a case to extend the HS2 footprint to accommodate some services approaching from the south and the east, but the HS2 station is already a huge project (another viaduct needed to build it on), so increasing it's footprint further needs a bigger bag of money, and even large, more colourful crayons than diving under Leeds.
One more option, one which isn't mentioned much on this thread but could be very possible in the next few years, is to combine the Leeds-York/Selby stoppers with the Aire / Wharfe services. Once the wires go up to York east of Leeds, and if they were possibly extended to Selby, this would be an option for at least a couple of services per hour, freeing up some valuable bays. Of course getting the pathing right on the through platforms will create it's own challenges, but should be an option that is given at least some consideration.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,843
This is the proposed layout of Leeds from the recent masterplan work:
There will be 4 platforms where the current car park is located, following on from Platform 0. By the time you add in HS2 there will be up to 27 platforms at Leeds. Should be enough to be getting on with. This report gives more information, including how the project will be phased: https://southbankleeds.co.uk/assets...ds-Integrated-Station-Masterplan-LR-v6-DS.pdf
There will be 4 platforms where the current car park is located, following on from Platform 0. By the time you add in HS2 there will be up to 27 platforms at Leeds. Should be enough to be getting on with. This report gives more information, including how the project will be phased: https://southbankleeds.co.uk/assets...ds-Integrated-Station-Masterplan-LR-v6-DS.pdf
Eric
Member
Interesting. Thank you
I don't get your point. My post above (271) argued that Leeds had plenty of potential capacity as evidenced by the usage of platforms 1-4 at Leeds and Fenchurch st. Of the routes you mention, the likes of Woodlesford and Selby are irrelevant-there are other platforms for them. Similarly you say Fenchurch is one TOC-but so are platforms 1-4 at Leeds.
The north-westerly bays at Leeds (i.e. 1-5) basically exist to serve the Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate services, which follow the same route to Armley junction. The majority of Airedale and Wharfedale trains are 4 car EMU and the Harrogate trains are DMU, but so what when there are 5 platforms to chose from?
The Wharfedale trains are basically 4 trains/hour in the peak, Airedale 6 trains and Harrogate 5. That's only an average 3/hour each.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Agreed but Fenchurch Street does have uniform stock so quick turnaround times are possible - the ramshackle Northern fleet (and lack of electrification on all lines) means one incoming train can't go out on *any* service). Even the Armley Junction services can have Pacers/ Sprinters and more than one type of EMU.
If we electrified the Harrogate line as far as Knaresborough (around twenty miles of additional electrification) and ran regular EMUs that far (with a Sprinter providing an hourly Harrogate - Knaresborough - York service) and restricted the Carlisle/Lancaster services to a combined bi-hourly path down the Aire Valley (portion worked) then we could have a much more efficient use of those bay platforms at Leeds (with pretty much any* incoming service capable of forming the next outgoing service, as happens at Fenchurch Street).
(* - i.e. excluding a bi-hourly portion worked service to Lancaster/ Carlisle)
But I happily accept that "northern" problems seem pretty trivial from a "southern" perspective (since many of them could be solved - e.g. the plethora of two coach trains, the messy combination of services)
Some Armley Junction services using the central platfoms are unavoidable, given the ECS to/from Neville Hill. But Leeds station would work much better if services were generally segregated based on the pairs of lines in the throat. At the moment any service from the middle of the station has to cross over the throat stopping an inbound or outbound Calder Valley service. So capacity gets reduced as other services are delayed to clear a path for a train snaking over from one side of the station to the central platforms or vice versa.
There may have been a delay on the Shipley services to justify the late diversion onto a different platform but by moving it to a different platform you create delays on other lines (e.g. a westbound Calder Valley service misses its path over the flat throat of Bradford Interchange, which can then have further knock-on affects).
There’s then the passengers to consider. A late platform alteration may mean hundreds of people dashing for the escalators/ crowding the staircases, so it may take a few additional minutes to get them boarded, meaning passengers are still dashing towards the doors once they were scheduled to be closed.
These stations should never have been built without loops (to facilitate overtaking).
I think that there are already too many services to the east – nine per hour – we could be fine with six or seven if they were run at sensible lengths. It’s a two track line with very limited scope for overtaking, it has a mixture of long distance services (Glasgow to Plymouth, Newcastle – Liverpool etc) and stoppers (esp given how close Garforth and East Garforth are) plus a number of ECS services to/from Neville Hill.
I like the idea of having a “turnback” at Thorpe Park, I think that this is a busy/growing area of Leeds (business, leisure, residential, motorway connection so potential Park & Ride etc) but squeezing more services through the two track line to the east should be at the cost of removing some of the existing ones (York has seven services per hour that way, all relatively short).
We'd be better focussing on increasing the length of platforms that can be extended towards Shipley and amending the timetable to reflect the infrastructure (e.g. if you can't stop six coach trains at some Shipley platforms then designate some services for six coach trains and run them non-stop through Shipley, replace the paths used for short Lancaster services with longer EMUs... finding the money for twenty miles of electrification to Harrogate/ Knaresborough won't be easy but it'd be a lot cheaper than digging up central Leeds to try to cram in an additional couple of platforms).
The problem with Shipley is that it is the highest used station en route to Skipton, so missing it out simply isn't an option. Its a major railhead serving a large area around it, missing it out when it only has 4tph to Leeds would be sheer madness. So finding a way to allow longer trains to call at it is essential.
As for east of Leeds, a turnback at Thorpe Park or Micklefield would make more sense if these were used to turnback the stoppers, which could then run onto the Aire / Wharfe thereby replacing the current York DMU stoppers and would not require extra paths.
Why stop at Knaresborough ? Electrify around the whole loop.
Halifaxlad
Established Member
Why wait until then, if Northern could only acquire some of the spare 350/2's that are being converted to run on batteries, if batteries arn't suitable then simply make them into bi-modes with diesels instead of batteries. 4 Car stock, that could replace the 333's on the Aire & Wharf Valley without drastically reducing the seating capacity, although by then it will be an increase from the 331's that are supposed to be brought into service on these lines.
Regarding Shipley I do have some crayonista idea and as always very expensive. Perhaps a dedicated threat should be started on this issue ?
Possibly label it 'Aire & Wharf Valley Capacity' as I am still under the opinion that Ikley will be facing capacity issues later this year.
Simply put, the wires will probably go up before those battery/diesel conversion become viable. Its not just a case of strapping on alternative fuel sources and traction sadly, as we have seen with other conversion projects.
That may be a good idea, as it is likely to be quite an extensive subject in its own right.
Edit: I have started a thread here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/aire-wharfe-valley-future-capacity-ideas.183797/
Last edited:
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 7,817
Shipley gets 2 more trains each hour to and from Leeds, so 1 running non-stop still leaves them with a better service than Bingley, Keighley, Skipton, etc.
Leeds - Carlisle and Leeds - Lancaster should be pick up only at Shipley.
Leeds - Carlisle and Leeds - Lancaster should be pick up only at Shipley.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I'm mindful that you've set up a separate thread to discuss Shipley but I was meaning running some six/eight coach trains to soak up capacity on semi-fast services, omitting the shorter/quieter stations. Shipley has great passenger numbers (albeit in four directions), I'm not suggesting we half the services or anything, I'm all for extending the platforms, BUT if we remove the short Lancaster services there should be space for an hourly Leeds - Keighley - Skipton service, with scope for those paths to be used by the LNER services (in the way that Northern are going to run "fast" Leeds - Harrogate services with scope for LNER running Azumas on those paths at a later date).
Maybe even provide First Class for the wealthy of North Yorkshire. That would be a lot more attractive for Skipton passengers (than fighting for the privilege of a 3+2 seat on a service crammed with short distance passengers that stops at half a dozen additional intermediate stations).
You'd need something to serve the intermediate stations east of Thorpe Park - and if you were going to the trouble of a turn back at Thorpe Park then you'd have to offer a fairly frequent service to make it attractive and justify the investment (it'd be a lot of upheaval and
against the buses if it was only a couple of services per hour).
...because we are talking about solving the congestion problems at Leeds here.
You could electrify around twenty miles from Armley Junction to Knaresborough and therefore run (say) four 333s per hour from Leeds to Knaresborough, providing a capacity increase on the Harrogate corridor and providing better utilisation of platforms at Leeds (so EMUs could interwork between Knaresborough/ Ilkley/ Skipton/ Bradford services, rather than inbound Harrogate DMUs having to wait for the next outgoing Harrogate service, thus having longer dwell times).
That electrification would cost a few quid but would be of benefit on a busy corridor and cheaper than trying to build the equivalent number of additional platforms at Leeds (given land prices at Leeds and the disruption of taking out more bits of car park etc). In contrast, Knaresborough to York would be a further fifteen miles of electrification that only justifies an hourly service at present and could be run as a stand-along shuttle with one DMU (connections available at Harrogate).
If there's the money for fifteen miles of electrification in Yorkshire then there are better schemes that we could do that wiring on (e.g. Leeds - Castleford - Pontefract - Knottingley is around fifteen miles), before we have the luxury of wiring the quieter line from Knaresborough to York.
Nice idea, but I don't see the point of splitting the existing service across Knaresborough. Plus you've then got electrification at either end.
1.7 million passengers justifies 4tph?
There's a lot of stations around which have comparable numbers yet only see 2 or 3 you, so I don't see the issue in the suggestion in reducing frequency but giving more capacity overall.
That is 2tph from Skipton, and 2tph from Bradford to Leeds. Reducing numbers doesn't just affect Shipley because not all the flow is Leeds centered. And even if 1 or 2 per hour did skip Shipley, the relatively slow speeds through Shipley would mean you would not gain a great deal and would end up catching up with services in front. It simply wouldn't make sense for that station.
ASharpe
Member
Shipley is a junction with plenty of passengers changing trains. Reducing frequency will significantly reduce journey opportunities for those passengers and lead to longer journey times.
Halifaxlad
Established Member
Just thinking about whenever more services from the East should head straight through to somewhere like Ikley ? Possibly if needed bring the two disused platforms back into use that is currently a car park.
Eric
Member
How would help the situation at Leeds? You would have more trains on the through platforms which are nearly at capacity in the peaks.
- Status