Aire & Wharfe Valley Future Capacity Ideas

[Iskra]

would it be possible to teminate the Carlisle and Lamcaster services at Skipton and then use these sets to increase the frequency of services back to their point of origin? In effect a win/win

See post 6

 

[Bantamzen]

Bradford would still have its direct services to Ilkley. Passengers to/from Airedale would have to change. I would love to see some data on number of passengers from Keighley, Bingley, etc to Leeds (and beyond) and Bradford, respectively.

Frizinghall would be in the same situation as Baildon, except with more services. Changing between a 4 train per hour and a 5 train per hour service doesn't mean a long wait.

If anything the Ilkley line is the least used from Bradford, the Skipton one has far more flow to and from Bradford. As has been said earlier, services through Shipley don't just serve Leeds, there are various and complex flows that vary through the day. Kill off the direct services and passengers will take to the roads, and make travel between Bradford and the Aire Valley even more difficult. This won't wash politically or logistically I'm afraid.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The discussion here is relevant as it is in reference to freeing up paths/increasing capacity on the Aire Valley.

There is a recent thread on the future of the S&C services, but if you want to start one for the Bentham line feel free.

I know its relevant, nearly mentioned that in my comment it just seemed to be going off topic a little. I might start a joint one for the Bentham and S&C services thou.

 

[bluenoxid]

I agree with signalling being a limitation.

Shipley P1/2 has been long held as limitation to lengthening. Space is there to extend although the bridge over the entrance to the station car park would probably need replacing.

 

[Halifaxlad]

would it be possible to teminate the Carlisle and Lamcaster services at Skipton and then use these sets to increase the frequency of services back to their point of origin? In effect a win/win

I suspect making people change would be unpopular and create opposition to such a plan. An alternative would be to join and split them at Skipton to an existing service if your objective is to free up capacity upon the Aire Valley. Although it would have to be compatitable with existing stock, so how about replacing the 333s with the corridor 350s, converting some into bi modes like the 319 Flex so that they could operate upon non electrified lines? Although an 8 car stopping at Shipley would be problematic I do have an idea with regards to Shipley that I will share later. Word of warning I'm very crayonista!

 

[Bantamzen]

I suspect making people change would be unpopular and create opposition to such a plan. An alternative would be to join and split them at Skipton to an existing service if your objective is to free up capacity upon the Aire Valley. Although it would have to be compatitable with existing stock, so how about replacing the 333s with the corridor 350s, converting some into bi modes like the 319 Flex so that they could operate upon non electrified lines? Although an 8 car stopping at Shipley would be problematic I do have an idea with regards to Shipley that I will share later. Word of warning I'm very crayonista!

Eight car would push most of the stations let alone Shipley. I think six car would just about work for at least all the peak Leeds-Skipton workings, as was originally planned for the 331s. For the DMU workings three or four car workings would allow enough capacity for passengers beyond Skipton, and soak up a bit more from the intermediate stations they call at.

 

[30907]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/capacity-problems-leeds.181742/page-9#post-4039958

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...st-present-future.181610/page-11#post-4044087

Both these threads have relevant discussion.
Meanwhile, may I point out that the key Carlisle trains are booked 4 cars now, which leaves one Lancaster working each way to sort out.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Regarding termination of services at Ikley which I think will become problematic once services are lengthened to 6 car, from my observation of 3, 4 car units in the same platform at Ikley, that can only hold a maximum of about 14 cars. How about reinstating the line to Otley but terminating it. I think this has been suggested before but not on here, most of the disused trackbed is they're minus 1 rail bridge. Obviously it would require some modification of the Otley bypass depending on where you built the station.

 

[Eric]

I've suggested this one previously:

Get rid of the Leeds - Bradford and Bradford - Skipton services.
Make Leeds - Skipton 4 trains per hour
Add a Bradford - Shipley shuttle

No more paths required in and out of Leeds but a lot more direct Airedale services. OK, so passengers to Bradford have to change, but compare the numbers travelling to Leeds and Bradford, and benefit the many not the few.

Leeds to Bradford will soon be served by LNER plus of course plenty of services to Interchange.

What a selfish and ridiculous idea. Let's have even more people changing at Shipley.

 

[Halifaxlad]

What a selfish and ridiculous idea. Let's have even more people changing at Shipley.

To be fair separating the Leeds - Bradford from the rest may not be such a bad idea, with too many services terminating at Leeds already restricting capacity. It could also potentially free up a unit or two.

Although like many others no-doubt I am wholly against separating Bradford - Skipton services.

 

[Glenn1969]

Don't get rid of the Bradford- Skipton but maybe reduce Northern's Leeds to Bradford service and co-ordinate it with the LNER one. How many tph are required at Frizinghall?

 

[Bantamzen]

To be fair separating the Leeds - Bradford from the rest may not be such a bad idea, with too many services terminating at Leeds already restricting capacity. It could also potentially free up a unit or two.

Although like many others no-doubt I am wholly against separating Bradford - Skipton services.

Don't get rid of the Bradford- Skipton but maybe reduce Northern's Leeds to Bradford service and co-ordinate it with the LNER one. How many tph are required at Frizinghall?

Don't forget that the Leeds-Bradford also serves Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge. Lose it and the already busy Skiptons will need to soak up even more passengers. And of course those passengers from Bradford who have started to use the Forster Square services will just go back across the city and shoehorn onto the Interchange services.

 

[Glenn1969]

I think the Interchange services need enhancing to 5/6 tph anyway with maybe 1 or 2 of them running non stop Leeds to Bradford. But that is for the Calder Valley threads not this one

 

[Ken H]

For most of the day this runs reasonably well. It just goes wrong in the peaks.
Then we have to think if running short diesel trains in the peak is a good idea when we could be running longer high capacity EMU's in the scarce paths.
So that means - for the peaks -either
1. making people change at Skipton - unpopular, and are there spare EMUs. Spare 319's maybe?
2. Adding more coaches to the DMUs at Skipton. but there arent any spare. We dont need 4 coaches Lancaster - Skipton, but we do Leeds - Skipton.
3. Actually fixing the infrastructure to allow more trains to run. More signals so trains are closer together. But expensive just for a few hours a day.

This isnt just a Aire/Wharfe valley problem. unreliability out west affects the running of Leeds station.

But then, running a multi purpose railway will never be easy.

 

[Halifaxlad]

It's difficult to suggest something that hasnt been suggested or doesn't involve leasing more trains, but if Northern did lease some more of those flex trains from Porterbrook, then they could take over the Leeds - Bradford service but possibly combine it with the Leeds to Selby Service. Free up some EMU's an alternative would be to use them on the S+C and Lancaster routes. That way it is 4 car throughout and frees up diesels for use elsewhere.

 

[xotGD]

Need more electric trains for the peak hour extras? Class 90s on Mark 4s.

 

[Aictos]

Don't get rid of the Bradford- Skipton but maybe reduce Northern's Leeds to Bradford service and co-ordinate it with the LNER one. How many tph are required at Frizinghall?

Why reduce the frequent Northern Leeds to Bradford service when you can instead reduce the LNERs instead?

Surely with a frequent and reliable service, people will use it to connect at Leeds where there are more LNER services to chose from....

 

[Halifaxlad]

Need more electric trains for the peak hour extras? Class 90s on Mark 4s.

769s on a Bradford - Ikley - Leeds - Selby and use EMU's instead, otherwise top and tailing would just be complicated, less resilient and more costly.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does anybody think that a turn back at Keighley would be useful ?

 

[Esker-pades]

Does anybody think that a turn back at Keighley would be useful ?

Coming from where?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Coming from where?

Leeds

 

[Esker-pades]

Leeds

What's the point? The turnback is at the Skipton end, so the train would have to block the running line for 7 minutes, plus the additional dwell time at Keighley to clear the train after terminating. You'd end up creating more problems than you'd be solving.

 

[Whistler40145]

Instead of having a Leeds to Bradford Forster Square service, why not extend it so it becomes a Leeds to Skipton via Bradford service?

 

[Esker-pades]

Instead of having a Leeds to Bradford Forster Square service, why not extend it so it becomes a Leeds to Skipton via Bradford service?

Why?.

 

[Whistler40145]

Why?.

Would provide extra services to Skipton

 

[Esker-pades]

Would provide extra services to Skipton

Why not just send it direct without reversing at Bradford?

 

[Whistler40145]

Why not just send it direct without reversing at Bradford?

Could do

 

[Halifaxlad]

What's the point? The turnback is at the Skipton end, so the train would have to block the running line for 7 minutes, plus the additional dwell time at Keighley to clear the train after terminating. You'd end up creating more problems than you'd be solving.

Running Peak hour shuttles perhaps ?

Im just really gauging thoughts considering it was part of a NR RUS.

They're is a way of doing it without blocking the line, i.e. how a turnback at Halifax was proposed a few years ago, beyond the station and in between the running lines.

They're ample room North of the bridge at Keighley to slew the lines over, although it might require Lawkhomle Lane bridge to be rebuilt to allow a greater gauge through the disused arches. It could also act as a passing loop if you wanted it to do.

 

[Esker-pades]

Running Peak hour shuttles perhaps ?

Im just really gauging thoughts considering it was part of a NR RUS.

They're is a way of doing it without blocking the line, i.e. how a turnback at Halifax was proposed a few years ago, beyond the station and in between the running lines.

They're ample room North of the bridge at Keighley to slew the lines over, although it might require Lawkhomle Lane bridge to be rebuilt to allow a greater gauge through the disused arches. It could also act as a passing loop if you wanted it to do.

At peak times there are more trains, so blocking the line whilst changing ends and reversing would be even more of a problem.

I don't think terminating stuff at Keighley would solve anything, so why spend money trying to do it?

 

[Halifaxlad]

At peak times there are more trains, so blocking the line whilst changing ends and reversing would be even more of a problem.

I don't think terminating stuff at Keighley would solve anything, so why spend money trying to do it?

Slew the lines over and create a new turnback line in the middle, would mitigate the need to block the line.

It was an idea of how to deliver a turnback at the station instead of the proposed bay platform that would impact upon the timetable by blocking the line.

Also a though about how to relieve capacity upon existing services, since Keighley I believe is the second biggest station on the line outside of Bradford and Skipton.