St Pancras - Leeds?

[ainsworth74]

That looks to me like planning at its best; providing sensible connections between different service types (long distance, local).

In fairness the current service doesn't meet the minimum connection time so would never be offered by a journey planner. The EMRs leave almost uniformly at xx35 and the new fast Northern services nearly all arrive at xx31 or xx32. Not a problem for a through train to have a call that lasts that long, but the passenger has no chance.

Then what? Combine with whatever the service currently connects with at Leeds? Then whatever that connects with?

Now you're getting it

 

[Manutd1999]

The only solution to that (without recasting the whole Leeds timetable to try and make this fit) would be for in effect each service to be a step back to the next service so the unit from London that arrives in Leeds at say 1238 would instead form the 1345. But a) there ain't no way your finding a through platform that you can occupy for that long at Leeds, b) if you want a bay platform instead (which you might find, maybe if you're lucky) you've got to ladder over a lot more of the alignment than you do for the current platform 12 arrangement, and c) it's a horrendous use of a precious unit it twiddle it's thumbs (or I guess auto-couplers?) for an hour.

Or what about extending it to York? That would give a nice 25min (ish) turnaround, with the added benefit of making the Derby-Sheffield-Leeds-York corridor half-hourly to reduce the strain on XC.

If the units could be found, there are certainly far worse ideas....

 

[Sad Sprinter]

That looks to me like planning at its best; providing sensible connections between different service types (long distance, local). Combine these and, as others have pointed out, lots of other issues come to light. Then what? Combine with whatever the service currently connects with at Leeds? Then whatever that connects with?

How is it planning at its best when the local train fails to connect with the London train?

 

[JonathanH]

Or what about extending it to York? That would give a nice 25min (ish) turnaround, with the added benefit of making the Derby-Sheffield-Leeds-York corridor half-hourly to reduce the strain on XC.

If the units could be found, there are certainly far worse ideas....

Two apparent issues

1) Where a 10-car formation is needed south of Sheffield, how is this dealt at Sheffield and north of there, or does it run through?

2) How many extra 810s need to be ordered, and can they be justified against the custom and revenue on offer between Sheffield and York?

 

[stevieinselby]

Or what about extending it to York? That would give a nice 25min (ish) turnaround, with the added benefit of making the Derby-Sheffield-Leeds-York corridor half-hourly to reduce the strain on XC.

Good luck finding another fast path between Leeds and York...

 

[Pumbaa]

Two apparent issues

1) Where a 10-car formation is needed south of Sheffield, how is this dealt at Sheffield and north of there, or does it run through?

2) How many extra 810s need to be ordered, and can they be justified against the custom and revenue on offer between Sheffield and York?

An outline business case was prepared in late 2020 in conjunction with some early ECML ESG work and further work to optimise the MML timetable as it was becoming clear how travel was changing.

It would have required a small follow-on order of 3x 810s (minimum Hitachi would entertain, 2 for service and 1 to help balance out otherwise heroic availability levels for 810s assumed at that point). Paths would have been swapped around out of St Pancras.

The main business case came from linking Leicester to Leeds, good connections at Derby for the via Doncaster, as well as the uptick in demand on the local corridors and performance improvements once you’d applied a more, err, realistic view of fleet availability. It was as you’d expect much more costly than providing a 2 car DMU for the same purpose.

It washed its face - but not “a no brainer”. In the end not taken forward, and easier, less costly and less disruptive options progressed instead.

 

[Halifaxlad]

It may be worth pointing out that under NPR it is proposed to upgrade and electrify (I believe) the line from Sheffield to Moorthorpe, once complete pure electric trains will be able to operate from Sheffield to Leeds, which means existing trains such as 333's, 331s that already operate within West Yorkshire and for which many drivers are already trained on can run between Leeds & Sheffield!

To extend existing MML services to Leeds undermines the case to upgrade and electrify it! Not so long since the electrification of the remainder of the MML was scrapped and one of the cited reasons was that the MML will shortly have bi-modes!

It might be better to extend a MML service. to Bradford via Halifax as previously suggested Greengauge21. Keep the more important Leeds flow seperate, free up platform space at Sheffield. Another platform could be built at Bradford Interchange by using the unused run round loop if a platform was built in the car park.

 

[Grumpy]

If you’re connecting with the xx35 from Sheffield, then all West Yorkshire passengers are gaining is a new through service to Leicester and a few more through trains to Derby. Due to the structure of the timetabling south of Leicester, access to points south would require further change(s). That’s arguably not a lot of benefit for the cost of providing and operating an additional 3+810 sets.
Might a better value option be to extend the Northern Leeds-Nottinghams to Leicester?

 

[Grimsby town]

It may be worth pointing out that under NPR it is proposed to upgrade and electrify (I believe) the line from Sheffield to Moorthorpe, once complete pure electric trains will be able to operate from Sheffield to Leeds, which means existing trains such as 333's, 331s that already operate within West Yorkshire and for which many drivers are already trained on can run between Leeds & Sheffield!

To extend existing MML services to Leeds undermines the case to upgrade and electrify it! Not so long since the electrification of the remainder of the MML was scrapped and one of the cited reasons was that the MML will shortly have bi-modes!

It might be better to extend a MML service. to Bradford via Halifax as previously suggested Greengauge21. Keep the more important Leeds flow seperate, free up platform space at Sheffield. Another platform could be built at Bradford Interchange by using the unused run round loop if a platform was built in the car park.

The NPR plan is to increase the fast Leeds to Sheffield services to up to 4 trains per hour. Northern's existing fleet isn't going to be able to cover that, so new rollingstock will be needed anyway.

Using bi-modes won't make a huge difference to the electrification business case. Cancelling MML was more because the government constraining its spending and therefore wanting to spend elsewhere. If they truly believed that bi-modes were a substitute for electrification, they wouldn't be electrifying anything.

 

[JonathanH]

The NPR plan is to increase the fast Leeds to Sheffield services to up to 4 trains per hour. Northern's existing fleet isn't going to be able to cover that, so new rollingstock will be needed anyway.

Presumably there is a difference in the cost of regional rolling stock which goes 100mph and long-distance rolling stock which goes 125mph, plus staffing and maintenance, that makes it easier for the provision to be by the regional operator than the long-distance one?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern 158 units will work through to St Pancras.

Why on earth would that be a good idea - 90mph regional trains (unable to use the OHL) on a 125mph inter-city service?
Until GBR shows up you are treading on 3 separate TOC service boundaries and their financial targets - Northern, XC, EMR).
Once GBR gets its regional mandates it might be worth a thought - with 125mph stock.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Why on earth would that be a good idea - 90mph regional trains (unable to use the OHL) on a 125mph inter-city service?
Until GBR shows up you are treading on 3 separate TOC service boundaries and their financial targets - Northern, XC, EMR).
Once GBR gets its regional mandates it might be worth a thought - with 125mph stock.

It wouldn't. It is meant to be satire.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The NPR plan is to increase the fast Leeds to Sheffield services to up to 4 trains per hour. Northern's existing fleet isn't going to be able to cover that, so new rollingstock will be needed anyway.

Using bi-modes won't make a huge difference to the electrification business case. Cancelling MML was more because the government constraining its spending and therefore wanting to spend elsewhere. If they truly believed that bi-modes were a substitute for electrification, they wouldn't be electrifying anything.

Yes but once electrified Northern may just lease the 350/2s which are pure electric!

I can see the business case not being damaged as how could spending millions be justified to wire a route if the trains are going to have batteries on them anyway to run beyond the area for which millions are to be spent.

 

[Grimsby town]

Presumably there is a difference in the cost of regional rolling stock which goes 100mph and long-distance rolling stock which goes 125mph, plus staffing and maintenance, that makes it easier for the provision to be by the regional operator than the long-distance one?

There will be but I'd be surprised if that offsets the benefits of operating through services connecting Leeds to the likes of Leicester. I also think it's possible that there could be upgrades that up the linespeed to above 100mph between Sheffield and Leeds.

 

[NCT]

There will be but I'd be surprised if that offsets the benefits of operating through services connecting Leeds to the likes of Leicester. I also think it's possible that there could be upgrades that up the linespeed to above 100mph between Sheffield and Leeds.

You do have a habit of having very heroic views of benefits vs costs, and casually chucking in additional capex.

 

[Grimsby town]

Yes but once electrified Northern may just lease the 350/2s which are pure electric!

I can see the business case not being damaged as how could spending millions be justified to wire a route if the trains are going to have batteries on them anyway to run beyond the area for which millions are to be spent.

Possibly but we're still at least 5 years out, so I doubt the 350s would be in great condition if left to sit for that time. I'd also be shocked if Northern operate the fast Sheffield-Leeds services long term. The government will probably want to fast services between major cities to be seen as a premium product seperate to everyday commuter service, although that could still be 100mph pure EMUs.

You do have a habit of having very heroic views of benefits vs costs, and casually chucking in additional capex.

What's your experience in transport economic appraisal to start making personal criticism.

 

[NCT]

What's your experience in transport economic appraisal to start making personal criticism.

Considering the 1Ns are operated with 2-car trains, going to more expensive 5-car 810s would more than double the train operating cost, then throw in inter-city crewing levels as well. No cat in hells chance of revenue doubling.

 

[Grimsby town]

Considering the 1Ns are operated with 2-car trains, going to more expensive 5-car 810s would more than double the train operating cost, then throw in inter-city crewing levels as well. No cat in hells chance of revenue doubling.

Not really an answer to my question but never mind.

Firstly, the service started a couple of months ago and demand doesn't appear out of thin air. Also, Northern aren't exactly awash with units at the moment. There could quite easily be more demand for the service but, in the short term, that's going to be limited by lack of available rollingstock.

I was also talking about future NPR services and comparison between a 100mph EMU and 125mph bi-mode unit. Is there going to be a huge difference in cost between an EMU service that runs every 15 minutes only between Sheffield to Leeds and a service or a 125mph Bi-mode 2 every hour continuing beyond Sheffield to St Pancras? My gut feeling is not. I'm happy to be corrected if somebody has more information on the exact costings because I don't have them to hand.

 

[mike57]

Carrying on from Sheffield to Leeds does not sound like a good idea, not sure when they stopped but back in the day a few St Pancras - Sheffield HST services used to carry on to Leeds, and on the one occassion when I used it was very quiet. I dont think passenger volumes would justify it today either.

For through passengers from London the time penalty would rule it out, of the main stops on MML London Sheffield services the only one which currently doesn't have a through service to Leeds provided by XC is Leicester. (I can understand people not wanting to use XC but thats a different issue)

What would make sense would be to try and sort the timetable out so that the connection is maintained under normal circumstances.

One of the reasons people want through trains from everywhere to everywhere is the dire state of connections generally, with connecting services being despatched even if the feeder train is in sight and pulling in and bad experiences when connections are missed. The silo mentality between the various ToCs just adds to it.

Other countries seem to be able to make connections work, so its proven to be possible. I realise that unless the service is a self contained branch line indefinite waits for a delayed incoming service are not possible, but a level of common sense would not go amiss.

 

[baz962]

Not really an answer to my question but never mind.

Firstly, the service started a couple of months ago and demand doesn't appear out of thin air. Also, Northern aren't exactly awash with units at the moment. There could quite easily be more demand for the service but, in the short term, that's going to be limited by lack of available rollingstock.

I was also talking about future NPR services and comparison between a 100mph EMU and 125mph bi-mode unit. Is there going to be a huge difference in cost between an EMU service that runs every 15 minutes only between Sheffield to Leeds and a service or a 125mph Bi-mode 2 every hour continuing beyond Sheffield to St Pancras? My gut feeling is not. I'm happy to be corrected if somebody has more information on the exact costings because I don't have them to hand.

You might get passengers from Sheffield to Leeds , but I wouldn't have thought you would get many from St Pancras. LNER have direct trains to Leeds and they take around 10 minutes more than EMR St Pancras to Sheffield do .

 

[Grimsby town]

You might get passengers from Sheffield to Leeds , but I wouldn't have thought you would get many from St Pancras. LNER have direct trains to Leeds and they take around 10 minutes more than EMR St Pancras to Sheffield do .

Extending the EMR services would primarly be about better connections between West Yorkshire and the East Midlands. As others have pointed out its unlikely to happen currently due to capacity constraints but NPR aims to upgrade and electrify Sheffield-Leeds which will make journey times more competitive between Leeds, Sheffield and the East Midlands.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Extending the EMR services would primarly be about better connections between West Yorkshire and the East Midlands. As others have pointed out its unlikely to happen currently due to capacity constraints but NPR aims to upgrade and electrify Sheffield-Leeds which will make journey times more competitive between Leeds, Sheffield and the East Midlands.

In Yorkshire I think I along with most others would happily settle for a reliable railway!

 

[ainsworth74]

Carrying on from Sheffield to Leeds does not sound like a good idea, not sure when they stopped but back in the day a few St Pancras - Sheffield HST services used to carry on to Leeds, and on the one occassion when I used it was very quiet. I dont think passenger volumes would justify it today either.

In fairness they tended to be at the extremes of the day being first thing in the morning to get HSTs from Neville Hill to the MML and then in the evening to get them from MML back to Neville Hill.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Could the capacity issue actually be solved really easily here? 897’s come in to play for this to work.

Reroute all Bradford/Harrogate services via Hambleton once an hour, thus removing the reverse at Leeds and avoiding Wakefield. EMR then should have the space from the vacated LNER platforms? The Leeds starter for LNER continuing to run via Wakefield. I’m aware there’s a few paths of starters that come from Bradford and Harrogate rather than the consistent hourly pattern I’m proposing. Some changes would be needed on this part.

In an ideal world you’d want EMR and XC to be combined roughly half hourly Leeds-Wakefield-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Derby otherwise one would be considerably quieter than the other. This looks very much possible based on those Northern 1Nxx paths, but you’d need to stall the northbound EMR’s at Derby and Sheffield for a few minutes longer to line up with the XC.

The path looks a tad awkward to connect but I’m certain this is just down to the fact it will be pathed at Regional DMU speeds. Fix that and I’m sure you can replicate the pattern of the XC in the southbound direction too.

 

[321362]

Good luck finding another fast path between Leeds and York...

Via Pontefract Baghill? Misses Leeds but you'd still have the connection to the fast Northern at Sheffield

 

[tbtc]

I assumed that the reasons the new Leeds-Sheffield services didn't stop at Meadowhall was partly to establish what market there was for a city-to-city service/ for reliability/ because BR only built fun sized platforms at the huge shopping centre

However, as there's no Meadowhall stop, that does make a Leeds link look more tempting

Not with a six minute turnaround at Leeds. Certainly not

But... if the plan is for four fast Leeds-Sheffield services per hour then presumably that makes extensions of St Pancras services more tempting in the medium/long term

(Half hourly Leeds to St Pancras and half hourly Leeds to Nottingham... One day...)

The one train an hour from Leeds towards Derby/ Birmingham etc would be busy enough on its own (at a time when I keep hearing how hard done by Liverpool is with just TWO trains an hour to New Street)... but that little Voyager is also the single train an hour from the northern ECML to the West Midlands... AND for decades was the only train per hour that did the twenty nine crow miles from Leeds to Sheffield in under an hour... So it feels a corridor ripe for expansion, especially when you consider how busy the parallel M1 gets

(compare and contrast the attention paid to Leeds- Sheffield/Midlands to the billions spent on the Leeds-Manchester/Lancashire corridor)

However, in the short term, I'd say no. The turnaround at Leeds is too short/ there aren't sufficient 810s/ we need to let the new Leeds-Sheffield service to stand on its own two feet before we can justify expansion, much as I'd like further improvement

 

[JonathanH]

(Half hourly Leeds to St Pancras and half hourly Leeds to Nottingham... One day...)

Half hourly Leeds to Birmingham as well?

Presumably that would require severing of the Liverpool to Norwich route at Sheffield from the west and Nottingham from the east?

 

[321362]

Half hourly Leeds to Birmingham as well?

Presumably that would require severing of the Liverpool to Norwich route at Sheffield from the west and Nottingham from the east?

Getting off topic, but if HS2 ever makes it to Manchester this would free up capacity for the Liverpool-Norwich to go down to Stoke and across to Derby that way.

 

[quantinghome]

That looks to me like planning at its best; providing sensible connections between different service types (long distance, local). Combine these and, as others have pointed out, lots of other issues come to light. Then what? Combine with whatever the service currently connects with at Leeds? Then whatever that connects with?

Unfortunately it doesn't work. In the Leeds to Sheffield direction there isn't enough connection time between the services for it to be an official connection.

Nice idea but I reckon the practicalities just make it impossible.

Probably right. And looking at the timetable the diagrams may be incompatible.

The Northern 'fast' Sheffield timings are:

Arrive XX32 Depart XX52

The EMR Sheffield timings are:

Arrive XX42 Depart XX00

Arrive XX04 Depart XX35

The coloured text indicates the connections which look like they could be joined up, but this shows the Leeds trains connect to EMR trains on the opposite side of the hour, so the XX00 from Sheffield would have to be formed from the XX04 i.e. stepping back the service and wasting resource. And you couldn't switch the Leeds-Sheffield timings to fit in with the EMR service without messing up the congested Leeds - South Kirkby timetable.

What could help is tweaking the timetables. If the XX32 Leeds train arrives at Sheffield just a couple of minutes earlier and the XX35 St. Pancras train leaves Sheffield just a couple of minutes later, that gives you an official connection, and therefore a much-improved service from West Yorkshire to the East Midlands.

 

[WideRanger]

Could you do a Bedford to Leeds service which acts as a stopping service until Derby, and then express from there?