Capacity problems Leeds

[Bantamzen]

bluntly, and you wont like this, the money required to sort out Leeds today can offer a better return if invested elsewhere and create less hassle and disruption! Personally I think HS2 offers the best chance for a proper solution as that should unlock capacity and provide access to more funding. Until then it is going to be sticking plaster jobs sadly.

The eastern end problems seem, on paper, to have a very straight forward solution - just build a wider bridge and knock down some buildings to do so - but that is going to be a very long term process and very expensive. That is before we look at getting anymore capacity through the cutting up to Neville Hill and beyond that through the residential areas before Crossgates!

Well at least that is an honest answer, in part at least. Firstly where would you consider more deserving of investment? Be honest now!

And as much as I'd like to see better capacity at the eastern end, it really isn't where it needs to be. All along the Calder, Aire and Wharfe valleys thousands of houses are getting thrown up, with many more to come. And with Leeds very much the employment focus these people will be commuting in one direction. So to be blunt myself, this is becoming a priority and we have been promised greater capacity so its time to deliver, or at least firmly commit plans to do so.

 

[DarloRich]

Firstly where would you consider more deserving of investment? Be honest now!

Leeds is more "deserving" of the money but I still wouldn't spend it there because deserving isn't a measure used to determine investment priorities in this environment! Even if it was Leeds wouldn't be the most "deserving" place in the UK let alone the north. I would spend more of the money on London and the south east because it can return more money to the economy more quickly. Again, that wont be popular but the numbers of people involved dwarf those in Leeds. That is a simple reality that wont change.

Personally I think the weighting criteria for investment decisions should be altered to allow for more "social good" investments with less of a hard cash return required but until then.........

All along the Calder, Aire and Wharfe valleys thousands of houses are getting thrown up, with many more to come.

Those numbers are nothing compared to those going up near me. We are looking at something like 1m new homes! Hell, I have several thousand going up at the end of my street with no real local transport investment. We are getting E-W rail in due course but that wont help with the numbers travelling into London where already a 12 car train is often insufficient ( and I don't even travel on the busiest line into London!)

 

[cactustwirly]

Well at least that is an honest answer, in part at least. Firstly where would you consider more deserving of investment? Be honest now!

And as much as I'd like to see better capacity at the eastern end, it really isn't where it needs to be. All along the Calder, Aire and Wharfe valleys thousands of houses are getting thrown up, with many more to come. And with Leeds very much the employment focus these people will be commuting in one direction. So to be blunt myself, this is becoming a priority and we have been promised greater capacity so its time to deliver, or at least firmly commit plans to do so.

I agree with @DarloRich, that's nothing compared to London and the South East!
Loads of houses are being built, and there's talk of my local village staton, getting a multi storey car park, because it just can't cope with the traffic using it.
My line local line has just been upgraded, with major stations rebuilt, and electrification, with 8 car 387s replacing 2 and 3 car DMUs.
It was definately needed, and with a much higher BCR than Leeds station, mostly because of it's huge traffic volume, plus there was available land adjacent to the station.

 

[Grumpy]

. A bridge over the Wakefield Westgate line at the west end of this viaduct could be extended with embankment between here and former Farnley Junction but joining here with the Morley line instead of Leeds New via Gomersal at 50mph which is the line speed at this point.

Whilst not wishing to detract from the essence of your suggestion, I think you are a little confused here (or I am). I believe that you are basically saying that the line should take on the form it had until the mid 1960's, immediately prior to the closure of Leeds Central, when it carried all the passenger services from Leeds to Huddersfield and beyond. Much of the formation is not built on but I believe there are a couple of industrial units which would need relocating and no doubt other businesses which currently use it for Lorry/car parking would need to be compensated. So it's do-able but a few tens of £mm relocation cost. What I don't understand is the reference to a bridge over the Wakefield Westgate line. The former line passed under the Wakefield Westgate line, not over, and reinstating this bridge (it may still be there-I haven't looked at it for years) would seem more economical, and there would be no need for any embankment towards Farnley (and Wortley) junction. At Farnley trains simply continued onto the Morley line-reference to "instead of Leeds new" is misleading

 

[The Ham]

Thanks for the Leeds Master Plan. Won't it commit any HS2 train to terminating in Leeds? Assuming the HS2 tracks are, as it looks at 90 degrees to the existing tracks. More directly on the capacity issue what happened to the (IIRC) electric horseshoe to get rid of London trains standing in Leeds but being a Kings Cross to Kings Cross service?
I take Darlorich's yawn, the question about spending in different parts of the UK isn't new but having seen the amount of real estate sacrificed to Crossrail the question of why projects outside the capital are labelled as impossible because there is no free land has to be asked again and again no matter how dull it becomes. The figures seem unanswerable.

The problem with the IPPR North figures is that they only consider infrastructure spending, this then means that somewhere where you can increase capacity by adding a few extra coaches isn't counted in the figures, but the significant infrastructure costs with making a lot of stations longer to allow 10 coach trains on the SWR metro services at a big cost to the figures. However even then the figures are skewed as a lot of the benefits come within the South East, yet the big costs are within London.

As an example, if SWT had been given the same subsidy per passenger as TPE they could have afforded to build Crossrail 2.

The other problem with the figures is that it appears that it counts all the funding of projects which are at least part funded by Government. In addition it doesn't account for the fact that the a significant amount of the funding for Crossrail comes from a local levey applied to business within London (so doesn't impact on tax payers from elsewhere).

Now that's not too say that there shouldn't be more investment in the North, just that some of the stats aren't as clearcut as they at first glance may appear.

 

[Andyh82]

One of the problems is that northern have started strengthening trains throughout the day so you’ve got 2 14Xs on the Sheffield stoppers both ways so such as the Via Castleford one that would normally squeeze on 17A no longer fits so has to be put elsewhere. Man Vics can be upto 4 15X carriages which needs a big chunk of platform especially if it has standing time in the station. The Harrogate line trains seem to leave from various platforms between 1 and 6 when they used to be on 1 most of the time

I agree, they need to lengthen platform 17 so the Hallam Line fast and slows can come in on top of each other again. This doesn’t always happen now, and some have to use 15, 12, 11 instead. Might be worth extending platform 13 as well further into the station.

This to me seems to be the cause of delays that has increased in recent years. The number of services now compared to when Leeds 1st was completed hasn’t changed that much, but the number of carriages has.

 

[superkev]

At risk of repeating myself I'm still of the opinion that not everyone travelling acriss the pennines from York and beyond needs to go via Leeds when there is a less congested and probably faster route via Castleford and Wakefield kirkgate. One train an hour perhaps giving a much improved service for West riding capital city Wakefield and Castleford too.
K

 

[30907]

At risk of repeating myself I'm still of the opinion that not everyone travelling acriss the pennines from York and beyond needs to go via Leeds when there is a less congested and probably faster route via Castleford and Wakefield kirkgate. One train an hour perhaps giving a much improved service for West riding capital city Wakefield and Castleford too.
K

I agree in principle, but it's unlikely that the number of trans-Pennine (small T) trains will increase so which service would you route away from Leeds?
And what difference would rerouting 1 or even 2 tph actually make?

 

[deltic08]

Great. That isnt going to happen. No matter how much you wibble hs2 money isnt going to be spent on the existing network.

This is exactly what I mean with you and others. You present fantastical ideas that are detached from the reality of public funding. You then whine when that reality is pointed out and come up with another fantasy solution. Try again. This time let's stick to the real world instead of the fantasy.

You asked me how I would deal with the problem with Leeds and I told you by increasing the approach lines and grade separated junctions using what is still available.
Your solution is not enough. Get real to the situation now. Adding one bay platform is not enough in 2019 let alone the next 20 years. Reality is not wibble.

What is your solution to the problem, without throwing out insults, or don't you have one so have to be insulting to cover yourself?

 

[Glenn1969]

The DfT (and methinks some on here) think that because Northern TOCs require subsidy it means they are not worth investing in. But surely if the investment unlocks increased demand it could mean the subsidies reduce and be a win win for the industry?

 

[tbtc]

Well you should know then that an extra platform 0 will not sort the capacity problems. It is 12 lines trying to squeeze through 6, A-E, that is the problem

There's two eastbound platforms for each line in the throat?

Plenty of other stations cope with fewer lines in their throat (per platform that can access it)! We'd positively dream of that at Sheffield (where seven platforms access the two tracks of the northern throat)... Edinburgh Waverley goes from about a dozen platforms to a throat of four at the west end (and a throat of two at the east end, for nine platforms)... look at the throats of most London stations... Leeds folk don't know they're born

The problem is the mixture of services, and the new timetables, so that we'll see trains from the east end running through to Shipley (ex London), Halifax (ex Hull/ York), Huddersfield (ex Newcastle/ Hull) and Wakefield (ex Edinburgh) plus the box-ticking Bradford - Nottingham service which needs to reverse at Leeds (the kind of reversal that we've just spent lots of money to avoid happening so much at Manchester Piccadilly).

Having a variety of (western) routes that run through to the eastern side of Leeds causes some uneven timetables, it causes delays between the routes to contaminate, it causes services to get in each other's way (compared to running Leeds as three or four independent parallel stations.

No need to get the crayons out and dream of bringing back old lines just yet.

This is surely more about throat capacity than platform capacity? Although something like a Nottingham-Bradford crosses throat tracks, it will use less platform capacity than a terminating Nottingham and a terminating Bradford.

There's around two departures per platform per hour, which isn't a huge amount. But the "need" to run through to the east end from various different lines causes some gaps and inefficient use of platform capacity (and throat capacity, as services cross other lines)

Surely if you terminate more services at Leeds then you're actually making the problem worse?
Surely the way to solve the issue, is to extend more services through to York/Selby etc

I'm not talking about terminating more services there overall (apologies if that's how I came across) - I was meaning it'd be better to focus the "east end" services on one "western" destination, so that the station could operate as four operationally separate lines - I don't know that there is more space at the east end for additional services to run each hour (bearing in mind the London services that will be using it soon, the additional Northern service to Hull and the various random Neville Hill ECS).

 

[deltic08]

I agree in principle, but it's unlikely that the number of trans-Pennine (small T) trains will increase so which service would you route away from Leeds?
And what difference would rerouting 1 or even 2 tph actually make?

Well, it would make a big difference between Micklefield and Leeds as that route is already optimised.

Whilst not wishing to detract from the essence of your suggestion, I think you are a little confused here (or I am). I believe that you are basically saying that the line should take on the form it had until the mid 1960's, immediately prior to the closure of Leeds Central, when it carried all the passenger services from Leeds to Huddersfield and beyond. Much of the formation is not built on but I believe there are a couple of industrial units which would need relocating and no doubt other businesses which currently use it for Lorry/car parking would need to be compensated. So it's do-able but a few tens of £mm relocation cost. What I don't understand is the reference to a bridge over the Wakefield Westgate line. The former line passed under the Wakefield Westgate line, not over, and reinstating this bridge (it may still be there-I haven't looked at it for years) would seem more economical, and there would be no need for any embankment towards Farnley (and Wortley) junction. At Farnley trains simply continued onto the Morley line-reference to "instead of Leeds new" is misleading

With respect, I think you are a little confused. As it stands to-day, the line from Wakefield Westgate is lower than the trackbed across Holbeck viaduct at this point so it would be easier to bridge over an operating railway. It was lowered in major works in 2000. By bridging over, an embankment will be needed to lower the line down to the level of the current Huddersfield line in the region of the former Farnley shed or junction.

I am pleased to know that the former route is mostly undeveloped as I thought it was covered with small industrial units.

 

[Grumpy]

Well, it would make a big difference between Micklefield and Leeds as that route is already optimised.

With respect, I think you are a little confused. As it stands to-day, the line from Wakefield Westgate is lower than the trackbed across Holbeck viaduct at this point so it would be easier to bridge over an operating railway. It was lowered in major works in 2000. By bridging over, an embankment will be needed to lower the line down to the level of the current Huddersfield line in the region of the former Farnley shed or junction.

Yes I admit to being confused, on most things not just this subject. However may I comment that the statement " the line from Wakefield Westgate is lower than the trackbed across Holbeck viaduct at this point" is a tad misleading as the viaduct in fact finishes approx. half a mile away. Whilst I can accept that the former bridge carrying the Wakefield line over the Farnley line may have been replaced by an embankment and levels changed, I don't see how this can have been much given that the Wakefield line has to pass over the Whitehall Road underbridge some 150 yards to the North, and then the pedestrian subway some hundred yards to the south. It would have been barmy to have lowered the Wakefield track between these points to a level lower than the trackbed of the Farnley line. I am due to be in the area on Thursday-if time permits I may go have a look.

 

[DarloRich]

You asked me how I would deal with the problem with Leeds and I told you by increasing the approach lines and grade separated junctions using what is still available.
Your solution is not enough. Get real to the situation now. Adding one bay platform is not enough in 2019 let alone the next 20 years. Reality is not wibble.

What is your solution to the problem, without throwing out insults, or don't you have one so have to be insulting to cover yourself?

Firstly we have to identify what the real problem is: capacity is a lovely catch all. What is eating up "capacity" at present? Is the existing station being used as well or as sensibly as it could be? Can the timetable be changed to make better use of the available space? Can destinations be changed to reduce time spent stood in the station? As pointed out several times other stations manage with many fewer lines and platforms. Why is Leeds struggling? Then we can look to fix that.

If money were no object ( but assuming I cant remove all of the existing railway and start again!) I would reopen the Holbeck viaduct connecting it to both the Wakefield and Manchester lines. The main use would be for TPE trains to/from Manchester but we may as well do both for completeness. I would also do option 2 you suggested but i would go a bit further and build 2 or even three new platforms on the car park ( with parking above), a new canal bridge ( perhaps a third again wider) and two new tracks all the way to the junction with the Harrogate line. I would try and segregate trains from each location ( Harrogate, Skipton, Bradford, Manchester, London, Castleford) to designated platforms and remove as many crossing movements as possible. I would also try and get the London trains into a bay to free up more through platform space.

On the other side of the station I would extend platform 17 and then build a new bay for the Castleford trains in the area beyond the Rotunda (?). More adventurously I might move the Castleford line outside the existing viaduct roughly using the line of Bath Road as far as Holbeck depot and remove any conflict on that side. That would be fun!

The issue is that money IS absolutely a problem!

PS while we are on about Leeds does anyone know if there was a railway line that branched off the Castleford line somewhere between Stourton and Rothwell ( basically junction 44 on the M1) crossing both the Aire and the Canal? I suspect it must have been a colliery line if it existed.

 

[Bantamzen]

Leeds is more "deserving" of the money but I still wouldn't spend it there because deserving isn't a measure used to determine investment priorities in this environment! Even if it was Leeds wouldn't be the most "deserving" place in the UK let alone the north. I would spend more of the money on London and the south east because it can return more money to the economy more quickly. Again, that wont be popular but the numbers of people involved dwarf those in Leeds. That is a simple reality that wont change.

Personally I think the weighting criteria for investment decisions should be altered to allow for more "social good" investments with less of a hard cash return required but until then.........

Again, thanks for the honest response. However you have previously complained that people bring the North vs South/London argument into these debates, but readily admit that you think that the latter should have yet more that it already has. So maybe you can see why people feel that London gets everything, in fact I'm sure you do which is why I don't understand why you complain about it being brought into the arguments.

However more of us are of the view that London is simply becoming a money pit, into which we (all taxpayers) pour more and more money into things like infrastructure, yet they never seem enough. More tube lines, high speed lines, station upgrades, longer trains, new cross city projects, yet still the capital seemingly grinds to a panicked halt at the first sign of bad weather. I've made this argument many times, and I won't dwell on it for too long, we need to start spreading the load because quite clearly the capital will not or cannot cope anymore. You might believe the status quo will be maintained going forward, but pressure is growing rapidly away from the big smoke and with politics fragmenting rapidly in this country the Home Counties might not be as reliable to deliver the votes the governing party needs to hold onto power. Its (almost) a pity George Osbourne didn't hang around longer than he did, for being a total git of a man he did at least recognise that infrastructure projects away from London are becoming increasingly urgent.

Those numbers are nothing compared to those going up near me. We are looking at something like 1m new homes! Hell, I have several thousand going up at the end of my street with no real local transport investment. We are getting E-W rail in due course but that wont help with the numbers travelling into London where already a 12 car train is often insufficient ( and I don't even travel on the busiest line into London!)

I have no doubt the numbers are significantly greater, but then so is the capacity potential. We don't have that on the Aire / Wharfe lines. Most stations can't handle more than 4 car units, and even though we were supposed to get the 3 car 331 to form 2*3 formations, not even basic plans to extend platforms for these seem to have drafted yet. And this is supposed to be a government pledge. So you'll forgive me for not feeling particularly sorry for the good folk of Buckinghamshire at this time. My best suggestion if things are getting too tough down there is to look for work elsewhere, the potential drop in income should easily be offset by lower housing costs and less time panicking whenever the skies turn a bit grey...

I agree with @DarloRich, that's nothing compared to London and the South East!
Loads of houses are being built, and there's talk of my local village staton, getting a multi storey car park, because it just can't cope with the traffic using it.
My line local line has just been upgraded, with major stations rebuilt, and electrification, with 8 car 387s replacing 2 and 3 car DMUs.
It was definately needed, and with a much higher BCR than Leeds station, mostly because of it's huge traffic volume, plus there was available land adjacent to the station.

Again, how much more money do we throw at your region's London commuting before we have to say it's just good money after bad? I know the current batch of politicians won't rock the capital's boat too much at the moment, so little is likely to change immediately, but the reality is that London is rapidly becoming too expensive for it's own good. It's only my opinion, but London is a burden on this country even with it's GDP returns. And the out of control housing market fuelled by it's ever expanding commuter belt is a recipe for an economic crisis. It's way out of scope for this thread so I'll leave it there other than to say this is why the government is keen, albeit quietly to have more housing built away from the commuter belt. If they are savvy, they will ensure that there is a least some more infrastructure capacity built in before it becomes too expensive to consider.

 

[The Ham]

Again, thanks for the honest response. However you have previously complained that people bring the North vs South/London argument into these debates, but readily admit that you think that the latter should have yet more that it already has. So maybe you can see why people feel that London gets everything, in fact I'm sure you do which is why I don't understand why you complain about it being brought into the arguments.


However more of us are of the view that London is simply becoming a money pit, into which we (all taxpayers) pour more and more money into things like infrastructure, yet they never seem enough. More tube lines, high speed lines, station upgrades, longer trains, new cross city projects, yet still the capital seemingly grinds to a panicked halt at the first sign of bad weather. I've made this argument many times, and I won't dwell on it for too long, we need to start spreading the load because quite clearly the capital will not or cannot cope anymore. You might believe the status quo will be maintained going forward, but pressure is growing rapidly away from the big smoke and with politics fragmenting rapidly in this country the Home Counties might not be as reliable to deliver the votes the governing party needs to hold onto power. Its (almost) a pity George Osbourne didn't hang around longer than he did, for being a total git of a man he did at least recognise that infrastructure projects away from London are becoming increasingly urgent.





I have no doubt the numbers are significantly greater, but then so is the capacity potential. We don't have that on the Aire / Wharfe lines. Most stations can't handle more than 4 car units, and even though we were supposed to get the 3 car 331 to form 2*3 formations, not even basic plans to extend platforms for these seem to have drafted yet. And this is supposed to be a government pledge. So you'll forgive me for not feeling particularly sorry for the good folk of Buckinghamshire at this time. My best suggestion if things are getting too tough down there is to look for work elsewhere, the potential drop in income should easily be offset by lower housing costs and less time panicking whenever the skies turn a bit grey...




Again, how much more money do we throw at your region's London commuting before we have to say it's just good money after bad? I know the current batch of politicians won't rock the capital's boat too much at the moment, so little is likely to change immediately, but the reality is that London is rapidly becoming too expensive for it's own good. It's only my opinion, but London is a burden on this country even with it's GDP returns. And the out of control housing market fuelled by it's ever expanding commuter belt is a recipe for an economic crisis. It's way out of scope for this thread so I'll leave it there other than to say this is why the government is keen, albeit quietly to have more housing built away from the commuter belt. If they are savvy, they will ensure that there is a least some more infrastructure capacity built in before it becomes too expensive to consider.

According to the IPPR North figures the South East gets about 1/2 the funding of the North West and about 50% more than Yorkshire and Humber/North East.


As such although London does get a lot of the funding that's not the same as the South East. Although the South East does benefit from London infrastructure improvements it often causes problems. As an example try getting a train from Woking to Slough and although they are not very far apart (19 miles taking about 30 minutes by road) and have reasonable passenger numbers journey times are 1:15 for fast services with quick change tubes, but can typically be 1:30. That puts it at 12-15 mph, so that it's only marginally quicker than cycling which is typically 12 mph.

 

[Bantamzen]

According to the IPPR North figures the South East gets about 1/2 the funding of the North West and about 50% more than Yorkshire and Humber/North East.


As such although London does get a lot of the funding that's not the same as the South East. Although the South East does benefit from London infrastructure improvements it often causes problems. As an example try getting a train from Woking to Slough and although they are not very far apart (19 miles taking about 30 minutes by road) and have reasonable passenger numbers journey times are 1:15 for fast services with quick change tubes, but can typically be 1:30. That puts it at 12-15 mph, so that it's only marginally quicker than cycling which is typically 12 mph.

To be honest I don't have an issue with London & it's surrounding areas getting more investment per say. It is after all currently responsible for a considerable amount of the UK's GDP. However I do however think that areas elsewhere need far more than they get, and that political parties have been kicking this particular can down the road for too long. I would even be willing to pay in local & central taxes if there was a full commitment to actually get on with such improvements and not just make more room on the DfT's shelves for them. In the longer term I do also believe that future governments need to look at ways to encourage businesses to invest beyond the capital, not only as a way of spreading the economic benefits but as a way of mitigating risk of having so much of the country's worth generated in such small a space.

 

[a_c_skinner]

They say confession is good for you, so apologies for setting the hare running on north vs south spending. A moderator kindly and politely pointed out this has been done to death and was off topic.

By chance I was in Leeds the other day and it looked to my untutored eye as if a good deal of capacity was spent on parking sets that were not immediately needed for service.

 

[edwin_m]

PS while we are on about Leeds does anyone know if there was a railway line that branched off the Castleford line somewhere between Stourton and Rothwell ( basically junction 44 on the M1) crossing both the Aire and the Canal? I suspect it must have been a colliery line if it existed.

According to http://railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php yes there was. (link to map, not quoteable)

 

[superkev]

PS while we are on about Leeds does anyone know if there was a railway line that branched off the Castleford line somewhere between Stourton and Rothwell ( basically junction 44 on the M1) crossing both the Aire and the Canal? I suspect it must have been a colliery line if it existed.

The line ran from just east of Micklefield with a station at Kippax an on to Castleford. Lots of coal mines around there too.
It would be useful now as a commuter line as well as allowing a Leeds Castleford Pontefract service without the reversal at Castleford.
K

 

[DarloRich]

According to http://railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php yes there was. (link to map, not quoteable)

thanks - that is a very interesting website!

The line ran from just east of Micklefield with a station at Kippax an on to Castleford. Lots of coal mines around there too.
It would be useful now as a commuter line as well as allowing a Leeds Castleford Pontefract service without the reversal at Castleford.
K

that seems to be a different line. The one above is the line I meant.

 

[cactustwirly]

Again, thanks for the honest response. However you have previously complained that people bring the North vs South/London argument into these debates, but readily admit that you think that the latter should have yet more that it already has. So maybe you can see why people feel that London gets everything, in fact I'm sure you do which is why I don't understand why you complain about it being brought into the arguments.

However more of us are of the view that London is simply becoming a money pit, into which we (all taxpayers) pour more and more money into things like infrastructure, yet they never seem enough. More tube lines, high speed lines, station upgrades, longer trains, new cross city projects, yet still the capital seemingly grinds to a panicked halt at the first sign of bad weather. I've made this argument many times, and I won't dwell on it for too long, we need to start spreading the load because quite clearly the capital will not or cannot cope anymore. You might believe the status quo will be maintained going forward, but pressure is growing rapidly away from the big smoke and with politics fragmenting rapidly in this country the Home Counties might not be as reliable to deliver the votes the governing party needs to hold onto power. Its (almost) a pity George Osbourne didn't hang around longer than he did, for being a total git of a man he did at least recognise that infrastructure projects away from London are becoming increasingly urgent.




I have no doubt the numbers are significantly greater, but then so is the capacity potential. We don't have that on the Aire / Wharfe lines. Most stations can't handle more than 4 car units, and even though we were supposed to get the 3 car 331 to form 2*3 formations, not even basic plans to extend platforms for these seem to have drafted yet. And this is supposed to be a government pledge. So you'll forgive me for not feeling particularly sorry for the good folk of Buckinghamshire at this time. My best suggestion if things are getting too tough down there is to look for work elsewhere, the potential drop in income should easily be offset by lower housing costs and less time panicking whenever the skies turn a bit grey...



Again, how much more money do we throw at your region's London commuting before we have to say it's just good money after bad? I know the current batch of politicians won't rock the capital's boat too much at the moment, so little is likely to change immediately, but the reality is that London is rapidly becoming too expensive for it's own good. It's only my opinion, but London is a burden on this country even with it's GDP returns. And the out of control housing market fuelled by it's ever expanding commuter belt is a recipe for an economic crisis. It's way out of scope for this thread so I'll leave it there other than to say this is why the government is keen, albeit quietly to have more housing built away from the commuter belt. If they are savvy, they will ensure that there is a least some more infrastructure capacity built in before it becomes too expensive to consider.

The upgrade works didn't just benefit London, by removing an almighty bottleneck, and electrification, more intercity trains are able to run to places like Cardiff and Bristol.

But it isn't 'good money after bad' everything is fully costed and will pay for itself!
Before electrification my line had some of the most overcrowded trains in the country, so something needed to be done.

If you're complaining about Crossrail, I'd kindly invite you to travel on a peak time Central line train! Makes the Airedale line look very quiet in comparison!

 

[deltic08]

thanks - that is a very interesting website!



that seems to be a different line. The one above is the line I meant.

Do you mean the line that ran from Stourton to Neville Hill bypassing Leeds City station?

 

[Bantamzen]

The upgrade works didn't just benefit London, by removing an almighty bottleneck, and electrification, more intercity trains are able to run to places like Cardiff and Bristol.

But it isn't 'good money after bad' everything is fully costed and will pay for itself!
Before electrification my line had some of the most overcrowded trains in the country, so something needed to be done.

If you're complaining about Crossrail, I'd kindly invite you to travel on a peak time Central line train! Makes the Airedale line look very quiet in comparison!

I have done such journeys, however I do not wish to keep risking going off topic. We could spend all day comparing routes, but the issue under discussion is the capacity at Leeds. In the peaks now many services now are full to bursting, sometimes leaving people behind when services might only be every 30 minutes or worse. Add to that issues leading to services being held outside the station awaiting a platform, something that was originally tackled in the last redesign, and you have a capacity problem which is only going to get worse.

Therefore options need to be explored, and as P0 is now under construction it is not unreasonable to ask if the same area identified for this platform could not eventually be used to facilitate a couple more at least. We are not talking about vast amounts of demolition & construction here, just repurposing a ground level car park for use as platforms. At the very worst if longer platforms were needed, the existing multi-storey behind P0/1 could be rebuilt allowing platforms to go underneath a new car park above. Reading some of the comments on here you'd think we were expecting a complete rebuild of the entire station & it's surroundings, but we really aren't just wondering about the possibility of a couple more bay platforms.

 

[DarloRich]

Again, thanks for the honest response. However you have previously complained that people bring the North vs South/London argument into these debates, but readily admit that you think that the latter should have yet more that it already has. So maybe you can see why people feel that London gets everything, in fact I'm sure you do which is why I don't understand why you complain about it being brought into the arguments.

Greater Investment is needed in many areas in the "north". Most of those areas are more important than transport and for many people in the north east complaining about having to stand on a train into Leeds is a luxury not afforded to them!

Investment is needed in the infrastructure in the south and London to support economic activity that, frankly, pays for the investment the north badly needs. That is a harsh fact but one we need to acknowledge.

However more of us are of the view that London is simply becoming a money pit, into which we (all taxpayers) pour more and more money into things like infrastructure, yet they never seem enough. More tube lines, high speed lines, station upgrades, longer trains, new cross city projects, yet still the capital seemingly grinds to a panicked halt at the first sign of bad weather. I've made this argument many times, and I won't dwell on it for too long, we need to start spreading the load because quite clearly the capital will not or cannot cope anymore. You might believe the status quo will be maintained going forward, but pressure is growing rapidly away from the big smoke and with politics fragmenting rapidly in this country the Home Counties might not be as reliable to deliver the votes the governing party needs to hold onto power. Its (almost) a pity George Osbourne didn't hang around longer than he did, for being a total git of a man he did at least recognise that infrastructure projects away from London are becoming increasingly urgent.

Your comment about weather cheapens your argument. London can and does cope on a daily basis with number vastly greater than Leeds ever will. Until Labour can win middle England things wont change. Brexit also makes changes to the "status quo" less likely and makes the economic disparity wider. With a potential economic decline after brexit there will be even less money to spend. That will be even more focused on delivering a return in the shortest time possible. Northern areas, sadly, voted for Brexit in vast numbers................

I have no doubt the numbers are significantly greater, but then so is the capacity potential. We don't have that on the Aire / Wharfe lines. Most stations can't handle more than 4 car units, and even though we were supposed to get the 3 car 331 to form 2*3 formations, not even basic plans to extend platforms for these seem to have drafted yet. And this is supposed to be a government pledge. So you'll forgive me for not feeling particularly sorry for the good folk of Buckinghamshire at this time. My best suggestion if things are getting too tough down there is to look for work elsewhere, the potential drop in income should easily be offset by lower housing costs and less time panicking whenever the skies turn a bit grey...

The capacity potential on our line is almost 0 ( at least until HS2 comes along). The WCML is full, trains are already at 12 cars and the commuter wave keeps moving further north and growing. That said I find it bizarre that simple quick wins like platform extensions to support new trains haven't been fixed. It seems such a obvious open goal! This is what I mean about targeted investment delivering easy returns! it is bonkers.

BTW When I moved down here I shared many of the views you and others express. Being out of work and with secure, well rewarded, high quality jobs in short supply in the north east I had no option but to move or go under. Moving down here opened my eyes to the reality of the situation. Honestly. it is much more complex than many believe.

Again, how much more money do we throw at your region's London commuting before we have to say it's just good money after bad? I know the current batch of politicians won't rock the capital's boat too much at the moment, so little is likely to change immediately, but the reality is that London is rapidly becoming too expensive for it's own good. It's only my opinion, but London is a burden on this country even with it's GDP returns. And the out of control housing market fuelled by it's ever expanding commuter belt is a recipe for an economic crisis. It's way out of scope for this thread so I'll leave it there other than to say this is why the government is keen, albeit quietly to have more housing built away from the commuter belt. If they are savvy, they will ensure that there is a least some more infrastructure capacity built in before it becomes too expensive to consider.

You are welcome to your opinion but i think it is wrong. The government aren't moving housing away from the commuter belt at all although we need to build many more homes generally all over the country. They are talking about building new towns in the Oxford - Cambridge arc. New towns, not a couple of thousand new homes! They are building "a couple of thousand" houses at the end of my street.

There is some information here: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/NIC-FinalReport-February-2018-Rev-A-optimised.pdf

@cactustwirly has responded about the investment point.

If you're complaining about Crossrail, I'd kindly invite you to travel on a peak time Central line train! Makes the Airedale line look very quiet in comparison!

I have done such journeys, however I do not wish to keep risking going off topic. We could spend all day comparing routes, but the issue under discussion is the capacity at Leeds. In the peaks now many services now are full to bursting, sometimes leaving people behind when services might only be every 30 minutes or worse.

The problem is many of the complainants never have. They haven't lived in that environment and have no idea about the different order of magnitude. Their visits to London are one offs or at weekends. I didn't have any idea until i moved down here and actually lived it. I will happily admit that I expressed many of the sentiments expressed up thread. I recognise many of the arguments. The majority are specious once faced with reality.

As I say that isnt a suggestion that there should not be investment in the "North". There should be but it needs to be different investment and we need to get away from looking purely at numbers and having a chippy northern attitude toward those numbers.

Do you mean the line that ran from Stourton to Neville Hill bypassing Leeds City station?

unsure! using the map above it looks like the line that runs into the area that is now Skelton Grange. It doesn't seem to connect with that line ( i was actually looking at it to see if you could use such an alignment to have Castleford trains run into Leeds from the other end!


We aren't talking about one off trips to London and a short tube journey from Kings Cross to Westminster or a Saturday trip to the British Museum. We are talking about daily, peak hours commuting into and through London. Have you done that? It is horrible and makes Leeds look like a quiet station!

 

[Bantamzen]

Greater Investment is needed in many areas in the "north". Most of those areas are more important than transport and for many people in the north east complaining about having to stand on a train into Leeds is a luxury not afforded to them!

Investment is needed in the infrastructure in the south and London to support economic activity that, frankly, pays for the investment the north badly needs. That is a harsh fact but one we need to acknowledge.

The problem is that much of that investment never sees the light of day. For example Manchester Piccadilly P15/16, Deansgate re-modelling, North TP wiring. I could go on....

Your comment about weather cheapens your argument. London can and does cope on a daily basis with number vastly greater than Leeds ever will. Until Labour can win middle England things wont change. Brexit also makes changes to the "status quo" less likely and makes the economic disparity wider. With a potential economic decline after brexit there will be even less money to spend. That will be even more focused on delivering a return in the shortest time possible. Northern areas, sadly, voted for Brexit in vast numbers................

The weather comment was meant to be a tongue in cheek one. However consider this, whenever bad weather prevails the news seems to focus way more on the problems it causes down south than up north (based purely on anecdotal evidence). And when we make light of this, people down south seem to get very sensitive about it. Maybe we are just more used to it being "Grim oop North"...

(Note, this is another attempt a being light hearted)

However that much of the North voted to leave demonstrates more the disconnect between voters and Westminster than anything else.

The capacity potential on our line is almost 0 ( at least until HS2 comes along). The WCML is full, trains are already at 12 cars and the commuter wave keeps moving further north and growing. That said I find it bizarre that simple quick wins like platform extensions to support new trains haven't been fixed. It seems such a obvious open goal! This is what I mean about targeted investment delivering easy returns! it is bonkers.

Well that one does seem an obvious solution, is there pressure to deliver this because as you say its a quick win surely?

BTW When I moved down here I shared many of the views you and others express. Being out of work and with secure, well rewarded, high quality jobs in short supply in the north east I had no option but to move or go under. Moving down here opened my eyes to the reality of the situation. Honestly. it is much more complex than many believe.

I don't doubt that the problems are far worse down there. But quite honestly, and rather bluntly that is not our problem. For those of us that commute into or through Leeds, capacity is an issue and getting worse. And with all the new developments going up pressure on the roads is reaching a critical mass in some areas. For example, a recent DfT study found that some of the most congested roads away from the capital where major routes from the Aire / Wharfe valleys into Leeds! And when I say major routes I mean the only routes, especially along the Aire where its rather difficult to provision an alterative route without very long diversions. And as mentioned next year Leeds will introduce a clean air zone, which is designed in part to try to encourage people to use alternative means to commute in.

Now given that there is growing pressure on the trains already, with little capacity to increase paths, and bus routes that can take 4 or five or more times as long to travel even just a dozen or so miles from many of the main commuter areas, there is clearly quite an urgent need to at least try to increase rail capacity. However as I said with no plans in play to extend platforms, the 2*331 formations seemingly on hold and more services reaching maximum capacity something is going to give.

You are welcome to your opinion but i think it is wrong. The government aren't moving housing away from the commuter belt at all although we need to build many more homes generally all over the country. They are talking about building new towns in the Oxford - Cambridge arc. New towns, not a couple of thousand new homes! They are building "a couple of thousand" houses at the end of my street.

There is some information here: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/NIC-FinalReport-February-2018-Rev-A-optimised.pdf

@cactustwirly has responded about the investment point.

Yes, and frankly I think its the wrong strategy if I'm honest. The government should be trying to encourage a spread of business, rather than shoehorning in more commuter towns to fill up the already full commuter trains. However where I am these developments are already going up, and filling up with new owners at a pace. So the issue for us is in the here & now, not tomorrow.

The problem is many of the complainants never have. They haven't lived in that environment and have no idea about the different order of magnitude. Their visits to London are one offs or at weekends. I didn't have any idea until i moved down here and actually lived it. I will happily admit that I expressed many of the sentiments expressed up thread. I recognise many of the arguments. The majority are specious once faced with reality.

As I say that isnt a suggestion that there should not be investment in the "North". There should be but it needs to be different investment and we need to get away from looking purely at numbers and having a chippy northern attitude toward those numbers.

And again, I don't doubt these problems. But frankly they are not going to go away anytime soon until someone figures out that pouring more people into the problem isn't going to solve it. However, that doesn't change the fact that other cities also need serious investment for the same problems on different scales. Only by trying to resolve at least a few of these will any future government be able to even have a chance of encouraging more spread (something HS2 is supposed to help deliver). Otherwise we'll all end up migrating down south, and taking up your seat on those 230s.....

 

[DarloRich]

The problem is that much of that investment never sees the light of day. For example Manchester Piccadilly P15/16, Deansgate re-modelling, North TP wiring. I could go on....

I agree - some very odd decisions have been made. Very odd indeed and it isnt as if that money has been spent elsewhere. TPE is a prime example of an improve that will deliver both tangible financial returns and intangible quality of life improvements. It is bonkers! I simply do not understand it. The TPE electrification decision baffles me.

However consider this, whenever bad weather prevails the news seems to focus way more on the problems it causes down south than up north (based purely on anecdotal evidence).

that is because there are more people disrupted. The A66 being closed by snow isnt much of story even if it happens much more often than "SOUTH EAST TRAVEL CHAOS DUE TO SNOWMAGEDDON"

BTW - It takes more than a bit of snow to stop me getting to work. Someone has to cover for all those soft southerners!

Well that one does seem an obvious solution, is there pressure to deliver this because as you say its a quick win surely

there should be - it isnt work of vast difficulty even if it is but more difficult than many here accept.

And with all the new developments going up pressure on the roads is reaching a critical mass in some areas. For example, a recent DfT study found that some of the most congested roads away from the capital where major routes from the Aire / Wharfe valleys into Leeds! And when I say major routes I mean the only routes, especially along the Aire where its rather difficult to provision an alterative route without very long diversions. And as mentioned next year Leeds will introduce a clean air zone, which is designed in part to try to encourage people to use alternative means to commute in.

Now given that there is growing pressure on the trains already, with little capacity to increase paths, and bus routes that can take 4 or five or more times as long to travel even just a dozen or so miles from many of the main commuter areas, there is clearly quite an urgent need to at least try to increase rail capacity. However as I said with no plans in play to extend platforms, the 2*331 formations seemingly on hold and more services reaching maximum capacity something is going to give

Just move down here. We have better trains, more money and nicer lives You are right - something needs to be sorted out but do we make best use of what we already have? Are there solutions we can develop now to improve things asap, not just in relation to railways? Do Leeds City Council help themselves? If only the supertram had gone ahead. Could that be the answer?

But frankly they are not going to go away anytime soon until someone figures out that pouring more people into the problem isn't going to solve it. However, that doesn't change the fact that other cities also need serious investment for the same problems on different scales.

I don't, actually, disagree with you. Investment is needed all over but it is different area by area as is the price. The problem, as always, is paying for it!

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree - some very odd decisions have been made. Very odd indeed and it isnt as if that money has been spent elsewhere. TPE is a prime example of an improve that will deliver both tangible financial returns and intangible quality of life improvements. It is bonkers! I simply do not understand it. The TPE electrification decision baffles me.

Agreed, it is nothing short of bonkers.

that is because there are more people disrupted. The A66 being closed by snow isnt much of story even if it happens much more often than "SOUTH EAST TRAVEL CHAOS DUE TO SNOWMAGEDDON"

BTW - It takes more than a bit of snow to stop me getting to work. Someone has to cover for all those soft southerners!

<Cue Dvorak's "New World" Symphony playing softly in background>

Its been almost a decade since I personally have been seriously weather disrupted, as the heavy snow (proper Yorkshire snow like) came down one lunchtime and the roads locked solid, one lonely, brave little 144 tasked with testing the route from Bradford FS to Ilkley turned up, filled up (to southern standard loadings) and chugged it's way north west. It took at least 45 mins to make the usual 13 to Baildon, but it made it. Once home the news was full of stories of the disruption caused in London by what seemed a fraction of what we'd just had. You could hear the whole of Yorkshire saying as one, "That's not proper snow.... When I were a lad.... 20ft deep.... Walked twenty miles to school and back... Both uphill....".

Since then only the Aire & the wind (pun intended) has forced the rails shut, the former leading to a 3+ hour trundle on the 760 from Shipley-Leeds (13 miles), and where I fine tuned my deep, deep cynicism you witness today… I could literally have walked quicker, had the canal not overflowed as well...

<Music fades>

there should be - it isnt work of vast difficulty even if it is but more difficult than many here accept.

But still if its doable it really ought to be, although someone would then have to put some money in the ROSCO's wallet to get the extra units that would be compatible.

Just move down here. We have better trains, more money and nicer lives You are right - something needs to be sorted out but do we make best use of what we already have? Are there solutions we can develop now to improve things asap, not just in relation to railways? Do Leeds City Council help themselves? If only the supertram had gone ahead. Could that be the answer?

Seriously, I have never been attracted to a move. I've been into the big smoke many a time, both with work and with Bradford City. And to be blunt again, there's pretty much no amount of money that would make it worth that amount of stress. I could just about cope with the commuter crush above ground, but the seven layers of hell that is the tube at peak time, forget it. I'll stick to moaning about crush loaded 333s as we rush up the Aire with the moors above my house coming into view!

Oh & don't mention Supertram up here next time you are heading through. Sore point and all. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it...

I don't, actually, disagree with you. Investment is needed all over but it is different area by area as is the price. The problem, as always, is paying for it!

Well this is true, I personally would be prepared to pay more for improvements. The trouble is that even if I did, someone like Grayling would find an excuse not to use it where we'd like.

 

[Ken H]

The DfT (and methinks some on here) think that because Northern TOCs require subsidy it means they are not worth investing in. But surely if the investment unlocks increased demand it could mean the subsidies reduce and be a win win for the industry?

this is the real question. How much is rail use suppressed in th North because the service is inadequate. Trains with enough capacity and that are reliable will bring more custom and revenue. How many people use other travel modes rather than squeeze onto a 2 car pacer.?

But will that revenue cover the increased costs. We know people say just bung an extra carriage on. But then does the longer train fit in platforms? So more infrastructure costs.

BR knew about income elasticity of cutting journey times. But what is the elasticity of enough train and reliability

 

[Bantamzen]

this is the real question. How much is rail use suppressed in th North because the service is inadequate. Trains with enough capacity and that are reliable will bring more custom and revenue. How many people use other travel modes rather than squeeze onto a 2 car pacer.?

But will that revenue cover the increased costs. We know people say just bung an extra carriage on. But then does the longer train fit in platforms? So more infrastructure costs.

BR knew about income elasticity of cutting journey times. But what is the elasticity of enough train and reliability

In terms of Leeds, the daily jams leading into the city from the west & north/south west certainly suggest there could be more demand if more capacity was available. Indeed the opening of Apperley Bridge demonstrated quite a lot of demand in an area with a number of new housing developments, something that is true of more areas in this region. Of course any capacity increases cost, and often people expect an almost immediate & obvious return on revenue & subsidy. But this is where the bigger picture is needed, how much time is lost in people effectively parked whilst trying to get into work? What is the cost for businesses trying to move goods around the region when their drivers encounter traffic jam after traffic jam? I suspect it is very considerable & whilst not obvious on the bottom line of the network, will have a cumulative negative effect on the area's economy over time.

All we need are politicians that can see the bigger picture...