Capacity problems Leeds

[Ploughman]

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

Do you mean this one?
http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/Beeston jn Hunslet gds.htm

 

[The Ham]

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...

I do wonder if there could be an advantage in the DfT buying 20*5 coach bimodal trains and asking TOC's to "bid" to use them to trail what happens if there's extra capacity provided on a series of different routes with any released units then used to further increase capacity. With analysis undertaken to see how that impacts on income/costs.

Part of the bid process would be to agree the amount payed for the units, however I would suggest something like x% of the extra income.

It would give them a basis for understanding what routes are likely to justify extra rolling stock for future franchises.

Although there'd be some upfront costs, much of those could be recouped at the end of the trail by selling the units on.

It would get the DfT a lot of good press coverage when the bid process was launched and again when trail was started. Especially if it was being used to determine the best way of investing in rail so as to reduce the CO2 emissions of the country.

 

[Eric]

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.

I was in Leeds the other afternoon and there were two 158s in platform 6 and a 170 in platform 5. Not sure why they were just parked there, but the stacking of trains on the 1,2,3,4 platforms is still occurring.

 

[Ken H]

I was in Leeds the other afternoon and there were two 158s in platform 6 and a 170 in platform 5. Not sure why they were just parked there, but the stacking of trains on the 1,2,3,4 platforms is still occurring.

surely this stacking of trains is asking for dealy. If they get in the platform in the wrong order sorting that muddle out would be fun. But they always did that at Leeds. Even in the 70's the then platforms 1 2 and 3 (used for harrogate, ilkely,skipton and Bradford Interchange) were always stuffed with stacked trains. and the odd vacuum braked van too.

(1,2 and 3 were under a smaller overhead roof. 4 was a bay at the east end. 5 was the long through. 6 was the through opposite it with 7 as a cut out at the west end. 8 and 9 were throughs, 10 and 11 were bays and 12 was a through outside the trainshed.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Would it make sense to rebuilt and reopen Leeds Central and Marsh Lane railway stations (the latter I‘ve mentioned before) to try and free up some capacity at Leeds City?

For example:

- The XC evening arrivals from the south west that currently terminate at Leeds City could instead be diverted into Leeds Central, this has freed up a platform at City.

- The second LNER service of each hour could run from a rebuilt Leeds Central with the other starting and terminating at City, again another platform at City has been freed up.

- A handful of Northern services could start / terminate at Central rather than from City, thinking one of the Harrogate’s and one of the Manchester’s via Halifax.



XC: Cross Country

 

[Ken H]

Would it make sense to rebuilt and reopen Leeds Central and Marsh Lane railway stations (the latter I‘ve mentioned before) to try and free up some capacity at Leeds City?

For example:

- The XC evening arrivals from the south west that currently terminate at Leeds City could instead be diverted into Leeds Central, this has freed up a platform at City.

- The second LNER service of each hour could run from a rebuilt Leeds Central with the other starting and terminating at City, again another platform at City has been freed up.

- A handful of Northern services could start / terminate at Central rather than from City, thinking one of the Harrogate’s and one of the Manchester’s via Halifax.



XC: Cross Country

marsh lane is a bit remote. I would put the station near the bus station.

All the land round central has been developed. Why not build some bay platforms on a mezzinine above the existing station?

 

[a_c_skinner]

There is a bit of vacant land around the west end of the station, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to build there but it seems west facing capacity isn't the biggest issue. 15 & 16 are well used by TPE and don't have any trains waiting. Our train was from Lancaster but was put into a through platform and stood there for some time. I suppose a platform zero will reduce the number of west facing services needing to reverse in the through lines, but then so would sorting out parking of sets.

 

[Andyh82]

I was in Leeds the other afternoon and there were two 158s in platform 6 and a 170 in platform 5. Not sure why they were just parked there, but the stacking of trains on the 1,2,3,4 platforms is still occurring.

I believe one of the Manchester Victoria services is booked for Platform 6 in the half hour when LNER aren’t occupying it.

The 170 in Platform 5 will either be a Harrogate service, or parked at the buffers waiting to be a peak Harrogate service.

They’ve always stacked trains in 1 to 5, remember the number of services in those platforms hasn’t changed, they are still half hourly with a few peak extras and the S&C.

Stacking trains on top of each other isn’t unusual, they do it in Man Picc, albeit less so now TPE don’t use the main shed as much, and they do it in the bays at Sheffield.

 

[Ken H]

I believe one of the Manchester Victoria services is booked for Platform 6 in the half hour when LNER aren’t occupying it.

The 170 in Platform 5 will either be a Harrogate service, or parked at the buffers waiting to be a peak Harrogate service.

They’ve always stacked trains in 1 to 5, remember the number of services in those platforms hasn’t changed, they are still half hourly with a few peak extras and the S&C.

Stacking trains on top of each other isn’t unusual, they do it in Man Picc, albeit less so now TPE don’t use the main shed as much, and they do it in the bays at Sheffield.

S&C used to go from 6 in the late 70's early 80's. (5 was the 'main' through platform next to the barriers. 6 was a shorter through with a cutout at west end (Plat 7)

 

[xotGD]

Units are stabled in the 1-5 bays because there isn't much else you can do with them. If you want to send them to Neville Hill then this requires a two-way shunt, and same again to bring them back. If there is platform capacity available, better to just leave them be, with the added bonus that they can be drafted in if something else fails.

Perhaps in addition to Platform 0 they should build an extra stabling road (like there is at Marylebone) to dump spare units between turns.

 

[Ploughman]

Do they still stable units in Holbeck?

 

[northernchris]

Do they still stable units in Holbeck?

Yes, Holbeck seems to get quite a few units now

 

[Eric]

surely this stacking of trains is asking for dealy. If they get in the platform in the wrong order sorting that muddle out would be fun. But they always did that at Leeds. Even in the 70's the then platforms 1 2 and 3 (used for harrogate, ilkely,skipton and Bradford Interchange) were always stuffed with stacked trains. and the odd vacuum braked van too.

(1,2 and 3 were under a smaller overhead roof. 4 was a bay at the east end. 5 was the long through. 6 was the through opposite it with 7 as a cut out at the west end. 8 and 9 were throughs, 10 and 11 were bays and 12 was a through outside the trainshed.

I believe one of the Manchester Victoria services is booked for Platform 6 in the half hour when LNER aren’t occupying it.

The 170 in Platform 5 will either be a Harrogate service, or parked at the buffers waiting to be a peak Harrogate service.

They’ve always stacked trains in 1 to 5, remember the number of services in those platforms hasn’t changed, they are still half hourly with a few peak extras and the S&C.

Stacking trains on top of each other isn’t unusual, they do it in Man Picc, albeit less so now TPE don’t use the main shed as much, and they do it in the bays at Sheffield.

This is the problem my first post was referring to, they leave units idle in the platform and then when one or more other services using those 1-6 platforms are running late/not to schedule in the afternoon you find trains being stacked and trains ready to depart being stuck behind a full train ready to depart, only for the train to block it.

This is slowly becoming a regular occurrence and is frustrating.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is the problem my first post was referring to, they leave units idle in the platform and then when one or more other services using those 1-6 platforms are running late/not to schedule in the afternoon you find trains being stacked and trains ready to depart being stuck behind a full train ready to depart, only for the train to block it.

This is slowly becoming a regular occurrence and is frustrating.

This was often the case prior to the last redesign/rebuild. Unfortunately when you have the main depot / sidings area stuck the far side of a very busy 2 track section, there's not a lot else you can do if units are diagrammed for long layovers at Leeds. The problem is compounded by the fact that none of P1-6 are accessible from the Holbeck sidings without some shunting & reversals across the western throat, which would be utter madness if done more than a couple of times a day. For example the 16:26 Leeds-Skipton used to arrive into Leeds as ECS from Neville Hill on P8, then jump out of the way up to Whitehall before an LNER service terminated on there, then had to thread it's way back onto P4 for the start. This often went wrong, leaving the unit stranded out in the throat even though it's move was only P8 - Whitehall - P4. I can't imagine the chaos that would ensue trying to get ECS moves out of P1-6 across to Holbeck.

So I'm afraid until the capacity issue can be resolved, this will only become more of an issue at Leeds. P0 will help a little bit, although long before that comes into play we'll have at least a couple of LNER reversals to/from Bradford/Harrogate every two hours, so I'm not sure how these will impact the current issues. Leeds may not be as busy as other large stations, but it walks a tight line at times and doesn't need a lot to tip that balance into knock on delays, in a not dissimilar way to Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Eric]

This was often the case prior to the last redesign/rebuild. Unfortunately when you have the main depot / sidings area stuck the far side of a very busy 2 track section, there's not a lot else you can do if units are diagrammed for long layovers at Leeds. The problem is compounded by the fact that none of P1-6 are accessible from the Holbeck sidings without some shunting & reversals across the western throat, which would be utter madness if done more than a couple of times a day. For example the 16:26 Leeds-Skipton used to arrive into Leeds as ECS from Neville Hill on P8, then jump out of the way up to Whitehall before an LNER service terminated on there, then had to thread it's way back onto P4 for the start. This often went wrong, leaving the unit stranded out in the throat even though it's move was only P8 - Whitehall - P4. I can't imagine the chaos that would ensue trying to get ECS moves out of P1-6 across to Holbeck.

So I'm afraid until the capacity issue can be resolved, this will only become more of an issue at Leeds. P0 will help a little bit, although long before that comes into play we'll have at least a couple of LNER reversals to/from Bradford/Harrogate every two hours, so I'm not sure how these will impact the current issues. Leeds may not be as busy as other large stations, but it walks a tight line at times and doesn't need a lot to tip that balance into knock on delays, in a not dissimilar way to Manchester Piccadilly.

Do you happen to know the exact platform lengths of platforms 1 to 6?

When 0 opens couldn't they just allocate 5 and 6 to LNER for the London terminators?

That gives Northern full exclusive use of 0,1,2,3 and 4. I'm not sure if this idea is a problem solver but having designated platforms for services similar to a station like Southport might work better?

I'm taking my grandchildren on the train to Leeds this morning to look at the trains, so I'll have a good couple of hours watching that side of the station to see what happens.

 

[Andyh82]

This is the problem my first post was referring to, they leave units idle in the platform and then when one or more other services using those 1-6 platforms are running late/not to schedule in the afternoon you find trains being stacked and trains ready to depart being stuck behind a full train ready to depart, only for the train to block it.

This is slowly becoming a regular occurrence and is frustrating.

What are you suggesting though? That all bays should only ever have one train booked at once, because in a rare situation the front train may disrupt the rear train?

 

[Bantamzen]

Do you happen to know the exact platform lengths of platforms 1 to 6?

When 0 opens couldn't they just allocate 5 and 6 to LNER for the London terminators?

That gives Northern full exclusive use of 0,1,2,3 and 4. I'm not sure if this idea is a problem solver but having designated platforms for services similar to a station like Southport might work better?

I'm taking my grandchildren on the train to Leeds this morning to look at the trains, so I'll have a good couple of hours watching that side of the station to see what happens.

I'm not sure of the lengths, sorry. However I do know that of those bay platforms, only 1 & 6 are long enough for the current MkIV LNER sets. P5 definitely isn't long enough (see the Google map link below where a MkIV is shown on P6 with P5 falling short of it's length, however when the 80xs come into play some will likely be 5 car sets for Bradford/Harrogate so they could use P5 easily, giving LNER P5,6,8. It would make more sense to utilise P0-4 for Northern Harrogate / Wharfe / Aire services, but I suspect that with the 4tph to Harrogate planned this extra capacity will be quickly eaten up, and paths to Bradford/Calder/Wakefield will still find their way onto P0-6 at some times during the day.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...d0213dca9!8m2!3d53.8007554!4d-1.5490774?hl=en

Just going all Crayolaista for a moment, I often wondered if (prior to it's refurbishment) the old City House, now known mockingly as Platform could have been demolished, and additional through platforms and bay extensions made through it's footprint & the existing concourse. This would have improved both through & terminiating capacity without necessarily needing too much in the way of reworking the throats into Leeds. Of course this was just some musing, that boat sailed long ago now.

 

[Ken H]

What are you suggesting though? That all bays should only ever have one train booked at once, because in a rare situation the front train may disrupt the rear train?

causes of delay need to be designed out. stacking in bays is a cause of delay.

 

[edwin_m]

Units are stabled in the 1-5 bays because there isn't much else you can do with them. If you want to send them to Neville Hill then this requires a two-way shunt, and same again to bring them back. If there is platform capacity available, better to just leave them be, with the added bonus that they can be drafted in if something else fails.

Perhaps in addition to Platform 0 they should build an extra stabling road (like there is at Marylebone) to dump spare units between turns.

Unfortunately a siding in this position also requires a double shunt to access a platform. Whereas if the train is stabled in the platform it doesn't need to move before/after passenger service.

I wonder if there is anywhere some stabling sidings could be added west of Leeds and with relatively easy access from the more northerly routes. This ought to be cheaper than providing the equivalent capacity as platforms, although there would be hassle with getting crews to and from trains stabled there.

 

[Bantamzen]

Unfortunately a siding in this position also requires a double shunt to access a platform. Whereas if the train is stabled in the platform it doesn't need to move before/after passenger service.

I wonder if there is anywhere some stabling sidings could be added west of Leeds and with relatively easy access from the more northerly routes. This ought to be cheaper than providing the equivalent capacity as platforms, although there would be hassle with getting crews to and from trains stabled there.

Unfortunately the only area that might be of use would be the car park to the north of P1 (and where P0 is going to be built), and perhaps an unused piece of land at Whitehall Road, which in itself would probably not be big enough. After that you've either got fairly well populated areas, or lines heading along embankments or through cuttings making building sidings very difficult.

 

[edwin_m]

Unfortunately the only area that might be of use would be the car park to the north of P1 (and where P0 is going to be built), and perhaps an unused piece of land at Whitehall Road, which in itself would probably not be big enough. After that you've either got fairly well populated areas, or lines heading along embankments or through cuttings making building sidings very difficult.

From the aerial mapping so I may be talking rubbish, but what about the south side of the Shipley line near Redcote Lane? Might need some earthworks and it's near the river, but there is what looks like a mega-electrical switching station alongside and one would hope they put that somewhere not too prone to flooding.

 

[Bantamzen]

From the aerial mapping so I may be talking rubbish, but what about the south side of the Shipley line near Redcote Lane? Might need some earthworks and it's near the river, but there is what looks like a mega-electrical switching station alongside and one would hope they put that somewhere not too prone to flooding.

The line & river from Kirkstall Forge heading south east are close to the same level, and are I'm afraid very prone to flooding. Indeed this is often the first part of the line that floods in the area. I'm not sure how the electrical station mitigates for this, although flooding is not usually severe on that side of the line although the canal itself can & does overflow too so it's a risky area to site sidings. Beyond the canal, the ground starts to rise quite quickly where the golf course is so may need too much work to make space.

 

[tbtc]

I had a little look at the numbers.

Over a two hour off-peak period (and filling in a “missing” LNER service, i.e. assuming that there was a regular half hourly London service, which will be the case when all of the 800/801s are in service), there’s the following (ignoring one freight service and a couple of Neville Hill ECS):

• Departures to the east: nine per hour
• Departures to the west: thirty per hour

…so around two departures per platform per hour, which doesn’t sound too bad (for those arguing that we should urgently build additional platforms). Spreading those numbers out over the throats you have the following:

• Armley (i.e. Horsforth, Ilkley, Shipley) – nine per hour
• Westgate/ Pudsey (i.e. Bradford Int, Dearne Valley, Doncaster, Fetherstone) – ten per hour
• Woodlesford/ Dewsbury (i.e. Castleford, Barnsley, TransPennine) – eleven per hour
• East (i.e. York/ Selby) – nine per hour

…none of this sounds too onerous for a pair of double tracks to cope with. Whilst the north/south arguments are never far away, I think you’d get laughed at by southerners if you tried to explain that each two track railway cannot cope with around ten services per hour (given the intensity of services down there).

The problem (as I see it) is the mixture of services and the complicated patterns.

• Services to the east ran from seven different platforms (seven, eight, nine, eleven, twelve, fourteen and fifteen).
  
• Services to “Armley” ran from six platforms (the bay platforms – one to five – plus one Skipton service ran from eight)
• Services to “Westgate”/ “Pudsey” ran from seven platforms (six, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen)
  
• Services to “Woodlesford”/” Dewsbury” ran from seven platforms (ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen and seventeen)

That means that some platforms have a complicated pattern of services with trains to more than one pair of lines (bearing in mind that there are only four pairs of lines out of Leeds – one to the east and three to the west):

• Platform eight had trains to Armley, Westgate and the east (Skipton, Edinburgh and London).
• Nine had trains to Pudsey and the east (Manchester Victoria and York).
• Ten had trains to Dewsbury and Westgate (Huddersfield and Doncaster)
• Eleven had trains to Woodlesford, Pudsey and Westgate and the east (Lincoln, Preston and Plymouth plus ECS to Neville Hill)
• Twelve had trains to Woodlesford, Westgate, Pudsey and the east) (Knottingley by two different routes plus Hull, Preston and Plymouth)
• Fifteen was mainly eastbound TPE but also one westbound Knottingley departure

No wonder the station struggles with capacity. If you split the fifteen platforms that can access the western throat (i.e. ignoring seven and fourteen) then you’d have five platforms each for around ten departures per hour on each “pair” of lines.

Obviously some platform occupancy will differ – London trains might lay over for half an hour whilst the frequent terminating 333s might get around ten minutes and “through” services only around five minutes.

But we could do a lot better with the platform capacity that we already have, without needing to waste any Crayola. Run Leeds as three parallel stations, with minimal interaction between them. Focus on longer trains rather than forcing more short services through congested lines.

If you want to spend money then spend it on electrification to ensure faster acceleration and introduce a homogenous fleet for more local services (so that it’s easier for an inbound service to form the next outbound service, instead of the current muddle of 142/144/150/153/155/158/170s on Northern’s diesel services).

(instead, we have introduced more two carriage services in the last year or so – like the second Knottingley service, the “short” Northern service to York… and we are creating a world with more combinations of paired routes – regular London trains to Harrogate/ Bradford, the regular reversal of the forthcoming Nottingham – Bradford service, the Hull – Halifax train…).

 

[Bantamzen]

I had a little look at the numbers.

Over a two hour off-peak period (and filling in a “missing” LNER service, i.e. assuming that there was a regular half hourly London service, which will be the case when all of the 800/801s are in service), there’s the following (ignoring one freight service and a couple of Neville Hill ECS):

• Departures to the east: nine per hour
• Departures to the west: thirty per hour

…so around two departures per platform per hour, which doesn’t sound too bad (for those arguing that we should urgently build additional platforms). Spreading those numbers out over the throats you have the following:

• Armley (i.e. Horsforth, Ilkley, Shipley) – nine per hour
• Westgate/ Pudsey (i.e. Bradford Int, Dearne Valley, Doncaster, Fetherstone) – ten per hour
• Woodlesford/ Dewsbury (i.e. Castleford, Barnsley, TransPennine) – eleven per hour
• East (i.e. York/ Selby) – nine per hour

…none of this sounds too onerous for a pair of double tracks to cope with. Whilst the north/south arguments are never far away, I think you’d get laughed at by southerners if you tried to explain that each two track railway cannot cope with around ten services per hour (given the intensity of services down there).

The problem (as I see it) is the mixture of services and the complicated patterns.

• Services to the east ran from seven different platforms (seven, eight, nine, eleven, twelve, fourteen and fifteen).
  
• Services to “Armley” ran from six platforms (the bay platforms – one to five – plus one Skipton service ran from eight)
• Services to “Westgate”/ “Pudsey” ran from seven platforms (six, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen)
  
• Services to “Woodlesford”/” Dewsbury” ran from seven platforms (ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen and seventeen)

That means that some platforms have a complicated pattern of services with trains to more than one pair of lines (bearing in mind that there are only four pairs of lines out of Leeds – one to the east and three to the west):

• Platform eight had trains to Armley, Westgate and the east (Skipton, Edinburgh and London).
• Nine had trains to Pudsey and the east (Manchester Victoria and York).
• Ten had trains to Dewsbury and Westgate (Huddersfield and Doncaster)
• Eleven had trains to Woodlesford, Pudsey and Westgate and the east (Lincoln, Preston and Plymouth plus ECS to Neville Hill)
• Twelve had trains to Woodlesford, Westgate, Pudsey and the east) (Knottingley by two different routes plus Hull, Preston and Plymouth)
• Fifteen was mainly eastbound TPE but also one westbound Knottingley departure

No wonder the station struggles with capacity. If you split the fifteen platforms that can access the western throat (i.e. ignoring seven and fourteen) then you’d have five platforms each for around ten departures per hour on each “pair” of lines.

Obviously some platform occupancy will differ – London trains might lay over for half an hour whilst the frequent terminating 333s might get around ten minutes and “through” services only around five minutes.

But we could do a lot better with the platform capacity that we already have, without needing to waste any Crayola. Run Leeds as three parallel stations, with minimal interaction between them. Focus on longer trains rather than forcing more short services through congested lines.

If you want to spend money then spend it on electrification to ensure faster acceleration and introduce a homogenous fleet for more local services (so that it’s easier for an inbound service to form the next outbound service, instead of the current muddle of 142/144/150/153/155/158/170s on Northern’s diesel services).

(instead, we have introduced more two carriage services in the last year or so – like the second Knottingley service, the “short” Northern service to York… and we are creating a world with more combinations of paired routes – regular London trains to Harrogate/ Bradford, the regular reversal of the forthcoming Nottingham – Bradford service, the Hull – Halifax train…).

By and large this already happens. Platforms 1-5 are generally used by Harrogate / Wharfe / Aire services, P6 & 8 mainly by LNER & XC with a few others, P9, 10, 11, 12 used primarily for through services to & from the Wakefield & Calder services & their terminators, with P13, 15 & 16 used by TPE through & terminators & P17 for Castleford services. (The new Nottingham-Bradford will presumably use the middle set of platforms and need minimal crossovers through the throat, leaving along the same route that it arrived via Wakefield Westgate).

I do find it interesting though that you are advocating further electrification, presumably starting with the full North TP / York / Hull and then perhaps the routes out towards Huddersfield, Calder & Harrogate? I would certainly welcome that although it would be considerably more expensive that provisioning for a couple more platforms, which would require the devastation of nothing more than a ground level car park and some new track / signal work at the western end (which is going to be needed anyway).

 

[Meerkat]

Wouldn’t quadrupling out to where HS2 crosses (and then building that cut off toward York early) solve all sorts of problems?
Sure it will be expensive but the speeding up of fast services and the ability to run stoppers through central either to Neville Hill or on to Selby direction would make a huge difference.

 

[EM2]

But we could do a lot better with the platform capacity that we already have, without needing to waste any Crayola. Run Leeds as three parallel stations, with minimal interaction between them. Focus on longer trains rather than forcing more short services through congested lines.

Just as examples...
What do you do when your service to or from the west has to move on to Holbeck Loco next? Or was stabled there beforehand?
That would need to use the higher numbered bays or the through platforms.
If it needs to run to or from Neville Hill, it can't use a bay platform at all without reversing at Leeds West Jn.
And of course, that assumes that the rolling stock diagram keeps it on the same services all day. If a unit runs from Harrogate to Leeds, then out towards Selby, then back to Leeds, then to Huddersfield via Bradford Interchange, then back to Leeds via Dewsbury...you get the idea.

 

[DarloRich]

But we could do a lot better with the platform capacity that we already have, without needing to waste any Crayola. Run Leeds as three parallel stations, with minimal interaction between them. Focus on longer trains rather than forcing more short services through congested lines.

If you want to spend money then spend it on electrification to ensure faster acceleration and introduce a homogenous fleet for more local services

agreed

Just as examples...
What do you do when your service to or from the west has to move on to Holbeck Loco next? Or was stabled there beforehand?
That would need to use the higher numbered bays or the through platforms.
If it needs to run to or from Neville Hill, it can't use a bay platform at all without reversing at Leeds West Jn.
And of course, that assumes that the rolling stock diagram keeps it on the same services all day. If a unit runs from Harrogate to Leeds, then out towards Selby, then back to Leeds, then to Huddersfield via Bradford Interchange, then back to Leeds via Dewsbury...you get the idea.

then the whole allocation of trains to services needs looking at to reduce conflicts

 

[30907]

agreed



then the whole allocation of trains to services needs looking at to reduce conflicts

Not sure there is a huge amount of planned swapping between routes as EM2 describes (possibly some of the S and C/Lancaster diagrams, but they are a small proportion of the services using platforms 1-5). However, the Holbeck/Neville Hill issue is a real one, as the nearest alternative berthing point is Forster Square (one train only, but it is IIRC used between the peaks!). There isn't anywhere obvious to put sidings accessible from 1-5 without a reversal.

 

[Clip]

Just as examples...
What do you do when your service to or from the west has to move on to Holbeck Loco next? Or was stabled there beforehand?
That would need to use the higher numbered bays or the through platforms.
If it needs to run to or from Neville Hill, it can't use a bay platform at all without reversing at Leeds West Jn.
And of course, that assumes that the rolling stock diagram keeps it on the same services all day. If a unit runs from Harrogate to Leeds, then out towards Selby, then back to Leeds, then to Huddersfield via Bradford Interchange, then back to Leeds via Dewsbury...you get the idea.

Maybe use some of that 'Smart Timetabling' that we have been told must be used on the WCML instead of HS2 - im surprised it hasnt been mentioned here as its apparent that it would work here too - or is that a no go because it would then mean money wasnt spent in the north on the infrastructure and thus is a no go

 

[tbtc]

By and large this already happens. Platforms 1-5 are generally used by Harrogate / Wharfe / Aire services, P6 & 8 mainly by LNER & XC with a few others, P9, 10, 11, 12 used primarily for through services to & from the Wakefield & Calder services & their terminators, with P13, 15 & 16 used by TPE through & terminators & P17 for Castleford services. (The new Nottingham-Bradford will presumably use the middle set of platforms and need minimal crossovers through the throat, leaving along the same route that it arrived via Wakefield Westgate)

Ideally that's what happens but I am surprised at just how "random" the departures can be at Leeds - this also causes problems when a couple of hundred passengers have to get from one island platform to another at short notice because their planned service is diverted (which can add another five minutes onto the departure time by the time the stragglers are on board).

I'm sure that it's not easy for the signallers etc - and I'm not trying to suggest things are simple - but I do wonder how much worse it's going to be once we start running regular services like London - Harrogate which will make things even messier

I do find it interesting though that you are advocating further electrification, presumably starting with the full North TP / York / Hull and then perhaps the routes out towards Huddersfield, Calder & Harrogate? I would certainly welcome that although it would be considerably more expensive that provisioning for a couple more platforms, which would require the devastation of nothing more than a ground level car park and some new track / signal work at the western end (which is going to be needed anyway).

Agreed on the electrification - the costs of putting one additional platform into Leeds (and time taken between closing the section of car park and opening the new platform) seem phenomenal - whereas, since all of Leeds is electrified, the disruption of wiring towards Harrogate/ Bradford Interchange etc wouldn't cause problems at Leeds (but having EMUs accelerating away from Leeds would speed up departures - in terms of the crucial time between leaving the platform and clearing the far side of the "throat").

Just as examples...
What do you do when your service to or from the west has to move on to Holbeck Loco next? Or was stabled there beforehand?
That would need to use the higher numbered bays or the through platforms.
If it needs to run to or from Neville Hill, it can't use a bay platform at all without reversing at Leeds West Jn.
And of course, that assumes that the rolling stock diagram keeps it on the same services all day. If a unit runs from Harrogate to Leeds, then out towards Selby, then back to Leeds, then to Huddersfield via Bradford Interchange, then back to Leeds via Dewsbury...you get the idea.

Good point about Holbeck (though I don't know how many times a day this happens). Shame this kind of capacity wasn't tackled when building the two new stations in the Aire Valley - e.g. part of the planning for Kirkstall Forge could have included sidings for a handful of 333s to be parked up off-peak.

But (to answer your second point) the complicated diagrams that Northern have (to try and squeeze as much out of their fleet as possible) are ultimately part of the problem and something that forces them towards more self-contained diagrams would improve reliability.

The kind of "Harrogate - Leeds then Leeds - Selby" diagrams that you mention have all of the complicated potential for disruption without the actual passenger benefit of being advertised as a through train - the worst of both worlds. Sometimes necessary, sure, but I think that Northern do too much of this (admittedly something inherited from the SercoAbellio version of the franchise).

No wonder services get disrupted when we import delays from one corridor onto another.