How could the eastern approach to Leeds be improved?

[Halifaxlad]

East Garforth is hardly insignificant though.

I certainly don't believe it is insignificant although I do question its justification for being built! How many of its users would simply have used Garforth instead ? Just closing it altogether would be much cheaper compromise than by building a brand new station for around 20 million quid!

My idea is to rationalise the two Garforth stations into one (which has in the past been proposed) to reduce station stops on a very busy 2 track section.

Its a good idea but it won't achieve much on its own.

Like I said, if these yet to be built houses need yet another station to be built to block the route up even more then a planning application can be put in at the planning stage for the houses. If the houses are planned and a station hasn’t been planned then I think that says it all really.

I don't like this idea of allowing stations because someone wants to build houses nearby and for that matter I don't even really like this idea of Thorpe Park!

Better still the much vaunted East Leeds Parkway replacing Micklefield would be ideal and then you have two railhead/P&R’s serving all these new houses (ELP & Thorpe Park) and Garforth & Cross Gates still have their stations. No extra stops required.

Moving East Garforth so its on the straight (to the East) isn't an 'extra stop' since it already exists!

Starting to move stations away from one area to serve another does nothing except rob Peter to pay Paul. The obsession of building a station to serve every new lamppost bemuses me. I thought this thread was about easing the congestion east of Leeds.

(See above)

I do agree with you with regards to this obsession of building brand new stations at every lampost, although if fasts were separated from the slows along this section then it wouldn't really matter.

 

[YorksLad12]

East Garforth has around half the usage of Cross Gates (unless you meant the Garforth stations combined, in which case I take it back!)

Yes. I should have added the figures to make that clearer. Last year Cross Gates had 519,234; Garforth had 629,206; East Garforth had 223,590. I don't think that Garforth as it is could cope with an extra 220k passengers per year but a rebuilt station with foot access (and footpath improvements) to Bar Lane would give passengers options in and out.

 

[tbtc]

Playing devils advocate but is it not the service pattern that is the issue more so than the physical route (which admittedly still has issues). Is there a need for so many services each hour?

Based on pre-covid services I question the following services:-
Does TPE really need 2 services to Newcastle each hour?
Does Northern really need a stopper and an express each hour?

Get rid of one of the Newcastle services and either start the Blackpool service from Leeds or make this the all stops inc Church Fenton from York to Leeds and that’s 2 paths immediately freed up (which some people would no doubt suggest immediately filling with London services or something else equally pointless because Micklefield is an untapped market).

Maybe unsurprisingly, I'm of the opinion that we are running to many trains per hour on this corridor (1x XC, 5x TPE, 3x Northern - plus whatever freight and ECS to/from Neville Hill) - which means running lots of short trains rather than fewer/longer ones.

That's seven York services and two Hull services per hour - and the York ones look like they could be thinned out a little bit (with the remaining services lengthened to compensate)

I'd tackle that before spending millions on infrastructure (though, ultimately, I do tend to agree with suggestions about passing loops long enough to allow trains to be overtaken)

I don't like this idea of allowing stations because someone wants to build houses nearby and for that matter I don't even really like this idea of Thorpe Park!

What's the problem with Thorpe Park, out of interest?

If done properly (AFAICS), it could be a great way of taking motorists off the M1 and also providing a terminus fora number of services that approach Leeds from the west (thus freeing up platform capacity) - but I don't know what the most recent plans for it are (as @YorksLad12 pointed out above, there seems to be a genera acceptance that Something Must Be Done east of Leeds but the preferred "solution" keeps changing!)

 

[geordieblue]

What's the problem with Thorpe Park, out of interest?

If done properly (AFAICS), it could be a great way of taking motorists off the M1 and also providing a terminus fora number of services that approach Leeds from the west (thus freeing up platform capacity) - but I don't know what the most recent plans for it are (as @YorksLad12 pointed out above, there seems to be a genera acceptance that Something Must Be Done east of Leeds but the preferred "solution" keeps changing!)

IIRC the plan for Thorpe Park now is a basic two-platform through station, like every other one between Leeds and Micklefield - it's replaced the East Leeds Parkway concept and there won't be any trains terminating there, though I imagine it'll still have a decentish car park.

 

[HST43257]

4tph TPE (1 to NCL, 1 to SLB, 1 to SCA & 1 to HUL)
1tph XC (to EDB)

Make those 4tph to York an even every 15 mins timetable, with the Hull TPE just behind the XC, after being part of a 4tph TPE frequency from Manchester (and beyond).

Then the stoppers:
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, East Garforth, Micklefield and York.
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, Church Fenton and York.
1tph Leeds to Selby calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, East Garforth, Micklefield, South Milford and Selby.
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, South Milford, Sherburn-in-Elmet, Church Fenton and York.

I’d like to see a curve from South Milford to Sherburn to allow that 4th stopper. Garforth and East Garforth could be merged I guess, but I kept them separate for the time being.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Far too sensible, it'll never catch on....

 

[David Goddard]

I like the idea of this as well but would remove the XC service from this section completely by switching the legs over so that the South West to North East train is rerouted from Sheffield via Doncaster, while the current Reading to Newcastle train goes to Leeds instead and terminates there.
Speeds up the longest distance service by removing the Leeds diversion and Leeds to Newcastle and beyond is amply covered by TPX now
No personal agenda there as I'm more likely to want to go to York so would need to change!

 

[Glenn1969]

I think Sheffield-Leeds-York express needs to be 2tph post Covid but am not sure how you fit it in without NPR

 

[YorksLad12]

I think Sheffield-Leeds-York express needs to be 2tph post Covid but am not sure how you fit it in without NPR

Off-topic a bit, but I disagree. York-Sheffield passengers won't be - or shouldn't be - travelling via Leeds if the other route is faster. Better to terminate the XC service at Sheffield (or send it elsewhere if platforming issues) and introduce the Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe service - but half-hourly. Fewer perturbations to worry about, separates out the locals from long-distance passengers on that route and (back on topic) frees up a path or eases congestion between Leeds and York.

 

[Neptune]

4tph TPE (1 to NCL, 1 to SLB, 1 to SCA & 1 to HUL)
1tph XC (to EDB)

Make those 4tph to York an even every 15 mins timetable, with the Hull TPE just behind the XC, after being part of a 4tph TPE frequency from Manchester (and beyond).

Then the stoppers:
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, East Garforth, Micklefield and York.
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, Church Fenton and York.
1tph Leeds to Selby calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, East Garforth, Micklefield, South Milford and Selby.
1tph Leeds to York calling at Cross Gates, Thorpe Park, Garforth, South Milford, Sherburn-in-Elmet, Church Fenton and York.

I’d like to see a curve from South Milford to Sherburn to allow that 4th stopper. Garforth and East Garforth could be merged I guess, but I kept them separate for the time being.

The idea for the expresses make sense however the whole idea is to unlock the route which is what I tried to do by knocking 2 trains out, not add more stoppers in their place that are quite frankly not needed.

Micklefield - Leeds is quite happy at 2tph.

I see you’ve knocked Hull (pop 250k+) back down to 1tph to give Sherburn (pop 6657) which is close enough to Church Fenton a link to Leeds and added in an expensive chord (who’s going to justify funding it for that?). That service also adds another conflicting move at Micklefield which locks the route up further.

 

[HST43257]

The idea for the expresses make sense however the whole idea is to unlock the route which is what I tried to do by knocking 2 trains out, not add more stoppers in their place that are quite frankly not needed.

Micklefield - Leeds is quite happy at 2tph.

To have 2tph is extremely limiting. 1tph Leeds to York slow simply isn’t enough. Have 4tph running slow/semi fast (including the Selby) as 4 car EMU services (post TRU).

I see you’ve knocked Hull (pop 250k+) back down to 1tph to give Sherburn (pop 6657) which is close enough to Chiech Fenton a link to Leeds and added in an expensive chord (who’s going to justify funding it for that?). That service also adds another conflicting move at Micklefield which locks the route up further.

I think Halifax to Hull was a joke of a service, but there’d be paths straight after York expresses for extra Leeds to Hull services (fast to Selby). I just haven’t added them in the service pattern as I can’t see what service they’d be part of.

Sherburn is rapidly growing, and I’d like to see Leeds - Sherburn and York - S Milford rail connections to promote rail travel. The chord can act as a diversionary route as well, in the event of something blocking the current Church Fenton to Micklefield route.

 

[Neptune]

To have 2tph is extremely limiting. 1tph Leeds to York slow simply isn’t enough. Have 4tph running slow/semi fast (including the Selby) as 4 car EMU services (post TRU).

In what way is 1tph Leeds - York stopping not enough? These trains ran almost empty during the day pre COVID. The busy core section between Mickey and Leeds has 2tph. Perhaps TPE could put in a few additional stops on their services if there is a sudden spike in Micklefield - York travel (from experience it’s about 2 passengers per train on average making Mickey - York and vv journeys off peak). Church Fenton certainly doesn’t justify a 2tph service.

I think Halifax to Hull was a joke of a service, but there’d be paths straight after York expresses for extra Leeds to Hull services (fast to Selby). I just haven’t added them in the service pattern as I can’t see what service they’d be part of.

Sherburn is rapidly growing, and I’d like to see Leeds - Sherburn and York - S Milford rail connections to promote rail travel. The chord can act as a diversionary route as well, in the event of something blocking the current Church Fenton to Micklefield route.

Why is HFX - HUL a joke? It allows much used cross Leeds journeys and also links Halifax and Bradford to Hull. It also gives the east Leeds stations a direct Hull service. Why does Leeds - Hull need to be all express. Why this allergy to additional stops between Leeds and Hull.

If Sherburn is so desperate for a Leeds service wouldn’t you rather see a Leeds - York via Castleford (everyone seems to believe in the Castleford - York market). It would be a damn site cheaper than a new chord. Is York - South Milford an untapped market that you’ve been investigating? There is a diversionary route already in place via Castleford which funnily enough is in use this very morning.

Again we’re trying to look at solutions that are realistic and cost effective but suddenly we are having suggestions that cost lots of money for little return with less capacity than we started with.

 

[Purple Orange]

To reduce Leeds-York, I’d propose terminating the XC at Leeds rather than having diesel running under wires further up the ECML. The TPE service to Edinburgh is a much more appropriate use of capacity with a 5-car 802 running on electric from Colton to Edinburgh, as opposed to a 4-car 221 spewing diesel out for several hundred miles.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE are still running on diesel power north of Morpeth, although in fairness this is only temporary until the juice is boosted but that is expected to take around 2 years to get sorted

 

[Neptune]

To reduce Leeds-York, I’d propose terminating the XC at Leeds rather than having diesel running under wires further up the ECML. The TPE service to Edinburgh is a much more appropriate use of capacity with a 5-car 802 running on electric from Colton to Edinburgh, as opposed to a 4-car 221 spewing diesel out for several hundred miles.

Where would you stable the unit for over an hour though. You wouldn’t be able to turn it around in the 6 or so minutes between northbound and southbound services and you wouldn’t want to start shunting it off anywhere taking up even more valuable paths.

Also why are TPE passengers more important than XC on this section? Why for instance do passengers from Wakefield not deserve a through service to York and beyond and those from Huddersfield get multiple services per hour? Everyone bangs on about through services then quite happily accept 2 per hour going between the same places (Manchester - Newcastle & vv) and happily penalise another large catchment area (Wakefield) to accommodate it.

 

[Purple Orange]

Where would you stable the unit for over an hour though. You wouldn’t be able to turn it around in the 6 or so minutes between northbound and southbound services and you wouldn’t want to start shunting it off anywhere taking up even more valuable paths.

Also why are TPE passengers more important than XC on this section? Why for instance do passengers from Wakefield not deserve a through service to York and beyond and those from Huddersfield get multiple services per hour? Everyone bangs on about through services then quite happily accept 2 per hour going between the same places (Manchester - Newcastle & vv) and happily penalise another large catchment area (Wakefield) to accommodate it.

From Leeds onwards there is no difference between TPE & XC passengers. Sheffield could still have an Edinburgh service if the other XC was extended to a Edinburgh rather than terminate at Newcastle. Wakefield is a much smaller catchment and would be inconvenienced, but I think the reduced carbon is justification enough.

 

[Neptune]

From Leeds onwards there is no difference between TPE & XC passengers. Sheffield could still have an Edinburgh service if the other XC was extended to a Edinburgh rather than terminate at Newcastle. Wakefield is a much smaller catchment and would be inconvenienced, but I think the reduced carbon is justification enough.

Ok but that doesn’t answer my question about capacity which is what this thread is about. Your plan releases a path to the east but then clogs up Leeds station all day with a stabled XC unit (including 2 platforms for 6 minutes in each hour when the northbound and southbound are both in). That will make matters a whole lot worse than the current situation.

 

[Purple Orange]

Ok but that doesn’t answer my question about capacity which is what this thread is about. Your plan releases a path to the east but then clogs up Leeds station all day with a stabled XC unit (including 2 platforms for 6 minutes in each hour when the northbound and southbound are both in). That will make matters a whole lot worse than the current situation.

No I don’t know the answer to that. But then the alternative of terminating a TPE service would have the same issue surely?

 

[YorksLad12]

I see you’ve knocked Hull (pop 250k+) back down to 1tph to give Sherburn (pop 6657) which is close enough to Church Fenton a link to Leeds and added in an expensive chord (who’s going to justify funding it for that?). That service also adds another conflicting move at Micklefield which locks the route up further.

I'd be in favour of a South Milford-Sherburn chord, as it would give both places a new or additional link to Leeds as part of the Travel to Work Area. Neither WYCA nor Leeds City Region seem interested in this (probably because they'd have no control over it) and there wasn't a curve there previously that could be reinstated so I accept it'll be a non-starter. But sending the stoppers that way would clear space on the direct route if there were any delays.

In what way is 1tph Leeds - York stopping not enough? These trains ran almost empty during the day pre COVID. The busy core section between Mickey and Leeds has 2tph. Perhaps TPE could put in a few additional stops on their services if there is a sudden spike in Micklefield - York travel (from experience it’s about 2 passengers per train on average making Mickey - York and vv journeys off peak). Church Fenton certainly doesn’t justify a 2tph service.

I think that's common to PTE areas; minimum 2tph through all stations where possible. In this case it's easy if you have a Leeds-York and Leeds-Selby/Hull stopper.

Where would you stable the unit for over an hour though. You wouldn’t be able to turn it around in the 6 or so minutes between northbound and southbound services and you wouldn’t want to start shunting it off anywhere taking up even more valuable paths.

Also why are TPE passengers more important than XC on this section? Why for instance do passengers from Wakefield not deserve a through service to York and beyond and those from Huddersfield get multiple services per hour? Everyone bangs on about through services then quite happily accept 2 per hour going between the same places (Manchester - Newcastle & vv) and happily penalise another large catchment area (Wakefield) to accommodate it.

I always forget that the XC services are currently timed to cross at Leeds. Currently. My other suggestion was to terminate them at Sheffield or send it via Doncaster to York. The new local fasts via Moorthorpe and Westgate could both extend from Leeds to York, giving Wakefield a better service to York than it has at present. If we had the paths (and York-Sheffield via Leeds and Westgate is 70 minutes). But if there was only one per hour you'd have a no-worse level of service but with fewer imported delays from longer routes.

The ultimate question is: Will Leeds to Micklefield be four-tracked? If yes we'll effectively have a separate railway for the fasts in the same way as will happen between Huddersfield and Dewsbury. If not, for punctuality and reliability we need to remove at least one service - I'd go with one of the fasts rather than a stopper, as a slow service is better than no service.

 

[Neptune]

No I don’t know the answer to that. But then the alternative of terminating a TPE service would have the same issue surely?

I have not and would never suggest that either.

 

[Purple Orange]

I have not and would never suggest that either.

No you didn’t, but it has been suggested on this thread.

 

[IanXC]

No worries. Personally I can’t see the point in it as it just creates another fast service to make it harder to diagram in the stoppers. Even pre-COVID you were lucky if there were more than a dozen on board between Church Fenton and Leeds, they could easily be accommodated on the stopper. The whole section of route need recasting with less services threading through.

The issue with Church Fenton is that if you have a stopper from Leeds to York depart immediately after an express, then if it were to call at Crossgates, Garforth, East Garforth, Micklefield *and* Church Fenton the next express wouldn't work as it would be delayed on approach to Church Fenton. Hence the stopper can only have 4 stops, and keeping the West Yorkshire stops on the same service is better for connectivity. As a result Church Fenton's Leeds service is left over, and the separate desire for a faster service from York to Bradford and onwards meant that that service running through the area was the obvious way of providing a Leeds service at Church Fenton. The Train Service Requirement in Arriva's franchise didn't require as many trains to call as do, but keeping an hourly pattern was seen as desirable, and to be fair passengers numbers are up from circa 75k in 2017/2018 to 119k in 2019/2020 (should be noted there were also improvements to the York - Hull service in the same timeframe).

 

[Neptune]

Herein lies the issue. There are too many short trains trying to pass through the same funnel.

In the scenario you lay as to why the stopper can’t also call at CHF then why not put the hourly Garforth call on the following TPE (which I believe it was anyway pre COVID). This then knocks out the 1 extra station downtime issue.

Mind you Thorpe Park will then come along and totally bugger it all up.

 

[IanXC]

Herein lies the issue. There are too many short trains trying to pass through the same funnel.

In the scenario you lay as to why the stopper can’t also call at CHF then why not put the hourly Garforth call on the following TPE (which I believe it was anyway pre COVID). This then knocks out the 1 extra station downtime issue.

Mind you Thorpe Park will then come along and totally bugger it all up.

Removing the Garforth call from the stopper would obliterate connectivity between these local stations.

It would make more sense to put the Church Fenton call into one of the TPE services...

Fingers crossed the acceleration of EMUs will significantly alleviate this issue.

 

[Neptune]

Removing the Garforth call from the stopper would obliterate connectivity between these local stations.

It would make more sense to put the Church Fenton call into one of the TPE services...

Fingers crossed the acceleration of EMUs will significantly alleviate this issue.

I never mentioned knocking the Garforth call out of the stopper. I said that if the following TPE that risks getting up the stoppers backside at Church Fenton called at Garforth also then it wouldn’t catch it up.