Improvements at Leeds during other work

[YorksLad12]

Before I start: yes, I know the railway doesn't really work like this, and that lead times are longer than a long thing. But...

At some point in the next few years there will be a need to run wires from Leeds up to Church Fenton. That's going to mean service disruption. It might mean the stopping service being replaced by bus, TPE services running via Castleford into Leeds (but not all of them). CrossCountry might avoid Leeds altogether.

The point is, there could be fewer trains for a while. Fewer trains means platforms can be closed off and 'small' projects carried out. What would you do, assuming you started planning now (and the money could be magiced up)?

Close P17 for extension, decanting (and lengthening) services onto P16A/B while there are fewer TPE services?
Replace/extend the canopies (especially over P17!)?
Widen the eastern footbridge?
Build a 75m turnback at the east, over the bridge?
Improve the ped flow around the gate line, perhaps open the route to P7/P8 round the back of the information booth?

Something else?

 

[JonathanH]

Close P17 for extension, decanting (and lengthening) services onto P16A/B while there are fewer TPE services?

We could have another thread about how platform 17 could feasibly be extended. The main access to platform 16 would need to be closed while any extension to platform 17 was progressing. I don't see how the points can be moved.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think works out towards Church Fenton will close the west end of Leeds. In fact there could well be more trains via Woodlesford as an alternative route to York. So I don't believe this would be an opportunity to work on P17, which mainly serves that route.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I don't think works out towards Church Fenton will close the west end of Leeds. In fact there could well be more trains via Woodlesford as an alternative route to York. So I don't believe this would be an opportunity to work on P17, which mainly serves that route.

But there are plans for works to the viaduct!

 

[edwin_m]

But there are plans for works to the viaduct!

Which viaduct?

 

[Halish Railway]

Which viaduct?

The viaduct between Leeds station and the Richmond Hill cutting - The reason for which hasn’t entirely been made apparent.

Regarding platform 17, yet it needs to be extended by at least another 50 meters, but it really ought to be given its own dedicated track between the station and Leeds East Junction to totally isolate it from Transpennine Express services which would make it a much more substantial project. Given that one of the goals of the TransPennine Route upgrade is to improve performance, this is an intervention that really should have been included in the scheme, as having 4 arrivals and departures each hour to and from the Hallam line and up to 6 fast and semi-fast TransPennine trains each hour on a single track will not produce ideal results.

 

[Ben427]

Before I start: yes, I know the railway doesn't really work like this, and that lead times are longer than a long thing. But...

At some point in the next few years there will be a need to run wires from Leeds up to Church Fenton. That's going to mean service disruption. It might mean the stopping service being replaced by bus, TPE services running via Castleford into Leeds (but not all of them). CrossCountry might avoid Leeds altogether.

The point is, there could be fewer trains for a while. Fewer trains means platforms can be closed off and 'small' projects carried out. What would you do, assuming you started planning now (and the money could be magiced up)?

Close P17 for extension, decanting (and lengthening) services onto P16A/B while there are fewer TPE services?
Replace/extend the canopies (especially over P17!)?
Widen the eastern footbridge?
Build a 75m turnback at the east, over the bridge?
Improve the ped flow around the gate line, perhaps open the route to P7/P8 round the back of the information booth?

Something else?

The TRU wiring won't close the railway that long as others have said.

A fair bit of what you've mentioned (and more) is in the pipeline for Leeds station (TfN board in September had an overview which may be of interest).

 

[Halish Railway]

The TRU wiring won't close the railway that long as others have said.

It’s not the wiring that’s going to close the route for extended periods of time, but the civil engineering works, those being the realignment of the route around Neville Hill depot and reconstruction of the viaduct.

 

[Ben427]

It’s not the wiring that’s going to close the route for extended periods of time, but the civil engineering works, those being the realignment of the route around Neville Hill depot and reconstruction of the viaduct.

I assume you mean Marsh Lane viaduct? What plans exactly for that are under TRU?

There are replacements of the bridges around Marsh Lane/Kirkgate but they are relatively minor works in the scheme of things

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The OP's suggestion of widening the Eastern footbridge definitely gets a thumbs up from me, in theory at least. Ideally if possible you'd keep the current one in place while constructing a counterpart to the Western footbridge just west of the current narrow bridge, then remove the old bridge afterwards. Even better would be to provide access to the new bridge from the concourse complete with a second gateline, as this would reduce congestion at the foot of the escalators from the Western footbridge. Signposting to direct westbound TPE passengers for P16 to use the new footbridge would also reduce congestion for those accessing P17.

 

[Halish Railway]

I assume you mean Marsh Lane viaduct? What plans exactly for that are under TRU?

There are replacements of the bridges around Marsh Lane/Kirkgate but they are relatively minor works in the scheme of things

Thanks for pointing out the name of the viaduct. To me it hasn’t been made entirely apparent the reasons for reconstructing the viaduct, however, I’d assume that it’s necessary to increase the speed limit up to 55mph if I remember correctly.

 

[YorksLad12]

Regarding platform 17, yet it needs to be extended by at least another 50 meters, but it really ought to be given its own dedicated track between the station and Leeds East Junction to totally isolate it from Transpennine Express services which would make it a much more substantial project. Given that one of the goals of the TransPennine Route upgrade is to improve performance, this is an intervention that really should have been included in the scheme, as having 4 arrivals and departures each hour to and from the Hallam line and up to 6 fast and semi-fast TransPennine trains each hour on a single track will not produce ideal results.

It would be prohibitively expensive, I think, for the necessary infrastructure (especially for the normal traffic); a new viaduct across the canal where the West End pinch point is, plus the land take, plus using part of the unused viaduct as well for signalling gantries. Plus potentially more viaducting over Globe Road, depending on how far south you want tos tart separating the new route. Building work has started in the Globe Road/Water Lane area, which will probably abut the railway (stupidly). There's no room to slew the current track further north to fit a "route G" in.

The OP's suggestion of widening the Eastern footbridge definitely gets a thumbs up from me, in theory at least. Ideally if possible you'd keep the current one in place while constructing a counterpart to the Western footbridge just west of the current narrow bridge, then remove the old bridge afterwards. Even better would be to provide access to the new bridge from the concourse complete with a second gateline, as this would reduce congestion at the foot of the escalators from the Western footbridge. Signposting to direct westbound TPE passengers for P16 to use the new footbridge would also reduce congestion for those accessing P17.

It's a thought. A cheaper option would be to open up the route behind the information kiosk, so no additional gates required.

The TRU wiring won't close the railway that long as others have said.

I suppose what I'm saying is "if there was a possession east of Leeds for TRU work, what else could you usefully do at Leeds during that possession that would otherwise require its own possession?"

 

[Ben427]

Thanks for pointing out the name of the viaduct. To me it hasn’t been made entirely apparent the reasons for reconstructing the viaduct, however, I’d assume that it’s necessary to increase the speed limit up to 55mph if I remember correctly.

The section of marsh lane viaduct being reconstructed for TRU is just HUL 4/40 bridge and the Kirkgate bridge

It's not the rest of what is known as Marsh Lane viaduct (i.e. the whole thing from the station eastwards) which would lead to disruption.

Hul 4/40 along with the Kirkgate bridge is relatively straightforward. You're correct it's for speed increases and the associated loading.

Any significant work to the entire Marsh Lane viaduct e.g. triple or quad tracking would likely come under NPR if anything I believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2024 ==

It would be prohibitively expensive, I think, for the necessary infrastructure (especially for the normal traffic); a new viaduct across the canal where the West End pinch point is, plus the land take, plus using part of the unused viaduct as well for signalling gantries. Plus potentially more viaducting over Globe Road, depending on how far south you want tos tart separating the new route. Building work has started in the Globe Road/Water Lane area, which will probably abut the railway (stupidly). There's no room to slew the current track further north to fit a "route G" in.


It's a thought. A cheaper option would be to open up the route behind the information kiosk, so no additional gates required.


I suppose what I'm saying is "if there was a possession east of Leeds for TRU work, what else could you usefully do at Leeds during that possession that would otherwise require its own possession?"

I suppose the issue is alot of the services will still be leaving Leeds, just going via the Castleford diversion that has been provided by TRU so I'm not sure how fewer trains will be using the station

 

[WAB]

Rip out the booking office, pay train lobby, some of the TVMs, Caffe Nero stand and Upper Crust stand, and replace them with more compact facilities making use of the travel centre footprint to keep a wider area clear for throughflow, and perhaps include a passenger assistance lounge too.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Rip out the booking office, pay train lobby, some of the TVMs, Caffe Nero stand and Upper Crust stand, and replace them with more compact facilities making use of the travel centre footprint to keep a wider area clear for throughflow, and perhaps include a passenger assistance lounge too.

and while theyre at it kick out boots and move that box from the middle of the Southern concourse into it.

We got rid of Burger King and whatever the other one was on the Southern concourse by the doors only to later have a giant box plopped in the middle of it.

NR did a great job until they filled the space up with benches everywhere that its a pain in the arse to move through.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's a thought. A cheaper option would be to open up the route behind the information kiosk, so no additional gates required.

My suggestion of another gateline was more to encourage footfall towards the improved eastern footbridge. Crowd dynamics being what they are, if the only access to the platforms is via the existing gateline then it'll be difficult to encourage a significant proportion of passengers to use the eastern bridge as they'll have to double back on themselves to walk up platform 8. People tend not to like doing that as it feels unnatural and inefficient.
With a second set of gates where WH Smiths is currently, this would also reduce congestion around the existing gateline and the main access to the western footbridge.

 

[xotGD]

Plenty of passengers use the eastern footbridge when arriving at that end of the station*. But very few departing passengers use it to reach their platform, even when heading to 9D or 11D. Some better signage to encourage more people to go that way might help.

Except for arrivals into 15, as it a double back to reach it.

 

[YorksLad12]

My suggestion of another gateline was more to encourage footfall towards the improved eastern footbridge. Crowd dynamics being what they are, if the only access to the platforms is via the existing gateline then it'll be difficult to encourage a significant proportion of passengers to use the eastern bridge as they'll have to double back on themselves to walk up platform 8. People tend not to like doing that as it feels unnatural and inefficient.
With a second set of gates where WH Smiths is currently, this would also reduce congestion around the existing gateline and the main access to the western footbridge.

Fair point. I suspect the issue will be with passengers coming off a train on P8, or dashing through the gates to catch a train on P8. You could cut the corner of the WH Smith unit off, I suppose, so people would still have to turn rather than run across (thinking ped flow / H&S here).

Plenty of passengers use the eastern footbridge when arriving at that end of the station*. But very few departing passengers use it to reach their platform, even when heading to 9D or 11D. Some better signage to encourage more people to go that way might help.

Except for arrivals into 15, as it a double back to reach it.

Indeed. Many years ago the 0740 to Sheffield used to leave from 11D; I always took the eastern footbridge to get that way. Eventually, one of the regulars started doing the same as she'd seen me do it!