My idea to upgrade the Hallam line

[Halish Railway]

Ok, here goes my thought out, and what I believe to be a sensible and realistic way to radically improve services for users of the Hallam line.

It involves:
- Building four new bay platforms at Leeds in the area circled to eliminate conflicts with TPE services and the limitations to train lengths caused by having two trains share platform 17 at the same time. It is likely however, that the existing platform 17 may have to close in order to build a walkway/bridge wide enough to reach these new platforms.

- Building one, if not two new bay platforms at Castleford.
- Increase linespeeds; Ideally (judging by watching cab rides) 100mph from Hunslet Station Jn to Wakefield Kirkgate, 60mph on all lines at Horbury Jn, 70mph for trains diverging at Methley Jn as well as further into Castleford and 50mph for trains diverging at Altofts Jn.
- Electrify from Leeds to Knottingley, Hare Park Jn and Wakefield Westgate. (I don’t see much point in electrifying Oakenshaw Jn to Pontefract Monkhill owing to the low frequency of trains along that line).

The aim of all this is to;
- Increase punctuality, capacity and pathing flexibility by removing the conflict with TPE services at Leeds.
- Also increase capacity by removing the ridiculous situation in which all services along the Hallam line have to be 2-coaches long to fit into platform 17.
- Cut journey times between Leeds and Sheffield to be more similar to those of XC services travelling via Wakefield Westgate.
- Introduce EMUs on services to Knottingley and electric hauled Freightliner trains.
- Create an electrified diversionary route between Leeds and Hare Park Jn.

I don’t see to many engineering challenges along the route asides from completely realigning the track at Normanton. Thankfully the distancing of the existing four-aspect signals for most of the way between Leeds and Wakefield Kirkgate (0.75 miles) is large enough for any passenger train to come to a stop from passing a preliminary caution at 100mph, so hopefully not much re-signaling would be required.

As for service patterns I would have;
- The existing pre-COVID half-hourly semi fast service between Leeds and Sheffield (and beyond) retimed to account for linespeed improvements and formed of three or four carriage 195s.
- Increase the frequency of the Leeds to Knottingley service to half-hourly, formed of three carriage 331s (Hey, why not have the occasional 333 ).
- Increase the frequency of the all stations Sheffield to Leeds service to half-hourly, although have the second train per hour go non-stop from Normanton to Leeds and have the existing service eliminate the Woodlesford call. It must be noted that the second train per hour may have to start at Meadowhall or Barnsley if no paths are available into Sheffield.
- Extend the Huddersfield to Castleford service to Leeds, also calling at Woodlesford so that Woodlesford keeps its direct link to Normanton and Wakefield Kirkgate.
- In all, a net gain of three trains per hour into Leeds.

These services mean that Castleford would have 4tph to Leeds, and that Normanton, Woodlesford, Knottingley and Pontefract Monkhill would have 3tph to Leeds, including a non-stop train for Normanton. Note, 3tph from Knottingley and Pontefract Monkhill would be facilitated in combination with the existing hourly service via Wakefield Kirkgate.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that my ideas are as sensible as I believe they are? To what extent would the many users of the Hallam line on this forum welcome this idea if it was implemented?

 

[Neptune]

It’s not that long since we had a very similar thread about the Hallam line.

What I can’t get my head around is why you’d build 4 new platforms at Leeds on land that is already earmarked for redevelopment (not by NR). If the issue is over 2 trains sharing P17 then the best option is rejigging the timetable so there never needs to be 2 trains in p17.

A lot of what you propose seems to be an overkill of engineering. Aside from the huge works in Leeds why does Cas need 1 or 2 bay platforms? It is perfectly acceptable to turn back in the current platform and remember that p2 is to be recommissioned increasing flexibility.

I agree that electrification should be implemented but can see it in only between Leeds and Thornhill Junction with a potential via Cas in the near to mid future.

I think I proposed cutting LDS - SHF down to 2tph with both trains at some stage running fast either at the LDS end or the SHF end but all stopping at Normanton, Wakefield, Barnsley and Meadowhall. This would then allow a second LDS - KNO via CFD service which I agree would be a benefit. An equally spaced 15 minute departure from Leeds for the 4 services would then allow P17 to not be clogged with trains. Castleford would get 3tph from Leeds with 1tph from Huddersfield.

No need for a lavish expensive scheme just for the sake of it.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of the service pattern, Keep the Woodlesford stop on one of the Hallam stoppers and extend Huddersfield - Castleford to York instead. This would provide a whole new transport market.

 

[Neptune]

In terms of the service pattern, Keep the Woodlesford stop on one of the Hallam stoppers and extend Huddersfield - Castleford to York instead. This would provide a whole new transport market.

That’s what I said I’d do. I said that the 2 Leeds - Sheffield services would have different stopping patterns with one basically being a WY stopper and SY semi fast and the other being the opposite. Both services stopping at Normy gives that station the 2tph to Leeds it requires (one fast direct via Altofts and one stopping at Cas and Woodlesford).

 

[yorksrob]

That’s what I said I’d do. I said that the 2 Leeds - Sheffield services would have different stopping patterns with one basically being a WY stopper and SY semi fast and the other being the opposite. Both services stopping at Normy gives that station the 2tph to Leeds it requires (one fast direct via Altofts and one stopping at Cas and Woodlesford).

Great minds think alike !

For me though, I think the York link has untapped potential.

 

[Bigman]

I did suggest on another thread totally re-modelling Normanton and Horbury Jcn which would reduce the journey time.

 

[HST43257]

New platforms at Leeds aren’t required, especially if platforms 17 and 13 can be used more efficiently.

 

[Neptune]

Great minds think alike !

For me though, I think the York link has untapped potential.

3tph is overkill between Leeds and Sheffield on that route especially as 2 of those are fasts. The elephant in the room is the Nottingham service. Would it be added to one of those services or would the plan to run via Dearne finally come to fruition.

I’ve never had a great many passengers over the years wanting York from that area (race days excepted of course) but if the link was there then the benefits may be reaped. The question is pathing on the ECML section post May 2022.

New platforms at Leeds aren’t required, especially if platforms 17 and 13 can be used more efficiently.

To be fair both are used as best as is possible at the moment. P13 is occupied most of the hour with the Huddersfield stopper or the Wigan service.

P17 suffers at the moment from being occupied for nigh on 55 minutes by the Nottingham service due to the 2nd fast service not yet being reinstated. It is the only place to put that unit however. With a timetable rejig (which is not a simple task for those who think it is but is easier and cheaper than what is being proposed) the P17 bottleneck can be eliminated.

I’ve just had a thought about the OP. The proposed 4 platforms would need to be built on a massive concrete box to accommodate it looking at the location. How much would that cost with the sole benefit being an extra coach on a few trains. It would be probably cheaper to build a new station at Crown Point on the old goods yard!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2021 ==

I did suggest on another thread totally re-modelling Normanton and Horbury Jcn which would reduce the journey time.

Between them they would probably knock around 5 minutes off overall. Normanton is fine in the Leeds direction but the old alignment towards Wakefield should have been straightened out when the station buildings were demolished. That 30mph slack through the platform, whilst not causing a massive time penalty is an inconvenience rather than a major issue.

It’s difficult to see what could be done at Horbury to be honest. It’s slow but that’s probably because of location rather than any infrastructure issue. I’m sure something could be done to speed it up but again, it’s more an inconvenience than a major issue. The biggest pain is when you’re running a couple of minutes down and you are routed onto the slows with its 20mph limit over the next mile or 2 and you have then lost a further 2 minutes.

 

[Bald Rick]

It involves:
- Building four new bay platforms at Leeds in the area circled

My friends who live in that circle will be mightily displeased.

 

[Neptune]

My friends who live in that circle will be mightily displeased.

I’m trying to get my head around how tight the curve on the ‘new’ viaduct would need to be (C1 stock might even struggle) and how much concrete would be needed and how much it would cost for land purchase and how much it would cost for land clearance……

 

[YorksLad12]

It’s not that long since we had a very similar thread about the Hallam line.

What I can’t get my head around is why you’d build 4 new platforms at Leeds on land that is already earmarked for redevelopment (not by NR). If the issue is over 2 trains sharing P17 then the best option is rejigging the timetable so there never needs to be 2 trains in p17.

A lot of what you propose seems to be an overkill of engineering. Aside from the huge works in Leeds why does Cas need 1 or 2 bay platforms? It is perfectly acceptable to turn back in the current platform and remember that p2 is to be recommissioned increasing flexibility.

I agree that electrification should be implemented but can see it in only between Leeds and Thornhill Junction with a potential via Cas in the near to mid future.

I think I proposed cutting LDS - SHF down to 2tph with both trains at some stage running fast either at the LDS end or the SHF end but all stopping at Normanton, Wakefield, Barnsley and Meadowhall. This would then allow a second LDS - KNO via CFD service which I agree would be a benefit. An equally spaced 15 minute departure from Leeds for the 4 services would then allow P17 to not be clogged with trains. Castleford would get 3tph from Leeds with 1tph from Huddersfield.

No need for a lavish expensive scheme just for the sake of it.

Yes, I thought we solved the problem quite well! One additional stop on the semi-fasts, cut back (or even remove) the stopper, add an extra Leeds-Castleford shuttle are we're done with no need for additional rolling stock or major timetable rewrites.

My friends who live in that circle will be mightily displeased.

If they live in The Candle they're going to be a bit annoyed when P17 is extended, as the new platform end will be right underneath the balconies. They'd better hope the 170s never get cleared for the Hallam route they've been awfully loud this last week on the Harrogate line when I've had my windows open because of the heat.

Also: that map is out of date. My Google Maps app shows construction work in the triangular bit south of Globe Road.

Castleford (Central) only ever had the two platforms when it was busy, it doesn't need bays just P2 reinstating (and the associated signalling, CIS, etc.) - which might be happening anyway. Horbury Junction could do with some speeding up, and the route south of there to Sheffield is quite busy I believe - you can't simply chuck in a second service per hour, especially with the platforming problems at Sheffield.

If you ran four tracks in passenger service between Meadowhall and Brightside, and moved the junction point beyond brightside instead of just outside Meadowhall, you could have services from Barsley depart Meadowhall on time instead of waiting for the inevitably-delayed XC service to pass by...

 

[skyhigh]

If they live in The Candle they're going to be a bit annoyed when P17 is extended, as the new platform end will be right underneath the balconies. They'd better hope the 170s never get cleared for the Hallam route they've been awfully loud this last week on the Harrogate line when I've had my windows open because of the heat.

Also: that map is out of date. My Google Maps app shows construction work in the triangular bit south of Globe Road.

Is there a plan for p17 to get extended?

You're right, there's fairly significant building work underway on that land.

 

[Iskra]

We just need a longer P17 and Castleford P2 reinstating which is already happening; so just P17 lengthening remaining.

There has been plenty of thorough discussion on Hallam Line service provision on other threads fairly recently.

 

[Neptune]

Is there a plan for p17 to get extended?

You're right, there's fairly significant building work underway on that land.

Not quite so simple to extend p17. It would require the signal removing and more than likely trackwork to move the junction further away.

It’s a shame there probably isn’t space to have a self contained chord from p17 to Engine Shed Junction to avoid p16 clashes altogether. Better to recast the timetable so that 2 trains are not booked on p17 at the same time then there’s no need to go through the expense of track and signal works.

 

[YorksLad12]

Is there a plan for p17 to get extended?

I've seen it mentioned in various forward plans and strategies. I don't think there's a costed plan with dates attached.

Not quite so simple to extend p17. It would require the signal removing and more than likely trackwork to move the junction further away.

It’s a shame there probably isn’t space to have a self contained chord from p17 to Engine Shed Junction to avoid p16 clashes altogether. Better to recast the timetable so that 2 trains are not booked on p17 at the same time then there’s no need to go through the expense of track and signal works.

Yes. Useful as it would be, a 'G' route/chord would be quite expensive though as you'd be building a large section of viaduct just to access one platform. The annoying thing about Leeds is the amount of building on Granary Wharf. The southern entrance was dropped from the Leeds 1st project to save money and because there wouldn't be much demand for it; ten years later the demand was there but then the Blue apartments had been built, and the current entrance had to be built by having materials floted up river and swung in on a large crane. Now we have Waterman's Reach, the Candle and the hotel in the way of any southward development.

Equally, work has started on the new development between Globe Road and Whitehall Road, so that deck won't be able to be widened if necessary. An additional running line to help segregate Harrogate Line traffic was a proposal several years back. The thinking now seems to be that adding in the HS2 station will relieve pressure on the classic station which means it won't need to expand. Hm.

I think the way P17 works is an elegant solution, aided by the flighting of services around Methley. Semi-fast in, stopper in on top, stopper out, semi-fast out. Repeat every 30 minutes.

 

[billio]

I wonder if you are putting the extra platforms at Leeds in the right place. Would it not be better to let trains run through platforms 15/16 to a set of new platforms to the east of the station over Swinegate ? Coupled with a new entrance to the station at the east end on Briggate, this would improve access to the city centre.
The demolition of a multi-storey car-park, the Travelodge and some nondescript Victorian buildings is not too important; cities have to be constantly regenerating.

 

[YorksLad12]

I wonder if you are putting the extra platforms at Leeds in the right place. Would it not be better to let trains run through platforms 15/16 to a set of new platforms to the east of the station over Swinegate ? Coupled with a new entrance to the station at the east end on Briggate, this would improve access to the city centre.
The demolition of a multi-storey car-park, the Travelodge and some nondescript Victorian buildings is not too important; cities have to be constantly regenerating.

Not really; you'd have the same problems with Hallam Line services sharing the 'F' route through the station with TPE services, with the additional problem that you couldn't have anything standing on P16, and any incoming train from the west would have to the clear the track before P16 could be occupied by anything from the east. If there was a way to curve south to reaquire the route to Woodlesford then possibly; but I think HS2 had claimed that idea

That car park is quite busy normally too (even if Bibi's downstairs is a bit of a warehouse compared to the old one of Greek Street).

 

[tbtc]

This does feel like a very expensive/ complicated way of solving some fairly small problems (not the only thread to do this, mind you)

From memory of last time we discussed it, my preference would be a half hourly Sheffield - Kirkgate - Leeds - Castleford - Knottingley - Castleford - Leeds - Kirkgate - Sheffield service, so only occupying Platform 17 at Leeds for (say) five minutes at a time, therefore allowing four coach services.

Plenty of scope for a proper layover at Knottingley, so not much need for a long dwell at Leeds on a Sheffield - Knottingley trip of around ninety minutes (e.g. not dissimilar to the Leeds - Calder Valley - Manchester journey time, which doesn't need more than five minutes to reverse at Bradford) - given the points at the Whitehall triangle, it could be operationally separate from other routes at Leeds, so I don't see a need for long layovers there

Replace the "via Castleford" stopper with the increased Castleford - Leeds frequency that the above service would provide and a local service within South Yorkshire (possibly just Sheffield - Barnsley, maybe terminating it on the single track at Dodworth if that's possible)

The two Sheffield - Leeds services each hour would pick up one additional stop (1x Darton, 1x Normanton) to replace the existing stopper north of Barnsley (the existing Huddersfield service already provides an hourly train from Wakefield/ Normanton to Castleford)

Effectively replacing an hourly Barnsley - Castleford service (duration of half an hour) with an hourly Castleford - Knottingley service (duration of under twenty minutes) would mean no increase in units/drivers, but a much simpler and more reliable timetable that permits longer trains and avoids the mess at the Leeds end of the route

York seems a waste of time (always gets suggested on these threads, of course!) - there are already four trains per hour from Huddersfield to York and one train per hour from Wakefield to York, so a Huddersifled - Wakefield - York service wouldn't add a great deal other than being a Castleford - York train (and if Castleford to York is that important a market to you - despite the absence of any commercial bus service that I can see - then a Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service would at least open up a few different markets (rather than giving Huddersfield a fifth York train per hour, which would be overtaken by at least a couple of the existing ones). Or, as I've suggested before, a Barnsley - York service would provide something different (certainly not a priority, but much better than another Huddersfield - York train)

You could spend a lot more on the "via Kirkgate" line to speed it up but I think that you'd have to either "go big" (so that it competed with the forty five minute journey time of Sheffield - Westgate - Leeds services) or not bother. Shaving a few minutes off journey times won't be enough to attract people away from the significantly faster Cross Country services between the cities, so I don't think that you'd get much bang for your buck until you could speed the services up to compete with the other route - since I don't think that's worthwhile, I don't have a problem with dumping some Darton/ Normanton stops onto the "semi fasts" instead

 

[yorksrob]

This does feel like a very expensive/ complicated way of solving some fairly small problems (not the only thread to do this, mind you)

From memory of last time we discussed it, my preference would be a half hourly Sheffield - Kirkgate - Leeds - Castleford - Knottingley - Castleford - Leeds - Kirkgate - Sheffield service, so only occupying Platform 17 at Leeds for (say) five minutes at a time, therefore allowing four coach services.

Plenty of scope for a proper layover at Knottingley, so not much need for a long dwell at Leeds on a Sheffield - Knottingley trip of around ninety minutes (e.g. not dissimilar to the Leeds - Calder Valley - Manchester journey time, which doesn't need more than five minutes to reverse at Bradford) - given the points at the Whitehall triangle, it could be operationally separate from other routes at Leeds, so I don't see a need for long layovers there

Replace the "via Castleford" stopper with the increased Castleford - Leeds frequency that the above service would provide and a local service within South Yorkshire (possibly just Sheffield - Barnsley, maybe terminating it on the single track at Dodworth if that's possible)

The two Sheffield - Leeds services each hour would pick up one additional stop (1x Darton, 1x Normanton) to replace the existing stopper north of Barnsley (the existing Huddersfield service already provides an hourly train from Wakefield/ Normanton to Castleford)

Effectively replacing an hourly Barnsley - Castleford service (duration of half an hour) with an hourly Castleford - Knottingley service (duration of under twenty minutes) would mean no increase in units/drivers, but a much simpler and more reliable timetable that permits longer trains and avoids the mess at the Leeds end of the route

York seems a waste of time (always gets suggested on these threads, of course!) - there are already four trains per hour from Huddersfield to York and one train per hour from Wakefield to York, so a Huddersifled - Wakefield - York service wouldn't add a great deal other than being a Castleford - York train (and if Castleford to York is that important a market to you - despite the absence of any commercial bus service that I can see - then a Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service would at least open up a few different markets (rather than giving Huddersfield a fifth York train per hour, which would be overtaken by at least a couple of the existing ones). Or, as I've suggested before, a Barnsley - York service would provide something different (certainly not a priority, but much better than another Huddersfield - York train)

You could spend a lot more on the "via Kirkgate" line to speed it up but I think that you'd have to either "go big" (so that it competed with the forty five minute journey time of Sheffield - Westgate - Leeds services) or not bother. Shaving a few minutes off journey times won't be enough to attract people away from the significantly faster Cross Country services between the cities, so I don't think that you'd get much bang for your buck until you could speed the services up to compete with the other route - since I don't think that's worthwhile, I don't have a problem with dumping some Darton/ Normanton stops onto the "semi fasts" instead

Obviously I disagree with your assessment of the York option - The city is a fairly important economic centre as well as a transport hub, so a service to economically challenged areas in the 'five towns' makes sense. The world is a very different place from the 1950's when the passenger service was closed.

 

[Halish Railway]

Obviously I disagree with your assessment of the York option - The city is a fairly important economic centre as well as a transport hub, so a service to economically challenged areas in the 'five towns' makes sense. The world is a very different place from the 1950's when the passenger service was closed.

I think if there were to be a service from Wakefield Kirkgate, Normy and Castleford to York it should really start at Barnsley instead of Huddersfield as the latter already has 4tph to York, starting at Barnsley would create yet another new market.

 

[Neptune]

I think if there were to be a service from Wakefield Kirkgate, Normy and Castleford to York it should really start at Barnsley instead of Huddersfield as the latter already has 4tph to York, starting at Barnsley would create yet another new market.

What would you do to link Wakefield with Huddersfield then without increasing services on a constrained route?

 

[tbtc]

if Castleford to York is that important a market to you - despite the absence of any commercial bus service that I can see - then a Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service would at least open up a few different markets

as I've suggested before, a Barnsley - York service would provide something different (certainly not a priority, but much better than another Huddersfield - York train)

Obviously I disagree with your assessment of the York option - The city is a fairly important economic centre as well as a transport hub, so a service to economically challenged areas in the 'five towns' makes sense. The world is a very different place from the 1950's when the passenger service was closed.

I think if there were to be a service from Wakefield Kirkgate, Normy and Castleford to York it should really start at Barnsley instead of Huddersfield as the latter already has 4tph to York, starting at Barnsley would create yet another new market.

I agree with @Halish Railway here

If the problem that @yorksrob wants to solve is "regenerate some economically challenged areas" then surely you'd have any proposed York service serving Barnsley rather giving Huddersfield a fifth service each hour?

Or, if you only want to focus on regenerating the "five towns" then why not have a stand alone Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service, which serves sixty percent of aforementioned towns?

But the main priority for economically regenerating places like Knottingley/ Castleford etc would be something that offered more seats into Leeds each hour - e.g. by interworking the Sheffield - Leeds and Leeds - Knottingley services so that they only had a short dwell in Leeds and you could therefore run services of up to four coaches (instead of having them constrained to two coaches since Platform Seventeen has to accommodate two trains at the same time)!

I just can't see any problem to which the solution would be "another Huddersfield - York service", however much you work backwards

What would you do to link Wakefield with Huddersfield then without increasing services on a constrained route?

There is already an hourly Huddersfield - Wakefield train

(and both places already have York services)

 

[YorksLad12]

The problem with running Leeds-Barnsley only is that you need to turn the trains somewhere. I can't see any turnback facility south of Barnsley. As mentioned above, Sheffield-Barnsley services could run up the line towards Penistone and turn there.

Sheff-Barnsley is 27 minutes with stops though (only 21 minutes without), so a bit tight. Barnsley-Sheffield-somewhere else might work.

 

[Iskra]

The problem with running Leeds-Barnsley only is that you need to turn the trains somewhere. I can't see any turnback facility south of Barnsley. As mentioned above, Sheffield-Barnsley services could run up the line towards Penistone and turn there.

Sheff-Barnsley is 27 minutes with stops though (only 21 minutes without), so a bit tight. Barnsley-Sheffield-somewhere else might work.

It's possible to run Leeds-Barnsley-Leeds, there are points North of Barnsley station that allow trains to cross to arrive on P2 and then depart Northwards. Here is a picture of a football special from Leeds, returning back to Leeds doing such a move:



(Trains can also do Sheffield-Barnsley-Sheffield and this used to happen on the first train of the day North from Sheffield (pre-Covid) and possibly the last train too.)

I'm not sure how capacity efficient such operations are.

 

[Neptune]

There is already an hourly Huddersfield - Wakefield train

(and both places already have York services)

The discussion was around HUD - CFD - YRK. This was altered to BNY by the poster. Why does every post about relieving capacity end with spurious suggestions to immediately fill them back up again.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Rather than viewing an extended York service as "yet another York train from Huddersfield" it should be viewed as reintroducing a direct Wakefield to York via Castleford service, which just happens to use the same unit as Huddersfield to Wakefield. Anyone who wants to get from Huddersfield to York quickly will still use the TPE anyway, so it would be more about the intermediate journeys.

Oh, and Wakefield's current York service is pretty poor, one train per hour via Leeds which is often overcrowded with longer-distance passengers.

 

[Neptune]

Rather than viewing an extended York service as "yet another York train from Huddersfield" it should be viewed as reintroducing a direct Wakefield to York via Castleford service, which just happens to use the same unit as Huddersfield to Wakefield. Anyone who wants to get from Huddersfield to York quickly will still use the TPE anyway, so it would be more about the intermediate journeys.

This is exactly the point. If you’re going to run through to York you extend a current service, not try and fit yet another one in.

 

[yorksrob]

I think if there were to be a service from Wakefield Kirkgate, Normy and Castleford to York it should really start at Barnsley instead of Huddersfield as the latter already has 4tph to York, starting at Barnsley would create yet another new market.

I agree with @Halish Railway here

If the problem that @yorksrob wants to solve is "regenerate some economically challenged areas" then surely you'd have any proposed York service serving Barnsley rather giving Huddersfield a fifth service each hour?

Or, if you only want to focus on regenerating the "five towns" then why not have a stand alone Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service, which serves sixty percent of aforementioned towns?

But the main priority for economically regenerating places like Knottingley/ Castleford etc would be something that offered more seats into Leeds each hour - e.g. by interworking the Sheffield - Leeds and Leeds - Knottingley services so that they only had a short dwell in Leeds and you could therefore run services of up to four coaches (instead of having them constrained to two coaches since Platform Seventeen has to accommodate two trains at the same time)!

I just can't see any problem to which the solution would be "another Huddersfield - York service", however much you work backwards



There is already an hourly Huddersfield - Wakefield train

(and both places already have York services)

Yes there's an element of truth to your points. Huddersfield already has a York service where Barnsley doesn't.

I guess its how you service it, if not using the Hudds - Cass shuttle.

 

[YorksLad12]

Oh, and Wakefield's current York service is pretty poor, one train per hour via Leeds which is often overcrowded with longer-distance passengers.

Yes - I think you convinced me in an earlier thread that XC should still run via Wakefield. I might have suggested connecting the York-Leeds stopper with the Leeds-Westgate-Sheffield-Nottingham service that has yet to materialise...

I just had a look through my old files but I can't find an electronic copy of the Yorkshire Rail Network Study from 2012. I did, however, find a Rail Mag article, showing just how little has changed in the past nine years, even though the problems have long been identified...

 

[tbtc]

The problem with running Leeds-Barnsley only is that you need to turn the trains somewhere. I can't see any turnback facility south of Barnsley. As mentioned above, Sheffield-Barnsley services could run up the line towards Penistone and turn there.

Sheff-Barnsley is 27 minutes with stops though (only 21 minutes without), so a bit tight. Barnsley-Sheffield-somewhere else might work.

It's a frustrating one - I wouldn't want to risk one unit doing an hourly Sheffield - Barnsley stopper (given lack of recovery time), but it'd be a huge waste to use a second unit just to fill that hourly service (and there's no room at Sheffield to occupy a platform for that long either!) - I'll accept that this is a weak link in my plan for a half hourly Sheffield - Leeds - Knottingley service.

I know that there are lines where we have to use resources poorly, like the two DMUs needed to cover Huddersfield - Bradford since one unit cannot manage the thirty six miles of the round trip within one hour, but I'd want to reduce such cases where possible. Maybe an alternative usage would be to run a half hourly Sheffield - Penistone service with hourly extension to Huddersfield (i.e. extending to Penistone rather than having the unit sitting around for long periods at Sheffield)? I don't know - it's just awkwardly too far/ long for one unit to do "just" Sheffield - Barnsley (all stops) though

The discussion was around HUD - CFD - YRK. This was altered to BNY by the poster. Why does every post about relieving capacity end with spurious suggestions to immediately fill them back up again.

I'm not sure of your point, but I can't see anyone suggesting we replace the Huddersifled - Wakefield service (just some people who don't think that extending it to York would be a priority)

Rather than viewing an extended York service as "yet another York train from Huddersfield" it should be viewed as reintroducing a direct Wakefield to York via Castleford service, which just happens to use the same unit as Huddersfield to Wakefield

I just can't see that there's any market that it serves that couldn't be done by a (Sheffield) Barnsley - Wakefield - Castleford - York service (which provides a lot more links, plus ticks more "regeneration" boxes) or a Knottingley - Pontefract - Castleford - York service (which obviously wouldn't serve Wakefield, but would tick the boxes of the majority of the "five towns", if that was anyone's criteria)

As I've said above, I think that putting more seats onto services into Leeds should be the priority, but if we must have a York service then there's no way of framing the question that gives the answer of "Huddersfield - Castleford - York. It wouldn't tick the regeneration boxes that the other options would, it wouldn't introduce many new links (compared to the other options), I can't understand why it's so popular on here