Solutions to capacity issues at Leeds

[Jorge Da Silva]

So i have read a lot about capacity issues at Leeds and with NPR and HS2 i suspect this will get worse with a study on to how HS2 should approach on the eastern side. Anyway, what solutions could be done to:

1) how hs2 can approach Leeds from the south
2) capacity increases to accommodate NPR and HS2 services from the west

 

[Starmill]

The only obvious thing that can be done to expand capacity at Leeds following the conclusion of recent works is to extend platform 17 to accommodate at least 6 coaches. This would allow three and four car sets to work from Leeds via Barnsley.

After that we're into the territory of acquiring significant land and having to do a total re-locking of the signalling from the ground up.

The alternative is 'virtual capacity increase' which the IRP hints at. This is where new capacity is created elsewhere, releasing space af Leeds. The thought is that a West Yorkshire Metro might be able to take some of the existing commuter routes. However the idea that this might actually be more cost effective is quite uncertain.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The only obvious thing that can be done to expand capacity at Leeds following the conclusion of recent works is to extend platform 17 to accommodate at least 6 coaches. This would allow three and four car sets to work from Leeds via Barnsley.

After that we're into the territory of acquiring significant land and having to do a total re-locking of the signalling from the ground up.

The alternative is 'virtual capacity increase' which the IRP hints at. This is where new capacity is created elsewhere, releasing space af Leeds. The thought is that a West Yorkshire Metro might be able to take some of the existing commuter routes. However the idea that this might actually be more cost effective is quite uncertain.

Ok how do we create virtual capacity??? New station somewhere if so where or what

 

[Starmill]

Ok how do we create virtual capacity??? New station somewhere if so where or what

A tramway through the streets of the city with heavy rail services replaced by tram-trains, or a tunnel under the centre with some trains diverted into the tunnels to a destination on the other side.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Not sure if this has anything in it. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Leeds-Area-Strategic-Study-2020.pdf

 

[30907]

Not sure if this has anything in it. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Leeds-Area-Strategic-Study-2020.pdf

It does, focussing on heavy rail. Local authorities have ambitious plans for light rail (etc) on various local corridors which might relieve some of the pressure; ISTR the Govt has promised a few £k to develop the ideas as part of the NPR-lite package.

 

[skyhigh]

The only obvious thing that can be done to expand capacity at Leeds following the conclusion of recent works is to extend platform 17 to accommodate at least 6 coaches.

I have heard that platform 17 is in the plan to be extended (particularly to allow longer Nottingham services). Not due for completion until Dec 2024 though.

 

[YorksLad12]

Build the T-station platforms as planned. Run terminating services from Sheffield, Knottingley, Doncaster and London into it. That will allow for longer trains to Castleford and Barnsley, and free up P17 and a few paths per hour through West End.

Yes, you'd have to build track but you'd have had to do that if HS2 was built as planned. New track would be need to connect the Stourton/Freighliner area to the ECML line at Outwood. Journey times would be faster though as you'd be cutting the corner on both routes.

Or just extend P17 a bit, as it's cheaper and quicker to deliver

 

[HST43257]

Re-timetable things to be as platform efficient as possible. Move as many stoppers onto P0-6 as possible and repurpose through platforms 9, 11 and 12 for any non-NPR through services. If HS2 comes along have a joint terminus at a T, shared with the slow stuff via Woodlesford (4 track approach ideally)

 

[Starmill]

I have heard that platform 17 is in the plan to be extended (particularly to allow longer Nottingham services). Not due for completion until Dec 2024 though.

I've heard so 'on the grapevine' but I don't know if that's written down anywhere or if it's actually confirmed. But if it is, then of course that's great news. I wouldn't have expected it to be sooner than that anyway to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2022 ==

Re-timetable things to be as platform efficient as possible. Move as many stoppers onto P0-6 as possible and repurpose through platforms 9, 11 and 12 for any non-NPR through services. If HS2 comes along have a joint terminus at a T, shared with the slow stuff via Woodlesford (4 track approach ideally)

Arguably this is sort of what was planned to be happening anyway following the new layout and allowing for the longer formations.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Can’t find the document but there is a Leeds Station Gateway - Leeds Integrated Station Masterplan which is mentioned here https://westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=773

 

[matacaster]

How about having a mezzanine deck at Leeds? The Bradford exchange line could run on a short viaduct over existing tracks as could some of the Wakefield lines. This would actually rexsult in a fairly level track. OK, costly to build mezzanine deck (and new roof) as river and canal beneath, but a rather elegant solution nonetheless, I feel .

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How about having a mezzanine deck at Leeds? The Bradford exchange line could run on a short viaduct over existing tracks as could some of the Wakefield lines. This would actually rexsult in a fairly level track. OK, costly to build mezzanine deck (and new roof) as river and canal beneath, but a rather elegant solution nonetheless, I feel .

Too expensive and complicated

 

[quantinghome]

There's a decent amount of room for terminating platforms between Platform 0 and the river. 6 through-platforms should be sufficient provided the capacity issues east of Leeds are resolved.

The options for transferring lines over to tram-train and running them through the city streets seem limited. Realistically the only lines you could do this for are Harrogate and possibly Castleford - other lines are too regional (e.g. Calder Valley) or too fast (e.g. Airedale) for tram-train.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

There's a decent amount of room for terminating platforms between Platform 0 and the river. 6 through-platforms should be sufficient provided the capacity issues east of Leeds are resolved.

The options for transferring lines over to tram-train and running them through the city streets seem limited. Realistically the only lines you could do this for are Harrogate and possibly Castleford - other lines are too regional (e.g. Calder Valley) or too fast (e.g. Airedale) for tram-train.

Interesting i did think that but how do you solve the issues east of Leeds? West of Leeds has room for bay platforms but there isnt room for 6 through platforms is there?

 

[class 9]

Interesting i did think that but how do you solve the issues east of Leeds? West of Leeds has room for bay platforms but there isnt room for 6 through platforms is there?

There's already 6 through platforms, there is potential to connect 13 and 14 bay platforms to create 1 more through line, but the only waiting room/toilets/ shop on that side of the station is in the way!

 

[quantinghome]

Interesting i did think that but how do you solve the issues east of Leeds? West of Leeds has room for bay platforms but there isnt room for 6 through platforms is there?

More tracks, at least long enough for a dynamic loop to allow overtaking. The alignment has space for this between Marsh Lane and Garforth. You would probably need a fancy signalling system between Marsh Lane and the station in order to maximise capacity. Once that's done you're probably looking at capacity for 12-14 trains per hour east of Leeds. Easily enough for the current 6 through platforms to cope.

 

[TheBigD]

Regarding a dynamic loop, what's the minimum distance to allow one train to pass another without either of them being slowed/stopped?
I know linespeed would make a difference but a rough guess would be?

 

[quantinghome]

Regarding a dynamic loop, what's the minimum distance to allow one train to pass another without either of them being slowed/stopped?
I know linespeed would make a difference but a rough guess would be?

Based on the proposals for the Huddersfield line, about 7 miles.

Essentially the slow train enters the dynamic loop about 3 minutes in front of the fast train and comes out of it about 3 minutes behind the fast train. So the fast train needs to gain 6 minutes over the slow. Differential speed is therefore the key. Obviously it helps if the slow train has stations to stop at.

 

[30907]

Regarding a dynamic loop, what's the minimum distance to allow one train to pass another without either of them being slowed/stopped?
I know linespeed would make a difference but a rough guess would be?

Two station stops on the overtaken train.