Leeds Station if no HS2 eastern leg

[YorksLad12]

Hello,

So: I was thinking, as one does, about what happens at Leeds if there’s no eastern leg of HS2. Leeds is pretty much full in normal times; we’re short of through track/platforms; P17 needs extending so we can have longer trains to Castleford, Barnsley & Sheffield; and while there’s space to expand to the north there isn’t to the south.

So why not build the station extension as planned, but for conventional rather than high speed trains? The Council and everyone else involved in planning has assumed a new waterfront area is coming, with traffic management changes, demolition of the Hilton (Dragonara!) and creation of a new pseudo-public space.

Come out south-south-east from Leeds, to the west of Crown Point (the former Leeds Midland station) and join the existing track just north of the M621 slip road. This would allow for longer trains to Castleford, Barnsley & Sheffield while also moving the conflict on route F at the station. I think it’s the one most heavily used, with 13 or 14 movements per normal hour in either direction, which is why inbound Midland route trains often get delayed while waiting for the inevitably late-running TPE or Midland route service to clear westwards. You could shave at least 5 minutes off the journey time by removing the wait outside the station, and the curve around the existing route.

Of course, that would be a lot of money to spend just on four services per hour, so: why not four track from the M621 junction as far as the Freightliner terminal, then create a new route alongside the M621/M1, underneath Lofthouse Interchange and connecting with the Leeds-Westgate route just north of Outwood? You wouldn’t save as much time as for the other services but you would clear one through and one terminating platform used by LNER services per normal hour for other services, plus the Leeds-Westgate-Sheffield/Doncaster/Knottingley stoppers.

Obviously, that would only work for terminating services, and you’d need to keep the existing routes open so that units can get to and from Neville Hill. And it would be very expensive, and wouldn’t be ready for another 10 or 15 years even if we started at the end of the month but potentially more useful as it could use existing stock at current speeds, and it wouldn't need to have 400m-long platforms (300m should suffice). And we’d get the improved circulation space within the station that was proposed.

I mean, it’s never going to happen. But this is the Speculative Ideas forum so: would it be feasible, from a railway/infrastructure/engineering perspective?

 

[EllieAquitrain]

I don't know the area well enough to comment on the feasibility of this. But would it be possible to build this so it was suitable for conversion in future high(er)-speed projects such as NPR, or HS2 East if that comes later?

 

[IanXC]

You might want to have a read of Network Rail's ideas on this very question:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Leeds%20Area%20Strategic%20Study%202020.pdf

G line
H line
X and Y lines
Platforms -1 and -2
Reinstating Farnley Viaduct

Amongst others.

 

[YorksLad12]

I don't know the area well enough to comment on the feasibility of this. But would it be possible to build this so it was suitable for conversion in future high(er)-speed projects such as NPR, or HS2 East if that comes later?

NPR would pass through Leeds, I'd guess, rather than use two new alignments (or one, depending on how it's done) to reach a separate set of platforms. And NPR is also in doubt (but TRU is on firmer ground, at least).

You might want to have a read of Network Rail's ideas on this very question:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Leeds%20Area%20Strategic%20Study%202020.pdf

G line
H line
X and Y lines
Platforms -1 and -2
Reinstating Farnley Viaduct

Amongst others.

Thanks. I might have read that previously; but like all NR publications on the subject is assumes HS2 (and NPR). A separate 'G' line for the former Midland route has been in gestation for at least 10 years; it's costly for what you get (better access to a single platform, with the need to build a viaduct on a difficult site) which is why I thought of repurposing the HS2 station & viaduct for all of the Wakefield-bound services that would have used it nder HS2, apart from the hourly XC.

X, Y and the additional platforms are north of the current platforms on the former Wellington site, so in the wrong place for Castleford & Wakefield. If the Farnley Viaduct is reinstated I'd be very surprised!

 

[IanXC]

X and Y lines and -1 and -2 platforms provide capacity at the 'wrong' side of the station yes, but they also allow for a shuffle across the station too. If Harrogate and Ilkley for instance, use X/Y then space is made available on A/B for services from Bradford Interchange etc, etc (also needs some junction/crossover alterations), such that TPE's main platforms could become 15 westbound and 12 eastbound, allowing for 16 to be used for services arriving from the Midland lines on F, and at the other end for terminating services from the east too.

 

[JKF]

The alignment from the Midland route through to the old goods depot at Crown Point is I think still clear , and Crown Point itself is rather tired and low density for a site that close to the city centre. I think routing through there combined with redevelopment/master planning of the surrounding site would be feasible.

 

[YorksLad12]

X and Y lines and -1 and -2 platforms provide capacity at the 'wrong' side of the station yes, but they also allow for a shuffle across the station too. If Harrogate and Ilkley for instance, use X/Y then space is made available on A/B for services from Bradford Interchange etc, etc (also needs some junction/crossover alterations), such that TPE's main platforms could become 15 westbound and 12 eastbound, allowing for 16 to be used for services arriving from the Midland lines on F, and at the other end for terminating services from the east too.

I have thought, and said (and quite possible remarked here as well) similarly. Hurrah! But that doesn't create or free up a through route; if all of the trans-Pennine services run though then it's going to get a bit busy (four fast, two semi-fast per normal hour in each direction). Can 12 & 15 (or 15 & 16 as it is now) alone cope with an arrival and departure every 10 minutes? Even if the terminators from the west are shunted upwards into lower numbered platforms?

I do vaguely remember a proposal to add track to the north of A; the curvature's a bit tight though, and the opportunity to build a new viaduct has been lost now that the development is taking place between Whitehall Road and Globe Road.

 

[IanXC]

I have thought, and said (and quite possible remarked here as well) similarly. Hurrah! But that doesn't create or free up a through route; if all of the trans-Pennine services run though then it's going to get a bit busy (four fast, two semi-fast per normal hour in each direction). Can 12 & 15 (or 15 & 16 as it is now) alone cope with an arrival and departure every 10 minutes? Even if the terminators from the west are shunted upwards into lower numbered platforms?

I do vaguely remember a proposal to add track to the north of A; the curvature's a bit tight though, and the opportunity to build a new viaduct has been lost now that the development is taking place between Whitehall Road and Globe Road.

Mostly 15 and 16 have coped with that. It must be remembered that a number of through platforms are often used for terminating services currently.

X and Y are the proposed lines north of A.