What prevents a better and more frequent service running between Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds?

[Azuma]

I've had a couple of poor experiences recently of cramming into a very busy Cross Country service on this corridor for a couple of hours, and judging by posts on social media this seems to be common at peak times.

I would like to know to what extent the service could be improved by the operator choosing to run more frequent or longer services if it could procure the rolling stock needed to do so, and where there are hard infrastructure constraints such as platform lengths, congested cross-over junctions etc. that mean a significant service uplfit on this corridor would require major investment.

If you know anything please leave your thoughts!

 

[A S Leib]

Would it be feasible to run all of the Doncaster XC services as 8-carriage services (or as 10 if XC ever end up with 8xx trains) then split them at Sheffield to provide a second hourly Leeds – Birmingham / fast Sheffield? The Leeds portion would terminate there so Leeds passengers would have a chance of getting a seat going south, with the Doncaster portion going to York / Newcastle alternating (which I think is currently the plan, rather than hourly Reading services all going through to Newcastle?). The main issues I can think of are reduction of capacity between Doncaster and York – hopefully less of an issue with the third London – Newcastle – and any capacity issues at Sheffield caused by splitting.

My preferred choice would be HS2 East, but that seems much less realistic right now.

 

[takno]

Would it be feasible to run all of the Doncaster XC services as 8-carriage services (or as 10 if XC ever end up with 8xx trains) then split them at Sheffield to provide a second hourly Leeds – Birmingham / fast Sheffield? The Leeds portion would terminate there so Leeds passengers would have a chance of getting a seat going south, with the Doncaster portion going to York / Newcastle alternating (which I think is currently the plan, rather than hourly Reading services all going through to Newcastle?). The main issues I can think of are reduction of capacity between Doncaster and York – hopefully less of an issue with the third London – Newcastle – and any capacity issues at Sheffield caused by splitting.

My preferred choice would be HS2 East, but that seems much less realistic right now.

I would have thought that capacity at the north end of Sheffield station, and between Sheffield and Leeds may be a problem. Sheffield also doesn't have unlimited through platforms, so in the event of delays it may be a problem having one blocked by a unit from Leeds waiting on a delayed East Coast portion. It seems like the Leeds portions would also just fill up with short-distance travellers, so it may be less impactful than running the longest possible double every hour on the Leeds route

 

[thenorthern]

Demand would be a big thing as there isn't that much demand for it.

I know pre-pandemic CrossCountry ran two trains per hour from Birmingham to Newcastle. One went via Leeds and one went via Doncaster which ran from Plymouth to Edinburgh and Reading to Newcastle respectively. I read somewhere that CrossCountry said given the choice they would run all services via Leeds over Doncaster as Leeds is a much bigger market than Doncaster but the capacity wasn't there.

 

[rapmastaj]

CrossCountry trains heading south from Leeds are packed whenever I take them. The most feasible solution would be to add a second fast train each hour between Leeds and Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate, as has been suggested at times. This could continue on to Nottingham perhaps.

 

[xotGD]

If there was a convenient option to get from Leeds to Birmingham without using Cross Country, and offering more attractive fares, then that would remove some passengers from the rammed Voyagers.

You can get as far as Derby or Leicester, but then it is back to Cross Country.

 

[duffield]

CrossCountry trains heading south from Leeds are packed whenever I take them. The most feasible solution would be to add a second fast train each hour between Leeds and Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate, as has been suggested at times. This could continue on to Nottingham perhaps.

That sounds like the Northern Connect plan, which was in play sometime around 2015** and abandoned sometime around 2018**, to run Nottingham to Leeds via Westgate and then on to Bradford. At one stage it looked very close to happening.

** Difficult to find actual dates, this is based mostly on the tone of discussion in various threads here.

 

[rapmastaj]

That sounds like the Northern Connect plan, which was in play sometime around 2015** and abandoned sometime around 2018**, to run Nottingham to Leeds via Westgate and then on to Bradford. At one stage it looked very close to happening.

** Difficult to find actual dates, this is based mostly on the tone of discussion in various threads here.

Yes that's the one, I hope a version of it gets taken up again as it would be a huge improvement for one of the most capacity-restricted routes in the area.

 

[occone]

The quick answer to your question is: the DfT

The longer answer is also the DfT, but in the sense of them getting longer, more frequent trains with better infrastructure generally

 

[Ianigsy]

The (un)reliability of Northern’s Leeds-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Nottingham service can’t be helping.

 

[sheff1]

There used to be 2 trains per hour between Birmingham & Sheffield but the service was halved when Covid struck. XC said they would use double units on the remaining trains and generally did so when very few people were travelling.

When restrictions were lifted and passengers returned they did not reintroduce the second service and started to run more trains with just one unit. Some of the gaps have subsequently been filled, but by no means all.

If they returned to the full pre-covid service it should make things better. If they continue not to then they really need to provide the promised doubling up. Wouldn’t improve the Sheffield - Leeds section but, as mentioned, line capacity problems seem to be the issue there.

 

[Nottingham59]

The quick answer to your question is: the DfT

The longer answer is also the DfT, but in the sense of them getting longer, more frequent trains with better infrastructure generally

The problem with Cross Country services is that they have no champion within government.

On a Thursday night MP all leave Westminster and go back to their constituencies. Many will use the train, including the much of the ministerial team at DfT. They don't notice ticket prices, since they're all on expenses.

Simlarly many of the senior civil servants in DfT will use the train to commute into Great Minster House in Horseferry Road.

So the DfT as an organisation will always prioritise and concentrate investment towards long-distance business travel to and from London and commuter servies into the capital.

The end result is that the long-distance trains out of London at so called "peak time" are can be quite lightly loaded, with many passengers forced by extortionate pricing to use "off peak" trains, which are often the busiest and most crammed of all. You can bet if early evening peak trains long-distance trains out of London got cancelled as often as Northern or XC trains do, then DfT would get it in the neck and pass that pressure on to the ToCs.


And it's why commuter services into London get all the newest trains and the most investment (Elizabeth Line, I'm looking at you). And why season tickets holders pay so much less per trip than occasional travellers. The people making those policy decisions can't see it any other way.


No decision makers at DfT use Cross Country or Northern.

When there are budget restrictions, it's always services like Birmingham - Leeds get starved of investment and end up with reduced services and short trains. Sorry, but that's the way the world has always worked in Britain.

 

[WAO]

Back in the 1980's, I could and did make some journeys, B'ham to Leeds via Stockport and Stalybridge - about the same time as the then XC proper but reliable.

When the wires are up, some EMU's, Leeds -B'ham via Stockport, might not go amiss.

WAO

 

[The Planner]

Back in the 1980's, I could and did make some journeys, B'ham to Leeds via Stockport and Stalybridge - about the same time as the then XC proper but reliable.

When the wires are up, some EMU's, Leeds -B'ham via Stockport, might not go amiss.

WAO

Denton isn't getting wired.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

No-one is answering the questions asked in the second paragraph of the original post. Is there a structural issue preventing a major improvement of this service? e.g. capacity through the tunnel immediately north of Sheffield or too short platforms. Would longer trains reduce most of the problem?

 

[DarloRich]

Would longer trains reduce most of the problem?

I think frequency is fine. The problem is the quality and length of the trains offered. 7 coach HST ran this route for years before being replaced by 4/5 car trains that just cant cope with the passenger numbers.

 

[ChrisC]

No-one is answering the questions asked in the second paragraph of the original post. Is there a structural issue preventing a major improvement of this service? e.g. capacity through the tunnel immediately north of Sheffield or too short platforms. Would longer trains reduce most of the problem?

Longer trains would do a lot to reduce the problem. XC used to run longer loco hauled trains and HSTs so platform length shouldn’t be a major issue. Also XC do operate some doubled Voyagers along the route. The main issue is that XC do not have enough stock to run longer trains on many of their services. Northern have a different problem concerning their semi fast trains between Leeds-Sheffield/Nottingham in that Platform 17 at Leeds cannot accommodate longer trains. There are so many routes in and out of Sheffield which need longer trains to avoid overcrowding.

 

[jfowkes]

Given that there have been lots of new rolling stock orders in the past decade or so and XC haven't been included in any of them, you kind of have to assume the reasons are political more than anything else.

New stock for XC could have been included in any of the various 80x orders, or the class 397 order, or the Mk5/Class 68 order. It wasn't because the industry is stupidly fragmented and the DfT isn't fit for purpose.

 

[fishwomp]

My preferred choice would be HS2 East, but that seems much less realistic right now.

I don't agree!

Option A: improve service in 10+ years with new line, Option B: restore missing XC services now - with chump change from what Option A would've cost.

4 or 5 car services on this artery are a nonsense. The old days of an hourly peak and 8 coaches was better provision - if there were no seats, at least there was even more standing room - trains are currently getting delayed due to peeling off the sardines at each station.

Whatever HS2 East is/was, there was plenty of engineering required around Sheffield approaches (to accommodate the original/early Chesterfield branch), that'd still help immensely.

 

[ChrisC]

Given that there have been lots of new rolling stock orders in the past decade or so and XC haven't been included in any of them, you kind of have to assume the reasons are political more than anything else.

New stock for XC could have been included in any of the various 80x orders, or the class 397 order, or the Mk5/Class 68 order. It wasn't because the industry is stupidly fragmented and the DfT isn't fit for purpose.

Probably exactly the same situation regarding the lack of new stock for EMR regional services. EMT didn’t get any new stock when they took over from Central Trains in 2007 and the same with EMR from 2019. Each time second hand stock was received with much of it in appalling interior condition. They also, like XC, don’t have enough trains to avoid overcrowding on many routes. The busy Liverpool- Norwich route, which also runs through Sheffield, is probably now going to be operated by short formed trains, which are over 30 years old for many more years.

 

[3RDGEN]

I would like to know to what extent the service could be improved by the operator choosing to run more frequent or longer services if it could procure the rolling stock needed to do so, and where there are hard infrastructure constraints such as platform lengths, congested cross-over junctions etc. that mean a significant service uplfit on this corridor would require major investment.

XC have already lengthen a few services on the Edinburgh - Leeds - Birmingham - SW route as a result of receiving three ex West Coast 221's, when the further nine 221's arrive they will lengthen more services on the route. Some of the missing Reading - Birmingham - York/Newcastle via Doncaster services are expected to return to in Summer 2025 which would also help reduce the load on the services via Leeds.

The proposed new East Coast timetable produces an additional Leeds - Wakefield Westgate - Sheffield path so XC could use that to divert the Doncaster services giving 2 tph via Leeds although Transport for the North may want the path used by Northern services. Issue would be fitting the available paths between Sheffield - Leeds - York with the current XC paths south of Sheffield and also cuts Doncaster out of the XC network, returning the Doncaster services to hourly is probably easier and removes some load from the Leeds route. Hourly via Doncaster to York/Newcastle and mostly double units hourly via Leeds is probably the best you can expect in the next few years.

Longer term, Sheffield station remodeling, Leeds station capacity improvements, four track Leeds - Thorpe Gate station area, York station capacity improvements and a new larger XC fleet are probably the minimum requirement for a significant uplift in frequency / capacity on the route. None of these are currently talked about.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they returned to the full pre-covid service it should make things better. If they continue not to then they really need to provide the promised doubling up. Wouldn’t improve the Sheffield - Leeds section but, as mentioned, line capacity problems seem to be the issue there.

SW/Birmingham to Leeds and Northeast/Scotland hourly, and Reading/Birmingham to York/Newcastle (alternating) “almost hourly” are both supposed to return from May 2025, at least that’s according to their track access application, as pointed out in a few similar previous threads.

I‘ve really no idea why people regularly post about hypothetical longer bi-mode 80x type trains, there’s no evidence whatsoever for a sudden change in DfT’s XC rolling stock policy. I think after the 12 ex west coast 221s arrive we’ll be lucky to see any more, even if the relatively small number left has no other logical use.

 

[Killingworth]

CrossCountry trains heading south from Leeds are packed whenever I take them. The most feasible solution would be to add a second fast train each hour between Leeds and Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate, as has been suggested at times. This could continue on to Nottingham perhaps.

Northern have been reported as wanting to do that in 2025. It keeps getting put off, platforms and paths - but probably units and crews too!

It's never as easy as it seems. Varied combinations of those 4 factors are hindering attempts to increase rail ridership. Reopening of old branch lines should be subordinated to making better use of railway land for improved connections, extra tracks and more practical platform space to meet the increasing demand for travel on existing over crowded routes.

 

[WAO]

Denton isn't getting wired.

True.

 

[Topological]

Are there any infrastructure issues that prevent 10 car voyagers (for example)?

At the speculative level, there may be small issues preventing local flows (like those involving Tamworth) being catered without calls in longer distance CrossCountry services. There are few places to overtake a stopping service between Birmingham and Derby (for example).

Birmingham New Street will place constraints on extra services as well.

Manchester to Birmingham could be run with EMU to allow the voyagers saved to double up, but then you do have constraints accommodating the split services terminating in Birmingham New Street.

It would be good if there was investment in CrossCountry and/or the fixes needed to allow splitting of some routes.

 

[Nottingham59]

It wasn't because the industry is stupidly fragmented and the DfT isn't fit for purpose.

DfT have been told to cut spending and the leasing companies won't drop their prices. So rolling stock remains unused in sidings and the routes with the least political clout end up with short trains.

 

[reecestrains]

Even though I'm based in Leeds, I avoid XC's Voyagers going towards Birmingham. Instead I go over to the North West and then get down to Birmingham with Avanti. Sure it takes longer but it sure is better than being rammed into a Voyager.

 

[Azuma]

Thanks all for your replies. Really appreciate the level of knowledge you all have to share. Sounds like I can expect some improvement in the next couple of years back to the frequency before the pandemic as more rolling stock becomes available, but anything further is a long way off.

 

[richardderby]

the HST's were very helpful at moving the masses on this corridor. The DFT decided to get rid of them, even though they were modified for disability purposes. ideally they should have kept the HST's until the 221's arrive from west coast.

 

[occone]

The problem with Cross Country services is that they have no champion within government.

The solution must therefore be send all MPs on a Voyager from Penzance to Edinburgh with no catering north of Birmingham. Pre fill the toilet tanks for an authentic experience when they all shut down half way through. Passcom going off hourly. No staff in sight. And at least one busted window per carriage. and make sure the wall panels are extra squeaky.

(I'm obviously not serious)