We used Pari/GP (which uses the trace formula) and Magma (which uses modular symbols) to compute most of the modular form data in the LMFDB (the implementations in both Pari/GP and Magma are more capable (in different ways) than the implementation in Sage). For weight 2 and trivial character this includes levels up to 10000, as explained in
https://www.lmfdb.org/ModularForm/GL2/Q/holomorphic/Completeness and
https://www.lmfdb.org/ModularForm/GL2/Q/holomorphic/Source. You can read more about the methods we used in the paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04717.
For levels beyond 10000 the data we have was computed using two different methods, one of which is applicable only to prime levels (see
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40993-022-00392-z), while the other uses a heavily optimized implementation of modular symbols and Atkin-Lehner operators (see
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/156828) that can decompose the space into newform subspaces much more quickly than magma, and it can be used to compute trace forms, but it does not attempt to compute q-expansions.
Level 11048 with trivial character is still in the range where you should be able to compute q-expansions using Magma's modular symbol implementation (which is what we used in the range 4000-10000 for trivial character). It is possible that Pari/GP can also handle this level, but I have less experience with Pari/GP in this range (my recollection is that Magma is faster here, but as you can see from Tables 7.1.1 and Tables 7.1.2 of
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04717, each implementation has its strengths, and it depends on the shape of the level, which isn't really visible in these tables).
But you will need to be patient, as it will take a substantial amount of time to decompose the space (once the space is decomposed computing q-expansions is pretty quick). You will also want to run this on a machine that has plenty of memory.