Potential New Central Pennine Rail Line (Colne-Skipton)

[edwin_m]

On the Borders line, where it's single track under old arched bridges, they've slewed it to the middle of the arch. The purpose was to create clearance for future electrification, but presumably it also creates walking routes each side.

True. I was thinking more of any bridges on what are now double track sections that were not re-built, where slewing the track wouldn't be an option.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The situation at Eden Brows arose from very specific circumstances.

Circumstances made very much worse by the Victorian standards of design ie high slope angles of earthworks.

To say that you would not contemplate reopenings unless the whole route is rebuilt in such a way would be more akin to closing the entire network until it can be rebuilt.

No, it's like saying that when rebuilding a tumble-down house all the wiring and plumbing must meet current standards but existing buildings can stay as they are until such time as those items require renewing, at which point they too must meet current standards. That's how standards work.

Yes there's no guarantee that infrastructure will be in as closed condition, that's why you check it. There's equally no guarantee that it won't be. You shouldn't start from a blanket assumption that it won't be.

Except that the first sensible step in any re-opening scheme should be a thorough appraisal of the state of the formation and associated structures. Any shortcomings must be addressed to modern standards and the scheme costed accordingly. Sadly any line that has been abandoned for any length of time will inevitably have many such shortcomings, typically through missing bridges or encroachments onto the route requiring a new-build diversion. And in some cases the formation may well have been completely levelled. The assumption that the infrastructure will not be suitable for re-use in as-is condition is totally reasonable for just about every proposed re-opening scheme: Colne-Skipton is no exception.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it's like saying that when rebuilding a tumble-down house all the wiring and plumbing must meet current standards but existing buildings can stay as they are until such time as those items require renewing, at which point they too must meet current standards. That's how standards work.

Re-wiring a derelict house is more akin in railway terms to re-signalling and laying new track (something one would have to do anyway).

What you don't tend to do when renovating an old house is demolish the whole thing and start again because wasn't built with a cavity wall.

Except that the first sensible step in any re-opening scheme should be a thorough appraisal of the state of the formation and associated structures. Any shortcomings must be addressed to modern standards and the scheme costed accordingly. Sadly any line that has been abandoned for any length of time will inevitably have many such shortcomings, typically through missing bridges or encroachments onto the route requiring a new-build diversion. And in some cases the formation may well have been completely levelled. The assumption that the infrastructure will not be suitable for re-use in as-is condition is totally reasonable for just about every proposed re-opening scheme: Colne-Skipton is no exception.

If a bridge is missing, you will find that it is missing and replace it. Why assume all bridges are missing ?

 

[bluenoxid]

Re-wiring a derelict house is more akin in railway terms to re-signalling and laying new track (something one would have to do anyway).

What you don't tend to do when renovating an old house is demolish the whole thing and start again because wasn't built with a cavity wall.

If a bridge is missing, you will find that it is missing and replace it. Why assume all bridges are missing ?

You would expect a full structural survey and replacement of any concerning sections of the house. We would also adapt the property to meet current standards which would include solid wall insulation. If necessary, we would demolish the house if repairs were unsustainable.

 

[Bald Rick]

First post for a while, as I'm tired of writing the same things. So I'll just link to this, which was one of my first posts 6 years ago, on the very same subject. Interesting to note that no one took me up on the bet. Just as well; I rarely lose them.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=583223&postcount=124

 

[A0wen]

First post for a while, as I'm tired of writing the same things. So I'll just link to this, which was one of my first posts 6 years ago, on the very same subject. Interesting to note that no one took me up on the bet. Just as well; I rarely lose them.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=583223&postcount=124

Still 13 years to go though..... you might still have to put your hand in your pocket

I doubt it, but 13 years is long enough to rebuild it.....

 

[PR1Berske]

First post for a while, as I'm tired of writing the same things. So I'll just link to this, which was one of my first posts 6 years ago, on the very same subject. Interesting to note that no one took me up on the bet. Just as well; I rarely lose them.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=583223&postcount=124

Think you have successfully ended both this thread and the dream of reopening the line. Good work.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I get tired of arguing the same points with the same people.

Still, so many people on here seem contented with a Beeching era network set in aspic, I can't see anything changing soon. I am defeated by England and it's inability to do anything.

 

[A0wen]

Personally I get tired of arguing the same points with the same people.

Still, so many people on here seem contented with a Beeching era network set in aspic, I can't see anything changing soon. I am defeated by England and it's inability to do anything.

The point, which many keep on making quite correctly, is that improvements or enhancements to the network come at a cost - potentially significant costs.

To claim the rail network is 'Beeching' era is a massive misrepresentation of the truth - you have seen wholesale modernisation to the extent that now, only one main route commuter route into London is not electrified (I'm counting the GWML as electrified as it's well under way). You have a cross London link which never existed under Beeching with a second one to be completed imminently. There are electrification plans for the MML and various parts of the cross country network which were neglected for many years.

All of these things have driven up passenger numbers to the highest level since WW2.

The problem on these boards is very few, if any, of the reopening schemes which keep getting peddled actually make any sense.

Skipton - Colne is a case in point. Neither are very big places. The route was lightly used and there are practical alternatives in place. Indeed there was a sensible suggestion made by one poster of extending the current Clitheroe service to Hellifield and potentially reverse to Skipton - now that would not need any new bridges etc, might need a small amount of track / infrastructure around Hellified and could be delivered for a fraction of the cost of SELRAP.

The only major re-opening in the UK has been Borders Rail - the Welsh valleys were using lines which existed until recently as freight lines - whereas Borders was a rebuild. Borders Rail had a very unique set of circumstances, specifically places like Hawick and Galashiels were not only removed from the rail network but were a significant distance from any rail connection - using Hawick as an example it's 43 miles to Berwick, 55 miles to Edinburgh, 46 miles to Carlisle, 58 miles to Alnwick and a similar distance to Hexham or Newcastle. That's why Borders Rail made sense.

Colne is still on the national network, Skipton is stilll on the national network. The only 'new' places which would be served by this reopening are Earby and Barnoldswick - total population of 20,000 - neither of which are more than 5 miles from the national network.

 

[eastdyke]

The point, which many keep on making quite correctly, is that improvements or enhancements to the network come at a cost - potentially significant costs.

To claim the rail network is 'Beeching' era is a massive misrepresentation of the truth - you have seen wholesale modernisation to the extent that now, only one main route commuter route into London is not electrified (I'm counting the GWML as electrified as it's well under way). You have a cross London link which never existed under Beeching with a second one to be completed imminently. There are electrification plans for the MML and various parts of the cross country network which were neglected for many years.

All of these things have driven up passenger numbers to the highest level since WW2.

The problem on these boards is very few, if any, of the reopening schemes which keep getting peddled actually make any sense.

Skipton - Colne is a case in point. Neither are very big places. The route was lightly used and there are practical alternatives in place. Indeed there was a sensible suggestion made by one poster of extending the current Clitheroe service to Hellifield and potentially reverse to Skipton - now that would not need any new bridges etc, might need a small amount of track / infrastructure around Hellified and could be delivered for a fraction of the cost of SELRAP.

The only major re-opening in the UK has been Borders Rail - the Welsh valleys were using lines which existed until recently as freight lines - whereas Borders was a rebuild. Borders Rail had a very unique set of circumstances, specifically places like Hawick and Galashiels were not only removed from the rail network but were a significant distance from any rail connection - using Hawick as an example it's 43 miles to Berwick, 55 miles to Edinburgh, 46 miles to Carlisle, 58 miles to Alnwick and a similar distance to Hexham or Newcastle. That's why Borders Rail made sense.

Colne is still on the national network, Skipton is stilll on the national network. The only 'new' places which would be served by this reopening are Earby and Barnoldswick - total population of 20,000 - neither of which are more than 5 miles from the national network.

That is a very good piece. To add to the positives you could add HS1/proposed HS2 plus a host of urban tram schemes, many of which do in part use former heavy rail routes.

To add to the negatives this piece from Lord Berkeley in Rail Technology Magazine, dated 5th May 2017, highlights the need for 'the industry' to better understand and control costs:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-Industry-Focus-/railway-costs-through-the-roof
In particular:

What are the possible solutions [to ever rising costs]?

We have to find them since, otherwise, enhancements or new works will not happen. Ministers are clearly fed up with all this and are encouraging the industry to challenge costs, and come up with alternative structures for developing new or upgraded lines. East West Rail is a good example, but how much liberty will the new team led by Rob Brighouse be allowed in designing, getting permissions, building and operating a line separately from Network Rail? Will they be allowed to avoid the ridiculously expensive and time-consuming GRIP process beloved by those in Network Rail wedded to process rather than progress?

Why shouldn’t sponsors and financiers prepare a three-page specification and put it out to competitive tender for design, get permissions, build and operate the infrastructure? An early example of this may be March to Wisbech reopening, where such an approach might save 30% of the cost estimated by Network Rail.

I could perhaps point a question towards those whom yorksrob believes to be 'contented with a Beeching era network set in aspic'.

 

[quantinghome]

There are bound to be efficiencies that can be made in rail projects generally, not just rail reopening projects. However, I must say that blaming the 'GRIP' process will not get us anywhere. GRIP is a variation on the standard approach to any project - define the problem, look at the options, select one, do outline and detailed design, build it, commission it. The problem occurs when NR don't have sufficiently experienced project managers to push the projects through and engineers who understand the details.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To claim the rail network is 'Beeching' era is a massive misrepresentation of the truth - you have seen wholesale modernisation to the extent that now, only one main route commuter route into London is not electrified (I'm counting the GWML as electrified as it's well under way). You have a cross London link which never existed under Beeching with a second one to be completed imminently. There are electrification plans for the MML and various parts of the cross country network which were neglected for many years.

All of these things have driven up passenger numbers to the highest level since WW2.

That is a very good piece. To add to the positives you could add HS1/proposed HS2 plus a host of urban tram schemes, many of which do in part use former heavy rail routes.

I totally agree - and please do not forget POST Beeching, a Channel Tunnel and HS1 as mentioned. Great PROGRESS

 

[Southsider]

The only major re-opening in the UK has been Borders Rail - the Welsh valleys were using lines which existed until recently as freight lines - whereas Borders was a rebuild.

I agree entirely with your point but not your example of the Borders line as the only major reopening of a Beeching era closure. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Borders line would not have gone ahead without significant massaging of the figures and a great deal of political manipulation and it remains to be seen if the initial surge beyond predicted usage can be sustained. I'm sure there are others but the Argyle line in Glasgow, reopened in 1979, strikes me as one of the best examples of positive reuse of semi derelict infrastructure serving a large area of population. It was closed for good reason and reopened for good reason.

 

[Starmill]

In the short term it would be better to extend the Clitheroe service to Hellifield and change there which would shorten the journey times from the Skipton line and give an indication of possible demand to/from Blackburn and stations towards Manchester.
That would need rolling stock but no major track investment to start with - though ideally a bay platform would be reinstated at Hellifield which would also allow reversal to Skipton if needed.
I believe under the proposed Northern timetable next year (as per the northern timetable thread) there is generally an hourly Leeds-Skipton -Hellifield service for a lot of the day - running either to Morecambe or Carlisle so hopefully the timetabling could provide a reliable connection without having to wait too long.
Perhaps it would be a better idea if the Clitheroe service could augment these and run to Ribblehead (or beyond) in the hours there isn't a Leeds train to give a through service from Manchester/Bolton areas.

This is exactly what I was thinking much more deliverable option - which probably has a reasonable chance of happening if persued.

What would be the point of a service that starts and terminates at Hellified?

I don't see any money forthcoming for new stations at Chatburn or Gisburn and I can think of a huge number of more useful new station locations. Hellifield itself is not particularly big, and adding in a connection will probably not make it a very attractive prospect vs changing at Leeds, plus reduce any journey time saving (going via Entwistle is very slow). One could propose a though service to Settle if there were a new crossover installed, of course, but then why provide an extra train to Settle that doesn't at least go to Skipton? I love the idea of a regular Clitheroe to Hellifield service - but I'm just not sure what we would be achieving with it.

My view of Skipton to Colne is this. The DfT should have written into the franchise agreement for Northern to provide a service - but not that it has to be a rail service. Leave it up to the franchisee to decide if they would like to buy their own buses and employ drivers, contract their service to a local coach company, or see if they can do a deal with Transdev to have them accept their passengers and amend the routes slightly so that the buses stop in a suitable place for the station.

Northern could then make tickets available and hey presto you have linked the two lines without spending any new money on infrastructure at all. If somebody wants to travel from Nelso to Leeds they can put that into any website (even trainline) and it will show them that they can get a train to Colne, a bus to Skipton and a train to Leeds, and they can buy one through ticket with no supplements, no extras and no confusion. It would also be good for passengers because it would mean that if someone bought a Preston to Leeds ticket they could have the oppourtunity to go via Colne without paying any extra, which would be very useful in times of disruption or engineering work, or if there were a gap in the timetable which meant this was quicker.

The Leuchars bus link operates much like this using Stagecoach East Scotland and it works quite well, Scotrail run a booking office in the bus station at St Andrews.

This is also a solution I would advocate for Uckfield to Lewes, which if anything probably has a stronger case than this one. I think the DfT could do with being a bit more ambitious on 'double ended' bus links. I would guess they are a bit concerned it might increase bid costs disproportionately though. One way or the other, doing something to try to increase ridership on the branch one way or the other is probably important to securing its long term future.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect allowing a subsidised train operator to run a bus service would fall foul(ridge) of the laws on bus competition.

 

[Bantamzen]

My view of Skipton to Colne is this. The DfT should have written into the franchise agreement for Northern to provide a service - but not that it has to be a rail service. Leave it up to the franchisee to decide if they would like to buy their own buses and employ drivers, contract their service to a local coach company, or see if they can do a deal with Transdev to have them accept their passengers and amend the routes slightly so that the buses stop in a suitable place for the station.

Northern could then make tickets available and hey presto you have linked the two lines without spending any new money on infrastructure at all. If somebody wants to travel from Nelso to Leeds they can put that into any website (even trainline) and it will show them that they can get a train to Colne, a bus to Skipton and a train to Leeds, and they can buy one through ticket with no supplements, no extras and no confusion. It would also be good for passengers because it would mean that if someone bought a Preston to Leeds ticket they could have the oppourtunity to go via Colne without paying any extra, which would be very useful in times of disruption or engineering work, or if there were a gap in the timetable which meant this was quicker.

The Leuchars bus link operates much like this using Stagecoach East Scotland and it works quite well, Scotrail run a booking office in the bus station at St Andrews.

This is also a solution I would advocate for Uckfield to Lewes, which if anything probably has a stronger case than this one. I think the DfT could do with being a bit more ambitious on 'double ended' bus links. I would guess they are a bit concerned it might increase bid costs disproportionately though. One way or the other, doing something to try to increase ridership on the branch one way or the other is probably important to securing its long term future.

I'd like to pick up on this point in particular, as it is a bugbear of mine that we in this country have such a fragmented and sometimes disfunctional inter-model network.

Clearly from the discussion here there is little scope for a Colne-Skipton rebuild, but at the same time there is anecdotal evidence that there is at least a small market for a link between the two. Now the obvious solution, as highlighted above would be to make a deal with an existing operator to allow a Colne-Skipton service to some form of cross-ticketing with Northern. This could mean that a Colne resident could use the bus for the first part of the journey (with a call at the station obviously), then proceed onwards along the Aire Valley by train for the remainder. But sadly such examples are rare, and being between two counties, neither of which have PTEs, this is unlikely to ever be supported. So the commuter on this route has to buy a ticket / season ticket for the bus portion, and another for the train. Hardly appealing, especially as the road links maybe equal in transit time. Indeed the X43 (which I assume is the quickest option) doesn't advertise a call at Skipton station, so I am guessing it doesn't pass by or stop there?

So what does a commuter do? Take a 35 minute bus ride into Skipton, walk for 10-15 minutes to the station to make a connection, or do they simply drive? It is one example of a missed opportunity to have a far more joined up network.

 

[philthetube]

The point, which many keep on making quite correctly, is that improvements or enhancements to the network come at a cost - potentially significant costs.

To claim the rail network is 'Beeching' era is a massive misrepresentation of the truth - you have seen wholesale modernisation to the extent that now, only one main route commuter route into London is not electrified (I'm counting the GWML as electrified as it's well under way). You have a cross London link which never existed under Beeching with a second one to be completed imminently. There are electrification plans for the MML and various parts of the cross country network which were neglected for many years.

All of these things have driven up passenger numbers to the highest level since WW2.

The problem on these boards is very few, if any, of the reopening schemes which keep getting peddled actually make any sense.

Skipton - Colne is a case in point. Neither are very big places. The route was lightly used and there are practical alternatives in place. Indeed there was a sensible suggestion made by one poster of extending the current Clitheroe service to Hellifield and potentially reverse to Skipton - now that would not need any new bridges etc, might need a small amount of track / infrastructure around Hellified and could be delivered for a fraction of the cost of SELRAP.

The only major re-opening in the UK has been Borders Rail - the Welsh valleys were using lines which existed until recently as freight lines - whereas Borders was a rebuild. Borders Rail had a very unique set of circumstances, specifically places like Hawick and Galashiels were not only removed from the rail network but were a significant distance from any rail connection - using Hawick as an example it's 43 miles to Berwick, 55 miles to Edinburgh, 46 miles to Carlisle, 58 miles to Alnwick and a similar distance to Hexham or Newcastle. That's why Borders Rail made sense.

Colne is still on the national network, Skipton is stilll on the national network. The only 'new' places which would be served by this reopening are Earby and Barnoldswick - total population of 20,000 - neither of which are more than 5 miles from the national network.

Well written post, couple of points which only show one side of the story.

Colne Skipton was lightly used, not surprising as trains terminated at Skipton and as previous posters have said Skipton is a relatively small place, had services continued to leeds it would have been a different story.

Although colne is on the national network that is a similar statement to saying that a town has a taxi service when someone has a rickshaw. Hour and ten mins to Preston then poor connections to London, it is amazing anyone uses the current service, a chunk of the Burnley Manchester Rd. passengers are Colne folk who don't want to suffer the 142 to Preston.

Nelson/colne patronage would likely double as currently Yorkshire is not an option from there. Currently 2 hours to leeds with one change.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Although colne is on the national network that is a similar statement to saying that a town has a taxi service when someone has a rickshaw. Hour and ten mins to Preston then poor connections to London, it is amazing anyone uses the current service, a chunk of the Burnley Manchester Rd. passengers are Colne folk who don't want to suffer the 142 to Preston.

Well 142s are being phased out. IIRC the number 1 priority on the Northern Sparks all party committee recommended Calder Valley Electrification. It did only say Burnley - Colne as 2nd tier. But if this went ahead that would be a great start - being biased I would do the small add on bit to Colne while I was at it. If patronage hugely increased on the line the case would get stronger and stronger in the future for reopening to Skipton - sparked up of course.

 

[30907]

the X43 (which I assume is the quickest option) doesn't advertise a call at Skipton station, so I am guessing it doesn't pass by or stop there?

So what does a commuter do? Take a 35 minute bus ride into Skipton, walk for 10-15 minutes to the station to make a connection, or do they simply drive? It is one example of a missed opportunity to have a far more joined up network.

It passes by as it's the obvious route into Skipton and I'm sure it stops outside (in front of me last time I drove into Skipton). the online X43 timetable confirms this.

 

[Bald Rick]

The quote from Tony Berkeley:

Why shouldn’t sponsors and financiers prepare a three-page specification and put it out to competitive tender for design, get permissions, build and operate the infrastructure? An early example of this may be March to Wisbech reopening, where such an approach might save 30% of the cost estimated by Network Rail.

As I'm sure he knows, sponsors can do this now, indeed a couple have done.

When the answers come back is when it gets interesting, and the sponsors usually turn to Network Rail with a cry for help.

 

[yorksrob]

The point, which many keep on making quite correctly, is that improvements or enhancements to the network come at a cost - potentially significant costs.

To claim the rail network is 'Beeching' era is a massive misrepresentation of the truth - you have seen wholesale modernisation to the extent that now, only one main route commuter route into London is not electrified (I'm counting the GWML as electrified as it's well under way). You have a cross London link which never existed under Beeching with a second one to be completed imminently. There are electrification plans for the MML and various parts of the cross country network which were neglected for many years.

All of these things have driven up passenger numbers to the highest level since WW2.

The problem on these boards is very few, if any, of the reopening schemes which keep getting peddled actually make any sense.

Skipton - Colne is a case in point. Neither are very big places. The route was lightly used and there are practical alternatives in place. Indeed there was a sensible suggestion made by one poster of extending the current Clitheroe service to Hellifield and potentially reverse to Skipton - now that would not need any new bridges etc, might need a small amount of track / infrastructure around Hellified and could be delivered for a fraction of the cost of SELRAP.

The only major re-opening in the UK has been Borders Rail - the Welsh valleys were using lines which existed until recently as freight lines - whereas Borders was a rebuild. Borders Rail had a very unique set of circumstances, specifically places like Hawick and Galashiels were not only removed from the rail network but were a significant distance from any rail connection - using Hawick as an example it's 43 miles to Berwick, 55 miles to Edinburgh, 46 miles to Carlisle, 58 miles to Alnwick and a similar distance to Hexham or Newcastle. That's why Borders Rail made sense.

Colne is still on the national network, Skipton is stilll on the national network. The only 'new' places which would be served by this reopening are Earby and Barnoldswick - total population of 20,000 - neither of which are more than 5 miles from the national network.

All of the enhancements mentioned by yourself, whilst extremely important in their own right, actually serve the same markets as the Beeching network, so I stand by my point that we are stuck with a Beeching era network (airport branches excepted). Infact, route closures continued after he left, so what we actually have left is a sub-Breeching network.

In terms of reopenings making sense, both Tavistock and Okehampton are isolated from the everyday passenger network, and like the Waverley the area has substantial tourist potential, yet because our administration is stuck in Beeching aspic, little has been done.

 

[The Planner]

Nothing to stop third party funding being found for these schemes, if anything that is what NR is expected to find in the future.

 

[gnolife]

It passes by as it's the obvious route into Skipton and I'm sure it stops outside (in front of me last time I drove into Skipton). the online X43 timetable confirms this.

The X43 stops at Skipton station, except if it is one that is in the timetable as calling at Craven College.

 

[Bevan Price]

Well written post, couple of points which only show one side of the story.



Nelson/colne patronage would likely double as currently Yorkshire is not an option from there. Currently 2 hours to leeds with one change.

But how many people in Colne & Nelson want to travel daily to Leeds (or Bradford)? People just making an occasional shopping trip are not enough to justify the cost of reopening a railway.

 

[bluenoxid]

But how many people in Colne & Nelson want to travel daily to Leeds (or Bradford)? People just making an occasional shopping trip are not enough to justify the cost of reopening a railway.

What the key people behind the scheme will not admit is that a 60 minute journey time into Leeds would open up the area to development opportunities for land. A station at Earby could justify a lot of development. Not everyone wants to live in suburban Leeds. I personally don't think it is enough but I hope this fleshed out the possible drivers of demand.

A north travelcard could manage the issues with ticketing.

And whilst the X43 stops outside of Skipton station, it will be a dire place to wait when it is raining

 

[eastdyke]

The quote from Tony Berkeley:

As I'm sure he knows, sponsors can do this now, indeed a couple have done.
When the answers come back is when it gets interesting, and the sponsors usually turn to Network Rail with a cry for help.

Sure. Would be sponsors tend to be, perhaps understandably, optimistic as to the merits of their proposal.

And for those that are simply not affordable a 30% cost saving may make no difference at all. Perhaps having got the answers more quickly sponsors will still turn to Network Rail for 'confirmation' of their dashed hopes.

That we are entitled to expect reasonable timescales and for costs to be both realistic and controlled remains unchanged.

 

[Starmill]

I suspect allowing a subsidised train operator to run a bus service would fall foul(ridge) of the laws on bus competition.

I'm sure they could declare the railway re-opened, and call it a replacement bus service - which effectively it is, the service would be running non-stop between only railway stations.

Or simply contract the work to an existing service, although that might not bring about the transformational change neccesary.

There seem to be ways around this elsewhere. Even in the long term. In Staffordshire we have seen that LM are permitted to justify rail replacement buses apparently in perpetuity.

Incorporating buses into the National Rail Timetable and making fares available would give more of an idea of the demand on the route too. What better way to make the financial case for investment in new infrastructure than to have reliable hard data on the number of 'railway' passengers currently using a route, who may benefit from a change?

The idea is far, far more likely than any of the reopening talk - and yet it seems to attract remarkably little support on these boards. I have often thought that where stock is short, a couple of supplementary buses to the current trains would be a good idea. Skipton to Settle is perhaps a good example of this, where the current rail timetable plus a few buses which you can use your train ticket on would make the overall service far more attractive, and the trains that there already are would be better used. The case then builds to run an additional train instead of running that bus. We need to get smarter about this somehow and just wishing and wanting for new infrastructure will not work.

 

[Bevan Price]

What the key people behind the scheme will not admit is that a 60 minute journey time into Leeds would open up the area to development opportunities for land. A station at Earby could justify a lot of development. Not everyone wants to live in suburban Leeds. I personally don't think it is enough but I hope this fleshed out the possible drivers of demand.

So - maybe the developers will be willing to pay the full cost of rebuilding Colne to Skipton? I doubt it - I expect they want us (taxpayers via Network Rail) to foot most of the bill.

However, I do think there may be other, more affordable ways to improve rail services in East Lancashire. Accepting that all stations Colne to Preston is a bit dire, and not very attractive, how about :

1. Reinstate double track between Rose Grove & Colne.
2. Fully reinstate double track between Blackburn & Bolton.
3. New fast service from Colne, calling only at Nelson, Burnley Central, Accrington, Blackburn, then Darwen, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Manchester stations.
4. Blackpool to Leeds/York service to stop additionally at Rose Grove, with quick cross-platform connections to/from a retimed Colne - Preston service.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So - maybe the developers will be willing to pay the full cost of rebuilding Colne to Skipton? I doubt it - I expect they want us (taxpayers via Network Rail) to foot most of the bill.

However, I do think there may be other, more affordable ways to improve rail services in East Lancashire. Accepting that all stations Colne to Preston is a bit dire, and not very attractive, how about :

1. Reinstate double track between Rose Grove & Colne.
2. Fully reinstate double track between Blackburn & Bolton.
3. New fast service from Colne, calling only at Nelson, Burnley Central, Accrington, Blackburn, then Darwen, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Manchester stations.
4. Blackpool to Leeds/York service to stop additionally at Rose Grove, with quick cross-platform connections to/from a retimed Colne - Preston service.

Going back to what I said before, you may be onto something with these: I decried how you would justify the extra Colne service owing to the lack of destinations, but knocking through the guaranteed second service between Man Vic and Blackburn via Bolton may be one way of reasonably doing it.

In terms of costs, this does not require the entirety of Bolton to Blackburn to be doubled: Saturday mornings already demonstrate the capabilities of the existing trackwork in coping with 4tph over it, and the bridge over the M65 at Darwen and Sough Tunnel would preclude such measures being realistically achievable anyway. Half hourly on the Colne branch would probably only require a crossing loop at Burnley Central or Brierfield. Colne-Gannow takes ~18 minutes at present, so splitting that into two sections each occupied for 40 minutes an hour is probably justifiable without the need for fully redoubling it.

 

[A0wen]

So - maybe the developers will be willing to pay the full cost of rebuilding Colne to Skipton? I doubt it - I expect they want us (taxpayers via Network Rail) to foot most of the bill.

However, I do think there may be other, more affordable ways to improve rail services in East Lancashire. Accepting that all stations Colne to Preston is a bit dire, and not very attractive, how about :

1. Reinstate double track between Rose Grove & Colne.
2. Fully reinstate double track between Blackburn & Bolton.
3. New fast service from Colne, calling only at Nelson, Burnley Central, Accrington, Blackburn, then Darwen, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Manchester stations.
4. Blackpool to Leeds/York service to stop additionally at Rose Grove, with quick cross-platform connections to/from a retimed Colne - Preston service.

Colne has a population of 20,000 and an annual station usage of less than 100,000. It simply doesn't justify the expense of being doubled.

To give a comparison - Felixstowe (also the end of a branch line from a major town) has a similar population and double the usage on the station, yet the only reason that branch justifies upgrades to allow additional capacity is the freight serving the port.

Blackburn - Bolton doubling *might* be justified as part of improving links into Manchester.