Potential New Central Pennine Rail Line (Colne-Skipton)

[Train Maniac]

If you don’t think that £400m is a grand scheme, then it won’t be troubling.

As well as Vivary Way, the canal and River Aire need to be crossed. In addition the A56 needs to be crossed in the Earby area. The current alignment is not fit for purpose.

When you are in the back end of all the regions that you sit in (North Yorks, Lancs and Leeds City Region), it is a lot of money.



The problem is that there are only some sizeable employers (not as many as people think). The volume of traffic and passengers pushing down the Aire Valley suggest that there are not enough jobs.

Im not making any claims that i understand economics, but i was meaning in comparison to other projects such as Crossrail, HS2 and GWML Electrification

As has already been said, realistically you want to upgrade Colne to Blackburn first before you start building any new railway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As has already been said, realistically you want to upgrade Colne to Blackburn first before you start building any new railway.

Can any of our resident armchair economists put a financial figure on this upgrading and also state any notable problem areas that could be encountered in carrying out this specific task.

 

[Bevan Price]

On the contrary - Colne station usage has been fairly stable for the last 5 or so years the average is circa 95,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colne_railway_station

Divide that by 360 (to allow for a few days when there are no trains) and you're looking at 264 people a day - assume an hourly service for 14 hours (which would cover 7 am - 9 pm) and you'd have an average of 18 people per train. Given the demand won't be equal across the whole day, instead focused at certain key times, the scenario posted above is entirely conceivable.

But for total branch usage, you have to add Nelson, Brierfield and 2 Burnley stations, which adds about another 300,000 using the branch.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Again, its not about commuters. The idea of the Colne-Skipton reinstatement was originally mooted by the owners of Drax, because trains coming from Liverpool were taking anything up to nine hours to reach them. So they were looking at options to reduce the time it takes from dock to plant. The further north & west a route goes, the longer it will potentially take especially if reversals are needed. And we are not talking about a few trains a year here, we are talking tens of millions of tonnes so for this energy generation to be as cost effective as possible, getting fuel from port to plant is key. It might not seem to matter much if it trundles half way around the region, but all the time the fuel is on freight service it is not generating power & costing in logistics. Hence the search for another option across the Pennines, other than transferring all logistics to the M62.

I can see that reversal and longer route is not the quickest way to get from Liverpool and has a cost penalty but is a, say, three hour extension so much of a problem in the process of converting trees to dry wood chips and taking them thousands of miles to burn in Yorkshire. I understand the need to keep the chips dry and that buffer storeage can not be in the open air but do not understand why a small addition to transit time is so critical.

 

[Killingworth]

I can see that reversal and longer route is not the quickest way to get from Liverpool and has a cost penalty but is a, say, three hour extension so much of a problem in the process of converting trees to dry wood chips and taking them thousands of miles to burn in Yorkshire. I understand the need to keep the chips dry and that buffer storeage can not be in the open air but do not understand why a small addition to transit time is so critical.

The quicker the journey time the fewer trains need to be out on the tracks. It's all about turn round times and at both ends loading and unloading is quick. With a quicker route they might save 25% on the number of trains needed. I have no details of the figures to hand but may have heard a suggestion that the saving could be greater than 25%.

Currently bio-mass trains have to go south to find paths with both capacity and sufficient gauge to take the loads. The Hope Valley doesn't normally see freight other than stone and cement due to capacity issues, but the tunnels aren't wide enough for the largest container loads. (A quarry manager recently told me they can be short of wagons because the railway can't get empties back to them quick enough.) The SELRAP route avoids major tunnels.

 

[chorleyjeff]

The quicker the journey time the fewer trains need to be out on the tracks. It's all about turn round times and at both ends loading and unloading is quick. With a quicker route they might save 25% on the number of trains needed. I have no details of the figures to hand but may have heard a suggestion that the saving could be greater than 25%.

Currently bio-mass trains have to go south to find paths with both capacity and sufficient gauge to take the loads. The Hope Valley doesn't normally see freight other than stone and cement due to capacity issues, but the tunnels aren't wide enough for the largest container loads. (A quarry manager recently told me they can be short of wagons because the railway can't get empties back to them quick enough.) The SELRAP route avoids major tunnels.

I said I understood there was a cost penalty using a longer route.
As a matter of interest would he wagons and locos be used for additional work in the time save ? I.e. Would they make more journeys per annum ?

 

[Bald Rick]

And London's always attracted expenditure, unlike the Shires.

Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire?

 

[Deerfold]

Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire?

On routes to London?

 

[Bald Rick]

See my post #251 where I mention that Drax paying for it, or at least contributing is part of what is being looked into as far as I recall.

They won’t pay for it. At least not anywhere near enough to make a case for the line.

Drax takes biomass from Immingham, Tyne and Liverpool. Maybe 5-6 trains a day from the latter, which take about 7 hours. Personally, I don’t see how a reopened Skipton-Colne could save 3 hours on that, but let’s assume it does. Allowing for typical loading / unloading times, the haulier could save maybe 2 sets of locos / wagons, 4-6 drivers, and perhaps a bit of fuel. Being very, very generous, that’s worth about £2-3m a year, let’s say £3m. Now if Drax are paying up front to save this much cash, they will want to make a return on their investment, after borrowing at commercial rates. (Their most recent bonds were issued at 6.625%). And they would want that return from a relatively short period, and certainly no longer than that of the biomass units. Putting all those optimistic assumptions through the spreadsheet means that they might chip in something like £20m-£30m, after some hard negotiations. On a project that’s £400m.

 

[Bald Rick]

On routes to London?

Shires attracting investment for reopening rail lines.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is true, assuming of course that either could handle the requirements, keeping in mind that more than £100M was spent building the facilities at Liverpool (including 100,00 tonne storage) for the biofuel imports. Its entirely possible that these ports were considered but deemed unsuitable for whatever reason, be it logistical or financial.

I guess at the end of the day it will be down to the government and owners of Drax to work out the best strategy for moving the fuel. I'm not saying it should or will go ahead, merely pointing out to the active members on this thread that this proposal is not just about shuttling passengers between the Pennine towns of Colne & Skipton.

But Drax does import biofuel via Immingham as well as Liverpool. Here is an example train from Immingham today: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H34551/2019/01/29/advanced.

Drax needs both import routes in order to minimise the risk of disruption to its Just In Time supply chain. For example, accidental blockage of Immingham port or rail line, or industrial action, could shut Drax down for days or weeks if Liverpool were not available as a backup. Note that DB Cargo has the contract for the Immingham trains, versus GBRf for Liverpool. There are more train paths timetabled from each port than are normally used.

In case of delays to the transatlantic shipments, Drax has the option of diverting ships to Liverpool instead of Immingham in order to reduce the sailing time. If the rail journey time from Liverpool were reduced, this "insurance policy" would be enhanced.

 

[Bald Rick]

But Drax does import biofuel via Immingham as well as Liverpool. Here is an example train from Immingham today: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H34551/2019/01/29/advanced.

Drax needs both import routes in order to minimise the risk of disruption to its Just In Time supply chain. For example, accidental blockage of Immingham port or rail line, or industrial action, could shut Drax down for days or weeks if Liverpool were not available as a backup. Note that DB Cargo has the contract for the Immingham trains, versus GBRf for Liverpool. There are more train paths timetabled from each port than are normally used.

In case of delays to the transatlantic shipments, Drax has the option of diverting ships to Liverpool instead of Immingham in order to reduce the sailing time. If the rail journey time from Liverpool were reduced, this "insurance policy" would be enhanced.

Indeed, there is storage at Drax for 10-14 days worth of biomass pellets, and about the same again between the various import ports.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes, there is explicit reference to improving the existing railway to Colne, although no detail is given in news reports. Who knows, £400 million might even include something for easing problems at Whitehall junction? But I'm impressed by the argument that the biomass trains are basically replacing coal trains that followed the same route across Leeds.

I'd like to see Skipton <-> Colne reopen. Let's wait and see the numbers first, before jumping to judgement for or against.

The cost does seem considerably higher than (IIRC) the costs suggested by the earlier SELRAP (can't recall exactly what that acronym stands for) campaign. At that cost I'd expect it includes significant use of double track or loops, including the existing Rose Grove to Colne "long siding". At that price I'd also hope that there's allowance for at least an hourly passenger service as far as Skipton with reliable connections to Leeds services.

Crossing the throat at Leeds will be a significant issue, a flyover looks do-able but would be expensive. NR/DfT may be reluctant to spend significant sums on freight infrastructure projects after that flyover between Doncaster and York (don't recall the name of the location) was rendered largely obsolete by the drop in coal traffic.

The flyover would only be needed for freight traffic so I cannot see it stacking up cost wise. Insofar as extra pasenger paths are concerned I would expect it to have been considered whether the existing paths between Leeds and Skipton and between Colne and Preston could be linked, though a lack of electrification to the west may be a problem and add to the cost - maybe bi-mode trains though the Class 333s aren't that old.

 

[LateThanNever]

Can any of our resident armchair economists put a financial figure on this upgrading and also state any notable problem areas that could be encountered in carrying out this specific task.

It doesn't matter financially. Yes we need the (engineering) resources but the financial resources are irrelevant.
Where does money come from? That's right, government creates it out of thin air. It is a promise to pay tax essentially.
So it is the actual resources that are relevant and we probably have too few engineers..
But money is unlimited, because it doesn't arrrive from heaven. We create it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It doesn't matter financially. Yes we need the (engineering) resources but the financial resources are irrelevant.
Where does money come from? That's right, government creates it out of thin air. It is a promise to pay tax essentially.
So it is the actual resources that are relevant and we probably have too few engineers..
But money is unlimited, because it doesn't arrrive from heaven. We create it!

I take it that the above financial logic was not deemed to be incorporated in the post 2010 austerity scenario but was applied to all London-centric rail programmes but for some strange reason did not apply to the Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16 project.

 

[Killingworth]

I said I understood there was a cost penalty using a longer route.
As a matter of interest would he wagons and locos be used for additional work in the time save ? I.e. Would they make more journeys per annum ?

In a word, yes, every wagon would be capable of making more journeys. That would save on capital costs for new wagons, running costs for the wagons and motive power costs.

 

[Train Maniac]

Can any of our resident armchair economists put a financial figure on this upgrading and also state any notable problem areas that could be encountered in carrying out this specific task.

OK i'll have a go

Well Oxford to Bicester Village was around £320M for around 15miles completely rebuilt to modern standards without electrification.
Colne to Rose Grove is around 10miles but has more infastructure.
So i would hazard a guess of around £300M without electrification. With electrification and i would assume your looking around £400M (coincidentally how much the report says Colne to Skipton is)

Cheapest way possible (therefore more likely): Booking office at Colne- peak hours only at first. Put new loop in at Brierfield to allow for 30 minute interval service to Blackburn. Possible rerouting of Clitheroe Road to be done with the level crossing as well. Give all other stations a thorough cleaning and disabled access. Replace Pacers ASAP with the new Class 195's. Rebuild any bridges with tight clearances (or generally just in need of replacement) to allow provision for electrification at future date. Improve connections at Rose Grove. Done

 

[philthetube]

Not many people do. There was 1 passenger on the 12.11 departure today (cl 142 Pacer) and 4 cars in the car park.
I suspect the Juggler's suggestion in post 202 is more representative of what the public would prefer. Get stuck behind a slow moving vehicle between Colne and Cross Hills and there's hardly anywhere to overtake. Best way to spend money in that part of the world would be to replace the Cross Hills level crossing with a bridge and railway station, together with a Cross Hills/Glusburn North-West by-pass

It alwasy surprises me how fwe people leave the train to get into cars at Colne, possibly because it is so much quicker to drive to all stations on the route, with the exception of travelling o nelson.

The numbers suggest it is though - as I've pointed out - even if you average it consistently you're only looking at 18 people per train - that's in a unit with a seating capacity of between 100 - 120 (for a Class 142).

On the basis there will be some with more on, such as at key commuting times, that means there will be some with far fewer on.

The next stop down the line, Nelson, attracts slightly more circa 130,000 - but those two stations are barely half filling a Pacer on average and it's only when it gets to Burnley is it likely to fill up and that's going to be with traffic heading towards Preston rather than Colne.

Half full from Colne and Nelson, I feel sorry for the folks from Burnley onwards then who will not get on. Most branch lines are like that and you could make cases in many cases for total closure by looking at numbers for terminus stations and deciding that that station was not worth serving.

OK i'll have a go

Well Oxford to Bicester Village was around £320M for around 15miles completely rebuilt to modern standards without electrification.
Colne to Rose Grove is around 10miles but has more infastructure.
So i would hazard a guess of around £300M without electrification. With electrification and i would assume your looking around £400M (coincidentally how much the report says Colne to Skipton is)

Suspect you meant Skipton but Colne Rose Grove is approx 6

 

[Bantamzen]

I can see that reversal and longer route is not the quickest way to get from Liverpool and has a cost penalty but is a, say, three hour extension so much of a problem in the process of converting trees to dry wood chips and taking them thousands of miles to burn in Yorkshire. I understand the need to keep the chips dry and that buffer storeage can not be in the open air but do not understand why a small addition to transit time is so critical.

It isn't just time, its the cost of having your fuel trundling around the North of England on freight trains. It might not seem much to most people, but I imagine when moving millions of tons of the stuff a year those few extra hours add up.

The quicker the journey time the fewer trains need to be out on the tracks. It's all about turn round times and at both ends loading and unloading is quick. With a quicker route they might save 25% on the number of trains needed. I have no details of the figures to hand but may have heard a suggestion that the saving could be greater than 25%.

Currently bio-mass trains have to go south to find paths with both capacity and sufficient gauge to take the loads. The Hope Valley doesn't normally see freight other than stone and cement due to capacity issues, but the tunnels aren't wide enough for the largest container loads. (A quarry manager recently told me they can be short of wagons because the railway can't get empties back to them quick enough.) The SELRAP route avoids major tunnels.

Good points.

They won’t pay for it. At least not anywhere near enough to make a case for the line.

Drax takes biomass from Immingham, Tyne and Liverpool. Maybe 5-6 trains a day from the latter, which take about 7 hours. Personally, I don’t see how a reopened Skipton-Colne could save 3 hours on that, but let’s assume it does. Allowing for typical loading / unloading times, the haulier could save maybe 2 sets of locos / wagons, 4-6 drivers, and perhaps a bit of fuel. Being very, very generous, that’s worth about £2-3m a year, let’s say £3m. Now if Drax are paying up front to save this much cash, they will want to make a return on their investment, after borrowing at commercial rates. (Their most recent bonds were issued at 6.625%). And they would want that return from a relatively short period, and certainly no longer than that of the biomass units. Putting all those optimistic assumptions through the spreadsheet means that they might chip in something like £20m-£30m, after some hard negotiations. On a project that’s £400m.

And now project that over 20-30 years, possibly more if new power sources continue to stall. If the owners opt to put money into such a project, and that is an if at this time, they would be looking at very long term benefits & savings.

But Drax does import biofuel via Immingham as well as Liverpool. Here is an example train from Immingham today: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H34551/2019/01/29/advanced.

Drax needs both import routes in order to minimise the risk of disruption to its Just In Time supply chain. For example, accidental blockage of Immingham port or rail line, or industrial action, could shut Drax down for days or weeks if Liverpool were not available as a backup. Note that DB Cargo has the contract for the Immingham trains, versus GBRf for Liverpool. There are more train paths timetabled from each port than are normally used.

In case of delays to the transatlantic shipments, Drax has the option of diverting ships to Liverpool instead of Immingham in order to reduce the sailing time. If the rail journey time from Liverpool were reduced, this "insurance policy" would be enhanced.

Yet despite having an established east coast port, they opted to make a deal for landing fuel on the west coast too, for which the port owners threw in £100M worth of investment to support. It is possible that there are perceived benefits to using Liverpool over Immingham, whilst keeping the latter on-line as back-up / contingency? I suspect the various stakeholders have a better idea of this.

I'll also reiterate, I am not for or against the project. There are other projects that from a passenger perspective require more urgent funding. However as far as I recall, the owners of Drax initiated the current study when they started to review the time the Liverpool landed fuel was taking to reach them. Whether or not this reaches a business case or not remains to be seen, but my point all along was that it is moving slowly through the very early processes of study not just because a few people want to travel between two medium sized towns, but because a major provider of energy is looking at options to reduce port to plant delivery times, to in turn hopefully make a crucial part of the energy infrastructure more efficient. That is why this project hasn't as yet made it to the dusty shelves of the DfT.

 

[A0]

Half full from Colne and Nelson, I feel sorry for the folks from Burnley onwards then who will not get on. Most branch lines are like that and you could make cases in many cases for total closure by looking at numbers for terminus stations and deciding that that station was not worth serving.

Notwithstanding the fact that a good number of the people travelling from Colne or Nelson will alight at one of the Burnley stations.

Add in the fact people travelling west from Burnley to Accrington, Blackburn or Preston also have a choice of using faster trains from Burnley Manchester Road or other services from Burnley Mcr Road and Rose Grove.

 

[quantinghome]

I am not for or against the project. There are other projects that from a passenger perspective require more urgent funding.

This. £400m would get you the core of a light rail network in Leeds. Or limiting ourselves to heavy rail, surely Piccadilly P15/16 is the most urgently needed investment in the North. And that's a project which is shovel-ready.

 

[Bantamzen]

This. £400m would get you the core of a light rail network in Leeds. Or limiting ourselves to heavy rail, surely Piccadilly P15/16 is the most urgently needed investment in the North. And that's a project which is shovel-ready.

As I said, there are more important projects passenger-wise that could be funded. That doesn't mean that private industry can't investigate means of funding projects that would better suit their needs, especially when those industries are key to the infrastructure in the first place. Which is what is happening a the moment. If it gets shelved, as I suspect it will unless more or less being fully privately funded, that doesn't mean that there is suddenly £400M to spend elsewhere on the railways. If a stakeholder holder presented a case that an investment from DfT of that amount would provide more in wider benefits in the long run, some if not all the money might be made available on that basis directly from the Treasury, directly or through extra borrowing. It wouldn't simply be coming out of Network Rail's pot, and depriving somewhere else of their project.

As for the much touted Leeds Light Rail / Tram, don't make me laugh. Even if that got to a business case again, the NIMBYs would chase it off long before a final "nay" from the government could be issued.

 

[Killingworth]

Putting it bluntly, Drax want viable alternative options for bringing in bio-mass to guarantee reliable generation. They use Tees and Tyne as well as Immingham and Liverpool and could source the pellets from Scandinavia as well as North America. The costs are carefully weighed and the balance is currently in favour of pellets from USA through Liverpool despite rail delays across northern England. Ship to the east coast is also more expensive and adds materially to the quantity in transit, but a few loads that way keep the options open, and ensure competition.

They've a lot hanging on success of this process which requires a reliable throughput of raw material to burn. See; https://www.drax.com/about-us/

Their investment isn't for 5-10 year, but much longer term. Incidentally I walked near Drax recently. There was no perceptible smoke, but there was a very slight smell of wood burning. Of course greenhouse gasses aren't visible.

 

[chorleyjeff]

In a word, yes, every wagon would be capable of making more journeys. That would save on capital costs for new wagons, running costs for the wagons and motive power costs.

Thanks for reply.
I assumed the wagons etc could make more journeys but the question would hey actually do that.
If a timetable was in place no doubt the use of machinery could be optimised but the traffic seems irregular in which case would reducing each journey time by a couple of hours effectively release the machinery to generate more revenue ?

 

[Deerfold]

Notwithstanding the fact that a good number of the people travelling from Colne or Nelson will alight at one of the Burnley stations.

I can't see many doing such a short journey when there's at least 8 buses an hour which actually stop in the town centres.

 

[quantinghome]

As for the much touted Leeds Light Rail / Tram, don't make me laugh. Even if that got to a business case again, the NIMBYs would chase it off long before a final "nay" from the government could be issued.

This is OT, but to quickly respond, the emerging plan is including in this presentation (p16/17):

https://westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s9618/Item 7 - Appendix 1.pdf

It is notable that the proposed routes go no further north than the University - pretty much all the opposition was based further north in Hyde Park, Headingley and West Park. This might be a sensible strategy. Once the system is up and running, but not serving them, the NIMBYs might change their tune.

 

[duffield]

Without being able to read the article (ad Blocker), More spin from Grayling I would suggest.

You should get a better ad-blocker . Works fine for me with Chrome+uBlock Origin.

 

[Bevan Price]

They won’t pay for it. At least not anywhere near enough to make a case for the line.

Drax takes biomass from Immingham, Tyne and Liverpool. Maybe 5-6 trains a day from the latter, which take about 7 hours. Personally, I don’t see how a reopened Skipton-Colne could save 3 hours on that, but let’s assume it does. Allowing for typical loading / unloading times, the haulier could save maybe 2 sets of locos / wagons, 4-6 drivers, and perhaps a bit of fuel. Being very, very generous, that’s worth about £2-3m a year, let’s say £3m. Now if Drax are paying up front to save this much cash, they will want to make a return on their investment, after borrowing at commercial rates. (Their most recent bonds were issued at 6.625%). And they would want that return from a relatively short period, and certainly no longer than that of the biomass units. Putting all those optimistic assumptions through the spreadsheet means that they might chip in something like £20m-£30m, after some hard negotiations. On a project that’s £400m.

Biomass from Liverpool to Drax apparently takes so long because Class 66 cannot be relied upon to get loaded trains up the bank from Manchester Victoria to Miles Platting in all weather conditions, so the trains go the long way round via Warrington, Northwich & Stockport. I don't know if GBRf plan to try their Class 60s on loaded Drax services and route them via Miles Platting.

 

[bluenoxid]

This is OT, but to quickly respond, the emerging plan is including in this presentation (p16/17):

https://westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s9618/Item 7 - Appendix 1.pdf

It is notable that the proposed routes go no further north than the University - pretty much all the opposition was based further north in Hyde Park, Headingley and West Park. This might be a sensible strategy. Once the system is up and running, but not serving them, the NIMBYs might change their tune.

Yes. When you see the effort being put into saving Lawnswood Roundabout, you start to wonder. The problem in this area is that some sensible groups usually can be their own worst enemies.

 

[Meerkat]

What would £400m buy in terms of other ways of speeding up the Liverpool Drax trains?
Some more freight loops/quadrupling or better junctions?