Colne to Skipton Rail Project

[bluenoxid]

In that case I concede that that may be possible. I’m still sceptical that it will prove as popular a link in the network as a train though.

Could I guarantee it would. Well, I am no holder of a crystal ball but I think it offers a better whole transport offering to the people of Pendle. However, it needs to be balanced against the £90 million that would be saved to be spent on other transport improvements in Lancashire. Several other curves could be reintroduced with that £90 million (Halton for example), road improvements and other transport improvements.

Trains get refurbished cascaded and replaced. The Pacers will also be replaced when they are life expired. This will occur on the Colne route just like everywhere else that has Pacers. Unless you are expecting either a) All of the routes currently using Pacers to be axed when the fleet expires, or b) you expect the Colne - Blackpool service to be made a special case to have Pacers for ever and ever, this is a non argument.

We are years off a Pacer replacement fleet in the north. I have had to travel the Colne branch a number of times in recent years and having to lean against a cascade of water through a leaking window frame whilst watching water fall between the carriages. This shows how high the route is regarded by the local TOC, the region and the government. Yes, better management and new trains would help but the coaches and trams would be subject to local management that is locally accountable. The other benefit is that coaches have shorter lives, which means that they can move forward in terms of technology. They have the benefit of being easier to cascade too. Trains are much more difficult asset to keep upto date and meet passenger expectations with.

I must point out that railways also have diversionary routes and sometimes it’s the roads and motorways that freeze up in the cold (the M6 recently being an example). And just like the railway, whilst diversionary routes may be available South of Rose Grove, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the coach will be in a position to take one of them.

No transport mode is perfect from space travel to walking, but rail is much slower to kick in with alternatives. My option conveniently provides passengers with a range of options. If it all goes down the pan on any aspect of the route passengers can transfer to another mode. Good ticketing integration can make the coaches cheaper than the trains south of Rose Grove and allow coach passengers to upgrade cheaply to rail if they choose to.

Including direct trains - which is what you will be taking away from Colne - certainly for a traveller needing to go beyond Blackburn.

To Preston. Blackpool South is just a convenient tacking on of another service. It's a loss but I hope that the additional trains via Todmorden curve and same platform interchanges can make that interchange pain free.

I do apologise - I don’t set out to cause anyone emotional turmoil.

I am perplexed as to where you get a figure of £200 million from. I’ve not seen any professional costings for the route suggesting £200 million. In your own previous post you suggested that the link could not be achieved for “less than double the 60 million”, and of course, you’d spend half of that £120 million on your own project anyway. I’ve pointed out before, even if the full double track electric option isn’t adopted, there will be less expensive options, and whilst they may not be as cheap as yours, they would provide better short to middle distance connectivity .

Woops there was a slight slip of the keys there. I meant £60 to £200 million, which is what I would expect the range of options to cost above my project. I don't think they would provide provide better short to middle distance connectivity unless the full 4tph option was selected.

So would I. But then, I didn’t suggest in my previous posts that Keighley and Skipton passengers would travel via Colne to Manchester (unless the other route was blocked of course). If you read my post, you will find that I suggested that Keighley and Skipton passengers might use the route towards Bolton and also that Burnley and Colne passengers would benefit from improvements South to Manchester. That said, Colne residents would have a new diversionary route to Manchester if the line South was blocked.

Sorry.

The question is how many. This infrastructure will need to payback over time and I do wonder how much demand there is to get to Bolton, even if it could be created. We have around 80,000 in the upper Aire Valley and I struggle to see major demand for people to travel towards west Manchester.

Ah yes, all those mythical empty trains running about - so beloved of clueless transport ministers in London. I have to say, I travel around the North’s local services a lot, and I hardly ever find them empty. Our little two carriage affairs are usually very respectably loaded and often full. The emptiest trains tend to be commuter trains running in the opposite direction to the main flows - a phenomenon all over the country.

And let’s not forget - public buses coaches and trams also have quiet times when they will be lightly loadad, and yes, these vehicles may be lighter than train carriages (although not always by much according to the Light Rail Transit Association website:
http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/vehfact.html )
But then again, you are planning to run them more frequently.

I have also travelled around the North and I have found some routes to be better loaded than others and depending on the time. Train frequencies are very difficult to reduce and even reasonably loaded trains can run at a loss. Coaches have lower fixed costs meaning that even a particularly low filled bus can be turning a profit.

With regards to embedded carbon, lots of things have it. Coaches, trains, cars, buses, motorways, railways all do. The environmental case for rail comes from taking cars off of the road and not your trams, coaches and buses. I just don’t think that your system will be as effective at getting people out of their cars.

Look at the £60 to £200 million saved and put into projects with a better CBA and a better environmental case.

 

[yorksrob]

Could I guarantee it would. Well, I am no holder of a crystal ball but I think it offers a better whole transport offering to the people of Pendle. However, it needs to be balanced against the £90 million that would be saved to be spent on other transport improvements in Lancashire. Several other curves could be reintroduced with that £90 million (Halton for example), road improvements and other transport improvements.

We are years off a Pacer replacement fleet in the north. I have had to travel the Colne branch a number of times in recent years and having to lean against a cascade of water through a leaking window frame whilst watching water fall between the carriages. This shows how high the route is regarded by the local TOC, the region and the government. Yes, better management and new trains would help but the coaches and trams would be subject to local management that is locally accountable. The other benefit is that coaches have shorter lives, which means that they can move forward in terms of technology. They have the benefit of being easier to cascade too. Trains are much more difficult asset to keep upto date and meet passenger expectations with.

No transport mode is perfect from space travel to walking, but rail is much slower to kick in with alternatives. My option conveniently provides passengers with a range of options. If it all goes down the pan on any aspect of the route passengers can transfer to another mode. Good ticketing integration can make the coaches cheaper than the trains south of Rose Grove and allow coach passengers to upgrade cheaply to rail if they choose to.

To Preston. Blackpool South is just a convenient tacking on of another service. It's a loss but I hope that the additional trains via Todmorden curve and same platform interchanges can make that interchange pain free.

Well, I must admit, I travel by Pacer almost everyday and they are perhaps not the most comfortable ride, although ours seem to be better kept in Yorkshire a lot of the time. That aside, I do think we have the makings of a pretty good railway network in the North and it would seem a terrible waste if we were to let a potentially very useful link go to waste between the towns of Lancashire and the Aire Valley and Yorkshire Dales go to waste, even if we have to wait a while whilst other more urgent network improvements take place.
I would agree that rail links are better looked after when they are locally run, but I think that this makes more of a compelling argument for the extension of the PTE system further afield than the cities, rather than the further break up of the railway network.

I would also agree that no mode of transport is perfect. However, rail seems to me to be the best public transport option at accommodating both shorter local trips and the slightly longer distance routes which can bind towns and regions together. Infact if the Colne route were performing this function as it ought to be, rather than just a dead end branch, it is likely that over time it would see the sort of investment which would lead to better trains and connections all over the region. Which is not to say that other modes don‘t have a role to play with buses connecting up smaller settlements, trams serving the larger cities and coaches providing a vital element of competition.

I don’t agree with your point that the link between Skipton and Colne would require four trains an hour to provide good connectivity. Decent transport links are about many things, including speed, distance available to other places and number of changes required, as well as how well timed connections are. There are plenty of routes in the Country which have only a meagre hourly service, yet which are vital to providing decent links between different settlements of different sizes, and I suspect the route through Colne would be one of these, although I would prefer to see a slightly faster hourly Blackpool - Leeds service using the route, together with perhaps a slower train which might connect at Skipton

Woops there was a slight slip of the keys there. I meant £60 to £200 million, which is what I would expect the range of options to cost above my project. I don't think they would provide provide better short to middle distance connectivity unless the full 4tph option was selected.

Sorry.

The question is how many. This infrastructure will need to payback over time and I do wonder how much demand there is to get to Bolton, even if it could be created. We have around 80,000 in the upper Aire Valley and I struggle to see major demand for people to travel towards west Manchester.
I have also travelled around the North and I have found some routes to be better loaded than others and depending on the time. Train frequencies are very difficult to reduce and even reasonably loaded trains can run at a loss. Coaches have lower fixed costs meaning that even a particularly low filled bus can be turning a profit.

In truth, it’s difficult to say how much a relatively large infrastructure improvement will cost until it’s actually built. What I would say though is that if we are looking at how much infrastructure does pay back over time, it’s vital that wider social benefits are taken into account comprehensively. In the case of a road project, there isn’t the equivalent to a “fare box” so it can only be judged on the wider social and economic benefits that it can bring. Yet when we are debating rail projects, we always seem to come back to the mythical “fare box” and how much profit the route can generate to the exclusion of all else.

I don’t doubt your point that coaches very often are profitable at reasonably low loadings, yet isn’t it the case that these tend to form the “inter-city” leg of public road transport anyway. As we are about to find out, many of our bus services, which form the shorter distance part also cannot run without public subsidy, at least not to the extent that they currently do, and much like the railway, this is particularly true outside the cities. Yet that’s not to say that they don’t perform an important function.

The point about the ease of cutting back services to meet demand is an important one, yet on any public transport mode there has to be a balance struck between closely fitting demand and having a service there when people actually need it. Most local railway routes in the North tend to fall back to hourly at quieter times. Any less, then they tend to become too inconvenient, and this is as much the case with buses as well as rail.

Look at the £60 to £200 million saved and put into projects with a better CBA and a better environmental case.

Well yes, there should of course be a mixture of investment in different modes of transport, and I don’t doubt that some of your improvements can make a good case. However, that doesn’t mean that larger projects can never be well justified. Infact I think SELRAP have already conducted a positive CBA for the reopening.

 

[bluenoxid]

Well yes, there should of course be a mixture of investment in different modes of transport, and I don’t doubt that some of your improvements can make a good case. However, that doesn’t mean that larger projects can never be well justified. Infact I think SELRAP have already conducted a positive CBA for the reopening.

They have, and can very easily justify a reasonable improvement to the transport offering on the Skipton - Colne - Burnley Corridor. With realistic pricing of the project to deliver the route, there is nothing stopping SELRAP delivering the route. However, the £120 million or so that they will require to deliver even the basic route option with the ability of enhance services to a reasonable level that does not affect the rest of the network will lie lower than many other transport priorities in the north of England. Manchester Hub, Todmorden Curve, electrification of the MML to Wakefield and across the Pennines will lie higher than their project.

If I was to suggest anything, it would be to recognise that the route that they have has two major infrastructure issues to overcome (Pitch, Vivary Way and the canal at the Colne end and the bypass and River Aire at the Skipton end) and that their initial aims would be better served in getting the area on to the rail network as part of the railbus scheme working with existing bus companies to provide a sharp service that people see the benefits of. I am sure that they can preserve the trackbed and ensure that the trackbed is clear, functional and even looking at low cost improvements to the trackbed whilst saving to connect the route probably at the Colne end (where most traffic around Earby tends to head).

My worry is that the politicians will balk at providing money for this kind of rail reopening and look at the cheaper options to deliver it. Thankfully, they have turned away from extending the M65 to Skipton.

 

[yorksrob]

They have, and can very easily justify a reasonable improvement to the transport offering on the Skipton - Colne - Burnley Corridor. With realistic pricing of the project to deliver the route, there is nothing stopping SELRAP delivering the route. However, the £120 million or so that they will require to deliver even the basic route option with the ability of enhance services to a reasonable level that does not affect the rest of the network will lie lower than many other transport priorities in the north of England. Manchester Hub, Todmorden Curve, electrification of the MML to Wakefield and across the Pennines will lie higher than their project.

If I was to suggest anything, it would be to recognise that the route that they have has two major infrastructure issues to overcome (Pitch, Vivary Way and the canal at the Colne end and the bypass and River Aire at the Skipton end) and that their initial aims would be better served in getting the area on to the rail network as part of the railbus scheme working with existing bus companies to provide a sharp service that people see the benefits of. I am sure that they can preserve the trackbed and ensure that the trackbed is clear, functional and even looking at low cost improvements to the trackbed whilst saving to connect the route probably at the Colne end (where most traffic around Earby tends to head).

My worry is that the politicians will balk at providing money for this kind of rail reopening and look at the cheaper options to deliver it. Thankfully, they have turned away from extending the M65 to Skipton.

I would certainly agree that any moves to maintain and preserve the trackbed would be a good starting point. I suppose it just remains to be seen what news the anticipated announcement will bring. Fingers crossed it will be a move in the right direction.

 

[tbtc]

Thankfully, they have turned away from extending the M65 to Skipton.

Ah, the proposed M650 - the world would have looked different if there was one motorway from Preston to the M62 via Blackburn/ Burnley/ Colne/ Skipton/ Bingley/ Bradford...

 

[bluenoxid]

Oh yes, my journey to work would be so much easier though

 

[Nym]

And the traffic on the M60/M62 duplex after the M61 toward Birch wouldn't be as rediculously congested. Would also be helpful if the corner cut from south of Wakfeild to east of Huddersfeild would have meterialised.

 

[Chris L]

Bridging The Gap
The Skipton to Colne Railway was built as part of a double track main line from Liverpool to Leeds. Sadly after the first few years it was never used as such. For years the Skipton to Colne shuttle service was a severe obstruction to any through traffic.

As this is the lowest summit of any of the Trans-Pennine routes, with very few tunnels all the way from Preston to Skipton, it should also be used for freight, which should bring additional income.
With very few tunnels it would be ideal for electrification all the way from Preston to Skipton.

SELRAP have had engineers from Network Rail and several consultants and experienced railway constructors, who all see only solutions, not problems. Yes it does need a few new bridges, including over the River and Canal. Not a problem even 160 years ago. The canal bridge would need to be higher than the last one there;- even I banged my head on it walking on the towpath. We are not talking about the Forth Bridge here!
A bridge under the Skipton by Pass should not be a problem.
Personally I prefer the Idea of a Level Crossing for Vivary Way, in Colne, but I am sure this would not be allowed.
Now I had examined the Tipton Level crossing for some time, and thought it would be impossible to eliminate. But it has been done. Not that anything as complicated or as expensive as this would be required. But it prooves it can be done for the Skipton By pass and Vivary Way.
Other examples in Derby and Bingley, and – well all over ……
A few other bridges may be required to eliminate other level crossings.
(Saves stopping the train to Pull the String)
Lots of bridges will be required for HS2 !

I am sure that many of these infrastructure costs are over inflated. I recently asked a railway company director for a price for doing the Todmorden Curve. If it was his railway probably a few firkins of Ale !
So the Tod curve just needs 300 yards of track and a crossover and a bay platform at Rose Grove (and a few trains), The Halton Curve just needs 2 crossovers (and a few trains), Wrexham Bidston just needs a few trains to be modified for running through to Liverpool. All pocket money jobs. We’ll need another train or 2 or 3 … for Skipton Colne as well !
Bolton to Blackburn also needs some upgrading for when the wires get to Bolton in 2016.

Of course another bridge to be crossed is finance.
The problem is of course that investors cant find Pendle on the Railway map, and when they do find it, it normally takes 2½ hours to get here from Manchester, and then probably the train has been cancelled or turned round short at Burnley Central.
So without a good railway then Pendle would not appear to be a good place to invest in.
It’s a vicious circle.
With a good train service then Pendle and East Lancashire would attract business and investment. Hopefully, the Government and the local authorities will welcome that and chip in a bit themselves.
That said, SELRAP are exploring the possibilities of private investor participation, with some success, But obviously we should respect the need for confidentiality in these matters.

I can say that documents are being prepared to launch the next phase of the “Govenrment Railway Investment Prevention” (GRIP) process.
But all we really want is “Give us our railway back”

The new line from Skipton to Colne will no doubt include many of the latest construction techniques, to provide easy and low cost maintenance, almost silent running, lower cost electrification etc, and to show just how a new railway should be built, and perhaps learn something for HS2

Bridges are all part of building a Railway.
An 11 mile bridge between Yorkshire and Lancashire.

 

[selrap]

This is one of the reasons why the Colne to Skipton Rail should be re-opend, we don't have this issue which seems to happen a lot over the Sheffield to Manchester line, this must cost quite a lot every time it happens, and what about all the tunnels.



ROUND-the-clock work took place to reopen the Sheffield-to-Manchester railway after a landslip made an embankment unsafe.

Part of the structure had collapsed on to a road at Buxworth, near Chinley, just before midnight on Saturday after heavy rain.
As a precaution, the line was shut and Network Rail called out its contractors who brought tower lighting and excavators to the site.
Closer inspection revealed sandy soil had been washed away, rather than the embankment, and the railway track appeared to be unaffected.
One track was reopened first thing on Sunday with a 5mph speed restriction to allow the train companies to operate an amended timetable using the one line.
During the course of Sunday, approximately 400 tonnes of stone were put into position using a long-reach excavator.
The rebuilding work was finished by 11pm on Sunday and an inspection of the track in the early hours of the morning, resulting in both lines being reopened in time for the start of the working week, with a 20mph speed restriction.

 

[tbtc]

An 11 mile bridge between Yorkshire and Lancashire

...which would still cost over £10 million per mile... (and not link any cities that aren't already linked)

 

[selrap]

...which would still cost over £10 million per mile... (and not link any cities that aren't already linked)

Yes it would, by giving extra Capacity, by providing a Direct link from Leeds to Manchester, via the Aire Valley and East Lancashire Rail corridor, also going via the Todmorden Curve, we know that you would have journey time savings for all of those that live along the Aire Valley, getting to Manchester, and Preston and no need to change trains, you have to remember that we are also looking at full Electrification from Skipton North Junction to Preston.

Why should anyone have to put up with having to go the long way round for those that live in the Aire Valley and East Lancashire, you seem to be saying that everyone must live on the current links between Manchester and Leeds.

By the way 10 Million is not a lot of money when your looking at Private investment, the money is their, with only a few more doors to open.

 

[bluenoxid]

You're pulling legs to open this railway. You make very sweeping generalisations and assumptions that many of those against your project could take a sword through.

As this is the lowest summit of any of the Trans-Pennine routes, with very few tunnels all the way from Preston to Skipton, it should also be used for freight, which should bring additional income.
With very few tunnels it would be ideal for electrification all the way from Preston to Skipton.

Should, should, should. It sounds great until you look at the bottleneck at Leeds Railway Station. Yes, freight can be pushed through but it is unlikely to be popular as it either has to negotiate the congested Leeds - Micklefield section or block off access to all but three routes into Leeds from the west as it negotiates the route from Castleford. We don't have much transpennine freight at the moment. There are other issues that cause this and constrained transpennine capacity is not the main issue.

SELRAP have had engineers from Network Rail and several consultants and experienced railway constructors, who all see only solutions, not problems.

The company I work for sees solutions, not problems for its clients. Then we send them a quote for the work. Quite a large quote for the work.

Yes it does need a few new bridges, including over the River and Canal. Not a problem even 160 years ago. The canal bridge would need to be higher than the last one there;- even I banged my head on it walking on the towpath. We are not talking about the Forth Bridge here! A bridge under the Skipton by Pass should not be a problem. Personally I prefer the Idea of a Level Crossing for Vivary Way, in Colne, but I am sure this would not be allowed. Now I had examined the Tipton Level crossing for some time, and thought it would be impossible to eliminate. But it has been done. Not that anything as complicated or as expensive as this would be required. But it proves it can be done for the Skipton By pass and Vivary Way. Other examples in Derby and Bingley, and – well all over ……

We are not talking the Forth Bridge but we are talking about three bridges and a tunnel, all of which you dismiss as not a problem. They aren't problems for people with the money and that is something that SELRAP does not have or has reasonably estimated. Tipton required some out of the box thinking and has been delivered. It was delivered. For a mere £22 million. You just don't seem to have grasped the financial reality of delivering this project.

A few other bridges may be required to eliminate other level crossings.
(Saves stopping the train to Pull the String)
Lots of bridges will be required for HS2 !

All of these will push up the costs. If Bridge Engineers are working on HS2 they won't be available for your project, further inflating the price of bridging the gap and HS2 is not cheap.

I am sure that many of these infrastructure costs are over inflated. I recently asked a railway company director for a price for doing the Todmorden Curve. If it was his railway probably a few firkins of Ale !

Don't know what his experience is or his grasp of reality at the point he delivered that statement but I can assure you that to get an hours worth of his/her time would be more than a few firkins of ale.

So the Tod curve just needs 300 yards of track and a crossover and a bay platform at Rose Grove (and a few trains), The Halton Curve just needs 2 crossovers (and a few trains), Wrexham Bidston just needs a few trains to be modified for running through to Liverpool. All pocket money jobs. We’ll need another train or 2 or 3 … for Skipton Colne as well !

Brilliant quote that just shoots down your whole argument. If its so pocket money, why don't you fund it.

Of course another bridge to be crossed is finance.
The problem is of course that investors cant find Pendle on the Railway map, and when they do find it, it normally takes 2½ hours to get here from Manchester, and then probably the train has been cancelled or turned round short at Burnley Central.
So without a good railway then Pendle would not appear to be a good place to invest in.
It’s a vicious circle.
With a good train service then Pendle and East Lancashire would attract business and investment. Hopefully, the Government and the local authorities will welcome that and chip in a bit themselves.
That said, SELRAP are exploring the possibilities of private investor participation, with some success, But obviously we should respect the need for confidentiality in these matters.

Someone made that same point once about investment for the Calder Valley Bypass. It's now called the M65.

Pendle is on the map for business (it's not exactly a dead area). The area would benefit from a public transport injection but I don't think you realise the serious amount of investment that is needed for your public transport project.

I can say that documents are being prepared to launch the next phase of the “Govenrment Railway Investment Prevention” (GRIP) process.
But all we really want is “Give us our railway back”

I will be interested to read them when they are completed.

The new line from Skipton to Colne will no doubt include many of the latest construction techniques, to provide easy and low cost maintenance, almost silent running, lower cost electrification etc, and to show just how a new railway should be built, and perhaps learn something for HS2

Bridges are all part of building a Railway.
An 11 mile bridge between Yorkshire and Lancashire.

Aye at those Pocket Money figures. My advice would be to come back to this thread when you have grasped the financial reality of this project. Just to confirm, Lancashires Transport Budget for this year was £25 million for this financial year.

This is one of the reasons why the Colne to Skipton Rail should be re-opend, we don't have this issue which seems to happen a lot over the Sheffield to Manchester line, this must cost quite a lot every time it happens, and what about all the tunnels.

It does cost money, quite a bit in fact and the Skipton to Colne line will cost a lot of money to maintain. Unless you are planning to put the closure of another Transpennine route in your business case, then it is rather a moot point in all honesty. Your transpennine route will have a number of issues including at least three tunnels, double figures of bridges and several capacity issues.

Yes it would, by giving extra Capacity, by providing a Direct link from Leeds to Manchester, via the Aire Valley and East Lancashire Rail corridor, also going via the Todmorden Curve, we know that you would have journey time savings for all of those that live along the Aire Valley, getting to Manchester, and Preston and no need to change trains, you have to remember that we are also looking at full Electrification from Skipton North Junction to Preston.

Why should anyone have to put up with having to go the long way round for those that live in the Aire Valley and East Lancashire, you seem to be saying that everyone must live on the current links between Manchester and Leeds.

By the way 10 Million is not a lot of money when your looking at Private investment, the money is their, with only a few more doors to open.

At least £10 million per mile plus other upgrade works that will double the figures easily. Most people from Bingley and towards Leeds will find it easier to travel via Leeds, so there are only around 80,000 people who will benefit from those quicker links in the Aire Valley.

 

[tbtc]

Yes it would, by giving extra Capacity, by providing a Direct link from Leeds to Manchester, via the Aire Valley and East Lancashire Rail corridor

There is already a direct service every fifteen minutes via Huddersfield. And a direct service twice an hour via Bradford. And an hourly service via Brighouse. Saying that your line would give a new link between the two big cities is disingenuous because nobody would use SELRAP as a direct link from Leeds to Manchester.

SELRAP would give links like Leeds/Bradford to Burnley/Blackburn (which are there already) and Manchester - Skipton (which aren't). Some of the links it'd give would still be faster/ more frequent by changing at Manchester or Leeds (e.g. Manchester to Shipley, Leeds to Bolton).

Why should anyone have to put up with having to go the long way round for those that live in the Aire Valley and East Lancashire, you seem to be saying that everyone must live on the current links between Manchester and Leeds.

As mentioned above, some people living in the Aire Valley would still find it quicker and more frequent to go via Leeds and change (just over one hundred minutes from Keighley to Manchester at the moment)

• Keighley to Leeds is half an hour, wait fifteen minutes for a TPE service at Leeds, an hour's journey to Manchester, the whole thing would take 1h45m and there are several departures each hour
  
• Keighley to Skipton is fifteen minutes, Colne to Blackburn is 45 minutes, Blackburn to Manchester Victoria is fifty minutes, so even if you teleported from Skipton to Colne you'd still be quicker going Keighley - Leeds - Manchester than taking a direct train
  
• Keighley to Skipton is fifteen minutes, Colne to Burnley is fifteen minutes, Burnley to Todmorden is going to be around thirteeen minutes (the Burnley - Bradford trains don't stop at Tod), Todmorden to Manchester Victoria is forty minutes, so you'd need to get from from Skipton to Colne in twenty five minutes just to "break even" (as well as building a chord at Todmorden, and allowing for reversal at Burnley to have no time penalty)

So, even for Keighley, fairly high up the Aire Valley, the SELRAP proposal won't offer anything significantly quicker than going to Leeds and changing (note, my times allowed for a full fifteen minute wait at Leeds). From Bingley/ Shipley it's a no brainer - "via Leeds" will always be faster than "via Colne"

Burnley/Blackburn/Preston to Leeds/Bradford will always be quicker via Hebden Bridge, its not even worth working out the time penalty.

By the way 10 Million is not a lot of money when your looking at Private investment, the money is their, with only a few more doors to open.

Ah, Private Investment, good old PFI etc. What the country needs is not to be tied into more long term contracts at overinflated prices for vital infrastructure. Trust me on this.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly true to say that we are cursed to live in interesting times for the next few years - particularly when it comes to large public spending projects. Yet history seems to suggest that when recessions end, fairly large transport projects with positive business cases and local political backing tend to get built.

The Skipton link does indeed have a few fairly heavy duty bridges which will cost quite a lot. I can however think of a large number of major transport projects even in my home town in Kent (Ashford) which have gone ahead over the past twenty years or so - usually through green fields to start off with and often including several large engineering features such as bridges etc (these were usually bypasses linking up speculative developments, and as such much less worthwhile than a strategic transport link between sizeable urban settlements like Skipton - Colne).

There is no doubt that most transport projects built in this country in the recent past have been roads. I am confident that SELRAP have the wherewithal to keep up the pressure and ensure that when the time comes for projects to be built again, some of these will be railway projects, particularly important missing links such as Skipton - Colne.

 

[Chris L]

Thanks Blue - Just trying to be helpful
Well I did say bridges, and I did say we don’t need anything as complicated as Tipton.
That was just an illustration of somewhere where there really was a problem.
Yes, I do have a list of all the bridges – and costs.
If we balked at the thought of having to build a bridge over a little canal, there wouldn’t be any railways.

Be nice to your railway company managers and directors, and they will give you all the help and advice they can. I didn’t say which company.
You've got to Pull Strings - and legs now and then.

And I didn’t say PPP – worst thing since sliced bread

I am also pleased to note that the DfT is overflowing with money
Funding is now in place for Heysham to M6 link road cut from £139m to £123m.
The DfT will contribute £111m, with the county council! to fund the remaining £12m.
Can we have a similar deal for the Skipton Colne Line ? Please ?
Or
The Midland Metro tram line extension through Birmingham City Centre,
all of a few hundred yards,
at a total cost of £129.2m, with a DfT contribution of £75.4m. The extension will connect the Metro Line One to Birmingham New Street Station and will replace the existing tram carriages of the metro system. In addition, the maintenance depot of the system will also be refurbished.
It sounds as if they are actually buying the Trams and Depot – What ? Not Leasing ?
Yes, we’ll have some of that !
And there is
Leeds Station Southern Access: Improving pedestrian access to Leeds station, a £12.4M DfT contribution towards a total cost of £14.4M
We could sort out Whitehall junction for that.
Also
Network Rail proposes £12M improvements to Salford Crescent station
Network Rail is planning to close it to passengers for three months while it removes the ticket office from the platforms to the road level above and build a new staircase, with a lift for the disabled.
I just hope they sort out the crossover at the south end.
Absolutely no comment on the costs on these 2,
Are they rebuilding The Great Hall at Euston or Buckingham Palace
but Three Months !!!!! Oh dear.

 

[tbtc]

a strategic transport link between sizeable urban settlements like Skipton - Colne

Skipton - 14,313
Colne - 20,118

(both figures taken from Wikepedia)

By that logic a more pressing need would be to link Glossop (32,428) and Penistone (10,101) on the Woodhead line...

 

[yorksrob]

Skipton - 14,313
Colne - 20,118

(both figures taken from Wikepedia)

By that logic a more pressing need would be to link Glossop (32,428) and Penistone (10,101) on the Woodhead line...

Actually, that's another missing link that I would agree with re-instating because (like Skipton - Colne) it links other areas further afield than just Glossop and Penistone - infact it even has an inter-city component. Certainly makes more sense than a 130 million road project to link Heysham (pop 16,136) and it's three or four ferries a day to the M6, which appears to be going ahead.

 

[bluenoxid]

Actually, that's another missing link that I would agree with re-instating because (like Skipton - Colne) it links other areas further afield than just Glossop and Penistone - infact it even has an inter-city component. Certainly makes more sense than a 130 million road project to link Heysham (pop 16,136) and it's three or four ferries a day to the M6, which appears to be going ahead.

Oh yeah, that road that just serves Heysham and nowhere else. In fact, if you bothered to read the document that LCC submitted to the DfT and looked at the map, you will notice that the road will serve the whole peninsula and relieve chronic (and it is) congestion through Lancaster. It will also upgrade the junction at the M6 which is substantially below the design standards in place.

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/env_highways/roads/heysham/index.asp

It's been a priority for many years for LCC. Whilst I personally remain doubtful of its supposed benefits, I understand the reasoning behind choosing this option. I personally believe that a lot can be gained by improving the rail service in the area and I personally believe that the North Western electrification programme should include the Morecambe branch. Unfortunately, the railway will only serve three points unless the Heysham branch is also upgraded and even this will not serve all of the major points.

The DfT has its priorities but I currently remain doubtful of the supposed benefits of the route particularly whilst the costs being proposed are so underestimated. Those railway managers will not build your railway on the cheap regardless of what goodwill you think you have.

Sorting out Whitehall Junction for £14.4 million. I can assure you that the price will be much more significant that that and how do you propose that they upgrade Salford Crescent with its low and narrow platforms and increasing traffic? This costs money and a lot of it. When you realise that the significant costs for these projects will apply to the Skipton - Colne project, then you will understand that delivering this is going to be more than pocket change that needs to be done appropriately.

This will require the reversal back to basics looking at the options available for the corridor (including converting the trackbed to a road), scrutinising them, costing them and finally (after a number of hurdles) funding them for delivery.

 

[tbtc]

Sorting out Whitehall Junction for £14.4 million. I can assure you that the price will be much more significant that that

Off topic, I know, but do you know what they want to do at Whitehall? Presumably not bring back the station from ten years ago?

 

[yorksrob]

Oh yeah, that road that just serves Heysham and nowhere else. In fact, if you bothered to read the document that LCC submitted to the DfT and looked at the map, you will notice that the road will serve the whole peninsula and relieve chronic (and it is) congestion through Lancaster. It will also upgrade the junction at the M6 which is substantially below the design standards in place.

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/env_highways/roads/heysham/index.asp

It's been a priority for many years for LCC. Whilst I personally remain doubtful of its supposed benefits, I understand the reasoning behind choosing this option.

"Oh yeah" - yet you don't grasp the usefulness of a fast local rail link between the Aire valley and East Lancashire - and one which is gaining political support in both North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.

 

[Nonsense]

Actually, that's another missing link that I would agree with re-instating because (like Skipton - Colne) it links other areas further afield than just Glossop and Penistone - infact it even has an inter-city component. Certainly makes more sense than a 130 million road project to link Heysham (pop 16,136) and it's three or four ferries a day to the M6, which appears to be going ahead.

Not wishing to hijack the thread but the Heysham M6 link road isn't just about the ferry traffic. There's the commuters of Morecambe and Heysham desperately looking forward to getting to and from work without being forced through Lancaster's rush hour. Then there are the local factories and outlets that will benefit, not to mention the tourism potential of Morecambe and Heysham.

This road scheme won't solve all the problems of the area, but it will remove a significant barrier to its future prosperity.

 

[bluenoxid]

"Oh yeah" - yet you don't grasp the usefulness of a fast local rail link between the Aire valley and East Lancashire - and one which is gaining political support in both North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.

The congestion in the Colne area is very localised with most of the journey over the tops being very quiet. Yes it is frustrating to be stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph and the traffic congestion through Colne is a real pain in the rear.

I see it being useful for the few and that's the problem, it's too few for too much money.

As I have said before, political support is only worth it if it has got the money behind it and unfortunately this currently unrealistically priced project does not. As I have stated before, much of what is wanted for the area can be delivered for much less.

And just to think, for the same price of the Heysham Link and realistically what the Skipton - Colne reinstatement will cost, we could get a Colne bypass from the M65 to the A56 above Foulridge.

This is the kind of stuff that will float at the public inquiry and at the DfT and if SELRAP are not ready for it, they are going to waste a lot of money and good will.

 

[yorksrob]

The congestion in the Colne area is very localised with most of the journey over the tops being very quiet. Yes it is frustrating to be stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph and the traffic congestion through Colne is a real pain in the rear.

I see it being useful for the few and that's the problem, it's too few for too much money.

As I have said before, political support is only worth it if it has got the money behind it and unfortunately this currently unrealistically priced project does not. As I have stated before, much of what is wanted for the area can be delivered for much less.

And just to think, for the same price of the Heysham Link and realistically what the Skipton - Colne reinstatement will cost, we could get a Colne bypass from the M65 to the A56 above Foulridge.

This is the kind of stuff that will float at the public inquiry and at the DfT and if SELRAP are not ready for it, they are going to waste a lot of money and good will.

Well, we can only hope that the people of East Lancs aren't fooled into thinking that a sticking plaster bypass, which will only take passing business away from the area and which may well be congested in the next ten years anyway, will be nearly as effective at regenerating the local economy as a fast, high quality transport link to the rest of Lancashire, Yorkshire and beyond.

 

[selrap]

The congestion in the Colne area is very localised with most of the journey over the tops being very quiet. Yes it is frustrating to be stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph and the traffic congestion through Colne is a real pain in the rear.

I see it being useful for the few and that's the problem, it's too few for too much money.

As I have said before, political support is only worth it if it has got the money behind it and unfortunately this currently unrealistically priced project does not. As I have stated before, much of what is wanted for the area can be delivered for much less.

And just to think, for the same price of the Heysham Link and realistically what the Skipton - Colne reinstatement will cost, we could get a Colne bypass from the M65 to the A56 above Foulridge.

This is the kind of stuff that will float at the public inquiry and at the DfT and if SELRAP are not ready for it, they are going to waste a lot of money and good will.

Sorry but your wrong on the cost of the A56 Bypass, this is 3X as much as the rail project, and the rail project would cost even less, once all the details are in place, with most of the funds comming from the Private sector, (Not PPP), the cost comes down even further, due to the fact its Private finance and not Government.

It also opens up New Journeys for the many jobless people of East Lancashire, which you have not looked at, this project is a tool to help them get jobs in locations which haven't been possible before, due to the journey times.

We also know of a few large company's that need this link to happen, due to them having large office complexes of both sides of the border, staff having to use the cars to move between both locations, also note that 40% of people in East Lancashire of driving age don't have a car.

 

[Oswyntail]

......And just to think, for the same price of the Heysham Link and realistically what the Skipton - Colne reinstatement will cost, we could get a Colne bypass from the M65 to the A56 above Foulridge. .....

This well illustrates the problems with road links. Taking traffic and simply dumping it an a poor road that is already one of the most dangerous in the area. The failure to take the M65 as planned through to the Aire valley - perfectly reasonable, if only for geological reasons - has produced the classic motorway end problem, what to do with the lorries. Neither of the eastward routes from Colne is at all suitable for anything heavy until you get way east of Skipton. But the demand has been created. An imaginative solution is required, and this rail scheme could be it.

 

[tbtc]

most of the funds comming from the Private sector, (Not PPP), the cost comes down even further, due to the fact its Private finance and not Government

Private finance isn't the same as "charity" - anyone financing this is going to want a sizeable rate of return for their money - where is that going to come from? A tax on the ticket prices? A tax on the TOCs?

It also opens up New Journeys for the many jobless people of East Lancashire, which you have not looked at, this project is a tool to help them get jobs in locations which haven't been possible before, due to the journey times

The most important job market would be to link Colne/Burnley/Accrington to Manchester. This doesn't need a new line built, it just needs a handful of Pacers to tag on to the Clitheroe - Manchester Victoria service (at Blackburn). Nothing fancy about that, no new railway needed.

If you did want to build a new line then a short chord at Todmorden would allow Manchester - Rochdale - Burnley services (no spare capacity through Bolton, so any increase would either need to be joined to an existing Bolton service or run via Rochdale). Again, no need for ten miles of transpennine links.

 

[yorksrob]

Private finance isn't the same as "charity" - anyone financing this is going to want a sizeable rate of return for their money - where is that going to come from? A tax on the ticket prices? A tax on the TOCs?



The most important job market would be to link Colne/Burnley/Accrington to Manchester. This doesn't need a new line built, it just needs a handful of Pacers to tag on to the Clitheroe - Manchester Victoria service (at Blackburn). Nothing fancy about that, no new railway needed.

If you did want to build a new line then a short chord at Todmorden would allow Manchester - Rochdale - Burnley services (no spare capacity through Bolton, so any increase would either need to be joined to an existing Bolton service or run via Rochdale). Again, no need for ten miles of transpennine links.

It may well be the most important job market in the area - and those improvements would be worthwhile - but that doesn't necessarily make it the only job market in the area. Opportunities in Skipton, Keighley and Bingley may also be available to East Lancs residents.

 

[tbtc]

It may well be the most important job market in the area - and those improvements would be worthwhile - but that doesn't necessarily make it the only job market in the area. Opportunities in Skipton, Keighley and Bingley may also be available to East Lancs residents.

At the rate Bradford & Bingley have been getting rid of jobs over the last few years, I'm not convinced (are Skipton/ Keighley full of new jobs these days?).

Much easier to provide a Burnley/Colne portion of the existing Manchester - Clitheroe service, access to thousands more jobs.

However, my feeling about SELRAP is that people have decided what they want (a new railway over the Pennines) and are trying to work backwards to justify reasons for building it (e.g. some of the suggestions on this thread) - which is the wrong way to do it.

 

[Deerfold]

(are Skipton/ Keighley full of new jobs these days?).

No decent ones - which is why I'm still commuting 200 miles from between the two.

 

[yorksrob]

At the rate Bradford & Bingley have been getting rid of jobs over the last few years, I'm not convinced (are Skipton/ Keighley full of new jobs these days?).

Much easier to provide a Burnley/Colne portion of the existing Manchester - Clitheroe service, access to thousands more jobs.

However, my feeling about SELRAP is that people have decided what they want (a new railway over the Pennines) and are trying to work backwards to justify reasons for building it (e.g. some of the suggestions on this thread) - which is the wrong way to do it.

They don't have to be new jobs necessarily - just the usual turn over of existing work. And there's also the possibility of work opportunities in Leeds from Colne, which would likely be quicker via Skipton.

Looking at NRE, the leg between Burnley and Leeds alone via the existing route is around an hour and a quarter, and that's without any interchange time and doubling back towards Accrington. The longest direct time from Skipton to Leeds that I can find is 43 min's (34 for the express) so it's not hard to see how a direct train via Skipton could open up a new world of employment there.

But then again some people have made up their minds against new rail whatever case you make .