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.
There are some who do feel that it is a serious option to the problems of HGV's rumbling through the villages on the A6068 and A56. One politician can bee included but it is a noticeably smaller number that support this option compared to seven years ago when the route was last closely scrutinised and the Villages Bypass was seriously on the agenda.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...d_Yorkshire_are_priority_for_East_Lancashire/
http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/4157695.Roads_should_be_a_priority_over_railway__says_councillor/
I personally think that full bypasses are difficult to justify and more needs to be done on the existing corridor with the roads being very dangerous and a current bias towards travelling toward Keighley (A6068) as a result. However, Colne is a very difficult area to get out of with HGV's towards Earby and I believe that a bypass around this area would probably be the main golden bullet to solve the issue.
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.
Is this the £45 million wild stab in the dark, £120 million reasonable estimate or £300 million dream job. The 2003 Steer Davies Gleaves Report into the transport options for the corridor put a guesstimate of £33 million for the single track option and £37 million for the bypass. Whilst I admit that both are stabs in the dark, a single carriageway 60mph road is unlikely to be as ridiculously expensive as you may try to pass off.
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.
But you still have to look at the premium travel costs that they will be forced to pay to the other areas.
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.
What kind of companies are you talking about and how far are their offices from railway stations.
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.
It requires an imaginative solution that actually tackles the problems of the HGV's and this rail project is highly unlikely to achieve it.
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.
Craven suffers from a brain drain as a result of the Grammar Schools and lack of opportunities, with a massive shrinkage of 18-25 year olds and the decade above compared to the national average due to the lack of decent jobs. Off the top of my head, Skiptons biggest employers are SBS, Morrisons, Tescos, the Railway and Craven College. Keighley's biggest employers are also mainly retail and some manufacturing. Barnoldswick has Silent Night and Rolls Royce as its biggest employers. Many of these have shed jobs (even Morrisons despite the guff it has put in the media). Keighley and Skipton are not the magic bullets for the area.
No decent ones - which is why I'm still commuting 200 miles from between the two.
And I am doing 170 miles per day.
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.
At what cost though? Many of the jobs created in Leeds are not high paying jobs so they will not make masses of money to offset the high commuting costs.
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.
So it is still an hour which has to be paid for.
But then again some people have made up their minds against new rail whatever case you make
.
I am not against new rail. I am against under priced, over optimistic proposals that fail to understand the corridor. I have recently requested the business case for the Embsay - Skipton rail link and it appears to me to be well costed and the markets reasonably well understood (I have some doubts over Coach Party quantities using it as Park and Ride). I would support this. I support the Todmorden Curve and Burscough South Curve. I support the electrification of the Morecambe Branch. I want to see more rail travel but I want to see appropriate projects that clearly have benefits that relate to their costs.
Apart from the grocer's apostrophe, there is one hidden flaw: the 1h+ time from Burnley to Leeds is due to being routed via Bradford Interchange - this could easily be thrashed if the route was fast via Dewsbury. This itself suggests that the demand just isn't there. Besides, Skipton is no closer to Colne than Keighley - closer to Leeds on the same line. The gradients between Colne than Keighley might have been a problem for steam, but not an electric. Now that would be a good new rail route - except SELRAP don't care about that do they?
For good reason, the new rail corridor would be incredibly difficult to create. Steer Davies Gleaves did an alternative corridor study for Bypasses in the area and the conclusion I have found finds creating an alternative transport corridor disproportionally expensive (mainly because it is the optimum route across the Pennines at this point (it is near the Canal). I plan to ask for this report by FoI later tonight and peruse it as my pleasure if it is available.
No, because you would be cutting one of the major settlements off the route, as well as negating the possibility of extension of services. Daft suggestion, I'm afraid. Rail travel should not simply be assessed on end-to-end numbers.
You would probably be surprised to know how many people actually drive from this catchment area all the way to Leeds each day already. Once in the car, and with the parking at Skipton so poor, there is little incentive to switch modes.
Actually quite a few railhead to places like Steeton and Crossflatts mainly because they travel at time when the M65 and Colne can be done at pace and they avoid the traffic into Leeds. Quite a few though, is not enough to create a train service.
What a thread. I think I speak for most railwaymen when I say that we would all love to have more railway, serving more people and growing our economy.
I think I also speak for most taxpayers when I say that we want public money spent wisely. Unfortunately this scheme, although worthy in ambition, does not seem to have the means to justify the end.
Having some experience in these matters, my estimate is that the project will cost not less than £150m before the necessary contingencies are applied, and that is before any electrification, new trains, etc. Look at the actual costs for Airdrie-Bathgate for a realistic view.
The only prospect of this line being built is for a developer to propose the construction of a new town on the route, much like East West Rail (which is being paid for by a levy on the 200,000 new homes in the area, and still not funded).
At the risk of turning this forum into Betfair, I am happy to wager SELRAP £500 that it does not open before the year 2030, payable in crisp tenners on the first train or in beer in the Narrow Boat in Skipton, depending who wins.
I appreciate someone who puts their money where their mouth is and although I cannot guarantee my financial affairs will be that amazing in that year, I can assure you that I will be there and some of my money will also be put behind the bar.
Two things.
Firstly up until a month ago, I used to commute to a little station called Cottingley. This station is situated on the main line between Dewsbury and Leeds. There are two stopping trains an hour and the one I used to catch in the morning was suddenly stopped with a timetable change and no warning. When I queried this, the answer I got was that the route was so crowded with trains, they couldnt afford the couple of minutes in the diagram to stop it - even though, as I pointed out, 8 - 10 people used to alight there regularly. The point is, if they cant even afford the time to stop a train that is already stopping, there is no chance of through trains going from Colne via there anyway, let alone thrashing. Currently, Bradford is the only viable route from the Burnley area to Leeds. This is not a flaw - this is reality (though I concede the grocers apostrophe).
It is true unfortunately and it is unlikely to change with only more railway stations likely to appear on both route. The only possible way to relieve might be for
- improvements to trains with electrification
- additional loops on the line which increase the resilience of the service (possibly through the tunnels past Huddersfield) allowing for tighter timetabling in this area.
- a link between the Huddersfield and Wakefield lines where they become close near the White Rose Centre
Secondly, when I mentioned the one hour time from Burnley via Leeds, I was being generous. The current timetable has a twenty minute leg from Colne to Accrington, a one hour wait at Accrington then an hour and a half to Leeds. I suspect that this situation may currently suppress demand for train travel between the area and West Yorks.
However, even if Network Rail decided to spend millions building a spur across Burnley, Colne to Leeds would still take the 1 hour 15 mins Burnley to Leeds plus the twenty minutes from Burnley to Colne. With the far more likely scenario involving at the very least, a reversal west of Burnley or more likely a change of trains somewhere, this would take much longer.
In short, just because there isnt currently a desirable route between Colne and Leeds (nor is there ever likely to be from the south) which as a situation is suppressing demand, that doesnt mean there wouldnt be a demand were a suitable option available, and Colne/Nelson - Leeds via Skipton would be that option.
You are correct, which is why a bus/rail compromise would achieve similar connectivity at a quicker pace than is currently available
Skipton - Colne really is the only sensible position for a link between East Lancs and the Aire valley which is why SELRAP support it.
Of course it is and I fully agree with using that corridor as the basis for any transport improvements.
There are plenty of people who commute further distances, particularly if you bear in mind that Colne is potentially only twenty five minutes further out than Skipton. To suggest that people in a given area arent capable of well paid work smacks of chauvinism.
As for professionals moving out of the area, has it not struck you that a lack of decent transport might be a cause of this rather than a symptom?
They are capable of well paid work but this takes generations to achieve with a sizeable lag to pick up. Decent transport is only one aspect of the problem. We all agree that improving transport is one way of helping but at the current costs and options on the table, it is certainly difficult to justify so much investment for such a lightly populated area.
Well no, not at all. As Ive tried to explain, successful railways tend to perform different functions for different settlements, its not a question of a confused list of justifications. Take the majority of passenger routes in this country and the number of different passenger flows using it would be a confused list. The Standedge route doesnt just carry passengers between Leeds and Manchester. I agree though, some of your other suggested improvements would be a good idea as well.
It needs to have enough journeys to justify it regardless of what journeys it is used for. It suffers because it will struggle to gain a lot of inter regional journeys through it and requires local journeys to keep it going.
Oh, and just to recap, I still dont think that the scheme can only work with four trains an hour.
Personally I agree, but as soon as it was mentioned it was going to be a kicking point for them. Look at HS2 with the potential sound of the train going past. Hourly to Skipton will kybosh most of your arguments and leave it operating in a substandard service, so it will require further improvements, which will push the price up further.
Yet they manage to in Scotland. Are we really that different ? Alas Im not a member of SELRAP so wont be able to take your beer.
I am sure that you would make significant efforts to attend an opening party to at least say that I told you so and at that point I am sure you would enjoy the free ale (or soft drink alternative) on offer.
