Bradford Forster Square 4th Platform Funding Announced: what improvements would you like to see made?

[deltic08]

So to move them back where they were in January 1973 you would be demolishing Centenary Court, the Law Courts and digging down to the old terminus site of Exchange and replacing the bridge over the railway on Bridge Street. That is going to be one hell of a cost to cut a 10 minute walk down to 5.

I wondered when this white elephant would resurface, it’s been a while.

Is £21m going a long way towards it based on SELRAP’s costings? I mean they’re not exactly known for their accuracy of information. The following have been variously mentioned in the past having being taken from their website. Some may of course have been removed since as surely even they must have thought “Nah”:-

‘There are no railway links between East Lancs and the West Yorkshire cities of Bradford and Leeds’ totally ignoring the copy pit route. That’s my favourite.

‘It would take less than an hour from Colne to Leeds via Skipton’ is another good one no doubt based on non stop timings and ignoring any route constraints at best.

‘It’s a simple rebuild’ is another corker. Removing bypasses and building bridges must be easy in their area before you even start to build a fully signalled railway and of course the entire Gannow Junction to Colne section would need to be rebuilt to cope with their ideas.

‘There’s no public transport between Colne and Skipton/Keighley’ ignoring regular bus services completely.

‘It’s the perfect route for cross pennine freight’ only if you want it to take twice as long as you do now crossing the highly constrained Leeds station throat after heading down the highly constrained Aire Valley line.

I’m sure there’s plenty more that I’ve forgotten about.

No I’d take anything they say with one hell of a pinch of salt.

I loathe people with a negative attitude. No wonder Britain is in decline..
£21M was a long way towards a £100M originally calculated to build the line. Even at to-days cost of £300M, it is a start and just a fraction of £9billion to build 10 miles of dual carriageway in Northamptonshire, £9billion to repair potholes and £800M for nepharious reasons in the South of England that was cancelled HS2 money that was to be redirected to railway projects in the North of England.
It might be ten minutes for you but for someone with parathesia it is a lot longer than that and with great effort. Obviously you don't give a hoot for the disabled.
Yes demolish the buildings inbetween and bridge the old railway at Bridge Street. It will right the wrong decisions made 50 years ago. Buildings were demolished then to make way for the present buildings in the way.
You are bending the truth to suit your own argument. This is what negative people do when they have a weak or no leg to stand on.
It would be less than an hour Leeds to Colne and certainly be less for Aire Valley stations to Colne. Present Leeds-Skipton all stations stopper is 36 minutes and continuing the 10 miles to Colne with one stop at Earby would be less than 22 minutes even at 60mph line speed.
Would Gannow Jnc to Colne need rebuilding? Of course not as the current trains would just extend to Skipton and possibly Bradford allowing through trains to Blackburn and Preston or Blackpool when electrified.
People are not going to travel on a 90mph railway then change to a slow jerky bus for ten miles and then back to a train for onwards travel. They will drive. People will use a through and faster train.
No one from SELRAP has said there are no links between West Yorkshire and East Lancs. Besides, Skipton is in North Yorkshire.
No one from SELRAP has said it is a perfect cross Pennine route for freight. WHAT has been said that it is a more level crossing allowing heavier freight trains especially Liverpool-Drax biomass trains that are limited by the gradients.
Yes, the Aire Valley route is busy but was able to fit in 41 coal trains from Hunterston to Yorkshire power stations every 24 hours and crossing Leeds west end station throat. 6 biomass trains a day is much easier.
It is not simple to build. Wrong again. It is simpler to build as there was a railway route there previously.
Have you suggestions of your own or just exist to kill off others carefully thought out suggestions?

 

[xotGD]

Cross Bradford connections often look unattractive due to the official minimum connection time being much longer than is doable by someone able bodied. I've done it in under 10 minutes when I've needed to, but 15 is comfortable.

Journeys from Airedale or Wharfedale to the Calder Valley and Manchester can, in reality, be quicker via Bradford than Leeds, but journey planners will send folk via Leeds, adding to the congestion there unnecessarily.

Taking 5 minutes off the minimum connection would benefit passengers in multiple ways. Not having trains stacked three deep at Forster Square and/or moving the buffer stops closer to the city centre would facilitate this.

 

[willgreen]

Present Leeds-Skipton all stations stopper is 36 minutes

It isn’t quite. The limited stop trains take about that long but whether a stop at Skipton and passage through to Colne could be pathed in 24 minutes is doubtful - you’re not going to get a continuous 60mph line speed for the whole journey

 

[Neptune]

I loathe people with a negative attitude. No wonder Britain is in decline..

Loath? That’s a very strong word for someone who has an opposing opinion to yourself. Almost sounds like you live life in the realms of ‘my way or the highway’.

Anyway you don’t actually know me, you never know, you might find me alright. I mean I live life in the world of realism not historic fantasy but that doesn’t particularly make me loathsome does it? I certainly aren’t responsible for Britain’s decline as you seem to intimate, that‘s quite an accusation. For what it’s worth I’ve never voted Tory and voted remain (the current government and Brexit are two very strong reasons for the decline of this country from where I’m sitting, thank god for my EU passport).

I certainly wouldn’t pass such an opinion on someone I didn’t even know.

Also there’s a massive difference between negativity and realism as I’m sure you know. The problem here as I see it is that any form of realism from someone in the industry who understands finances and cost-benefit ratios etc… will always be shouted down as negative when the reality of poor BCR’s and the fact there’s no money in the pot is pointed out. If I think it’s worthwhile I’d say so but all this reversing Beeching stuff very rarely is.

Anyway I’ve stopped laughing at those digs and accusations now so let me continue with my right to reply from my place in the land of realism.

£21M was a long way towards a £100M originally calculated to build the line. Even at to-days cost of £300M, it is a start and just a fraction of £9billion to build 10 miles of dual carriageway in Northamptonshire, £9billion to repair potholes and £800M for nepharious reasons in the South of England that was cancelled HS2 money that was to be redirected to railway projects in the North of England.

If you believe all that the PM said when cancelling HS2 in this, an election year then that’s fine. You’d be in good company believing all this levelling up is actually true when it patently isn’t. Hint: It’s just an attempted vote winner as with most things in politics.

It might be ten minutes for you but for someone with parathesia it is a lot longer than that and with great effort. Obviously you don't give a hoot for the disabled.

I’d like you to take that comment back please. I have vehemently defended disabled accessibility on the railway to death (due in the main to having disabled relatives) including on this very forum when I called out someone who said that disabled facilities come at the expense of the able bodied and should be cut back.

Yes demolish the buildings inbetween and bridge the old railway at Bridge Street. It will right the wrong decisions made 50 years ago. Buildings were demolished then to make way for the present buildings in the way.

So we make the same mistakes as before? You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You are bending the truth to suit your own argument. This is what negative people do when they have a weak or no leg to stand on.
It would be less than an hour Leeds to Colne and certainly be less for Aire Valley stations to Colne. Present Leeds-Skipton all stations stopper is 36 minutes and continuing the 10 miles to Colne with one stop at Earby would be less than 22 minutes even at 60mph line speed.

It’s 41 minutes for the stopper which takes it over the hour, not the convenient 36 minutes that takes it under the magic hour mark (the semi fast time) that you seem to be confused with so if you are looking at a fast service down the valley does that not undo the argument?

Also is under 22 minutes (so 21 minutes or why would you say ‘under 22 minutes’ and not ‘20 minutes’ for instance) Colne - Skipton with one stop a guess or is it based on realism. Are there no more stops planned (I thought there were a few) or are you only saying that to suit your sub 1 hour argument?

And you accuse me of bending the truth! You got it to 58 minutes with some very sketchy timings there!

Would Gannow Jnc to Colne need rebuilding? Of course not as the current trains would just extend to Skipton and possibly Bradford allowing through trains to Blackburn and Preston or Blackpool when electrified.

Yes if the mega plans for transpennine freight are to be fulfilled.

People are not going to travel on a 90mph railway then change to a slow jerky bus for ten miles and then back to a train for onwards travel. They will drive. People will use a through and faster train.

Can you show me that nobody does that or is it just a guess?

No one from SELRAP has said there are no links between West Yorkshire and East Lancs.

It was previously on their website and mentioned a lot in a previous thread.

Besides, Skipton is in North Yorkshire.

Irrelevant to the above argument and I never mentioned Skipton in that context.

No one from SELRAP has said it is a perfect cross Pennine route for freight. WHAT has been said that it is a more level crossing allowing heavier freight trains especially Liverpool-Drax biomass trains that are limited by the gradients.
Yes, the Aire Valley route is busy but was able to fit in 41 coal trains from Hunterston to Yorkshire power stations every 24 hours and crossing Leeds west end station throat. 6 biomass trains a day is much easier.

Leeds station throat is much busier now and TRU will limit it further from the Aire Valley. Cross pennine will be catered for better by this using the Healey Mills route as now thanks to the planned grade separation at Thornhill Junction. How many of those 41 paths were overnight when there are far less trains and zero passenger paths.

It is not simple to build. Wrong again. It is simpler to build as there was a railway route there previously.

Again, this was taken from their website and previously discussed.

Tell me please, if this is such a good scheme why there has still not been a single spade in the ground since SELRAP’s inception? I’ve said before that they’d be better campaigning for a second Copy Pit service which connects to the Colne service at Rose Grove (cross island platform so perfect).

Have you suggestions of your own or just exist to kill off others carefully thought out suggestions?

A free direct bus between BDI & BDQ running every few minutes as per Glasgow. Cheap to run and seemingly gives everyone exactly what they want for cross Bradford links without expensive rebuilding and land grabs. Sorry if this isn’t the expensive and unrealistic Beeching reverse you were looking for.

 

[Halifaxlad]

If you knock down half the building, can you simply put a wall up where you stop, or would you need to demolish the whole thing and build a new replacement. Structural integrity has already beem mentioned, and where are the lifts and stairwells within Centenary Court, the fire escapes, building services, pipes, etc. Would the modified building still meet all the relevant fire and evacuation codes, these kind of questions

Now this is beyond speculative!

I would suggest you have a look at Bradford planning portal for the answers you seek!

Naturally demolishing half of any building may result in a need to provide new stairwells ect, this thread is supposed to be about Bradford not what about what exactly would it take to demolish half a building!

I think Skyscraper city might be a better forum for that!

Well I think plenty of suggestions on this forum go well beyond speculative as well.
However I was more referring to the fact that your maths upthread implied you were suggesting that demolishing Centenery Court would pay for the project with a £3m surplus, when in reality it would be doubling the project cost. Apologies if my inference is wrong in that regard.

I think you read far too much into things!

 

[Neptune]

Now this is beyond speculative!

I would suggest you have a look at Bradford planning portal for the answers you seek!

Naturally demolishing half of any building may result in a need to provide new stairwells ect, this thread is supposed to be about Bradford not what about what exactly would it take to demolish half a building!

But @zwk500 was simply asking quite obvious questions to you about your speculation about chopping one side of Centenary Court off.

They simple explained that doing that would create more complications than just lopping the wing off, putting a wall up in the gap, lengthening the platforms (on land NR doesn’t own) and away you go.

 

[MarkyT]

I totally agree, move the termini closer together.

So to move them back where they were in January 1973 you would be demolishing Centenary Court, the Law Courts and digging down to the old terminus site of Exchange and replacing the bridge over the railway on Bridge Street. That is going to be one hell of a cost to cut a 10 minute walk down to 5.

I did say in an ideal world! A notional present where, perhaps, better decisions had been made in an ideal past, like safeguarding land in critical places and making new passive provisions in recent constructions. Clearly, we're not in that world. I think the most realistic future now could be a short connecting LRT segment between the two networks with local services radiating from Bradford converted to Cardiff-style level boarding tram-trains as part of the nascent West Yorkshire 'mass transit' aspirations. South of Interchange, trams could branch out to various destinations including a possible LRT return of rail to the Spen Valley.

 

[Halifaxlad]

They simple explained that doing that would create more complications than just lopping the wing off, putting a wall up in the gap, lengthening the platforms (on land NR doesn’t own) and away you go.

Its needless to say it!

Why cant anyone suggest something on here without someone presuming that the complexity hasnt already been considered ?

We dont need to point out the obvious all the time do we ?

As for Centenary square it is a symetetrical building, what would be needed if platforms were to be extended would only be less than half the building. That was the point before this silly discussion about demolishing buildings.

If it was to be partially demolished I would demolish half, now since its symmetrical it is likely that the internal elements are too. As long as the stair cases arnt in the centre bit, it shouldnt really affect them. The building does appear to have an entrance and presumably staircase on both sides Im presuming there is a firexit in each corner too. If neccessary well you could always build a new firescape on the outside of the building.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

J.B. Priestley, doyen of Bradford, said the city was at the end of a branch line and suffered accordingly. I actually support the creation of a suitably appointed mainline station either at Adolphous Street or Wakefield Road on the old avoiding line and dispensing with the dumps that are Forster Sq and Interchange completely.

Local services to FS would be converted to tram-train operation as MarkyT suggests and extended across the city-centre to the new station with various intermediate stops. I also get rid of the inner ring road, the Stanley Wardley (City Eng) disaster that wrecked the city centre, at the same time!

 

[Neptune]

Its needless to say it!

Why cant anyone suggest something on here without someone presuming that the complexity hasnt already been considered ?

We dont need to point out the obvious all the time do we ?

The trouble is that some of the suggestions on here are obviously made without the complexities being considered such as lopping Centenary Court in half without knowing if it’s even possible.

As for Centenary square it is a symetetrical building, what would be needed if platforms were to be extended would only be less than half the building. That was the point before this silly discussion about demolishing buildings.

I’m not going to look back but who started mentioning demolishing buildings on this thread in the first place? I only pointed out that it seemed to be a solution oft used regarding Bradford without any thought about the costs/complexities/ownership issues of this. I’m glad you see demolishing buildings as silly.

If it was to be partially demolished I would demolish half, now since its symmetrical it is likely that the internal elements are too.

Likely is a word rarely used and never risked in structural engineering. I remember the framework during construction but wouldn’t presume that losing half of it wouldn’t cause the whole thing to topple over. If the whole central section is the supporting mass then losing one part of it will risk the whole lot toppling over.

As long as the stair cases arnt in the centre bit, it shouldnt really affect them. The building does appear to have an entrance and presumably staircase on both sides Im presuming there is a firexit in each corner too. If neccessary well you could always build a new firescape on the outside of the building.

I’ve spoken to a relative who works in Centenary Court and was right, it is owned by Mapeleys who would never give up property easily or cheaply.

Anyway with regards to the layout of the building the secure fire escapes are the shafts sticking out in the centre on each side. You suggest losing one of these. There are entrances front and rear but you need fire escapes on all sides due to the central element. The lifts are front and rear but not usable during a fire for obvious reasons.

Also as I keep mentioning but everyone is ignoring the staff at CC are likely to be staying due to the new Regional Centre in Leeds being full (Where CC staff were meant to be going). Where are you moving the staff you intend to displace to?

 

[Halifaxlad]

The trouble is that some of the suggestions on here are obviously made without the complexities being considered such as lopping Centenary Court in half without knowing if it’s even possible.

I dont know youre infering that feasibility studies should be conducted before anyone should speculate in the 'Speculative discussion' side of this forum.

If a feasibility study had been we wouldnt be speculating it would we ?

 

[Neptune]

I dont know youre infering that feasibility studies should be conducted before anyone should speculate in the 'Speculative discussion' side of this forum.

If a feasibility study had been we wouldnt be speculating it would we ?

Yes but when speculative suggestions are made is it wrong to actually explain what is required for such speculation to happen in reality?

Where does it say that it is forbidden to challenge speculative ideas that have drifted into the realms of fantasy such as half demolishing Bradford just to make the station approach a bit prettier or a bit nearer to the other station.

I suggested a free shuttle bus running regularly between the 2 stations stopping nowhere else as per Glasgow. It’s affordable and doesn’t involve the expensive land grabs and subsequent watering down of the city centre as some people seem to desire.

Seeing as it hasn‘t been commented on I assume it doesn’t suit the metric of demolition and masses of train tracks at the expense of an actual city centre.

 

[takno]

I did say in an ideal world! A notional present where, perhaps, better decisions had been made in an ideal past, like safeguarding land in critical places and making new passive provisions in recent constructions. Clearly, we're not in that world. I think the most realistic future now could be a short connecting LRT segment between the two networks with local services radiating from Bradford converted to Cardiff-style level boarding tram-trains as part of the nascent West Yorkshire 'mass transit' aspirations. South of Interchange, trams could branch out to various destinations including a possible LRT return of rail to the Spen Valley.

This is an even worse idea than it is in Cardiff. You've got perfectly good real trains with toilets that go at a decent speed and have toilets and a comfort level in line with the reasonably long journeys they service, you have full continuous electrification of most of the routes at a non-toytown voltage, and no particular capacity constraints. Turning them into trams just to support a few theoretically-desired through journeys through Bradford is unlikely to go down terribly well.

 

[MarkyT]

This is an even worse idea than it is in Cardiff. You've got perfectly good real trains with toilets that go at a decent speed and have toilets and a comfort level in line with the reasonably long journeys they service, you have full continuous electrification of most of the routes at a non-toytown voltage, and no particular capacity constraints. Turning them into trams just to support a few theoretically-desired through journeys through Bradford is unlikely to go down terribly well.

You don't have to use batteries. A low voltage section across the centre could be provided using dual voltage vehicles. Note there are no wires at Interchange today. No reason tram trains couldn't have toilets if desired. It's a bit early to judge South Wales Metro yet, which incidentally is using 25kV on its wired sections, nothing 'toy town'. Not all trains need be converted. There could still be some conventional EMUs terminating at Forster Square

 

[Bantamzen]

Honestly all of this talk of knocking down half of Bradford to save a few minutes walking, its getting out of hand now people! And as for Skipton - Colne, how did that even end up on a thread about Forster Square? The mind boggles...

Let's jump back into reality, Forster Square need some TLC. If a fourth platform can be shoehorned in, great. But what it really needs is a facelift, get a proper waiting area with maybe a bit of retail in, perhaps some toilets thrown in? And sort the approaches which can be very off-putting at the moment, and we're well on the way to making decent improvements. That should soak up the budget nicely.

 

[Neptune]

Honestly all of this talk of knocking down half of Bradford to save a few minutes walking, its getting out of hand now people! And as for Skipton - Colne, how did that even end up on a thread about Forster Square? The mind boggles...

Precisely. Some people evidently believe that the magic money tree exists. As for Skipton - Colne. It just won’t go away for some reason.

Let's jump back into reality, Forster Square need some TLC. If a fourth platform can be shoehorned in, great. But what it really needs is a facelift, get a proper waiting area with maybe a bit of retail in, perhaps some toilets thrown in? And sort the approaches which can be very off-putting at the moment, and we're well on the way to making decent improvements. That should soak up the budget nicely.

Absolutely, we are where we are with BDQ, it isn’t going to move anywhere. It has a good service with off peak reinstatement coming back in December, hopefully a 2 hourly London service to come, it just needs that TLC and small capacity enhancement to stop it looking like a run down inner-suburban dump. And a free direct regular bus link to/from the Interchange

 

[30907]

And a free direct regular bus link to/from the Interchange

...which could use the existing bus service, assuming that (some) services that presently use Manor Row-Cheapside-Market St continue to run to Interchange via the new bus "hubs" (stops in old money).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

J.B. Priestley, doyen of Bradford, said the city was at the end of a branch line and suffered accordingly. I actually support the creation of a suitably appointed mainline station either at Adolphous Street or Wakefield Road on the old avoiding line and dispensing with the dumps that are Forster Sq and Interchange completely.

Local services to FS would be converted to tram-train operation as MarkyT suggests and extended across the city-centre to the new station with various intermediate stops. I also get rid of the inner ring road, the Stanley Wardley (City Eng) disaster that wrecked the city centre, at the same time!

Look at other towns and cities where the majority of trains serve a station on the outskirts rather than the centre, or skip the place entirely because there's a convenient bypass. Unless there's a frequent shuttle linking the centre (Stourbridge, Colchester) they all suffer. Gloucester is a perfect example. Most XC services call at Cheltenham and don't go into Gloucester to turn back, as a result it's a deprived and hostile backwater. Having most of the services to Interchange bypass and call at a station a mile out of the centre certainly won't suddenly turn Bradford into the cultural utopia that the city Council think the "Capital of Culture" title will magically bestow.

As for turning the Forster Square lines into tram-train, that's also ludicrous. I know, let's downgrade the highest quality rail route in the city, what could possibly go wrong? That's even more counterproductive than TfGM's madcap idea of handing the Glossop lines over to Metrolink.

 

[MarkyT]

Precisely. Some people evidently believe that the magic money tree exists. As for Skipton - Colne. It just won’t go away for some reason.

There's a notional mass transit system being studied for Leeds and W. Yorkshire, that might offer some funding.

Absolutely, we are where we are with BDQ, it isn’t going to move anywhere. It has a good service with off peak reinstatement coming back in December, hopefully a 2 hourly London service to come, it just needs that TLC and small capacity enhancement to stop it looking like a run down inner-suburban dump. And a free direct regular bus link to/from the Interchange

I fully agree in the real world. A new N-S cross Bradford Mass Transit axis might be desirable however, for which my tram-train LRT link is one possibility not requiring demolishing the city centre, and it could take over some, but not all existing local rail services to the north and south. In that scenario some trains would remain conventional EMUs terminating at BDQ, so there would still be a need for the station.

As for turning the Forster Square lines into tram-train, that's also ludicrous. I know, let's downgrade the highest quality rail route in the city, what could possibly go wrong? That's even more counterproductive than TfGM's madcap idea of handing the Glossop lines over to Metrolink.

I'm going to wait to experience the Cardiff application of this type of rolling stock rather than automatically assuming they're going to be low-quality. They also offer level boarding at UK standard 913mm height platforms. They are really light trains with street-running capabilities.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm going to wait to experience the Cardiff application of this type of rolling stock rather than automatically assuming they're going to be low-quality. They also offer level boarding at UK standard 913mm height platforms. They are really light trains with street-running capabilities

Not necessarily "low quality", but lower quality than what exists currently. For example will they have toilets? If they don't, will facilities be provided at stations? Will there be a frequency increase to compensate? How secure will ongoing funding for that frequency uplift be?
Will the added complications of meeting heavy rail crash resistance (necessary if London services will continue to use lines into BDQ) be a sensible use of funds? If only some services into BDQ are being metro-ified, how do you pick which ones?

 

[Neptune]

Not necessarily "low quality", but lower quality than what exists currently. For example will they have toilets? If they don't, will facilities be provided at stations? Will there be a frequency increase to compensate? How secure will ongoing funding for that frequency uplift be?
Will the added complications of meeting heavy rail crash resistance (necessary if London services will continue to use lines into BDQ) be a sensible use of funds? If only some services into BDQ are being metro-ified, how do you pick which ones?

There are no plans for Forster Square lines to be turned over to light rail services cutting a swathe through the centre of the city. Just another fantasy to add to this thread. Imagine a tram interacting with a 75mph freight on the Aire Valley!

 

[MarkyT]

Will the added complications of meeting heavy rail crash resistance (necessary if London services will continue to use lines into BDQ) be a sensible use of funds? If only some services into BDQ are being metro-ified, how do you pick which ones?

If the Stadler Citylink design was chosen, the bulk of the approval work is already done. I'd look at improving TPWS coverage, with fitment at every signal in the shared areas. I was thinking services to Leeds and longer-distance trains such as the London ones would remain conventional.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are no plans for Forster Square lines to be turned over to light rail services cutting a swathe through the centre of the city. Just another fantasy to add to this thread. Imagine a tram interacting with a 75mph freight on the Aire Valley!

Don't worry, I'm well aware... even things that actually get announced usually don't become reality, let alone the pie-in-the-sky suggestions on here.

I'm all for speculation as a bit of fun, but when something is earnestly suggested it should be scrutinised to ensure that it actually would be an improvement on what exists currently. New and shiny isn't always an improvement.

If the Stadler Citylink design was chosen, the bulk of the approval work is already done. I'd look at improving TPWS coverage, with fitment at every signal in the shared areas. I was thinking services to Leeds and longer-distance trains such as the London ones would remain conventional.

How would the diagrams work with two separate fleets that can't interwork?

 

[MarkyT]

There are no plans for Forster Square lines to be turned over to light rail services cutting a swathe through the centre of the city. Just another fantasy to add to this thread. Imagine a tram interacting with a 75mph freight on the Aire Valley!

What's this 'swathe' you speak of? I'm suggesting light rail in the city centre precisely becasue it might be built with less destruction than heavy rail due to its street running, curvature, and gradient capabilities. With all trains fitted with TPWS and the infrastructure having trainstop loops at all signals, the interrunning is something that can be managed safely, as demonstrated by Tyne and Wear Metrocars, tram-based vehicles that are also effectively tram-trains although not also street legal clearly. There is interruning with freight in Sheffield and there will be in South Wales. In Germany it is widespread and there is a growing list of other nations adopting the solution.

Don't worry, I'm well aware... even things that actually get announced usually don't become reality, let alone the pie-in-the-sky suggestions on here.

I'm all for speculation as a bit of fun, but when something is earnestly suggested it should be scrutinised to ensure that it actually would be an improvement on what exists currently. New and shiny isn't always an improvement.


How would the diagrams work with two separate fleets that can't interwork?

That is detail to solve clearly. It would need a comprehensive recast of the local timetable but I'm sure it's possible. Whether yet more tram-train conversion was justified would depend on what eventually comes out of the 'mass transit' aspirations. The technology could become a template for a wider West Yorkshire 'Stadtbahn' network.

 

[Neptune]

I honestly don’t think light rail is something we’ll see in West Yorkshire in most of our lifetimes. I have zero faith and trust in Brabin (WY mayor) and Hinchcliffe (leader of Bradford council and head of WYCA transport committee). They’re both completely inept at their jobs.

Look at the huge cover up around Bradford Interchange bus station. They knew about the state of the place well before they closed it for safety reasons and then proceeded to say nothing for weeks until they finally had no choice (of course they got their minions to do that for them). Of course if it’s a rare good news story their all over it and ducking in front of every press camera going telling the world how good they are.

Anyway it seems the issue is here and now, I’ve suggested a free bus between the two stations which will run none stop (none of this wondering around the city taking 20 mins malarkey). It’s a far quicker and a much cheaper option than anything else suggested but as I keep saying, too many people would prefer to wait years and knock down half the city centre while laying tracks everywhere for a benefit that could be resolved in weeks.

I’ve always felt tram-train was a solution looking for problem, especially in the UK where we have so few tram systems.

 

[MarkyT]

I honestly don’t think light rail is something we’ll see in West Yorkshire in most of our lifetimes. I have zero faith and trust in Brabin (WY mayor) and Hinchcliffe (leader of Bradford council and head of WYCA transport committee). They’re both completely inept at their jobs.

Look at the huge cover up around Bradford Interchange bus station. They knew about the state of the place well before they closed it for safety reasons and then proceeded to say nothing for weeks until they finally had no choice (of course they got their minions to do that for them). Of course if it’s a rare good news story their all over it and ducking in front of every press camera going telling the world how good they are.

Anyway it seems the issue is here and now, I’ve suggested a free bus between the two stations which will run none stop (none of this wondering around the city taking 20 mins malarkey). It’s a far quicker and a much cheaper option than anything else suggested but as I keep saying, too many people would prefer to wait years and knock down half the city centre while laying tracks everywhere for a benefit that could be resolved in weeks.

It is the sort of thing that might be suited to a small bus sized battery electric pod contraption that might run along a defined path even through pedestrian areas. Could be semi-autonomous with a conductor pressing the go button and available to assist customers, deal with youths misbehaving, and take over in manual if there was a problem.

 

[Neptune]

It is the sort of thing that might be suited to a small bus sized battery electric pod contraption that might run along a defined path even through pedestrian areas. Could be semi-autonomous with a conductor pressing the go button and available to assist customers, deal with youths misbehaving, and take over in manual if there was a problem.

Absolutely. There’s contraptions like this all over and they work well.

I’ve used the one at Lá Defense in Paris and something a little bigger would work well (maybe a capacity of 20 running every 10 minutes).

Sometimes less is more and I wish more people would see that.

 

[MarkyT]

Absolutely. There’s contraptions like this all over and they work well.

I’ve used the one at Lá Defense in Paris and something a little bigger would work well (maybe a capacity of 20 running every 10 minutes).

Sometimes less is more and I wish more people would see that.

Could also be implemented very quickly, while we wait another 2 or 3 decades for mass transit! Flexible too. If custom rises significantly, more vehicles can be added or the route extended to other nearby traffic centres.

 

[Neptune]

Could also be implemented very quickly, while we wait another 2 or 3 decades for mass transit! Flexible too. If custom rises significantly, more vehicles can be added or the route extended to other nearby traffic centres.

I wouldn’t divert it away from its prime purpose of serving the 2 transport hubs personally.

Of course something as simple as this to implement is way beyond the wit of Brabin and Hinchcliffe because it won’t make the outside of the city hall pretty therefore it has no worth to them.

 

[xotGD]

I guess the non-existent tram-trains can run via the non-existent Shipley bypass.