Fair enough - tram/train just struck me as an excellent potential solution for integrating on-street running (esp. where the main station is not convenient for the centre of town) and areas where the economics of light rail may make the difference in reinstatement or not; Cambridge - Haverhill feels like it would fit in this box.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Campaign for Better Transport - The Case for Expanding the Rail Network
- Thread starter DerekC
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough - tram/train just struck me as an excellent potential solution for integrating on-street running (esp. where the main station is not convenient for the centre of town) and areas where the economics of light rail may make the difference in reinstatement or not; Cambridge - Haverhill feels like it would fit in this box.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Parry People Mover may be a cheaper solution for the St Andrews rail ‘issue’?
I would be surprised if it was much good beyond what it does now: very short shuttle trips of a small vehicle, allowing frequent "recharge" and a very frequent "service." I know it has been tried on buses and has a small history of use
St Andrews looks like 5 or 6 miles to the nearest railway line, so the round trip will take about 1/2 hour allowing only 5 mins for recharging (if a battery was involved.) A flywheel may spin up in seconds, but I would guess that range would then become an issue. 2 vehicles shuttling then introduces the need for a passing loop and signalling but still only gives a 15-minute interval. I suppose there's no reason why they shouldn't be 2-car units, but I suspect it may be too far for what the flywheel system is good for.
What are your criteria for new openings here, haha? East Midlands Parkway? Creswell and Whitwell? Kelvindale? Can these stations really be described in hindsight as logical proposals based on good evidence, which has resulted in the best value for money of a railway project at the time?
I would like to see an after-the-event analysis of value for money for taxpayers (and to an extent farepayers too) for the construction of East Midlands Parkway, or the railway between Mansfield Woodhouse and Worksop, compared with, say, the new light railway between Manchester and East Didsbury. The economic impact of these projects would also be interesting to compare.
Last edited:
Exactly. The government can borrow money at a very low rate. If we wanted them to, they could borrow several billion pounds a year more than they do at the moment to spend on railway, light railway, metro, bus and any other public transport infrastrucutre capital projects that are juadged value for money. If they were built on a sound enough case that they could break even on operating costs after a few years, borrowing the capital would be the only hurdle. An extra £2 billion a year, say, dedicated to public transport is a drop in the ocean and would probably be able to go to high BCR schemes, if am efficient pipeline to build up strong schemes can be established. It's not difficult, it's just that the government wants to keep a lid on borrowing, even for capital expendure, for political (totally nonsense, in my view) reasons.
Agreed, I would too. Airdrie - Bathgate and Borders would make for very interesting reading.
The rail branch of CBT is not anti car as such. It is just pro rail and anti pollution. They do not recommend opening just any former rail routes but ones where there has been growth and movements between towns that could do better by rail that were cheated out of a rail service connectivity 50 years ago. Some of the proposals have had a BC analysis done.
Some have been critical of the costings but have been taken from recent reinstatements that have come out between £9M for one and mostly £16M per mile for others which I think is quite fair so what is the problem with that.
Two campaigns that I have been closely involved with are Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, one of 33 in the report, and Cross Gate-Wetherby-Harrogate, mentioned in the 224 closed lines. Both routes would make an alternative route from Manchester and West Yorkshire to the Northeast and Scotland 13 miles shorter and avoiding the almost at capacity Leeds-Micklefield line via York if conjoined.
York is congested at Skelton, Skelton Bridge and Holgate Junctions. In fact both Skelton Junctions are so busy it is easier to regulate freight through the station, especially southbound, as there isn't time to cross both fast lines onto the freight avoiding line from the Up Slow.
Reinstating the first 3 or 4 miles of the Cross Gates to Wetherby line is now driven by the East Leeds Extension development of 10,000 houses, the size of a town of 35,000 people. The plans for this development show that it is proposed to build across the trackbed, protected by Leeds City Council until 2001 for P&R on the A64, and not leave it intact for future heavy rail or even light rail use but there will be a 4 mile road costing £100M paid by Section 106 levies across the development to the M1. This will encourage car use and commuting adding to Leeds already very high air pollution figures. Leeds is the second most air polluted city in the UK and statistically is expected to have 500 premature deaths per annum.
Numbers of commuters from here into Leeds in both peaks has been calculated to need 1400 bus movements into an already gridlocked city as Leeds City Council has planned it this way. A LCC spokesperson told me that rail through the development with two stations had not even been considered. 30 minutes by bus compared to 10 minutes by reinstated rail into central Leeds is a poor trade off and very short-sighted.
A representation by me to the Inquiry of objectors to the scheme was ignored by the Inspector and the ELOR road and plan are going ahead driving a coach and horses through air quality and Government guidelines on providing rail to large housing developments such as Barking Riverside.
Wetherby will never be rail connected now and part of another through strategic route even though it is next in line for massive growth as a Leeds satellite town.
I am still not able to drive since having a stroke in 2018 but I am able to use public transport now. I am able to confirm that Ripon is in public transport poverty. I had lots of meetings in Leeds, including CBT committee meetings, when I was able to drive. Many of them didn't finish until after 10 pm. Previously no problem but now I find using the 2239 train back to Harrogate, as the 2139 is too early and I still have to wait in Harrogate 53 minutes for a bus on to Ripon, misses the last bus to Ripon by less than 10 minutes.
I have had face to face meetings with Transdev, the bus operator, to ask if they can retime the last bus to integrate with this train from Leeds. They flatly refused to.
This is just one reason that reinstating Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton is in the 33 in the CBT report. It needs to be for the residents and commuters of Ripon now more than twice the population of that when the line closed in 1967.
We are against some proposals locally such as Leeds Bradford Airport Parkway station. This is ill thought out and in the wrong place as the topography is against it. Too far away and too far below the airport. It is being proposed by people who don't know any better and think a station can be put anywhere. The airport wants it but unwilling to pay for it. It just makes the journey time to Harrogate even longer when it should be reduced and not the same as 40 years ago.
Some have been critical of the costings but have been taken from recent reinstatements that have come out between £9M for one and mostly £16M per mile for others which I think is quite fair so what is the problem with that.
Two campaigns that I have been closely involved with are Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, one of 33 in the report, and Cross Gate-Wetherby-Harrogate, mentioned in the 224 closed lines. Both routes would make an alternative route from Manchester and West Yorkshire to the Northeast and Scotland 13 miles shorter and avoiding the almost at capacity Leeds-Micklefield line via York if conjoined.
York is congested at Skelton, Skelton Bridge and Holgate Junctions. In fact both Skelton Junctions are so busy it is easier to regulate freight through the station, especially southbound, as there isn't time to cross both fast lines onto the freight avoiding line from the Up Slow.
Reinstating the first 3 or 4 miles of the Cross Gates to Wetherby line is now driven by the East Leeds Extension development of 10,000 houses, the size of a town of 35,000 people. The plans for this development show that it is proposed to build across the trackbed, protected by Leeds City Council until 2001 for P&R on the A64, and not leave it intact for future heavy rail or even light rail use but there will be a 4 mile road costing £100M paid by Section 106 levies across the development to the M1. This will encourage car use and commuting adding to Leeds already very high air pollution figures. Leeds is the second most air polluted city in the UK and statistically is expected to have 500 premature deaths per annum.
Numbers of commuters from here into Leeds in both peaks has been calculated to need 1400 bus movements into an already gridlocked city as Leeds City Council has planned it this way. A LCC spokesperson told me that rail through the development with two stations had not even been considered. 30 minutes by bus compared to 10 minutes by reinstated rail into central Leeds is a poor trade off and very short-sighted.
A representation by me to the Inquiry of objectors to the scheme was ignored by the Inspector and the ELOR road and plan are going ahead driving a coach and horses through air quality and Government guidelines on providing rail to large housing developments such as Barking Riverside.
Wetherby will never be rail connected now and part of another through strategic route even though it is next in line for massive growth as a Leeds satellite town.
I am still not able to drive since having a stroke in 2018 but I am able to use public transport now. I am able to confirm that Ripon is in public transport poverty. I had lots of meetings in Leeds, including CBT committee meetings, when I was able to drive. Many of them didn't finish until after 10 pm. Previously no problem but now I find using the 2239 train back to Harrogate, as the 2139 is too early and I still have to wait in Harrogate 53 minutes for a bus on to Ripon, misses the last bus to Ripon by less than 10 minutes.
I have had face to face meetings with Transdev, the bus operator, to ask if they can retime the last bus to integrate with this train from Leeds. They flatly refused to.
This is just one reason that reinstating Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton is in the 33 in the CBT report. It needs to be for the residents and commuters of Ripon now more than twice the population of that when the line closed in 1967.
We are against some proposals locally such as Leeds Bradford Airport Parkway station. This is ill thought out and in the wrong place as the topography is against it. Too far away and too far below the airport. It is being proposed by people who don't know any better and think a station can be put anywhere. The airport wants it but unwilling to pay for it. It just makes the journey time to Harrogate even longer when it should be reduced and not the same as 40 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
squizzler
Established Member
Thank you for the very heartfelt and insightful post on campaigning for progress in your local rail provision, I found it quite amazing how backwards some councils still can be.
I'm not sure that it would. The East Didsbury metrolink extension is a high density urban link and can be expected to have a very high impact in terms of number of people assisted.
Rail links in rural areas can be expected to have a lower impact in terms of numbers of people shifted, but such areas start from having a lower level of public transport provision and are more isolated in other respects.
I don't agree with the position that just because urban areas will generate higher numbers, non-urban areas should automatically be neglected. Fewer people will benefit, but in many ways those that do will experience a much greater benefit from a starting point of being more deprived.
A suburban branch is performing a different role to a rural link. One is making an already good transport network more efficient and higher capacity whilst the other is providing a lifeline to an isolated community.
Apples and oranges in some ways, but both important.
Altnabreac
Established Member
One was done for Airdrie - Bathgate a few years back. I contributed some data to it and I’m sure I remember reading a draft version of it as well. Not sure if it’s currently available publically but I’m sure it could be FOIed.
From memory it showed excellent success from the 4tph frequency increase in West Lothian and Armadale Station also performed well. Coatbridge and Airdrie to Edinburgh numbers were also strong.
Blackridge and Caldercruix were a bit quieter and West Lothian to Glasgow wasn’t as strong as Lanarkshire - Edinburgh performance.
It was revealed today by the National Audit Office that Grayling has wasted this country, and taxpayers, half a billions pounds, £470m by privatising the probation service unnecessarily when he was Justice Secretary and £33m out of court settlement to Eurotunnel for arranging Brexit ferries in secret as Transport Secretary.
Just think how many miles of disused railways could be reinstated for £500m. 33 miles worth.
It has gone beyond a joke now, Grayling has become a National liability.
Just think how many miles of disused railways could be reinstated for £500m. 33 miles worth.
It has gone beyond a joke now, Grayling has become a National liability.
Last edited by a moderator:
Always helpful to read beyond the headlines though - in the Eurotunnel one, here's what the BBC's article says:
"In December, the Department for Transport (DfT) contracted three suppliers to provide additional freight capacity on ferries for lorries.
But Eurotunnel said the contracts were handed out in a "secretive" way.
As part of the agreement, Eurotunnel has agreed to make some improvements to its terminal."
And
"In January, Eurotunnel wrote to Mr Grayling to complain that it had not been considered when the contracts were awarded.
It argued that unlike Seaborne, it has actually run a cross-Channel ferry service (MyFerryLink, which closed in 2015) and should have been approached."
I assume the DfT has legal advisors which check all tenders before they are advertised - in fact I would have though this one in particular should have been published in OJEU. Either way, anyone at ministerial level will have expected such contracts to have been reviewed by the department's lawyers before signing them. If that had happened then you can't really blame the minister, but should be looking at the Civil Service and their competence.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Given the relatively slow speed of all trains through York station there is little disbenefit to routeing freights that way. If regulation is required there is room for a 3rd track on the Up side east of Skelton Jn, indeed there is a disused bridge over Leeman Road for such a track, and subject to rebuilding the station footbridge it would also be possible to reinstate one or both of the former through roads in the station itself. Given the current and likely future demand for railfreight in this country it is almost impossible to justify grandiose schemes on a just in case basis.
While you are right to highlight the health risks arising from vehicular traffic in the long-term the rise of electrically propelled cars and buses will shift the problem away from urban areas to the power generating sites where it should be easier to control. It's also worth noting the possibility of reinstating the rails to Wetherby was lost a long time ago thanks to numerous developments along the trackbeds concerned. However it could still be possible to reinstate from Cross Gates northwards as far as the A64 (P&R) if so desired. But that comes with significant caveats. The 2-track section east from Leeds is already running at capacity most of the time so any additional service would almost certainly require construction of a third track and there would still be the issue of a flat junction to schedule around. And that's before we consider the platform capacity at Leeds station itself. So the costs for such a scheme are more than just for the line itself.
That sounds like a good argument for some re-regulation of the bus industry, much cheaper than building a railway line. Indeed I would suspect there are many similar situations all over the country needing nothing more than a sufficiently empowered co-ordinating authority to resolve them.
I rather suspect there is a deal of parochialism involved here. If those pesky Lancastrians can have a shiny rail connected airport for Manchester then surely there should be a Tyke equivalent. Trouble is Yeadon was always a rubbish location for an airport, somewhere like Church Fenton would have made much more sense. But we are where we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
About 10-15 miles worth, but the point is well made.
Oh it would definitely be interesting, whatever it says. I have a very strong opinion that post completion reviews of benefits and costs should be done, and made public, for all major projects to identify where forecasts were wrong; this then helps to improve future forecasts and planning. Of course this is very difficult for the politicians.
Interesting. I’d quite like to see that, and to see if the Scottish Government felt it was value for money compare to potential alternatives. For example 4tph West Lothian to Edinburgh could have been done without the new line. The CBT report is all about connecting communities with no rail connection - the new stations on the new stretch of line generate about 400k passengers a year, or about the same as Carluke. Lanarkshire to Edinburgh is a good example of enabling wider economic benefits. It would be interesting to compare all this to the forecasts, and identify what difference this had made to the local economies, and therefore if with the benefit of hindsight it is was worth the £300m odd spent on it 10 years ago.
Yes, I admit, this is a good point. The Borders outperformed expectations, so it should be anylised why the model didn't forsee this.
Similarly, the Sinfin branch reopening should have been anylised to see why it didn't reach expectations.
If only such rigour had been applied to finding out whether the 1960's 70's closure programme had achieved the savings intended, but that's another topic.
Point of order - the line as a whole is just about on forecast; however the Borderlands stations are ahead, but the Lothian stations are behind. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see why that was the case. It would also be interesting to see a post completion BCR, but I strongly suspect that would never be published!
Well, it seems to justify my point that some of thew remoter areas are more in need of decent rail connections.
If only such post evaluations were done on the closures in the 60's and 70's. But then again, the people in charge at the time weren't interested in a genuine evaluation of the benefits/losses of closure. They wanted to slash route mileage at all costs. But that's for another thread.
adrock1976
Established Member
Regarding if the airport should have been sited in Yeadon, is there still an airfield at Sherburn-in-Elmet?
Yes, but Church Fenton is more suitable with longer tarmac'd runways and nearer to a railhead with room for expansion.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Here’s the one I contributed to. A Stage 2 Analysis should be in the works too but I can’t see it online yet so may not have been done:
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/32477/j374405.pdf
Well, apart from being able to confirm what we all know from using the line regularly that trips and revenue take from the eastern end of the line has rocketed, the report was unable to confirm if the line had reached its other objectives such as reduced traffic on the M8 and reducing crowding at peak times on the Falkirk High line.
Surely the question "has this rail journey saved a journey on the M8" could have been asked when the onboard survey was done?
I think the whole evaluation was a waste of time and money as it was inconclusive and as a result made it seem that the reinstatement was not worth it making it hard to reinstate further lines.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Although p55 of the report does include this:
so that's one objective definitely achieved
Possibly so but perhaps the proportion of traffic on the M8 being due to residents of the Bathgate area is sufficiently small to be not much more than noise in the overall picture. This objective may well have been inappropriate in the first place.
This comment worries me: it suggests you believe that any such report should automatically be positive regardless of the evidence. With your background and experience I would be surprised to find that you are in favour of fake news. Care to clarify?
Overall ISTM that the objectives for the project were somewhat skewed towards a relatively socialist outlook from the outset. While those objectives were perfectly laudable they were not the only metrics by which the project could be measured. For example what if some of the generated ridership came from people from more affluent social groups like, perhaps, teenagers travelling to Glasgow/Edinburgh for leisure/retail activities, something highly evident on many other routes serving metropolitan centres? And what about the facilitation of population shift, like people moving into the area for cheaper housing coupled to the benefits of a revived electrically operated rail service. And seemingly there was no consideration of environmental benefits in the wider sense.
The report says that reduction in Falkirk traffic in the peaks may have been due to reinstating A2B. You can't get more vague than that.
They had no idea if cars were reduced in the M8. This was the whole purpose of the scheme to save disruption and the cost of conversion to 3 lanes.
Added value of the area rose steadily but no faster that before reinstatement they concluded. Again vague inconclusive.
They produced a lot of data but came to no conclusion if the objectives were achieved.
Whenever I visit Edinburgh, I buy a return to Glasgow travelling out via Bathgate and back by Falkirk just for the pure enjoyment of travelling on the new line. Unbelievable that the 334s travel at 90mph between stations. I was on the very first train from B2A and A2B and won a book for being the passenger living so far away. I left home at 2am in heavy snow to drive over Stainmore and Beattock to Bathgate. The M8 was still closed because of thick ice and had to pick my way along an A road from the A74. I arrived with only 15 minutes to spare with the station car park covered in piles of snow. It was still dark. I was interviewed by the BBC for that nights evening news. That is how I feel about this line.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
As I said the whole project was very political and the report was unlikely to be able to avoid that. I suspect that following production of a draft copy the consultants were told to water it down as it clearly couldn't deliver the intended message. Failing that we are forced to consider the logic of your suggestion that the report casts doubt on the ability of any re-opening to be genuinely successful: if that is true then we may as well forget about every single last item in the CBT list.
I admire your dedication. The line does have a somewhat different feel about it compared to the other routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow though west of Easterhouse can be "challenging".
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,265
Don't you think that the station planned to be built at Thorpe Park fulfils a similar function to a station by the A64? As a P&R site it is just as well located to catch those commuting from east of Leeds. And while its location on the south side of the ELE area is not quite as ideal as a local station it is better suited for the new Retail site and existing business park. As Shaw S Hunter has highlighted, there are significant problems in creating a rail link to the A64 even if the route was not severed by ELOR
The best bet for Wetherby would be to piggyback onto a future proposal for a high speed York bypass routed by the A1. The existing route, as others have pointed out, as already severed in many locations and would be difficult if not impossible to reinstate, regardless of ELOR.
It's going to be a 5 minute ride by shuttle bus, similar to using the long term parking. Luton airport has worked with a similar arrangement for 20 years, although I do hope sense will prevail and the shuttle bus is free to use. I agree that Yeadon is not the ideal location for an airport but we are where we are and no one is proposing to invest actual money in a new airport elsewhere. As a rail spur to the airport itself would cost hundreds of millions; if that sort of money were available I would prefer it to go on reconnecting Otley and Ripon. But given we don't have that money available, it makes sense to build a parkway on the nearest existing line, especially when it will also work as a much needed P&R for north of Leeds, relieving the parking problems at Horsforth, and also provide public transport access to the new employment zone at the airport.
Isn't Northern due to run 4 trains per hour to Harrogate, with some of them semi-fast? Is LNER still planning to serve Harrogate more frequently?
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
LNER is planning to run services more frequently to Harrogate.
Church Fenton is being marketed as Leeds East Airport.
They were planning to offer regular flights but this seems to have fallen through.
From a connectivity point of view, if there were railway stations connected to the airport you could have direct services to most places in the north , major places anywhere north or west of London and possibly HS2.
However, the people who are buying the new houses in the area would be really annoyed ! The NIMBYs would have a field day (having had a practice over HS2).
The York HS2 bypass has been shelved and if it hadn't been, would be miles from Wetherby for commuting to Leeds and visitors to Wetherby if a station was built on a high speed line for a non city which is very doubtful.
A five minute bus ride from a P&R car park to a station is a nonsense. It would not be used by commuters as it requires a three mode journey which would be fraught with missed connections and extended journey times as journeys will require an intermediate shuttle bus. How regular would the shuttle be. Not frequent enough.
The road down to the parkway station would be steep and hazardous in winter weather.
Reinstate a spur to Pool-in-Wharfedale where there is room for a large car park and station together on flat ground an not half a mile and 150 feet in height apart.
LNER are planning seven services per day to Harrogate. Harrogate Chamber, that claims to represent the Council on railway matters, is pushing for all local services to be all stations. If this happens, the non-stop LNER services would be heavily handicapped by a preceding service.
This line between Leeds and Harrogate is in need of electrification for faster acceleration from six station stops in 18 miles in a mixed stopping pattern service. Something Grayling et al cannot, or refuses to, grasp.
- Status