Cottingley Closure?

[Senex]

Of course, if we just four-track the entire TransPennine route, then trying to fit stoppers in between fasts becomes much less of a problem....

But if you're going to quadruple the entire route, then it's easier, cheaper, less disruptive, and more effective to build a new two-track high-speed line on a new alignment.

 

[YorksLad12]

The "recent development" (which I may know quite a lot about!l) is also expanding, new houses were built around 2 years ago and another phase going up at the moment. In my experience, around 50% of customers come from each side of the railway. There's also plenty of space to expand housing further and the station is a good selling/buying point. The bus journey into the city can be a nightmare at peak times which would end up taking longer than rail commuters from Huddersfield to Leeds at peak times.

Churwell New Village? Silly name, but still... you have pedestrian access from "your" side as well as the Cottingley side, whereas moving a "mere" 750m further south would mean you'd have to cross the rather busy A643 (Elland Road). The new station wouldn't be at all handy for you. Cottingley Station is one that does exactly what its supposed to do, but let down by short platforms (now lengthened) and a relatively poor service for an inner city commuter station.

The Millshaw Business Park, in comparison, has lots of parking. White Rose Station won't be used by shopping centre customers. The idea that the new station will ease congestion on the Outer Ring Road and Dewsbury Road by encouraging modal shift is certainly not proven. Harrumph.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The units used for the stopping servicve are hardly the highest performance ones available.

To be fair, the 185s providing most of the services at Cottingley are pretty quick off the mark. The Northern peak only services are mostly 158s, some with a 153 attached. If these were operated with 195s it would probably be possible for them to call every hour, but that change will probably be required regardless of whether the station is at Cottingley or White Rose.

I've made no secret of my dislike of this proposal: if it were up to me I'd demolish the mall and return the land to nature, but that's another story. However if it's going to happen, it needs to be done as well as it can be. That means looking at putting loops in for the platforms, and "gold-plating" the station itself in terms of access (such as providing safe, preferably covered walkways between the station and the two facilities it is intended to serve).
I suspect what we'll end up with will be basically a clone of Low Moor, with simple asphalt pathways to the nearest road.

 

[The exile]

Interesting that closure of the existing station is actually being contemplated here, whereas at other GB stations perhaps more "worthy" (of closure) around the network, this process is deemed to be either too expensive / too onerous and/or not politically expedient.

If no-one / hardly anyone objects, then they can close it, having gone through all the "proper" procedures. If the number of objections is too high, then the closure proposal is withdrawn. Once White Rose is opened, lo and behold, Cottingley gets a stop on the first train out of Leeds on a Saturday morning and the last one in on a Sunday night (or similar). Closure procedures follow again in a few years time as (genuinely) "no-one uses it". Not that I'm cynical....

 

[A0wen]

Interesting that closure of the existing station is actually being contemplated here, whereas at other GB stations perhaps more "worthy" (of closure) around the network, this process is deemed to be either too expensive / too onerous and/or not politically expedient.

Because it's a re-site of a station rather than a full-scale closure.

And there have been many of those over the years, other examples include Smethwick West - replaced by Smethwick Galton Bridge, Dalston Junction replaced by Dalston Kingsland, Rotherham Masborough replaced by Rotherham Central, Bury Bolton Street replaced by Bury Interchange (in BR days, now Metrolink).

 

[Watershed]

However if it's going to happen, it needs to be done as well as it can be. That means looking at putting loops in for the platforms

Putting loops in just at White Rose would not bring any great benefit. For an overtaking move, the stopping service would need to dwell at White Rose for at least 6 minutes - just the same as the stopping Huddersfield-Leeds service currently has to do in the loop at Dewsbury, to be overtaken by the Scarborough service. You'd need to have a loop encompassing at least two stations, realistically three, for it not to affect the journey time of the stopper or the express.

With electrification, higher linespeeds, and stock better suited to intensive stopping services, it should be possible to serve both stations. However, until that happens, you can only call at one of the two stations unless you want to add pathing to the express services.

The problem along this particular stretch of line is that there are quite a lot of areas that 'deserve' a station, but unless the line were to be fourtracked throughout, there's simply not the capacity to serve everywhere.

Personally I would advocate putting the White Rose budget towards line improvements (see above), rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul. But of course that's never going to happen.

 

[Ianno87]

Because it's a re-site of a station rather than a full-scale closure.

And there have been many of those over the years, other examples include Smethwick West - replaced by Smethwick Galton Bridge, Dalston Junction replaced by Dalston Kingsland, Rotherham Masborough replaced by Rotherham Central, Bury Bolton Street replaced by Bury Interchange (in BR days, now Metrolink).

Meridian Water / Angel Road, old Rochester / new Rochester, Abercynon stations (just to prove it's not just a "North" thing).

 

[A0wen]

Meridian Water / Angel Road, old Rochester / new Rochester, Abercynon stations (just to prove it's not just a "North" thing).

Not sure Smethwick or Dalston are particularly "north"

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Putting loops in just at White Rose would not bring any great benefit. The stopping service would need to dwell at White Rose for at least 6 minutes - just the same as the stopping Huddersfield-Leeds service currently has to do in the loop at Dewsbury, to be overtaken by the Scarborough service.

With electrification, higher linespeeds, and stock better suited to intensive stopping services, it should be possible to serve both stations. However, until that happens, you can only call at one of the two stations unless you want to add pathing to the express services.

The problem along this particular stretch of lines is that there are quite a lot of areas that 'deserve' a station, but unless the line were to be fourtracked throughout, there's simply not the capacity to serve everywhere.

I agree that for loops to be effective they'd need to be longer than just the station area, which would mean a lot of land take and several structures replaced or widened. Electrification and state-of-the-art rolling stock will undoubtedly be a more cost-effective way of boosting capacity. It's a shame that any capacity improvements will be largely swallowed up for a station that probably won't reduce road congestion all that much.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Closure procedures follow again in a few years time as (genuinely) "no-one uses it".

I'm not sure that last point is correct. There are stations all over the network which have gone on for years, or even decades, with a barely useable service after a stealth closure.

Reddish South
Denton
Polesworth
Teesside Airport
Pilning
Brigg
Bordesley
Ardwick
Barry Links
Golf Street
Springfield
Doleham

It puzzles me how anyone thinks maintaining these stations and timetable calls over 10, 20, 30 plus years is cheaper than going through a one-off closure process.

 

[mattdickinson]

Interesting that closure of the existing station is actually being contemplated here, whereas at other GB stations perhaps more "worthy" (of closure) around the network, this process is deemed to be either too expensive / too onerous and/or not politically expedient.

The nearest parallel is probably Angel Road in North London being replaced by Meridian Water.

 

[willgreen]

750m is a fairly big distance, especially when Cottingley residents are having to go 'the wrong way' to get to Leeds i.e. walking southwards to travel north. Considering the journey itself only takes about five minutes this is a pretty significant uplift in journey time and I can't imagine many current users will move to White Rose (unless, of course, they already work there). There is some merit in re-sitings when they serve a community better but this move won't do that - it's a prioritisation of a traffic sink over a source. Whether that is the right thing to do is a broader debate but it's a shame that a station with a decent usage considering the pretty average service is now for the chop.

 

[YorksLad12]

750m is a fairly big distance, especially when Cottingley residents are having to go 'the wrong way' to get to Leeds i.e. walking southwards to travel north. Considering the journey itself only takes about five minutes this is a pretty significant uplift in journey time and I can't imagine many current users will move to White Rose (unless, of course, they already work there). There is some merit in re-sitings when they serve a community better but this move won't do that - it's a prioritisation of a traffic sink over a source. Whether that is the right thing to do is a broader debate but it's a shame that a station with a decent usage considering the pretty average service is now for the chop.

Five minutes? You (and they) wish. Running it through Google Maps...

From Cottingley Drive to the end of Millshaw Park Avenue (closest point to where White Rose Station will be is 3 minutes by car (with nowhere to park, unless a new car park is part of the plan (and you'd need to own a car in the first place)) or 16 minutes on foot. From Digpal Road (closest to the Leeds-bound platform) it's 17 minutes on foot, 5 in a car. Even if there's a footpath from Elland Road to the station site Cottingley residents would still have to come down Cottingley Drive.

I'd take the bus or drive rather than commute to/from the new station site; if not quicker it wouldn't be much slower, and door-to-door (or door to very close to Leeds Station if you take the 55/55C).

 

[bluenoxid]

Five minutes? You (and they) wish. Running it through Google Maps...

From Cottingley Drive to the end of Millshaw Park Avenue (closest point to where White Rose Station will be is 3 minutes by car (with nowhere to park, unless a new car park is part of the plan (and you'd need to own a car in the first place)) or 16 minutes on foot. From Digpal Road (closest to the Leeds-bound platform) it's 17 minutes on foot, 5 in a car. Even if there's a footpath from Elland Road to the station site Cottingley residents would still have to come down Cottingley Drive.

I'd take the bus or drive rather than commute to/from the new station site; if not quicker it wouldn't be much slower, and door-to-door (or door to very close to Leeds Station if you take the 55/55C).

Timetabled to do 23 minutes on a 55C

The plans will see a new access road from Elland Road on the Leeds bound side, which will cut the dog leg that approaching the main entrance would create.

Plans are on Leeds planning portal 19/07911/FU

 

[Iskra]

Generally because we try and run "metro" and "interurban" trains on the same infrastructure. Cottingley/White Rose would be a much easier problem to solve if they weren't on the Transpennine Main Line.

My very speculative solution would be to leave Cottingley station as it is and build the station for the White Rose on the nearby ECML spur which has more capacity, is electrified which could help with acceleration/headways and has trains with more carriages on it. It could also be easier to build a station there. However, you would need some form of covered walkway/travelator to make it work, but the same solution has worked at Meadowhall/Manchester Airport etc.

 

[xotGD]

The number of passengers who use Cottingley to get to the White Rose office park is in single figures. And that was Pre-Covid. The vast majority who work there drive - and complain about the traffic. The new station should encourage some to switch to the train, but it is harsh on those who live in Cottingley if their station has to close to allow White Rose to open.

 

[willgreen]

Five minutes? You (and they) wish. Running it through Google Maps...

From Cottingley Drive to the end of Millshaw Park Avenue (closest point to where White Rose Station will be is 3 minutes by car (with nowhere to park, unless a new car park is part of the plan (and you'd need to own a car in the first place)) or 16 minutes on foot. From Digpal Road (closest to the Leeds-bound platform) it's 17 minutes on foot, 5 in a car. Even if there's a footpath from Elland Road to the station site Cottingley residents would still have to come down Cottingley Drive.

I'd take the bus or drive rather than commute to/from the new station site; if not quicker it wouldn't be much slower, and door-to-door (or door to very close to Leeds Station if you take the 55/55C).

I meant five minutes on the train from Cottingley to Leeds. Obviously it takes ages to walk from Cottingley to White Rose - that was my point!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are the areas of the railway station in Cottingley and the proposed station of White Rose represented by the same or different local councillors?

 

[zwk500]

My very speculative solution would be to leave Cottingley station as it is and build the station for the White Rose on the nearby ECML spur

Putting an extra stop in the leeds-doncaster locals will be difficult to do without any adverse effects on the London trains.

 

[bluenoxid]

Are the areas of the railway station in Cottingley and the proposed station of White Rose represented by the same or different local councillors?

Through Cottingley, the railway line is the boundary for two Wards. The Leeds bound platform is Morley North, which is held by the Morley Independents. The Huddersfield bound platform is in Beeston. Beeston is Labour.

White Rose will be fully in Morley North

Leeds City Council is a Labour Council. The Labour councillors are unlikely to cause a ruckus.

My very speculative solution would be to leave Cottingley station as it is and build the station for the White Rose on the nearby ECML spur which has more capacity, is electrified which could help with acceleration/headways and has trains with more carriages on it. It could also be easier to build a station there. However, you would need some form of covered walkway/travelator to make it work, but the same solution has worked at Meadowhall/Manchester Airport etc.

Or and call me bonkers for doing this but I’d save the money on a new station on the Wakefield line and run a covered walkway/travelator to Cottingley station.

 

[Aictos]

It's even in Metro newspapers that their designated readership wouldn't even know where the station was in the first place, by this I'm referring to the London issues of the Metro.

 

[YorksLad12]

Timetabled to do 23 minutes on a 55C

The plans will see a new access road from Elland Road on the Leeds bound side, which will cut the dog leg that approaching the main entrance would create.

Plans are on Leeds planning portal 19/07911/FU

Thanks - will have a look while the weather is a bit on the damp side. It does feel as if "the great unwashed" should catch a bus while "sexy business" should be afforded an expensive new station (which has its own problems - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-station-calendar.169424/page-11#post-5193026). I could make the same claim about LBA Parkway but I'm in enough trouble as it is

I meant five minutes on the train from Cottingley to Leeds. Obviously it takes ages to walk from Cottingley to White Rose - that was my point!

Fair enough then

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thanks - will have a look while the weather is a bit on the damp side. It does feel as if "the great unwashed" should catch a bus while "sexy business" should be afforded an expensive new station (which has its own problems - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-station-calendar.169424/page-11#post-5193026.

Did you manage to make the visit you referred to above?

 

[CompactDstrxion]

The 'future of Cottingley station' consultation is now online https://www.yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/cottingley

Why are we considering closing Cottingley Rail Station?​

It is not possible for trains to stop at both Cottingley and White Rose as the stations are so close together. Therefore, the options for the existing station at Cottingley are as follows:

• Replace the existing station at Cottingley with a new station at White Rose. This option is preferred because of the low usage and lack of step-free access at Cottingley.
• Construct the new station at White Rose and run in addition to the existing station at Cottingley. This option would involve a very infrequent service at Cottingley and the low usage of the station may encourage anti-social behavior. Keeping Cottingley Rail Station in service could also weaken the case to fund an extensive walking and cycling plan, which is part of the White Rose Rail Station development.

For these reasons, the preferred option is to replace the existing station at Cottingley with a new station at White Rose, with extensive walking and cycling routes linking Cottingley to the station.

I won't be objecting but agree that the demand at Cottingley pre-pandemic was long suppressed by lack of peak capacity which would often mean trains leaving passengers behind at Morley let alone Cottingley.

 

[YorksLad12]

Did you manage to make the visit you referred to above?

I meant a visit to the planning portal rather than the site (I'm familiar with the area). Mind you, I didn't do that either. I got distracted...

The 'future of Cottingley station' consultation is now online https://www.yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/cottingley

I won't be objecting but agree that the demand at Cottingley pre-pandemic was long suppressed by lack of peak capacity which would often mean trains leaving passengers behind at Morley let alone Cottingley.

I will be objecting, as many of the arguments could best be described as 'bogus' or 'spurious'. They claim that White Rose will have a greater catchment area but then don't show how (there are more households closer to Cottingley, and White Rose is only 500m further way - which is the reasoning behind saying that White Rose has a greater catchment area). Cottingley isn't accessible; well, neither is Morley, and I don't see any plans to close that. The public money being used to build the new station could be used to improve the existing one.

And there's the usual "oh, and we'll get the operators to stop more trains there" argument, which worked so well at Reston. More trains could stop at Cottingley post-TRU anyway, so it's irrelevant.

Sorry. I think I've really got the hump on this one. It's going to built as a vanity project, will attract fewer passengers than the existing station and no-one will be held accountable when it fails.

 

[Watershed]

I meant a visit to the planning portal rather than the site (I'm familiar with the area). Mind you, I didn't do that either. I got distracted...


I will be objecting, as many of the arguments could best be described as 'bogus' or 'spurious'. They claim that White Rose will have a greater catchment area but then don't show how (there are more households closer to Cottingley, and White Rose is only 500m further way - which is the reasoning behind saying that White Rose has a greater catchment area). Cottingley isn't accessible; well, neither is Morley, and I don't see any plans to close that. The public money being used to build the new station could be used to improve the existing one.

And there's the usual "oh, and we'll get the operators to stop more trains there" argument, which worked so well at Reston. More trains could stop at Cottingley post-TRU anyway, so it's irrelevant.

Sorry. I think I've really got the hump on this one. It's going to built as a vanity project, will attract fewer passengers than the existing station and no-one will be held accountable when it fails.

I quite agree. This really is a case of the planning system favouring the wealthy and influential.

It's blatantly obvious that this isn't really a true consultation where all options are on the table when they say:

the planning application for the new station has been approved, designs have been finalised, with construction starting in 2021. Construction is due to be completed by the end of 2022.

As you say, most of the stated justifications for closing Cottingley and opening White Rose are totally specious.

It is not possible for trains to stop at both Cottingley and White Rose as the stations are so close together.

Yes it is - or rather, it will be once the line is electrified. Of course, in the mean time, Cottingley will simply be closed and it won't be reopened (certainly not in its current inaccessible state).

Therefore, the options for the existing station at Cottingley are as follows:

And then they go on to list only some of the possible options, whilst purporting to give a list of all possible options. Again, demonstrating this is in no way an open consultation.

Replace the existing station at Cottingley with a new station at White Rose. This option is preferred because of the low usage

Cottingley station's 100,000 annual passengers count as "low usage" do they? Even though the station only sees a 1tph service, which pre-Covid was standing room only (if you're lucky) during the peaks?

and lack of step-free access at Cottingley.

It's almost as if a fraction of the cost of building the White Rose would pay for Cottingley to be made fully accessible...

Construct the new station at White Rose and run in addition to the existing station at Cottingley. This option would involve a very infrequent service at Cottingley and the low usage of the station may encourage anti-social behavior.

That doesn't make any sense. Infrequently served stations in 'rough' areas can be kept locked when there isn't a train due - see for example Peartree. It's really not beyond the wit of mankind to sort out.

Of course, the consultation conveniently skips over the fact that keeping the station open with a reduced service - a la Sankey for Penketh - costs very little and ensures that the current design is 'grandfathered' in, so that once the line is electrified both stations can be served frequently.

Keeping Cottingley Rail Station in service could also weaken the case to fund an extensive walking and cycling plan, which is part of the White Rose Rail Station development.

Ah - here's the real reason. The developers wanted a guarantee that Cottingley would be closed. Otherwise there was a risk that the White Rose wouldn't get much of a service, rendering it more of a White Elephant...

For these reasons, the preferred option is to replace the existing station at Cottingley with a new station at White Rose, with extensive walking and cycling routes linking Cottingley to the station.

...

• Keep the existing station at Cottingley and not provide an additional station at White Rose. This option has not been taken forward because Cottingley station does not meet current accessibility standards.

See above - again, what's stopping them from upgrading the current Cottingley station and providing "extensive walking and cycling routes" from the White Rose to Cottingley rather than the other way around?

• Upgrade the existing station at Cottingley and not provide an additional station at White Rose. This option was not taken forward for a variety of reasons. Firstly, Cottingley is situated further from businesses, education opportunities and the nearby shopping centre. Secondly, White Rose is being progressed with a combination of public and private funding which would not have been available for Cottingley.

Ah, so this is really just about the money.

There is expected to be an opportunity to increase the level of services to two trains per hour once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete.

Funny how the potential of improved services can be used to justify building White Rose, but not the option of keeping Cottingley or (perish the thought) serving both stations.

Bus Services

We know Cottingley residents would like to have a better bus service and we are in discussion with bus operators to seek improvements to local bus services which we aim to have delivered at a similar pace to the rail station works. The Council and Combined Authority are currently improving passenger facilities at bus stops in the area. For more information on bus services in Cottingley, visit yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/cottingley/faqs.

This says it all. Cottingley residents, that have enjoyed a conveniently located station for the last 34 years, don't earn the council enough in bribes funding to keep their station. Let them take the bus!

As for this FAQ:

Have we already decided to to close Cottingley Railway Station?
No. The public consultation will take place for 12 weeks from Monday 12 July 2021 to Monday 4 October 2021. We will analyse all the feedback received and put forward a recommendation to the ORR.

They could hardly be less forthright if they tried. The decision to close Cottingley has clearly already been made in WYCA's mind - they're just holding this consultation to rubberstamp that decision.

It would be nicer if they simply said upfront:

Our coffers are a bit empty, so some slimy developers have agreed to bung us a 'contribution' if give them a station to help them flog their property. Sorry Cottingley, you're not important enough to keep your station. Please send any objections to: Freepost THE ROUND FILE IN THE CORNER (WYCA).

 

[SargeNpton]

Because it's a re-site of a station rather than a full-scale closure.

And there have been many of those over the years, other examples include Smethwick West - replaced by Smethwick Galton Bridge, Dalston Junction replaced by Dalston Kingsland, Rotherham Masborough replaced by Rotherham Central, Bury Bolton Street replaced by Bury Interchange (in BR days, now Metrolink).

Unless any part of the new station sits on the footprint of the existing station it is treated as a full-scale closure. That may not have been the case back then for the examples you mention, but it is now.

 

[YorksLad12]

Unless any part of the new station sits on the footprint of the existing station it is treated as a full-scale closure. That may not have been the case back then for the examples you mention, but it is now.

I'd argue that the Rotherham stations example is two different stations which were opened and closed at different times on different lines. Central isn't a replacement for Masboro is the same way Masboro wasn't a replacement for Central.

 

[SargeNpton]

I'd argue that the Rotherham stations example is two different stations which were opened and closed at different times on different lines. Central isn't a replacement for Masboro is the same way Masboro wasn't a replacement for Central.

Were they prior to 2009? I have a feeling that things have changed since then. Rochester for example in 2015, when a new station was built a little way away from the existing one...

Cover letter to Network Rail for closure to Rochester Station - 15 Oct 2015 | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[YorksLad12]

Were they prior to 2009? I have a feeling that things have changed since then. Rochester for example in 2015, when a new station was built a little way away from the existing one...

Cover letter to Network Rail for closure to Rochester Station - 15 Oct 2015 | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

Oh, way back in the late 1980s. But the Rotherham stations situation is different to the others as they were both open at the same time; then one closed; then it reopened; then the other closed; and you could never travel from one to the other by direct train.