Potential New Central Pennine Rail Line (Colne-Skipton)

[yorksrob]

No I don't feel intellectually superior however if we are to consider reopening railway lines in England then I think a national strategy is needed and not some who shouts loudest type pressure groups which in my view should largely be ignored and treated with the contempt that many of them deserve.

If this route is going to be justified as a potential Pennine route for freight then it needs to be looked at in the context of the existing routes, potential HS3 and the overall freight and passenger capacity requirements for these routes.

I would certainly welcome a national strategy - programme for route openings, however, it would also need to take account of how those things could supplement local needs in the area.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not counting all the money wasted on the false start, the cost of construction under the project management of Network Rail was £280m. Where has the figure of 25% inflation over the last four years or since opening two years ago come from?

You couldn't be more wrong in your pollution assumptions. Only 20% of air pollution comes from exhaust emissions. 80% of particulates are produced from wear to tyres, brakes, clutches and roads. The most dangerous are rubber wear particulates (nearly half a million tons annually from wear to 50m tyres) and tar particulates less than PM2.5 microns that can reach the deepest parts of the lungs on inhalation. They can be air suspended for days and travel for miles from source so there is no such thing as local pollution. Traffic outside the M25 pollutes London even if there was a total ban on traffic in London. (The biggest air polluter in London is bus tyres that wear at a terrific rate from being a heavy vehicle, stopping/starting and slow speed turning).
Tyre and tar particulates are known to have mutatogenic and carcinogenic properties and brake disc particulates have been found in plaques in the brains of dementia sufferers.
Electric vehicles will still produce wear particulates as will electric trains with disc brakes, but trains do not have rubber tyres and do not run on asphalt.

Just remind me of the BCR as I thought it was above 3.0 which is fairly high and higher than a new parallel road from the May 2017 multimodal study?
HS2 currently stands at 0.4 and should be cancelled with a BCR of less than 1.0

I'd like to see the evidence that support your statements. However, you won't have it.

1) the "£280m" (it was actually more, I've seen the final account) is the Network Rail cost of construction only. It did not include land, the consents process, Transport Scotland's costs, design, and more. Almost all of which which was done rather more than 4 years ago, and cost a lot of money.

2) inflation. I didn't say 25%, you did. RPI has risen around 10% in that time. Construction price inflation has been more. 10% of 'well over £400m' (my words) is of course well over £40m. Which takes the total to nearer £500m

3) air pollution. To say that 'only 20% of air pollution comes from emissions' and then '80% of particulates comes from wear to tyres, brakes, clutches and roads' is conflating two separate statistics. The facts, as provided by DEFRA here:

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/...50_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf

are that exhaust emissions are responsible for 62% of road transport generated PM2.5, with non exhaust at 38%, of which a large proportion is brake wear. Which doesn't happen with electric / hybrid vehicles.

4) the same report also explains that PM2.5 pollution has been steadily reducing as road vehicle Diesel engine emission standards have got progressively tougher. The same standards are not applied to rail vehicle Diesel engines. This article:

http://www.railway-technology.com/f...stink-how-much-do-trains-really-emit-4807131/

points out that air pollution, and PM2.5 in particular, in Paddington station is significantly worse than the adjacent Marylebone Road, which itself is by some distance the worst for said pollutants (see monitoring in DEFRA report above.

5) I would love to see the business case with a BCR of 3.0, consisting of a properly estimated project cost, with appropriate risk, and a full assessment of monetised benefits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Stone traffic from Grassington westwards all goes by road. This could all convert to rail.

Are there any recent officially expressed views concerning the stone traffic from Grassington being transported by rail?

 

[deltic08]

Can you point me to a source for BCR of 0.4 for HS2? Latest info I can find is 1.9 (2.3 including wider economic impact) for the full Y network: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00316/SN00316.pdf

It was either National Audit Office or Office of Budget Responsibility in late 2015/early 2016 when the estimated cost was put at £80billion.

 

[deltic08]

I'd like to see the evidence that support your statements. However, you won't have it.

1) the "£280m" (it was actually more, I've seen the final account) is the Network Rail cost of construction only. It did not include land, the consents process, Transport Scotland's costs, design, and more. Almost all of which which was done rather more than 4 years ago, and cost a lot of money.

2) inflation. I didn't say 25%, you did. RPI has risen around 10% in that time. Construction price inflation has been more. 10% of 'well over £400m' (my words) is of course well over £40m. Which takes the total to nearer £500m

3) air pollution. To say that 'only 20% of air pollution comes from emissions' and then '80% of particulates comes from wear to tyres, brakes, clutches and roads' is conflating two separate statistics. The facts, as provided by DEFRA here:

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/...50_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf

are that exhaust emissions are responsible for 62% of road transport generated PM2.5, with non exhaust at 38%, of which a large proportion is brake wear. Which doesn't happen with electric / hybrid vehicles.

4) the same report also explains that PM2.5 pollution has been steadily reducing as road vehicle Diesel engine emission standards have got progressively tougher. The same standards are not applied to rail vehicle Diesel engines. This article:

http://www.railway-technology.com/f...stink-how-much-do-trains-really-emit-4807131/

points out that air pollution, and PM2.5 in particular, in Paddington station is significantly worse than the adjacent Marylebone Road, which itself is by some distance the worst for said pollutants (see monitoring in DEFRA report above.

5) I would love to see the business case with a BCR of 3.0, consisting of a properly estimated project cost, with appropriate risk, and a full assessment of monetised benefits.

Yes, but are the PM2.5 particulates from wear pollution or emissions. Just look up the Oslo Affect. Tyre wear dust particulates alone account for more pollution than emission pollution.
You did quote 25% inflation by saying cost was £400m and with inflation would be £500m now. By my calculations that is 25%. Stop splitting hairs.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but are the PM2.5 particulates from wear pollution or emissions. Just look up the Oslo Affect. Tyre wear dust particulates alone account for more pollution than emission pollution.
You did quote 25% inflation by saying cost was £400m and with inflation would be £500m now. By my calculations that is 25%. Stop splitting hairs.

a) read the DEFRA report. Yes the PM2.5 are from wear.
b) I looked up Oslo effect. After I got past the furniture advert from Argos, I discovered a 30 year old study, and a more recent one conducted in Hatfield tunnel. Which is notable for being in a tunnel, and therefore has a rather different air quality to almost every other road. (I use it every week).
c) read my posts again. I said "well over £400m" and "nearer £500m".

 

[deltic08]

No I don't feel intellectually superior however if we are to consider reopening railway lines in England then I think a national strategy is needed and not some who shouts loudest type pressure groups which in my view should largely be ignored and treated with the contempt that many of them deserve.

If this route is going to be justified as a potential Pennine route for freight then it needs to be looked at in the context of the existing routes, potential HS3 and the overall freight and passenger capacity requirements for these routes.

HS3 is a non starter. Target time Liverpool-Manchester 30 minutes. It is possible to do this journey in 32 minutes already by non electric class 185.
Target time Manchester-Leeds 30 minutes. Post TP upgrade costing £3billion will achieve 35 minutes.
Only Leeds-Hull would benefit from a new high speed line but is there traffic to justify the spend.
Manchester-Sheffield is probably not a go-er because of the cost of tunnelling through the Pennines, again, and would it be much faster than reopening the Woodhead route.

 

[aylesbury]

This has been going on for years and although a couple of councils showed interest in reopening, the DfT don't seem too keen.

Maybe it's the cash or a lack of stock to use on a reopened line, but it is to be asked whether or not there is passenger demand for this journey, as has been said before Skipton to Manchester has a quality bus link, most certainly better than a Pacer, so who wants to travel via Colne?

 

[Domh245]

of which a large proportion is brake wear. Which doesn't happen with electric / hybrid vehicles.

Just a point of order - it doesn't happen as much with EVs/Hybrids - my lecture notes say 15% energy recovery with most current mild hybrid technologies, and up to 30% for full hybrids. And for what it's worth, one of the professors at my uni who deals with automotive powertrains reckons that the medium term future for hybrids is the "P0 architecture" - that is to say a petrol drivetrain but with electrically driven ancillaries (Air Con, Oil Pumps, Superchargers) so no real capability for regenerative braking on that front. Longer term of course as things move towards EVs, your point stands, which I suppose is the more pressing matter when looking at long lasting infrastructure projects such as a new railway.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

In an ideal world you'd build it electrified from the start and electrify/double all the way to Preston. But I can't see it being worth the outlay in the current climate

 

[philthetube]

This has been going on for years and although a couple of councils showed interest in reopening the DFT don't seem to keen,maybe its the cash or a lack of stock to use on a reopened line.But it is to be asked wether or not there is passenger demand for this journey as has been said before Skipton Manchester is a quality bus link most certainly better than a Pacer so who wants to travel via Colne.

It takes over 2 hours on the bus, probably not much over one on train, depending on stops.

not really important to your argument but the Skipton Manchester bus goes via Colne, so if avoiding Colne is your priority good luck.

 

[Bantamzen]

This has been going on for years and although a couple of councils showed interest in reopening the DFT don't seem to keen,maybe its the cash or a lack of stock to use on a reopened line.But it is to be asked wether or not there is passenger demand for this journey as has been said before Skipton Manchester is a quality bus link most certainly better than a Pacer so who wants to travel via Colne.

The thing is this time it is not passenger demand that is the driver, if Drax is struggling to get fuel from Liverpool to it then there is a serious need to relook at the business case even if this means no planned passenger services until at least a freight-only option is investigated. At the moment it takes somewhere between 6-9 hours to get the fuel from the port, so this will be a cost that is being passed on to the consumers. Therefore a quicker option (assuming the paths can be found) makes a stronger case for government investment. Getting value from public investments is not just about direct, short term benefits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In an ideal world you'd build it electrified from the start and electrify/double all the way to Preston. But I can't see it being worth the outlay in the current climate

Let us not forget that the M65 now links East Lancashire to the M6 at the Preston area.

 

[30907]

It takes over 2 hours on the bus, probably not much over one on train, depending on stops.

Colne-Manchester in 100 minutes with a quick change at Blackburn at present, so even 90 minutes from Skipton is optimistic.
The bus service is a relative newcomer and off peak loadings at the Skipton end IME are minimal - no idea how much is farepaying and through to Manchester.

 

[xotGD]

Colne-Manchester in 100 minutes with a quick change at Blackburn at present, so even 90 minutes from Skipton is optimistic.
The bus service is a relative newcomer and off peak loadings at the Skipton end IME are minimal - no idea how much is farepaying and through to Manchester.

1 h 40m Skipton to Man Pic including a +4 scamper at Leeds is the fastest rail option at present. Two hours more typical. Routing via Colne would surely be quicker.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1 h 40m Skipton to Man Pic including a +4 scamper at Leeds is the fastest rail option at present. Two hours more typical. Routing via Colne would surely be quicker.

Is it not the case that a ten minute minimum connection time applies at Leeds railway station?

 

[xotGD]

Is it not the case that a ten minute minimum connection time applies at Leeds railway station?

Officially yes, but 9 times out of 10 I make the +4. (To get a seat reservation on the right service I have to pretend that I am catching an earlier train from Skipton!)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

http://www.railway-technology.com/f...stink-how-much-do-trains-really-emit-4807131/

points out that air pollution, and PM2.5 in particular, in Paddington station is significantly worse than the adjacent Marylebone Road, which itself is by some distance the worst for said pollutants (see monitoring in DEFRA report above.

Thanks for the link. It's perhaps worth pointing out though that it's comparing an enclosed space (Paddington station) with an open, outside, space. Paddington station will also have stationary HST's running their engines in it, making it very likely that a lot of pollutants will bulld up. Besides, HST's are very old, so presumably worse for emissions than more modern diesels. Judging from the study, the very high pollutant levels in Paddington station really are a cause for concern, and I take your point that diesel trains do emit particulates, but I don't think the study can be used to deduce that there would automatically be a massive problem with opening new diesel lines (compared for example to building new roads).

 

[deltic08]

Let us not forget that the M65 now links East Lancashire to the M6 at the Preston area.

A rather obvious observation. And the point is?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A rather obvious observation. And the point is?

Much money was spent to ensure better quality road transport links into the eastern part of East Lancashire to the national motorway network. The M65 tends to follow the area of the railway line, so it is only the short remaining unfinished link from the Colne area to Skipton that leaves that area not enjoying the road freight traffic benefits. Perhaps the M62 is seen as the main road Pennine crossing point for such traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for the link. It's perhaps worth pointing out though that it's comparing an enclosed space (Paddington station) with an open, outside, space. Paddington station will also have stationary HST's running their engines in it, making it very likely that a lot of pollutants will bulld up. Besides, HST's are very old, so presumably worse for emissions than more modern diesels. Judging from the study, the very high pollutant levels in Paddington station really are a cause for concern, and I take your point that diesel trains do emit particulates, but I don't think the study can be used to deduce that there would automatically be a massive problem with opening new diesel lines (compared for example to building new roads).

Well quite. Although the HST engines are less old than the vehicles they are in. And they are shut down from arrival until 5 minutes before departure. But your point stands, indeed it is the same point I was making about using a study in Hatfield tunnel to suggest that road pollution is much worse than thought.

 

[Bald Rick]

The thing is this time it is not passenger demand that is the driver, if Drax is struggling to get fuel from Liverpool to it then there is a serious need to relook at the business case even if this means no planned passenger services until at least a freight-only option is investigated. At the moment it takes somewhere between 6-9 hours to get the fuel from the port, so this will be a cost that is being passed on to the consumers. Therefore a quicker option (assuming the paths can be found) makes a stronger case for government investment. Getting value from public investments is not just about direct, short term benefits.

Quite agree, but saving a few hours off the journey time of half a dozen freight traisn a day doth not a business case make. Especially when there is a perfectly capable port just up the road from Drax at Immingham.

 

[furnessvale]

Quite agree, but saving a few hours off the journey time of half a dozen freight traisn a day doth not a business case make. Especially when there is a perfectly capable port just up the road from Drax at Immingham.

Immingham may be capable, but for biomass from the US it is nearly 2 extra sailing days each way.

 

[Starmill]

It's not, but then lets not kid ourselves that moving biomass from North America to Yorkshire is an especially efficient or environmentally friendly way to provide electricity in Northern England, just because rail freight is being used...

 

[Bald Rick]

Immingham may be capable, but for biomass from the US it is nearly 2 extra sailing days each way.

Well, yes, but when a single biomass ship can shift 60k tonnes of it, what price two extra sailing days compared to having 40 trains shlepping across the Pennines for an extra 6 hours each way?

And why should the British taxpayer pay several hundred million quid so that a private power company can save money on its input prices? If they were going to pay, as power generators and collieries did via BR when MGR facilities were set up, then that would of course be a different matter.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

1 h 40m Skipton to Man Pic including a +4 scamper at Leeds is the fastest rail option at present. Two hours more typical. Routing via Colne would surely be quicker.

More importantly, a lot cheaper:

At present a Skipton to Manchester Anytime return is £37.50.
From Colne between £12 and £20 depending on route.

Would make commuting to/from Lancashire far more affordable on the train.

 

[yorksrob]

Well quite. Although the HST engines are less old than the vehicles they are in. And they are shut down from arrival until 5 minutes before departure. But your point stands, indeed it is the same point I was making about using a study in Hatfield tunnel to suggest that road pollution is much worse than thought.

Then you have to consider the effect if everyone on the HST were to drive into the City Centre, which at present, would have a much worse effect on particulates than the HST.

Unlike Carbon emissions, which will screw up the atmosphere wherever they are produced, particulates cause health problems when they are in contact with humans, which will naturally be more problematic where humans are concentrated. Of course, the HST will churn out the majority of its particulates in open country.

 

[philthetube]

Colne-Manchester in 100 minutes with a quick change at Blackburn at present, so even 90 minutes from Skipton is optimistic.
The bus service is a relative newcomer and off peak loadings at the Skipton end IME are minimal - no idea how much is farepaying and through to Manchester.

Including 43 mins Colne to Blackburn, approx 15 miles with 12 stations including both ends, Skipton to Colne is 10 miles max

Well, yes, but when a single biomass ship can shift 60k tonnes of it, what price two extra sailing days compared to having 40 trains shlepping across the Pennines for an extra 6 hours each way?

And why should the British taxpayer pay several hundred million quid so that a private power company can save money on its input prices? If they were going to pay, as power generators and collieries did via BR when MGR facilities were set up, then that would of course be a different matter.

off topic but then wouldnt they all be burning coal and sod the air quality?

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not, but then lets not kid ourselves that moving biomass from North America to Yorkshire is an especially efficient or environmentally friendly way to provide electricity in Northern England, just because rail freight is being used...

Whilst I agree with the environmental argument, I don't believe anyone is arguing otherwise. What is being argued is that whilst this fuel is being imported it is better to seek a solution to reduce the time, and more importantly fuel used in getting it to the station. Its either that or shut Drax and face a possible shortage in energy production.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is good that this thread is providing yet another opportunity to raise the subject of a reopened Colne to Skipton rail link (there was another similar thread on this website quite some time ago) for our armchair pundits to give vent to their knowledge base on the subject, as this provides an opportunity to set free various flights of fancy at no financial cost to themselves.

If it was such a good idea, with all the benefits said to accrue from it, then why has this project not already been actioned by those with the finance and wherewithal to bring it to reality. How, for example, was this project seen as playing an integral rail role in "The Northern Powerhouse" project when that was first announced?