• 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!

Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan

Status
Not open for further replies.

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Leeds to Bradford is enough of a headache. Two city centres at 200-300 feet above sea level each side of a hill about 600 ft above sea level. All this in 10 miles.

With a suggested trip time of 7 minutes it won’t be cheap and thats before even thinking about getting from Bradford across the Pennines.

Proving the economic case will not be easy.

As I posted before in the HS3 thread there appears to be a fairly obvious possible route from Bradford (or a station south of Bradford) into Leeds.

There is a possible route out of Bradford to Leeds, which would only require demolition of some extremely grotty industrial units, relocation of scrap yards etc in Bradford, which may be viewed as an ideal opportunity for regeneration. That is east from Bradford Interchange towards the old Hammerton St station, following the current Calder Valley alignment to the edge of the built up area, then passing south of Pudsey along the rural valley of Pudsey Beck to join the Huddersfield line at the edge of Leeds. This steadily rises 80m in 4km, then steadily drops 120m in 8km.

I can't see an obvious route through the more residential western areas of Bradford though without tunnelling, so I too would have thought a spur from Low Moor into Bradford Interchange or a parkway station south of the city would be more likely.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
As I posted before in the HS3 thread there appears to be a fairly obvious possible route from Bradford (or a station south of Bradford) into Leeds.

But as I've suggested, if the main alignment of the line was to bypass Bradford anyway, why go to the trouble of creating a new line that points in Bradford's direction only for it to give it a swerve, save a spur? There have to be easier ways to get a line between Manchester & Leeds without trying to go through the Calder Valley section but avoiding Bradford. And if one of the main drivers for this is to give cities like Bradford an economic boost, does it not sense to not actually serve the city. That it is difficult to get an alignment through the city is something that needs fairly high priority consideration, but parkways no matter how they are mooted are not the drivers in economic growth that TfN are aiming for.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
But as I've suggested, if the main alignment of the line was to bypass Bradford anyway, why go to the trouble of creating a new line that points in Bradford's direction only for it to give it a swerve, save a spur? There have to be easier ways to get a line between Manchester & Leeds without trying to go through the Calder Valley section but avoiding Bradford. And if one of the main drivers for this is to give cities like Bradford an economic boost, does it not sense to not actually serve the city. That it is difficult to get an alignment through the city is something that needs fairly high priority consideration, but parkways no matter how they are mooted are not the drivers in economic growth that TfN are aiming for.

I was merely pointing out that there was a potential not too hilly route between the centre of Bradford and Leeds. I am not indulging in speculation on the business case for each option when these are still being worked on.
 

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
But as I've suggested, if the main alignment of the line was to bypass Bradford anyway, why go to the trouble of creating a new line that points in Bradford's direction only for it to give it a swerve, save a spur? There have to be easier ways to get a line between Manchester & Leeds without trying to go through the Calder Valley section but avoiding Bradford. And if one of the main drivers for this is to give cities like Bradford an economic boost, does it not sense to not actually serve the city. That it is difficult to get an alignment through the city is something that needs fairly high priority consideration, but parkways no matter how they are mooted are not the drivers in economic growth that TfN are aiming for.

Agree Batamzen.

A Bradford Parkway would serve little purpose.

The new station has to be central next to the Broadway.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
There was a claim a while ago in the Bradford stations thread that Bradford Council have been shown plans of a new underground station in the city.

Edit: it was on 21 Dec, in posts by Eric - see this page of the thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bradford-stations-consultation-improvements.157985/page-3

I'm not sure from that if the Council have seen anything, or this is just their aspiration. If there are proposals to build such, why would you then want to send it up an even steeper incline out of Bradford towards Laisterdyke when a much shorter and less severe rising to the existing line towards the Aire valley would be so much easier? Methinks fevered minds at City Hall have been working overtime with what they would like to see without too much thought!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
It appears you can get an east-west station box within 800m of Bank Quay, probably close enough for one of those fancy high speed walkways
 

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
I'm not sure from that if the Council have seen anything, or this is just their aspiration. If there are proposals to build such, why would you then want to send it up an even steeper incline out of Bradford towards Laisterdyke when a much shorter and less severe rising to the existing line towards the Aire valley would be so much easier? Methinks fevered minds at City Hall have been working overtime with what they would like to see without too much thought!

The plans that a Mr Alex Ross Shaw (councillor) described were for anext underground station near the Debenham's entrance to Broadway.

I really hope this happens and we don't get the parkway station on the old Bradford Interchange avoiding curve.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
The plans that a Mr Alex Ross Shaw (councillor) described were for anext underground station near the Debenham's entrance to Broadway.

I really hope this happens and we don't get the parkway station on the old Bradford Interchange avoiding curve.

I'm glad you've appeared in this thread because I was wanting to ask you about these plans. Where do they come from? Whose idea are they? When you first posted in the other thread I assumed they were proposed by Transport for the North or whatever consultants are working for them to develop NPR. But now you mention this councillor, are they just his idea? Does he have any reason to think anyone would be willing to spend the sort of money needed for an underground station?
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
I wonder what our fellow-Europeans think of many of these comments about the difficulty of crossing the Pennines? In any other country except (naturally) the Low Countries these would be seen as laughable molehills. In Italy, Spain and parts of France main lines have been tunnelled through massive mountains to connect much smaller cities, for years. Once again another example of the British having pioneered something only to be overtaken by its supposedly 'lesser' rivals. It's only going to get worse if the Brexit disaster happens.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is crossing the Pennines by rail *really* difficult? I've always found it reasonably easy with plenty of trains to choose from via a few routes, all of them stunningly scenic. The only problem I've found is severe overcrowding, which just requires rolling stock to solve it, and said rolling stock is on order.

It's crossing by road that is, unless you go north and use the M62, very poorly provided for. Building the M67 to Sheffield would almost certainly have a better cost-benefit ratio than another railway. Though I must admit that in most weathers (other than ice/snow) I really enjoy a nice drive across Woodhead or the Snake, it'd really drag every day.
 
Last edited:

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
a much shorter and less severe rising to the existing line towards the Aire valley would be so much easier?

Most of the alignment between Shipley and Leeds was originally four-track. How difficult would it be to route the new line that way?
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
To those who question why NPR is needed,
1. Do you support HS2? If so, why should the cities of the north have super-super connections to London, but not to each other?
2. The consensus of opinion on here seems to be that the existing lines are too full for there to be any substantial improvements to services round Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. How will better local services be achieved without NPR?

I think the main issue with NPR is it needs to have a "what's it for" question. At least one North - South higher speed line to create capacity is needed in Britain but in my opinion HS2 isn't the right solution. I find the map of NPR odd that the large population centre of Teesside is not connected to NPR.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
In a world where we can sustain 2.5% drags indefinitely without significant loss of performance, not sure what the fuss is really about.
Even climbing from Sea Level to the top of the Snake pass at that rate only takes 20km or so.

The only reason to have tunnels across the pennines now is to avoid damaging views.
Even the TSIs have allowed derogations to 4% in Germany.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
In a world where we can sustain 2.5% drags indefinitely without significant loss of performance, not sure what the fuss is really about.
Even climbing from Sea Level to the top of the Snake pass at that rate only takes 20km or so.

The only reason to have tunnels across the pennines now is to avoid damaging views.
Even the TSIs have allowed derogations to 4% in Germany.

The Pennines in general has a (relatively) steep west facing scarp face. Not surprisingly the M62 was built at its least steep point, but even with enormous earthworks its a steady 4% gradient for 6km between Junction 21 (Milnrow) and the top, climbing from 150m to 400m.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
The only reason to have tunnels across the pennines now is to avoid damaging views.
Even the TSIs have allowed derogations to 4% in Germany.

Even with comparatively steep inclines you can end up with many tunnels and viaducts just cutting the corners when following winding valleys and crossing side valleys en route. Sometimes it may be better staying underground inside the mountain for a stretch further once you've launched a TBM. Depends on the detailed terrain and route chosen clearly. A big glacial valley can be quite straight, enabling a pretty steady climb up the side with little curvature, but many pennine valleys are quite tortuous by contrast.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Could any line be built to cope with the climb up to Saddleworth Moor? That's a fair old hill so tunnelling is still going to have to be at least part of the solution if it is to follow an approximate M62 route.
Saddleworth Moor is east of Greenfield. By your reference to the M62 I assume you're referring to what the OS map calls Moss Moor.

If a railway hugged the M62 on the climb from Milnrow the curves would limit it to about 50mph. Straightening it out would involve tunnels or viaducts as the motorway follows the curving side of the valley.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
As I've said before, I tend to imagine that a route from Manchester towards Leeds via Bradford might follow the existing Victoria-Rochdale line as far as Littleborough and then enter a new tunnel. Where it would emerge is more difficult, but perhaps near Sowerby Bridge.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Saddleworth Moor is east of Greenfield. By your reference to the M62 I assume you're referring to what the OS map calls Moss Moor.

If a railway hugged the M62 on the climb from Milnrow the curves would limit it to about 50mph. Straightening it out would involve tunnels or viaducts as the motorway follows the curving side of the valley.

Saddleworth Moor????? Why would anyone building a new line from Manchester to Bradford head off south of the current Standedge Tunnel in the direction of Holmfirth? I'm talking about the least steep part of the west facing scarp, along the M62 route up to Rook Stones Hill/Windy Hill - Moss Moor is indeed a few km to the east, which is at least vaguely in the right direction for a new line. But at 4% even that that exceeds the gradients quoted by HSTEd and as you say would not be suitable for rail for other reasons. I would be amazed if anyone could design a realistic tunnel-free route, as was being suggested.
 
Last edited:

TBY-Paul

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2013
Messages
327
I think the main issue with NPR is it needs to have a "what's it for" question. At least one North - South higher speed line to create capacity is needed in Britain but in my opinion HS2 isn't the right solution. I find the map of NPR odd that the large population centre of Teesside is not connected to NPR.
It might be worth noting that the representative from the Tees Valley Combined Authority is Bill Dixon ( Leader of Darlington Council) and under the present plans Darlington Station gets a multi-million pound upgrade in order to become the "Tees Valley Gateway" Station.
Personally, he should have been fighting for NPR to be built on a new alignment up to Newcastle, with a New Tees Valley Interchange station closer to the main areas of population with-in the Tees Valley Area, as first mention in the early HS2 Papers(Stage3).
 

Class83

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
494
The biggest problem with an M62 alignment is that it means a drastic dog leg around Warrington to reach the airport.

How about an alignment on the south side of Warrington, have to tunnel under Penketh and the MSC/Stockton Heath, but you can have the station in an open box in the bend of the Mersey between Lower Walton and Sankey Bridges?
Its got more tunnel but its going to be shorter so might not cost much more overall
In the context of the the Liverpool connection it's going to be about finding a way to get from Liverpool City Centre to a point on the planned HS2 line that costs as little as possible. There will need to be a ~5km Tunnel to get to around J5 of the M62 which won't be cheap, Crossing the Mersey & Ship Canal west of Warrington will be expensive. While a straight run to Culcheth will increase the London-Liverpool distance by a couple of miles, it probably doesn't change the length of the Liverpool specific bit of track. The lines into both Birmingham and Manchester aren't arrows pointing at London, but pragmatic compromises following existing motorways etc.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Hasn't the Wigan branch bitten the dust when the depot was eliminated though?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Hasn't the Wigan branch bitten the dust when the depot was eliminated though?
The HS2 line to Golborne is still in the plans - when the depot moved to north of Crewe the curve allowing trains to run between Manchester and Golborne was taken out of the design, as it was only intended to be used for empty stock to and from the depot. Something like that will now have to go back into the design.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
The HS2 line to Golborne is still in the plans - when the depot moved to north of Crewe the curve allowing trains to run between Manchester and Golborne was taken out of the design, as it was only intended to be used for empty stock to and from the depot. Something like that will now have to go back into the design.

To be honest, given the likely small benefit of building the Golborne line rather than the Crewe one, or a future NPR spur.....

I expect the Golborne line being erased and replaced with an alignment optimised for NPR.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The depot spur was a low speed section to minimise land take anyway (something like 70mph?).
HS2 and NPR recognise it was actually a pretty useful connection for other future services and are looking to do a more practical version.

The Golborne link did survive value engineering and consultation, that extra bit of high speed running is vital to offsetting the loss of tilting to Scotland times and the WCML through warrington was considered to be full with future demand for Liverpool freight paths.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The plans that a Mr Alex Ross Shaw (councillor) described were for anext underground station near the Debenham's entrance to Broadway.

I really hope this happens and we don't get the parkway station on the old Bradford Interchange avoiding curve.

That's my worry, that a half-arsed solution will be suggested because getting the line through Bradford is seen as too difficult.

Is crossing the Pennines by rail *really* difficult? I've always found it reasonably easy with plenty of trains to choose from via a few routes, all of them stunningly scenic. The only problem I've found is severe overcrowding, which just requires rolling stock to solve it, and said rolling stock is on order.

It's crossing by road that is, unless you go north and use the M62, very poorly provided for. Building the M67 to Sheffield would almost certainly have a better cost-benefit ratio than another railway. Though I must admit that in most weathers (other than ice/snow) I really enjoy a nice drive across Woodhead or the Snake, it'd really drag every day.

The rolling stock will help, but on the North TP it is not uncommon for a TPE to get caught behind a late running Northern stopper either Leeds-Huddersfield, or Huddersfield-Manchester and that can quickly add at least 10 minutes to the timing, which in turn leads to the following TPE to catch up and before you know it there's a queue forming. The TPE skip-stoppers will help a bit, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the same problems will continue from time to time.

The problem isn't going to just be solved by extra capacity, that will just allow the existing passengers who are currently standing to get a seat. The problem is that with route like the North TPE you have a combination of commuter, suburban & inter city services all vying for the same tracks, tracks which as you'll know have some serious assents into the hills and back and with the exception of the short section between Ravensthorpe & Mirfield is all 2 track. And with the Northern Connect brand on its way, similar problems will occur on the Calder and I'm sure they will occur on the Hope too. So in short, to get a genuine inter city route across the Pennines, either one of the routes needs 4 tracking throughout, or a new alignment is needed.

As for the M62, mind your language if you please, it has almost become a swearword in these parts as its increasingly rare to hear the M62 being mentioned without an expletive!! ;)

Most of the alignment between Shipley and Leeds was originally four-track. How difficult would it be to route the new line that way?

Most of it could be achieved, there are sections where the additional tracks could be put in easily, however both stations would need rebuilding as they sit across the trackbed and potentially in one or two pinch points some land procurement might be needed. Not to hardest of engineering projects, but it would have it's challenges. I believe the most pressing issue might be Thackley tunnel east of Shipley, the second bore is there but by all accounts is in poor condition.

Saddleworth Moor is east of Greenfield. By your reference to the M62 I assume you're referring to what the OS map calls Moss Moor.

If a railway hugged the M62 on the climb from Milnrow the curves would limit it to about 50mph. Straightening it out would involve tunnels or viaducts as the motorway follows the curving side of the valley.

Yes, sorry I've always referred to it as Saddleworth Moor but that's the one. And I agree, a straighter alignment, indeed any would require some extensive tunnelling and bridgeworks.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
The plans that a Mr Alex Ross Shaw (councillor) described were for anext underground station near the Debenham's entrance to Broadway.

I really hope this happens and we don't get the parkway station on the old Bradford Interchange avoiding curve.

I suspect that is exactly what Bradford will get. The cost of tunnelling under Bradford and building a new station would cost an extra billion or much more. Closing Bradford Interchange and building a tram line from Bradford Parkway to Bradford Foster Square (renaming it Bradford Central) would be cheaper and provide good cross city connections.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
The plans that a Mr Alex Ross Shaw (councillor) described were for anext underground station near the Debenham's entrance to Broadway.

I really hope this happens and we don't get the parkway station on the old Bradford Interchange avoiding curve.

I'm glad you've appeared in this thread because I was wanting to ask you about these plans. Where do they come from? Whose idea are they? When you first posted in the other thread I assumed they were proposed by Transport for the North or whatever consultants are working for them to develop NPR. But now you mention this councillor, are they just his idea? Does he have any reason to think anyone would be willing to spend the sort of money needed for an underground station?

A web search shows that Councillor Alex Ross Shaw is Portfolio holder for Regeneration, Planning and Transport at Bradford Council and spokesperson for the Next Stop Bradford campaign. So the underground station idea probably comes from Next Stop Bradford and not from Transport from the North.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I suspect that is exactly what Bradford will get. The cost of tunnelling under Bradford and building a new station would cost an extra billion or much more. Closing Bradford Interchange and building a tram line from Bradford Parkway to Bradford Foster Square (renaming it Bradford Central) would be cheaper and provide good cross city connections.

Missing Bradford off the network completely would save even more money, but that's not meant to be the point of the exercise. You are proposing not just a distinctly suboptimal connection to NPR, but also the closure of the more important of Bradford's existing central area stations. How exactly will that help connect it to the outside world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top