• 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!

Why is another platform being built at Bradford Forster Square?

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,055
I don’t understand this project.

If you want extra local capacity then why can’t you build a switch from the track half way down the long platform onto the track that has cleared the short platform to split the long platform in 2.

They are saying it is for extra LNER services but there are two platforms long enough for LNER. How can there be a need for more than that?

My understanding is that they only really use 2 platforms anyway most of the time so this vast cost for something of questionable value just seems odd.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,744
Location
Somerset
how many coach lengths would all the necessary overlaps etc for a turnout halfway along a platform require?
 

sjm77

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2020
Messages
203
Location
Manchester
I thought one reason was to allow LNER to run a train every two hours. In theory it could already be accomodated but since the mid-day reductions to hourly services from Bradford to both Skipton and Ilkely the platforms are now used to 'stable' the temporarily superfluous units. It's a funny dilemma, DfT demands cost savings which Northern deliver. The consequence is extra funding has to be found to introduce already promised extra services to London! You couldn't make it up.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,730
Location
Redcar
It's a funny dilemma, DfT demands cost savings which Northern deliver. The consequence is extra funding has to be found to introduce already promised extra services to London! You couldn't make it up.
It's almost like the DfT are not competent to manage the industry at the level at which they are trying to do so...
 

Johnny Lewis

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
335
Location
York
When the Leeds north west lines were electrified (late 1980s, early 1990s? - but a long while ago now!) one of the reasons cited for doing so was to increase the number of direct InterCity services between London and Bradford FS to 6 a day.

GNER at their height had 4 trains in one direction and 3 in the other, which were gradually eroded under NXEC, East Coast and finally VTEC to 1 per day each way. In a blaze of glory, LNER "doubled" the service to the 2 per day we have now, but had the East Coast timetable been introduced as planned, they would have cut that back to 1 per day again (they now seem to be talking of the 2-hourly service again, but it appears to now be dependent on this additional platform).

Has the local service in and out of Bradford FS increased that much since electrification, that a 2 hourly service really couldn't be provided with the existing 3 platforms?

My fear is that there'll be loads of disruption, the platform will finally be built, and then the DfT / LNER or its successors will find some other excuse - Welwyn Viaduct perhaps - to say, "oh, actually, we can't run these extra trains after all".
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,055
When the Leeds north west lines were electrified (late 1980s, early 1990s? - but a long while ago now!) one of the reasons cited for doing so was to increase the number of direct InterCity services between London and Bradford FS to 6 a day.

GNER at their height had 4 trains in one direction and 3 in the other, which were gradually eroded under NXEC, East Coast and finally VTEC to 1 per day each way. In a blaze of glory, LNER "doubled" the service to the 2 per day we have now, but had the East Coast timetable been introduced as planned, they would have cut that back to 1 per day again (they now seem to be talking of the 2-hourly service again, but it appears to now be dependent on this additional platform).

Has the local service in and out of Bradford FS increased that much since electrification, that a 2 hourly service really couldn't be provided with the existing 3 platforms?

My fear is that there'll be loads of disruption, the platform will finally be built, and then the DfT / LNER or its successors will find some other excuse - Welwyn Viaduct perhaps - to say, "oh, actually, we can't run these extra trains after all".
Exactly. Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t begrudge Bradford investment. The city has been stripped of two great stations and left with two stations the relevant planners should be ashamed of.

However, as they are not coming back and there must be lots of better things to spend £24 million on.

Meanwhile, the total mystery surrounding NPR/talk of a new station in Bradford rumbles on. Unless this Platform is the new station and it’s a through station because you can get a train from Bradford through Leeds to London.
 

jamiearmley

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
226
It's a massive waste of money.

They want extra London services from Bradford purely to appropriate more of the fare box. It's called revenue abstraction.

It will reduce Northerns "share" of revenue from the Bradford to Leeds flow.

Long term, this will mean more subsidy for Northern is required, and potentially service cuts for local stopping services.

It's what they already do on the Harrogate line, when they can be bothered to actually run the trains.

On the Harrogate line it's a better and more reliable service when LNER cancel everything as their presence causes constant delays and congestion.

I would be overly optimistic if I did not expect the same to occur when the London element of services from Bradford foster Square is ramped up.

As was mentioned by the OP, there are far better things to spend money on.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,688
Location
Another planet...
Has the local service in and out of Bradford FS increased that much since electrification, that a 2 hourly service really couldn't be provided with the existing 3 platforms?
The only local change that came with electrification was the introduction of the 2tph Leeds services, which increased services to the station by 50% (2tph on each leg of the triangle).

WRT an earlier post, I thought the plan was for the 2tph pattern to Ilkley and Skipton to return in the near(-ish) future?
 
Joined
7 Jan 2009
Messages
864
It really is high time for a mature discussion about the benefits of having direct trains to London vs. changing at major nodes such as Leeds. At present, even when the Harrogate LNER runs, it has to be timetabled to wait at Leeds for long periods of time to create a performance buffer between the ECML and the Harrogate line and no doubt NR will insist on the same here. Spending this kind of money at Forster Sq to provide extra direct trains is very wasteful. If there is kind of money to hand, it might be better to provide additional and more comfortable seats at Leeds to make interchanging between NT and LNER when there are delays easier than today....? Or putting the money in a 'free coffee fund' that provides vouchers when the planned connection is missed.

As most people on here will know, the number of passengers on the trains from Leeds to Forster Sq will be rather small....
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,055
It is tricky one, Bradford being a city that is big enough to warrant direct London services. Equally I wonder if there is appetite for services to stations north of York.

However, just don’t get why they can just use the infrastructure as is. That is what the long platform was built for. Can’t they try a more regular service with that for a year to see how it goes?
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,867
Location
Southport
It's a massive waste of money.

They want extra London services from Bradford purely to appropriate more of the fare box. It's called revenue abstraction.

It will reduce Northerns "share" of revenue from the Bradford to Leeds flow.

Long term, this will mean more subsidy for Northern is required, and potentially service cuts for local stopping services.

It's what they already do on the Harrogate line, when they can be bothered to actually run the trains.

On the Harrogate line it's a better and more reliable service when LNER cancel everything as their presence causes constant delays and congestion.

I would be overly optimistic if I did not expect the same to occur when the London element of services from Bradford foster Square is ramped up.

As was mentioned by the OP, there are far better things to spend money on.
But Northern and LNER (also now TPE) are both wholly owned by DOHL “nationalised” and so one cannot abstract revenue from the other. If any combination of Northern, TPE and LNER run on a route, then DOHL in one form or another receives 100% of the revenue. The branding is irrelevant. It simply becomes a choice whether to prioritise local or intercity services. This is not like talking about private TOCs.

My understanding is that in an ideal world, the connections from e.g. Harrogate and Bradford to Kings Cross would be so high quality that there would be no question of direct services being unnecessary.

However we are where we are and we are left with a paradox. In reality, these connections are SO unbearably unreliable, especially for infrequent travellers and passengers unfamiliar with or otherwise restricted in their ability to use the railway, who cannot be feasibly left with long waits at a large, crowded station that they are not comfortable to remain in, as opposed to a train.

The connections at Leeds are unreliable because of a lack of spare capacity, particularly at Leeds station, so the solution, for passengers outside Leeds with direct services to Kings Cross, is for these services to consume more capacity by reversing at Leeds with a long dwell and continuing off-pattern to other destinations, compared with terminating intercity services at Leeds.

This guarantees passengers will enjoy a comfortable journey to Wakefield and Doncaster in addition to Kings Cross, without inconveniencing passengers originating from Leeds, but is somewhat self defeating in its aims. Regardless it remains the best option currently and until there can be a doubling of or greater increase in capacity at Leeds station (HS2 anyone) which itself will release spare capacity for more of exactly these same through services.
 

jamiearmley

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
226
But Northern and LNER (also now TPE) are both wholly owned by DOHL “nationalised” and so one cannot abstract revenue from the other. If any combination of Northern, TPE and LNER run on a route, then DOHL in one form or another receives 100% of the revenue. The branding is irrelevant. It simply becomes a choice whether to prioritise local or intercity services. This is not like talking about private TOCs.

It would be nice to think that this sort of common sense approach was being taken. In reality, both are treated as completely separate businesses with their own set of costs and revenue- and subsidy.

The branding is sadly more relevant than ever. Each of these businesses competes against each other, using methods such as operator only tickets, price gouging on advance singles, abhorrent practices such as prosecution of passengers who use tickets on the wrong service - and of course the revenue abstraction I described earlier.

These accounting methods, for want of a better term, are a major driver in the decision-making process.

I agree, they ought to be run as if they were separate departments within one organisation. However, just like NHS trusts, school academy groups, GP surgeries, etc, they are run as discrete businesses, each targeted to compete against the other - to either turn a profit, or to reduce their individual subsidy.

Using Harrogate as an example, the reliability of the LNER services between Leeds and Harrogate is far, far worse than the reliability of the Northern services they have displaced used to be.
 

leedslad82

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2011
Messages
154
Wasn't there a suggestion at some point of these services travelling through rather than reversing at leeds and using hambleton curve to join ecml. This does mean missing out Wakefield though
 

jamiearmley

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
226
What does price gouging mean please?
It's got many meanings, but here I'm using it to describe a situation where you have a heavily subsidised line, such as the Harrogate line, which needs every penny in the fare box it can get, having two operators running trains over it, who reach sell ever cheaper Advance singles to entice passengers off the other operators services.

The only result of this is an overall decrease in revenue received by the DFT, (who owns both operators in any case) -which leads, eventually, to cuts.
 
Joined
3 Mar 2020
Messages
381
Location
Furness
It's got many meanings, but here I'm using it to describe a situation where you have a heavily subsidised line, such as the Harrogate line, which needs every penny in the fare box it can get, having two operators running trains over it, who reach sell ever cheaper Advance singles to entice passengers off the other operators services.

The only result of this is an overall decrease in revenue received by the DFT, (who owns both operators in any case) -which leads, eventually, to cuts.
Cheers
 

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
216
Whilst I agree that the money being spent could be put to better use elsewhere the real reason for the extra platform is political.
The present government can clearly show that they are spending 'reallocated' HS2 money on transport projects in the North.
The government needs to been seen as doing something ... but whether its actually needed is another matter. Politically this is one such project as 'delivering for the North'.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,752
Location
Leeds
Whilst I agree that the money being spent could be put to better use elsewhere the real reason for the extra platform is political.
The present government can clearly show that they are spending 'reallocated' HS2 money on transport projects in the North.
The government needs to been seen as doing something ... but whether its actually needed is another matter. Politically this is one such project as 'delivering for the North'.
Has the fourth platform project really been invented and brought to this stage since the HS2 cancellation last autumn?
 

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
216
Has the fourth platform project really been invented and brought to this stage since the HS2 cancellation last autumn?
You have to remember that schemes such as this would have been on the drawing board for quite a while. Many do not see the light of day. Transport planning takes a very long time here in the UK.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,752
Location
Leeds
You have to remember that schemes such as this would have been on the drawing board for quite a while. Many do not see the light of day. Transport planning takes a very long time here in the UK.
That was the point I was making - casting doubt on the relevance of your comment in #17.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,339
In many ways it isn't really a new platform for Bradford, its Leeds' 19th platform.

Much cheaper to free up a platform at Leeds by extending further LNER services away than to build another in Leeds.

The additional journey opportunities/levelling up/other political spin explanations are a convenient coincidence.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,756
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Northern sometimes stable units in the platforms at Forster Square, so platform space can be at a premium especially when all services hopefully return to 2tph. So an extra platform actually makes a lot of sense as it's a fairly easy solution, and one that also allows the potential for more LNER services. Plus as mentioned above, it has also got the potential to free up a bit more space at Leeds, which needs all it can get.
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
800
It's got many meanings, but here I'm using it to describe a situation where you have a heavily subsidised line, such as the Harrogate line, which needs every penny in the fare box it can get, having two operators running trains over it, who reach sell ever cheaper Advance singles to entice passengers off the other operators services.

The only result of this is an overall decrease in revenue received by the DFT, (who owns both operators in any case) -which leads, eventually, to cuts.
Price gouging usually means the opposite.
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
1,941
Location
Rochdale
Northern sometimes stable units in the platforms at Forster Square, so platform space can be at a premium especially when all services hopefully return to 2tph. So an extra platform actually makes a lot of sense as it's a fairly easy solution, and one that also allows the potential for more LNER services. Plus as mentioned above, it has also got the potential to free up a bit more space at Leeds, which needs all it can get.

You can imagine once the new depot is up and running at Shipley, nothing will be stabling at Bradford or the low number platforms at Leeds either, its a win win for everyone. In reality it will be a doubling of space at Bradford
 

jamiearmley

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
226
Price gouging usually means the opposite.
Absolutely, and thankyou!

I was struggling to find a term to describe what I meant when I originally wrote the post, and I did provide a fuller explanation in a later post when someone else - rightly - queried what I meant.

There is a phrase more suited, but I cannot bring it to mind.

The perks and perils of an ageing brain!
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,091
You can imagine once the new depot is up and running at Shipley, nothing will be stabling at Bradford or the low number platforms at Leeds either, its a win win for everyone. In reality it will be a doubling of space at Bradford
That would mean that extra paths are required for ecs moves during the day.
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
1,941
Location
Rochdale
That would mean that extra paths are required for ecs moves during the day.
True but what is worse, bringing something down from the depot in Bradford or Leeds and having something using capacity for 15 to 20 mins vs a platform for an entire day?
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
800
Absolutely, and thankyou!

I was struggling to find a term to describe what I meant when I originally wrote the post, and I did provide a fuller explanation in a later post when someone else - rightly - queried what I meant.

There is a phrase more suited, but I cannot bring it to mind.

The perks and perils of an ageing brain!
I think, maybe, beggar thy neighbour where both parties try to beggar each other and end harming themselves as well as their neighbour.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,955
It seems to me that a platform at Forster Square isn't needed, rather instead Northern need to be running 2tph, as per pre covid, to free up the existing platforms for LNER to use the long platform rather than using them as extra carriage sidings.

However the question for me is, why are the LNER services needed at either Harrogate or Bradford? Thats caused by a relentless focus on performance at the expense of passeger journeys / connections so said passengers request and demand through services and of course that may require additional, expensive, infrastructure.
 

Top