Yorkshire Hub

[Old Yard Dog]

The details are not yet decided. It's worth looking at the illustrative options map that was circulated at the same time as some of the Northern Powerhouse discussions:

For the Leeds to Manchester corridor there are basically 3 options:

Option 3
A completely new high speed line from Manchester - Leeds directly.

Option 8
An upgrade to the existing Manchester - Leeds line.

Option 2
A completely new high speed line from Manchester to HS2 between Sheffield and Leeds that then uses HS2 into Leeds.

What this link allows is for Option 2 to be built from Manchester to connect to HS2 somewhere near Barnsley and then leaving HS2 in the Hunslet area and running through Leeds station to provide direct high speed services from Manchester to Hull, York and Newcastle.

This is obviously much more flexible and useful than only being able to run end to end Manchester - Leeds services on HS3.

It also means the new Leeds HS station does not need additional platforms for Manchester services as they will use the existing station.

However if Options 3 or 8 are chosen then this chord would not effect HS3 services at all as they would still run through the existing station but would not have any need to join HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No problem



Hopefully the diagram above makes it a little clearer. If Option 2 were chosen Manchester - Leeds services would utilise HS2 south of Leeds but not travel via Sheffield.

The illustration above perhaps suggests Option 2 serving Meadowhall for Manchester - Sheffield services. My expectation would be that actually Sheffield Victoria might be more likely. An HS3 Manchester - Leeds route passing north of Stocksbridge would connect relatively easily to the freight line at Deepcar and run into Sheffield Victoria.

You could then run through Sheffield and rejoin HS2 from near Killamarsh to Toton and potentially provide something like a Manchester - Sheffield - East Midlands - Leicester service.

Where is Bradford, England's 10th biggest city and of a similar size to Nottingham, Hull, Newcastle etc, on this map??

Bradford is NOT a suburb of ****** Leeds.

 

[bradders1983]

And Bradford is far too near Leeds for it to be relevant for that above diagram, hence it isnt included.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

And Bradford is far too near Leeds for it to be relevant for that above diagram, hence it isnt included.

That's true.
Sunderland, Grimsby, Bolton, York etc are also missing due to proximity to a more important rail station. So Bradford isn't the only one forgotten about.

York might even be important on Option 6 of the diagram?

 

[Saint66]

And Bradford is far too near Leeds for it to be relevant for that above diagram, hence it isnt included.

Plus it is an unimportant suburb, anyway...

 

[superkev]

Plus it is an unimportant suburb, anyway...

Despite Bradford s poor image in generations of incompetant planners I believe it England's 6th largest city.
What an ideal place for a tram train threading its way between its 2 stations and beyond.
K

 

[billio]

And Bradford is far too near Leeds for it to be relevant for that above diagram, hence it isnt included.

It's good to see transport planning depends on the scale of its diagrams .

If I was planning an improved rail link between Lancashire and Yorkshire to help re-generate the North, then Bradford would be the first place I would wish to be included in the development, along with Halifax, Rochdale and Oldham. There is a whole swathe of towns the north of Manchester and into West Yorkshire that has suffered through a lack of good rail connections.

HS2 should enter Manchester on the northern side of the city and the line continue on into Yorkshire. The southern side of Manchester is well served already.

 

[matacaster]

It's good to see transport planning depends on the scale of its diagrams .

If I was planning an improved rail link between Lancashire and Yorkshire to help re-generate the North, then Bradford would be the first place I would wish to be included in the development, along with Halifax, Rochdale and Oldham. There is a whole swathe of towns the north of Manchester and into West Yorkshire that has suffered through a lack of good rail connections.

HS2 should enter Manchester on the northern side of the city and the line continue on into Yorkshire. The southern side of Manchester is well served already.

I agree in principle, to serve largest connurbations fairly, the line should go a little north and then east from Manchester to serve both Bradford and Leeds.
However, there's not a cat in hell's chance of that happening. Bradford suffers not only from poor image but also low skill base. Very few Bradfordians would be of interest to employers in London. HS2 is all about feeding more jobs to London whatever the politicians might say. Leeds has plenty of people who are of interest to London business.

 

[Altnabreac]

Despite Bradford s poor image in generations of incompetant planners I believe it England's 6th largest city.
What an ideal place for a tram train threading its way between its 2 stations and beyond.
K

Bradford really isn't the 6th largest city in England.

The confusion arises when people start looking at local government district population figures where Bradford is a relatively large district including areas like Bingley, Keighley and Shipley to give a population of over 500,000.

This ranks Bradford ahead of the tightly drawn district boundaries of Manchester and the relatively small London Boroughs. However you would struggle on any meaningful measure to argue that Bradford is bigger than London or Manchester.

Really the best ranking is to look at Urban Areas. However here the issue is that Bradford is really just one part of the wider West Yorkshire urban area alongside Leeds so although it is part of the 4th largest Urban Area (after London, Manchester and West Midlands) it doesn't say anything about Bradford itself.

Probably the best definition is the Built Up Area Sub District from the Census which gives the core area of Bradford itself a population of around 350,000.

This makes it around the 16th biggest urban area in England behind:
London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Tyneside, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Brighton & Hove, Bournemouth & Poole, Teesside, Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry.

That feels about right to me.

Basically with Leeds it is part of one of the 5 biggest conurbations in Britain and deserving of a High Speed Rail link to the City Region.

On it's own it is in the second tier of English cities with populations of 300,000 - 500,000 including Sunderland, Coventry, Stoke, Hull, Teeside, Preston, Birkenhead etc that need links to the network but are not necessarily going to justify bespoke new lines and stations.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Very few Bradfordians would be of interest to employers in London. HS2 is all about feeding more jobs to London whatever the politicians might say. Leeds has plenty of people who are of interest to London business.

What evidence have you got to justify such a sweeping and outrageous assumption? Has Leeds got better schools than Bradford or something? I went to one of the many excellent grammar schools in Bradford before the loony left abolished them.

As a highly qualified Bradfordian, I had no difficulty finding a job in the home counties before I was fortunate enough to escape and get back to the better quality of life and lower cost of living in the north.

HS2 is about the conduct of business not jobs. When you are forced to emigrate down south, you only use the train once (and then, in my case, find yourself stuck with a load of suitcases at a southern station without a taxi rank!) And when you come back for the weekend, you take the cheapest option which won't be HS2.

HS2 will give Leeds an unfair advantage over other cities in the north as businessmen want first class travel and then a taxi from door to door.

Why should every single HS2 go to Leeds and only Leeds? Is Leeds really so large and important that it deserves a full HS2 on its own every 20 minutes? There should be through HS2 services to the centres of Bradford, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham and a host of other cities, not out of town parkways or connections with second-class only cattle trucks or uncomfortable standing- room only tram trains

 

[backontrack]

Agreed.

-Bradford
-Sheffield
-Derby
-Nottingham
-Hull
-Halifax
-York
-Huddersfield
-Wakefield
-Dewsbury
-Rotherham
-Barnsley
-Middlesbrough
-Hartlepool
-Scarborough
-Rochdale
-Bolton
-Blackburn and
-Leicester (while we're at it)
...need proper HS2 services like you say.

Places like Pontefract, Castleford, Normanton, Keighley, Ilkley, Featherstone, Brighouse, ELLAND, Mirfield, Ashton-under-Lyne, Penistone, Bridlington and Garforth need proper services too, with new trains.

 

[matacaster]

What evidence have you got to justify such a sweeping and outrageous assumption? Has Leeds got better schools than Bradford or something? I went to one of the many excellent grammar schools in Bradford before the loony left abolished them.

As a highly qualified Bradfordian, I had no difficulty finding a job in the home counties before I was fortunate enough to escape and get back to the better quality of life and lower cost of living in the north.

HS2 is about the conduct of business not jobs. When you are forced to emigrate down south, you only use the train once (and then, in my case, find yourself stuck with a load of suitcases at a southern station without a taxi rank!) And when you come back for the weekend, you take the cheapest option which won't be HS2.


HS2 will give Leeds an unfair advantage over other cities in the north as businessmen want first class travel and then a taxi from door to door.

Why should every single HS2 go to Leeds and only Leeds? Is Leeds really so large and important that it deserves a full HS2 on its own every 20 minutes? There should be through HS2 services to the centres of Bradford, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham and a host of other cities, not out of town parkways or connections with second-class only cattle trucks or uncomfortable standing- room only tram trains

This is way off topic, but if you use your internet search engine and type in
"bradford low skills base" you will find a plethora of documents from such as Bradford council, Joseph Rowntree etc. Don't be so precious about Bradford. I didn't say everyone is unemployable in London, just the vast majority. I can't believe you think that Bradford, for example, has a higher or similar skills profile to Leeds.

 

[backontrack]

And where are you from, matacaster? Have you been to Bradford much?

 

[lejog]

Bradford really isn't the 6th largest city in England.

The confusion arises when people start looking at local government district population figures where Bradford is a relatively large district including areas like Bingley, Keighley and Shipley to give a population of over 500,000.

This ranks Bradford ahead of the tightly drawn district boundaries of Manchester and the relatively small London Boroughs. However you would struggle on any meaningful measure to argue that Bradford is bigger than London or Manchester.

Really the best ranking is to look at Urban Areas. However here the issue is that Bradford is really just one part of the wider West Yorkshire urban area alongside Leeds so although it is part of the 4th largest Urban Area (after London, Manchester and West Midlands) it doesn't say anything about Bradford itself.

Probably the best definition is the Built Up Area Sub District from the Census which gives the core area of Bradford itself a population of around 350,000.

This makes it around the 16th biggest urban area in England behind:
London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Tyneside, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Brighton & Hove, Bournemouth & Poole, Teesside, Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry.

That feels about right to me.

Basically with Leeds it is part of one of the 5 biggest conurbations in Britain and deserving of a High Speed Rail link to the City Region.

On it's own it is in the second tier of English cities with populations of 300,000 - 500,000 including Sunderland, Coventry, Stoke, Hull, Teeside, Preston, Birkenhead etc that need links to the network but are not necessarily going to justify bespoke new lines and stations.

I agree with you that using populations based on arbitrary council boundaries is not that useful. But I think the map of the Urban Area below shows how poorly a HS2/HS3 station at Leeds stuck in the north east would serve the Urban Area (and Halifax to the west has been added since the map was drawn).

In terms of HS3, the route of the M62/M621 between Manchester and Leeds already displays probably the best way to link the two urban areas with branches off to Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford and Wakefield, so all major population areas (and coincidentally all constituent council areas!) in the West Yorkshire Urban Area are served. Such a route would not be much use to Sheffield though.

 

[quantinghome]

Agreed.

-Bradford
-Sheffield
-Derby
-Nottingham
-Hull
-Halifax
-York
-Huddersfield
-Wakefield
-Dewsbury
-Rotherham
-Barnsley
-Middlesbrough
-Hartlepool
-Scarborough
-Rochdale
-Bolton
-Blackburn and
-Leicester (while we're at it)
...need proper HS2 services like you say.

Wouldn't exactly be high speed then, would it?

 

[lejog]

Wouldn't exactly be high speed then, would it?

I think he was being ironic (or at least I hope he was).

 

[bluenoxid]

I agree with you that using populations based on arbitrary council boundaries is not that useful. But I think the map of the Urban Area below shows how poorly a HS2/HS3 station at Leeds stuck in the north east would serve the Urban Area (and Halifax to the west has been added since the map was drawn).

In terms of HS3, the route of the M62/M621 between Manchester and Leeds already displays probably the best way to link the two urban areas with branches off to Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford and Wakefield, so all major population areas (and coincidentally all constituent council areas!) in the West Yorkshire Urban Area are served. Such a route would not be much use to Sheffield though.

The problem is that this map does not show topography, or existing transport corridors?

 

[deltic08]

Agreed.

-Bradford
-Sheffield
-Derby
-Nottingham
-Hull
-Halifax
-York
-Huddersfield
-Wakefield
-Dewsbury
-Rotherham
-Barnsley
-Middlesbrough
-Hartlepool
-Scarborough
-Rochdale
-Bolton
-Blackburn and
-Leicester (while we're at it)
...need proper HS2 services like you say.

Places like Pontefract, Castleford, Normanton, Keighley, Ilkley, Featherstone, Brighouse, ELLAND, Mirfield, Ashton-under-Lyne, Penistone, Bridlington and Garforth need proper services too, with new trains.

Can I add reinstating rail links to Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Otley, Heckmondwike, Addingham and Market Weighton before extending HS2 to Leeds.

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree with you that using populations based on arbitrary council boundaries is not that useful. But I think the map of the Urban Area below shows how poorly a HS2/HS3 station at Leeds stuck in the north east would serve the Urban Area (and Halifax to the west has been added since the map was drawn).

In terms of HS3, the route of the M62/M621 between Manchester and Leeds already displays probably the best way to link the two urban areas with branches off to Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford and Wakefield, so all major population areas (and coincidentally all constituent council areas!) in the West Yorkshire Urban Area are served. Such a route would not be much use to Sheffield though.

The problem is that this map does not show topography, or existing transport corridors?

Indeed. What this map shows is that West Yorkshire is a dispersed Conurbation and any HS2 station needs to effectively serve the whole area through good onward transport connections.

Once you look at the Rail Network alongside the Urban Area map it becomes obvious Leeds is the only choice for an HS2 station. Bradford has no connection to Wakefield and vice versa.

So even if Leeds were not the main City it is the best point for onward connections anyway.

 

[quantinghome]

I think he was being ironic (or at least I hope he was).

Poe's law strikes again...!

 

[backontrack]

Can I add reinstating rail links to Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Otley, Heckmondwike, Addingham and Market Weighton before extending HS2 to Leeds.

Definitely.

Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Otley, Pool, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Addingham, Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Market Weighton, Elland, Haxby, Ossett, Horbury, Yeadon and Stocksbridge need rail links again. Stocksbridge would probably be part of a tram system, and possibly Otley/Pool/Yeadon, but all others would be proper railways and stations.

 

[Bantamzen]

I take your point – I just think that there’s a trade off to be had in terms of whether a couple of hundred metres on a travellator is enough of an inconvenience to warrant millions of pounds in infrastructure costs.

If we are talking Civic Pride, then of course West Yorkshire people will want the best option for West Yorkshire, as close as possible to the existing platforms. But it’s going to be an operationally separate station (regardless of how close the buffer stops are to the current platforms), so I think there’s a question to be asked about how many millions of pounds you’d pay to avoid a travellator from somewhere near the ASDA HQ – given that we aren’t short of other things we could be investing that money in!

I honestly don't think it's just about civic pride, making the Leeds spur of HS2 as accessible as possible from other parts of the network is a key factor in maximising HS2's success. And frankly we blow far more money on worse ideas that shoving New Lane terminus up a few hundred metres.

This is way off topic, but if you use your internet search engine and type in
"bradford low skills base" you will find a plethora of documents from such as Bradford council, Joseph Rowntree etc. Don't be so precious about Bradford. I didn't say everyone is unemployable in London, just the vast majority. I can't believe you think that Bradford, for example, has a higher or similar skills profile to Leeds.

All this assumes that most Bradfordians do not commute elsewhere for their employment simply because businesses have adopted this attitude. Climb on board any peak train heading to / from Leeds from Bradford & the Aire valley and you'll see a lot of skilled workers heading to Leeds for work. Making Bradford better accessible from the capital might help towards replacing many of the businesses that have abandoned Bradford over the years. Leeds is far from responsible for a large proportion of its skilled workforce as I'm sure people from other towns and cities around the area would argue.

 

[MarkRedon]

Definitely.

Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Otley, Pool, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike, Addingham, Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Market Weighton, Elland, Haxby, Ossett, Horbury, Yeadon and Stocksbridge need rail links again. Stocksbridge would probably be part of a tram system, and possibly Otley/Pool/Yeadon, but all others would be proper railways and stations.

We shouldn't forget the potential of tram-train. A Leeds - Horsforth - LBA Leed Bradford Airport - Bradford Forster Square route might make sense done this way. See http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ink-to-airport-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity which reported a 2013 proposal by the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group. By extension, the same approach makes sense for Otley / Pool / Yeadon. Tram-train was the approach taken for the recently-completed reopening of the Nantes to Chateaubriant railway http://www.sncf-reseau.fr/fr/tram-train-ligne-nantes-chateaubriant. However, heavy rail is indeed the only sensible way forward for most of the places mentioned.

 

[lejog]

The problem is that this map does not show topography, or existing transport corridors?

It was meant to demonstrate only that compared with other Urban Areas, West Yorkshire is quite dispersed and that Leeds is not at all central, not as an aid to route planning. If you wish to investigate routes and topography I'm sure you can find such maps on the web - although probably not in a form easy to post on railforums.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. What this map shows is that West Yorkshire is a dispersed Conurbation and any HS2 station needs to effectively serve the whole area through good onward transport connections.

Once you look at the Rail Network alongside the Urban Area map it becomes obvious Leeds is the only choice for an HS2 station. Bradford has no connection to Wakefield and vice versa.

So even if Leeds were not the main City it is the best point for onward connections anyway.

I don't dispute this for HS2, although wish to make the point that Leeds is not central and with a Sub Urban Area population of 470,000 represents only 25% of the Urban Area's population. With Leeds in the north of the area it feels extremely odd to be taking an initial journey north to go to London and I for one, find it more convenient to travel via Manchester or Sheffield. Hopefully however the classic compatible HS2 services will be able to serve all the 4 other major cities/towns, not just Bradford as suggested in your earlier post.

However my post was concerned mainly with HS3, with its much shorter journey times a single West Yorkshire station will be far less satisfactory and make the point that the competition in the form of existing road network manages to serve the whole Urban Area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bradford really isn't the 6th largest city in England.

The confusion arises when people start looking at local government district population figures where Bradford is a relatively large district including areas like Bingley, Keighley and Shipley to give a population of over 500,000.

This ranks Bradford ahead of the tightly drawn district boundaries of Manchester and the relatively small London Boroughs. However you would struggle on any meaningful measure to argue that Bradford is bigger than London or Manchester.

Really the best ranking is to look at Urban Areas. However here the issue is that Bradford is really just one part of the wider West Yorkshire urban area alongside Leeds so although it is part of the 4th largest Urban Area (after London, Manchester and West Midlands) it doesn't say anything about Bradford itself.

Probably the best definition is the Built Up Area Sub District from the Census which gives the core area of Bradford itself a population of around 350,000.

This makes it around the 16th biggest urban area in England behind:
London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Tyneside, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Brighton & Hove, Bournemouth & Poole, Teesside, Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry.

That feels about right to me.

Basically with Leeds it is part of one of the 5 biggest conurbations in Britain and deserving of a High Speed Rail link to the City Region.

On it's own it is in the second tier of English cities with populations of 300,000 - 500,000 including Sunderland, Coventry, Stoke, Hull, Teeside, Preston, Birkenhead etc that need links to the network but are not necessarily going to justify bespoke new lines and stations.

BTW I must add that while I agree that Built Up Area Sub Districts are probably the best measure of a city's population, that you then compare the BUASD population of Bradford with that of full Built Up Areas like Tyneside! To get the record straight here are the top English BUASD populations:

1 London and 2 (probably) Manchester (both actually subdivided)
3 Birmingham BUASD 1085810
4 Liverpool BUASD 552267
5 Bristol BUASD 535907
6 Sheffield BUASD 518090
7 Leeds BUASD 474632
8 Leicester BUASD 443760
9 Bradford BUASD 349561
10 Coventry BUASD 325949
11 Nottingham BUASD 289301
12 Kingston upon Hull BUASD 284321
13 Stoke-on-Trent BUASD 270726
14 Newcastle upon Tyne BUASD 268064
15 Derby BUASD 255394

So Leeds 7th and Bradford 9th.

 

[superkev]

We shouldn't forget the potential of tram-train. A Leeds - Horsforth - LBA Leed Bradford Airport - Bradford Forster Square route might make sense done this way.

Now that any route for a cross Bradford rail link have now gone the only option is a tram train between the station's possibly connecting the aire and spen valleys.
As for HS2 surely it's best route is straight through the centre of WY population between Leeds and Bradford in the direction of harrogate ripon and the north. Why does everyone think city centres rather than park and ride.
Kev

 

[MarkRedon]

Now that any route for a cross Bradford rail link have now gone the only option is a tram train between the station's possibly connecting the aire and spen valleys.
As for HS 2 surely it's best route is straight through the centre of WY population between Leeds and Bradford in the direction of harrogate ripon and the north.

Two-track high-speed railways only work if station stops are infrequent. I do think that an HS2 and NPR route northwards via Leeds East, Harrogate and Ripon makes sense. However, the only way that Bradford city centre can get directly connected to a high-speed route is if the NPR is routed via Bradford. That is not going to happen – and my guess is that the eventual choice will be a single new trans-Pennine tunnelled route east from Manchester, with a triangular junction to HS2 so that the principal flows Leeds to Manchester, Manchester to Sheffield (Meadowhall) and Sheffield (Meadowhall) to Leeds are catered for. All other centres must be catered for by improvements to the classic rail network and/or by tram-train.

Why does everyone think city centres rather than park and ride.
Kev

Because, except in very very congested areas, once someone is in the car they stay in the car in the overwhelming majority of cases. In the London area, people tolerate having to use the train because there is no realistic alternative.

 

[Altnabreac]

BTW I must add that while I agree that Built Up Area Sub Districts are probably the best measure of a city's population, that you then compare the BUASD population of Bradford with that of full Built Up Areas like Tyneside! To get the record straight here are the top English BUASD populations:

1 London and 2 (probably) Manchester (both actually subdivided)
3 Birmingham BUASD 1085810
4 Liverpool BUASD 552267
5 Bristol BUASD 535907
6 Sheffield BUASD 518090
7 Leeds BUASD 474632
8 Leicester BUASD 443760
9 Bradford BUASD 349561
10 Coventry BUASD 325949
11 Nottingham BUASD 289301
12 Kingston upon Hull BUASD 284321
13 Stoke-on-Trent BUASD 270726
14 Newcastle upon Tyne BUASD 268064
15 Derby BUASD 255394

So Leeds 7th and Bradford 9th.

My view is that Urban sub districts are mainly pointless for this sort of comparison as they don't accurately reflect an area's travel demand in general whereas Urban Area populations do to a much better extent. Indeed you have implicitly acknowledged this by not using them for London and Manchester in your list.

In Nottingham for example West Bridgford, Arnold and Beeston are all clearly part of Nottingham as far as travel demand is concerned but are not within the BUASD. In Birmingham Solihull and Smethwick generate demand for Birmingham but are not within the BUASD. On Tyneside the population of Gateshead will obviously use Newcastle Central station which is less than half a mile from the town centre of Gateshead but not counted in the Newcastle BUASD population.

I only used it for Bradford as that is the only accurate measure of Bradford's population. Sub Districts also make a bit more sense in more geographically dispersed conurbations like West Yorkshire or North East Lancashire.

I say this with no malice to Bradford (my grandfather was born there and I still have many relatives in the area) but it is not in the top ten cities of England. It is a second tier importance city and its high speed rail infrastructure will likely reflect that.

 

[HowardGWR]

Isn't the shorthand for justification for an expensive high speed rail service to and from a location, the following:
a) where the offices, tourism attractions and entertainments are
b) where the 'nobs' live?

How does Bradford score on that basis?

 

[lejog]

My view is that Urban sub districts are mainly pointless for this sort of comparison as they don't accurately reflect an area's travel demand in general whereas Urban Area populations do to a much better extent. Indeed you have implicitly acknowledged this by not using them for London and Manchester in your list.

In Nottingham for example West Bridgford, Arnold and Beeston are all clearly part of Nottingham as far as travel demand is concerned but are not within the BUASD. In Birmingham Solihull and Smethwick generate demand for Birmingham but are not within the BUASD. On Tyneside the population of Gateshead will obviously use Newcastle Central station which is less than half a mile from the town centre of Gateshead but not counted in the Newcastle BUASD population.

I only used it for Bradford as that is the only accurate measure of Bradford's population. Sub Districts also make a bit more sense in more geographically dispersed conurbations like West Yorkshire or North East Lancashire.

I say this with no malice to Bradford (my grandfather was born there and I still have many relatives in the area) but it is not in the top ten cities of England. It is a second tier importance city and its high speed rail infrastructure will likely reflect that.

I agree that what is really needed is a measure of catchment areas rather than population. However I don't know of any such publicly available figures, so please at least be at least consistent in use of statistics that do exist. If you wish to make up your own rules for your list of populations, you can prove anything you wish to prove (as I show below).

You (quite rightly in my view) point out that the often quoted population of Bradford of over 500,000 is misleading because it includes Shipley, Keighley etc. However in your "population list" you promote "Tyneside" to be the 5th most populated urban area in the country when you are including the population of towns as far away from Newcastle as Keighley and Shipley are from Bradford. This gross manipulation of statistics wouldn't be because you happen to be a Geordie would it? :roll:

If you want to argue that the catchment area for Newcastle-upon-Tyne includes all of Tyneside, then the catchment area for Bradford on a similar geographic basis (say a 10mile radius) includes not only the vast majority of its own council population but also substantial areas of Calderdale, Kirklees and Leeds, well in excess of 1million and I suggest likely greater than a similar size catchment area for Leeds. So build HS2 to Bradford not Leeds

Or alternatively, in your "list" you appear to have used the BUASD population of Leeds - it falls way behind Tyneside. Quite correctly, why should Wetherby, Guiseley, Otley, Morley etc be counted in the population of Leeds if similar towns are not quoted for Bradford. However you don't mention that Leeds now falls in your definition of "second tier" cities with populations of 300-500 thousand (a definition I don't agree with whatsoever, but hey at least you've stated the criteria for this unlike your definition of urban areas), which by your reckoning does not warrant a high speed line. So no HS2 to Leeds or Bradford, they're not big enough. According to your definitions run HS2 straight from Sheffield to "Tyneside"

If you want to invent your own rules, then you can prove anything with the use of figures, but they certainly don't deserve to be called statistics. If BUASD populations are good enough for Bradford then they're good enough for other cities, unless we get detailed catchment area population statistics.

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree that what is really needed is a measure of catchment areas rather than population. However I don't know of any such publicly available figures, so please at least be at least consistent in use of statistics that do exist. If you wish to make up your own rules for your list of populations, you can prove anything you wish to prove (as I show below).

You (quite rightly in my view) point out that the often quoted population of Bradford of over 500,000 is misleading because it includes Shipley, Keighley etc. However in your "population list" you promote "Tyneside" to be the 5th most populated urban area in the country when you are including the population of towns as far away from Newcastle as Keighley and Shipley are from Bradford. This gross manipulation of statistics wouldn't be because you happen to be a Geordie would it? :roll:

If you want to argue that the catchment area for Newcastle-upon-Tyne includes all of Tyneside, then the catchment area for Bradford on a similar geographic basis (say a 10mile radius) includes not only the vast majority of its own council population but also substantial areas of Calderdale, Kirklees and Leeds, well in excess of 1million and I suggest likely greater than a similar size catchment area for Leeds. So build HS2 to Bradford not Leeds

Or alternatively, in your "list" you appear to have used BUASD population of Leeds - it falls way behind Tyneside. Quite correctly, why should Wetherby, Guiseley, Otley, Morley etc be counted in the population of Leeds if similar towns are not quoted for Bradford. However you don't mention that Leeds now falls in your definition of "second tier" cities with populations of 300-500 thousand (a definition I don't agree with whatsoever, but hey at least you've stated the criteria for this unlike your definition of urban areas), which by your reckoning does not warrant a high speed line. So no HS2 to Leeds or Bradford, they're not big enough. According to your definitions run HS2 straight from Sheffield to "Tyneside"

If you want to invent your own rules, then you can prove anything with the use of figures, but they certainly don't deserve to be called statistics. If BUASD populations are good enough for Bradford then they're good enough for all cities, unless we get detailed catchment area population statistics.

I'm not really much of an anything having lived in at least 6 of the bigger or smaller cities of the UK over the years and having been living in Scotland for 20 years I'm fairly neutral on the internecine strife of warring northern cities. I do have a previous Geordie affiliation though I admit!

As I say I'd personally favour using only BUA populations and classifying Bradford as merely a suburb of Leeds which might not make you any happier...

From my experience of relatives in Bingley they'd be more resistant about being classified as Bradfordians (although they'd be even more annoyed at being placed with Leeds!) than folk from Wallsend would about being called Geordies, not withstanding the fact that the former share a local authority while the latter do not. Either way people from both will be catching the train/Metro to Leeds/Newcastle for onward high speed travel so for demand planning purposes we should include them under Leeds / Newcastle.

With regard to Sheffield to Tyneside HS line I suspect that's not far off what will happen eventually! Leeds remember is on a branch line off HS2 and when the eastern branch is continued northwards the first stop after Meadowhall is likely to well past Leeds.

It will however be between Darlington (100,000) and Teesside (BUA just under 400,000) with a continuation on to Tyneside after that.

The stop pattern is always going to be a combination of population size and proximity to other stops.

Bradford is too close to Leeds and too small to justify separate provision.

 

[edwin_m]

As for HS2 surely it's best route is straight through the centre of WY population between Leeds and Bradford in the direction of harrogate ripon and the north. Why does everyone think city centres rather than park and ride.
Kev

Park and ride is OK for local people with cars who can drive to the station. But no good at all for business and tourist visitors to an area who probably want to go to a city centre. So it's likely that exclusively out-of-town stations will suck prosperity out rather than bringing it in.

Another point about Leeds being towards the north of the Yorkshire catchment is to remember that Meadowhall provides for much of the southern part, and like Leeds has decent rail connections to act as feeders. From Barnsley and maybe even Wakefield it will be quicker to change at Meadowhall than at Leeds.