Re-openening Colne to Skipton, 'Financially Viable'

[30907]

If you look at the history of the line, then yes it would, this line was built as a main line between Liverpool and Hull

Really? When the L:&Y already ran via the Calder Valley route as far as Goole?
I agree it was laid out as a main line not a country branch, though.

the building of two inland ports, one at Burnley/Earby, the other at Keighley, land available, both Burnley, and Keighley have good road links, to the major centres.

I drive from East Lancs to Shipley reasonably often - Keighley has poor road links in all directions so would be an odd choice to serve W Yorks (compared with the existing inland ports near the M62/M1/A1M); Burnley is better, but still a strange choice for most of Lancs.

 

[Darren R]

More to the point, WHAT is this freight ?

Another good question. The sad truth is that East Lancashire currently generates no rail freight at all. The last remaining freight facilities are at Blackburn in the shape of Galligreaves. The last train to use these facilities ran last year and I am unaware of any plans for a new contract.

The only freight traffic through the area originates elsewhere: Preston Docks branch and Castle Cement at Clitheroe. The remainder are merely passing through from further afield.

I can't see Burnley to Skipton as being anything other than a purely passenger railway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I wasn't saying there is freight demand more that is the only way this would be successful as there is definitely not enough passenger demand.

 

[yorksrob]

As tbtc
I think the main reason for this being newsworthy is not the CBR figure but the fact that SELRAP is more "pr savy" than a lot of the other rail pressure groups

Actually, if the CBR is over six, I'd say that was extremely newsworthy, since poor "CBR's" are currently the most convenient excuse for not reopening anything. (I wonder what Whitehall will come up with if this CBR is true !?).

I still believe its merely a "talking shop" that enables MP's etc to look good with the public and that Copy Pit upgrade and future road upgrading will kill off this idea once and for all

You may be a scintilla of a point with the Copy Pit upgrade, but it will be fairly abysmal if they start pouring money into road upgrades instead. These are different modes of transport, serving (in a lot of cases) different markets.

 

[edwin_m]

Bradford crossrail anyone?

Would still take any freight pretty close to Leeds, though a few tracks further over so slightly easier to get onto the Stourton line.

 

[Ploughman]

There is freight traffic with the potential to use this link and it is already established.

The stone traffic from Rylstone quarry currently runs services to Hull and Leeds with the odd other destination as they arise.
With a facing connection directly onto the Colne line it would be well placed to serve NE Lancs with stone traffic.
Just needs the infrastructure to be in place.

 

[YorkshireBear]

So one speculative flow then?

 

[edwin_m]

Actually, if the CBR is over six, I'd say that was extremely newsworthy, since poor "CBR's" are currently the most convenient excuse for not reopening anything. (I wonder what Whitehall will come up with if this CBR is true !?).

The usual terminology is BCR or benefit to cost ratio. Presumably CBR must be cost to benefit ratio. If that's over 6 then the BCR must be under 0.17, which translates to "hopeless even if it was in Scotland".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The usual terminology is BCR or benefit to cost ratio. Presumably CBR must be cost to benefit ratio. If that's over 6 then the BCR must be under 0.17, which translates to "hopeless even if it was in Scotland".

Glad to see your clarification of that point.

 

[yorksrob]

The usual terminology is BCR or benefit to cost ratio. Presumably CBR must be cost to benefit ratio. If that's over 6 then the BCR must be under 0.17, which translates to "hopeless even if it was in Scotland".

Fair point. Has anyone actually seen this study yet anyway ?

 

[Lankyline]

This is taken from SELRAP's website posted in their news in Sept 2012 ! So where do they get a ratio of over 6 i wonder ???

"Published in 2007, the highly acclaimed study carried out by JMP Consulting established that reopening the Skipton-Colne line is feasible, and that there is a business case *(BCR 2.43:1) for doing so. Network Rail has confirmed that the study was carried out to between GRIP levels 1 & 2.


* ie. For every £1 invested in the project, there would be a benefit of £2.43 to the community and/or investors


That said, all parties now agree that the next step in progressing the reopening of the Skipton to Colne route has to be an in depth study to GRIP 3 level that will examine all aspects of the proposal ..... from civil engineering requirements to accurate costings, anticipated services, environmental impact, business case et al.


Building on levels 1 & 2, GRIP 3 is, effectively, the surveyor’s report that the wise potential purchaser has carried out before investing in the house of their dreams. Network Rail’s publicity material states that “In today's rail industry, investments can be funded, procured and delivered in a number of ways.” But clearly, only in the event of a positive outcome from that GRIP 3 study will potential investors [in the Skipton-Colne rail reopening project] put their heads above the parapet, so to speak.


Accordingly, GRIP 3 is the only way forward for the Skipton-Colne line. And progressing to that study is crucial to the SELRAP’s campaign. To the extent that it could be described as the deal breaker ..... without which, nothing can happen."

The link to the full article is here
http://www.selrap.org.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=122

 

[Oswyntail]

So one speculative flow then?

Talking generally, I do worry that those who plan the railways seem to be confined by what there is, rather than selling what might be. Of course any planned usage of a reopened line is speculative, which is why the infrastructure is centrally funded.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Talking generally, I do worry that those who plan the railways seem to be confined by what there is, rather than selling what might be. Of course any planned usage of a reopened line is speculative, which is why the infrastructure is centrally funded.

Yes i agree, but there has to be a certain amount of speculative flows to be able to invest in infrastructure. You can have definite flows, where companies commit to operate once open, these are more certain and so i would class them as speculative. They are new flows rather than what it is now, but they are not speculative.

If that makes sense? If the quarries at Skipton said yes, if this route is open we will operate stone by rail to East Lancashire then it would stand up, but they haven't someone has said they could....

 

[Lankyline]

Also found this comment from Lancs county council "M65 extension to Yorkshire proposal study stage 3 review doc" published Sept 2013

"Any recommended bypass scheme should not prejudice the potential future
reinstatement of the Colne to Skipton railway line"

So road upgrading namely M65 extension / A56 bypass proposals are definitely being taken seriously, if they go ahead i can't see how they cannot affect the proposed reopening of the line as it is inevitable that car / bus journey times will be improved.

In addition, in SELRAP's mission statement it says about connecting Nelson Burnley Colne to the more "prosperous" West Yorks area !!!! (Sorry prosperous ???!!! their mission statement must of been written by a Yorkie !)

 

[Hebden Bridger]

This is taken from SELRAP's website posted in their news in Sept 2012 ! So where do they get a ratio of over 6 i wonder ???

"Published in 2007, the highly acclaimed study carried out by JMP Consulting established that reopening the Skipton-Colne line is feasible, and that there is a business case *(BCR 2.43:1) for doing so. Network Rail has confirmed that the study was carried out to between GRIP levels 1 & 2.

Presumably the new Grip 2/3 study (according to OP) produced by ARUP (according to the local rag) contains this new figure. But since SELRAP haven't published this report yet who really knows?

 

[L&Y Robert]

Yes i agree, but there has to be a certain amount of speculative flows to be able to invest in infrastructure. You can have definite flows, where companies commit to operate once open, these are more certain and so i would class them as speculative. They are new flows rather than what it is now, but they are not speculative.

If that makes sense? If the quarries at Skipton said yes, if this route is open we will operate stone by rail to East Lancashire then it would stand up, but they haven't someone has said they could....

We used to call it "Latent demand" when I worked in transport planning.

Just have a look at the history of Chiltern Line. In the 60s the line between Pricess Risborough and Aynho junction was singled, such trains as there were didn't even run as far as Banbury, London Transport (Met.) was rumoured to be taking over the line to Aylesbury and then Marylebone was to have been closed and demolished.

Then somebody in BR suggested, humbly and hesitantly no doubt, that the line might be a good candidate for an experiment - "Total Route Modernisation"! it was called. They did it - Chiltern Trains took the line on, and look at 'em now!

 

[Oswyntail]

Also found this comment from Lancs county council "M65 extension to Yorkshire proposal study stage 3 review doc" published Sept 2013...

The chief reason that the M65 stops mysteriously in Colne, rather than ploughing on to the Aire valley, was that the geology beyond there was, at the time, unsuitable for the project. Whether or not road building has addressed the problems encountered, it is unlikely to be a cheap enough build to go ahead.

 

[Lankyline]

Presumably the new Grip 2/3 study (according to OP) produced by ARUP (according to the local rag) contains this new figure. But since SELRAP haven't published this report yet who really knows?

Exactly, seems like the SELRAP PR machine at work again, their agm was on March 10 yet no mention of anything new on their website, or indeed anything for the last 18months !

If this was a confirmed figure then you would have expected sometjing factual to have been published, The story in the LET is just generalisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The chief reason that the M65 stops mysteriously in Colne, rather than ploughing on to the Aire valley, was that the geology beyond there was, at the time, unsuitable for the project. Whether or not road building has addressed the problems encountered, it is unlikely to be a cheap enough build to go ahead.

The fact that they are looking at proposals etc and have published a 3 stage review does seem to indicate a level of seriousness about the project and that it is also contained in LCC's transport masterplan
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder what impact Todmorden curve reinstatement may have (if any) on SELRAP's case for connections to "prosperous" West Yorkshire from Burnley Colne etc ?

 

[455driver]

Fair point. Has anyone actually seen this study yet anyway ?

Not as far as I am aware, it certainly isnt public!

You would that that with such a healthy BCR they would be shoving it in everyones face instead of keeping it secret!

 

[edwin_m]

GRIP studies are all about engineering and costs so can only supply one side of the BCR. The benefits information must have been estimated by some other means that isn't part of the GRIP study. Hence it is somewhat misleading to imply that the GRIP study produced the BCR.

 

[The Planner]

Not how I understand it, there is a fair chunk of economic analysis in the GRIP stages to get it anywhere near GRIP4 which is single option.

 

[edwin_m]

Economic analysis maybe, but as I understand it the actual demand projections aren't part of the process, more an input to it. Having said that there is very little available to describe GRIP.

 

[Bald Rick]

Economic analysis maybe, but as I understand it the actual demand projections aren't part of the process, more an input to it.

Yes they are, if required. Which in this case they are.

 

[lyndhurst25]

If SELRAP want to demonstrate that the demand for passenger services is there then perhaps they could try to negotiate the introduction of a Colne/Skipton/Keighley PlusBus area?

Colne used to have a PlusBus area but it did not cross the Pennines and was withdrawn in 2012.

The East Lancashire Day Ranger allowed Skipton/Keighley to Colne bus travel, with onwards rail travel to Blackburn, Preston and Bolton. It seemed like good value for money but was withdrawn after less than three years due to alleged poor sales.

http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/special_offers/dayrangers/dayrangers_eastlancashire_2010.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If there was such a stated demand for a better public transport link from Colne eastwards, would there need to be an even better existing bus service pattern to meet this demand, prior to the reinstement of any railway service ?

 

[spongsdad]

If there was such a stated demand for a better public transport link from Colne eastwards, would there need to be an even better existing bus service pattern to meet this demand, prior to the reinstement of any railway service ?

As i said in post #83, the Witch Way x43 service terminates these days at Nelson, whereas in Ribble Motors time it ran to Skipton. i would submit that public transport between Burnley and Skipton is much "thinner" than it used to be. 75 minutes by bus is unlikely to generate much through traffic. I fail to see where the expected passenger numbers on a restored rail link into Yorkshire are to come from.

 

[John S2]

... public transport between Burnley and Skipton is much "thinner" than it used to be. 75 minutes by bus is unlikely to generate much through traffic. I fail to see where the expected passenger numbers on a restored rail link into Yorkshire are to come from.

The fact is that most people in 2014 will not use slow bus services. The level of demand for a bus service is not a useful indicator of how popular a train service would be.
I travel frequently within the East Lancs/West Yorks area and would use a reopened Colne-Skipton service regularly if it existed. Obviously I am biased because I live in the area, but reopening Colne-Skipton would have considerable economic and social benefits for a generally depressed region.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The fact is that most people in 2014 will not use slow bus services. The level of demand for a bus service is not a useful indicator of how popular a train service would be.

People in 2014 have the option of the "slow" bus (which has numerous bus stops en route) or a car. If what you say about most people in 2014 will not use slow bus services, the obvious conclusion that will be drawn will be that these bus services will not be commercially viable and will, as such, be withdrawn or become tendered services that attract local authority subsidies, but a reading of how local authorities in many areas are reviewing their financial commitment to such services there will be cuts in this financial support.. The car will then reign supreme.

There is no rail service between Colne and Skipton for people wishing to travel between these two settlements and there has not been one for a very long period of time, so it will not form a part of the thinking of the vast majority of these people.

 

[John S2]

People in 2014 have the option of the "slow" bus (which has numerous bus stops en route) or a car. If what you say about most people in 2014 will not use slow bus services, the obvious conclusion that will be drawn will be that these bus services will not be commercially viable and will, as such, be withdrawn or become tendered services that attract local authority subsidies, but a reading of how local authorities in many areas are reviewing their financial commitment to such services there will be cuts in this financial support.. The car will then reign supreme.

There is no rail service between Colne and Skipton for people wishing to travel between these two settlements and there has not been one for a very long period of time, so it will not form a part of the thinking of the vast majority of these people.

It is stating the obvious that something that no longer exists will not frequently be thought about by most people.
Lack of public transport leads to at least some degree of social exclusion for those that, for whatever reason, do not have access to a car.

 

[tbtc]

I think the main reason for this being newsworthy is not the CBR figure but the fact that SELRAP is more "pr savy" than a lot of the other rail pressure groups, eg when was the last time anyone saw anything from OPSTRA (i think its that) the group for Preston Ormskirk Southport line inc Burscough curves reinstatement ?

Absolutely!

Considering the relatively weak case that they are trying to promote, the SELRAP people have really good PR skills - John Craven, Joanna Lumley, Tony Robinson, Justin Welby, Floella Benjamin (plus Hamble and Big Ted?), Alan Bennett, Ian Hislop, John Kettley (is a weatherman, a weatherman, a weatherman) and Ken Loach are in favour, 49 MEPs, 3 Members of the Scottish Parliament and one member of the Northern Ireland Assembly want it to happen (no members of the Welsh Assembly/ Government?) - imagine if we could get all of these people to back something more substantial - like your Burscough curves example?

If any of the SELRAP people read this, well done on the PR stuff (shame about the substance though)

Actually, if the CBR is over six, I'd say that was extremely newsworthy, since poor "CBR's" are currently the most convenient excuse for not reopening anything. (I wonder what Whitehall will come up with if this CBR is true !?)

If they reckon we will have £6.10 in real* benefits for every £1 of total cost then that's an amazing figure and I'll remortgage my house to invest!

If...

(* - i.e. measurable things like ticket revenue, rather than ubsubstantiated things)

In addition, in SELRAP's mission statement it says about connecting Nelson Burnley Colne to the more "prosperous" West Yorks area !!!! (Sorry prosperous ???!!! their mission statement must of been written by a Yorkie !)

Surely people in Nelson/ Burnley/ Colne are looking forward to a direct service to Keighley, where the streets are paved with gold?

Presumably the new Grip 2/3 study (according to OP) produced by ARUP (according to the local rag) contains this new figure. But since SELRAP haven't published this report yet who really knows?

Exactly, seems like the SELRAP PR machine at work again, their agm was on March 10 yet no mention of anything new on their website, or indeed anything for the last 18months !

If this was a confirmed figure then you would have expected sometjing factual to have been published

You would that that with such a healthy BCR they would be shoving it in everyones face instead of keeping it secret!

As I said previously in this thread, there are three main options for a SELRAP reopening (a Parry People mover style stand-alone service, a simple extension of the current Blackpool South service to Skipton, a double tracked line providing long distance services which would mean electrifying lines through Blackburn to Preston and Bolton etc plus lots of other infrastructure upgrades elsewhere)...

...at the moment, we know that SELRAP are claiming to be able to turn every quid into £6.10, but we don't even know which type of reopening they are basing these figures on (simple, expensive?).

Maybe I'm an old cynic, but it does seem strange that they've worked out the 430,000 passenger numbers*each year, they've worked out the benefits it'll bring, but they don't want to share this... still, it made for a nice story in the papers.