Leeds Station concourse and platform improvements

[HowardGWR]

This was a part of yet another typically grandiose scheme around 1992. The plan was to have a station on the distribution centre/Woodpecker Car Park across the road to the East of Quarry House, to service the business/hotel/entertainment complex that was being built on Quarry Hill. Quarry House had just been occupied, the Playhouse was newly opened, and the rest....? A couple of individual developments have cropped up, but there is still the derelict/landscaped area that, for me, symbolises Leeds.

Interesting, I see that there used to be a station, Marsh Lane, there. With all those employment locations and nearby housing, it surprises me there is no suggestion of a reopening. Put me right if no go.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Interesting, I see that there used to be a station, Marsh Lane, there. With all those employment locations and nearby housing, it surprises me there is no suggestion of a reopening. Put me right if no go.

I'd guess that slowing the passage of (some) trains through a very congested two-track section would be a problem, to be honest the whole of Leeds to Micklefield junction would ideally be quadrupled, but getting it done is another thing altogether.

 

[driverlewis]

I'd guess that slowing the passage of (some) trains through a very congested two-track section would be a problem, to be honest the whole of Leeds to Micklefield junction would ideally be quadrupled, but getting it done is another thing altogether.

Sadly once again not enough room most of the stations are built in the centre of these towns and the tracks also go over small bridges meaning it would take ages and a lot of money

 

[Grumpy]

This was a part of yet another typically grandiose scheme around 1992. The plan was to have a station on the distribution centre/Woodpecker Car Park across the road to the East of Quarry House, to service the business/hotel/entertainment complex that was being built on Quarry Hill. Quarry House had just been occupied, the Playhouse was newly opened, and the rest....? A couple of individual developments have cropped up, but there is still the derelict/landscaped area that, for me, symbolises Leeds.

I don’t see why you need anything grandiose. Just two platforms against the existing tracks-partly at the top of the embankment with the gravestones on and partly alongside the existing road bridge. This should be able to fit a 6 car train without demolishing anything.
It would be opposite the bus and coach station, a couple of hundred yards or so from the new Victoria Gate shopping centre, close to the markets and other attractions on the eastern side of the city centre.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting, I see that there used to be a station, Marsh Lane, there. With all those employment locations and nearby housing, it surprises me there is no suggestion of a reopening. Put me right if no go.

I don't see that there's either the physical room or the capacity, given that the two track stretch between Leeds and Micklefield is one of the most congested in the north. It's already at the stage where if a train through there is a couple of minutes late everything could still be riding the yellows an hour later. Trying to fit in an additional station call would tip it over the edge.

In an ideal world there would be the physical room and the capacity, as that end of town is going to get a lot busier when Victoria Gate opens next year, but I don't see how there would be without basically rebuilding the whole stretch between City station and Neville Hill. And the cost of that would make £20m look like pocket money.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't see that there's either the physical room or the capacity, given that the two track stretch between Leeds and Micklefield is one of the most congested in the north. It's already at the stage where if a train through there is a couple of minutes late everything could still be riding the yellows an hour later. Trying to fit in an additional station call would tip it over the edge.

In an ideal world there would be the physical room and the capacity, as that end of town is going to get a lot busier when Victoria Gate opens next year, but I don't see how there would be without basically rebuilding the whole stretch between City station and Neville Hill. And the cost of that would make £20m look like pocket money.

I find it interesting to contemplate that Manchester has just such a situation with the Deansgate / Oxford Rd / Piccadilly stretch. It was noticeable that when they expected huge crowds, they had to close at least one of those stations (Deansgate I think).

I suspect a 'big project' would need a different animal than the Leeds LA to promote it though.

As an alternative, on road trams, Metrolink style, could perhaps fulfil the purpose as a parallel route, changing onto it at a new interchange at the Richmond Hill / Pontefract Street location which would run past Leeds Central, thus enabling a fast local service between the two with three or four stops. It seems there is room there.

I am going by maps here, rather than local knowledge.

 

[driverlewis]

we could see this acctualy happen but dont count on it for capacity http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13933304.__230m_plan_to_reinstate_key_North_railway_line_receives_major_boost/

 

[Starmill]

Journey times from Newcastle, Durham and Darlington to Leeds would be cut by about one hour as rail users would no longer need to travel to York before changing trains.

Yeah, because there definitely aren't two direct trains an hour already.

 

[L+Y]

we could see this acctualy happen but dont count on it for capacity http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13933304.__230m_plan_to_reinstate_key_North_railway_line_receives_major_boost/

Given there's no chance of reinstating the Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate line (trackbed has been built on all over the place), you'd be routing these trains down the Harrogate-Horsforth-Leeds line, which is itself a busy commuter route and only scheduled to get busier still: so doesn't this just transfer capacity issues to the other side of the city?

 

[Grumpy]

I don't see that there's either the physical room or the capacity, given that the two track stretch between Leeds and Micklefield is one of the most congested in the north. It's already at the stage where if a train through there is a couple of minutes late everything could still be riding the yellows an hour later. Trying to fit in an additional station call would tip it over the edge.

In an ideal world there would be the physical room and the capacity, as that end of town is going to get a lot busier when Victoria Gate opens next year, but I don't see how there would be without basically rebuilding the whole stretch between City station and Neville Hill. And the cost of that would make £20m look like pocket money.

I don't think the problem is quite that bad. The Leeds-Micklefield line carries 10/11 trains/hour in the peak. There are far busier elsewhere. At the point where they would be passing the new station they are currently only doing approx. 20 mph i.e. there would not be the delay and disruption of stopping from say 80 mph (as will be the case at Kirkstall).

Network Rail's proposals for the Manchester-York route include signalling alterations to improve headways and capacity. I don't believe there would be any need to rebuild anything between City Station and Neville Hill to accommodate this station.

 

[billio]

I don’t see why you need anything grandiose. Just two platforms against the existing tracks-partly at the top of the embankment with the gravestones on and partly alongside the existing road bridge. This should be able to fit a 6 car train without demolishing anything.
It would be opposite the bus and coach station, a couple of hundred yards or so from the new Victoria Gate shopping centre, close to the markets and other attractions on the eastern side of the city centre.

As one who has to walk* between Leeds Bus Station and the railway station at least twice a week, a station close to the bus station would be marvellous. I think there is a possible site for a station between York and Brussels Streets, where there is space on one side and some rather poor looking buildings next to the railway on the other. I don't hold out any hope at all, so don't think this is meant to be a realistic suggestion.

* Or jog if the train or bus is late and at my age that's not a pretty sight.

 

[Oswyntail]

As one who has to walk* between Leeds Bus Station and the railway station ...

And there you have the chief factor - it is very little effort to walk from anywhere in Leeds centre to the station. This is because Leeds is actually quite a small town centre, surrounded by masses of sprawl. Even with the proliferation of Malls, there is nothing to the East of the station busy enough to justify an urban station (masses of purely residential areas further out. Similarly to the West - possibly the Kirkstall complex but that is all. What Leeds does need, in all directions, is a modern rapid transit system, to get the inhabitants of the sprawl into town and out without all the cars (outside the rush, driving through the centre - which most have to do to get anywhere - is actually quite well planned and easy). Given the ability of local authorities in West Yorkshire to waste time, effort, and money, I shall not hold my breath

 

[HowardGWR]

What Leeds does need, in all directions, is a modern rapid transit system, to get the inhabitants of the sprawl into town and out without all the cars (outside the rush, driving through the centre - which most have to do to get anywhere - is actually quite well planned and easy). Given the ability of local authorities in West Yorkshire to waste time, effort, and money, I shall not hold my breath

See my post #186. Could that suggestion not be the core of one of the tram links? A new station in the east and thus if you come from the east, you can transfer to a tram to get you nearer to the centre and vice versa from Central. That tram of course may have continued in both directions to suburbs further out, but it links the bus station and markets, etc, in both directions to a railway station.

 

[Grumpy]

Quarry House had just been occupied, the Playhouse was newly opened, and the rest....? A couple of individual developments have cropped up, but there is still the derelict/landscaped area that, for me, symbolises Leeds.

I noticed in the local paper this week that Caddick are about to start building offices etc. on their site at Quarry Hill which presumably deals with the derelict/landscaped land in that area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What Leeds does need, in all directions, is a modern rapid transit system, to get the inhabitants of the sprawl into town and out without all the cars

I am sure you are right. However the chances of the money being found for that are zilch

 

[billio]

You could build a new station between York St and Brussels Street which would be most convenient for the bus station and Quarry Hill. There is certainly room to build a station on the goods yard at Marsh Lane.

It would also be possible to have 4 tracks from this station to somewhere after Neville Hill as the tunnel and trackbed after Marsh Lane is wide enough for 4 tracks. Did there used to be 4 tracks all the way to Cross Gates ?.

However, rather off-topic, I think Leeds is wedded to the car as the new Eastgate development includes a new, massive car park (which could turn out to be the ugliest building in Leeds). I hope they have planned the traffic flow properly otherwise I can't see buses getting into and out of the bus/coach station very easily.

 

[deltic08]

I noted in today's "Yorkshire Post" that the Council are saying the new entrance had 20,000 users last week, including 4000 on Thursday.

Considering 100,000 use the station on weekdays, 4,000 using the new entrance is obviously only 4%, a very low figure for the cost of £20m, and not reducing congestion appreciably at the main barrier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's a lot of business south of the river, with more businesses moving there all the time. The entrance is needed.

I see precious little point in putting a new entrance in 50 yards up New Station Street, and have absolutely no idea why jayah thinks this would be necessary, given there are already two entrances to the station that face the city centre.

Two station entrances facing the City but connected to only one gate to/from platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It furstrates me that I have to slow down even further to navigate yet another obstacle in this dingy, congested and very poorly laid out station. Eugh.

Exactly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there is a need for relief then an eastern access would be valuable.
Of course a better solution would be an additional station alongside the bus station. Putting the £20m towards that would have been better.

I have been campaigning for years for a station here and addition of one line from east of Cross Gates to Leeds station throat for non stopping inbound trains. It falls on deaf ears at LCC and WYPTE.

The 40mph restriction at Marsh Lane and 55mph restriction at Neville Hill could easily be eased to 50mph and 80mph respectively because at present there is railway land available for slewing. It needs doing before TP electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don’t see why you need anything grandiose. Just two platforms against the existing tracks-partly at the top of the embankment with the gravestones on and partly alongside the existing road bridge. This should be able to fit a 6 car train without demolishing anything.
It would be opposite the bus and coach station, a couple of hundred yards or so from the new Victoria Gate shopping centre, close to the markets and other attractions on the eastern side of the city centre.

Width extension is better done on the other side to the graves as there is more room/vacant land all the way from Marsh Lane to Leeds station throat.

 

[Grumpy]

There is certainly room to build a station on the goods yard at Marsh Lane.
SNIP

Did there used to be 4 tracks all the way to Cross Gates ?.

SNIP
car park (which could turn out to be the ugliest building in Leeds). .

I would have thought building a station at Marsh Lane would be too far out and unattractive to passengers for the eastern end of the city centre. Ideally you need a covered bridge over the road to the bus station.

I recall in the late 60's there being 4 tracks from Crossgates to Neville Hill. The relief line tracks used short American rails which made a distinctive sound as the wheels hit the joints.

Given that most buildings in Leeds are ugly there is a lot of competition

 

[deltic08]

The line next to the bus station is heavily crowded by buildings on each side and a park area, their is the bridge going over the main road but that would cost way to much, the only place that seems reasonable would be on the outskirts of Leeds if where think of money and not knocking down the buildings

There is room on Leeds Parish Church side without any demolition to extend the width to three tracks and a station.

I was there only last night looking at the possibilities. Bridges over roads aren't a problem. If it can be done at Borough Market and between Manchester Piccadilly and Deansgate then it can be done here if the will is there.

Demolition of many buildings for the HS2 station in Leeds appears to be not a problem so why here on a classic route if necessary?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting, I see that there used to be a station, Marsh Lane, there. With all those employment locations and nearby housing, it surprises me there is no suggestion of a reopening. Put me right if no go.

See my earlier post. It was LCC policy until electrification of the Aire Valley route. It was planned to operate trains from Skipton/Bradford/Ilkley through Leeds station to a reinstated branch to Scholes for turnback to ease pressure on west end bay platforms. Introduction of electric trains made this impossible without electrification beyond Neville Hill. LCC were unwilling to pay for this on top of reinstatement costs. Even trackbed protection has been removed from the Cross Gates-Wetherby route and is now under threat from massive housing development of 10,000 houses and East Leeds Orbital Road.

Kirkstall Forge station was planned because of 1,000 houses yet reinstating to Scholes is ignored when 10,000 houses and P&R for the A64 are planned. Typical flawed thinking where railways are concerned.

Replies to my letters to LCC state that buses are perfectly capable of moving upwards of 5,000 commuters into Leeds City Centre from this area in the peaks!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, because there definitely aren't two direct trains an hour already.

You are not concentrating. Wake up and watch my lips.

This post was about reinstating the Harrogate-Northallerton line cutting journey time between Darliington and Harrogate by an hour. Nothing to do with York-Leeds via Micklefield. Typical.

 

[quantinghome]

There is room on Leeds Parish Church side without any demolition to extend the width to three tracks and a station.

I was there only last night looking at the possibilities. Bridges over roads aren't a problem. If it can be done at Borough Market and between Manchester Piccadilly and Deansgate then it can be done here if the will is there.

Demolition of many buildings for the HS2 station in Leeds appears to be not a problem so why here on a classic route if necessary?

I don't think anyone doubts this is technically possible. There will be some demolition, but I agree that the buildings involved are not the most attractive in Leeds. I imagine a widened viaduct could be designed sympathetically with interesting use made of the space underneath to mitigate its impact at street level.

The problem is funding. Who do you expect to pay for it, bearing in mind the cost would be in the £100-200m ballpark? LCC are facing a £34m cut in grant from Westminster, and couldn't even fund Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge without developer and DfT contributions. Network Rail have had to descope their CP5 projects due to cost overruns so they can't fund anything more than what they have already committed to. I suspect the easiest way to get funding is for it to be included in the NPR scope. There may be a good argument for separate fast tracks east out of Leeds as part of that scheme.

 

[deltic08]

Given there's no chance of reinstating the Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate line (trackbed has been built on all over the place), you'd be routing these trains down the Harrogate-Horsforth-Leeds line, which is itself a busy commuter route and only scheduled to get busier still: so doesn't this just transfer capacity issues to the other side of the city?

No. Only built on in three places. Still room for off line deviations so don't dismiss on this point alone. The campaign and support for this is steadily building.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could build a new station between York St and Brussels Street which would be most convenient for the bus station and Quarry Hill. There is certainly room to build a station on the goods yard at Marsh Lane.

It would also be possible to have 4 tracks from this station to somewhere after Neville Hill as the tunnel and trackbed after Marsh Lane is wide enough for 4 tracks. Did there used to be 4 tracks all the way to Cross Gates ?.

Yes , all the way from Marsh Lane to Cross Gates. Trackbed still available for requading.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think anyone doubts this is technically possible. There will be some demolition, but I agree that the buildings involved are not the most attractive in Leeds. I imagine a widened viaduct could be designed sympathetically with interesting use made of the space underneath to mitigate its impact at street level.

The problem is funding. Who do you expect to pay for it, bearing in mind the cost would be in the £100-200m ballpark? LCC are facing a £34m cut in grant from Westminster, and couldn't even fund Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge without developer and DfT contributions. Network Rail have had to descope their CP5 projects due to cost overruns so they can't fund anything more than what they have already committed to. I suspect the easiest way to get funding is for it to be included in the NPR scope. There may be a good argument for separate fast tracks east out of Leeds as part of that scheme.

Ex head of Network Rail in York, Phil Verster is on record for stating in the Yorkshire Post that mega bucks will need spending on this route in CP5 to prevent capacity crunch.

 

[quantinghome]

I saw you wrote this response to Starmill:

You are not concentrating. Wake up and watch my lips.

This post was about reinstating the Harrogate-Northallerton line cutting journey time between Darliington and Harrogate by an hour. Nothing to do with York-Leeds via Micklefield. Typical.

Starmill was responding to the bit in the Northern Echo article which stated:

Journey times from Newcastle, Durham and Darlington to Leeds would be cut by about one hour as rail users would no longer need to travel to York before changing trains.

The Northern Echo is clearly in need of better fact checking, which is what Starmill was picking up on. I'm not sure what he said that deserved such a brusque reply.

 

[Grumpy]

Ex head of Network Rail in York, Phil Verster is on record for stating in the Yorkshire Post that mega bucks will need spending on this route in CP5 to prevent capacity crunch.

Well he would wouldn't he. Would you really expect someone in his position to say he's already well funded and could manage with a bit less?

The trouble with this line is short trains. There's not a lot of profit in 2, 3 or 4 car trains all with driver and guard and all taking up paths. The need is for longer trains with more seats, not more short trains (e.g. another hourly TPE train to Newcastle). The frequencies are OK. There is no need to 4 track or knock buildings down to extend viaducts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the cost would be in the £100-200m ballpark .

What assumptions have you made to get to this figure? The basic need is 2 platforms approx. 6 carriages long. Nothing fancy or heavy-just sufficient to hold passengers and a few ticket machines (and lets be revolutionary-a canopy). A ramp down from each platform to street level. No car park costs.
You don't need to rebuild the existing road bridge-just erect something at each side that you can put a platform on, and similarly at the garden of rest.

A bridge over to the bus station would be a nice add-on.

No buildings to demolish, no quadrupling.

 

[quantinghome]

What assumptions have you made to get to this figure?

Well, I took the latest SPONS...

...then threw that away and stuck a wet finger in the air, stirred some leaves from a genuine BR-era Intercity buffet teabag, read the palm of the nearest p-way engineer and examined the entrails of...

Seriously, it was a rough figure in response to the idea of a widened viaduct from the station to Marsh Lane, based on the cost of Ordsall chord (85m) and a few other rail viaduct schemes I know about. It's not meant to be accurate, just an order of magnitude estimate.

I daresay your option would be cheaper than widening the viaduct. I don't really have an opinion on which would be better.

 

[lejog]

I don't think anyone doubts this is technically possible. There will be some demolition, but I agree that the buildings involved are not the most attractive in Leeds. I imagine a widened viaduct could be designed sympathetically with interesting use made of the space underneath to mitigate its impact at street level.

The problem is funding. Who do you expect to pay for it, bearing in mind the cost would be in the £100-200m ballpark? LCC are facing a £34m cut in grant from Westminster, and couldn't even fund Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge without developer and DfT contributions. Network Rail have had to descope their CP5 projects due to cost overruns so they can't fund anything more than what they have already committed to. I suspect the easiest way to get funding is for it to be included in the NPR scope. There may be a good argument for separate fast tracks east out of Leeds as part of that scheme.

Also other schemes have much higher priority for whatever funding is available. Two locations for a station at Leeds East were among the 60 odd considered in the recent New Stations in W & N Yorkshire report, but scored poorly on construction and operational factors and didn't make the final 13 sites taken further for more detailed evaluation. Not to be confused with East Leeds Parkway, which along with Thorpe Park, were two of the 5 sites recommended by the report.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Starmill was responding to the bit in the Northern Echo article which stated:

"Journey times from Newcastle, Durham and Darlington to Leeds would be cut by about one hour as rail users would no longer need to travel to York before changing trains."

The Northern Echo is clearly in need of better fact checking, which is what Starmill was picking up on. I'm not sure what he said that deserved such a brusque reply.

I was amused by the possibility that travel at the speed of light would apparently be possible on the Ripon line. An hour off Darlington to Leeds journey times (currently from 55mins) would be highly impressive.

 

[Grumpy]

Also other schemes have much higher priority for whatever funding is available. Two locations for a station at Leeds East were among the 60 odd considered in the recent New Stations in W & N Yorkshire report, but scored poorly on construction and operational factors and didn't make the final 13 sites taken further for more detailed evaluation. .

The methodology used in that report is flawed. Thus the value of a station is determined by the size of population ( i.e. potential passengers to Leeds) living within a given distance and the frequency of the potential service-the greater the nearby population and the more frequent service the higher the potential.
This is basically the system used by the PTE forty years ago using a Commodore "Pet" with a 4k RAM. One would have hoped they had moved on.. Whilst it might be ok for suburban stations that commuters might travel from, it gives no value to stations that might attract passengers to travel to. Thus White Rose Centre, which is a major retail and employment centre with millions of road journeys pa gets no credit due to the lack of nearby housing. Under this system you couldn't make a case to build Leeds City station.
In the case under discussion the proposed sites are dismissed on the basis of low nearby population and the frequent bus services past the site into Leeds
"these locations are well-served by high-frequency bus routes to the city centre". The point is totally missed that the role of this station would be to attract additional passengers by providing a better service for those whose destination is on the eastern edge of the city centre or interchange at the bus station. It's not to turn nearby residents into rail commuters to Leeds City station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...then threw that away and stuck a wet finger in the air, stirred some leaves from a genuine BR-era Intercity buffet teabag, read the palm of the nearest p-way engineer and examined the entrails of...

.

Fair enough. I suspect that's the method used by DfT

 

[lejog]

The methodology used in that report is flawed. Thus the value of a station is determined by the size of population ( i.e. potential passengers to Leeds) living within a given distance and the frequency of the potential service-the greater the nearby population and the more frequent service the higher the potential.
This is basically the system used by the PTE forty years ago using a Commodore "Pet" with a 4k RAM. One would have hoped they had moved on.. Whilst it might be ok for suburban stations that commuters might travel from, it gives no value to stations that might attract passengers to travel to. Thus White Rose Centre, which is a major retail and employment centre with millions of road journeys pa gets no credit due to the lack of nearby housing. Under this system you couldn't make a case to build Leeds City station.
In the case under discussion the proposed sites are dismissed on the basis of low nearby population and the frequent bus services past the site into Leeds
"these locations are well-served by high-frequency bus routes to the city centre". The point is totally missed that the role of this station would be to attract additional passengers by providing a better service for those whose destination is on the eastern edge of the city centre or interchange at the bus station. It's not to turn nearby residents into rail commuters to Leeds City station.

Despite your criticisms of the methods used for determining scores for usage, if you look at the table at the end of the report you will see that Leeds East scored very highly in respect of usage - green indicates a score of 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 - and not surprisingly was one of only ten sites out of 60 to get such a high score. As I said in my post it scored far less well on construction and operational factors and was ruled because of factors other than usage.

 

[deltic08]

I saw you wrote this response to Starmill:



Starmill was responding to the bit in the Northern Echo article which stated:



The Northern Echo is clearly in need of better fact checking, which is what Starmill was picking up on. I'm not sure what he said that deserved such a brusque reply.

In that case I apologise. I am so sick and weary of being questioned and misquoted on this forum.

They were my words again misquoted in the Northern Echo when I was referring to Darlington-Harrogate reduction in journey time and not Darlington-Leeds. If Starmill had quoted the NE and not made it look like his words in relation to a thread about east Leeds I would not have responded.

 

[Grumpy]

Despite your criticisms of the methods used for determining scores for usage, if you look at the table at the end of the report you will see that Leeds East scored very highly in respect of usage - green indicates a score of 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 - and not surprisingly was one of only ten sites out of 60 to get such a high score. As I said in my post it scored far less well on construction and operational factors and was ruled because of factors other than usage.

You are absolutely correct. However I maintain that the methodology is suspect and understates the value of destination stations. Thus the White Rose station would be adjacent to a shopping centre that has over 13million visitors pa and 4,000 employees. The adjacent business park employs several thousand more. There are probably some 30 million journeys to/from this location pa, the surrounding roads are congested for much of the day, and yet the table you quote only predicts 42,000 users pa-approx. 0.1% of the potential market.
The figures quoted in the table for the bus station/Marsh lane options are similarly understated. This would serve the eastern side of the city centre and be adjacent to the bus station but the usage forecast is only 1% of the City station.
It was given a red card for operational aspects because of the bus services passing the site as stated, and also because the methodology would automatically give any station within 5km of Leeds station a red card. So if Burley Park was being investigated by this study it would never have been built, being within 5km of Leeds station, and therefore red carded as not viable. Which would have been a shame because it cost relatively little to build and has over 600k users pa.

The station being marked down for Construction reasons is understandable. It wouldn't be straight forward and the study rightly favours "easy to construct" locations. In the case of this station the main uncertainties focus around the potential construction costs of the station due to its elevated location and the various possible alternatives of providing step-free access to the platforms.
Which is fair enough but those are precisely the words used to describe the issues at Elland which surprise surprise makes the shortlist.

My view on reading this report when it was first issued was that it was a political report designed to give the local government sponsors what they want-scatter the proposed stations around, a little bit for everybody, and don't spend it all in Leeds.

 

[Starmill]

In that case I apologise. I am so sick and weary of being questioned and misquoted on this forum.

They were my words again misquoted in the Northern Echo when I was referring to Darlington-Harrogate reduction in journey time and not Darlington-Leeds. If Starmill had quoted the NE and not made it look like his words in relation to a thread about east Leeds I would not have responded.

Thank you. I rather think this is a worthy project - but then if only everything I wanted in Transport Policy could become a reality! What needs to happen is a robust case and political support - of the kind that is rather damaged by the sort of reporting in the Northern Echo!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The main question, for me, is whether a new station 3/4 mile from an existing one would create new journeys. I'd say not. It might be more convenient for the east end of the city centre, not that there's much there, but it isn't a long walk to city station. I don't see the benefit of it, especially when people are bitching about this new entrance being a waste of cash because all it does a save people a relatively short walk.

£20m is chickenfeed compared to the work required to build a new station near the bus station. I'd rather see that spent on areas that aren't served by rail at all, or are badly served, before spending £150m+ on a new station a 15 minute walk from an existing one.

Elland and White Rose are very different, as they'd create huge new opportunities, not just for the shopping centre but for the significant office and commercial space around it. The only thing that'd sink a White Rose station is the lack of housing nearby, but that didn't stop Apperley Bridge.