Ideas for York - Leeds - Manchester improvements

[Neptune]

Leeds to Manchester (and beyond both) is the huge market which is being hindered by stopping at relatively small places such as Huddersfield and Dewsbury. I have lost track of what this project is planning to deliver but I recall a forecast spend of approx £10 billion to cut Manchester to York journey times by 8 minutes. You could probably achieve much of that for nothing by running some trains nonstop between Leeds and Manchester. Huddersfield might still have some semi-fast stops plus stoppers

Seriously have you ever seen the turnover of passengers at Huddersfield on TPE services? Do you not realise that passengers on the route aren’t just travelling from Manchester to Leeds and vv.

Is everyone’s time so precious that are travelling between the 2 major centres that 5 minutes makes all the difference without any of the future proofing that TRU provides?

 

[LittleAH]

No. There would be a maximum of 6 tph between Stalybridge and Victoria:

• 2 tph fast trains NE-York-Leeds-Huddersfield-Victoria-Lime Street
• 2 tph stopping trains Huddersfield-Stalybridge-Victoria
• 2 tph stopping trains Stalybridge-Victoria, extended west e.g. to Bolton/Wigan NW

But that’s not what will be delivered firstly with TRU and then with NPR on this route

 

[Grumpy]

Good idea, let's spend the TPRU budget on trimming a few minutes off the overall journey for just two out of the six trains per hour, rather than increasing capacity. That wouldn't be squandering millions for marginal gains, would it?

The cognitive dissonance in your post is astounding. New platforms are a waste, but spending millions on a minor realignment to gain 5 minutes at the most wouldn't be?

You can increase capacity by running longer trains, no need to spend billions on that. When first dieselised some of the trains were class 40 plus 10 coaches, later class 46 plus 11 coaches.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2022 ==

Seriously have you ever seen the turnover of passengers at Huddersfield on TPE services? Do you not realise that passengers on the route aren’t just travelling from Manchester to Leeds and vv.

Is everyone’s time so precious that are travelling between the 2 major centres that 5 minutes makes all the difference without any of the future proofing that TRU provides?

I have experienced the scrum at Huddersfield many times and I haven't said Huddersfield shouldn't have any service.

By the same token I would ask if you have ever been to the similarly sized likes of Doncaster and Peterborough? If so, you will have noticed that many trains don't call there.

 

[Neptune]

I have experienced the scrum at Huddersfield many times and I haven't said Huddersfield shouldn't have any service.

By the same token I would ask if you have ever been to the similarly sized likes of Doncaster and Peterborough? If so, you will have noticed that many trains don't call there.

I have indeed been to both stations many times and as you say they are similarly sized to Huddersfield. However they both get a great many more trains which equate to many more seats than Huddersfield gets on their relative core mainlines and those trains that pass through do so at a much higher speed than would ever be attainable at Huddersfield having travelled far greater distances than TPE trains do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

By the same token I would ask if you have ever been to the similarly sized likes of Doncaster and Peterborough? If so, you will have noticed that many trains don't call there.

Did you visit Doncaster and Peterborough in the early hours of a Sunday morning and based your comment on that?

Doncaster and Peterborough both have plenty of services serving them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You can increase capacity by running longer trains, no need to spend billions on that. When first dieselised some of the trains were class 40 plus 10 coaches, later class 46 plus 11 coaches.

You're not comparing like with like there at all. Those 10 or 11 coach trains will have included at least 1 full brake vehicle, and load 10 or 11 was the exception not the rule. Extending trains also costs money as you have to extend platforms, signalling sections, loops, depot sidings, etc etc.

 

[nr758123]

Leeds to Manchester (and beyond both) is the huge market which is being hindered by stopping at relatively small places such as Huddersfield and Dewsbury. I have lost track of what this project is planning to deliver but I recall a forecast spend of approx £10 billion to cut Manchester to York journey times by 8 minutes. You could probably achieve much of that for nothing by running some trains nonstop between Leeds and Manchester. Huddersfield might still have some semi-fast stops plus stoppers

This is not the first time that it's been suggested that the way to slightly improve an already fast and frequent service between Manchester and Leeds city centres is to reduce the service at some of the intermediate stations. It was a bad idea on every previous time it has been proposed or done, and it's a bad idea now.

The intermediate stations are not little used stations (with the possible exception of Ravensthorpe), and there's no case for reducing service levels to make way for more or slightly faster expresses.

The route needs increased capacity overall, not for capacity to be taken from local stopping services or from semi-fast services and reallocated to the (allegedly far more important) city centre to city centre passengers.

 

[Manutd1999]

Because what is suggested would mean 8tph between MCV - SYB.

Post TRU, I think 8ph is exactly what is being planned/proposed.

I was under the impression that there will be 8ph between Huddersfield and Manchester (4ph fast, 2ph semi-fast and 2ph stoppers). 6ph will run to Victoria, with the other 2ph going to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

This will be supplemented by 2ph from the west side of Manchester (likely Wigan) which terminate at SYB, giving 8ph total.

8ph on two-tracks, with the slow services calling at Ashton, shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Grumpy]

This is not the first time that it's been suggested that the way to slightly improve an already fast and frequent service between Manchester and Leeds city centres is to reduce the service at some of the intermediate stations. It was a bad idea on every previous time it has been proposed or done, and it's a bad idea now.

Approx 55 minutes to do 41 miles? 45mph. That's not a fast service

 

[tbtc]

Skip stopping works on some routes but I don’t think it’s a good idea to avoid Huddersfield stops here

Firstly, the time saving would be very low given all of the flat junctions/ paths through the station etc

Secondly, if you did achieve much of a time saving, there’s the danger that you push the vast majority of longer distance passengers onto just “two” non stop services per hour - at the moment the passenger loads are relatively balanced regardless of the eastern/ western terminus. But if you had (for example) a half hourly Liverpool - Newcastle that ran non stop from Manchester to Leeds, you might see a disproportionate number of long distance passengers move to those services whilst Stalybridge/ Huddersfield/ Dewsbury are focused on only a couple of trains per hour (which will now be a lot slower as they are picking up stops west and east of Huddersfield as well as Huddersfield itself)

Better to run it where everything from Manchester to Leeds takes around the same time so that passengers are balanced better (e.g. if the 10:00 From Manchester stops at Stalybridge and Huddersfield then the 10:15 stops at Huddersfield and Dewsbury), keep it to four “fast” Trains an hour of decent length and stop worrying so much about whether two places hundreds of miles apart have a direct service (does it really matter that much whether Newcastle/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull have a direct train to Manchester Airport/ Liverpool each hour, as long as there’sa service from these eastern termini to Leeds/ Manchester and a service from Leeds/ Manchester to these western termini?)

The agenda of the (cancelled) Rail North Committee meeting today references extension of the Manchester-Huddersfield stopping service from May 2023. Whether this would be a replacement for Northern's Huddersfield-Castleford service is not stated.

That’s very interesting, thanks, can’t say I agree with it as a priority but interesting to see it being recommended at that level

I don't think anyone (well, maybe one) is actually suggesting that we divert an existing service away from Leeds.

I'm under no illusion that such a service would suddenly become the premier route between Huddersfield and York, but I do think that it would do more than minibus numbers. Which is more than can be said for some of the stations getting opened or reopened in Scotland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2022 ==

It’ll be better used than Reston, no doubt! But you can probably guess my opinions on box ticking / white elephant projects like Reston…

I’m sure there’s demand at each section of the route, it’s just hard to tie it all together, given that we already had most of the component parts (hourly Huddersfield - Wakefield - Castleford, hourly Wakefield - York, three or four per hour Huddersfield - York).

I can see the logic in extending the Manchester stopper beyond Huddersfield to Wakefield like in FNW days

IMHO the Castleford extension of the Northern Huddersfield - Wakefield service only happened because one DMU couldn’t run an hourly shuttle so if they are going to employ a second DMU then it might as well go somewhere to keep it out of the way, so it’s not imperative that they keep the Huddersfield - Castleford link - but to go from nothing on the Castleford - York like to a couple of six coach trains per hour feels like overkill - especially as extending the Barnsley stoppers beyond Castleford to York would actually provide some new links

You're not comparing like with like there at all. Those 10 or 11 coach trains will have included at least 1 full brake vehicle, and load 10 or 11 was the exception not the rule. Extending trains also costs money as you have to extend platforms, signalling sections, loops, depot sidings, etc etc.

Plus coaches in the loco hauled era were often shorter than twenty metres long (sixty five and a half feet), compared to the twenty three/ twenty six metre length of modern stock - i.e. an 802 carriage is thirty percent longer than most Mk1/ Mk2 carriages

So the “eleven” coaches needs to be seen in some context - maybe a five coach 802 has roughly as many seats as a seven coach loco hauled train (especially if they had to all have modern sized toilets etc)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can see the logic in extending the Manchester stopper beyond Huddersfield to Wakefield like in FNW days

IMHO the Castleford extension of the Northern Huddersfield - Wakefield service only happened because one DMU couldn’t run an hourly shuttle so if they are going to employ a second DMU then it might as well go somewhere to keep it out of the way, so it’s not imperative that they keep the Huddersfield - Castleford link - but to go from nothing on the Castleford - York like to a couple of six coach trains per hour feels like overkill - especially as extending the Barnsley stoppers beyond Castleford to York would actually provide some new links

As far as I can tell, only one person on this thread had suggested diverting one of the "quasi-intercity" Trans-Pennine services to run via Wakefield and Castleford instead of Leeds. That's clearly not a sensible idea. Doing the same with the Huddersfield to Wakefield/Castleford (when it runs) is not the same thing.

I agree that extending the Manchester to Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield Kirkgate makes sense, and if it were to happen that would be the service you'd further extend to Cas and York. However if it doesn't include at least a call at Mirfield it would be a missed opportunity. Deighton is more of an edge case (for getting into Huddersfield there's a decent enough bus service), so skipping that stop probably wouldn't cause too much upset.

Of course extending the Manchester stopper (which may well be six-car at times) that way probably isn't the best way to "trial" a Castleford to York service due to the high running costs of 185s. It would seem to be an "either/or" situation- you can either extend the Manchester stopper to Wakefield, or extend Huddersfield-Castleford to York... but trying to do both at the same time (particularly with 185s) is asking a bit much.

P.S. With regard to using the Barnsley stopper for any proposed Castleford to York service, that would deprive Darton (in South Yorkshire but covered by West Yorkshire PTE fares) of a direct Leeds service. Using the Huddersfields would not deprive anyone of anything- it's just (big air-quotes) a matter of making the sums add up.

 

[LittleAH]

Of course extending the Manchester stopper (which may well be six-car at times) that way probably isn't the best way to "trial" a Castleford to York service due to the high running costs of 185s. It would seem to be an "either/or" situation- you can either extend the Manchester stopper to Wakefield, or extend Huddersfield-Castleford to York... but trying to do both at the same time (particularly with 185s) is asking a bit much.

Diversionary route for TRU…

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Diversionary route for TRU…

Yes it is, though that's different to introducing a regular service. As I understand it, diverted services during the upgrade will call at Kirkgate and Castleford, but not any other intermediate stops. Even as a diversionary route, it won't be available in its entirety while there's a blockade at Heaton Lodge anyway.

 

[YorksLad12]

I’m sure there’s demand at each section of the route, it’s just hard to tie it all together, given that we already had most of the component parts (hourly Huddersfield - Wakefield - Castleford, hourly Wakefield - York, three or four per hour Huddersfield - York).

Not exactly; one of those is CrossCountry from a different station, the other is TPE's actual service (when they run it). This is a wholly new service on a new route - which is the bit that surprises me.

I agree that extending the Manchester to Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield Kirkgate makes sense, and if it were to happen that would be the service you'd further extend to Cas and York. However if it doesn't include at least a call at Mirfield it would be a missed opportunity. Deighton is more of an edge case (for getting into Huddersfield there's a decent enough bus service), so skipping that stop probably wouldn't cause too much upset.

If it's replacing the Northern service then it should call at Mirfield. I can't remember if it ever stopped at Deighton - post-TRU it could stop at Deighton and Ravensthorpe.

Yes it is, though that's different to introducing a regular service. As I understand it, diverted services during the upgrade will call at Kirkgate and Castleford, but not any other intermediate stops. Even as a diversionary route, it won't be available in its entirety while there's a blockade at Heaton Lodge anyway.

As I understood it, there would be a stop at Castleford to provide onward coach connection to Dewsbury and Huddersfield when that section is out of action. But I haven't seen a plan yet, and we're well away from it being needed anyway...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If it's replacing the Northern service then it should call at Mirfield. I can't remember if it ever stopped at Deighton - post-TRU it could stop at Deighton and Ravensthorpe.

That's the thing though- I'm not sure it is intended to replace the Northern service to Wakefield and beyond. My understanding was that it was to clear platform 4 at Huddersfield, and to allow 6-car formations in the peak. I'd appreciate some clarification on this matter from those "in the know".

The old Northern service did call at both Deighton and Mirfield, and has done since it was introduced in the early 1980s. Even when it used to run through from Manchester (and even Llandudno) it was an all-stations stopper East of Manchester (barring Park and Miles Platting which were skipped on most runs until they closed). When it ran as the "Grand Tour" it skipped Deighton on the Brighouse leg, as the current Bradford service does to this day. Once the upgrade is done, it would probably make sense to add a Deighton call to the Bradford service, as it'll have to be on the slow lines anyway in order to access the Bradley chord.

As I understand it, the plan is for any Huddersfield to Wakefield trains, regardless of who operates them and where it goes at either end, will call additionally at Ravensthorpe once the station is moved to the other side of the new junction.

 

[Winthorpe]

...given the likely cost and the current economic situation it seems very unlikely that this 'new build' will get beyond planning and discussion in the foreseeable future, and whilst it may continue to form part of long term plans it will always be 'tomorrow'

I quite understand that the purpose of this thread is to find practical solutions for improving the existing trans-Pennine rail links. In other words, the only realistic solutions our politicians are likely to make are ones that try to run the already overstretched infrastructure even harder. All the contributions on this thread are posted in that spirit of accepting this reality. I know, but isn't is depressing?

Cut a few stops here or there. Save a minute or two here or there. All of which just adds more bottlenecks here and there further down the line.

We need a new railway line between these regions as well as improving our existing railway lines. I sometimes think we give the short-term penny-pinching politicians an excuse to make short-term easy decisions. Rather than just making clear: we need a new railway line as well. We are just putting off reality further into the future. All these towns will grow over the next few decades. And in the end we'll have to build a new line anyway. Let's do it now. It will be cheaper if we just got on with it.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I quite understand that the purpose of this thread is to find practical solutions for improving the existing trans-Pennine rail links. In other words, the only realistic solutions our politicians are likely to make are ones that try to run the already overstretched infrastructure even harder. All the contributions on this thread are posted in that spirit of accepting this reality. I know, but isn't is depressing?

Cut a few stops here or there. Save a minute or two here or there. All of which just adds more bottlenecks here and there further down the line.

We need a new railway line between these regions as well as improving our existing railway lines. I sometimes think we give the short-term penny-pinching politicians an excuse to make short-term easy decisions. Rather than just making clear: we need a new railway line as well. We are just putting off reality further into the future. All these towns will grow over the next few decades. And in the end we'll have to build a new line anyway. Let's do it now. It will be cheaper if we just got on with it.

Here here

We need a new railway line between these regions as well as improving our existing railway lines.

But where should a new line run from and to ? All the way between Leeds and Manchester, via Bradford perhaps ?

How would this affect TRU, would you still spend billion between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe, grade seperation, new viaducts ect ect ?

 

[mike57]

I know, but isn't is depressing?

Yes it is, but politicians of all hues don't seem to understand that infrastructure improvements create economic activity by their delivery and afterwards when that infrastructure allows other businesses to florish, which in turn generates tax revenue. Given that we are no longer part of the EU these projects could be set up in a way that as much as possible of the spend remains in the UK.

Instead of 'throwing' money at people as a country we would be better using it to improve our infrastructure, as we would then get the benefit from it for years to come. The problem comes about because of short term policies, politicians are always looking to the next election, and the bean counters are taking a 6 or 12 month view.

Even the money that is spent doesn't seem to always achieve much, look at the Ordsal chord, the current 1tph doesn't look like value for money, but the wider issues concerning Castlefield were aired on here, and the predictions made came true, so who the hell was advising politicians, or did they just go off at a tangent.

Take the current issues with TPE and DfT where a taxpayer subsidied railway is delivering poor value for that subsidy, doesn't matter who is to blame, the outcome is still bad for the country as a whole.

To be honest given the current issues of cost overuns, delays to delivery and the current fragmented structure of the railways if I were a politician I would leary of promoting major improvements because I could see it going wrong. It almost becomes a case of 'deliver on the current commitments/requirements' then we can talk about improvements.

Which of course brings me back to my original post, what can be done within the current rail corridor at a manageable cost, because, rightly or wrongly, anything else looks like it is off the table at the moment.

 

[Winthorpe]

Here here



But where should a new line run from and to ? All the way between Leeds and Manchester, via Bradford perhaps ?

How would this affect TRU, would you still spend billion between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe, grade seperation, new viaducts ect ect ?

I would build a new line with tunnels. Like they do in the Alps. It could draw on the skills and expertise being built up as we speak on the HS2 project. I'm no expert on what those engineers will work on after the HS2 tunnels are finished, but wouldn't it be good if they move straight onto a trans-Pennine tunnel project? We build up expertise on projects, allow it to degrade once projects are finished, then have to build it up again once new projects are finally approved decades later. Like we do with the stop-start electrification projects.

I just think of TRU as being the logical continuation of HS2 carrying on north. From Manchester to Leeds; and if I had my way, carrying on further north to the central belt of Scotland.

Yes it is, but politicians of all hues don't seem to understand that infrastructure improvements create economic activity by their delivery and afterwards when that infrastructure allows other businesses to florish, which in turn generates tax revenue. Given that we are no longer part of the EU these projects could be set up in a way that as much as possible of the spend remains in the UK.

Instead of 'throwing' money at people as a country we would be better using it to improve our infrastructure, as we would then get the benefit from it for years to come. The problem comes about because of short term policies, politicians are always looking to the next election, and the bean counters are taking a 6 or 12 month view.

Absolutely. The pay off is more like centuries rather than just decades.

Even the money that is spent doesn't seem to always achieve much, look at the Ordsal chord, the current 1tph doesn't look like value for money, but the wider issues concerning Castlefield were aired on here, and the predictions made came true, so who the hell was advising politicians, or did they just go off at a tangent.

Take the current issues with TPE and DfT where a taxpayer subsidied railway is delivering poor value for that subsidy, doesn't matter who is to blame, the outcome is still bad for the country as a whole.

To be honest given the current issues of cost overuns, delays to delivery and the current fragmented structure of the railways if I were a politician I would leary of promoting major improvements because I could see it going wrong. It almost becomes a case of 'deliver on the current commitments/requirements' then we can talk about improvements.

Which of course brings me back to my original post, what can be done within the current rail corridor at a manageable cost, because, rightly or wrongly, anything looks like it is off the table at the moment.

Upgrading the very old existing infrastructure is so difficult. Particularly in the difficult terrain of the Pennines, complicated by the development that's happened around the railway since it was first built. Not to mention the disruption when there's few alternative routes. I always think how much quicker, cheaper and less disruptive it will be to upgrade the south West Coast Mainline (WCML) when HS2 is operational. With the new line, closures of the WCML for maintenance and renewals could be completed with lengthy blockades with passengers using HS2 instead during the work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The great thing about speculative threads is that they are only in the fertile minds of website members and that the required finance to see such dreams come to fruition still is safely stowed away in the golden money pots of the leprechauns....

 

[Winthorpe]

The great thing about speculative threads is that they are only in the fertile minds of website members and that the required finance to see such dreams come to fruition still is safely stowed away in the golden money pots of the leprechauns....

Oh, I know. It would be very expensive. I'm not an advocate of building high-speed rail all over the place.

But is connecting together the major areas of economic activity with a modern railway so outlandish? Many comparable developed countries have done it, some of them many decades ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh, I know. It would be very expensive. I'm not an advocate of building high-speed rail all over the place.

But is connecting together the major areas of economic activity with a modern railway so outlandish? Many comparable developed countries have done it, some of them many decades ago.

The advent of motorway construction to connect together the major areas of economic activity in Britain since the 1960s has been more of the perceived way forward in Governmental circles. HS1 was connectional to the Channel Tunnel whereas HS2 from London to Birmingham is still as it is in the 2020s.

 

[LittleAH]

Oh, I know. It would be very expensive. I'm not an advocate of building high-speed rail all over the place.

But is connecting together the major areas of economic activity with a modern railway so outlandish? Many comparable developed countries have done it, some of them many decades ago.

The problem is though, what many suggest - including TfN - is a new high speed line between Leeds - Manchester via Bradford largely in tunnels and in city centres, which as we know are the most expensive bits of the railway. Is it outlandish? No. Extremley expensive? Yes. But even then, it doesn't really take into consideration what happens after Leeds and Manchester.

Manchester itself has serious capacity constraints. No west facing terminating platforms, Castlefield, lack of 15/16 at Piccadilly, freight running through busy stations. To the east, Leeds only has a two track railway between Leeds and Church Fenton which is expected post-TRU to take 4 fast and 2 semi-fast TPE trains, a XC fast, and for NTL Halifax - Hull, Blackpool - York, Leeds - York. Not to mention there's lack of capacity on the ECML, especially as its a two track railway north of Darlington.

Fundamentally, we need an integrated rail plan for the North of England.

 

[tbtc]

The problem is though, what many suggest - including TfN - is a new high speed line between Leeds - Manchester via Bradford largely in tunnels and in city centres, which as we know are the most expensive bits of the railway. Is it outlandish? No. Extremley expensive? Yes.

Bradford feels like the elephant in the room - i think that people want to give the impression that they want Bradford involved despite the fact that including Bradford would come at a significant cost to other places

As I see it, you can spend billions to speed up the railway from Manchester to Leeds OR you can spend billions to create an alignment from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford that is not significantly faster than existing services from Manchester to Leeds.

To run a Manchester -Bradford - Leeds train that is significantly faster than current journey times from Manchester to Leeds would require megabucks

Is it better to shave ten/ fifteen minutes off the Manchester to Leeds journey time or to maintain that kind of overall journey time whilst introducing Bradford to the top table, and giving Bradford significant time savings (even though the Manchester to Leeds journeys won’t be any/much faster)?

I can imagine that opinions will vary and that whether someone lives in Bradford will have a big impact upon those opinions!

(For those from outside Yorkshire, Leeds station is essentially on the same latitude as Bradford Interchange, so Bradford Forster Square is slightly further north, running via Shipley to avoid the hills would take it further north still - any “via Bradford” route would be quite a deviation from a straight line between Manchester and Leeds - plus any proposals to go via Bradford always seem to have a lot of strings attached in terms of also getting the project to pay for uniting the two existing termini via some kind of “Crossrail” at the same time as tunnelling under a city centre where the underground “Beck” is prone to flood…. Looks very expensive with few benefits for those outside Bradford)

But even then, it doesn't really take into consideration what happens after Leeds and Manchester.

Manchester itself has serious capacity constraints. No west facing terminating platforms, Castlefield, lack of 15/16 at Piccadilly, freight running through busy stations. To the east, Leeds only has a two track railway between Leeds and Church Fenton which is expected post-TRU to take 4 fast and 2 semi-fast TPE trains, a XC fast, and for NTL Halifax - Hull, Blackpool - York, Leeds - York. Not to mention there's lack of capacity on the ECML, especially as its a two track railway north of Darlington.

Fundamentally, we need an integrated rail plan for the North of England.

Good points; if we have a high speed line from Manchester to Leeds but it’s segregated so that a Liverpool to Newcastle service would still have to run on the “old” line through Marsden etc then all we are doing is benefiting the two prime cities and letting the rest of “the north” struggle on with no task benefits

 

[Neptune]

Don’t worry about Bradford. The council appear to be trying their hardest to return Bradford back to Town status. The latest plans are to basically turn the city centre into a residential village with parkland around it. It’ll be ‘Town of (drug) culture’ by the time 2025 comes around!

By the time any sort of high speed rail arrives on the east, Bradford will just be a suburb of Leeds (which it affectively already is ).

The sooner we get an Aire Valley council the better. I’m sick of paying for vanity projects in a city I now refuse to visit.

 

[LittleAH]

Bradford feels like the elephant in the room

Agree with everything laid out. The whole 'youngest city' seems to be a nonsense and stakeholders always fail to take into account it is far easier for many in the BD postcode to get to Leeds. Not to forget the topography of Bradford. Why Burnham is obsessed with via Bradford is beyond me.

To run a Manchester -Bradford - Leeds train that is significantly faster than current journey times from Manchester to Leeds would require megabucks

I would've loved to know the true cost of it. Certainly the via Bradford figure which was only a few billion higher than via Huddersfield didn't seem right, which makes me suspect they were only ever going to do a parkway station nowhere near the city centre. It also seems more pertinent to improve Bradford - Leeds services, with line capacity and speed. The only thing I'd question, especially around NPR, is what would've been the cost of via Huddersfield and a Bradford City or Parkway station. That link could solve some additional capacity issues that the current TRU/NPR then has between Dewsbury and Leeds.

Good points; if we have a high speed line from Manchester to Leeds but it’s segregated so that a Liverpool to Newcastle service would still have to run on the “old” line through Marsden etc then all we are doing is benefiting the two prime cities and letting the rest of “the north” struggle on with no task benefits

Exactly. One of the problems I see when TRU finishes in 2030ish, is that we'll be looking at those 4 fast, 2 semi-fast services thinking where can they realistically go. You want 2tph to Newcastle but the ECML consultation wants to bin that off. Hull would presumably get 2tph but Manchester stations don't have enough capacity for more terminators, so where is that through train going (Liverpool from Dec 22 but that will most likely be a farce) and Victoria with that arena on top is a right pain. And does the line from Micklefield to Hull need more capacity to actually reduce journey time and have the right amount of service working?

It's actually why I quite like the new line between Manchester - Marsden idea. That integrates into a Huddersfield station with plenty of through capacity and then you've got Huddersfield - Westtown which sorts a speed restrictive area and grade separation means less getting in one anothers way. It also cuts time where it can really be cut to hit that magic 30 minute mark. I'd love to see the same between Leeds and York to allow the current route to operate the semi-fast and stopping services.

 

[Bantamzen]

Bradford feels like the elephant in the room - i think that people want to give the impression that they want Bradford involved despite the fact that including Bradford would come at a significant cost to other places

As I see it, you can spend billions to speed up the railway from Manchester to Leeds OR you can spend billions to create an alignment from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford that is not significantly faster than existing services from Manchester to Leeds.

To run a Manchester -Bradford - Leeds train that is significantly faster than current journey times from Manchester to Leeds would require megabucks

Is it better to shave ten/ fifteen minutes off the Manchester to Leeds journey time or to maintain that kind of overall journey time whilst introducing Bradford to the top table, and giving Bradford significant time savings (even though the Manchester to Leeds journeys won’t be any/much faster)?

I can imagine that opinions will vary and that whether someone lives in Bradford will have a big impact upon those opinions!

(For those from outside Yorkshire, Leeds station is essentially on the same latitude as Bradford Interchange, so Bradford Forster Square is slightly further north, running via Shipley to avoid the hills would take it further north still - any “via Bradford” route would be quite a deviation from a straight line between Manchester and Leeds - plus any proposals to go via Bradford always seem to have a lot of strings attached in terms of also getting the project to pay for uniting the two existing termini via some kind of “Crossrail” at the same time as tunnelling under a city centre where the underground “Beck” is prone to flood…. Looks very expensive with few benefits for those outside Bradford)

If there's one subject matter that is guaranteed to rise the heckles of some folk on these forums, its any idea to improve the infrastructure in or around Bradford. Quite why this city attracts such negative views I'll never understand, maybe what Bradford needs is to be on the Manchester Metrolink and then everyone will love us....

Seriously though, was NPR never just about getting from Manchester to Leeds a bit quicker? Of course it wasn't, there is no way any government is going to throw the tens of billions, maybe even hundreds just to save a few minutes of that journey. Anyone believing that needs to give their heads a wobble. The only way any new, high speed alignment would even have a chance of getting off the shelf at DafT would be if it could be shown that it would bring significant economic benefits to the regions it would serve. And this is why Bradford was seen as a desirable option for such a route, it is the second largest city / town in West Yorkshire with a significant population both in the historic city boundaries & the wider Metropolitan area. It was seen as a potential option to "level up" the area, one which if we are going to be honest has not attracted much in the way of investment of the years.

Now don't get me wrong, as a resident of the city for most of my life I'd love to see NPR come through here. But it won't, and for two reasons. One it would cost a vast amount of money. To expand on the geographical situation of the city, it sits in a deep bowl surrounded on three sides with steep hills. Only to the north is their a relatively flat route out, heading towards the Aire Valley. So unless NPR ran along this route and then east along the Aire Valley, yes tunnelling in both directions would be needed to get between Manchester & Leeds. I'm a realist here, this ain't going to happen.

The second reason it won't come through Bradford is that NPR is, as Monty Python would describe it, a Norwegian Blue. It is dead, it has ceased to be, it has kicked the bucket. Given that National Rail & DafT are still scratching their arses over how to wire the existing TP route, something that should have been sorted a long time ago BTW, the chances of a whole new route are laughable at best. Hell, we can't even get HS2 into Yorkshire (and Manchester should be worried too), so NPR just ain't going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Don’t worry about Bradford. The council appear to be trying their hardest to return Bradford back to Town status. The latest plans are to basically turn the city centre into a residential village with parkland around it. It’ll be ‘Town of (drug) culture’ by the time 2025 comes around!

This sort of comment always has me in hysterics. Have you ever walked through Leeds city centre in the early morning, its like a scene out of a zombie apocalypse movie. More spiceheads than you can shake a copy of the Big Issue at. Or perhaps Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, or indeed any city or town with a significant population. Its probably best to leave the tired old cliches to the gutter tabloid media, and members of MumsNet....

By the time any sort of high speed rail arrives on the east, Bradford will just be a suburb of Leeds (which it affectively already is ).

The sooner we get an Aire Valley council the better. I’m sick of paying for vanity projects in a city I now refuse to visit.

An Aire Valley council? Yeah, that's even less likely than NPR. If Bradford as a whole struggles to get outside investment, how do you imagine Shipley, Bingley & Keighley will get on?

Agree with everything laid out. The whole 'youngest city' seems to be a nonsense and stakeholders always fail to take into account it is far easier for many in the BD postcode to get to Leeds. Not to forget the topography of Bradford. Why Burnham is obsessed with via Bradford is beyond me.

It is only easier because the infrastructure isn't there. One of my biggest regrets is that the Victorians were too eager to get lines into Bradford during the mid 19th century, but didn't think to work together to join up the two lines. From an infrastructure point of view this would have given the area potential much better links as opposed to being just Leeds facing.

I would've loved to know the true cost of it. Certainly the via Bradford figure which was only a few billion higher than via Huddersfield didn't seem right, which makes me suspect they were only ever going to do a parkway station nowhere near the city centre. It also seems more pertinent to improve Bradford - Leeds services, with line capacity and speed. The only thing I'd question, especially around NPR, is what would've been the cost of via Huddersfield and a Bradford City or Parkway station. That link could solve some additional capacity issues that the current TRU/NPR then has between Dewsbury and Leeds.

It would have been hugely expensive, well into tens of billions at least.

Exactly. One of the problems I see when TRU finishes in 2030ish, is that we'll be looking at those 4 fast, 2 semi-fast services thinking where can they realistically go. You want 2tph to Newcastle but the ECML consultation wants to bin that off. Hull would presumably get 2tph but Manchester stations don't have enough capacity for more terminators, so where is that through train going (Liverpool from Dec 22 but that will most likely be a farce) and Victoria with that arena on top is a right pain. And does the line from Micklefield to Hull need more capacity to actually reduce journey time and have the right amount of service working?

It's actually why I quite like the new line between Manchester - Marsden idea. That integrates into a Huddersfield station with plenty of through capacity and then you've got Huddersfield - Westtown which sorts a speed restrictive area and grade separation means less getting in one anothers way. It also cuts time where it can really be cut to hit that magic 30 minute mark. I'd love to see the same between Leeds and York to allow the current route to operate the semi-fast and stopping services.

I honestly can't even see a new line from Marsden into Greater Manchester happening. It would still be hugely expensive, and if above ground west of Standedge & would attract vast amounts of protests & objections. I fear the alignments we have are the ones we'll have to work with for a very long time.

 

[Neptune]

This sort of comment always has me in hysterics. Have you ever walked through Leeds city centre in the early morning, its like a scene out of a zombie apocalypse movie. More spiceheads than you can shake a copy of the Big Issue at. Or perhaps Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, or indeed any city or town with a significant population. Its probably best to leave the tired old cliches to the gutter tabloid media, and members of MumsNet....

Yes I worked in Leeds on shifts for over 20 years. It’s not through the night that bothers me. Try the relative cities through the day.

I look back 30-40 years ago when Bradford was pretty much on a par with its larger neighbours. Since then it has gone backwards into oblivion whilst Manchester and Leeds have risen into another stratosphere.

An Aire Valley council? Yeah, that's even less likely than NPR. If Bradford as a whole struggles to get outside investment, how do you imagine Shipley, Bingley & Keighley will get on?

Bingley Town Council has done more for us in the last year than Bradford Council has done in the last 10. Throw in Shipley and Keighley and at least my Council tax will be re-invested locally. Bradford council are only interested in the city centre, principally making it look nice around City Hall and stupid capital of culture bids that mean nothing. I’m a once proud Bradfordian but the only thing that connects me with the city now are the football team. It’s a horrible place now and saddens me so much to say it.

 

[Ken H]

Much of bradford district council area is the Aire and Wharf valleys. For them getting to manc means train or bus to Leeds then TPE. Bradford stations are irrelevant to them.
And qute a lot of Western Bradford will railhead to New Pudsey.
So the catchment for Interchange and FS is quite small.

 

[30907]

Bingley Town Council has done more for us in the last year than Bradford Council has done in the last 10. Throw in Shipley and Keighley and at least my Council tax will be re-invested locally. Bradford council are only interested in the city centre, principally making it look nice around City Hall and stupid capital of culture bids that mean nothing.

OT, but Keighley and the Worth Valley were key parts of the stupid capital successful city of culture bid.