Study launched into improving rail connectivity between Goole and Leeds

[driverd]

You are being deliberately obtuse here i think. It is nothing like that, could you expand on how it is similar to "Derby has good connections to London and Sheffield, why does it need a line to Birmingham as well". I am suggesting that a small town with a good service to two cities, does not need an increased service to a bigger, further away city.

If you are commuting into Leeds on a 1tp2h service, the consequence of missing that service is so high that you just drive. Sundays are irrelevant to the argument.

I don't disagree with the point that demand for this route would be a gamble - certainly at the intermediate stations. I would, however, highlight that Snaith is both reasonably sized and reasonably affluent, meaning it may have somewhat of a propensity to use rail. Looking beyond the intermediate stops, I think what may be being missed is the benefits of a Goole to West Yorkshire service. Whilst there is obvious benefit connecting to Leeds (in terms of near every metric, its offers more than Sheffield/Hull and substantially more than Doncaster), theres also the connectivity benefits of serving Pontefract/Castleford, especially as Castleford is itself becoming a bit of a useful connection node for York. One question for me would be how much it would tip the scales to run this Wakefield and connect an additional city/key interchange stations.

I strongly disagree with the point that 2tph is not substantially different to 2tpd. I can say with confidence that 2tph will be better used, the conundrum is just if they could drum up enough demand/social benefit to justify their existence.

Historically, there was always 3tpd to Goole with an additional lunchtime service. This was dropped under serco/abellio Northern. Personally I would see that as a touch more attractive if I lived that way out, but 2tph makes the train a viable prospect for some journeys, rather than only useful if the stars align.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If these referred to developments are on the sites of Eggborough Power Station and Kellingley Colliery then the power station site is a 30 minute walk from Whitley Bridge and the colliery site is probably even longer from the nearest station. Nobody is going to commute to them by train.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I don't disagree with the point that demand for this route would be a gamble - certainly at the intermediate stations. I would, however, highlight that Snaith is both reasonably sized and reasonably affluent, meaning it may have somewhat of a propensity to use rail. Looking beyond the intermediate stops, I think what may be being missed is the benefits of a Goole to West Yorkshire service. Whilst there is obvious benefit connecting to Leeds (in terms of near every metric, its offers more than Sheffield/Hull and substantially more than Doncaster), theres also the connectivity benefits of serving Pontefract/Castleford, especially as Castleford is itself becoming a bit of a useful connection node for York. One question for me would be how much it would tip the scales to run this Wakefield and connect an additional city/key interchange stations.

I strongly disagree with the point that 2tph is not substantially different to 2tpd. I can say with confidence that 2tph will be better used, the conundrum is just if they could drum up enough demand/social benefit to justify their existence.

Historically, there was always 3tpd to Goole with an additional lunchtime service. This was dropped under serco/abellio Northern. Personally I would see that as a touch more attractive if I lived that way out, but 2tph makes the train a viable prospect for some journeys, rather than only useful if the stars align.

Are you referring to 2 trains per hour (2tph) or 1 train per 2 hour 1(tp2h) there. 2tph is 4 times greater frequency than the other and would obviously be more useful, but would require much greater stock and person availability to run.

1 train per 2 hour is essentially useless for commuting purposes.

Snaith is the biggest settlement in the area and also tiny at 3,200 people. Its lucky the route still has a parly service.

 

[anothertyke]

This is best viewed as a marginal service improvement at marginal cost. PDFH is quite capable of guiding the study in terms of traffic and revenue impacts. Best let them get on with it.Either this will disappear without trace or there is just a chance it might stand up.

 

[yorksrob]

You are being deliberately obtuse here i think. It is nothing like that, could you expand on how it is similar to "Derby has good connections to London and Sheffield, why does it need a line to Birmingham as well". I am suggesting that a small town with a good service to two cities, does not need an increased service to a bigger, further away city.

If you are commuting into Leeds on a 1tp2h service, the consequence of missing that service is so high that you just drive. Sundays are irrelevant to the argument.


No it doesnt, but for the vast majority of people it is their primary means of transport, and public transport does not revolve around trains, no matter how much we may love catching them. I would love to live in the fantasy world of trains are the answer to everything, but unfortunately i live in the real world and am aware of the financial pressures and just how much we are sweating assets to run the services we do.

Leeds, and West Yorkshire as a whole is a big destination for work, shopping, leisure etc. The fact that Goole has direct services to other towns doesn't in any way mean that a direct service wouldn't be useful. Selby is in a similar position to Goole and its direct services to West Yorkshire are some of its busiest.

Two hourly isn't ideal for a commute, however there are people who use the lines West of Settle Junction for it and they manage with a sparse service.

It is those who spout the old canard about people thinking "trains being the answer to everything" who are being disingenuous. No one is saying they are - but they are the answer to some things - particularly linking towns and villages to major employment/education/economic centres over an already existing railway line.

 

[GingerSte]

For me, an important thing to get this working would be to get the linespeeds up where we can. It was alright having 30mph (or whatever painfully slow speed it was) between Knottingley and Goole) back when big heavy coal trains were using and abusing the tracks. Now that they've gone (with the exception of Biomass for Drax), there must be an opportunity to get the linespeeds up and the time to Goole down. Whether this needs new signalling or an improvement to the trackbed any structures, I don't know.

I would also be tempted to look into a new station in the east of Knottingley, around Wormersley Road. It would be about 1.4km (so just less than a mile) from Knottingley Station, and would bring a few thousand homes (I assume) within walking distance of the station.

A bit more controversially, I would probably not look at increasing the service from Hensall and Rawcliffe stations, as their settlements seem to me to be too small and far from the station to make them widely used. I'd rather have the time savings, especially if the timings are tight. This is unless the new housing mentioned previously was going to provide some infill between the stations and their settlements. Given the choice, I'd be serving Knottingley East, Whitley Bridge, Snaith and Goole.

The assumption has been made that it would be a service through Castleford that was extended. What about extending the service from Leeds through Wakefield (Westgate and Kirkgate)? I'm not saying it's better or worse - just throwing the question out there.

Also just throwing it out there, if there were to be 1 train per 2 hour extended to Goole, could the other train in the 2 hours be extended to Doncaster via Norton and Askern? Or could the service through Castleford be extended to Goole, and the service through Wakefield Extended to Doncaster (or the other way around)?

 

[YorksLad12]

... theres also the connectivity benefits of serving Pontefract/Castleford, especially as Castleford is itself becoming a bit of a useful connection node for York. One question for me would be how much it would tip the scales to run this Wakefield and connect an additional city/key interchange stations.

I mean, you could alternate between the via Castleford and via Wakefield services... 1tph to Leeds, either way!

Historically, there was always 3tpd to Goole with an additional lunchtime service. This was dropped under serco/abellio Northern. Personally I would see that as a touch more attractive if I lived that way out, but 2tph makes the train a viable prospect for some journeys, rather than only useful if the stars align.

I have a photo of a leaflet which shows departures from Leeds to Goole (all stops) at 0703, 0925, 1214, 1448, 1647, 1737. That was in 1979/80. Should be noted as well that there's normally 2, 2-car 150s parked up on P0 at Leeds for most of the day.

If these referred to developments are on the sites of Eggborough Power Station and Kellingley Colliery then the power station site is a 30 minute walk from Whitley Bridge and the colliery site is probably even longer from the nearest station. Nobody is going to commute to them by train.

I refer my Hon. Friend to Steeton and Silsden. It's a 24 minute walk from the centre of Silsden (judged to be the Town Hall) to the station, with a major road in the way, but it does fine. Drive or cycle to Whitley Bridge, or take a bus (if there is one - the 476 stops close by, but runs infrequently).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2025 ==

I would also be tempted to look into a new station in the east of Knottingley, around Wormersley Road. It would be about 1.4km (so just less than a mile) from Knottingley Station, and would bring a few thousand homes (I assume) within walking distance of the station.

Also just throwing it out there, if there were to be 1 train per 2 hour extended to Goole, could the other train in the 2 hours be extended to Doncaster via Norton and Askern? Or could the service through Castleford be extended to Goole, and the service through Wakefield Extended to Doncaster (or the other way around)?

Knottingley East was a PTE aspiration, decades ago (just on the right side of the border) but the economics didn't stack up.

Extending to Askern won't work as you'd have to miss the call at Knottingley - no platforms on that route any more. You could, potentially, build out from P2 to make a new P3 if you could get away with one platform. However, it would need a whole station rebuild as there's no accessible route to P2; so lift, new footbridge, new platform, say £30m.

 

[GingerSte]

Knottingley East was a PTE aspiration, decades ago (just on the right side of the border) but the economics didn't stack up.

Extending to Askern won't work as you'd have to miss the call at Knottingley - no platforms on that route any more. You could, potentially, build out from P2 to make a new P3 if you could get away with one platform. However, it would need a whole station rebuild as there's no accessible route to P2; so lift, new footbridge, new platform, say £30m.

Yes, it's a shame that the economics didn't work for the PTE. However, looking at the site, it doesn't look that difficult (read: expensive) to get a platform in place on either side, and you wouldn't need a footbridge in this location.

From Google Earth...

Looking west



Looking east

I had forgotten that the lines to Donny bypassed the station - it's been a long while since I've been that way.

Looking at the existing footbridge, that's not accessible for people in wheelchairs as it is. However, that's not a viable reason for not providing a compliant solution if we extended the bridge for the side needed for Donny-Leeds services.

I think the cheapest solution would be to put a platform face on the back of that existing platform (on the Wakefield-bound side). This would be served by both Donny and Leeds bound services. I don't know if this would trigger a need to rebuild the footbridge, but I'm assuming not (for now).

 

[YorksLad12]

I think the cheapest solution would be to put a platform face on the back of that existing platform (on the Wakefield-bound side). This would be served by both Donny and Leeds bound services. I don't know if this would trigger a need to rebuild the footbridge, but I'm assuming not (for now).

That was my assumption of how it could be done. You'd still need to make it fully accessible though, which is why I guestimated at £30m for lifts and a new footbridge as you would need to do a big-ish (re)build to make a new platform as well. Especially if our single new P3 (P0?) was being used in both directions, as that would mean only passengers from Pontefract to Knottingley would have level access, and only in that direction. There isn't a barrow crossing either.

 

[biggerisbetter]

There seems to be potential for thousands and thousands of houses around the stations on the line as far as Goole to help relieve the housing crisis in Leeds and other parts of the West Yorks conurbation.
Surely this would provide a solid base for an hourly stopper services Leeds to Goole to connect those new commuter estates to Leeds (and Hull with a change at Goole?)

One of the things I would like to see in a post-GBR world is improved co-ordination between GBR and Councils to integrate housing growth and service improvements. This line in my view would be a good example of that with material growth in the population of each settlement along the line helping to justify an improvement in services that benefits existing residents.

As part of this I would like to see at least hourly services on all routes where infrastructure allows (paid for by other savings beyond the scope of this thread) as I think that is the minimum service level to provide a step change in usage, particularly with a clock face timetable throughout the day.

I think this line could justify an hourly service as an extension of the Knottingley stopper if couple with housing growth along the line.

 

[AlastairFraser]

One of the things I would like to see in a post-GBR world is improved co-ordination between GBR and Councils to integrate housing growth and service improvements. This line in my view would be a good example of that with material growth in the population of each settlement along the line helping to justify an improvement in services that benefits existing residents.

As part of this I would like to see at least hourly services on all routes where infrastructure allows (paid for by other savings beyond the scope of this thread) as I think that is the minimum service level to provide a step change in usage, particularly with a clock face timetable throughout the day.

I think this line could justify an hourly service as an extension of the Knottingley stopper if couple with housing growth along the line.

Yes, hopefully GBR does cooperate with local authorities on Transit-Orientated Developments (TODs).

I agree that an hourly stopper to Goole would be a good start to encourage a reasonable level of usage, but I think the houses would have to come first to support this via S106/Community Infrastructure Levy contributions.

This line is particularly well suited for easy construction of new housing estates, in conjunction with rail service improvements, because of the volume of brownfield sites that are being or can be redeveloped (Eggborough Power Station, Hensall Quarry etc.), and nearby lower quality farmland.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I refer my Hon. Friend to Steeton and Silsden. It's a 24 minute walk from the centre of Silsden (judged to be the Town Hall) to the station, with a major road in the way, but it does fine. Drive or cycle to Whitley Bridge, or take a bus (if there is one - the 476 stops close by, but runs infrequently).

I have no idea why you would refer me to Steeton & Silsden. That isn't a destination but a place where commuters park to travel to Leeds or Bradford.

Two absolutely huge differences between Steeton & Silsden and Whitley Bridge are:

1. The former has a large car cark and the latter has parking for about 6 cars
2. The former is the first station inside the WYPTE area, and therefore has cheaper fares, and the latter is the first station outside the WYPTE area and therefore has more expensive fares. People would drive to Knottingley for the cheaper fares than Whitley Bridge.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The former is the first station inside the WYPTE area, and therefore has cheaper fares, and the latter is the first station outside the WYPTE area and therefore has more expensive fares. People would drive to Knottingley for the cheaper fares than Whitley Bridge.

Although I'm sure a deal can be done with WYPTE/WYCA/whatever it is called these days for extended validity outwith West Yorks with season ticket purchases at the very least.
I think this still exists with Harrogate and Skipton seasons.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I agree that an hourly stopper to Goole would be a good start to encourage a reasonable level of usage, but I think the houses would have to come first to support this via S106/Community Infrastructure Levy contributions.

The S106 and CIL payments could only realistically be used for upgrades to infrastructure and possibly a contribution to purchasing the additional couple of units needed to run the service but not additional operating costs over the medium to long term. Some of the costs over the short term could potentially be covered by requiring Travel Plans for each site that include rail vouchers for each home upon completion.

The infrastructure improvements paid for by the housing development could also include improved station parking, particularly at Whitley Bridge given its proximity to the motorway, which would also help to boost usage.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The S106 and CIL payments could only realistically be used for upgrades to infrastructure and possibly a contribution to purchasing the additional couple of units needed to run the service but not additional operating costs over the medium to long term. Some of the costs over the short term could potentially be covered by requiring Travel Plans for each site that include rail vouchers for each home upon completion.

The infrastructure improvements paid for by the housing development could also include improved station parking, particularly at Whitley Bridge given its proximity to the motorway, which would also help to boost usage.

What about the railway track itself? Could CIL go towards track upgrades to reduce journey times?

 

[YorksLad12]

I have no idea why you would refer me to Steeton & Silsden. That isn't a destination but a place where commuters park to travel to Leeds or Bradford.

Two absolutely huge differences between Steeton & Silsden and Whitley Bridge are:

1. The former has a large car cark and the latter has parking for about 6 cars
2. The former is the first station inside the WYPTE area, and therefore has cheaper fares, and the latter is the first station outside the WYPTE area and therefore has more expensive fares. People would drive to Knottingley for the cheaper fares than Whitley Bridge.

You said that people wouldn’t walk to the station; I showed you a popular station where the settlement is a similar distance away. I also said upthread that if services were reintroduced with other, integrated transport projects - such as a P&R site - it might work.

People driving to Knottingley wouldn’t find anywhere to park; whereas a P&R at Whitley Bridge, possibly with a special fare since it’s not in West Yorkshire, might encourage modal shift from east of Knottingley.

 

[GingerSte]

That was my assumption of how it could be done. You'd still need to make it fully accessible though, which is why I guestimated at £30m for lifts and a new footbridge as you would need to do a big-ish (re)build to make a new platform as well. Especially if our single new P3 (P0?) was being used in both directions, as that would mean only passengers from Pontefract to Knottingley would have level access, and only in that direction. There isn't a barrow crossing either.

It would be worth confirming that bit in bold above, if the powers that be were serious about putting in that platform face for Donny trains (which they're not - it's only a suggestion). I think you're right, but I'm not one of those law-talking guys.

I think lifts would make the whole thing a lot more expensive, though. They would be a big part of the £30M estimate you made. You add to that the need to replace the existing bridge (as it has stairs on the main span), and there's another big part of that £30M.

I have been thinking about a few other ways to do it, that would potentially be a lot cheaper.

Option 1: Ramp up to Headlands Lane Bridge
Headlands Lane passes over the railway approx 130m east of the ends of the platforms. Having ramps from both platforms up to Headlands Lane, and then knocking through that section of parapet. Part of the ramp for the Westbound (and Doncaster-bound) trains might be over some of the tracks serving the depot to the east of Headlands Lane. I'm not sure how this works out, so would need to be investigated.
Having just looked at Google Earth, there is no footpath on this bridge. There is a separate bridge on the other side (towards the depot). If this ramp were to be done, it would mean taking out one lane of the road over the bridge and putting in traffic lights. I assume that this wouldn't be popular, just to make a station compliant with DDA.

Option 2: New footbridge with ramps
This one feels like the cheapest option to me, especially if you can use the foundations for the existing bridge. I may be wrong though.

Option 3: Subway with ramps
I'm not a fan of subways, but I imagine we can make them tolerable these days. It would be at least worth investigating whether this was cheaper than a new footbridge with lifts. The thing to watch out for on this one would be the groundwater level, given the proximity of the river Aire. Might be do-able though.

Option 4: Barrow crossing
I assume that it would not be possible to put one in these days, given current regulations. I may be wrong though, so I've included it as an option.

Option 5: Moveable Structure (Swing bridge or drawbridge)
This one is a bit of a flight of fancy. It may be cheaper to put in a moveable structure that can go from platform to platform without ramps or lifts. You would do this at the end. It would obviously need to be linked to the signalling system, so it wouldn't be in place while trains were running. A bit like a level crossing, essentially. I imagine sorting out the necessary systems for the first one of these would take a lot of time, effort and money, but if this could be repeated at other stations, that would bring costs down. (I like this option the best, but that's just personal nerdy opinion.)

(Two of the funkier examples - I'm not suggesting we go this complicated though!)

 

[YorksLad12]

It would be worth confirming that bit in bold above, if the powers that be were serious about putting in that platform face for Donny trains (which they're not - it's only a suggestion). I think you're right, but I'm not one of those law-talking guys.

I think lifts would make the whole thing a lot more expensive, though. They would be a big part of the £30M estimate you made. You add to that the need to replace the existing bridge (as it has stairs on the main span), and there's another big part of that £30M.

I have been thinking about a few other ways to do it, that would potentially be a lot cheaper.

Option 1: Ramp up to Headlands Lane Bridge
Headlands Lane passes over the railway approx 130m east of the ends of the platforms. Having ramps from both platforms up to Headlands Lane, and then knocking through that section of parapet. Part of the ramp for the Westbound (and Doncaster-bound) trains might be over some of the tracks serving the depot to the east of Headlands Lane. I'm not sure how this works out, so would need to be investigated.
Having just looked at Google Earth, there is no footpath on this bridge. There is a separate bridge on the other side (towards the depot). If this ramp were to be done, it would mean taking out one lane of the road over the bridge and putting in traffic lights. I assume that this wouldn't be popular, just to make a station compliant with DDA.

Option 2: New footbridge with ramps
This one feels like the cheapest option to me, especially if you can use the foundations for the existing bridge. I may be wrong though.

Option 3: Subway with ramps
I'm not a fan of subways, but I imagine we can make them tolerable these days. It would be at least worth investigating whether this was cheaper than a new footbridge with lifts. The thing to watch out for on this one would be the groundwater level, given the proximity of the river Aire. Might be do-able though.

Option 4: Barrow crossing
I assume that it would not be possible to put one in these days, given current regulations. I may be wrong though, so I've included it as an option.

Option 5: Moveable Structure (Swing bridge or drawbridge)
This one is a bit of a flight of fancy. It may be cheaper to put in a moveable structure that can go from platform to platform without ramps or lifts. You would do this at the end. It would obviously need to be linked to the signalling system, so it wouldn't be in place while trains were running. A bit like a level crossing, essentially. I imagine sorting out the necessary systems for the first one of these would take a lot of time, effort and money, but if this could be repeated at other stations, that would bring costs down. (I like this option the best, but that's just personal nerdy opinion.)

(Two of the funkier examples - I'm not suggesting we go this complicated though!)

Interesting set of options.

I don't think there's a "legal" requirement for lifts, but you would be discriminating against the disabled (or whatever the act is called these days) if you didn't cater for them. Most of the new station projects I've worked on have had lifts; so did Leeds Station Southern Entrance. Apperley Bridge has ramps, at least one of which no longer meets the regulations - so you can see why lifts are the preferred option. You have to have level bits (refuges) now, so Keighley isn't classed as accessible, if you think of people going upwards.

No chance with a foot/barrow crossing these days; Horton-in-Ribblesdale has a new footbridge and lifts, Thorne North might be getting a new footbridge (and lifts) at some point (they opened a consultation earlier this year).

Moveable platforms a la Malton - great idea! But you'd need to staff the station, to do the movement and make sure no-one tried anything dodgy. On the other hand, you could route all traffic behind P1; build one large platform over the current P1 and P2 tracks; and then have everything call at the one, new platform in both directions. A bit like Castleford used to be.

We're drifting off-topic, so I'll just add that Knottingley-Goole via Snaith will be a lot faster than via Doncaster...

 

[Grumpy]

No chance with a foot/barrow crossing these days; Horton-in-Ribblesdale has a new footbridge and lifts, Thorne North might be getting a new footbridge (and lifts) at some point (they opened a consultation earlier this year).

Which illustrates the madness of the modern railway and indeed the country. Advanced countries such as the US allow Barrow crossings with appropriate "train coming" warnings. The South to West curve at Knottingley probably doesn't see much more than a dozen trains/day, trundling around at under 20 MPH. Prospective passengers may be expected to cross busy roads with traffic passing at much higher speeds, so why cant they use a barrow crossing?
We dont provide footbridges with lifts at far busier tram stops

 

[GingerSte]

Which illustrates the madness of the modern railway and indeed the country. Advanced countries such as the US allow Barrow crossings with appropriate "train coming" warnings. The South to West curve at Knottingley probably doesn't see much more than a dozen trains/day, trundling around at under 20 MPH. Prospective passengers may be expected to cross busy roads with traffic passing at much higher speeds, so why cant they use a barrow crossing?
We dont provide footbridges with lifts at far busier tram stops

I can understand the reluctance for barrow crossings, even if I agree with you to an extent. Part of it will be the stopping distance. Trams can generally stop on sight, whereas a 2000 tonne train carrying wood chip to Drax isn't going to "stop on a dime". You mention the low number of trains on the south to west curve. My suggestion of extending some Knottingley services to Doncaster would change that, but then those trains would be starting or stopping at Knottingley anyway.

My issue is with the cost for providing a full DDA compliant footbridge with lifts. Unfortunately, Yorkslad12's guesstimate of £30M probably isn't too far off the mark, given the costs of everything these days. I think someone said the cost of 3 new stations on the Camp Hill Line in Birmingham was about £60M (from memory). But then again that was three full stations. That's what's killing most projects these days. I'm essentially trying to save the big costs of this new footbridge, ie
* New footbridge staircase, spans and trestles to replace existing footbridge, extending over line to Doncaster (this will need a very big crane, considering where it will have to reach from);
* New lifts on platforms 1 and 2 (again with the big crane)
* Maintenance and so on for the lifts.

 

[Brubulus]

For Goole to Leeds, even if 5 minutes time savings are achieved, it's still going to be 10 minutes slower than via Doncaster. I would support marginal improvements that don't increase unit requirements, but not an hourly service.

 

[eldomtom2]

Which illustrates the madness of the modern railway and indeed the country. Advanced countries such as the US allow Barrow crossings with appropriate "train coming" warnings. The South to West curve at Knottingley probably doesn't see much more than a dozen trains/day, trundling around at under 20 MPH. Prospective passengers may be expected to cross busy roads with traffic passing at much higher speeds, so why cant they use a barrow crossing?
We dont provide footbridges with lifts at far busier tram stops

I do agree with your overall point about barrow crossings, though I would say that the real issue is that building anything rail-related in the UK costs too much. I wouldn't hold the US attitude to rail safety as something to be imitated, though - it's a country where it's still acceptable for the official investigation into a staff fatality to just be "he didn't follow the rules, case closed".

 

[biggerisbetter]

For Goole to Leeds, even if 5 minutes time savings are achieved, it's still going to be 10 minutes slower than via Doncaster. I would support marginal improvements that don't increase unit requirements, but not an hourly service.

How is this the case when the few current direct services are already faster than the all the options requiring a change (as far as I can see)? It is also unattractive for passengers to have to change for regular commuter services unless both legs are turn up and go which services between Google and Doncaster are not.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The fact is these towns are immediately adjacent to one of the less busy stretches of the M62 and you would realistically have to get a frequency of 1tph or better to compete in any meaningful way. 1tp2h and mooting it as a beneficial for commuting or visiting leisure facilities is as useful as 2tpd.

That stretch of the M62 is reasonably quiet outside of the rush hour... That is, until you hit the horrible Lofthouse Interchange (junction with the M1) and if Leeds is your destination you have to go from Westbound M62 to Northbound M1-:which is an absolute nightmare. Then shortly after you're onto the M621 which is basically a car park in rush hour.
I'd generally agree that 1tph is the "sweet spot" but 0.5tph would be a vast improvement on the current 2tpd.

 

[Grumpy]

Part of it will be the stopping distance. Trams can generally stop on sight, whereas a 2000 tonne train carrying wood chip to Drax isn't going to "stop on a dime". Y

My issue is with the cost for providing a full DDA compliant footbridge with lifts.

Yet people get hit (and killed) by trams. Surely a freight train crawling round the south-west curve is going to be fairly conspicuous specially when accompanied by audible/visible warnings? And I dont think Drax traffic uses that curve.

As stated, the cost of a footbridge is killing many decent projects. And it's not just new station projects-existing lines with no freight, just low volume passenger services with all trains calling at the station, shouldn't need any footbridge. Millions are being squandered on these.

 

[Brubulus]

How is this the case when the few current direct services are already faster than the all the options requiring a change (as far as I can see)? It is also unattractive for passengers to have to change for regular commuter services unless both legs are turn up and go which services between Google and Doncaster are not.

LNER then Northern seems to be 57 mins to an hour while the existing Northern services are 1h11 mins plus. Even with pretty substantial speed improvements, it's not going to be faster.

 

[anothertyke]

LNER then Northern seems to be 57 mins to an hour while the existing Northern services are 1h11 mins plus. Even with pretty substantial speed improvements, it's not going to be faster.

And in the other direction? I think you will find it is typically 1hr 15 to 1hr 20 via Doncaster.

 

[driverd]

And in the other direction? I think you will find it is typically 1hr 15 to 1hr 20 via Doncaster.

Worth adding that, on the basis of generalised journey time, you should be adding circa 30 mins to each of these for the connection. The direct service, if sufficiently frequent, wins hands down in both directions, but especially towards Leeds.

 

[billio]

If these referred to developments are on the sites of Eggborough Power Station and Kellingley Colliery then the power station site is a 30 minute walk from Whitley Bridge and the colliery site is probably even longer from the nearest station. Nobody is going to commute to them by train.

The proposed housing ( https://www.banksgroup.co.uk/projects/eggborough-west/ 1,500 dwellings) is next to the railway line and within walking distance to the station. The old power station site is intended for industrial use, power generation and data centres. Kellingley is intended for industrial use. What is interesting is that both industrial sites are rail connected and whether that would come to anything.

 

[The exile]

I do agree with your overall point about barrow crossings, though I would say that the real issue is that building anything rail-related in the UK costs too much. I wouldn't hold the US attitude to rail safety as something to be imitated, though - it's a country where it's still acceptable for the official investigation into a staff fatality to just be "he didn't follow the rules, case closed".

Indeed - I hardly think that the word “advanced” can be applied to the USA in any rail-related context. That said, I would also consider our standards to have gone too far in terms of recognition of realities - cost of providing fully compliant rail facilities meaning they don’t happen- forcing people onto much more unsafe roads.