Aire & Wharfe Valley Future Capacity Ideas

[Bantamzen]

As said earlier, there is little point in a Keighley turnback as it offers little in the way of extra capacity. Skipton is the terminus point for the EMU stock, as well as being a depot & stabling point. As for cutting services to Bradford, this will only cause even more platform congestion at Shipley's narrow platforms, not to mention cutting off vital direct routes into the city from it's wider area.

 

[30907]

Would provide extra services to Skipton

Taking 18 minutes longer than a direct train, so getting overtaken anyway.

Slew the lines over and create a new turnback line in the middle, would mitigate the need to block the line.

It was an idea of how to deliver a turnback at the station instead of the proposed bay platform that would impact upon the timetable by blocking the line.

Also a though about how to relieve capacity upon existing services, since Keighley I believe is the second biggest station on the line outside of Bradford and Skipton.

ISTR a trailing crossover was put before Steeton before electrification. Because it's the Metro boundary it would have made sense to turn back there, but AIUI the WY Zones now cover Skipton anyway.
Turning 1 train per half hour at Keighley saves 1 unit, but the cost of a turnback siding (or reinstating the old Up bay) which I agree would be essential would hardly be justified on that basis.

 

[Bantamzen]

ISTR a trailing crossover was put before Steeton before electrification. Because it's the Metro boundary it would have made sense to turn back there, but AIUI the WY Zones now cover Skipton anyway.
Turning 1 train per half hour at Keighley saves 1 unit, but the cost of a turnback siding (or reinstating the old Up bay) which I agree would be essential would hardly be justified on that basis.

There is a zone that covers Skipton, albeit for a specific, rail-only pass so the boundary is not an issue for Metro in this case. Given that there is lots of demand beyond Keighley, curtailing services through to Skipton doesn't make sense for the single unit it might save.

 

[Moodster020]

Put the signals much closer together to create a rolling domino signal (kinda like a mexican wave). Means you can then fit more trains in a section. And quadruple the track on busy sections (think a four lane motorway).

 

[Ken H]

Running Peak hour shuttles perhaps ?

Im just really gauging thoughts considering it was part of a NR RUS.

They're is a way of doing it without blocking the line, i.e. how a turnback at Halifax was proposed a few years ago, beyond the station and in between the running lines.

They're ample room North of the bridge at Keighley to slew the lines over, although it might require Lawkhomle Lane bridge to be rebuilt to allow a greater gauge through the disused arches. It could also act as a passing loop if you wanted it to do.

There used to be a turnback siding the other side of the ticket office/road bridge. Think Asda there now. Used to be hourly leeds-Skiptons, and hourly Bradford-Keighley I think.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Running more shuttles or stoppers to and from Keighley, apart from freeing up one unit also means that when it reaches places like Bingley, Saltaire, Shipley they're more seats available that can't be swallowed up by those commuting from Skipton.

It could also be used as a loop although loops South of Keighley, where it used to be 4 tracks maybe a better location.

 

[30907]

It could also be used as a loop although loops South of Keighley, where it used to be 4 tracks maybe a better location.

Loops delay the service that is looped! To be of real use (ie minimise the delay) they need to have two consecutive stations on them - the only possibility would have been on the former quadruple track through Apperley Bridge/Kirkstall Forge.
The freights can keep out of the way until Kirkstall, where they may need to wait for a path across Whitehall Jn, so loops at Marley would be little use.

 

[158756]

Loops delay the service that is looped! To be of real use (ie minimise the delay) they need to have two consecutive stations on them - the only possibility would have been on the former quadruple track through Apperley Bridge/Kirkstall Forge.
The freights can keep out of the way until Kirkstall, where they may need to wait for a path across Whitehall Jn, so loops at Marley would be little use.

All the passenger trains have similar running times anyway, so none really have any reason to use a loop (the Carlisle and Morecambe trains are diesel but have fewer stops so it roughly balances out). There's little freight now since the closure of most of the coal burning power stations.

 

[Halifaxlad]

All the passenger trains have similar running times anyway, so none really have any reason to use a loop (the Carlisle and Morecambe trains are diesel but have fewer stops so it roughly balances out). There's little freight now since the closure of most of the coal burning power stations.

My thoughts were as an added benefit, if you could get Carlisle and Morcambe trains in front of the stoppers above Keighley instead of being behind them, then you may have more of a free run to Skipton without having to slow down and prepare for the stopping train in front of you. Although this may not be a problem right now it may become more of a problem if 'Crosshills & Kildwick' gets reinstated!

 

[Halifaxlad]

Anyway, who would like to hear about my big idea for Shipley ?

 

[Bantamzen]

Anyway, who would like to hear about my big idea for Shipley ?

Yes please!

 

[xotGD]

Anyway, who would like to hear about my big idea for Shipley ?

Go on then - tell us please!

 

[Halifaxlad]

First of all, brace yourself for a lot of writing and a bit of crayonista!

Before I go on I would like to say that I do myself use the Aire Valley a lot and have many times changed at Shipley. I feel I should mention this as the last time I made this suggestion I was politely told to stick to the Calder Valley Line.

As we all know any significant train lengthening is held back by Shipley. Personally I think we really ought to be running 8 car trains especially during the peaks if we really want to entice people to use the train. Possibly move towards units with 2+2 seating instead of 3+2, although I’m currently unsure but certainly if that happened the existing capacity levels should be maintained. Also no bus services call at Shipley due to its poor location.

Next door we have Saltaire that is also poorly located, has no bus service, no taxi rank, no parking but still does quite well, in my personal opinion it was simply rebuilt upon the site of the original station in the 1980’s probably because they’re was once a station they’re originally.

To me the sensible thing would be to combine both Saltaire & Shipley (ONLY Platforms 1, 2 & 5) to the West of Shipley! (I dare say) After playing with the measuring tool on google maps it would be about the same distance from the existing station to the clock tower in the centre.

Here you are just off Saltaire Road that is ideally located near to existing bus stops, hopefully one day what was the 662 Bradford to Keighley will be routed via Shipley itself and past this possible station site! They’re plenty of space (subject to land acquisition) that could be used as a taxi rank and as station parking for the elderly and disabled. A multi-story car park could be built right next to the station if you wanted to.

But my biggest point is that it would allow services to be lengthened to 8 car. With regards interchanging between trains, it would only affect those travelling towards Skipton from Bradford who change at Shipley. The simplest answer is for those people to catch the direct service! More services from Bradford to Skipton especially on a Sunday would also help, but I do feel that the benefits would vastly out weight the inconvenience. With more services stopping at Shipley (Carlisle/Morcambe) the people of Saltaire would at least have a better service whilst it still not being too far away. (Don’t forget hopefully a decent bus service)

If this did happen I would expect the bare minimum of station canopies! There is a railway nearby that does have a Midland Railway canopy identical to that of Ikley and Bingley, that was acquired as a long term project. However the station for that which is not too far away is of a different design, similar to Hellifield and therefore would be inappropriate to use. (Not sure planning permission would be given anyway) No-doubt it may be possible to acquire it.

I think that sums up my main arguments.

 

[Bantamzen]

First of all, brace yourself for a lot of writing and a bit of crayonista!

OK looks interesting so let's discuss the various issues you've brought up.

Before I go on I would like to say that I do myself use the Aire Valley a lot and have many times changed at Shipley. I feel I should mention this as the last time I made this suggestion I was politely told to stick to the Calder Valley Line.

As we all know any significant train lengthening is held back by Shipley. Personally I think we really ought to be running 8 car trains especially during the peaks if we really want to entice people to use the train. Possibly move towards units with 2+2 seating instead of 3+2, although I’m currently unsure but certainly if that happened the existing capacity levels should be maintained. Also no bus services call at Shipley due to its poor location.

Firstly I am in agreement about the need for longer trains, this really goes without saying on the Aire & Wharfe lines (I mention both as it will cover a point shortly).

Next door we have Saltaire that is also poorly located, has no bus service, no taxi rank, no parking but still does quite well, in my personal opinion it was simply rebuilt upon the site of the original station in the 1980’s probably because they’re was once a station they’re originally.

With regards to onward connectivity, Saltiare like quite a few stations in the area has poor connections, but then it's primary purpose is to serve the immediate area. Most of the village either side of the river is only a few minutes walk from the station, and of course Saltiare is a tourist area for which the station is well purposed. People don't really use Saltaire for onward connections, but instead starting or ending their journeys. So I'm not sure moving it makes a whole not of sense if I'm honest.

Shipley is a bit of a pain it's true, but you can still reach the platforms from the bus stands at Market Square inside 3-4 minutes. If anything were needed it would be a pedestrian bridge over Otley Road and down into the car park area. That would bring the connection time to about 2-3 minutes.

To me the sensible thing would be to combine both Saltaire & Shipley (ONLY Platforms 1, 2 & 5) to the West of Shipley! (I dare say) After playing with the measuring tool on google maps it would be about the same distance from the existing station to the clock tower in the centre.

Here's were things start to go wrong, you would relocate 3 platforms some distance away from the remaining ones on their existing alignment? How would you propose someone travelling from say Saltaire to Guiseley make that connection? And whilst the distance on Google Maps may be similar (I would say knowing the area that the current station is still closer to the bus stands BTW), splitting the station would leave for some very long walks, potentially having to cross two major roads.

Here you are just off Saltaire Road that is ideally located near to existing bus stops, hopefully one day what was the 662 Bradford to Keighley will be routed via Shipley itself and past this possible station site! They’re plenty of space (subject to land acquisition) that could be used as a taxi rank and as station parking for the elderly and disabled. A multi-story car park could be built right next to the station if you wanted to.

At the moment few buses use the A657. The vast majority of Shipley services come from the east & south, with some heading west and a handful to the north. Moving the bus station would be moving it away from where many passengers are wanting to go, i.e. the Market Square, Asda etc. That would be a non-starter I'm afraid. As for the 662, that service has never run via Shipley and for good reason, as the traffic in and around Shipley can add significant time to journeys (another reason not to move the bus station further away from its feeding services). Shipley is well served up the valley by the trains & the 60/622 so there would be zero case in diverting the 662.

But my biggest point is that it would allow services to be lengthened to 8 car. With regards interchanging between trains, it would only affect those travelling towards Skipton from Bradford who change at Shipley. The simplest answer is for those people to catch the direct service! More services from Bradford to Skipton especially on a Sunday would also help, but I do feel that the benefits would vastly out weight the inconvenience. With more services stopping at Shipley (Carlisle/Morcambe) the people of Saltaire would at least have a better service whilst it still not being too far away. (Don’t forget hopefully a decent bus service)

If this did happen I would expect the bare minimum of station canopies! There is a railway nearby that does have a Midland Railway canopy identical to that of Ikley and Bingley, that was acquired as a long term project. However the station for that which is not too far away is of a different design, similar to Hellifield and therefore would be inappropriate to use. (Not sure planning permission would be given anyway) No-doubt it may be possible to acquire it.

I think that sums up my main arguments.

View attachment 65198

The possible only saving grace of your proposal is that it would allow for 8 carriages, but this would be negated by splitting the station & breaking possible connections, removing the ability to turn services at Shipley in the case of disruption, add significant cost whilst not releasing much land to sell off to help fund the project.

However looking at the area map, it should be possible, if expensive to extend Shipley's platforms 1, 2 & 4 to at least 6 car, and to be honest P5 would probably never need to be extended. Throw in some pedestrian crossing solution to shorten the walk from Market Street to all platforms, and you'd have a solution that offered most of the benefits you propose at a fraction of the cost.

 

[30907]

To me the sensible thing would be to combine both Saltaire & Shipley (ONLY Platforms 1, 2 & 5) to the West of Shipley! (I dare say) After playing with the measuring tool on google maps it would be about the same distance from the existing station to the clock tower in the centre.

As a Shipley resident whose nearest station is Saltaire (interest declared!), let me respond. Non-locals might need a map, Sorry!
1. Yes, we may well need 8-car trains, but Selective Door Opening should cope with most of the problems if platforms cannot be lengthened (BTW all stations bar perhaps Keighley would need lengthening.
2. Shipley is poorly located for the town centre but at least it has plenty of trains. Removing half its Skipton and Leeds services to "Saltaire Road" is going to have a massive impact - including to the residents of the vast amount of housing that has been built within walking distance of the station (and those who use buses up Leeds Road, which stop close to Platforms 1/2).
There is also a significant interchange between Wharfedale and Leeds services which would be affected.
3. Saltaire is excellently located for the Village, Mill, College, and much more. Yes, it has no car park or taxi rank, but so what? The alternative site is far less convenient.
4. The importance of bus interchange in Shipley is exaggerated. I've mentioned Leeds Road; the only other significant potential commuter flows are from/to Baildon (village) - "Saltaire Road" brings no benefit there - and perhaps Cottingley (limited bus service anyway, Bingley is a better option). And as for re-routing the 662 - there are plenty of alternatives, so hands off!

PS Bantamzen has been quicker and more detailed.

PPS Both other posters have mentioned the idea of a direct footway from Otley Road - this was certainly being proposed when I previously lived in Shipley 15-20 years ago.

 

[Neptune]

Saltaire station is well positioned for the village and many commuters can and do walk easily to it from Lower Baildon and Hirst Wood. There is also a bus stop by the Coach Road shops with a direct service from Baildon village meaning an approx 5 minute walk. Saltaire’s incoming traffic is mainly for the college and tourists so moving it would create far more harm than good. The only problem with Saltaire is westbound as there is a signal at one end and it is squeezed up to the bridge at the east end so extending it for 6 car operation would be a headache without moving the signal (unlikely).

With regards to Shipley it is simply a victim of location. The walk from the Market Square is reasonable but a direct bridge from Otley Road to the station would help to a certain extent although be rather expensive to save a minute or 2 walk. Car parking is a major issue and you are lucky to get a spot after half 7. There are plans for an upper deck but when and if this happens is anyone’s guess.

8 car AV trains seems rather excessive. I work this route a a lot in the peaks and 6 cars would be about right. There are 2 London trains in the morning peak and the Skipton - London will mean quicker boarding once the Azuma starts running with its SDO. Currently only one door is allowed to be opened on this service.

Platforms 1 & 4 could easily be extended to 6 car length but platform 2 is the problem. It may be possible by cantilevering an extension over the bridge at the east end but SDO will work fine once people are used to it. Of course P2 is bi-directional and the rarely used eastbound signal would probably be unable to be moved due to the Junction. P5 is fine as Skipton - Bradford doesn’t need more than 4 cars in the peak. As mentioned before. Peak time capacity could be vastly improved if the ex Lancaster and ex Carlisle services were joined at Skipton. Combined with a 333 running in the unused path from those trains running semi fast it doubles capacity in those two slots in one hit.

The only other station I can think of that would be difficult to extend would be Apperley bridge due to the proximity of the bridge and the viaduct eastbound. Westbound would also be a squeeze. Again, SDO is an easy solution here.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Lots of comments, certainly interesting reading.

Just to point out I’m certainly NOT proposing to move Shipley Bus Station/Interchange, simply to make a new interchange so that buses can stop to pick up and set down passengers, certainly not somewhere to terminate them.

The primary purpose of my suggestion is to enable longer platforms, preferably double the length of existing. As although we could use SDO technology my personal thoughts are that this should only be used where there is no realistically other alternative such as at stations like Knaresborough on the Harrogate Line, that is situated in between a tunnel and a level crossing. I do quite like this technology however although I am a firm believer that making our overly complicated rail network more complicated creates unnecessary complications for both the operator and the customer.

With regards to those travelling to Guiseley I would operate a new direct service to Ikley from Skipton, with it in mind that once the Skipton to Colne line reopens that this will be an extension of services from Lancashire, that from my understanding are currently proposed to terminate at Skipton.

If these brand new 331’s are still to enter service upon the Aire Valley then we will certainly need more carriages just to keep the capacity levels up never mind demand and future demand, as these new units have the 2+2 seating arrangement instead of the 3+2 of the 333’s.

Saltaire does necessarily have to close to facilitate my proposal, as I was recently reminded that the proposed Leeds Bradford Airport parkway is to be built not that much further in comparison away from Horsforth station. My personal preference is not to have many stations close to each other and I feel that the proposed location could just as easily serve Saltaire as the current one does. In fact I think it may even be better for tourists especially Salts Mill as it would be much more fitting arriving directly in front of this Mill building instead of round the back.


Just to point out I’m certainly NOT proposing to move Shipley Bus Station/Interchange, simply to make a new interchange when buses can stop to pick up and set down passengers, certainly not somewhere to terminate them.

The primary purpose of my suggestion is to enable longer platforms, preferably double the length of existing. As although we could use SDO technology my personal thoughts are that this should only be used where there is no realistically other alternative such as at stations like Knaresborough on the Harrogate Line, that is situated in between a tunnel and a level crossing. I do quite like this technology however although I am a firm believer that making our overly complicated rail network more complicated creates unnecessary complications for both the operator and the customer.

With regards to those travelling to Guiseley I would operate a new direct service to Ikley from Skipton, with it in mind that once the Skipton to Colne line reopens that this will be an extension of services from Lancashire, that from my understanding are currently proposed to terminate at Skipton.

If these brand new 331’s are still to enter service upon the Aire Valley then we will certainly need more carriages just to keep the capacity levels up never mind demand and future demand, as these new units have the 2+2 seating arrangement instead of the 3+2 of the 333’s.

Saltaire does necessarily have to close to facilitate my proposal, as I was recently reminded that the proposed Leeds Bradford Airport parkway is to be built not that much further in comparison away from Horsforth station. My personal preference is not to have many stations close to each other and I feel that the prosed location could just as easily serve Saltaire as the current one does. In fact I think it may even be better for tourists especially Salts Mill as it would be much more fitting arriving directly in front of this Mill building instead of round the back.

 

[Bantamzen]

Lots of comments, certainly interesting reading.

Just to point out I’m certainly NOT proposing to move Shipley Bus Station/Interchange, simply to make a new interchange when buses can stop to pick up and set down passengers, certainly not somewhere to terminate them.

This might then be an additional problem, as I mentioned previously there are not a lot of current services that would serve this new station. In fact as things stand only the 676/8 towards Cottingley & the 679 towards Hirst Wood use Saltaire Road. The remaining services towards Bingley (622) & Keighley (60) operate up Kirkgate. So this interchange would really only serve the people of Cottingley, as those from Hirst Wood can get the train at Saltaire, and those coming from the east will continue to use Shipley. Unfortunately it simply doesn't stack up for any business case.

The primary purpose of my suggestion is to enable longer platforms, preferably double the length of existing. As although we could use SDO technology my personal thoughts are that this should only be used where there is no realistically other alternative such as at stations like Knaresborough on the Harrogate Line, that is situated in between a tunnel and a level crossing. I do quite like this technology however although I am a firm believer that making our overly complicated rail network more complicated creates unnecessary complications for both the operator and the customer.

I think we all agree the lines need longer units, however I'm really not sure that effectively splitting what is a busy interchange into two is the answer. I'll come on to that in more detail in a bit.

With regards to those travelling to Guiseley I would operate a new direct service to Ikley from Skipton, with it in mind that once the Skipton to Colne line reopens that this will be an extension of services from Lancashire, that from my understanding are currently proposed to terminate at Skipton.

I'm afraid this is another none starter, the single section through Baildon just about supports the 2tph between Bradford & Ilkley. Trying to shoehorn any more in will not work. This was evidenced when there was a landslip on the line between Guiseley & Apperley Junction. Northern had to cancel all Bradford services to allow the Leeds services to head to Shipley & reverse (with Baildon getting a much desired direct Leeds for a whole week!). And reducing the number of Bradford services would not be a good idea, these trains are the only direct link from Bradford to Menstion & beyond, the old 650 buses which plied this route have long since been lost.

If these brand new 331’s are still to enter service upon the Aire Valley then we will certainly need more carriages just to keep the capacity levels up never mind demand and future demand, as these new units have the 2+2 seating arrangement instead of the 3+2 of the 333’s.

It is a concern that seat numbers, at least in the interim, will be reduced. However the 331s will be displacing 321/322s, not 333s and with the longer carriages, and much wider door wells I suspect the loss of seating will be minimum. It is only when the proposed 2* 3 car 331s are introduced will 333s be displaced.

Saltaire does necessarily have to close to facilitate my proposal, as I was recently reminded that the proposed Leeds Bradford Airport parkway is to be built not that much further in comparison away from Horsforth station. My personal preference is not to have many stations close to each other and I feel that the prosed location could just as easily serve Saltaire as the current one does. In fact I think it may even be better for tourists especially Salts Mill as it would be much more fitting arriving directly in front of this Mill building instead of round the back.

The proposed LBA parkway is quite close to Horsforth it is true, but it's location is dictated by geology, and its purpose to serve something that is currently unserved & will be very different (in theory at least) in it's passenger use to Horsforth.

Solving the capacity issues along the Aire & Wharfe valleys is always going to be a challenge. It should be possible for NR to provision capacity for at least 6 car 331s at most stations, including Shipley, albeit with some engineering challenges to overcome. With hindsight stations like Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge should have been built to at least this specification, although when both were proposed the 331s were not on the cards. If further capacity is needed (i.e. 8 car), then where further extensions are not possible, then SDO will be the answer. Not ideal using non-gangwayed units, but it can & is used like this elsewhere. There are also the Bradford LNER services proposed. Although they will only be every two hours, they will prove very popular with commuters (as current two LNER services at Shipley are), so that will release a small amount more capacity.

But in the long run, both the Aire & Wharfe could benefit from re-signalling (especially between Gusieley & Burley-In-Wharfedale), to allow more paths to be made available at the peaks, although with more services on the routes it may be necessary to have these call at Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge. That would add a few minutes to all journeys, but would address the issue of services bunching up through Kirkstall & Armley into Leeds.

 

[xotGD]

OK, the fundamental issue is this. Shipley to Bradford has more capacity than Shipley to Leeds. However, the greater demand is to Leeds. This needs to be addressed. Longer trains are certainly part of the answer, but not the total answer. Of course, people will find negatives in every possible idea, and there will usually be some people who will lose out by a change in the service provision. However, to coin a phrase, the service should maximise benefit for the many not the few.

(Those with an interest in philosophy will appreciate the notion of maximising utility of Bentham Line services.)

 

[Bantamzen]

OK, the fundamental issue is this. Shipley to Bradford has more capacity than Shipley to Leeds. However, the greater demand is to Leeds. This needs to be addressed. Longer trains are certainly part of the answer, but not the total answer. Of course, people will find negatives in every possible idea, and there will usually be some people who will lose out by a change in the service provision. However, to coin a phrase, the service should maximise benefit for the many not the few.

(Those with an interest in philosophy will appreciate the notion of maximising utility of Bentham Line services.)

The simple answer is to lengthen the Leeds-Skipton services, which by a strange coincidence was exactly the plan until NR started dragging their feet with platform lengthening on the Aire valley route. The fact that Bradford has more services from Shipley than Leeds is simply a result of all Aire & Wharfe triangle services running at 2tph.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The simple answer is to lengthen the Leeds-Skipton services, which by a strange coincidence was exactly the plan until NR started dragging their feet with platform lengthening on the Aire valley route. The fact that Bradford has more services from Shipley than Leeds is simply a result of all Aire & Wharfe triangle services running at 2tph.

Could also four track it between Leeds & Shipley as it used to be!

 

[Neptune]

Could also four track it between Leeds & Shipley as it used to be!

Except where they built over it at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge!

 

[Halifaxlad]

Except where they built over it at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge!

I am aware of this.

Regarding Kirkstall Forge, it shouldn't be too difficult to install a line round the back of the Skipton/Bradford bound platform and slew the lines appropriately. Whilst upon the Leeds bound platform, to get another line in you would have to loose the car park and extend the footbridge.

As for Apperley Bridge, all you would have to do would be to either move the Skipton/Bradford bound platform back or to install a footbridge.

Ideally this should have all been avoided when these stations were built.

 

[Neptune]

Of course Apperley Bridge was built in a place where it is very difficult to extend the platforms too.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Before I forget Ive been meaning to address a few points:

This might then be an additional problem, as I mentioned previously there are not a lot of current services that would serve this new station. In fact as things stand only the 676/8 towards Cottingley & the 679 towards Hirst Wood use Saltaire Road. The remaining services towards Bingley (622) & Keighley (60) operate up Kirkgate. So this interchange would really only serve the people of Cottingley, as those from Hirst Wood can get the train at Saltaire, and those coming from the east will continue to use Shipley. Unfortunately it simply doesn't stack up for any business case.

Don’t forget bus services serve those living along the route and not just the end destination. Anyway as already pointed out Im not trying to justify this new station through making it into a bus interchange, that is merely a side benefit.

I think we all agree the lines need longer units, however I'm really not sure that effectively splitting what is a busy interchange into two is the answer. I'll come on to that in more detail in a bit.

Well we certainly agree on something!

I'm afraid this is another none starter, the single section through Baildon just about supports the 2tph between Bradford & Ilkley. Trying to shoehorn any more in will not work. This was evidenced when there was a landslip on the line between Guiseley & Apperley Junction. Northern had to cancel all Bradford services to allow the Leeds services to head to Shipley & reverse (with Baildon getting a much desired direct Leeds for a whole week!). And reducing the number of Bradford services would not be a good idea, these trains are the only direct link from Bradford to Menstion & beyond, the old 650 buses which plied this route have long since been lost.

I do think that these sections really ought to be put back to double track, especially if the Otley Line is re-opened as some would like to see Bradford - Harrogate services via Otley, then it looks like it may well need it.

It is a concern that seat numbers, at least in the interim, will be reduced. However the 331s will be displacing 321/322s, not 333s and with the longer carriages, and much wider door wells I suspect the loss of seating will be minimum. It is only when the proposed 2* 3 car 331s are introduced will 333s be displaced.

Will shortly compare seat numbers and post the details shortly.

The proposed LBA parkway is quite close to Horsforth it is true, but it's location is dictated by geology, and its purpose to serve something that is currently unserved & will be very different (in theory at least) in it's passenger use to Horsforth.

Solving the capacity issues along the Aire & Wharfe valleys is always going to be a challenge. It should be possible for NR to provision capacity for at least 6 car 331s at most stations, including Shipley, albeit with some engineering challenges to overcome. With hindsight stations like Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge should have been built to at least this specification, although when both were proposed the 331s were not on the cards. If further capacity is needed (i.e. 8 car), then where further extensions are not possible, then SDO will be the answer. Not ideal using non-gangwayed units, but it can & is used like this elsewhere. There are also the Bradford LNER services proposed. Although they will only be every two hours, they will prove very popular with commuters (as current two LNER services at Shipley are), so that will release a small amount more capacity.

But in the long run, both the Aire & Wharfe could benefit from re-signalling (especially between Gusieley & Burley-In-Wharfedale), to allow more paths to be made available at the peaks, although with more services on the routes it may be necessary to have these call at Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge. That would add a few minutes to all journeys, but would address the issue of services bunching up through Kirkstall & Armley into Leeds.

I was mean't to say 'Saltaire doesn't' NOT 'Saltaire does'. I apologize for my appalling grammatical mistake!

Very much agree with platforms lengths at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge. I have in the past wondered why the platform lengthening scheme for this line has been postponed/abandoned. I suspect cost, considering the two new stations aren't cheap wooden platforms, but also since Apperley Bridge would require the reconstruction of the road bridge to the East of the Station. Personally its a shame that the tracks weren't straitened out before it was built, then at least the station could have had the platforms opposite one another and possibly direct access from Apperley Lane. Instead those travelling by bus have the pleasure of walking approximately a quarter of a kilometer from the nearest bus stop. No-doubt those who have difficulty simply carry on to another station or simply travel by car.

 

[Halifaxlad]

4 car 333 has around 360 seats according to Wikipedia.

Presuming that these 3 car 331's are identical to their diesel 195 counter parts that have 203 seats.

Then once the 331's are introduced they're should be around 46 more seats per peak hour service.

So to get a decent increase in capacity ideally you would need 3, 3 car sets that would provide 609 seats.

Although these units will have SDO, only the front vehicle of the second unit will be on the platforms that are long enough for 4 car trains, don't forget that these aren't corridor units.

Although it would be possible to lengthen most platforms, lengthening the remaining platforms at Shipley to all the same length simply isn't possible.

The simplest answer would be to run 9 car services between Leeds, Keighley & Skipton bypassing Shipley and 3 car services intermittently.

(Sorry if I've upset any Shipley Folk)

Now would anybody like to revisit my Shipley proposal ?

A 8 car platform would work with 9 car train made up of 331's with SDO.

Personally I would have every service a minimum of 4 cars as it is currently but double them up at Peak times!

 

[Bantamzen]

I do think that these sections really ought to be put back to double track, especially if the Otley Line is re-opened as some would like to see Bradford - Harrogate services via Otley, then it looks like it may well need it.

Whilst I would love to see this, there would be some considerable work needed between Shipley & Guiseley to allow double tracking, including work on the viaducts, at Baildon including the footbridge & the various tunnels. As things stand a single wired track can just about squeezes under the infrastructure. Double tracking as things stand simply isn't possible.

Very much agree with platforms lengths at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge. I have in the past wondered why the platform lengthening scheme for this line has been postponed/abandoned. I suspect cost, considering the two new stations aren't cheap wooden platforms, but also since Apperley Bridge would require the reconstruction of the road bridge to the East of the Station. Personally its a shame that the tracks weren't straitened out before it was built, then at least the station could have had the platforms opposite one another and possibly direct access from Apperley Lane. Instead those travelling by bus have the pleasure of walking approximately a quarter of a kilometer from the nearest bus stop. No-doubt those who have difficulty simply carry on to another station or simply travel by car.

As you say it comes down to cost. At the time of proposal, it wasn't clear how successful either of the new stations would be. Apperley Bridge has been a resounding success, in fact almost too much as the car park is full very early in the mornings and a lot of people are using it. Kirkstall hasn't been quite so, mainly because the proposed housing development & bus links haven't yet emerged.

4 car 333 has around 360 seats according to Wikipedia.

Presuming that these 3 car 331's are identical to their diesel 195 counter parts that have 203 seats.

Then once the 331's are introduced they're should be around 46 more seats per peak hour service.

So to get a decent increase in capacity ideally you would need 3, 3 car sets that would provide 609 seats.

Although these units will have SDO, only the front vehicle of the second unit will be on the platforms that are long enough for 4 car trains, don't forget that these aren't corridor units.

Although it would be possible to lengthen most platforms, lengthening the remaining platforms at Shipley to all the same length simply isn't possible.

The simplest answer would be to run 9 car services between Leeds, Keighley & Skipton bypassing Shipley and 3 car services intermittently.

(Sorry if I've upset any Shipley Folk)

Now would anybody like to revisit my Shipley proposal ?

A 8 car platform would work with 9 car train made up of 331's with SDO.

Personally I would have every service a minimum of 4 cars as it is currently but double them up at Peak times!

I'm not sure how skipping one of the line's busiest stations will solve the capacity problems when those services with the most capacity are missing it out. And then there is the issue of how you path regular skip-stoppers on top of the existing ones without them tripping over the stoppers (keeping in mind that fairly soon LNER will be running bi-hourlies from Bradford FS so they need to be pathed in too). No, I feel that 8 car operation is a very, very long way away. Once the 6 car operations start, then the impact of this can be assessed because 8 car operation would almost certainly require additional carriages to be procured.

Personally I stick by my assertion that the quickest win to release capacity in the peaks at least is to stop the Leeds-Skiptons at Kirsktall & Apperley, which will mean there would be less risk of services bunching up & might release line capacity to add a couple of additional peak services to compliment the existing ones. Thereafter most stations should be able to be extended for 6 car operation, which will allow more 6 car runs without the need for SDO.

Longer term I feel that the issue of 4-tracking between Shipley & Leeds to allow some overtaking might need to be looked at. Although with the current alignment & station layouts this would be a very, very costly exercise & would only stand scrutiny if all other options had been exhausted. I still don't feel however that your proposal for splitting Shipley would work for all the reasons I have detailed above, at least not without a major re-design of the town to facilitate seamless movement between the two parts. Having to cross two very busy roads to get from one part to the other simply isn't going to endear the idea to many, especially when one part is located at the quieter end of the town away from most bus services that operate in the area.