Colne to Skipton Rail Project

[selrap]

As some of you on here will be aware that SELRAP (Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership), is a campaign group whose aim is to campaign for the re-instatement of the Colne-Skipton line as a trans-pennine route, a part of the national network, linking the Aire Valley and Yorkshire to East Lancashire, Manchester, Preston and beyond.

You will be pleased to here that the Campaign now has the support of 619 organisations, 660 individual politicians, our 460 + members and 60 affiliated groups, it is also noted that as from October of 2010 the project to reopen this vital missing link between Colne and Skipton, is now moving at an even faster pace, so much so that it has now been said that we should be starting construction in 2014.

The pivotal thing in all of this, is that we as a Group are looking at private finance, and the project is now much bigger than the original, the original having just double track railway with 2 or 3 new stations between Colne and Skipton from Gannow junction just outside Burnley to Skipton North Junction.

The New project will have much wider economic benefits to the Northern parts of the UK and will include freight and electrification from Skipton North junction to Preston and, or Manchester or both via Todmorden, finer detailed information will be released to the general public over the coming few months, so in the mean time please read the latest CravenRail News Letter, issue 15

At SELRAP we are very much grateful to all our members and supporters that support this campaign, and its been a long uphill battle, since the 10th April 2001 when SELRAP held its first meeting, we now have over 460members, but would love to take it over the 500 mark by April this year, being our 10th birthday and it would bring in more funds to our campaign.

If you wish to become a member or donate please contact:

Chairman & Membership Secretary:
Derek.Jennings, 3, Hamilton Road, BARROWFORD, Lancashire, BB9 6DE
e-mail: derek-jennings@ntlworld.com

Membership-Link

http://www.selrap.org.uk/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=23&page=1


EU Meeting Videos

http://www.europeandyou.com/en/news/660/1/

http://www.europeandyou.com/en/news/659/1/

April 1st Missing-Link Rail trip from Colne to Skipton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcW3E4OkYc

Fly over of Trackbed

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcW3E4OkYc

SELRAP website

http://www.selrap.org.uk

 

[Z12XE]

I find it amazing that my MP is on your list, when unless its election time he's rarely seen in his local area!

And Surprise surprise one of my local Lib Dem District/Town councillors. Get the bandwagon out.......

 

[Greenback]

Unlike some of the hair brained schemes that are no more than fantasies, I feel that this is a worthwhile reopening that deserves to succeed. Good luck!

 

[Waddon]

I think this is a very worthwhile project and I wish all the best for it

Although on a minor note, maybe get someone in to design you a new website, I find your current one over-busy and difficult to navigate?

Otherwise, keep up the good work

 

[selrap]

I think this is a very worthwhile project and I wish all the best for it

Although on a minor note, maybe get someone in to design you a new website, I find your current one over-busy and difficult to navigate?

Otherwise, keep up the good work

Thanks for your comments with regards to the project and with regards to our website, I will pass this on to our executive when we meet up on the 24th
Jan.

 

[tbtc]

No disrespect, but it's not really a "news flash", other than the fact that you are now looking for money (?)

 

[Domeyhead]

SELRAP has been a model of how to conduct a serious reopening campaign. Hard nosed, unsentimental commercial reality has been the key to its success to date, but they are not there yet. Anyone with fanciful plans for the S&D reopening or other pie in the sky ideas could do a lot worse than studying the business led approach adopted by SELRAP.
I hope SELRAP's campaign leads to ultimate success and serves as a template for viable schemes such as Lewes - Uckfield and Tavistock - Calstock to name but two.

 

[selrap]

SELRAP has been a model of how to conduct a serious reopening campaign. Hard nosed, unsentimental commercial reality has been the key to its success to date, but they are not there yet. Anyone with fanciful plans for the S&D reopening or other pie in the sky ideas could do a lot worse than studying the business led approach adopted by SELRAP.
I hope SELRAP's campaign leads to ultimate success and serves as a template for viable schemes such as Lewes - Uckfield and Tavistock - Calstock to name but two.

Thankyou for your message of support for this vital rail project, I have to say that this is the cheapest Railway to run over the Peninnes, with low gradient, no tunnels or steep embankments, and it happens to be the missing link between the East and West Coast Main Lines, which once re-linked would give a direct freight service between the Ports of Liverpool and Humber ports to the East, for the movement of goods, between Ireland and Mainland Europe.

Once Again Thankyou.

 

[boing_uk]

Has a business plan been compiled, such as proposed traffic flows, access charges, ongoing maintenance and operational costs?

If so, has the financial sector been approached to get the infrastructure funding?

 

[WatcherZero]

Was handed the latest newletter at a GMPTE event a couple of weeks ago, its a decent enough looking newsletter like a lot of time has been put into it but I have two criticisms for possible future improvement you may want to take on board.

Firstly, would be nice if your handing these out that you had a page in every edition that gave a brief explanation of the scheme and what it involved, not just a map of the region.

Secondly, it was a bit crowded, could do with adding a bit more space in so when your reading its not so overwhelming you want to switch off.

As to the campaign I support it, though electrification seems very ambitious. I guess your going on the electrified rolling stock cheaper to run angle.

 

[lancastrian]

Well I have a few of your newsletters and I am always interested in any potential reopening. I never understood the warped logic as to why this line was ever closed in the first place. If you have ever tried to get to Skipton by rail from Lancashire, it is almost impossible. My wife and I went from Bolton to Skipton, via Preston, Lancaster and Hellifield. WE returned via, Leeds, Huddersfield & Manchester. I used a free ticket as I worked for BR at the time, but it took us about 2 and a half hours each way.

I really hope that this line is opened soon as Skipton is one of our favourite days out, and we have to use a car at this time.

 

[paul1609]

I'm sorry but as I've pointed out before put realistic costings on this (something SELRAP has failed to do) and it would be impossible to make any realistic business case.
You'd need millions of outside money and a ongoing subsidy.

 

[Trainbuff]

Best of luck with this guys. looks very positive even in this economic time

 

[selrap]

I'm sorry but as I've pointed out before put realistic costings on this (something SELRAP has failed to do) and it would be impossible to make any realistic business case.
You'd need millions of outside money and a ongoing subsidy.

please note that you only have to look at the JMP study to see the costings of the project, please go to the selrap website and look up documents, to see the study.

And we already have a realistic business case, which will be further updated over the coming months.www.selrap.org.uk

 

[WatcherZero]

It does indeed estimate not just construction costs but also annual running costs, between 800k and 6m depending on option chosen.

 

[merlodlliw]

Best of Luck, down here the Llangollen railway, as an example,though not a main line as achieved the following.

1.The largest employer in Llangollen. New a major outsource for rail engineering.

2.Increased tourist traffic to the area,making Llangollen North East Wales
key 12 month inland tourist resort.

3.The tourists bring in many £Ms to the area,thus sustaining local business & supermarkets falling over themselves to gain a foothold.

4.An interchange as been built at Ruabon Station to cater for the tourist traffic
arriving by rail for Llangollen.

hope this helps your cause.

 

[paul1609]

please note that you only have to look at the JMP study to see the costings of the project, please go to the selrap website and look up documents, to see the study.

And we already have a realistic business case, which will be further updated over the coming months.www.selrap.org.uk

Can you explain to me why Network rail costed the Lewes to Uckfield Reopening at £141 million for a basic 7 mile single track railway with no intermediate stations, an end on to an existing single line a junction, a bridge over a main road and 3 level costings.

The reopening to Galashiels about 30 miles with no main line junction (no TOC compensation) and most of the structures intact (but some double track) is costing Transport for Scotland £235 to 295 million.

SELRAP and its consultants are quoting £43 million for a 11 mile single track line with similar connections to Uckfield but with 5 intermediate stations and passing loops, major structures missing according to google earth and diversions required around road developments and housing?

I would suggest that the estimates on the SELRAP website are totally unrealistic and that put in something sensible (x3+?) and even their very positive business case does not justify reopening.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well first you have to accomadate that NR always includes a 60% contingency fund. So for example you highlighted the £141m, that would actually be £56.4m.

Second the costings are based on a NR 2003 feasability report updated to 2007 prices under the following inflation formula:
• Civil, structural and permanent way works: +25%
• Signalling: + 23%
• Stations, buildings: +24%
• Project management: +17%

With some more minor changes:

• The permanent way and signalling estimates for the single and double track options have been increased to take account of the need to provide access to Platforms 3 and 4 at Skipton Station to provide ease of interchange. Provision has been added to the cost estimates for two additional turnouts and the associated additional signalling.
• The reinstatement of Platform 5 at Skipton Station appears to be relevant only in the context of a ‘Colne’ line service terminating at Skipton or the provision of a passenger service on the Rylstone branch – it does not provide access to the lines to and from Shipley and Leeds. Four platforms ought to be adequate to deal with existing services to Skipton and additional trains on the ‘Colne’ line. This item has therefore been removed from the cost schedule.
• The cost estimate for a new station at Earby appears to be low. A revised estimate has been prepared based on recent outturn costs for new stations updated to the Q2, 2007 base. The cost estimate remains relatively low compared with new stations on the existing rail network because there is no need to provide a footbridge and because no allowance needs to be included for possessions.
• An element has been added to the single and double track options to provide for the cost of possessions on existing operational railway.
• It is assumed that upgrading of the subway at Nelson Station to provide full compliance with accessibility guidance will form part of the Lancashire County Council Nelson Interchange scheme.
• The 2003 report states that implementation of the double track railway option would require provision of a replacement bus service on the assumption that the line between Gannow Junction and Colne would be closed during construction works. The provision of £500,000 for TOC disruption and compensation during construction would not be adequate to provide compensation to the TOC and fund a replacement bus service. A higher figure is included under this heading.

 

[paul1609]

Well first you have to accomadate that NR always includes a 60% contingency fund. So for example you highlighted the £141m, that would actually be £56.4m.

Second the costings are based on a NR 2003 feasability report updated to 2007 prices under the following inflation formula:
• Civil, structural and permanent way works: +25%
• Signalling: + 23%
• Stations, buildings: +24%
• Project management: +17%

With some more minor changes:

• The permanent way and signalling estimates for the single and double track options have been increased to take account of the need to provide access to Platforms 3 and 4 at Skipton Station to provide ease of interchange. Provision has been added to the cost estimates for two additional turnouts and the associated additional signalling.
• The reinstatement of Platform 5 at Skipton Station appears to be relevant only in the context of a ‘Colne’ line service terminating at Skipton or the provision of a passenger service on the Rylstone branch – it does not provide access to the lines to and from Shipley and Leeds. Four platforms ought to be adequate to deal with existing services to Skipton and additional trains on the ‘Colne’ line. This item has therefore been removed from the cost schedule.
• The cost estimate for a new station at Earby appears to be low. A revised estimate has been prepared based on recent outturn costs for new stations updated to the Q2, 2007 base. The cost estimate remains relatively low compared with new stations on the existing rail network because there is no need to provide a footbridge and because no allowance needs to be included for possessions.
• An element has been added to the single and double track options to provide for the cost of possessions on existing operational railway.
• It is assumed that upgrading of the subway at Nelson Station to provide full compliance with accessibility guidance will form part of the Lancashire County Council Nelson Interchange scheme.
• The 2003 report states that implementation of the double track railway option would require provision of a replacement bus service on the assumption that the line between Gannow Junction and Colne would be closed during construction works. The provision of £500,000 for TOC disruption and compensation during construction would not be adequate to provide compensation to the TOC and fund a replacement bus service. A higher figure is included under this heading.

Sorry, you are incorrect the Uckfield costs included a 30 % contingency fund whilst the Galashiels allows 25%. On this basis your cost estimates are 25 to 30 % of those of both Transport for Scotland and Network Rail. Your scheme would appear to be more technically difficult than either of these.

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdo...04A-A2F3-D99CBCE29C7B/0/lurs_exec_summary.pdf

 

[WatcherZero]

You cant directly compare two projects on length alone, for example Uckfield included a viaduct that was closed in 1969 because it was in such a poor state of repair it wasnt worth repairing after flood damage, think what state it must be in 40 years later!

Thers a 183ft long 11 arch viaduct and another which is 185ft long and 10 archs along this line.
The Lewes-Uckfield costings included creating two 194m long (8 car) platforms with passive provision to 12 car length for a village of 600 and a village of 1500 (I dont think you will find anything near that long on Colne-Skipton).


So compare them with this in mind,

SELRAP/Lewes

Structures £9.5m/£43.1m
Land Purchase £2m/£16.8m (Lewes proposes leaving the original alignment along 3 different possible routes)
Track £16.98m/£21.4m
Signalling £4.55m/11.8m

Cost estimates accuracy (both performed by NR, SELRAP to 2007 prices Leese 2008 prices, neither includes the 60% contingency)
SELRAP GRIP1 + or - 40%
Leese GRIP2 + or - 30%

 

[paul1609]

The viaduct you mention was in Lewes town Centre and was demolished when the line was closed. The costed (£141 m) route was via the original route via Hamsey Loop to a Junction on the main route to London (missing out the route through the Town which has been lost under development).
Trust me this would be a much simpler project than Colne to Skipton and should be cheaper.

 

[tbtc]

The problem with the SELRAP idea is that there's really little need for it.

It links two sparsely populated areas, for a start. Yes, it could be a link from Leeds/ Bradford to Burnley/Blackburn, but these places have a direct Northern Rail service already.

More pressing and more achievable would be tagging a Pacer from Colne/ Burnley/ Accrington onto the existing Clitheroe - Manchester service at Blackburn to provide a direct service to Bolton/ Manchester from east Lancashire. Simpler, cheaper and more useful.

Some of the claims like

it happens to be the missing link between the East and West Coast Main Lines, which once re-linked would give a direct freight service between the Ports of Liverpool and Humber ports to the East, for the movement of goods, between Ireland and Mainland Europe

...makes this sound like a project that will link the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere, a tad hyperbolic.

If you want to provide trans-pennine freight capacity then four-tracking the line through Diggle should be more of a priority.

As for the idea of electrifying a double track line through Colne... give me strength. There are bigger priorities.

Still, an impressive campaign, several thousand "supporters" and a "cause celebre" amongst some. Just not a priority for the railway

 

[paul1609]

You cant directly compare two projects on length alone, for example Uckfield included a viaduct that was closed in 1969 because it was in such a poor state of repair it wasnt worth repairing after flood damage, think what state it must be in 40 years later!

Thers a 183ft long 11 arch viaduct and another which is 185ft long and 10 archs along this line.
The Lewes-Uckfield costings included creating two 194m long (8 car) platforms with passive provision to 12 car length for a village of 600 and a village of 1500 (I dont think you will find anything near that long on Colne-Skipton).


So compare them with this in mind,

SELRAP/Lewes

Structures £9.5m/£43.1m
Land Purchase £2m/£16.8m (Lewes proposes leaving the original alignment along 3 different possible routes)
Track £16.98m/£21.4m
Signalling £4.55m/11.8m

Cost estimates accuracy (both performed by NR, SELRAP to 2007 prices Leese 2008 prices, neither includes the 60% contingency)
SELRAP GRIP1 + or - 40%
Leese GRIP2 + or - 30%

Sorry but youre still wrong there are no viaducts on the proposed Lewes to Uckfield route (see my earlier post) and the £141m estimate didnt include any intermediate stations these were optional extras (see my earlier link).

There is no 60% contingency its 30% (see my earlier link)

I can accept that Land Purchase prices would be much higher in East Sussex than up North but I'm afraid SELRAPs figures are way, way too low.

 

[bluenoxid]

I agree that the reopening is difficult to support. I personally believe that a tram train to Earby/Barnoldswick would be the best rail option and the best transport option would be an increase in bus operations to Earby, Barnoldwick and Skipton alongside integrated ticketing, the Todmorden Curve and conversion of Colne to Rose Grove to trams to improve the frequency of service frequency and extend into the centre of Colne and on to park and ride sites. In addition road improvements could be done to the road between Thornton in Craven and Earby and park and ride installed for traffic popping over the A6068 and A56. I don't see why we should risk service resilience on the Bolton to Blackburn and Bolton to Manchester route when £12 million would deliver a faster alternative via Todmorden. An interim measure would be to install signals at Todmorden to terminate trains.

 

[yorksrob]

It seems hard to me to see how a tram train which would presumably involve a lot of road resurfacing and presumably some form of catenary could be cheaper to build than a basic railway on a (mainly) surviving alignment. A parkway station for Earby whilst not ideal, would at least make it easier for it's inhabitants to to travel further afield on the wider network.

 

[tbtc]

the Todmorden Curve

This.

It'd be a much better use of resources.

Any line from Skipton to Colne wouldn't be able to run any trains to Bolton/Manchester without expensive enhancements on the Salford line. However, the route through Rochdale has spare paths and scope for direct services from Burnley to Manchester.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sorry but youre still wrong there are no viaducts on the proposed Lewes to Uckfield route (see my earlier post) and the £141m estimate didnt include any intermediate stations these were optional extras (see my earlier link).

There is no 60% contingency its 30% (see my earlier link)

I can accept that Land Purchase prices would be much higher in East Sussex than up North but I'm afraid SELRAPs figures are way, way too low.

The figures are both made by Network Rail (albeit with 4 years inflation added to the SELRAP figure), if you dont trust NR to produce one estimate then you must not trust them to provide the other either.

 

[paul1609]

The figures are both made by Network Rail (albeit with 4 years inflation added to the SELRAP figure), if you dont trust NR to produce one estimate then you must not trust them to provide the other either.

Can you provide a link to the Network Rail report for Skipton Colne all I can find is a report by some consultants for Lancashire CC which stated that the cost was a best estimate?

 

[bluenoxid]

It seems hard to me to see how a tram train which would presumably involve a lot of road resurfacing and presumably some form of catenary could be cheaper to build than a basic railway on a (mainly) surviving alignment. A parkway station for Earby whilst not ideal, would at least make it easier for it's inhabitants to to travel further afield on the wider network.

Versus a multi million flyover over the A56 for one train per hour. A tram can reach the centre of town and also use the old alignment by resuming it on the way to Earby. It is easier to get a tram across that road than put in a Heavy Rail crossing. Yes it will require a 10 mph drop on the road from 50 but it is usually jammed in the Colne direction anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Versus a multi million flyover over the A56 for one train per hour. A tram can reach the centre of town and also use the old alignment by resuming it on the way to Earby. It is easier to get a tram across that road than put in a Heavy Rail crossing. Yes it will require a 10 mph drop on the road from 50 but it is usually jammed in the Colne direction anyway.

But you would lose the opportunity to link in with the rail network in the Aire valley (the fact that the A56 is so busy suggests that this is a well used transport corridoor). I wouldn't be so sure that the local road users wouldn't kick up a fuss for having to stop for trams frequently.