Infrastructure Project Priorities

[cle]

Not everywhere can be prosperous. Some places will just be ordinary. Wealth, attractions/place of interest and decent jobs will always be concentrated. There simply isn't enough to be spread evenly. Those are market forces.

Middlesbrough acts as a service town for its (working class, local-focused, low skilled) urban area - a hub for everyday shopping, bus transport, and gross nightlife.

And public sector local employment. Not much else - and it doesn't need lots of trains for that purpose.

 

[tbtc]

Alnwick to musselbrough really needs to be done aswell to finish the lot

Dunbar, not Mussleburgh

I would also like to know what the plan is behind this Bradford cross rail idea, as I cannot see what benefit it provides. Are we anywhere nearer getting that answered?

We are still waiting for justification of why this is one of the most pressing needs in UK infrastructure - I hope that the answer will be more compelling than "London has got a Crossrail, so Bradford deserves one too"

 

[Waverley125]

Gridlocked is a term that people mis-use as much as "overcrowded" (which sometimes means "I had to stand" or "I had to sit next to a stranger", rather than the correct definition of "there were an unsafe number of people standing, above and beyond the standing capacity that the vehicle was designed to cope with"). Grinds my gears, that one...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'd much rather that money was spent on "northern" infrastructure where it could be justified, not just on the basis that "London has a lot of money spent on it, so why can't we have a big pile of money to spend too".

So far you've not convinced me of the necessity of anything like your Bradford Crossrail though.

Ok, well taking 45 minutes to get from Leeds City Centre to the junction of the M621 might be a problem. Another 45 minutes to get to Brighouse/Huddersfield at a crawl again problematic.

Northern projects that are getting turned down have positive CBRs. NGT's is 3.86, but may well get cancelled. The CBR for TPE wiring has been over 4 for a while, and other projects have similarly high ratios. But when huge amounts of funding is sucked up in the south, there's a squeeze on spending in the north, so only the very highest projects get funded. As Most stuff in London gets funding, even where there is investment, the north continues to fall behind.

As for Bradford Crossrail, it does several things.

-Cross City Services Ilkley/Skipton-Huddersfield avoiding Leeds

-Freight avoiding line for Leeds from MML to S&C

-Bradford loop for frequent services into Leeds

-Speeded up Halifax services by avoding the reverse at Bradford

-Bradford gets direct services onto the S&C

-Manchester Victoria services cut back at Bradford & sped up, as Leeds trains don't go into central Bradford.

You could also add onto that re-opening Low Moor-Thornhill & the Horbury West Curve, giving the Spen towns direct services to Bradford, and Bradford direct services to Wakefield, Sheffield & Barnsley avoiding Leeds.

Not only does is create benefits to Bradford, but it reduces congestion at Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

The A1 motorway is a long way from "completed".... and it probably never will be.

There are huge holes in it.

 

[Haydn1971]

What's the impact of the "theoretical" Bradford Crossrail on services entering Leeds from the west if Halifax services were re-routed via Shipley ?

 

[tbtc]

when huge amounts of funding is sucked up in the south, there's a squeeze on spending in the north, so only the very highest projects get funded. As Most stuff in London gets funding

Did you see how long Crossrail2 has been planned for? What about Thameslink2000? Even the Channel Tunnel was planned in Victorian times, and took a long time to be built.

You need to move away from the "London always gets what it wants" attitude.

As for Bradford Crossrail, it does several things.

-Cross City Services Ilkley/Skipton-Huddersfield avoiding Leeds

What demand is there to get from Ilkley/ Skipton to Huddersfield? Or is this just tagging unrelated services together?

-Bradford loop for frequent services into Leeds

It wouldn't give any extra paths on the line through Pudsey or the line through Kirkstall, so where are the extra services going to be squeezed in?

-Speeded up Halifax services by avoding the reverse at Bradford

...albeit by running them up to Shipley

-Bradford gets direct services onto the S&C

Or, rather, the S&C services are slowed down considerably by diverting them between Leeds and Shipley

-Manchester Victoria services cut back at Bradford

Why? Rochdale/ Todmorden/ Halifax loses their direct services to Leeds? What benefit would that bring?

 

[Philip Elliott]

What demand is there to get from Ilkley/ Skipton to Huddersfield? Or is this just tagging unrelated services together?

What demand is there from Radlet to Balcombe or from Blake Street to Northfield? Yet the number of through journeys on Thameslink and Cross-city is immense because lots of small flows add up. You give the impression that you think a station/service is only viable if 100 people board every service when in fact there are very few flows tha get anywhere that.

It is the attitude that people will only ever want to travel into (and to the centre of) the nearest city/major town that public transport has such as a small share of transport usage. Thousands of jobs in each city are located as business parks on the edge of the city - through running services help attract people from the "wrong" side of the city.

The enormous success of Birmingham cross-city has resulted in many people from the likes of Coventry, Nuneaton, Tamworth etc. commuting daily to places away from the centre of Birmingham such as University, Selly Oak, Bourneville etc. which was unthinkable 20 years ago.

 

[Rational Plan]

Is it? Thought it had been cancelled by government cutbacks. Last i heard they Were meant to continue once they did the dishforth leeming bit so That's good news. personally i dont know why it wasnt done in one go while they had the machinery, staff etc already on site. would have savd a few quid. still, Alnwick to musselbrough really needs to be done aswell to finish the lot, but can't imagine that will ever get done.

Anyway back to topic!

I would also like to know what the plan is behind this Bradford cross rail idea, as I cannot see what benefit it provides. Are we anywhere nearer getting that answered?

Yes it's got through the government hokey cokey funding dance is currently shuddering back to life. Announced in the latest Autumn statement, I think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Northern projects with good cost benefits are being turned down because they require increased subsidies to run extra services. Schemes that only boost capacity in PTE regions aren't going anywhere because fares are too low.

Schemes that boost travel while cutting operating costs can use the booked savings to help fund themselves. Such as Electrification and potentially tram train projects.

Longer distance services that attract higher (less subsidised)fares will probably attract investment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What demand is there from Radlet to Balcombe or from Blake Street to Northfield? Yet the number of through journeys on Thameslink and Cross-city is immense because lots of small flows add up. You give the impression that you think a station/service is only viable if 100 people board every service when in fact there are very few flows tha get anywhere that.

It is the attitude that people will only ever want to travel into (and to the centre of) the nearest city/major town that public transport has such as a small share of transport usage. Thousands of jobs in each city are located as business parks on the edge of the city - through running services help attract people from the "wrong" side of the city.

The enormous success of Birmingham cross-city has resulted in many people from the likes of Coventry, Nuneaton, Tamworth etc. commuting daily to places away from the centre of Birmingham such as University, Selly Oak, Bourneville etc. which was unthinkable 20 years ago.

But the vast majority of Thameslink passengers are not crossing Zone 1. The scheme is not really about linking Bedford to Maidstone or Cambridge to Gatwick. It's about fitting more trains into central London.

Through services don't need to terminate in crowded central terminals. The more trains you put down a tunnel the fewer platforms used. The majority of cross London travelers will still change trains, but instead they can wait on the same platform for the correct destination.

So examining the idea of a Cross Bradford service you need to ask how crowded those Bradford platforms are and what journeys would be speeded up.

No Transpennine service going towards Leeds would go via the Northern route. The only through service that makes sense would be a new service from Skipton/Illkely towards Huddersfield linking an area or wealthy commuters to a centre with good jobs. But it all depends how many people actually do this commute by car in the first place and whether those jobs are near any stations, or spread around business parks.

Maybe there are cost saving from only one city centre station, or will there be enough commuters via train to justify both stations?

Also how will the line cross the city centre?

Currently it helps that the city has the westfield hole in it if you want to build a line, but I can't imagine that a tunnel would pay. Would the city be better of with a big railway viaduct cutting it in half? I doubt it.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the advantage to having a giant hole in the centre is that tunnels cost almost nothing.

Since you just put it in the basement of whatever they eventually put in said hole.

Frankly I think they should do it simply because it eliminates two stations and replaces it with one station for all trains, which is probably superior as far as passengers are concerned. And because once westfield is filled you can use the land used for a station for development and build over the two track railway line through oneo f the station sites.

And a viaduct is not neccesarily going to restrict anything in the city since it provides shopping space and it would have plenty of holes in it.

The viaduct in Manchester doesn't do significant damage to Oxford road which is "cut off" from the centre by it.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The viaduct in Manchester doesn't do significant damage to Oxford road which is "cut off" from the centre by it.

Of course not. The thirsty scholar is a cracking venue for a few beers and live music!!!

 

[tbtc]

What demand is there from Radlet to Balcombe or from Blake Street to Northfield? Yet the number of through journeys on Thameslink and Cross-city is immense because lots of small flows add up. You give the impression that you think a station/service is only viable if 100 people board every service when in fact there are very few flows tha get anywhere that.

It is the attitude that people will only ever want to travel into (and to the centre of) the nearest city/major town that public transport has such as a small share of transport usage. Thousands of jobs in each city are located as business parks on the edge of the city - through running services help attract people from the "wrong" side of the city.

The enormous success of Birmingham cross-city has resulted in many people from the likes of Coventry, Nuneaton, Tamworth etc. commuting daily to places away from the centre of Birmingham such as University, Selly Oak, Bourneville etc. which was unthinkable 20 years ago.

Thamelink in London and the Cross City line in Birmingham work because they take people directly through the busiest area (the respective city centres) and are much more efficient than building terminus space right in the middle of the city.

An Ilkley - Huddersfield service would avoid central Leeds, which is the main attraction in that area, and probably be little faster than the current Ilkley - Leeds and Leeds - Huddersfield services (given the state of the line through Halifax). Leeds is where the capacity problems are, not Bradford, and a Bradford Crossrail isn't going to have any impact on capacity into Leeds.

Since Coventry/ Nuneaton/ Tamworth aren't on a direct line to Selly Oak etc, I'm not sure what your point is (?) - obviously Universities attract people from further afield (which is why if there are going to be any "cross city" services in West Yorkshire then something linking the far side of Leeds to the Headlingley area might be on to a winner).

 

[yorksrob]

This is an interesting thread to read.

For myself, I think the heavier infrastructure spend such as Crossrail does need to be in London and the South East because that's where the main capacity issues are.

That said, I think there is a case to be made for a rebalancing of investment towards the regions. Crossrail type schemes might be a bit OTT, but certainly a wider level of rolling stock investment (replacement and capacity enhancement, cascade and newbuild), redoublings, platform lengthenings, resignallings to allow more capacity are certainly a good idea.

The NW Electrification and Ordsall curve are a good start, but there needs to be more of this sort of thing. We are quite fortunate in the North in that unlike for the SE even most of the busy routes were built for much longer trains than run currently, therefore capacity enhancements through longer trains will be cheaper.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Since Coventry/ Nuneaton/ Tamworth aren't on a direct line to Selly Oak etc, I'm not sure what your point is (?) - obviously Universities attract people from further afield (which is why if there are going to be any "cross city" services in West Yorkshire then something linking the far side of Leeds to the Headlingley area might be on to a winner).

The success of the through service has allowed the frequencies to increase to such an extent that is now viable for people on other routes to change at Birmingham to use it. University station serves a lot more than just the university.

 

[HSTEd]

It would appear that total network electrification would cost on order of £18bn.
If we write that off as economic stimulus in the present climate (see IMF telling Osbourne to stop being so austere), then the operating cost of diesel relative to electric trains becomes interesting.

2-car Pacer uses roughly 0.6L of diesel per kilometre, or roughly 0.96L/mile.
At present diesel prices this is roughly 67.2p/mile for fuel and approximately 7.86p/mile for track access, which takes us to 75.06p/mile.

A Class 357 (I know they are old but they are electrostars so I think its a reasonable thing to use, we have lightweight bogies now remember) uses approximately 2.2kWh per vehicle kilometre, or 3.5kWh per vehicle mile. That translates into 21p/mile for traction electricity costs. A typical Class 357 vehicle has an access charge of ~6.3p/mile.
Which means a Class 357 vehicle costs 27.3p/mile to run.

Which means that for the same costs (excluding capital costs of new trains and electrification) as a 2-car Pacer which is 30.8m long, you can have something on order of a 3-car Class 357 which is 60m long.

Probably has a better passenger environment. (Again this is not realistic because of the cost of capital et al has to be accounted for, but it shows just how much cheaper electrics are to run)

 

[jopsuk]

Whilst I'm inclined towards to total electrification in principle, does your £18bn include additional generation and supply?

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst I'm inclined towards to total electrification in principle, does your £18bn include additional generation and supply?

Why would it? There is surplus generation capacity in the electricity wholesale market and frankly the generating capacity required to replace all railway diesel use comes out as a rounding error in total electricity demand.

 

[Rational Plan]

It would appear that total network electrification would cost on order of £18bn.
If we write that off as economic stimulus in the present climate (see IMF telling Osbourne to stop being so austere), then the operating cost of diesel relative to electric trains becomes interesting.

2-car Pacer uses roughly 0.6L of diesel per kilometre, or roughly 0.96L/mile.
At present diesel prices this is roughly 67.2p/mile for fuel and approximately 7.86p/mile for track access, which takes us to 75.06p/mile.

A Class 357 (I know they are old but they are electrostars so I think its a reasonable thing to use, we have lightweight bogies now remember) uses approximately 2.2kWh per vehicle kilometre, or 3.5kWh per vehicle mile. That translates into 21p/mile for traction electricity costs. A typical Class 357 vehicle has an access charge of ~6.3p/mile.
Which means a Class 357 vehicle costs 27.3p/mile to run.

Which means that for the same costs (excluding capital costs of new trains and electrification) as a 2-car Pacer which is 30.8m long, you can have something on order of a 3-car Class 357 which is 60m long.

Probably has a better passenger environment. (Again this is not realistic because of the cost of capital et al has to be accounted for, but it shows just how much cheaper electrics are to run)

That would not work very well as a stimulus project. There are not that many electrical engineers, we'd have to import them from elsewhere. A better one would be a bi housbuilding programme as it is more labour intensive and involves less skilled workers.