Low Moor proposed railway station

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The infrastructural matter that concerns the curvature of the platforms for the proposed railway station as being outside the Network Rail approved parameters has been cited as a reason in past days for the project not to proceed but I understand from a friend in West Yorkshire that as a result of recent discussion meetings, a Certificate of Deviation has been officially issued, which will allow future planning to continue.

I would welcome information from anyone from within the rail industry on this website to expand on this matter with their posting comments, please.

 

[eastdyke]

The infrastructural matter that concerns the curvature of the platforms for the proposed railway station as being outside the Network Rail approved parameters has been cited as a reason in past days for the project not to proceed but I understand from a friend in West Yorkshire that as a result of recent discussion meetings, a Certificate of Deviation has been officially issued, which will allow future planning to continue.

I would welcome information from anyone from within the rail industry on this website to expand on this matter with their posting comments, please.

I am not working within the industry but the link to view the Deviation from a Railway Group Standard can be viewed here:

http://goo.gl/qtp4JK

This is at last good news for the residents of Low Moor although begs the question as to why this could not have been actioned a lot sooner.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I am not working within the industry but the link to view the Deviation from a Railway Group Standard can be viewed here:

http://goo.gl/qtp4JK

This is at last good news for the residents of Low Moor although begs the question as to why this could not have been actioned a lot sooner.

Amongst other things, some fool proposed changing the permissible speed in the area.

<shuffles off nonchalanty, whistling>

 

[Bantamzen]

There is confirmation that a Certificate of Deviation has been issued on the Metro website, along with the plans for the proposed station:

https://www.wymetro.com/news/projects/projectdetails/lowmoor/

What is of note is that the station is located on the site of the old junction onto the old Spen Valley line which will effectively end any hope that this route could ever be relaid in the future.

 

[AndyHudds]

There is confirmation that a Certificate of Deviation has been issued on the Metro website, along with the plans for the proposed station:

https://www.wymetro.com/news/projects/projectdetails/lowmoor/

What is of note is that the station is located on the site of the old junction onto the old Spen Valley line which will effectively end any hope that this route could ever be relaid in the future.

Total madness, that line is a prime candidate for re-opening giving a large population access to the rail network. I sometimes wonder what goes on at Metro's HQ regarding West Yorkshire's rail network.

 

[Bantamzen]

Total madness, that line is a prime candidate for re-opening giving a large population access to the rail network. I sometimes wonder what goes on at Metro's HQ regarding West Yorkshire's rail network.

I was always under the impression that the station was to be to the east of the Cleckheaton Road bridge, and the original artist's impression seemed to back that up. So I've no idea why suddenly the station is on the west side, and any potential junction back to the Spen Valley??

 

[HowardGWR]

I was always under the impression that the station was to be to the east of the Cleckheaton Road bridge, and the original artist's impression seemed to back that up. So I've no idea why suddenly the station is on the west side, and any potential junction back to the Spen Valley??

It does not block the Spen valley junction at all. It's the other side of the line surely?

 

[MarkyT]

Total madness, that line is a prime candidate for re-opening giving a large population access to the rail network. I sometimes wonder what goes on at Metro's HQ regarding West Yorkshire's rail network.

Looking at the plans the only significant obstacle the new station poses to reopening the Spen Valley is the ramp to the Halifax bound platform. That might be replaced by a lift upon such reinstatement. I assume a single branch platform with an independent track continuing under the wide Cleckheaton Road bridge and the junction situated to the east of the bridge. The cycleway under the bridge would need relocating locally but once clear of the new Low Moor station a largely single line arrangement could probably coexist happily on the assumed former double track alignment.

 

[AndyHudds]

Phew....well that's something at least. I've never understood why there has never been any campaign, proposal or feasibility study on the re-opening of the Spen line. Most of the track bed is intact, the population is there and it could give us a second service into Bradford from Huddersfield that Metro desire in their Railplan, obviously they'd have to build a curve into the Wakefield line at Ravensthorpe for it to serve Huddersfield but there is plenty of land round there for that, plus if the Horbury Curve was reinstated Bradford could have services onto Barnsley and Sheffield plus the East Midlands.

 

[HowardGWR]

I presume the land on the NE side of Cleckheaton Road could be used for further Pand R or perhaps a new shopping centre and local facilities, thus cementing the "centrality" of the new station?

 

[MarkyT]

. . . could give us a second service into Bradford from Huddersfield that Metro desire in their Railplan, obviously they'd have to build a curve into the Wakefield line at Ravensthorpe . . .

It would be a shame to miss out Dewsbury. Rather than heading for Huddersfield here's an idea for 2 curves at Ravensthorpe that would enable a Bradford to Wakefield service, reversing at Dewsbury and connecting there with Transpennine services. That new service could also call at reopened Thornhill and Horbury stations.

http://www.townend.me/files/dewsbury.pdf

 

[lancastrian]

The infrastructural matter that concerns the curvature of the platforms for the proposed railway station as being outside the Network Rail approved parameters has been cited as a reason in past days for the project not to proceed but I understand from a friend in West Yorkshire that as a result of recent discussion meetings, a Certificate of Deviation has been officially issued, which will allow future planning to continue.

I would welcome information from anyone from within the rail industry on this website to expand on this matter with their posting comments, please.

I think that the problem is all the supposed 'worry' over stations on the curve and other supposed 'health & safety' concerns. people have been using curved platforms for year. Bristol Temple meads immediately springs to mind, and I am sure that others can come up with their own example.

In the past West Yorkshire Council were reopening 2 or 3 stations a year at times in the 1980's. but today they seem to have to spend more than the cost of building the station on what seems to me to be a complete waste of time and money.

Consultants for everything under the sun, none of which actually seems to me to be of any value, although I will accept that a good architect is needed, plus a builder who can build it on time and on budget. All the rest is in my mind a complete waste of time and money.

They just need to stop messing about and build it, NOW!

End of personal rant about time and money wasted.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would be a shame to miss out Dewsbury. Rather than heading for Huddersfield here's an idea for 2 curves at Ravensthorpe that would enable a Bradford to Wakefield service, reversing at Dewsbury and connecting there with Transpennine services. That new service could also call at reopened Thornhill and Horbury stations.

http://www.townend.me/files/dewsbury.pdf

A nice idea, but I was in Dewsbury on Wednesday and decided to pay for a train back to Huddersfield rather than wait 10 minutes in that hellish bus station- So missing it out may be a good thing!

Even with the bay platform though, I'm not sure there'd be capacity for 1tph in each direction via these curves: Each Horbury-bound service would have to cross the Leeds main to get to the Huddersfield main to access the curve towards Wakefield, and each Bradford would do the reverse heading in to the bay, and possibly out too- unless the Leeds-bound mainline was made bi-directional, which just swaps one conflicting move for another anyway.
If the first sod was cut tomorrow morning, by the time the first trains run they'll be competing for paths with 6 fast TPE services and at least 2 local services in each direction. I just don't think there'd be room, and I don't think that Dewsbury justifies the expense.

 

[Eagle]

Total madness, that line is a prime candidate for re-opening giving a large population access to the rail network. I sometimes wonder what goes on at Metro's HQ regarding West Yorkshire's rail network.

Even if it does block the original junction, there's no reason why the line couldn't be reopened on a slightly different alignment.

It's not a rule that railway reopenings have to follow the exact line of the original.

 

[MarkyT]

A nice idea, but I was in Dewsbury on Wednesday and decided to pay for a train back to Huddersfield rather than wait 10 minutes in that hellish bus station- So missing it out may be a good thing!

Even with the bay platform though, I'm not sure there'd be capacity for 1tph in each direction via these curves: . . . I just don't think there'd be room, and I don't think that Dewsbury justifies the expense.

Some good points there. I've had another go, adding another bay on the Huddersfield bound side and extending the main line platform at the Leeds end so the platform starter can move back and overlap conflicts can be avoided between movements in and out of the bay and simultaneous arrivals from Leeds. I've also proposed moving the bus station to the station forecourt to create a more convenient interchange hub, hopefully of better quality than the existing one!

http://www.townend.me/files/dewsbury.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://www.townend.me/files/dewsbury.pdf

What land space is available for the Bradford Curve that is shown next to the river and is there any risk of flooding there ?

 

[Grumpy]

In the past West Yorkshire Council were reopening 2 or 3 stations a year at times in the 1980's. but today they seem to have to spend more than the cost of building the station on what seems to me to be a complete waste of time and money.

Consultants for everything under the sun, none of which actually seems to me to be of any value, although I will accept that a good architect is needed, plus a builder who can build it on time and on budget. All the rest is in my mind a complete waste of time and money.

They just need to stop messing about and build it, NOW!

End of personal rant about time and money wasted.

The problem today seems to be that "they" have built so much into the spec of what a station must have, they have made them too expensive and difficult to justify.

This station is going to cost approx. £5.5m. You're going to have to sell an awful lot of tickets to get your money back on that, before finding the money to pay for the additional vehicles to carry the passengers.

The cheap and cheerful ones built in the 1980's cost approx. £200k. Even allowing for inflation that's a huge increase. The new designs may look swisher and be more robust and cater for all types of disability but if you cant afford it then everyone loses out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be a shame to miss out Dewsbury. Rather than heading for Huddersfield here's an idea for 2 curves at Ravensthorpe that would enable a Bradford to Wakefield service, reversing at Dewsbury and connecting there with Transpennine services. That new service could also call at reopened Thornhill and Horbury stations.

[/url]

Never mind reversing at Dewsbury-carry on into Leeds. I suspect the inhabitants of Cleckmondwike would appreciate a decent service into Leeds

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The cheap and cheerful ones built in the 1980's cost approx. £200k. Even allowing for inflation that's a huge increase. The new designs may look swisher and be more robust and cater for all types of disability, but if you can't afford it, then everyone loses out.

Are some of the 1980's low construction cost stations now in need of some structual stengthening and improvements ?

 

[MarkyT]

What land space is available for the Bradford Curve that is shown next to the river and is there any risk of flooding there ?

The narrow strip alongside the north bank is small business yards now according to aerial views. One possibly scrap, another haulage. The link looks like it would be mostly raised well above the river level.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It doesn't really matter how many bays you put in, the problem is conflicting moves and/or occupancy of bi-directional lines to the South/West of the station. With minimum 8tph on the main, I just don't see how you'd fit everything in.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . Never mind reversing at Dewsbury-carry on into Leeds. I suspect the inhabitants of Cleckmondwike would appreciate a decent service into Leeds

Which could call at White Rose Shopping Centre if that gets a station. As could a service via Dewsbury to Wakefield. That might be a better route for the local trains between Leeds and Doncaster. Maybe make Wakefield chord double track and electrify the link through Horbury and Kirkgate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't really matter how many bays you put in, the problem is conflicting moves and/or occupancy of bi-directional lines to the South/West of the station. With minimum 8tph on the main, I just don't see how you'd fit everything in.

Which is why I'm thinking now the better alternative would be Grumpy's direct service from Spen Valley to Leeds (via WRSC).

 

[Ploughman]

Are some of the 1980's low construction cost stations now in need of some structual stengthening and improvements ?

The timber stations built by Metro have been in a bad condition a number of years back with holes in the decking.
Some work redecking the platforms has been carried out but do not know if this has been done to all stations.

The photo attached was taken at one of these platforms and is the ramp top joint. I will not mention the station, but it was typical condition wise.
This one has been redecked since.

 

[Grumpy]

The timber stations built by Metro have been in a bad condition a number of years back with holes in the decking.
Some work redecking the platforms has been carried out but do not know if this has been done to all stations.

The photo attached was taken at one of these platforms and is the ramp top joint. I will not mention the station, but it was typical condition wise.
This one has been redecked since.

I think the key point is that the stations have been successful in attracting passengers to railway use and have generated a lot of cash without the need to run any additional trains (longer ones though probably). Steeton has approx. 750k passengers pa so given the fares to major centres in West Yorks it is possible to see annual revenue generated of £2m. So you can afford to pay for a bit of replacement decking from time to time and still be quids in. I appreciate some stations have fewer users but I should be surprised if the average was much less than £1m pa.

The picture above suggests something wrong with Network Rail's maintenance procedures if they let it get into that state.

 

[Ploughman]

Just to make it definate. That photo was taken on the date stated and work was ongoing to redeck the platform very shortly afterwards.
I am not making any comment on NWRs maintenance procedures since that date or now.
However looking at the condition of the ply decking the rot had set in a fair while earlier.

 

[AndyHudds]

What land space is available for the Bradford Curve that is shown next to the river and is there any risk of flooding there ?

The river is quite wide and deep at this section and in all my life I've never known it flood there, although to be honest I've never known it flood full stop.

 

[quantinghome]

In the past West Yorkshire Council were reopening 2 or 3 stations a year at times in the 1980's. but today they seem to have to spend more than the cost of building the station on what seems to me to be a complete waste of time and money.

Consultants for everything under the sun, none of which actually seems to me to be of any value, although I will accept that a good architect is needed, plus a builder who can build it on time and on budget. All the rest is in my mind a complete waste of time and money.

They just need to stop messing about and build it, NOW!

End of personal rant about time and money wasted.

I tend to agree that the cost of new stations is excessive. But I must disagree with you on the consultants. Who do you think designs it? You can't just tell a builder 'now my good man, build a station here and make it quick!'. You need to design everything from the foundations, retaining walls if you're in a cutting, platform geometry (taking into account the kinematic envelope of passing trains), lighting, drainage, highway works for the car park and connections to the road, rerouting lineside cabling, environmental considerations, timetabling etc. etc. etc. A lot of the kit used now is modular which does cut down on the design work to some extent, but each location will have its own unique problems to deal with. Engineering consultants profit margins are pretty low being in a very competitive market.

The railway is a very different beast to the 1980s. The safety standards in place now make it more difficult to build next to a live railway and of course there is DDR which wasn't a consideration back in the 80s. Network Rail define the standards for new stations, and ORR who control rail safety, stemming ultimately from government legislation. I share your frustrations about the excessive costs. It would probably be significantly cheaper if the railways weren't so split up, but again that's at the political level rather than at a level the industry can do something about.

 

[yorksrob]

The railway is a very different beast to the 1980s. The safety standards in place now make it more difficult to build next to a live railway and of course there is DDR which wasn't a consideration back in the 80s. Network Rail define the standards for new stations, and ORR who control rail safety, stemming ultimately from government legislation. I share your frustrations about the excessive costs. It would probably be significantly cheaper if the railways weren't so split up, but again that's at the political level rather than at a level the industry can do something about.

Perhaps there needs to be a bonfire of the regulations.

The wooden halts might need to be patched up, but they have been useful and proved the need for a station at those locations. The LB&SCR and SE&CR's did similar with their railmotor halts, which were often replaced later on by Southern Railway harps and slabs.

I go back to a point that I've made on previous threads, if it's safe enough to be allowed through grandfather rights, it's safe enough.

 

[Darren R]

I tend to agree that the cost of new stations is excessive. But I must disagree with you on the consultants. Who do you think designs it? You can't just tell a builder 'now my good man, build a station here and make it quick!'. You need to design everything from the foundations, retaining walls if you're in a cutting, platform geometry (taking into account the kinematic envelope of passing trains), lighting, drainage, highway works for the car park and connections to the road, rerouting lineside cabling, environmental considerations, timetabling etc. etc. etc. A lot of the kit used now is modular which does cut down on the design work to some extent, but each location will have its own unique problems to deal with. Engineering consultants profit margins are pretty low being in a very competitive market.

But the issue isn't with those consultants you outline - as you say, engineering and architectural consultants are sort of quite important! It's the endless consultation exercises with those groups deemed to be "stakeholders." Some of them serve a purpose - up to a reasonable point - but there is far too many of them being consulted! The Council for the Protection of Rural England doesn't really need to hire a legal team every time a new station is proposed!

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps there needs to be a bonfire of the regulations.

The wooden halts might need to be patched up, but they have been useful and proved the need for a station at those locations. The LB&SCR and SE&CR's did similar with their railmotor halts, which were often replaced later on by Southern Railway harps and slabs.

I go back to a point that I've made on previous threads, if it's safe enough to be allowed through grandfather rights, it's safe enough.

Standards improve for a reason.

The fact that you can carry on using stations on curves/ step entrance buses/ vehicles with badly polluting engines/ buildings without proper disabled access (etc) in 2013 doesn't mean we should allow those lower standards on newbuild stuff.

Whatever you think of current regulations, any new station has to meet them, got to be realistic about any proposals for a new station here.

 

[eastdyke]

Standards improve for a reason.

The fact that you can carry on using stations on curves/ step entrance buses/ vehicles with badly polluting engines/ buildings without proper disabled access (etc) in 2013 doesn't mean we should allow those lower standards on newbuild stuff.

Whatever you think of current regulations, any new station has to meet them, got to be realistic about any proposals for a new station here.

You are quite right of course.

But Low Moor has taken too much time, and also too much money, to get - a station built on a curve!

Bring on the new Euston remodelled for HS2 - and another station with curved platforms, and for far far longer trains.
Allowed platform curvature should be related to, amongst all the other factors, train length. It currently is not without seeking a deviation.

It begs the question of exactly who has to suffer for (perhaps lack of) compromise.