New stations for Leeds

[daodao]

Anything to reduce congestion at Leeds by making connections elsewhere. £millions are to be spent at Leeds to increase capacity. Would this be needed if connections can be made elsewhere at less cost?
How much traffic could be diverted away from Leeds if money was spent connecting both stations in Bradford for Aire Valley-Calder Valley/Huddersfield traffic or reinstating Skipton-Colne for Aire Valley-East Lancs/Manchester traffic instead of spending at Leeds. I think this would be better value for money than enlarging an existing station as improved connectivity would increase and encourage growth..
Just think of Skipton passengers travelling to Manchester who currently have to travel 25 miles southeast to Leeds when Manchester is actually southwest of Skipton. Even worse for passengers along the Settle-Carlisle who live west of Manchester yet have to travel via Leeds also. They lost the ability to change at Hellifield for East Lancs and Manchester in 1962 yet the line is still extant with minimal freight traffic to Clitheroe but devoid of passengers, for the sake of extending the Clitheroe-Manchester services a few miles. An experimental diesel service from Skipton to Manchester reversing at Hellifield should have been introduced for 12 months as a condition of bidding for the recent Northern franchise bid. Why are those with responsibility so dim and visionless?
Ideally, Aire Valley electrification should be extended 10 miles to Long Preston and Hellifield (minimal overbridges) or even 15 miles to Settle considering how fast these settlements are expanding, then Manchester-Clitheroes need only extend to Hellifield.

A complete waste of money. Yorkshire's rural areas (in particular north of Skipton and Harrogate) have a very low population density and aren't worth serving by rail. There is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

West Riding rail services should focus on Leeds, Yorkshire's premier city, as the primary destination, with connections for elsewhere via Leeds.

 

[yorksrob]

A complete waste of money. Yorkshire's rural areas (in particular north of Skipton and Harrogate) have a very low population density and aren't worth serving by rail. There is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

West Riding rail services should focus on Leeds, Yorkshire's premier city, as the primary destination, with connections for elsewhere via Leeds.

Complete claptrap.

I would suggest you travel on one of the Wakefield - Huddersfield services which avoid an inconvenient dog-leg via Leeds and consequently are very popular throughout the day.

And as for your 'suggestions' concerning the routes North of Skipton, they belong in the era of 'The Dave Clark Five' and pirate radio. Both of these routes carry a healthy number of through and intermediate passengers and help to relieve a number of trans-Pennine services that are overcrowded as it is.

 

[Bantamzen]

There seems to be an hourly extension of a Leeds service to Bradford. Then a separate 2 hourly service to Harrogate via Leeds, leaving Kings Cross in opposite hours to a 2 hourly Lincoln service.

That's interesting, so it is possible that Bradford might see an hourly service for at least part if not all of the day? In which case this will reduce the capacity issue a tad, as for much of the day at least one set is sitting in Leeds for close to half an hour.

Complete claptrap.

I would suggest you travel on one of the Wakefield - Huddersfield services which avoid an inconvenient dog-leg via Leeds and consequently are very popular throughout the day.

And as for your 'suggestions' concerning the routes North of Skipton, they belong in the era of 'The Dave Clark Five' and pirate radio. Both of these routes carry a healthy number of through and intermediate passengers and help to relieve a number of trans-Pennine services that are overcrowded as it is.

Indeed, whilst Leeds might be the largest city in terms of retail / finance, it is hardly the be all and end all of the county. There is plenty of commuting going on that either doesn't see Leeds as the final destination, or in many cases doesn't see Leeds used at all.

As for closing the line(s) beyond Skipton, well that's just laughable. There seems to be this outstanding myth that this line carries hardly any people, yet Northern seem to have to provide more and more capacity, especially on the Carlisle route. Where once 2 car DMUs were the norm, it is no not uncommon to see 3 and 4 cars sets running up and down the S&C, and well loaded!

 

[DarloRich]

As part of trans Pennine route upgrade, Leeds station to Marsh Lane will be widened to three tracks along the viaduct with the middle track bi-directional and four tracks onward to at least Garforth before electrification. This is to be completed in 2022.

I haven't seen any proposals for a third track east of Leeds on the viaduct. I didn't think that there was the space. Is there any documentation on this Deltic08

I know it has been / is being looked at but I feel, personally, that while the extra capacity is badly needed it will be extremely hard to deliver within the constrains of the urban environment. The land take and associated costs will be vast and the engineering challenge and distribution massive. I would be intrigued to see any plans in due course.

 

[quantinghome]

I know it has been / is being looked at but I feel, personally, that while the extra capacity is badly needed it will be extremely hard to deliver within the constrains of the urban environment. The land take and associated costs will be vast and the engineering challenge and distribution massive. I would be intrigued to see any plans in due course.

Me too, although I'm not sure it would be that difficult. Although there will need to be some demolition around The Calls, it would be relatively limited in the case of a three-track alignment. It's already three tracks at the bridge over Lower Briggate and there are no buildings once you're past the Minster. I don't think it will be any more difficult than Borough Viaduct was for Thameslink.

Looking more generally at the issue of Leeds station development:

1. It should be understood that the vast majority of passengers using the station are entering or exiting Leeds, outnumbering interchanges by a ratio of10:1. (Interestingly, several station in Yorkshire have a greater proportion of interchange, including Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Shipley; Huddersfield is only slightly lower).

2. If the schemes suggested on this thread were to go ahead, what proportion of the 3 million Leeds interchanges would actually divert elsewhere? I suspect it would be quite low. In the best case scenario for Bradford getting an NPR station AND getting crossrail built, you would get some shift from the Aire and Wharfe valleys stations, but certainly less than 50% as London, Midlands, North-East and Scotland would still be served by interchange at Leeds.

Taking 1 and 2 together, there will not be significant reductions in passenger numbers at Leeds under even the most upbeat scenarios of investment elsewhere. That's not to say other schemes are not worth it, but they can't be justified by claiming savings in investment at Leeds.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If anyone suggests Bradford Crossrail as a viable scheme on these forums, I can't help but view everything else they say with a slightly negative undertone. That won't matter to most and nor should it (my approval is hopefully not your priority!) but be aware it is the ultimate crayon-scheme and may undermine your more sensible ideas!

The Wakefield connection from Huddersfield is useful, but only if you arrive at Huddersfield station at 20 minutes past the hour. Otherwise you're better off changing at Leeds if your ticket allows. I do agree that services that don't serve Leeds seem to be neglected particularly on Sundays (though that is due to change under the ARN franchise).

 

[Bantamzen]

If anyone suggests Bradford Crossrail as a viable scheme on these forums, I can't help but view everything else they say with a slightly negative undertone. That won't matter to most and nor should it (my approval is hopefully not your priority!) but be aware it is the ultimate crayon-scheme and may undermine your more sensible ideas!

The Wakefield connection from Huddersfield is useful, but only if you arrive at Huddersfield station at 20 minutes past the hour. Otherwise you're better off changing at Leeds if your ticket allows. I do agree that services that don't serve Leeds seem to be neglected particularly on Sundays (though that is due to change under the ARN franchise).

Well it could still be built over the top of the Broadway centre.........

Seriously though, when the Broadway was just a hole in the ground it *might* have been an option, funding allowing of course. There was a growing call from it from a group of businessmen who felt it could galvanise the then stalled shopping centre project. But now that has been completed, Bradford will always be a two terminus city thanks to the Victorians who were all too eager to plough their lines close, but not next to or adjoining each other's in the great wool rush of the mid-nineteenth century. Bloody Victorians, what did they ever do for us....

 

[IanXC]

A complete waste of money. Yorkshire's rural areas (in particular north of Skipton and Harrogate) have a very low population density and aren't worth serving by rail. There is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

West Riding rail services should focus on Leeds, Yorkshire's premier city, as the primary destination, with connections for elsewhere via Leeds.

There is little doubt to me that Leeds is absolutely a key destination, however I don't believe that is a reason to neglect/downgrade/ignore other routes. Journeys that do not have Leeds as their final destination can, in many cases, be rerouted away from Leeds, so reducing the ever increasing pressure on capacity in Leeds. And lets face it there are often opportunities to operate services that avoid Leeds for little or no investment cost, verses the stage we are currently getting to where additional platforms/lines/station facilities etc will be required.

I know it has been / is being looked at but I feel, personally, that while the extra capacity is badly needed it will be extremely hard to deliver within the constrains of the urban environment. The land take and associated costs will be vast and the engineering challenge and distribution massive. I would be intrigued to see any plans in due course.

Agreed. I will be intrigued to see if anything other that moving the stoppers between Leeds and York/Selby to electric traction has any meaningful effect on capacity on this corridor.

 

[xotGD]

That's interesting, so it is possible that Bradford might see an hourly service for at least part if not all of the day? In which case this will reduce the capacity issue a tad, as for much of the day at least one set is sitting in Leeds for close to half an hour.



Indeed, whilst Leeds might be the largest city in terms of retail / finance, it is hardly the be all and end all of the county. There is plenty of commuting going on that either doesn't see Leeds as the final destination, or in many cases doesn't see Leeds used at all.

As for closing the line(s) beyond Skipton, well that's just laughable. There seems to be this outstanding myth that this line carries hardly any people, yet Northern seem to have to provide more and more capacity, especially on the Carlisle route. Where once 2 car DMUs were the norm, it is no not uncommon to see 3 and 4 cars sets running up and down the S&C, and well loaded!

Can we get some of these 3 or 4 car sets on the 18:06 Leeds - Carlisle? Always full and standing out of Leeds (with Shipley passengers who could be on the 18:10 Bradford of course if the Carlisle was pick up only at Shipley).

 

[Bantamzen]

Can we get some of these 3 or 4 car sets on the 18:06 Leeds - Carlisle? Always full and standing out of Leeds (with Shipley passengers who could be on the 18:10 Bradford of course if the Carlisle was pick up only at Shipley).

I've read somewhere that the Carlisle diagrams are being recast, so maybe that will include more capacity for the later Carlisle services? As for pick up only, Northern could specify this but who would listen and enforce it? Maybe when the 2*331s arrive the 17:56 or whichever service will be closest to the Carlisle will soak up enough not to leave it rammed as it is.

 

[daodao]

And as for your 'suggestions' concerning the routes North of Skipton, they belong in the era of 'The Dave Clark Five' and pirate radio.

As for closing the line(s) beyond Skipton, well that's just laughable.

I stated that there is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

I stand by this point. A short curve from the WCML just north of Carnforth on to the line to Wennington and beyond would enable closure of the expensive-to-maintain S&C line from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct. The Skipton to Carnforth line could be electrified and a regular (e.g. 2 hourly) express Leeds to Glasgow service introduced for through traffic. Very few people would lose their rail service.

Keeping rural lines open for sentimental reasons is not something that one of the bankrupt European piggies can afford to do. Ireland, Greece and Portugal have all closed loss-making underused rural rail routes in the last few years and are proposing to close others. Several other British rural rail routes that don't serve significant population centres really should be considered for closure. Examples include:

• Gainsborough-Barnetby
• Whitby-Nunthorpe
• Cyffordd Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
• Craven Arms-Llanelli
• Dingwall-Kyle of Lochalsh
• Fort William-Mallaig

 

[yorksrob]

I stated that there is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

I stand by this point. A short curve from the WCML just north of Carnforth on to the line to Wennington and beyond would enable closure of the expensive-to-maintain S&C line from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct. The Skipton to Carnforth line could be electrified and a regular (e.g. 2 hourly) express Leeds to Glasgow service introduced for through traffic. Very few people would lose their rail service.

Keeping rural lines open for sentimental reasons is not something that one of the bankrupt European piggies can afford to do. Ireland, Greece and Portugal have all closed loss-making underused rural rail routes in the last few years and are proposing to close others. Several other British rural rail routes that don't serve significant population centres really should be considered for closure. Examples include:

• Gainsborough-Barnetby
• Whitby-Nunthorpe
• Cyffordd Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
• Craven Arms-Llanelli
• Dingwall-Kyle of Lochalsh
• Fort William-Mallaig

But the point is that neither line is 'little' used. And I would contend that there is no such thing as an 'economic case' without political implications, so there is no point in pretending that such a thing exists.

You propose diverting Leeds services up the WCML, yet I've heard that that route is already full of freight and passenger paths.

Those lines (and certainly not Whitby-Nunthorpe) are not kept open for 'sentimental reason'. That very phrase is redolent of cloistered civil servants in London who haven't got a clue what is going on in the provinces. They are kept open because they are extremely useful to local people (and in the case of the two Midland lines North of Settle), through passengers alike.

 

[Bantamzen]

I stated that there is a good economic (but not political) case for closing at least 1 of the 2 surviving ex-Midland routes beyond Skipton, now that there is minimal freight traffic.

I stand by this point. A short curve from the WCML just north of Carnforth on to the line to Wennington and beyond would enable closure of the expensive-to-maintain S&C line from Carlisle to south of Ribblehead viaduct. The Skipton to Carnforth line could be electrified and a regular (e.g. 2 hourly) express Leeds to Glasgow service introduced for through traffic. Very few people would lose their rail service.

Keeping rural lines open for sentimental reasons is not something that one of the bankrupt European piggies can afford to do. Ireland, Greece and Portugal have all closed loss-making underused rural rail routes in the last few years and are proposing to close others. Several other British rural rail routes that don't serve significant population centres really should be considered for closure. Examples include:

• Gainsborough-Barnetby
• Whitby-Nunthorpe
• Cyffordd Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
• Craven Arms-Llanelli
• Dingwall-Kyle of Lochalsh
• Fort William-Mallaig

You don't consider a growing tourism market a good economic reason for the area? They may be small settlements, but they attract large numbers of tourists, and not just in the summer either and the train is an important link in getting at least some of these people into the area. Cut the line and you will cut a good proportion of this market & potentially threaten these towns and villages. Some might consider that sentimental, but for the people living there and trying to make a living it is very much economic.

With the reducing freight traffic, there is the opportunity to grow the passenger routes not just along the S&C but to Glasgow and North West Scotland. Currently people travelling in that direction are generally pointed onto services that take the convoluted route via Newcastle & Edinburgh and are often crammed silly, when a potentially shorter route exists via the S&C. Now admittedly there might need to be some investment to upgrade sections of the line to allow for more regular workings, but there is no reason why the possibility cannot be explored. Its often cited that 30,40,50 years ago there was little demand, but times and demand change. A quicker service via the S&C to Glasgow could be a success be it Northern or TPE who offered it, and that would take at least some of the strain off the XCs which often struggle with capacity. It could even reduce the need for them to run into Scotland, terminating instead at Newcastle and leaving the Scotland routes for VTEC & TPE.

Of course if such services were offered, not all should call at every shack, a fast service to Scotland would need to be just that. But even if offered only every couple of hours, there would be plenty of space to keep on the stoppers were they are needed most for both locals and tourists.

 

[PR1Berske]

Closing any part of S&C will never happen. Communities with fairly ropey transport links as it is need access to something other than twisty-turny rural roads. Walkers and tourists pour money into the local areas every year. It should be maintained and funded.

 

[quantinghome]

There is little doubt to me that Leeds is absolutely a key destination, however I don't believe that is a reason to neglect/downgrade/ignore other routes. Journeys that do not have Leeds as their final destination can, in many cases, be rerouted away from Leeds, so reducing the ever increasing pressure on capacity in Leeds. And lets face it there are often opportunities to operate services that avoid Leeds for little or no investment cost, verses the stage we are currently getting to where additional platforms/lines/station facilities etc will be required.

I agree that other routes should receive investment, especially in the cases where going via Leeds involves a significant dogleg.

However, my earlier point was that the vast majority - 90% - of traffic using Leeds has Leeds itself as origin or destination. Minor investment on the existing network will not be sufficient to switch a significant proportion of the 10% of passengers at Leeds who are interchanging. Even with major investment made elsewhere, the physical and railway geography of West Yorkshire will inevitably mean than Leeds remains the station with the better connections. Very optimistically, half of interchanges might move elsewhere, which would reduce Leeds' passenger numbers by only 5%. That equates to about 2 years' general growth in passenger numbers. Leeds would still need to be fixed.

 

[IanXC]

I agree that other routes should receive investment, especially in the cases where going via Leeds involves a significant dogleg.

However, my earlier point was that the vast majority - 90% - of traffic using Leeds has Leeds itself as origin or destination. Minor investment on the existing network will not be sufficient to switch a significant proportion of the 10% of passengers at Leeds who are interchanging. Even with major investment made elsewhere, the physical and railway geography of West Yorkshire will inevitably mean than Leeds remains the station with the better connections. Very optimistically, half of interchanges might move elsewhere, which would reduce Leeds' passenger numbers by only 5%. That equates to about 2 years' general growth in passenger numbers. Leeds would still need to be fixed.

I tend to agree, however I think there is more that can be achieved relatively easily outside of Leeds, and as you say this will never be the entire solution. However if we only need to invest sufficiently in Leeds to grow capacity by 0.9X rather than X, I would suggest the total investment required in West Yorkshire capacity would be less.

 

[bluenoxid]

I have an idea and it is expensive but the article we talked about went big and all in so I don't apologise for that.

Rather than knocking down chunks of Leeds to realise that we still don't have capacity at Leeds station, why not close the four railway station to Micklefield, open a light rail line to Micklefield and route that into the centre of Leeds to an alternate tram stop(s) in the city centre. This releases capacity by removing the stoppers.

The same could be done with the five towns network but use the existing lines for a Tram Train network and potentially divert approaching Leeds with the fast Nottingham run via Wakefield Westgate and some consideration for retaining the Barnsley service (run alongiside HS3 into Leeds New Lane???)

 

[yorksrob]

I have an idea and it is expensive but the article we talked about went big and all in so I don't apologise for that.

Rather than knocking down chunks of Leeds to realise that we still don't have capacity at Leeds station, why not close the four railway station to Micklefield, open a light rail line to Micklefield and route that into the centre of Leeds to an alternate tram stop(s) in the city centre. This releases capacity by removing the stoppers.

The same could be done with the five towns network but use the existing lines for a Tram Train network and potentially divert approaching Leeds with the fast Nottingham run via Wakefield Westgate and some consideration for retaining the Barnsley service (run alongiside HS3 into Leeds New Lane???)

Personally, as a commuter from the five towns, a big concern with the second part of your suggestion would be speed. At present, I have a 35 min commute to Leeds with two intermediate stops (15-20 mins on one of the occasional services that miss out Castleford). I have, on occasion caught the bus which follows the same route and it takes about an hour. I don't want to be caught up in an Oldham Loop style amble every day.

In terms of capacity towards York, I do feel that more use could be made of the route via Castleford. Extending the new Huddersfield - Cass stopper ought to be tried.

 

[bluenoxid]

I would agree that it would be a compromise. I would hope that the time lost getting into the city centre is saved by better frequencies and acceleration (and a more direct route through south Leeds). What would you do?

The other alternative is to look at boosting links via Wakefield but I see Sheffield getting more services on the Westgate route, so that route is going to struggle.

When you say Huddersfield to Castleford, I assume that this goes via Wakefield Kirkgate and not Leeds.

I have been an advocate for York - Sheffield to be diverted via Barnsley and Featherstone.

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree that it would be a compromise. I would hope that the time lost getting into the city centre is saved by better frequencies and acceleration (and a more direct route through south Leeds). What would you do?

The other alternative is to look at boosting links via Wakefield but I see Sheffield getting more services on the Westgate route, so that route is going to struggle.

When you say Huddersfield to Castleford, I assume that this goes via Wakefield Kirkgate and not Leeds.

I have been an advocate for York - Sheffield to be diverted via Barnsley and Featherstone.

I think that now that the Nottingham train is going via Westgate, we have the opportunity to recast one of the fasts as a semi-fast to ensure that all stations on the Hallam line have at last a half hourly service.

If we were to bring the second platform at Castleford back into use, we could perhaps split the Hallam stopper there, with a portion going to Pontefract and creating a half hourly service there as well, all with no additional paths into Leeds (although platform space at Leeds might need to be shuffled due to the length of 17).

That said, the line into platform 17 at Leeds continues some way before converging with platform 16 road, so if a way were found to extend platform 17 along there, one could perhaps fit in a double sprinter on top of the 158, rather than just a 3 carriage 144 as at present.

 

[backontrack]

In terms of capacity towards York, I do feel that more use could be made of the route via Castleford. Extending the new Huddersfield - Cass stopper ought to be tried.

Agreed.

 

[DarloRich]

In terms of capacity towards York, I do feel that more use could be made of the route via Castleford. Extending the new Huddersfield - Cass stopper ought to be tried.

Do you mean Hudds>Lds>Cass>York or missing out Leeds entirely? Is that not cutting of your main population centre?

 

[yorksrob]

Do you mean Hudds>Lds>Cass>York or missing out Leeds entirely? Is that not cutting of your main population centre?

It does. But having used the Wakefield - Huddersfield a fair bit over the past few years, I've become convinced that there's a decent market for some non-Leeds services. Particularly if fares could be competitive with the overpriced York-Leeds corridor.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do you mean Hudds>Lds>Cass>York or missing out Leeds entirely? Is that not cutting of your main population centre?

It does. But having used the Wakefield - Huddersfield a fair bit over the past few years, I've become convinced that there's a decent market for some non-Leeds services. Particularly if fares could be competitive with the overpriced York-Leeds corridor.

It would be an extension of a service which doesn't serve Leeds anyway. I'm not aware of any huge demand for travel between Huddersfield and Castleford (other than the rugby, which stretches the definition of "huge") so the proposed service is perhaps better viewed as two local stoppers joined together at Wakefield. Extending further to York seems sound at first thought, though without competitive fares for avoiding Leeds it could end up just carting fresh air around.

Situations like at Castleford do seem ripe for people to get their crayons out, so a cautious approach is wise!

 

[yorksrob]

It would be an extension of a service which doesn't serve Leeds anyway. I'm not aware of any huge demand for travel between Huddersfield and Castleford (other than the rugby, which stretches the definition of "huge") so the proposed service is perhaps better viewed as two local stoppers joined together at Wakefield. Extending further to York seems sound at first thought, though without competitive fares for avoiding Leeds it could end up just carting fresh air around.

Situations like at Castleford do seem ripe for people to get their crayons out, so a cautious approach is wise!

I think there is potentially more of a market for York than just Castleford, so such an extension of a service which will happen anyway could end up being better used.

And I have proposed a solution to double services to both Hallam and Pontefract line stations with just an extension to platform 17 at Leeds and bringing back into use an existing platform at Castleford, so I reject out of hand the insinuation of crayonism.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think there is potentially more of a market for York than just Castleford, so such an extension of a service which will happen anyway could end up being better used.

And I have proposed a solution to double services to both Hallam and Pontefract line stations with just an extension to platform 17 at Leeds and bringing back into use an existing platform at Castleford, so I reject out of hand the insinuation of crayonism.

My mention of crayons was not aimed at any individual and wasn't intended to offend- if it did, I apologise!

In fact when the plans for the Huddersfield to Castleford service were announced I too thought that extension to York would be a good thing, and I still do. I would use such a service semi-regularly if it existed. My comment about 2 local services being joined was in regard to the service going no further than Cas, rather than this discussion of extending to York. I'd not be surprised if extending to York would actually increase the viability of the whole service... But:

The Crayons reference was to the fact that anyone visiting Castleford can see that the railway goes further but the trains never do. None of us really know what sort of ridership a York service would get, unless one was to be trialled for a couple of years. If after those two years each train was carrying one man and his dog, the logical conclusion would be that the service wasn't sustainable* and that it shouldn't run just for the "neatness" obsession of a handful of enthusiasts. It's a shame that such a trial doesn't seem to be on the agenda of decision makers and even if it was, actually organising it would seem to be as complicated as a combination of The Krypton Factor and 3-2-1 but with all the contestants forced to take large amounts of mind-altering drugs beforehand!

*=that is of course assuming that the rules generally used to decide whether something is"sustainable" or not are actually fit for purpose. If the most important rule is whether or not the thing makes a profit, then the conclusion drawn will be flawed and incomplete.

I'm of the opinion that there should be more trains not less, and more railways not less. The problem is that we keep electing financial vultures to high office and as long as we do that we have to play by their rules.

 

[yorksrob]

My mention of crayons was not aimed at any individual and wasn't intended to offend- if it did, I apologise!

In fact when the plans for the Huddersfield to Castleford service were announced I too thought that extension to York would be a good thing, and I still do. I would use such a service semi-regularly if it existed. My comment about 2 local services being joined was in regard to the service going no further than Cas, rather than this discussion of extending to York. I'd not be surprised if extending to York would actually increase the viability of the whole service... But:

The Crayons reference was to the fact that anyone visiting Castleford can see that the railway goes further but the trains never do. None of us really know what sort of ridership a York service would get, unless one was to be trialled for a couple of years. If after those two years each train was carrying one man and his dog, the logical conclusion would be that the service wasn't sustainable* and that it shouldn't run just for the "neatness" obsession of a handful of enthusiasts. It's a shame that such a trial doesn't seem to be on the agenda of decision makers and even if it was, actually organising it would seem to be as complicated as a combination of The Krypton Factor and 3-2-1 but with all the contestants forced to take large amounts of mind-altering drugs beforehand!

*=that is of course assuming that the rules generally used to decide whether something is"sustainable" or not are actually fit for purpose. If the most important rule is whether or not the thing makes a profit, then the conclusion drawn will be flawed and incomplete.

I'm of the opinion that there should be more trains not less, and more railways not less. The problem is that we keep electing financial vultures to high office and as long as we do that we have to play by their rules.

Don't worry - I was being tongue in cheek in mentioning crayons

In terms of a trial to York, I think it would be a good idea, so long as the parameters by which it would be adjudjed are open an sensible from the start.

I also think it should be priced more competitively than Leeds to York on account of:

It won't be a particularly fast ICesque service unlike Trans-Pennine, so wouldn't justify the premium that is charged for that route.

It won't be as busy as Leeds - York, so again won't justify that routes premium fares.

The five towns tend to struggle economically, so a service to York would justify subsidy in that respect, unlike Leeds - York where the opposite is the case.

 

[billio]

...

It won't be a particularly fast ICesque service unlike Trans-Pennine, so wouldn't justify the premium that is charged for that route.

...

Possibly not fast overall from Huddersfield, but depending on where it will stop after Castleford, if it stops at all, you could expect the last 20 miles to York taking 20+ minutes or so. A time like that would certainly make a very attractive journey to York from Castleford and some points further west.

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly not fast overall from Huddersfield, but depending on where it will stop after Castleford, if it stops at all, you could expect the last 20 miles to York taking 20+ minutes or so. A time like that would certainly make a very attractive journey to York from Castleford and some points further west.

Indeed. There's currently one station at Sherburn in Elmete that it would pass through, so it might as well call there. Wouldn't be too much of a time penalty anyway.

 

[bluenoxid]

Indeed. There's currently one station at Sherburn in Elmete that it would pass through, so it might as well call there. Wouldn't be too much of a time penalty anyway.

Church Fenton and Ulleskelf are also on the proposed route.