Re-opening Colne to Skipton

[Halifaxlad]

Because the current service has a 4 minute turnround time at Colne. Going any further is going to need an extra unit.

Thats pretty much expected, my point was about the 45 minute layover!

No chance - Barnoldswick doesn't even meet Altnabraec's reopening criteria - that's a starter for 10.

My suggestion of opening a line to Barnoldswick was primarily somewhere to extend services to instead of running every service to Skipton and back since commuter flows are stronger in the opposite direction! Isn't SELRAP proposing a new station at Earby anyway that has a population of 4,387 ?

There is also the problem of what services serve the line if reopened. SELRAP want it double tracking but also aspire for existing Skipton services to be extended to Rose Grove (20KM) which will require electrification unless the 333's on the Aire Valley are replaced! Having a rail head where electric services could terminate at Barnoldswick means that could effectively half that whilst still providing cross boundary services, if it was single track from there to Skipton you could bring the costs down further although SELRAP want it double tracking throughout!

Personally I don't see why it needs to be double track throughout to achieve a half hourly frequency in line with SELRAPs ambitions! Although I think it would be beneficial to double track the existing line from Rose Grove to Colne or Barnoldswick if extended.
If it was extended then I think the whole project would be better off broken down into 3 stages.

1) Extension (to B) and double tracking

2) Eastern half to Skipton to facilitate freight

3) Electrification Westwards to (B) facilitate electric services.

 

[zwk500]

Has anybody found a copy of the c.2018 Feasibility Study in the Public Domain, or know if the follow-up commercial study ever got published publicly?

The news reports I can see refer to 'looking at freight to see if the case stacks up', which seems to be a more sensitive way of saying 'it's a fiery moneypit'.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Has anybody found a copy of the c.2018 Feasibility Study in the Public Domain, or know if the follow-up commercial study ever got published publicly?

The news reports I can see refer to 'looking at freight to see if the case stacks up', which seems to be a more sensitive way of saying 'it's a fiery moneypit'.

I haven't looked in detail (yet) but have you their website: http://selrap.org.uk/Publications.html

Ive had a brief look this morning and another study has been updated in November last year!

 

[zwk500]

I haven't looked in detail (yet) but have you their website: http://selrap.org.uk/Publications.html

Ive had a brief look this morning and another study has been updated in November last year!

You'll forgive me for not considering the Campaign group the most impartial source of analysis on this line.

 

[Ianno87]

Thats pretty much expected, my point was about the 45 minute layover!

Assume you'll have to cross the trains on the branch somewhere, so you're going to end up either sitting at Barnoldswick for a long time, or sitting around at the other end of the journey.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Ah sorry, that section I would double track it anyway as I would aim to have a half hourly service.

From Barnoldswick to Skipton I would have it single (at a later date.)

 

[Flying Claret]

A pragmatic approach is whats required. Aim for 30 min service with a passing loop to facilitate, and better onward connections to Manchester.

 

[Bald Rick]

The news reports I can see refer to 'looking at freight to see if the case stacks up', which seems to be a more sensitive way of saying 'it's a fiery moneypit'.

It’s certainly a more sensitive way of saying ‘the passenger case doesn’t stack up’.

 

[Halifaxlad]

A pragmatic approach is whats required.

Certainly agree with that!

As for connections to Manchester which is the best way via Darwen and Bolton or changing services and going via Todmorden ?

 

[Flying Claret]

Certainly agree with that!

As for connections to Manchester which is the best way via Darwen and Bolton or changing services and going via Todmorden ?

Quicker changing at Rose Grove and round through Tod.
A few years ago there was 1 train each way per day from Colne to Manc via Darwen. It took ages and don't think it lasted long.

 

[Ianno87]

Quicker changing at Rose Grove and round through Tod.
A few years ago there was 1 train each way per day from Colne to Manc via Darwen. It took ages and don't think it lasted long.

Trouble is

A) Difficult to get good connections at Rose Grove both ways. Colne is dictated by the single line, and the service via Todmorden dictated by paths through Manchester

B) Rose Grove is not the most inviting station for a long wait (but is at least "cross-platform")

At least the former would be improved by upping the Colne frequency to half-hourly with a passing loop.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Quicker changing at Rose Grove and round through Tod.
A few years ago there was 1 train each way per day from Colne to Manc via Darwen. It took ages and don't think it lasted long.

I thought this might be the case!

Might as well focus on a half hourly service from Colne (or Eastwards) towards Preston!

 

[Flying Claret]

I thought this might be the case!

Might as well focus on a half hourly service from Colne (or Eastwards) towards Preston!

Yep. Thats exactly my thoughts. Focusing on growing what is already there, rather than some totally unrealistic pipedream. Presently SELRAP are barking at the moon.

 

[bluenoxid]

My impression is that SELRAP doesn’t act as the Rail User Group for the existing railway service or the transport user group for buses on this corridor.

 

[YorksLad12]

My impression is that SELRAP doesn’t act as the Rail User Group for the existing railway service or the transport user group for buses on this corridor.

I've been out of the game for a while, but doesn't/didn't AVRUG (Aire Valley Rail User Group) cover the Skipton end of things? Tim something? SELRAP doesn't even have a 'C' for Colne, so...

 

[D6130]

I've been out of the game for a while, but doesn't/didn't AVRUG (Aire Valley Rail User Group) cover the Skipton end of things? Tim something? SELRAP doesn't even have a 'C' for Colne, so...

Correct....Tim Calow was the AVRUG secretary for many years and may well still be. There is also a seperate - but affiliated - organisation known as FoAL (Friends of the Airedale Line).

 

[30907]

Correct....Tim Calow was the AVRUG secretary for many years and may well still be.

Promoted to Chair now!

 

[YorksLad12]

Correct....Tim Calow was the AVRUG secretary for many years and may well still be. There is also a seperate - but affiliated - organisation known as FoAL (Friends of the Airedale Line).

Promoted to Chair now!

Cheers both! FoAL is a new one on me, I think. I used to have a list of all of the ones in the north, but that was seven years ago.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[Halifaxlad]

There isnt freight demand, it already has an alternative route.
The poor bus service demonstrates that private enterprise has not found a profitable niche, and its at its optimum.

So why would a railway help this ?

The alternative route is suffering already services have been withdrawn from Sowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd these long and slow freight trains arn't helping!

 

[zwk500]

The alternative route is suffering already services have been withdrawn from Sowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd these long and slow freight trains arn't helping!

Sending freights across the lot at Leeds western throat (or routing them via Cross Gates) is not going to be better for capacity. In any way. And that's before you look at Blackburn, Euxton Jn, Wigan-Balstock Lane etc.

Improving headways on the Calder Valley is a realistic and achievable solution to the problem of freight capacity. Building a new line that is longer and slower with worse capacity constraints is not a sensible solution to freight problems.

 

[billio]

Sending freights across the lot at Leeds western throat (or routing them via Cross Gates) is not going to be better for capacity. In any way. And that's before you look at Blackburn, Euxton Jn, Wigan-Balstock Lane etc.

Improving headways on the Calder Valley is a realistic and achievable solution to the problem of freight capacity. Building a new line that is longer and slower with worse capacity constraints is not a sensible solution to freight problems.

I would agree. If there is a significant amount of money to spend it would be better spent on re-opening Rochdale to Bolton via Bury as the route from Yorkshire to Liverpool is significantly shorter, the amount of 'new' railway is much less, traffic uses the Calder Valley and avoids Leeds, and it allows direct connections between some large towns avoiding Manchester.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Reading the many other comments on this site about the financial background of the railway industry , there is no "significant amount of money to spend" for such daydreams , with or without the mythical freight potential.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[Halifaxlad]

Sending freights across the lot at Leeds western throat (or routing them via Cross Gates) is not going to be better for capacity. In any way. And that's before you look at Blackburn, Euxton Jn, Wigan-Balstock Lane etc.

Improving headways on the Calder Valley is a realistic and achievable solution to the problem of freight capacity. Building a new line that is longer and slower with worse capacity constraints is not a sensible solution to freight problems.

Sending more freight down the Aire Valley towards Leeds is exactly what SELRAP is proposing to do and apparently even has support from freight operator!

Freight doesn't really have a problem it's passenger traffic that has because of it!

 

[Bald Rick]

Sending more freight down the Aire Valley towards Leeds is exactly what SELRAP is proposing to do and apparently even has support from freight operator!

Fortunately, SELRAP aren’t responsible for setting the service specification or writing the timetables in that area.

 

[zwk500]

Freight doesn't really have a problem it's passenger traffic that has because of it!

First off, this not at all the case. Freights have many more problems than just annoying passenger TOCs.

Second off, what do you think has more impact on passenger services: needing a 6/7-minute clear gap at the western end of Leeds for a freight to get on/off the Aire Valley or freight getting in the way of a few stopping services around Hebden Bridge?

 

[Halifaxlad]

First off, this not at all the case. Freights have many more problems than just annoying passenger TOCs.

Second off, what do you think has more impact on passenger services: needing a 6/7-minute clear gap at the western end of Leeds for a freight to get on/off the Aire Valley or freight getting in the way of a few stopping services around Hebden Bridge?

My comments were in relation to the Calder Valley line not freight generally considering you said this (below) I thought you knew what we were discussing!

Improving headways on the Calder Valley is a realistic and achievable solution to the problem of freight capacity. Building a new line that is longer and slower with worse capacity constraints is not a sensible solution to freight problems.

 

[zwk500]

My comments were in relation to the Calder Valley line not freight generally considering you said this (below) I thought you knew what we were discussing!

Your response was:

Sending more freight down the Aire Valley towards Leeds is exactly what SELRAP is proposing to do and apparently even has support from freight operator!

Freight doesn't really have a problem it's passenger traffic that has because of it!

This is not at all clear that you are talking about the Calder Valley at all. I took it to mean that you were suggesting freight could go anywhere it liked, and therefore should go where it would have less impact on passengers. I interpreted this to suggest that the Aire Valley would be less impacted by freight than the Calder Valley. What were you actually suggesting?

Either way, Colne-Skipton isn't a credible solution to any capacity issues there are on the Calder Valley. It's too slow, too long, and too busy at the Leeds end to make it worth FOCs diverting trains away from Hebden Bridge. The only potential freight traffic is the Skipton Quarry stone being sent to WCML destinations, but that would be entirely dependent on the market for such a flow (which I have no knowledge about). S&C traffic for the WCML runs via Clitheroe, S&C traffic heading via Skipton would be for destinations in Yorkshire itself so won't be heading back the wrong way.