Skipton-Colne again... sorry!

[quantinghome]

I've tended to dismiss the potential of reopening Skipton-Colne, lumping it within other "hardy perennial" basket cases like Bradford crossrail, Woodhead, Okehampton-Tavistock and so on.

My skepticism may have been increased by the overblown claims made about the reopening by its proponents - that it would be a major cross-Pennine route, important for freight (what freight?, crossing Leeds western approach?), quicker than than Copy Pit line (I've checked; it wouldn't be). But in responding to these claims there are some aspects that I'm not able to dismiss and dare I say it, I'm beginning to think there may actually be a viable case for reopening.

Some years ago forum member Altnabreac produced the following rules of thumb for a successful rail reopening. Let's take each rules in turn:

1. Population of 10,000+ [Earby/Barnoldswick/Colne/Nelson/Brierfield population is 80,000+]
2. 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre. [Realistic Leeds-Colne time would be 55-60 minutes, so commutable although possibly into 'at a push' territory]
3. Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed [Yes - no doubt some issues but nothing out of the ordinary for a reopening and no major structures needed e.g. tunnels]
4. Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required. [Yes - can extend the Leeds-Skipton trains. BUT would need to either electrify the East Lancs route or run bi-modes]
5. Regeneration potential of a deprived area [Definitely yes]

So it fulfills all five criteria, 1 and 5 by a country mile, 2 and 4 with some issues.

We could also consider how this compares to other reopenings. Let's look at Borders rail - much lower population, much longer line (30 miles compared to 11 miles Skipton-Colne). If the Borders railway is considered a success then surely Skipton-Colne would be more so.

This just considers the effect of connecting Pendle District to Leeds and conservatively ignores other possible benefits (many of which I remain skeptical about). East Lancs overall has a population of 500,000 and that merits a considerably higher level of service to West Yorkshire than the current 1 tph.

So what do you think? Please feel free to shoot this down in flames - happy for it to be debunked, but right now I can't think why it can.

 

[DH1Commuter]

Given the way Leeds acts as the main economic engine of West Yorks, I would agree here; not as easy as Ashington reopening (as working freight line) but if used primarily to get people to where education and jobs are, this could be worthwhile.

 

[Djgr]

Still waiting for Boris to fulfil his promise.

 

[YorksLad12]

Is there a market? I don't mean SELRAP members; I mean, how many people are using the bus service to travel between Skipton, Barnoldswick and Colne? Are there lost of people travelling Leeds-Skipton, then on to Barnoldswick or Colne? How many traffic journeys are there? Has anyone ever measured this?

In project terms, has this ever moved beyond SBC/SOBC level? In not, that suggests a Full Business Case can't be made.

 

[yorksrob]

I wou

I've tended to dismiss the potential of reopening Skipton-Colne, lumping it within other "hardy perennial" basket cases like Bradford crossrail, Woodhead, Okehampton-Tavistock and so on.

My skepticism may have been increased by the overblown claims made about the reopening by its proponents - that it would be a major cross-Pennine route, important for freight (what freight?, crossing Leeds western approach?), quicker than than Copy Pit line (I've checked; it wouldn't be). But in responding to these claims there are some aspects that I'm not able to dismiss and dare I say it, I'm beginning to think there may actually be a viable case for reopening.

Some years ago forum member Altnabreac produced the following rules of thumb for a successful rail reopening. Let's take each rules in turn:

1. Population of 10,000+ [Earby/Barnoldswick/Colne/Nelson/Brierfield population is 80,000+]
2. 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre. [Realistic Leeds-Colne time would be 55-60 minutes, so commutable although possibly into 'at a push' territory]
3. Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed [Yes - no doubt some issues but nothing out of the ordinary for a reopening and no major structures needed e.g. tunnels]
4. Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required. [Yes - can extend the Leeds-Skipton trains. BUT would need to either electrify the East Lancs route or run bi-modes]
5. Regeneration potential of a deprived area [Definitely yes]

So it fulfills all five criteria, 1 and 5 by a country mile, 2 and 4 with some issues.

We could also consider how this compares to other reopenings. Let's look at Borders rail - much lower population, much longer line (30 miles compared to 11 miles Skipton-Colne). If the Borders railway is considered a success then surely Skipton-Colne would be more so.

This just considers the effect of connecting Pendle District to Leeds and conservatively ignores other possible benefits (many of which I remain skeptical about). East Lancs overall has a population of 500,000 and that merits a considerably higher level of service to West Yorkshire than the current 1 tph.

So what do you think? Please feel free to shoot this down in flames - happy for it to be debunked, but right now I can't think why it can.

Out of interest, which of Altnabraec's criteria do you think Tavistock - Okehampton fails ?

That said, looking at it that way, the Skipton - Colne does seem to tick all the boxes.

The reason that all proposals had to make overblown claims was because there was no framework to undertake modest enhancements.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some years ago forum member Altnabreac produced the following rules of thumb for a successful rail reopening. Let's take each rules in turn:

1. Population of 10,000+ [Earby/Barnoldswick/Colne/Nelson/Brierfield population is 80,000+]
2. 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre. [Realistic Leeds-Colne time would be 55-60 minutes, so commutable although possibly into 'at a push' territory]
3. Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed [Yes - no doubt some issues but nothing out of the ordinary for a reopening and no major structures needed e.g. tunnels]
4. Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required. [Yes - can extend the Leeds-Skipton trains. BUT would need to either electrify the East Lancs route or run bi-modes]
5. Regeneration potential of a deprived area [Definitely yes]

So it fulfills all five criteria, 1 and 5 by a country mile, 2 and 4 with some issues.

Very quickly:

Rule (1) is a population of 10,000+ not already connected to the network
Re (3) - there‘s the Skipton bypass, a dual carriageway in Colne, and the River Aire to get across, all of which require major structures, especially the latter two. Also the former trackbed has lots of obstructions and would likely require new build off line in places, for example around Earby.
Re (4) - extending the Skipton service to where, though? If beyond Colne, it needs much work on the existing netwrok.
Re (5) - regeneration is usually driven by connecting new places to the network (see rule 1), or by improving frequency.

So there’s some big question marks on all the factors.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think the "Altnabreac" criteria are now out of date. It has become clear in recent years that most re-openings are no such thing: that description only fits routes where tracks have remained in place and seen at least some use since the end of passenger services, like Ashington.

Most schemes are nothing less than brand new railways that are trying to re-use former rail alignments. All too often even where such routes have avoided being built upon the earthworks and surviving structures require such extensive work to bring them back into use that the cost is pretty much that of a completely new route. These costs are so high that the aforementioned criteria are too weak to sustain them.

If a railway had not previously existed between Colne and Skipton would we be seriously talking about building one? While HS2 has had genuine issues at least the potential market runs in to millions, most re-opening proposals have markets of a few tens of thousands at best. If HS2 is deemed unaffordable then where does that leave semi-rural branch lines even if the towns they serve are bigger than 50 years ago.

Railways are seriously big ticket items and need to carry equally seriously big volumes of traffic to be viable even if an element of subsidy is deemed appropriate. Given the economic challenges facing this country it's difficult to see any prospect of further re-openings beyond Portishead. And I think it's quite possible that some lightly used lines could face either mothballing or outright closure if there is insufficient economic growth to improve overall tax revenues to the Treasury.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Who in Colne, Nelson, Brierfield, Barnoldswick (not on the route) and Earby are currently commuting into Leeds or have the desire to?

Those in Colne, Nelson, Brierfield who do commute are far more likely to head westwards.

Suddenly having a direct train to Leeds from Colne would do absolutely nothing for Colne.

Do we need a new "Altnabreac" criteria?

 

[The exile]

Very quickly:

Rule (1) is a population of 10,000+ not already connected to the network
Re (3) - there‘s the Skipton bypass, a dual carriageway in Colne, and the River Aire to get across, all of which require major structures, especially the latter two. Also the former trackbed has lots of obstructions and would likely require new build off line in places, for example around Earby.
Re (4) - extending the Skipton service to where, though? If beyond Colne, it needs much work on the existing netwrok.
Re (5) - regeneration is usually driven by connecting new places to the network (see rule 1), or by improving frequency.

So there’s some big question marks on all the factors.

Fair enough - though think some allowance should be made on 1 and 5 for cases like this where the existing connectivity to the Network is only in one direction. If you are in Burnley / Nelson and have reason to travel to Skipton then as things stand you might as well not be connected to the rail network. Clearly it changes the calculation (say 30K instead of 10K) but shouldn’t be ignored entirely. Likewise regeneration - the effect won’t be as great but it’ll still be there. Doubt it’s enough to sway any decision makers, though.

 

[stevieinselby]

1. Population of 10,000+ [Earby/Barnoldswick/Colne/Nelson/Brierfield population is 80,000+]

Colne, Nelson and Brierfield are already on the national rail network, with an hourly service to Burnley and Preston.
Earby would be the only new addition to the network, as Barnoldswick would not be on the route and a station at Earby would not be within easy walking distance.
So I don't think you can claim the population of 80,000+, otherwise any new link between two large towns that don't currently have a direct service would tick that box – some proportion of it, sure, but not the whole lot.

In terms of structures, also need to remember that the branch from Colne to Rose Grove is single track, and can only support the current hourly service (and that's without a lot of slack). Any extension would almost certainly need at least some redoubling, and I don't know how easy that would be as it looks like a lot of the route is quite constrained.

 

[quantinghome]

Is there a market? I don't mean SELRAP members; I mean, how many people are using the bus service to travel between Skipton, Barnoldswick and Colne? Are there lost of people travelling Leeds-Skipton, then on to Barnoldswick or Colne? How many traffic journeys are there? Has anyone ever measured this?

In project terms, has this ever moved beyond SBC/SOBC level? In not, that suggests a Full Business Case can't be made.

There's an hourly bus Skipton-Barlick-Colne and 2 per hour Keighley-Steeton-Colne.

The A56 and A6068 have 8000-10000 vehicles per day each. Not massive, not nothing.

As regards business case there have been various announcements of studies but no conclusions, at least none publicly visible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

Fair enough - though think some allowance should be made on 1 and 5 for cases like this where the existing connectivity to the Network is only in one direction. If you are in Burnley / Nelson and have reason to travel to Skipton then as things stand you might as well not be connected to the rail network. Clearly it changes the calculation (say 30K instead of 10K) but shouldn’t be ignored entirely. Likewise regeneration - the effect won’t be as great but it’ll still be there. Doubt it’s enough to sway any decision makers, though.

Indeed. According to the ORR origin-destination matrix there were a grand total of 1400 journeys annually from the 3 Pendle stations to the whole of Yorkshire! 4 passengers per day each way. As you say, for all practical purposes there is no connection.

Passenger numbers at the three stations are very low considering the size of population, I suspect due to the hourly frequency.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

Very quickly:

Rule (1) is a population of 10,000+ not already connected to the network
Re (3) - there‘s the Skipton bypass, a dual carriageway in Colne, and the River Aire to get across, all of which require major structures, especially the latter two. Also the former trackbed has lots of obstructions and would likely require new build off line in places, for example around Earby.
Re (4) - extending the Skipton service to where, though? If beyond Colne, it needs much work on the existing netwrok.
Re (5) - regeneration is usually driven by connecting new places to the network (see rule 1), or by improving frequency.

So there’s some big question marks on all the factors.

Some fair comments here. Quick responses:

(1) we've established the connection is essentially nonexistent eastwards (and the existing westward service is poor).
(3) significant structures yes, but pretty standard new infrastructure. The River Aire is what, 20-25m wide at that point? These are £5-10 million structures, not £50-100mill. Earby would be significantly more problematic though.
(4) you would need to run at least one additional service per hour, meaning redoubling some if not all of the Burnley-Colne line.
(5) this would do both.

 

[Nottingham59]

With all due respect to Altnabreac, I think a better rule of thumb is "Is there sufficient passenger demand along this corridor to fill a double-decker bus every five minutes?" And I'm afraid that Colne-Skipton doesn't really meet that threshold.

There are far better places to build 17km of double track railway. One of which is to extend HS2 from Fradley Junction to Hixon, allowing an additional 4tph to avoid the Colwich bottleneck. Or for less money, build the HS2 station in Manchester with a viaduct connection to Ardwick to allow 400m trains to run on the WCML from both London and from Birmingham to Manchester, doubling capacity along the most important passenger transport corridor in the country.

The success of the Elizabeth line shows how important it is to invest where the demand is.

 

[Grimsby town]

The current number of travellers doesn't matter too much because the whole point of the new railway is that it improves the journey and generates new use. New railways have transformational impacts on local economies and travel patterns so current trips aren't overly relevant.

The problem is that Skipton to Colne doesn't improve that many journeys:

• Skipton to Manchester is quicker via Leeds particularly with TRU so the only benefits would be improved reliance with an alternative route.
• Similarly Burnley/Accrington/Blackburn to Leeds already have direct quicker services
• Unless you live near the station in Brierfield/Nelson travelling to Burnley might be the quicker option to get to Leeds
• New places served by rail are relatively small

The main improvements are Skipton to East Lancs, Blackburn, and Preston but Skipton has good connections to Leeds/Bradford already so Blackburn isn't going to be particularly attractive.

If there's £500 million to spend on railways in East Lancashire it'd be far better focused on either developing the Colne line into a tram train system (like Cardiff) to properly link the East Lancs urban area with Burnley and Preston or upgrade the Copy Pit line to improve journey times to Manchester/Leeds from Burnley and Accrington.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

With all due respect to Altnabreac, I think a better rule of thumb is "Is there sufficient passenger demand along this corridor to fill a double-decker bus every five minutes?" And I'm afraid that Colne-Skipton doesn't really meet that threshold.

Bus services are relatively irrelevant. The whole point of a railway line is that it vastly improves the connectivity between places generating significant new journey opportunities. For example how does the double decker bus rule apply to Bedford to Cambridge? There's a half hourly bus service on that corridor but the journey time is over double what the proposed rail journey time is so the current bus demand is not far off being irrelevant.

 

[WAO]

The route might have had more "pull" for re-opening if it had linked Colne with Steeton or even Keighley, instead of Skipton.

Whether Preston, Blackburn and Burnley would really have potential synergy with Skipton and its links worth £298M, is the question, rather than Banoldwick/Earby having a station. Present bus patronage is not an indication of future rail usage, although the petering out of the M65 may provide a clue.

The line would need more than re-instatement of the gap; dualling from Gannow Jn (or at least loops) would probably be needed.

I imagine that upgrading the well used commuter lines around the provincial cities should have priority for capital spending (if any!).

Divide the cost by 10 and there's a chance.

WAO

 

[yorksrob]

The route might have had more "pull" for re-opening if it had linked Colne with Steeton or even Keighley, instead of Skipton.

That's an interesting point.

I must admit, whilst Keighley probably has a greater population, I've always thought of Skipton as more of a "honeypot" destination. Somewhere you'd go on the off chance for a walk around the shops and a beer.

 

[The Planner]

With all due respect to Altnabreac, I think a better rule of thumb is "Is there sufficient passenger demand along this corridor to fill a double-decker bus every five minutes?" And I'm afraid that Colne-Skipton doesn't really meet that threshold.

There are far better places to build 17km of double track railway. One of which is to extend HS2 from Fradley Junction to Hixon, allowing an additional 4tph to avoid the Colwich bottleneck. Or for less money, build the HS2 station in Manchester with a viaduct connection to Ardwick to allow 400m trains to run on the WCML from both London and from Birmingham to Manchester, doubling capacity along the most important passenger transport corridor in the country.

The success of the Elizabeth line shows how important it is to invest where the demand is.

Hardly anything would get built with that rule of thumb. That assumes 960 passengers per hour based on an 80 seat double decker. East West from Bicester to Bletchley fails miserably on that basis.

 

[bluenoxid]

Infrastructure wise, there is also the canal at Foulridge that needs to be bridged. The River Aire crossing may also need to be extensive to consider the extensive flood plain in that area.

There is also interfacing with the existing infrastructure at Skipton, which would include a new Carlisle bound to Leeds bound crossover if my recollection of the layout is correct.

Skipton and Keighley are not exactly super-sized employers of people. There’s a reason that four carriage electric multiple units into Leeds are getting filled. Both struggle to attract manufacturing and distribution jobs due to connectivity for transferring goods, being remote from the major road network compared to other parts of Yorkshire and development sites constrained by steep hills and wide valley bottom flood plains. I hate to put the area and potential investment down.

Advocates for improving connectivity in the area should be looking at improving the existing network. Ticket integration is a big thing in my book. I understand the capacity exists for either a Hull-Halifax or somewhere-Rochdale to extend to Blackburn. I would be keen to see a piece of work on upgrading the existing Colne line looking at all options including extensions towards Barnoldswick (new formation required) and full closure of the existing branchline.

I feel that more would be done if the thinking moved away from a through line.

 

[stevieinselby]

The route might have had more "pull" for re-opening if it had linked Colne with Steeton or even Keighley, instead of Skipton.

If the line was electrified and run as an extension of the Leeds—Skipton service then it would connect Colne with Keighley. And while it does take a slightly circuitous route to get there, it would still be quicker than the bus – with the advantage more marked, the further west along the line you go. And while Keighley is a significantly bigger town than Skipton, for its size Skipton punches above its weight in terms of both employment and tourism/leisure.

 

[Bald Rick]

4) you would need to run at least one additional service per hour, meaning redoubling some if not all of the Burnley-Colne line.

Which means the cost goes up. North of half a billion with the reopening…

significant structures yes, but pretty standard new infrastructure. The River Aire is what, 20-25m wide at that point? These are £5-10 million structures, not £50-100mill.

The Aire viaduct (and across the flood plain) would be much closer to £50m than £5m, almost certainly above £50m in fact. Similarly the bridge for the dual carriageway in Colne.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to all the free beer people are going to buy me with the bet I laid 14 years ago on this forum that it wouldn’t be open before 2030. I bet they don’t pay up. I would have if I’d lost.

 

[quantinghome]

If the line was electrified and run as an extension of the Leeds—Skipton service then it would connect Colne with Keighley. And while it does take a slightly circuitous route to get there, it would still be quicker than the bus – with the advantage more marked, the further west along the line you go. And while Keighley is a significantly bigger town than Skipton, for its size Skipton punches above its weight in terms of both employment and tourism/leisure.

Connecting Nelson/Colne better to Skipton and Keighley would I think be a relatively minor part of any business case. The three main things would be:

1. Connecting Nelson/Colne to Leeds (and Yorkshire generally).
2. More frequent service from Nelson/Colne to the rest of east Lancs. Yes, this could be achieved by upgrading the existing branch line.
3. More frequent services from East Lancs to Leeds. Leeds has 2 trains per hour to Hull, 5 trains per hour to Sheffield and 7 trains per hour to Manchester. East Lancs - Leeds is pretty underserved by comparison, I'd say it would justify 3 tph given the population. The Calder Valley line is very busy and it would be hard to add another 2 tph.

The Aire viaduct (and across the flood plain) would be much closer to £50m than £5m, almost certainly above £50m in fact. Similarly the bridge for the dual carriageway in Colne.

I've just found a photo of the original. You're right, it's way more substantial than I'd thought.

Disused Stations: Skipton to Colne Railway - Brief History

And yet... Borders railway was apparently worth this:



And this:

Which means the cost goes up. North of half a billion with the reopening…

Could we upgrade the existing East Lancs - Leeds route to run 3 tph for less?

By comparison we're spending north of one billion connecting Bedford and Milton Keynes to Oxford (combined population around half a million) with 3/4 tph. The East Lancs - Leeds corridor has at least double the population.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to all the free beer people are going to buy me with the bet I laid 14 years ago on this forum that it wouldn’t be open before 2030. I bet they don’t pay up. I would have if I’d lost.

Yeah, I'm glad I didn't make that bet. And no, I'm not going to make one now!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

To those dismissing the relevance of existing bus routes I think you are missing the point. It's not about using bus usage to indicate the market for an equivalent rail service, it's about judging the potential for rail usage. There have been rail re-opening proposals where current travel demand doesn't support even an hourly bus service. Given the costs of rail service provision compared to buses it should be clear that examining current bus usage is an obvious starting point when considering potential future rail demand. Of course local circumstances have to be taken into account eg will the railway have good geographical penetration of the communities being served or do LA boundaries affect fare levels, etc.

 

[Trainman40083]

An earlier poster made mention of "what freight?". I think some freight would be such as biomass from Liverpool Docks to Drax. Currently goes via Warrington, Northwich, Stockport, Denton, Guide Bridge over to Yorkshire. Could there be container trains ex Liverpool to Tees etc. In the case of the biomass, I guess you compare the current journey time with the potential.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

An earlier poster made mention of "what freight?". I think some freight would be such as biomass from Liverpool Docks to Drax. Currently goes via Warrington, Northwich, Stockport, Denton, Guide Bridge over to Yorkshire. Could there be container trains ex Liverpool to Tees etc. In the case of the biomass, I guess you compare the current journey time with the potential.

Correction then routed Ashton , Rochdale, Wakefield Kirkgate... One left Tuebrook 08.28, into Drax at 14.06, so roughly 6 hours.

 

[deltic08]

Until 1974, Earby was in West Yorkshire so was more aligned to Skipton than Colne.

If there is civil engineering to rebuild the line would it be possible to abandon the route through Earby (pop 4.5K) and build via Barnoldswick (pop 11K). This would solve the only place where the trackbed has been built on in Earby and a former level crossing.

Whilst I agree that crossing Vivary Way in Colne is a problem, there is plenty of room to lower the track in a shallow cutting to reduce the height and gradient of a road overbridge.

The Skipton by pass is not a problem as the present overbridge is long enough to span 3 tracks and only has 2 to/from Hellifield.

Everybody is saying the major flow will be Colne to Skipton but if cars on the A56 is anything to go by in the peaks there is a big flow Skipton to Colne.

Trains should be at least Bradford FS to Preston taking up present Colne-Preston paths to avoid further expense on Colne-Gannow Jnc single line.

 

[The Planner]

An earlier poster made mention of "what freight?". I think some freight would be such as biomass from Liverpool Docks to Drax. Currently goes via Warrington, Northwich, Stockport, Denton, Guide Bridge over to Yorkshire. Could there be container trains ex Liverpool to Tees etc. In the case of the biomass, I guess you compare the current journey time with the potential.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==


Correction then routed Ashton , Rochdale, Wakefield Kirkgate... One left Tuebrook 08.28, into Drax at 14.06, so roughly 6 hours.

I can't imagine Drax still operating by the time this ever opened. You are also gauge clearing for W10 across a much longer route, not just the new bit.

 

[Killingworth]

Drax is likely to have been closed down before this line could be reopened. Looked at realistically that will take another 20 years before it could be operational with all the planning and financial hoops to be jumped through.

In 1825 the railway pioneers were young and able to get on with things. Act of Parliament, some land deals, line up the contractors and by 1849 Queen Victoria could travel by train from Edinburgh to London.

Are the promoters of reopening schemes today young, dynamic railway and financial professionals? I say this against myself after contributing to several such schemes including this one, all so far unsuccessful. Sadly I'm coming to the conclusion that older, mostly men, are living in a nostalgic past that will not return.

Today's young people have been brought up with versatile cars, and taxis, readily at hand to go as near door to door as possible. Yes, they use trains but mostly when they're long distance between cities or very frequent in urban areas.

If money is to go into new railway infrastructure it needs to make what we still have more resilient to serve the thousands who are still using it. Restoring and building new tracks and platforms in Leeds will benefit far more people.

 

[Trainman40083]

I can't imagine Drax still operating by the time this ever opened. You are also gauge clearing for W10 across a much longer route, not just the new bit.

So it may be. I attempted to use that train as an example of the route it takes to get from Liverpool, just to the Pennines. That would potentially make rail freight uncompetitive against road, certainly in terms of time because of the need to circumnavigate Manchester.

 

[Bald Rick]

So it may be. I attempted to use that train as an example of the route it takes to get from Liverpool, just to the Pennines. That would potentially make rail freight uncompetitive against road, certainly in terms of time because of the need to circumnavigate Manchester.

Regarding freight - there simply isn’t the capacity now to get any significant freight flows off the Airdale line and across the flat junctions at Whitehall.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

And yet... Borders railway was apparently worth this:

I have posted before about Borders. If it was proposed now it wouldn’t be built, at least that what Scottish politicians have told me.

 

[Grimsby town]

To those dismissing the relevance of existing bus routes I think you are missing the point. It's not about using bus usage to indicate the market for an equivalent rail service, it's about judging the potential for rail usage. There have been rail re-opening proposals where current travel demand doesn't support even an hourly bus service. Given the costs of rail service provision compared to buses it should be clear that examining current bus usage is an obvious starting point when considering potential future rail demand. Of course local circumstances have to be taken into account eg will the railway have good geographical penetration of the communities being served or do LA boundaries affect fare levels, etc.

In some cases the bus patronage might have relevance but in most it won't. E.g. some urban areas might have regular busy bus service which signifies demand for public transport. Alternatively, take Grimsby-Louth (I'm not advocating this as a reopening), the train service in 1970 took 20 minutes. A journey in a car would take around 35 minutes and a bus journey over 60 minutes. Bus services simply don't compete with cars in this situation but rail would be competitive. If you've got any choice, you aren't going to get a bus from Grimsby to Louth.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Hardly anything would get built with that rule of thumb. That assumes 960 passengers per hour based on an 80 seat double decker. East West from Bicester to Bletchley fails miserably on that basis.

Absolutely this.

Rural buses are a distress purchase (I say as someone who spends far too much of my life on them). They are not at all a signifier of potential demand for a train service. As cycling campaigners say, you don’t judge demand for a bridge across the Thames by the number of people swimming across it.

 

[Topological]

How much would it cost for a meaningful solution to allow interchange of trains from Colne onto the trains heading between Blackburn and Leeds via Copy Pit? My understanding of the line is that the problem is that there is no interchange until Accrington so a passenger from Colne would have to travel a long way extra to go to Leeds.

A station at the junction would work, but that would create an extra stop in the Copy Pit. If demand is already time sensitive then adding stops does not help. However, I am more of the opinion that you could add another stop in the Blackpool to Leeds.

The next issue would be can trains to Colne go more regular? Would a battery shuttle from the new junction station to Colne work and could a passing loop make the shuttle more regular? In such a case could the stopping train between Preston and Burnley then route to Hebden Bridge (say) and turn around provision be made there. These changes would give a lot more connectivity. (Choice of Hebden Bridge is to allow interchange onto Manchester to Leeds trains)