Skipton-Colne again... sorry!

[Starmill]

I like looking into possible timetables for these sorts of suggestions, and if one were content with 1 tph to Preston, and a 75 mph linespeed on the reopened section, then the following timings would be feasible:-

• Colne xx34 from Preston (as at present)
• Earby xx40
• Skipton xx47 to Leeds (as at present)

• Skipton xx37 from Leeds (as at present)
• Earby xx44
• Colne xx51 to Preston (as at present)

So by double tracking the new section as far as Earby, you wouldn't even need additional services down the Aire Valley - the timings line up pretty well with the current services in both directions.

So a journey time between Leeds and Preston of 2h10m? 30 minutes slower than the current journey time direct, or 15 minutes slower than the current journey time changing at Manchester Oxford Road.

 

[Bald Rick]

I like looking into possible timetables for these sorts of suggestions, and if one were content with 1 tph to Preston, and a 75 mph linespeed on the reopened section, then the following timings would be feasible:-

• Colne xx34 from Preston (as at present)
• Earby xx40
• Skipton xx47 to Leeds (as at present)

• Skipton xx37 from Leeds (as at present)
• Earby xx44
• Colne xx51 to Preston (as at present)

So by double tracking the new section as far as Earby, you wouldn't even need additional services down the Aire Valley - the timings line up pretty well with the current services in both directions.

For that you also need electrification to Preston, or at the very least a new fleet of battery trains with partial electrification somewhere between Skipton and Preston.

Presumably all the extra passengers that this proposal needs to generate will be taking seats that are currently filled somewhere between Skipton and Leeds, so longer trains too? Does that mean longer platforms?

13 minutes for 12 miles start to stop with an intermediate stop is also quite sporty for 75mph linespeed, even for an electric train, especially considering it joins together two previsouly unconnected services. To protect perfromance you would normally add in some performance allowance somewhere on that stretch, especially if they are passing each other on a stretch of otherwise single line. That suggests something is going to have to shift in the timetable.

 

[InkyScrolls]

For that you also need electrification to Preston, or at the very least a new fleet of battery trains with partial electrification somewhere between Skipton and Preston.

Presumably all the extra passengers that this proposal needs to generate will be taking seats that are currently filled somewhere between Skipton and Leeds, so longer trains too? Does that mean longer platforms?

13 minutes for 12 miles start to stop with an intermediate stop is also quite sporty for 75mph linespeed, even for an electric train, especially considering it joins together two previsouly unconnected services. To protect perfromance you would normally add in some performance allowance somewhere on that stretch, especially if they are passing each other on a stretch of otherwise single line. That suggests something is going to have to shift in the timetable.

I fully agree with all your points - for the record I personally don't believe the line is worth reopening, but I enjoy timetable planning 'what if' scenarios!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't know if this already been asked and as I fall into the "naysayers" on this thread that thankfully we have a "Speculative Forum" for on this website for, based on current 2025 costings, taking everything into consideration what is needed to bring this speculative project into fulfilment, what total figure would need to be spent.

 

[quantinghome]

I don’t understand where 3 trains per hour Leeds-Blackburn has come from as the route is currently hourly.

3 trains per hour is entirely speculative on my part. It's a rough idea of what the service level should be, considering population sizes and distance and comparing that to other services in the north. For example Leeds-Hull has two trains per hour, Leeds-Sheffield has five. Given the relative populations, 3 trains per hour looks about right for Leeds-Lancashire.

We must also remember that this area has a significant link with Manchester as well (road link is M65/A56/M66), which should be accounted for.

I'm not sure I follow you. Just because an area has a decent rail link to somewhere doesn't mean we can't improve its rail connection to other places.

The most recent study suggested that extending an existing train from either Rochdale or Halifax to Blackburn was achievable with additional trains and crew. Both couldn’t be done together without work. Personally, I think the focus should be on making Leeds and Manchester twice hourly from Burnley.

You could increase capacity via the Calder Valley quite easily by running some longer trains…

However running additional trains between Leeds and Todmorden is not that much of an intractable problem, except at Leeds, obviously. But then any extra trains to Leeds from Colne via Skipton would have similar issues.

This is a classic proposal where the answer is “reopen x to y”, but the whole system consequences are not understood by the proposers. When these issues are explained, they are either ignored, noted but brushed over, or developed into something more grandiose, but without mention of how much it will cost and who is paying.

If running more trains along the Calder Valley to Leeds can be made to work, fair enough. Of course running via Skipton you could just extend the existing service with no increase in capacity required at Leeds (I guess you can do the same with the Leeds-Halifax train too to be fair).

I agree with you regarding the rose tinted view of the proposers. They don't help their cause a lot of the time. My argument is more prosaic:

1. Two large populations, currently with a relatively sparse service compared to other connections between similar-sized conurbations.
2. Can the no. of tph on the existing route be increased at lower cost than the c. £500m needed to reopen Skipton-Colne and upgrade Burnley-Colne?
3. If yes, great.
4. If not, then consider reopening Skipton-Colne.

Based on the above discussion, I suspect the argument is likely to stop at (3).

 

[The Planner]

I don't know if this already been asked and as I fall into the "naysayers" on this thread that thankfully we have a "Speculative Forum" for on this website for, based on current 2025 costings, taking everything into consideration what is needed to bring this speculative project into fulfilment, what total figure would need to be spent.

I doubt anyone knows as its not a proposed scheme with any backing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If an opportunity to reopen a closed line, between two "old posting discussion chestnuts", which one would the organisation funding the required works choose based upon all the positives and negatives between.....

(A)...Skipton to Colne....with the requirements discussed upon this thread

(B)...Amlwch to Bodorgan, with a reopening of Gaerwen station where the branch line would leave the North Wales coast line. (There was a quote some years ago for works required).

 

[quantinghome]

If an opportunity to reopen a closed line, between two "old posting discussion chestnuts", which one would the organisation funding the required works choose based upon all the positives and negatives between.....

(A)...Skipton to Colne....with the requirements discussed upon this thread

(B)...Amlwch to Bodorgan, with a reopening of Gaerwen station where the branch line would leave the North Wales coast line. (There was a quote some years ago for works required).

Let's see...

(A) - 11 miles to reopen, connecting two major conurbations of several 100,000.
(B) - 17 miles to reopen, connecting two towns each with about 5000 population to... Bangor, Llandudno Jn?

(A) has got to be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher in terms of benefit.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Let's see...

(A) - 11 miles to reopen, connecting two major conurbations of several 100,000.
(B) - 17 miles to reopen, connecting two towns each with about 5000 population to... Bangor, Llandudno Jn?

(A) has got to be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher in terms of benefit.

(A) which already has regular train services via a faster route that could be upgraded by lengthening trains and electrification for cheaper...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let's see...

(A) - 11 miles to reopen, connecting two major conurbations of several 100,000.
(B) - 17 miles to reopen, connecting two towns each with about 5000 population to... Bangor, Llandudno Jn?

(A) has got to be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher in terms of benefit.

There is a very great difference between "two towns" and "two major conurbations" when you wish comparitives.. Bangor has a population of 15,000, not 5,000 and is a major station on the North Wales coast line, being a university of note and a transport hub for a very large area.

The two major conurbations already have rail connections between Manchester and Leeds via both Stalybridge and via Hebden Bridge. Colne is not part of a "major conurbation" and in an area once having a major entity in the cotton trade that no longer exists.

 

[The Planner]

There is a very great difference between "two towns" and "two major conurbations" when you wish comparitives.. Bangor has a population of 15,000, not 5,000 and is a major station on the North Wales coast line, being a university of note and a transport hub for a very large area.

The two major conurbations already have rail connections between Manchester and Leeds via both Stalybridge and via Hebden Bridge. Colne is not part of a "major conurbation" and in an area once having a major entity in the cotton trade that no longer exists.

A still walks over B regardless in this case. Burnley has a population of 150,000. Skipton is 15,000 as Bangor is. Colne is 18,000.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A still walks over B regardless in this case. Burnley has a population of 150,000. Skipton is 15,000 as Bangor is. Colne is 18,00Is there

Is it not the case that Burnley Manchester Road railway station offers rail connections to both Manchester and Leeds, that can be used by its population?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2025 ==

For those interested in the settlements between Colne and Skipton on the direct line of the former Leeds and Bradford Extension Railway (ignoring Barnoldswick which was a terminal station on a short branch line) that had railway stations, the stations and their recent population are:-
Foulridge ... 1,503
Earby ... 4,538
Thornton-in-Craven ... 431
Elslack ... 100

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2025 ==

Burnley has a population of 150,000.

Are you not confusing the populations of Burnley with Blackburn?

Burnley has a population of 78,266, whereas Blackburn has a population of 120,500.

 

[quantinghome]

There is a very great difference between "two towns" and "two major conurbations" when you wish comparitives.. Bangor has a population of 15,000, not 5,000 and is a major station on the North Wales coast line, being a university of note and a transport hub for a very large area.

To clarify, the two towns with c. 5000 population are of course Amlwch and Llangefni, not Bangor. Proposal (B) would connect 10,000 people to 15,000, far far lower populations than (A).

The two major conurbations already have rail connections between Manchester and Leeds via both Stalybridge and via Hebden Bridge. Colne is not part of a "major conurbation" and in an area once having a major entity in the cotton trade that no longer exists.

Colne is clearly part of a larger population centre or conurbation or whatever we want to call it, which stretches from Colne to Blackburn or Preston depending on how you define it, comprising several hundred thousand population.

Yes, there is already a train service between West Yorks and Lancashire. The size of population however suggests a more frequent service is justified. Whether that's done by upgrading an existing line or reopening, I don't really mind. Depends on the relative costs and benefits.

And if you're going to dismiss Colne and its wider area because its industry has declined, Amlwch may not be the best counterexample.

 

[The Planner]

Is it not the case that Burnley Manchester Road railway station offers rail connections to both Manchester and Leeds, that can be used by its population?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2025 ==

For those interested in the settlements between Colne and Skipton on the direct line of the former Leeds and Bradford Extension Railway (ignoring Barnoldswick which was a terminal station on a short branch line) that had railway stations, the stations and their recent population are:-
Foulridge ... 1,503
Earby ... 4,538
Thornton-in-Craven ... 431
Elslack ... 100

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2025 ==


Are you not confusing the populations of Burnley with Blackburn?

Burnley has a population of 78,266, whereas Blackburn has a population of 120,500.

I am basing it on your comparison to the Amwlch branch, which in the case of these two basket cases is the worse of the two.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is good that a Devil's Advocate can enter this debate when many posting views have already been expressed, so it was with "basket case comparisons" in mind that I introduced the matter of Amlwch.

Of course, that particular Amlwch basket-case project could be made even less viable, if the added reopening of the Red Wharf Bay branch line was added to the project....

Incidentally, did Network Rail once give a somewhat over-egged price estimate for proposed work on the southern reaches of the Anglesey Central Railway in that area of Llangefni?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know if this already been asked and as I fall into the "naysayers" on this thread that thankfully we have a "Speculative Forum" for on this website for, based on current 2025 costings, taking everything into consideration what is needed to bring this speculative project into fulfilment, what total figure would need to be spent.

The true answer is “nobody knows”, because every study (or ‘study’) done only looks at the Skipton - Colne section, and assumes that works off that section needed to accommodate the train service in a feasible timetable are done by “others”. (Others being taxpayers, of course). It is the same with almost every other old chestnut proposal.

But, I’ll have a go with an educated guess. My own thoughts and nothing remotely official.

Opening a new line from Colne to Skipton, given the need to build at least three big bridges, compensate a lot of property owners, have a completely new alignment around Earby, and complete a no doubt difficult consents process, I can’t see that costing less than £400m at outturn costs, and probably £500m+.

Add in some doubling of the existing Colne branch, Level Crossing upgrades to deal with the increased risk due to longer / busier trains, discontinuous electrification between Skipton and Preston, possible platform extensions Colne to Burnley (and possibly the Aire Valley) and that’s easily another couple of hundred million.

Then around £10m a year incremental cost of operation (all in - train lease, mileage, electricity, crew, maintenance, cleaning, infrastructure maintenance, operation, renewal, retailing costs, overheads).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

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

Sorry to disappoint to you, but as Colne, Nelson and Brierfield already have a rail service. you can discount their populations shown above of non-rail-served towns.

Incidentally, does the existing bus service provision adequately meet the needs of passenger travel between Colne and Skipton?

 

[Falcon1200]

Colne is clearly part of a larger population centre or conurbation or whatever we want to call it, which stretches from Colne to Blackburn or Preston depending on how you define it, comprising several hundred thousand population.

Colne/Burnley/Blackburn/Preston are a number of separate towns of varying populations, not in any shape or form a conurbation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Colne/Burnley/Blackburn/Preston are a number of separate towns of varying populations, not in any shape or form a conurbation.

Perhaps the contributor was assuming that what still remains of Lancashire after parts of it have been hived off into other authorities is a "conurbation"....

 

[D6130]

Colne/Burnley/Blackburn/Preston are a number of separate towns of varying populations, not in any shape or form a conurbation.

To be honest, Colne, Nelson, Brierfield and Burnley form a continuous conurbation. However there is plenty of "green belt" land between Preston, Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a very great difference between "two towns" and "two major conurbations" when you wish comparitives.. Bangor has a population of 15,000, not 5,000 and is a major station on the North Wales coast line, being a university of note and a transport hub for a very large area.

The two major conurbations already have rail connections between Manchester and Leeds via both Stalybridge and via Hebden Bridge. Colne is not part of a "major conurbation" and in an area once having a major entity in the cotton trade that no longer exists.

If you take Colne and Nelson, it's a pretty decent sized population

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2025 ==

Perhaps the contributor was assuming that what still remains of Lancashire after parts of it have been hived off into other authorities is a "conurbation"....

Are we on to Barrow now as well !

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you take Colne and Nelson, it's a pretty decent sized population.

Yes, but this thread is about rail connections between Colne and Skipton, so is there an unmet demand from Nelson and Colne, that cannot be met by the existing bus services that have provided the public transport links since the closure of the line from Cone to Skipton.

 

[stevieinselby]

Incidentally, does the existing bus service provision adequately meet the needs of passenger travel between Colne and Skipton?

For the last 5 years, Colne to Skipton has had just an hourly bus, currently run with a mix of single- and double-deckers. For most of the previous 15 years, it had at least 2 buses per hour. Transdev clearly haven't felt the need to reinstate the previous half-hourly service, which suggests the current service is coping.

Earby has a half-hourly service from Barnoldswick to Colne and Burnley, and an hourly service from Preston to Skipton, which seems to be sufficient.

Burnley and Colne to Keighley has a half-hourly service, which is only slightly slower than a direct train via Skipton would be (from Colne at any rate, from Burnley the train would have a bigger advantage).

 

[Halifaxlad]

There is some interesting history here: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/features/colne_and_skipton_line/index.shtml

It appears the route never achieved its apparent potential in connecting two large areas of population due to Colne being the border between the L&Y and Midland. Until nationalisation you had to change trains at Colne, and the timings were poor. It wasn't scheduled for closure in the Beeching report but was closed separately later on in the 60s with low passenger numbers cited.

It sounds like the Little North Western.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It sounds like the Little North Western.

The "Little North Western" served the area between Skipton and Lancaster Green Ayre.

The Leeds and Bradford Extension Railway served the area Colne - Skipton - Shipley.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The "Little North Western" served the area between Skipton and Lancaster Green Ayre.

The Leeds and Bradford Extension Railway served the area Colne - Skipton - Shipley.

I was refering to the remark of never fulfilling its potential!

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that the only real chance for reopening Skipton to Colne would be for the area around Earby to be selected as one of the "new towns", with a population of at least 20,000. Also, it would then be sensible for Skipton - Colne - Burnley - Blackburn - Preston to be electrified throughout, to enable through running to/from Leeds & Bradford.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that the only real chance for reopening Skipton to Colne would be for the area around Earby to be selected as one of the "new towns", with a population of at least 20,000. Also, it would then be sensible for Skipton - Colne - Burnley - Blackburn - Preston to be electrified throughout, to enable through running to/from Leeds & Bradford.

And the Blackburn to Colne line sections that are only currently single track be doubled.

 

[quantinghome]

Sorry to disappoint to you, but as Colne, Nelson and Brierfield already have a rail service. you can discount their populations shown above of non-rail-served towns.

We've already discussed this up-thread. The number of passengers travelling from Colne, Nelson and Brierfield to get to West Yorkshire is virtually non-existent.

Incidentally, does the existing bus service provision adequately meet the needs of passenger travel between Colne and Skipton?

Probably, but then the point isn't to connect Colne and Skipton, it's to connect Colne and the other Pendle towns to Leeds, and improve the overall East Lancs - West Yorkshire service. Of course, if this can be achieved using the existing Copy Pit route at lower cost then reopening Skipton-Colne, then obviously that's what should be done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

To be honest, Colne, Nelson, Brierfield and Burnley form a continuous conurbation. However there is plenty of "green belt" land between Preston, Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley.

This is true, but in transport terms the existence of green belt between the towns is an irrelevance. You have a population of several hundred thousand which are connected by East-West links and which form a sufficiently coherent unit to be considered together when it comes to planning, take this for example.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Probably, but then the point isn't to connect Colne and Skipton, it's to connect Colne and the other Pendle towns to Leeds, and improve the overall East Lancs - West Yorkshire service. Of course, if this can be achieved using the existing Copy Pit route at lower cost then reopening Skipton-Colne, then obviously that's what should be done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

There isnt enough demand from the Pendle Towns to Leeds to warrant a new line.

The existing demand from Burnley westwards to Leeds can be covered by the existing Copy Pit line and subsequent improvements (ie lengthening trains, eventual electrification) and this also has the benefit of going through much more populated areas such as Halifax, Bradford etc...

This is why Colne-Skipton fails time and time again. It offers nothing which cannot be done cheaper and for much greater benefits.