Kirkstall Forge & Apperley Bridge

[Bayum]

Just wondering if there has been any building/progress on these two announced stations on the Wharfedale lines out of Leeds?

I notice that Wikipedia states the stations are expected to be in use '14/15, so not sure if there should be any work yet...

 

[Condor7]

I am not sure where the Apperley Bridge station is going to be located as the old station area has houses on it now.

I was down there a few weeks ago and there was no sign of any work unless as I say it is being located in a different area.

 

[IanD]

http://www.wymetro.com/news/projects/projectdetails/apperleybridge/

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

 

[Bayum]

http://www.wymetro.com/news/projects/projectdetails/apperleybridge/

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

Is anyone able to quote what is said on these sites?

Chrome nor Safari want to open the pages.

 

[TB]

These stations won't be served by Wharfedale Line trains.

Initially only Bradford Forster Square to Leeds trains will call, while Apperley Bridge will be built Shipley side of Apperley Jct, so cannot be served by Wharfedale trains.

 

[AndyHudds]

If Lo Moor is anything to go by, will they ever get built?

 

[swt_passenger]

If Lo Moor is anything to go by, will they ever get built?

If the two linked statements are truthful, why wouldn't they be built? The two stations are explicitly part of a 'rail growth package' announced as funded by DfT.

Low Moor is not part of the same process, so doesn't create a precedent for the others...

 

[Grumpy]

These stations won't be served by Wharfedale Line trains.

Initially only Bradford Forster Square to Leeds trains will call, while Apperley Bridge will be built Shipley side of Apperley Jct, so cannot be served by Wharfedale trains.

I think they'll have to do better than just stop the Bradford trains. Whilst this is half hourly in the middle of the day the morning peak service is almost negligible and the service virtually stops after 19.00. The Kirkstall Forge developers blurb suggests trains will be running to Keighley and Skipton although I accept developers blurb is often pie in the sky.

I don't know what the Bradford service loads like now, but my impression is that both the Wharfedale and Airedale trains are already crammed in the peak. Perhaps they're going to run more trains.

Either way if the Kirkstall Forge developers dont get a move on and start the redevelopment then there's not much point building the station. I suspect Apperley will be a success from day 1. As would be Kildwick.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think they'll have to do better than just stop the Bradford trains. Whilst this is half hourly in the middle of the day the morning peak service is almost negligible and the service virtually stops after 19.00. The Kirkstall Forge developers blurb suggests trains will be running to Keighley and Skipton although I accept developers blurb is often pie in the sky.

I don't know what the Bradford service loads like now, but my impression is that both the Wharfedale and Airedale trains are already crammed in the peak. Perhaps they're going to run more trains.

Either way if the Kirkstall Forge developers dont get a move on and start the redevelopment then there's not much point building the station. I suspect Apperley will be a success from day 1. As would be Kildwick.

Kildwick would certainly be a good choice, with Crosshills providing a large number of patrons (although I don't think there are that many houses within 10 minutes walk of the station) The only issue would be that the station site is only likely to have limited car parking spaces, if any.

Any development land near the station is mainly flood plains and any development on there is going to be fiercely opposed.

 

[Grumpy]

Kildwick would certainly be a good choice, with Crosshills providing a large number of patrons (although I don't think there are that many houses within 10 minutes walk of the station) The only issue would be that the station site is only likely to have limited car parking spaces, if any.

Any development land near the station is mainly flood plains and any development on there is going to be fiercely opposed.

I meant the old site at Crosshills. If the Council could be persuaded to relocate their random piles of muck, it should provide quite a bit of parking.

I realise a lot of the locals probably drive to Silsden, but that is crammed and needs relief. I would have thought there were quite a lot of houses within a 15 minute walk

 

[Genocide]

Apperley will make money. The land is in place and ground surveys have been done.

The deal was always that to put a blockade on the Aire Valley two stations would be built at the same time. Kirkstall Forge, I can tell you, will NOT happen under the original agreement as the developers of the site have pulled out.

I'd like to think that the deal has been revised but as the financial structuring relied upon PFI input from the now defunct Kirkstall Forge partnership I'm not sure.

 

[lancastrian]

If the two linked statements are truthful, why wouldn't they be built? The two stations are explicitly part of a 'rail growth package' announced as funded by DfT.

Low Moor is not part of the same process, so doesn't create a precedent for the others...

Don't you just long for the days when the West Yorkshire Metro, got on and actually built their new stations without all this messing about. But that's progress for you!

 

[Genocide]

Don't you just long for the days when the West Yorkshire Metro, got on and actually built their new stations without all this messing about. But that's progress for you!

Altofts?

 

[lancastrian]

Altofts?

HUH? I don't understand what you mean.

 

[IanD]

That's the station that they shut. (I believe the only one but could be wrong!)

----Edit

Of course that's if you don't count the Clayton West branch which may have survived into the Metro era.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Of course that's if you don't count the Clayton West branch which may have survived into the Metro era.

The Clayton West (there's no village by the name of Clayton East, by the way:?) branch was closed in 1983, so did operate in the PTE era... However, when the PTEs were formed in the 1970s, WYPTE refused to subsidise the branch- as a result, it was only the coal traffic that kept it open.

That said, it was also used until closure by school traffic from Clayton West & Skelmanthorpe to Honley. The 'school' train ran through to Huddersfield but was not subsidised by WYPTE- I believe Kirklees Council and BR struck a deal that allowed the service to continue. However once the pit closed, the cost of maintaining the line for the dwindling number of schoolchildren that studied so far away (in local terms) was unsustainable and without PTE backing the line inevitably closed. So, Metro were only indirectly responsible the the closure of the line and the 2 stations on it. Perhaps if the 19th century plans to extend beyond to Barnsley had been successful it might have had a chance (albeit at the probable expense of Shepley-Penistone in the Beeching-era!).

Was Altofts used much before it closed? From what I know of the area it's not a long way from Normanton anyway.

 

[AndyHudds]

The funny thing is the Clayton West branch would probably quite well used now if it was still open. It would also have given the the other intermediate Huddersfield stations another service every hour into Huddersfield.

 

[34D]

That's the station that they shut. (I believe the only one but could be wrong!)

----Edit

Of course that's if you don't count the Clayton West branch which may have survived into the Metro era.

I guess I'm being a pedant to point out the original Bradford Forster Square station which closed in 1989ish?

Leeds Whitehall would also be pedantic.

 

[Grumpy]

Given the seeming lack of activity at Kirkstall I wonder if the money might be better spent reopening a halt and decent sized car park around the former Calverley and Rodley, by the Leeds Ring Rd.

In addition to the present catchment, several hundred houses are to be built on the adjacent former Sandoz site. The A65/A657 into Leeds are pretty congested and a rail service should give a greater journey time saving, for a greater number of potential users, than would Kirkstall forge.

(assuming that pathing wouldn't allow both, and that common sense remains suspended so you cant afford both)

 

[yorksrob]

Don't you just long for the days when the West Yorkshire Metro, got on and actually built their new stations without all this messing about. But that's progress for you!

Yes.

In terms of Altofts, this closed when Hallam stoppers were diverted via Castleford (probably a good move given the large number of people who seem to travel to Cass from the South using the line.

With regard to Altofts, one thing which strikes me is how close it was to Normanton. Personally I think an improvement to the area's transport would be to build a northern entrance to Normanton station with an access road or pathway and parking etc.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Don't you just long for the days when the West Yorkshire Metro, got on and actually built their new stations without all this messing about. But that's progress for you!

You have to allow for the more stringent regulations for stations now. In terms of accessibility obviously, but also the fact that many of the 1980s/early-1990s re-openings (Slaithwaite/Deighton/Saltaire/Berry Brow/Cottingley/East Garforth for example) used lightweight timber frames and decks that I imagine wouldn't be allowed now: If they were, they'd still be being built!

 

[lancastrian]

You have to allow for the more stringent regulations for stations now. In terms of accessibility obviously, but also the fact that many of the 1980s/early-1990s re-openings (Slaithwaite/Deighton/Saltaire/Berry Brow/Cottingley/East Garforth for example) used lightweight timber frames and decks that I imagine wouldn't be allowed now: If they were, they'd still be being built!

I accept that today we have more stringent regulations, but I still don't see why there cannot be a simple, cheap, basic station design that could be used in the first place to to show a need for a station. It could be a modular one, which could be moved to another place once the need for it at the first site is proved or not.

For years railways expanded their station/halt sites by using simple, cheap & basic models for new station & halts. It is now with all the 'bells & whistles' that have been included that not only make the planning and acceptance of new stations (most of which are actually reopening of stations that never should have been closed in the first place) as difficult as it is now.

Perhaps if we removed all the waste costs, like consultants, etc: then perhaps we could get many stations reopened, and more people would have access to the rail system, which will increase its use and profitability.

 

[Starmill]

I have to agree that, seeing how many new openings there were in West Yorkshire in years gone by, it's immensely frustrating that places that are so close to the Railway have very poor access to it because of the lack of stations. Compared with the cost of re-opening or building new lines, building new stations on existing lines is getting the Railway more passengers at a much, much lower marginal cost. The biggest problem we have with transport is that there isn't enough space for it. Well there is space where the Railway is extant and we could be using it so much better!

Countrywide, the New Stations Fund seems only to have made a dent it it. Have we had, in recent times, an new stations that have been a flop?

 

[quantinghome]

Perhaps if we removed all the waste costs, like consultants, etc: then perhaps we could get many stations reopened, and more people would have access to the rail system, which will increase its use and profitability.

I suspect that there are actually no easy ways to cut down on waste costs. Metro (and probably the entire rail industry for that matter) are aware that stations tend to be expensive, but local halts need to be built as cheaply as possible (whilst complying with the requirements of modern station specifications) otherwise they just won't get built. If you look at the plans for Apperley Bridge you'll see it's quite a basic design - it reuses an existing overbridge for access, each platform has a glorified bus shelter etc.

Yet somehow it still costs several million. Clearly engineering consultants need to be employed for the design (Metro and Network Rail don't have the different skills needed). As for other forms of 'consultant', do you have evidence that they have been employed, and if so in what capacity? It would be very odd for cash-strapped Metro to spend unnecessary money. I suspect we should look at the following areas for cost increases compared to stations built in the 80s and 90s:

- Higher specs for stations - DDA, information systems, etc etc.
- General inflation in materials and skilled labour (usually higher than CPI).
- More planning - environmental statements and so on.
- Need to produces acres of reports to central government to get funding.
- Far more onerous safety requirements for construction in general and working on the railway in particular.
- Complexity of the industry - too many players ("stakeholders") means it takes a lot of effort just to keep the thing going in a steady state, let alone change things.
- Need to compensate train operators even for planned possessions.
- Possibly more rolling stock needed.

None of these are in Metro's or even Network Rail's power to alter. Of course modular platform systems have been developed to reduce the amount of time the railway needs to be shut for during construction, but it's not enough to offset the other issues. It's an intensely frustrating situation and looking at the rate of station openings over the past 30 years it does appear to be the structure of the railway brought in at the time of privatisation that has caused this.

 

[bluenoxid]

These stations appear to keep slipping repeatedly. Does anyone know why they have slipped further from November 2014 after the DfT approved the Leeds Rail Growth Package?

 

[Grumpy]

I suspect that there are actually no easy ways to cut down on waste costs. Metro (and probably the entire rail industry for that matter) are aware that stations tend to be expensive, but local halts need to be built as cheaply as possible (whilst complying with the requirements of modern station specifications) otherwise they just won't get built. If you look at the plans for Apperley Bridge you'll see it's quite a basic design - it reuses an existing overbridge for access, each platform has a glorified bus shelter etc.

Yet somehow it still costs several million. Clearly engineering consultants need to be employed for the design (Metro and Network Rail don't have the different skills needed). As for other forms of 'consultant', do you have evidence that they have been employed, and if so in what capacity? It would be very odd for cash-strapped Metro to spend unnecessary money. I suspect we should look at the following areas for cost increases compared to stations built in the 80s and 90s:

- Higher specs for stations - DDA, information systems, etc etc.
- General inflation in materials and skilled labour (usually higher than CPI).
- More planning - environmental statements and so on.
- Need to produces acres of reports to central government to get funding.
- Far more onerous safety requirements for construction in general and working on the railway in particular.
- Complexity of the industry - too many players ("stakeholders") means it takes a lot of effort just to keep the thing going in a steady state, let alone change things.
- Need to compensate train operators even for planned possessions.
- Possibly more rolling stock needed.

None of these are in Metro's or even Network Rail's power to alter. Of course modular platform systems have been developed to reduce the amount of time the railway needs to be shut for during construction, but it's not enough to offset the other issues. It's an intensely frustrating situation and looking at the rate of station openings over the past 30 years it does appear to be the structure of the railway brought in at the time of privatisation that has caused this.

Is there any information in the public domain as to what Tram stations (eg Manchester) cost?

 

[34D]

Yes.

In terms of Altofts, this closed when Hallam stoppers were diverted via Castleford (probably a good move given the large number of people who seem to travel to Cass from the South using the line.

With regard to Altofts, one thing which strikes me is how close it was to Normanton. Personally I think an improvement to the area's transport would be to build a northern entrance to Normanton station with an access road or pathway and parking etc.

This isn't wholly correct. For a couple of years in the mid 1980s, Altofts had a "limited service" after the main service had been diverted.

 

[yorksrob]

This isn't wholly correct. For a couple of years in the mid 1980s, Altofts had a "limited service" after the main service had been diverted.

Thanks for the info - I was previously unaware of that.

 

[phil35]

Does anyone know why the Apperley Bridge station is only covering one of the two lines at Apperley junction? Is it purely because it isn't possible to be built? It seems strange to me that the station wouldn't span the two lines if they're putting all that work in to build the station, and it is so close to the other line?

I don't really know much about infrastructure so I'm sure there's a logical reason, so it would interesting to hear it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Cost. Not much demand on the ilkley side.