Low Moor station put back another year to 2015

[CompactDstrxion]

Telegraph & Argus report

Upset as completion date for rail project is at Bradford Low Moor is put back a year due to engineering costs

Transport authority Metro has insisted plans for a new railway station at Low Moor, Bradford, will not be scrapped.

James Vasey, chairman of Bradford Rail Users’ Group, raised the concern after the planned completion date for the station was put back another year to 2015.

Metro, the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, has cited extra expense incurred from changes in engineering safety requirements for building platforms on a curve, such as would be the case at Low Moor.

The original plans for the station were that it would be open by December 2013. But that was revised to 2014 and has now been pushed back another 12 months at least.

Mr Vasey said: “It is a massive let-down for people. It is not fair for the people of Low Moor.”

He added the money to fund the scheme had been set aside for some time, while insisting that a platform with a curve had already been in place the first time a station at Low Moor existed.

“The real fear is that they are going to kick the scheme into the long grass for as long as possible,” said Mr Vasey.

“The money has been there for two years, it is there and ready to spend.

“A new station would give access to jobs in Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. But I think it is going to be sacrificed for the good of the overall line.”

(read more)

• Apparently, there are new engineering safety requirements for building a station on a curve
• The increased cost means there will need to be a stopping frequency of 3tph for the business case
• Metro are negotiating with Network and Northern Rail and insist there are no plans to scrap the proposed station

I'm dismayed at how long this is taking, why on Earth is it so expensive and complicated to build a simple halt on an existing line? The whole thing looks very over-engineered.

 

[John S2]

Why have new safety requirements been introduced?
During daytime 2tph would be the sensible number of trains to stop at Low Moor, not 3tph which would slow the third one for no good reason.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

I don't know but I have made a complaint to Metro about what would appear to be poor management of the project so maybe that will offer some answers.

 

[yorkie]

Our country is obsessed with 'Heath & Safety' in a way that becomes illogical. For example, due to H&S laws this station looks to be unaffordable, that means people instead have to use statistically less safe modes of transport. There is no logic in that, but these things are not based on rational logic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If 2015 is to be the new re-opening date, it will be a 50 year period between closure and re-opening of the railway station serving that area.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally, I think if something is safe enough to be permitted through grandfather rights, it should be considered to be safe enough. If we're ever going to be able to expand public transport opportunities in this country. There must be hundreds of curvy platforms in use every day in this country without incident.

 

[John55]

Why have new safety requirements been introduced?
During daytime 2tph would be the sensible number of trains to stop at Low Moor, not 3tph which would slow the third one for no good reason.

New safety requirements are introduced to reduce the number of accidents and people killed and seriously injured on the railway. If you want to go back to the 1930s when several hundred deaths per year amongst passengers and rail staff was commonplace you will find the railway is shutdown pronto because that is not acceptable in this age.

 

[455driver]

It is all a question of balance, something we are not very good at in this country as we go from one extreme to the other.

All this "business case" rubbish gets in the way of what is obviously a sensible scheme most of the time.

 

[DarloRich]

Wibble wibble wibble - Unfortunately barking at the moon about "HSE gone mad" or access for all legislation wont get this station built. It is the world we live in these days. Deal with it. Surely the challenge is to consider all of these issues and drive the price down.

The thing I find most shocking is that you all seem happy to accept that it should cost vast sums of money to build a small station. But I am sure you all know best.

 

[yorksrob]

Wibble wibble wibble - Unfortunately barking at the moon about "HSE gone mad" or access for all legislation wont get this station built. It is the world we live in these days. Deal with it. Surely the challenge is to consider all of these issues and drive the price down.

The thing I find most shocking is that you all seem happy to accept that it should cost vast sums of money to build a small station. But I am sure you all know best.

West Yorkshire is full of what are effectively wooden halts, all of which were built relatively recently and I doubt that these would cost silly money even today. This makes me think that it is not the cost of building such constructions per se which is the problem, rather the increasing number of add-ons that are the problem.

 

[Goatboy]

New safety requirements are introduced to reduce the number of accidents and people killed and seriously injured on the railway. If you want to go back to the 1930s when several hundred deaths per year amongst passengers and rail staff was commonplace you will find the railway is shutdown pronto because that is not acceptable in this age.

And how many railway passengers are killed today, given the hundreds of stations in use which would never be built today for 'safety reasons'?

There is a happy medium between the 1930's and going OTT.

 

[PR1Berske]

Telegraph & Argus report

• Apparently, there are new engineering safety requirements for building a station on a curve
• The increased cost means there will need to be a stopping frequency of 3tph for the business case
• Metro are negotiating with Network and Northern Rail and insist there are no plans to scrap the proposed station

I'm dismayed at how long this is taking, why on Earth is it so expensive and complicated to build a simple halt on an existing line? The whole thing looks very over-engineered.

Because this is Britain, and in Britain, we can't make, build or engineer anything without it going through processes, consultations and goodness knows what else.

It should be easy to build a two-stop halt, easy and cheap. That we are slaves to regulations is setting the railway industry back into the worst nightmare years of the past.

 

[Wath Yard]

Wibble wibble wibble - Unfortunately barking at the moon about "HSE gone mad" or access for all legislation wont get this station built. It is the world we live in these days. Deal with it. Surely the challenge is to consider all of these issues and drive the price down.

The thing I find most shocking is that you all seem happy to accept that it should cost vast sums of money to build a small station. But I am sure you all know best.

Eh? The reason building small stations costs such a vast amount of money is because of the new safety rules (stations can't be built on inclines or curves) and disability legislation. If it wasn't for all the additional rules and legislation they wouldn't cost a vast amount of money.

 

[IanD]

Probably cheaper to straighten the track.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It beggars belief that some people on here would rather not have a safe railway.

Going wildly off topic here, didn't Low Moor once have a loco shed?

 

[yorksrob]

Depends what you define as safe.

The London bound platforms at Lewes are far more heavily curved than Low Moor would be, and as far as I'm aware, it's not an accident blackspot. Equally, I'm not aware of any plans to redesign them either. Does that make them unsafe ?

And Low Moor did have a loco shed (quite a big one).

 

[Wath Yard]

It beggars belief that some people on here would rather not have a safe railway.

It beggars belief that someone would come out with a 'won't someone think of the children' shriek without backing it up in any way.

As Yorksrob has pointed out, if trains or stations with grandfather rights are still allowed to be used then they are safe. If they weren't they would have been closed, rebuilt or withdrawn. If something with grandfather rights is safe then so would a new build.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Depends what you define as safe.

The London bound platforms at Lewes are far more heavily curved than Low Moor would be, and as far as I'm aware, it's not an accident blackspot. Equally, I'm not aware of any plans to redesign them either. Does that make them unsafe ?

No it doesn't, but when Network Rail are starting from scratch they surely have a duty to make the station as safe as possible?

 

[yorksrob]

No it doesn't, but when Network Rail are starting from scratch they surely have a duty to make the station as safe as possible?

A bit self defeating if it means that nothing gets built though.

 

[RichmondCommu]

A bit self defeating if it means that nothing gets built though.

The thing is Network Rail have no choice but to comply with the latest safety legislation. And that legislation is there to protect the railways customers. I've not read anything here which suggests that the station won't be built although the delays are obviously unfortunate.

 

[John S2]

The thing is Network Rail have no choice but to comply with the latest safety legislation. And that legislation is there to protect the railways customers. I've not read anything here which suggests that the station won't be built although the delays are obviously unfortunate.

Precisely what is this 'latest safety legislation' you are referring to?

 

[185]

Having a closer look at it, the curvature looks less than Batley (50mph linespeed) from above. They've a huge pile of land to play with so I'm sure that without utterly major works they can make this station happen.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Precisely what is this 'latest safety legislation' you are referring to?

Well you need to ask Network Rail that question, not me. However I think that we are all agreed that the station won't be built unless it conforms to the latest safety requirements. I'm not really sure why that is such a bad thing?

 

[John S2]

Well you need to ask Network Rail that question, not me. However I think that we are all agreed that the station won't be built unless it conforms to the latest safety requirements. I'm not really sure why that is such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing for reasons already mentioned in this thread. It forces people to either make journeys by less safe transport or prevents them making journeys which are too slow to be practical without the station. Delay to the station has a negative impact on quality of life for people living in that area. There is no other station between Bradford and Halifax.

 

[ainsworth74]

However I think that we are all agreed that the station won't be built unless it conforms to the latest safety requirements. I'm not really sure why that is such a bad thing?

Can you think of anything that's dangerous about this station? It was built in the 1980s so presumably doesn't comply with the latest safety standards but I don't see anything unsafe about it so why should we change the design? I agree that we should strive for safety whenever possible but what on earth is unsafe about this design of station? And assuming the answer is nothing why shouldn't this design (which will be nice and cheap) be used whenever suitable?

 

[RichmondCommu]

It's a bad thing for reasons already mentioned in this thread. It forces people to either make journeys by less safe transport or prevents them making journeys which are too slow to be practical without the station. Delay to the station has a negative impact on quality of life for people living in that area. There is no other station between Bradford and Halifax.

Are you suggesting that customers should use a station which doesn't comply with the latest safety requirements, placing themselves in danger and creating a potential legal mine field for Network Rail?

 

[John S2]

Are you suggesting that customers should use a station which doesn't comply with the latest safety requirements, placing themselves in danger and creating a potential legal mine field for Network Rail?

I consider this to be a ridiculous question but I will give an answer anyway by giving 2 examples: (a) In recent years I have used Wakefield Kirkgate on several occasions. This speaks for itself. (b) Another station I use frequently in West Yorkshire has recently been made unsafe by the provision of a wheelchair ramp which makes the platform dangerously narrow.
I choose to use both of these stations for different reasons. One for work, one for leisure. If they did not exist my quality of life would be much lower.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I consider this to be a ridiculous question but I will give an answer anyway by giving 2 examples: (a) In recent years I have used Wakefield Kirkgate on several occasions. This speaks for itself. (b) Another station I use frequently in West Yorkshire has recently been made unsafe by the provision of a wheelchair ramp which makes the platform dangerously narrow.
I choose to use both of these stations for different reasons. One for work, one for leisure. If they did not exist my quality of life would be much lower.

1. Are you suggesting that Wakefield Kirkgate doesn't conform to current health and safety legislation? If so would you like to elaborate on this?

2. Would you prefer that customers using a wheelchair were unable to access your local station, forcing them to use less safe transport alternatives?

 

[CompactDstrxion]

West Yorkshire is full of what are effectively wooden halts, all of which were built relatively recently and I doubt that these would cost silly money even today. This makes me think that it is not the cost of building such constructions per se which is the problem, rather the increasing number of add-ons that are the problem.

There has been a tendency towards more substantial construction than the Cottingleys and Bramleys of this world recently. See Glasshoughton, it seems to be pretty similar to what is proposed for Low Moor.

The money has been set aside for two years, it's going to take three more to build. It's pretty obvious to anyone that is a ridiculous state of affairs.

 

[Wath Yard]

Are you suggesting that customers should use a station which doesn't comply with the latest safety requirements, placing themselves in danger and creating a potential legal mine field for Network Rail?

I do hope you live in a bungalow. Those stairs can be treacherous...

Hundreds of thousands of passengers every day use stations that would probably not now be built. There isn't carnage.