metro new railway stations study report v1.0 final

New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report West Yorkshire Combined Authority

14 October 2014

New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report

Atkins Final Report | Version 1.0 | 14 October 2014 | 5124741 2

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for West Yorkshire Combined Authority‟s information and use in relation to a feasibility study assessing new railway station locations in North and West Yorkshire.

Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 66 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5124741 Document ref: Metro New Railway Stations Study Report

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 0.1 Draft for client comment JB,CW CW JT JT 07/03/2014

Rev 0.2 Revised draft incorporating initial client comments and two additional Stage 2 sites

CW CW JT JT 23/06/2014

Rev 1.0 Final report CW CW JT JT 14//10/14



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 6 Background 6 Study Context 6 Report Structure 6

2. Site Locations 7

3. Assessment Methodology 9 Stage 1 – Preliminary Sift 9 Identifying the Initial Shortlist (End of Stage 1) 13 Stage 2 – Detailed Feasibility Assessment 15 End of Stage 2 - Final Shortlist 16

4. Stage 1 Assessment – Preliminary Sift 17 Stage 1 Assessment Results Summary by Line 17 Shortlisted Sites for Stage 2 29

5. Stage 2 Assessment – Detailed Feasibility 30 Crosshills (Site B) 31 East Ardsley (Sites A and B) 34 East Leeds Parkway 37 Elland 39 Golcar (Site A) 42 Haxby 44 Hipperholme (Site B) 46 Laisterdyke 48 Manningham 50 Thornhill Lees 52 Thorpe Park 54 Wrenthorpe 56 Indicative Capital costs 58 Indicative Operating costs 60

6. Study Recommendations 62

Appendix A. Stage 1 results 64

65 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tables Table 2-1 Station Locations considered within this Study ......................................................................... 7 Table 3-1 Trip Demand Forecasting Model Trip Rates and Car Park Adjustment .................................. 10 Table 3-2 Stage 1 Demand R-A-G Benchmarks ..................................................................................... 11 Table 3-3 Stage 1 Construction Feasibility R-A-G Benchmarks .............................................................. 11 Table 3-4 Stage 1 Operational Feasibility R-A-G Benchmarks ............................................................... 12 Table 5-1 Crosshills demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) .................................. 32 Table 5-2 East Ardsley (Site A) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) .................. 35 Table 5-3 East Ardsley (Site B) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ................. 35 Table 5-4 Elland demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ........................................ 40 Table 5-5 Golcar (A) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ................................... 43 Table 5-6 Hipperholme demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ............................... 47 Table 5-7 Laisterdyke demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ................................. 49 Table 5-8 Manningham demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ............................. 51 Table 5-9 Thornhill Lees demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ............................ 53 Table 5-10 Thorpe Park demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ............................... 55 Table 5-11 Wrenthorpe demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices) ............................... 57 Table 5-13 Indicative operating costs (2012/13 prices) ............................................................................. 60 Table 6-1 Study Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 62

Figures Figure 2-1 Existing Metro Rail Network ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4-1 Huddersfield Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites ....................................................... 17 Figure 4-4 Calder Valley Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites ...................................................... 21 Figure 4-5 Harrogate Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites ........................................................... 22 Figure 4-6 Hallam Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites ................................................................ 24 Figure 4-7 Airedale and Wharfedale Lines: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites .................................. 25 Figure 4-8 Pontefract/Dearne Valley/Askern Line: Route Alignments and Assessed Sites ..................... 26



1. Introduction

Background In line with its policy objectives, Metro is keen to improve access to the rail network in North and 1.1.

West Yorkshire by investigating the feasibility and financial viability of constructing new railway stations.

Metro undertook a feasibility review in 2009 that considered the viability of 30+ possible new 1.2.railway station sites across the North and West Yorkshire region. That study included high-level demand forecasts and a review of each site‟s location in terms of access and potential physical constraints (gradient, track curvature, land availability etc.)

In the five years since that study was completed, growth on the rail network has continued and 1.3.there are a number of committed and planned infrastructure schemes across the region that are likely to impact upon the conclusions of the 2009 study.

Study Context Atkins has worked in partnership with Metro to prepare this updated study into the feasibility of 1.4.

opening further stations at sites across the region‟s rail network. This assessment is a refresh of Metro‟s 2009 work, utilising updated data sources and taking into account new rail projects and development planning proposals which have been committed in the intervening years.

Sites include those from the 2009 study, but with a number of further locations that have been 1.5.identified in the meantime. The study provides a current, evidence-based sift of possible new station locations, with a recommendation to take forward further business case development work for a small number of selected sites. Station locations that are assessed to have a low potential, or to have insurmountable constraints are considered not worthy of further assessment unless there is a significant, fundamental change in circumstance in the future.

Report Structure This report is presented in 6 chapters, including this introduction: 1.6.

Chapter 2 – Overview of study sites

Chapter 3 – Detail on the assessment methodology adopted

Chapter 4 – Results of the Stage 1 assessment

Chapter 5 – Results of the Stage 2 assessment

Chapter 6 – Study conclusions



2. Site Locations

61 locations across North and West Yorkshire were identified by Metro and partners for 2.1.consideration in this study, as listed in Table 2-1. Sites are grouped based on their location on the rail network. Sites along each line have been considered holistically, within the context of the whole network‟s operations.

Sites include those reviewed in Metro‟s 2009 study, and new sites which have been identified in 2.2.the intervening period.

Plans showing the location of each of site are shown as a part of the Stage 1 assessment results 2.3.presented in Chapter 3.

Table 2-1 Station Locations considered within this Study

Huddersfield Line Calder Valley Line Hallam Line

Golcar (A) Armley (A) Crigglestone

Golcar (B) Armley (B) Haigh

Horbury Bridge Bowling Park / West Bowling Holbeck

Ossett Parkway Cornholme (A) Methley (A)

Ravensthorpe (additional platforms)

Cornholme (B) Methley (B)

Thornhill Lees Elland Stourton

White Rose Centre Greetland Pontefract Line

Wakefield Line Hipperholme (A) Knottingley East

Crofton P&R Hipperholme (B) Airedale Line

East Ardsley (A) Laisterdyke Calverley P&R

East Ardsley (B) Luddendenfoot Crosshills (A)

Elland Road / Beeston Norwood Green Crosshills (B)

Hemsworth Salterhebble Manningham

Wrenthorpe Dearne Valley Line Lines North of York

York & Selby Line Ackworth Acomb (A)

East End Park Ferrybridge Acomb (B)

East Leeds Parkway Monk Fryston Haxby

Leeds (East) A Harrogate Line Strensall

Leeds (East) B Arthington Parkway Wharfedale Line

Osmondthorpe (A) Bilton Esholt

Osmondthorpe (B) Cookridge Guiseley Silverdale

Seacroft Hospital Flaxby Moor Askern Branch Line

Thorpe Park Horsforth Woodside Womersley

Manse Farm

In a number of instances, locations are very close to each other e.g. Cornholme (A) and 2.4.Cornholme (B) on the Calder Valley Line. In these cases, the assessment highlights which of the sites may present a stronger potential business case, although the recommendation may also be that neither site is suitable.

These locations are to be considered in the context of Metro‟s existing rail network which is 2.5.

shown in Figure 2-1.



Figure 2-1 Existing Metro Rail Network

Image source: www.wymetro.com (Dec 2012)

There are three other future station sites which Metro has under development which are not 2.6.included in this feasibility study. They are Low Moor (Calder Valley Line), Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge (both Airedale and Wharfedale Lines). These sites all have developed business cases already in place and as such are considered to be „existing‟ within this study when considering interactions between proposed and existing sites.

http://www.wymetro.com/



3. Assessment Methodology

The study has been undertaken in two stages. 3.1.

Stage 1: The complete list of 61 potential sites was reviewed to eliminate sites which were 3.2.shown to have significant flaws that would impact on a business case. This preliminary sift included an appreciation of catchment population and trip potential, construction constraints and operational constraints. Each of these three components was assessed and assigned a Red-Amber-Green rating to reflect the findings. Locations assessed to have a low potential, or to have insurmountable constraints were considered not worthy of further assessment and filtered from the assessment at the end of this stage.

Stage 2: The top performing sites from Stage 1 were considered in a more detailed feasibility 3.3.assessment in Stage 2, on the basis that these sites offer the greatest potential viability on the evidence available. The Stage 2 assessment included an operational assessment, a high-level financial assessment and a more detailed construction assessment including site visits where relevant.

Further details of the assessment methodology are presented in this Chapter. 3.4.

Stage 1 – Preliminary Sift The preliminary sifting is based on high-level assessments of: 3.5.

Catchment population density and demographic profile;

Potential demand (through a high-level trip demand forecasting model);

Construction feasibility; and

Operational feasibility.

Catchment population density and demographic profile Census 2011 headcount and household estimates (postcode level data) was used to identify the 3.6.

number of households and the size of the usual resident population within 800m and 1,500m catchments around each potential site. All catchment boundaries are based on straight-line distances and so do not account for road networks, walking routes or physical constraints. The population is used as the basis for the high-level trip demand forecasting model, described in the next section.

Postcode point data was also matched with Output Area demographic data to identify car 3.7.ownership within each catchment. The number of no car households and 2+ car households are both reported as they give an indication of propensity to use rail services. Population with no cars are likely to rely on public transport connections. Population living in many-car households tend to be around rural areas and dormant villages where propensity to travel by rail can be high, particularly where park & ride is available close by.

Thirdly, the postcode point data was matched with English Indices of Deprivation (IMD) 2010 3.8.data to give an indication of relative levels of deprivation and unemployment across different sites‟ catchments. The Overall IMD index and the Employment Index have been referenced. As a measure of relative deprivation, there is no definitive point on the scale below which areas are considered to be deprived and above which they are not. For the purposes of this high-level assessment, the % of catchment population that are also considered to be within the 40% most deprived parts of the country is presented as an indicative measure.

Although the demographic profiling data does not form a part of the Stage 1 scoring framework, 3.9.the data is considered vital in building an understanding of each site‟s context. The information is therefore used to support the framework and the decision making process when defining the initial shortlist of sites at the end of Stage 1.



Demand Trip demand has been calculated using a high-level trip demand forecasting model, developed 3.10.

for this study in accordance with the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) rail industry guidance framework.

The trip demand forecasting model is built using data for existing stations in the North and West 3.11.Yorkshire area. The model identifies annual trip rates for existing rail stations, based on :

Size of 800m and 1500m catchment residential population (based on Census 2011 postcode level headcount and household estimates)

1; and

Observed annual rail demand (as recorded in MOIRA for 2012/13 rail year).

Allocating demand to catchments based upon NRTS (National Rail Travel Survey) data Rather than deriving a single trip rate which average activity at all sites, PDFH recommends 3.12.

using a sample of similar stations to derive trip rates. For example, in PDFH stations are grouped by type of station (prime commuter belt, edge of urban centre etc.). The model for this study is refined to group stations by two variables which are considered to have a sizeable effect on the attractiveness of the station, and hence rail demand generation:

Availability and frequency of services operating direct to Leeds Station (as the Region‟s largest City centre); and

Availability of car parking.

Station catchments can vary significantly due to factors including service frequency, population 3.13.profile and character, availability of car parking. National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) data has been used to identify the travel distances to each existing station, as a means of calibrating the model.

The trip demand forecasting model identifies the annual trip rates as set out in Table 3-1. 3.14.

Where a site is proposed to provide a „park and ride‟ function with car parking, an additional 3.15.adjustment factor is applied, as also set out in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Trip Demand Forecasting Model Trip Rates and Car Park Adjustment

Service Frequency to Leeds (trains per hour - tph)

Annual Trip Rate applied to population: Car Parking Adjustment

uplift within 800m 800 – 1500m

No direct service 22.039 1.531 15.0%

1 tph 15.212 6.815 35.6%

2 tph 33.483 8.058 26.5%

3+ tph 51.848 12.849 35.9%

For each potential site, the resident population living within 800m and between 800 and 1500m is 3.16.used to calculate annual trip demand.

The frequency of services operating direct to Leeds Station for each potential site is taken as 3.17.being equal to the services which currently operate past the site location on that stretch of railway. The operational feasibility (and the resulting impacts on other train services and passengers) of all passing services actually stopping at the site is not accounted for.

The availability of car parking at a new site has been considered based on a desktop study of 3.18.each site‟s location based on aerial photography. Derived values are all rounded to two significant figures.

The demand assessment also identifies the percentage of the demand which is expected to be 3.19.abstracted from other nearby stations (e.g. not new rail users). The abstraction reassigns trips by

1 Population catchment boundaries are based on straight-line distances, not accounting for road networks or

physical constraints;



residents who live between 800-1500m from their closest station at present, but would live within 800m of the proposed new site. Demand falling within 800m of an existing station is retained by the existing station, and demand located between 800 and 1500m of both existing and new stations is allocated to the nearest station, thereby ensuring there is no double-counting of demand. More detailed abstraction calculations would be required for any business case development work.

Where potential developer proposals are identified, which would result in a step-change in the 3.20.level of demand a site would generate, this is accounted for and figures adjusted accordingly.

Sites are benchmarked against a Red-Amber-Green framework, which reflects the size of the 3.21.potential demand.

Table 3-2 Stage 1 Demand R-A-G Benchmarks

Criteria RED AMBER GREEN

Forecast daily passenger entries 0 – 250 250 - 500 500 +

The limitations of this methodology means potential for wider park & ride demand for catchments 3.22.beyond than 1.5km and the potential for trip generation due to the site „attracting‟ trips (rather than „producing‟ trips) are specifically not captured in this high-level assessment. Due to the specific characteristics of Park and Ride sites, detailed bespoke modelling solutions would be required for each individual site.

Construction Feasibility A high-level construction feasibility assessment has been undertaken for each potential site. 3.23.

Network Rail‟s 5-mile diagrams have been reviewed to outline any potential issues that may 3.24.affect overall construction feasibility, including line curvature, gradients and signalling equipment locations (noting that the later may be subject to change). The approach is proportionate to this preliminary sifting stage of the assessment. Whilst consideration was made to relevant standards (including Railway Group Standards “GI/RT7016 Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains”), as a high-level appraisal compliance with all applicable standards is not considered

mandatory.

A review of physical constraints and land availability has also been undertaken using aerial 3.25.photography to present a holistic view of potential construction feasibility.

Sites are benchmarked against a Red-Amber-Green framework, which reflects the severity of any 3.26.construction issues identified.

Table 3-3 Stage 1 Construction Feasibility R-A-G Benchmarks


Track gradient > 1 in 100 < 1 in 100 Level

Track alignment - r < 1000m r > 1000m

Track and signalling layout Significant constraints

Some constraints No constraints

Physical Constraints / Topography

Significant constraints

Some constraints No constraints

Land availability Insufficient land Third party land

required Sufficient land already owned



Operational Feasibility

A high-level operational feasibility assessment has been undertaken for each potential site. 3.27.

Existing rail timetables have been considered to identify the frequency of services currently 3.28.operating on the railway through each site. Without considering the feasibility of these services stopping, it is considered that each train would be able to stop, therefore offering the same level of service.

The distance to Leeds (as the largest city and centre of Metro‟s network) is also considered as a 3.29.proxy for a variety of factors such as service crowding, peak line capacity, impact on existing passengers and competition with bus.

As well as timetable issues, the potential to provide car parking at each site and any potential 3.30.issues which could prevent the site from being DDA compliant have been reviewed to complete the operational feasibility assessment.

Sites are benchmarked against a Red-Amber-Green framework, which reflects the severity of any 3.31.operational issues identified.

Table 3-4 Stage 1 Operational Feasibility R-A-G Benchmarks


Peak service frequency 0 tph 1 tph 2+ tph

Off-peak service frequency 0 tph 1 tph 2+ tph

Distance from Leeds Less than 5km 5 – 10km 10km +

Access for car parking/drop-off - No land for car

parking Land available

Station Accessibility Significant constraints

Difficult to comply Not difficult to

comply



Identifying the Initial Shortlist (End of Stage 1) The outputs of the demand forecasts and construction feasibility form the basis of the preliminary 3.32.

sifting framework. The three components are considered holistically to help identify sites which are worth assessing further.

Each station‟s Red-Amber-Green assessment is converted into a score out of 10, as follows: 3.33.

Demand

- Demand score out of 10 is derived as: 10 x ( Forecast daily passenger entries value / 625)

- Forecast daily passenger entries of 625 or more scores 10;

- A score of 8 or more (i.e. >500 trips) = Green classification;

- A score of between 4 and 8 = Amber classification;

- A score of less than 4 = Red classification.

- The demand thresholds applied are based on existing usage at stations across West Yorkshire. 625 is the value calculated to enable the score out of 10 to match the RAG ratings for Construction and Operational feasibility.

Construction Feasibility

- Each of the five criteria are scored as 2 for each Green, 1 for each Amber and 0 for each Red;

- Values are added so each site achieves a construction feasibility score out of 10 with no weighting between the 5 criteria;

- Any site where track gradient or land availability have been scored as „Red‟, have their construction feasibility score adjusted down to 0, as these issues are deemed insurmountable;

- The final R-A-G classification for each site is based on the score out of 10, but with adjustment if any of the 5 criteria were identified as Red;

- A score of 8 or more (with no Red criteria) = Green classification;

- A score of between 4 and 8 (with no Red criteria) = Amber classification;

- A score of less than 4 or any site with at least one Red criteria = Red classification.

Operational Feasibility

- Each of the five criteria points are scored as 2 for each Green, 1 for each Amber and 0 for each Red;

- Values are added so each site achieves a construction feasibility score out of 10 with no weighting between criteria;

- The final R-A-G classification for each site is based on the score out of 10, but with adjustment if any of the 5 criteria were identified as Red;

- A score of 8 or more (with no Red criteria) = Green classification;

- A score of between 4 and 8 (with no Red criteria) = Amber classification;

- A score of less than 4 or any site with at least one Red criteria = Red classification.

The three scores out of 10 are also added to derive a total score out of 30 for each site which is 3.34.presented alongside the final Red-Amber-Green assessment for each of the 3 components.

Below are three examples of this methodology worked through with different adjustments applied. 3.35.



Site: Cornholme (A)

Simple site with assessment converted to score and totalled.

Construction Feasibility Component Assessment and R-A-G Score Overall

Track gradient < 1 in 100 A 1

9.0

Green

Track alignment r > 1000m G 2

Track and signalling layout No constraints G 2

Physical constraints/topography No constraints G 2

Land availability Sufficient land G 2

Operational Feasibility Component Assessment and R-A-G Score Overall

Peak service frequency 1 tph A 1

6.0

Amber

Off-peak service frequency 1 tph A 1

Impact on through passengers >10km G 2

Access for car parking & drop-off No land for car parking A 1

Station accessibility Difficult to comply A 1

Demand Component Daily passenger entries Score Overall

Forecast daily passenger entries 30 0.6 Red

Total Overall Score 15.6/30 Red

Site: Ferrybridge

Site with assessment converted to score and totalled. Operational feasibility component is scored as 6.0 overall but classified as „Red‟ because at least one of the criteria is „Red‟.


Track gradient < 1 in 100 A 1

8.0

Green

Track alignment r < 1000m A 1

Track and signalling layout No constraints G 2




Peak service frequency 0 tph R 0

6.0

Red

Off-peak service frequency 0 tph R 0


Access for car parking & drop-off Land available G 2

Station accessibility Not difficult to comply G 2


Forecast daily passenger entries 70 1.1 Red


Site: Bilton

Site with assessment converted to score and totalled. Construction feasibility component is reduced to 0.0 and classified as „Red‟ overall, as track gradient criteria is „Red‟.


Track gradient > 1 in 100 R 0

0.0

Red

Track alignment r < 1000m A 1

Track and signalling layout Some constraints A 1




Peak service frequency 2 tph + G 2 8.0

Green

Off-peak service frequency 2 tph + G 2


Access for car parking & drop-off No land for car parking A 1



Station accessibility Difficult to comply A 1


Forecast daily passenger entries 480 7.7 Amber


Stage 2 – Detailed Feasibility Assessment Each of the potential station locations brought through from Stage 1 are considered in more 3.36.

detail, with a particular emphasis on the potential impact a new station may have on the operations of the existing railway. This includes impacts in terms of journey times and timetables changes, and future resource requirements.

The Detailed Feasibility Assessment, for shortlisted sites, includes: 3.37.

Operational assessment for each of the shortlisted locations;

High-level financial assessment, including analysis of the potential impact on through passengers

Construction assessment, identifying potential areas/risks that could result in additional capital costs

High-level estimate of operating (station and rolling stock/crew) expenditure;

A prioritised list of stations for taking forward to a business case stage.

Operational Assessment The location of each shortlisted station has been reviewed to determine the potential operational 3.38.

implications of serving the site. This includes the journey time penalty for stopping at the station, together with an assessment of how this may affect rolling stock and crew requirements.

As rolling stock or traincrew diagrams were not available, assessing potential future requirements 3.39.have been based on the December 2013 Working Timetable as publicly available on Network Rail‟s website.

Discussions with Metro throughout this process have ensured that any emerging service 3.40.frequency enhancements are accounted for within the assessment, although as these potential enhancements are still to be contracted, the assessment still relies primarily on the existing timetable.

Financial Assessment The impact on existing passengers is a critical element of any new station business case. Stage 3.41.

2 includes an assessment of the potential impact that the additional service stop would have on existing passengers.

MOIRA has been used to determine the number of through passengers that would have an 3.42.increase in journey time as a result of the new station (and indicator of user disbenefits). MOIRA has also been used to calculate the likely revenue loss from extending existing journey times, comparing this with an estimated annual revenue for the new station site using the Stage 1 demand forecasts and an assumed average yield per journey derived from a nearby comparable station. Forecast revenue for new stations represents net additional revenue, and excludes revenue from any abstracted demand.

Construction Assessment Site visits were conducted in February 2014, enabling a more detailed assessment of overall 3.43.

construction feasibility supplementing the desktop analysis undertaken in Stage 1. This has enabled an initial view to be formed on potential construction risks or uncertainty for each site, that could have an impact upon scheme costs.



Operational Expenditure Annual operating expenditure (station and rolling stock/crew) are estimated, making reference to 3.44.

any potential need for additional rolling stock or crew resource identified in the Operational Assessment.

Unit cost rates held by Atkins have been used to determine a reasonable high-level cost 3.45.estimate,

Station operating expenditure includes likely long-term charges (assuming Network Rail own the 3.46.station) together with other potential sources of ongoing expenditure including car parking, CCTV, CIS and station staff (where relevant).

Capital Expenditure The capital expenditure estimates for each of the shortlisted stations is based on the cost 3.47.

analyses previously completed for sites at Kirkstall Forge, Apperley Bridge and Low Moor.

These estimates have been used as the basis for the capital expenditure assessments, with 3.48.suitable adjustments based upon the provided cost breakdown and the findings of the Stage 2 construction assessment.

End of Stage 2 - Final Shortlist The output of Stage 2 is a final shortlist of stations which are considered to present a strong 3.49.

enough case such that further investment in developing a business case may be justified.



4. Stage 1 Assessment – Preliminary Sift

As listed in Chapter 2, 61 potential sites were considered in Stage 1. 4.1.

As outlined in the Chapter 3, the preliminary sift considers the demand potential, construction 4.2.feasibility and operational feasibility of each of the sites.

The recommendations for each site are summarised in the following section, grouped by line, as 4.3.shown in Table 2-1. Full details of the assessment for each site, with details of each sites scoring and R-A-G benchmarks are included as Appendix A to this document, where each site is presented in its own detailed Factsheet.

Stage 1 Assessment Results Summary by Line

Huddersfield Line

The Huddersfield Line extends south-west of Leeds, running through Huddersfield and on 4.4.towards Manchester. The Huddersfield Line also includes an east-west link which connects Huddersfield and Wakefield.

The study has considered 7 possible new station sites as shown in Figure 4-1. Four of the 4.5.proposals are on the Huddersfield to Wakefield line, while three are on the main TransPennine route between Huddersfield and Leeds.

Figure 4-1 Huddersfield Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

Following the preliminary sifting, Thornhill Lees is considered to be appropriate for further 4.6.assessment. No major construction issues were identified and demand forecasts were just sufficient to warrant inclusion in Stage 2

The other sites assessed on the east-west link to Wakefield were Ossett Parkway and Horbury 4.7.Bridge. Osset Parkway is located very close to the former Healey Mills Yard Rail and incorporating a station into the network at this site poses a number of significant issues due to the track layout and access arrangements form the highway above. No significant construction

Golcar (A)

Golcar (B)

Ravensthorpe(new platform)

Ossett Parkway

Horbury Bridge

Thornhill Lees

White Rose Centre

Huddersfield Line continues onto towards Manchester



issues were identified at Horbury Bridge, however the low catchment population and poor service frequency means that the demand forecasts are low.

The two sites at Golcar were considered together to identify which may present a stronger case 4.8.for a new station for around these villages. Golcar Site A was considered to present a slightly better case, as Site B was considered to be too constrained as the railway line is narrowed in a deep cutting throughout this section and providing a station to modern standards with DDA-compliant access would be challenging and costly. Forecast demand levels at Site A or B are unlikely to be high enough to justify stopping longer-distance TransPennine services at the proposed station, and under the current timetable this would restrict the station to the hourly Manchester- Victoria to Huddersfield service which would mean the station would not have an all-day service to Leeds.. While this would limit the attractiveness of the potential station, the relatively high population catchment means demand forecasts are sufficient for this site to progress to Stage 2, although it is noted that future timetable developments linked to Northern Hub and TransPennine electrification are unlikely to enhance the case for the station in this location.

The site at the White Rose Centre was felt to be unsuitable due to the changes which would be 4.9.needed to the track and signalling equipment. The site is located on a curve with a high line speed and a high degree of cant. Constructing a station at this location would be costly. The site is also relatively close to Leeds City Centre which means that the impact of stopping services in this area would be detrimental to journey times for existing passengers and line capacity is already constrained. Morley and Cottingley stations are both less than 1.5km either side of the White Rose Centre.

Ravensthorpe is at the point where the railway branches into separate lines running to Leeds 4.10.and Wakefield. The existing platforms are on the route towards Leeds and this study has considered the feasibility of constructing new platforms at the existing station which would also allow Wakefield line services to stop. The assessment found that there are no significant construction barriers to this scheme, although there may be operational implications from stopping Wakefield line services so close to a junction. Adding further platforms at Ravensthorpe would only increases the offer at an existing poorly-used site (rather than providing rail access to people who are currently without a station), Thornhill Lees scores more favourably in terms of

trip potential and was carried forward to Stage 2.

Wakefield Line

The Wakefield Line extends south-east of Leeds through Wakefield. It continues south and splits 4.11.near to South Elmsall, with branches continuing towards Doncaster and towards Rotherham.

The study has assessed 6 possible new station sites which are shown in Figure 4-2. 4.12.



Figure 4-2 Wakefield Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

Of the six sites, the two alternative locations at East Ardsley performed well in the Stage 1 4.13.assessment and have been carried forward to Stage 2. Both sites demonstrated a strong potential case when accounting for housing growth in the area and were both scored highly in construction feasibility. The site at Wrenthorpe was also found to have no significant issues in

the assessment, and so was taken forward to Stage 2.

North of Ardsley, a site in Beeston was reviewed. The proximity to Central Leeds means 4.14.developing a strong case for this location would be difficult as stopping services so close to Leeds City Centre would slow journey times for a large number of existing passengers. The site sits within a densely packed urban area where land availability is limited and would constrain any project.

South of Wakefield, there were two proposed sites; Hemsworth and Crofton P&R. In both 4.15.instances, the sites were not anticipated to generate large amounts of trip demand from a local catchment and in the case of Crofton, would require a reasonably sized car park and frequent rail service to be effective as a park and ride site. There were construction issues identified by the high-level assessment which would make building a station to modern standards at these sites hard to deliver. At both location, changes would be needed to track and signalling equipment and there are physical constraints which would impede the development and add to costs. Land availability is also highlighted as a problem at Hemsworth. Neither of these sites were progressed to Stage 2.

York & Selby Line

The York & Selby Line extends east of Leeds, running through Garforth, before continuing north 4.16.towards York. Near to Micklefield, the railway branches with a line also running east to Selby and on to Hull.

The York & Selby Line includes 8 possible new station sites which are shown in Figure 4-3. Six of 4.17.these potential sites are close to Leeds City Centre, to the west of Cross Gates and the A6120 Inner Ring Road. Thorpe Park and East Leeds Parkway are both in rural locations close to the strategic highway network and are linked to planning proposals for new developments and/or Park and Ride.

Hemsworth

Wakefield Line

continues onto towards Rotherham

Wakefield Line continues onto

towards Doncaster

Crofton P&R

Wrenthorpe

Elland Road / Beeston

East Ardsley (A)

East Ardsley (B)



Figure 4-3 York & Selby Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

The Stage 1 assessment filters out sites that are very close to Leeds as stopping trains so close 4.18.to the major urban centre is likely to create a dis-benefit for large numbers of existing rail passengers and in many cases, these locations are well-served by high-frequency bus routes to the city centre. Proposed sites at Leeds East (Sites A and B), East End Park and Osmondthorpe (sites A and B) are all adversely scored as a result. These locations are all in the urban areas which sprawl to the east of central Leeds and in some cases are also constrained by the availability of land and track geometry. East End Park is located alongside Neville Hill Rail Depot and making changes to track and signalling in this area is envisaged to be prohibitively expensive. Seacroft Hospital is further from Leeds City Centre but is also not deemed to

feasible due to lack of suitable access to the site which would be costly to rectify

To the east of Cross Gates are two proposed sites at Thorpe Park and East Leeds Parkway. 4.19.Both are located in more rural locations where potential construction issues appear to be minimal and land would be available. Both are located away from immediate settlements, but are well-located for local and strategic park and ride, being located next to major trunk routes. Thorpe Park is also linked to developer proposals for substantial new development. In both instances, Metro have advised on appropriate demand forecasting values/adjustments to account for the impact of park and ride derived from earlier studies. As a result, both sites come out favourably in the assessment and are carried forward to Stage 2. Thorpe Park has been selected on the basis that the proposed mixed-use development is delivered.

Calder Valley Line

The Calder Valley Line extends west of Leeds, initially running through Bradford and Halifax. 4.20.Beyond Halifax, the main line continues to Manchester Victoria, but some services branch off to Huddersfield. Further along the route, there is a second branch which leaves the main line shortly before Todmorden. This line extends to Burnley, Blackburn, Preston and Blackpool.

The Calder Valley Line includes 13 possible new station sites, which are shown in Figure 4-4. 4.21.Four of these lie in the section between Bradford and Halifax where there are currently no stations. The proposed Low Moor station is also shown on the plan in this section. Although Low Moor is not assessed in this feasibility study, the impacts of the station are considered (see note on the plan).

East Leeds Parkway

York & Selby Line

continues onto towards Selby

York & Selby Line

continues onto towards York

Thorpe Park

Leeds East (B)

Leeds East (A)

East End Park

Seacroft Hospital

Osmondthorpe (B)

Osmondthorpe (A)



Figure 4-4 Calder Valley Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

Of the sites assessed on the Calder Valley Line, Elland appears to demonstrate the strongest 4.22.potential business case, with sufficient demand forecast and no major construction or operational issues identified. The inclusion of Elland in Stage 2 meant that the alternative location at Greetland was not taken any further. Hipperholme Site A also made the Stage 2 shortlist, but the Stage 1 assessment highlighted potential concerns about the need for third-party land, and that demand forecasts were only just sufficient to warrant inclusion in the next stage. The need for third-party land to gain access to Site B at Hipperholme means this site is unlikely to be feasible.

Norwood Green scored well in the Stage 1 assessment, but due to its close proximity to Low 4.23.Moor, we have not recommended it for inclusion in Stage 2. No significant construction issues were identified, but we suggest that any further analysis of Norwood Green should await the opening of Low Moor to allow changes in travel patterns in the area to be fully understood.

Significant construction issues were identified at the two sites closest to Bradford. Bowling Park 4.24.is located immediately beyond a steeply graded section of line climbing out of Bradford and is also located in a deep cutting that would increase capital costs. At Laisterdyke there may not be sufficient land available for the construction of a station to modern standards and it is likely that constructing a station at this location would require the potentially costly movement of signals as well as affecting access to the currently unused rail-connected scrap yard immediately to the east of the site. Despite these potential challenges, the high potential demand forecast means this site has been progressed to Stage 2 for further, more detailed assessment.

Closer to Leeds, the two sites at Armley are located in urban areas immediately to the west of 4.25.central Leeds. These sites are constrained by the availability of land and the impacts on through passengers caused by extended journey times is deemed too high to make a station viable so close to the city centre, particularly considering the overlapping catchments with existing stations and the high-frequency bus services form the area.

Moving further away from Leeds towards the Metro boundary, at Luddendenfoot the low 4.26.catchment population means demand forecasts are very low, and the constriction assessment also identified the need for access via third-party land (a business park/industrial estate).

Similarly, both the alternative sites at Cornholme also have very low demand forecasts due to 4.27.their rural location with small catchment populations. While reinstatement of the Todmorden

Caldervale Line continues onto

towards Manchester

Armley (B)

Armley (A)

Laisterdyke

Bowling Park/ West Bowling

Norwood Green

Hipperholme (A)

Hipperholme (B)

Salterheeble

Greetland

Elland

Luddendenfoot

Cornholme (B)

Cornholme (A)

Low Moor

Note: Low Moor is not an existing station. It is currently under development by Metro. For the purposes of this study it has been considered as existing and so is not assessed.



curve will increase frequencies toward Burnley from 1tph to 2tph, a station at Cornholme would only have at most an hourly service to Manchester and Leeds under current proposals.

For these reasons, neither the stations at Cornholme or Luddendenfoot have been recommended 4.28.for progression to Stage 2.

Harrogate Line

The Harrogate Line extends north of Leeds to Harrogate, before running east to York. 4.29.

The Harrogate Line includes 7 possible new station sites, which are shown in Figure 4-5. 4.30.Potential sites between Horsforth Woodside and Flaxby Moor are discussed below in this sub-section. The study has also assessed four potential sites for new stations close to York which are also shown in the Figure and are reviewed in the next sub-section („Lines North of York‟).

Figure 4-5 Harrogate Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

Along the route between Leeds and Harrogate, there were 4 potential sites assessed. Of these, 4.31.Horsforth Woodside appears to offer the best potential business case, with no significant construction or operational issues identified (although the gradient is 1 in 100), and a reasonable level of trip potential demonstrated by the forecasting model. The site is near to an existing station in Horsforth and so would compete for passengers and is also within the catchment of the new stations under development at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge. There is also an overlap with the P&R site at Boddington on the NGT trolleybus system, For these reasons it is not recommended for further development at this stage.

North of Horsforth, the sites of Cookridge and Arthington Parkway both scored poorly in the 4.32.assessment. Cookridge is constrained by a lack of suitable access and it is not clear if DDA compliant access to platforms could be provided. The steep track gradient and land availability at Arthington Parkway would be biggest challenge to building at that site. The rural location of both sites means that trip generation may be not be very large without a suitably size car park and the road network does not appear to be particularly well suited to attracting park and ride trips.

Near to Harrogate, proposed sites at Bilton and Manse Farm have been reviewed. The track 4.33.gradient is the biggest issue at Bilton, as a new station would pose a significant challenge in the approvals process. The site is also relatively constrained so that it does not appear to be possible to provide car parking. While demand forecasts are quite high at Bilton, it is forecast to abstract a high proportion of trips from Harrogate.



The Manse Farm site is a location on the outskirts of Knaresborough, which already has its own 4.34.station. This proposal is based a developer proposals for substantial new development on adjacent third-party land. Metro have advised on appropriate demand forecasting values/adjustments to account for the impact of this proposal from a previous study. Even when accounting for the proposed level of development, the demand forecasts are relatively low when accounting for demand abstracted from existing stations. This site has not been recommended for progression to Stage 2, however, it may be suitable to review this site again once more details of the development are known.

No major construction issues were identified at Flaxby Moor, although it is likely that third-part 4.35.land would be required to provide access to the site. Flaxby Moor has not been considered suitable for further assessment at this stage due to the low demand forecasts, but it is noted that this site would rely upon longer-distance park and ride trips, being well-located next to the trunk road network. More detailed demand study would be required to determine the potential for park and ride trips.

The Acomb site, which is at the eastern end of the Harrogate Line close to York, is reviewed in 4.36.

the following section.

Lines North of York

There are four stations assessed in this study which are in the vicinity of York Station, as shown 4.37.on the right-hand side in Figure 4-5. Acomb sits on the Harrogate line, but the other three are all outside of Metro‟s network.

The Acomb and York Business Park sites are both located on opposing sides of the business 4.38.park on the Harrogate line and main East Coast route respectively. Of the two locations, the Acomb site appears to have more potential as a station as there would be construction and operational issues with a station at the York Business Park site on the ECML. The assessment suggests that based upon the current situation neither site would generate enough trip demand to make it sustainable. Given the business park location, the catchment has a low resident population which accounts for the low trip forecasts. However, a desktop assessment of the site and its use suggests that rail mode share would be expected to be low for the types of businesses at the business park and so trips „attracted‟ to the site (rather than „originating‟ from the site) would also be low.

Although the current catchment population is low, the City of York SHLAA identifies the nearby 4.39.British Sugar site as potential location for over 1,200 dwellings. This would boost catchment population within 800m of the station site by almost 3,000. If the Harrogate line was to benefit from enhanced levels of service (2tph to York), then the case for a station at Acomb would be considerably stronger. It is recommended that a new station at Acomb is linked to development

and potential upgrade of Harrogate line.

On the line towards Scarborough, two potential sites at Haxby and Strensall were assessed. 4.40.Both sites used to exist as stations but closed in 1930. It is considered that re-opening both sites close to each other on the line would not be feasible, but the case for Haxby appears to be particularly strong and it is considered further in Stage 2. There has been strong backing for reinstating Haxby station in recent years, and there is already a business case developed for the site

2. The site had no significant issues identified in the high-level assessment and the catchment

population appears to offer a good basis for a sizeable trip demand, unlike Strensall where the catchment population is smaller.

2 Application previously submitted to DfT‟s New Stations Fund (NSF).



Hallam Line

The Hallam Line extends south of Leeds via Wakefield, towards Sheffield. The Line includes 6 4.41.possible new station sites, which are shown in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6 Hallam Line: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

Assessment of these six sites on the Hallam Line, has shown that none are appropriate for any 4.42.further assessment. In particular, the Crigglestone, Methley (A and B) sites were all found to score poorly in the assessment framework as their rural locations mean that the forecast trip demand is too small to support a business case for a station. Furthermore, appropriate conditions to develop an attractive park and ride facility do not exist. The Haigh site is in a similarly rural location but may have some potential as a park and ride station given its location just off the M1 but service frequencies aren‟t considered to be high enough to present an attractive park and ride option.

Closer to Leeds, sites at Stourton and Holbeck were assessed. The sites scored very poorly as 4.43.both had significant construction and operational issues. Being in an industrial estate close to the M621, Stourton is surrounded by a small resident population with limited land availability. Conversely, Holbeck is closer to central Leeds and the dense residential and industrial catchment does show a strong trip potential. However, a Holbeck station would be in part competing with Leeds Station which will always offer a wider range of services and destinations. There are also significant physical constraints at the Holbeck site that are likely to preclude the cost-effective development of a station.

Airedale and Wharfedale Lines

The Airedale Line extends west of Leeds via Shipley and Keighley towards Carlisle and 4.44.Lancaster. The Wharfedale Line follows the same initial route, but branches off near to Apperley Bridge and runs via Guiseley to Ilkley. Both lines also include a southern branch line which extends services to Bradford Forster Square station.

The two lines are shown in Figure 4-7 with the Wharfedale only lines shown as dotted routes. In 4.45.total there are 6 potential station sites assessed in this feasibility study. The proposed Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge stations are both shown on the plan. Although they are not assessed in this study (see note on the plan) the potential impact of these stations is accounted for within the analysis.

Hallam Line

continues onto towards Sheffield

Haigh

Holbeck

Crigglestone

Methley (A)

Methley (B)

Stourton



Figure 4-7 Airedale and Wharfedale Lines: Route Alignment and Assessed Sites

On the Wharfedale line demand forecasts at Esholt are not sufficient to warrant further study. 4.46.Guiseley Silverdale would also not generate sufficient new demand to warrant further study as it is forecast to abstract existing demand from Guiseley. The track gradient at this location would also make gaining approvals more complex and potentially costly.

The site at Calverley would appear to be attractive as a park and ride site and no significant 4.47.construction issues were identified. Given its location between the planned stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, it is recommended that this site is reassessed once travel patterns at the two new stations are understood.

Closer to Skipton, Crosshills site A is not forecast to generate sufficient demand as it is located 4.48.too far away from the intended catchment. At Site B, the catchment population is high enough to generate sufficient demand and no significant construction or operational issues were identified in stage 1. On this basis, Crosshills Site B has been included within Stage 2.

Finally, Manningham is located on the Bradford Forster Square – Shipley section of the route, in 4.49.a densely-populated area immediately to the north of Bradford. The trip-rate methodology forecasts a high level of usage due to the high catchment population and good service frequency. While abstraction from nearby stations is forecast to be high, the demand forecast is still sufficiently high enough to warrant further study in Stage 2, as no significant construction or operational issues were identified in Stage 1.



Pontefract Line, Dearne Valley Line and Askern Line

The Pontefract Line extends east of Leeds via Knottingley towards Goole. The western end of the 4.50.Line (section Leeds – Castleford) is shared with the Hallam Line. The 4 proposed sites in this section are summarised in the Hallam Line section of this Chapter.

The Dearne Valley Line runs north-south between Sheffield and York. There is currently a limited 4.51.service on the line with only two round trips daily. There are 3 potential station locations on this line which have been assessed.

The assessment also considered a site at Womersley which lies on the Askern Line which runs 4.52.south from the Pontefract Line at Knottingley in the direction of Doncaster. Other than occasional use as a diversionary route, the line is freight only and does not carry regular passenger services; all local stations between Knottingley and Doncaster have been closed since the end of the 1940s.

These three lines are all shown in Figure 4-8 with the Dearne Valley Line and Askern Line shown 4.53.as dotted routes. In total, there are 5 potential station sites assessed on the Pontefract Line (only Knottingley East is covered in this section), 3 on the Dearne Valley Line and the Womersley site.

Figure 4-8 Pontefract/Dearne Valley/Askern Line: Route Alignments and Assessed Sites

While no significant construction issues were identified at the Knottingley East site, the low 4.54.service frequency and catchment population means the demand forecast (when accounting for abstraction from nearby Knottingley) is not sufficient to warrant further investigation at this stage. The assessment did note that it would appear to be relatively straightforward to extend existing Knottingley terminating services on to Knottingley East, obviously with no disbenefits to through passengers,

For the other four sites on the Dearne Valley and Askern lines, the lack of regular rail services 4.55.means these sites are scored adversely in the Stage 1 assessment and are not recommended for progression to Stage 2. In the case of the Dearne Valley line, it is understood that a separate



study is considering the potential for reinstatement of frequent services on this route, and this will consider the potential for new stations.

Further details on the Stage 1 construction and operational assessment are included in Appendix 4.56.A, and should other studies identify potential enhancements to service frequencies on these routes, then it is possible for their assessments to be updated.



Summary of Stage 1 assessment

Sites with Significant Constraints identified

38 sites are filtered by the preliminary sift due to significant operational or construction 4.57.constraints having been identified. These are issues which are considered to be fundamental problems and which would compromise any business case. Example issues include:

Track alignment being too curved, or track gradient being too steep to allow new platforms to be constructed within industry Standards or without the requirement for potentially costly modifications to track layout;

The station is located on a line where there is currently no regular passenger service

Significant physical constraints identified which would impact on the ability to construct a new station in a cost-efficient way. Examples may include cuttings in the physical environment, the need to purchase a sizeable quantity of third-party land and/or properties or adjacent buildings being situated very close to the edge of the railway boundary; or

Site located such that the impact of a new stopping point would have too severe an impact on other train services and existing rail passengers. The adverse impact on all passing services and passengers would add significant dis-benefits which would outweigh the benefits created by the new station.

Full details of the Stage 1 assessment for each station site are included in Appendix A. Although 4.58.there does not appear to be any case for these sites at present, should any major change occur to the site or situation that would help to address these critical issues, a re-assessment should be considered in light of that new context, and any forecast change in potential demand.

Sites potentially affected by stations already under development

For some potential stations, the sites are located in close proximity to the three new stations that 4.59.Metro are already developing, and given the overlapping catchments it is recommended that further development should not take place until the new stations are operational and changes in travel patterns in the area are understood.

Calverley P&R - shares a catchment area with Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge

Horsforth Woodside – shares a catchment area with Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge

Norwood Green – catchment overlaps with Low Moor

Sites with insufficient demand

There are 9 sites where the high-level assessment did not identify any significant issues that 4.60.would compromise the construction of a new station. However, for some sites the level of demand is currently anticipated to be too small to support a robust business case, meaning it is not worth undertaking any further assessment work at this stage. These sites are:

Manse Farm;

Horbury Bridge;

Knottingley East;

Crigglestone;

Acomb (York British Sugar Site);

Luddendenfoot;

Cornholme (A);

Flaxby Moor; and

Haigh.

It is recommended that these sites should be kept under review by Metro and considered in the 4.61.future should any opportunities arise which might boost the trip demand potential. For example, a developer may come forward with a planning proposal on nearby land which would provide new housing or a mixed-use development that would increase the potential demand. This is particularly relevant for sites where there are known development aspirations, such as Acomb



and Manse Farm. It is recommended that these two sites could be reconsidered in the future as part of any wider package of potential enhancements to the Harrogate line.

It is also considered that some of these sites could be reviewed further in the context of their 4.62.wider population catchments, to assess any potential as attractive park & ride sites. The high-level assessment focuses on the trip-making potential of the population living less than 1.5km of each station, whereas a successful park & ride facility would draw in population from a wider region. The feasibility of this would also be dependent on other factors, such as the availability of land to provide parking, and local highway access routes. The level of service must also be at a sufficient frequency for a park & ride facility to be attractive, so peak period service frequencies and destinations served would need to be closely reviewed.

Of the sites listed above, the Stage 1 assessment suggests that the Flaxby Moor may offer the 4.63.most potential as a park and ride site. It offers direct connections to Leeds and York and benefits from two trains per hour in the peak periods. The site is also located near to the strategic highway network and has good highway access from surrounding settlements. It is recommended that this location could be reconsidered in the future as part of any wider package of potential enhancements to the Harrogate line.

Haigh also has potential as a park and ride site, however service frequencies on the route aren‟t 4.64.considered to be attractive enough for a viable park and ride site and further development is not recommended at this stage. Sites that are ruled out in favour of better-performing alternative options

Three sites have been ruled out as they are either weaker performing alternative locations or are 4.65.sufficiently close to other proposed sites that they are considered to be mutually exclusive.

Ravensthorpe (Thornhill Lees progressed to Stage 2)

Crosshills Site A (Crosshills Site B progressed to Stage 2)

Greetland (Elland progressed to Stage 2)

Shortlisted Sites for Stage 2 Based on the Stage 1 preliminary sifting, and following a consultation exercise between Metro 4.66.

and the District Authorities, 12 potential new stations were considered appropriate for further assessment in Stage 2. This translates to 13 sites, as two potential locations for East Ardsley performed well in the Stage 1 assessment The list of 13 station sites carried forward to Stage 2 is:

Crosshills (Site B);

East Ardsley (Site A);

East Ardsley (Site B).

East Leeds Parkway;

Elland;

Golcar (Site A);

Haxby;

Hipperholme (Site B);

Laisterdyke;

Manningham;

Thornhill Lees;

Thorpe Park; and

Wrenthorpe; Chapter 5 provides details of the Stage 2 Assessment. 4.67.



5. Stage 2 Assessment – Detailed Feasibility

The sites carried forward to Stage 2 have been assessed in accordance with the methodology 5.1.detailed in Chapter 3. This chapter summarises the findings of the Stage 2 assessment under the following headings:

Stage 2 Operational assessment – this section presents the findings of the operational assessment. This summarises the potential service pattern that could be provided at the new station together with a high-level operational feasibility assessment using the present-day timetable, with reference to new stations already under development and planned changes to the timetable where known .

Stage 2 Financial assessment – This section presents an assessment of the likely journey time impacts the proposed new station would have on existing passengers and the corresponding demand and revenue impacts that would occur due to extended journey times. This is an important consideration when prioritising sites for further development, as these impacts are a critical element of the overall business case for any new station. This section also summarises an estimate of potential revenue generation at the new station by applying an average yield per journey to the forecast demand figure. This yield per journey has been calculated from MOIRA using a relevant nearby station as a proxy.

Stage 2 Construction assessment – This section presents summary findings of the site visits that were undertaken in 2014 to assess the construction feasibility of each site in more detail, building on the initial desktop assessment undertaken in Stage 1. Full details of the site visits are included in Appendix B.

.



Crosshills (Site B)

Location plan

Stage 2 Operational assessment

A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.2.ascertain how a station at Crosshills could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the minimum turnaround requirements at Skipton,

The current off-peak service pattern on the Airedale line at Crosshills includes a half-hourly 5.3.Skipton-Leeds service and a half-hourly Skipton - Bradford Forster Square service. In addition to these all-station electric services, there are also more infrequent DMU services serving destinations north of Skipton (Carlisle and Lancaster/Morecombe) that operate as limited-stop services between Skipton and Leeds. It is not envisaged that these DMU services would call at Crosshills, but all or some of the EMU services would call.

The simplest means of accommodating additional station calls at Crosshills is to reduce the 5.4.timetabled turnaround times at Skipton. Given the current inter-working of diagrams on the „Electric Triangle‟ and capacity constraints at the Leeds end of the route, changes to the timetable at the Leeds-end of the route have not been considered.

Analysis of the working timetable suggests that current turnaround times at Skipton are in the 5.5.order of 8-9 minutes for Leeds services and 12-13 minutes for Bradford services. The Timetable Planning Rules state that the minimum turnaround time at Skipton is 5 minutes, with the total of



any two consecutive minimum turnarounds required to be no less than 15 minutes. In the off-peak this figure is typically 20-22 minutes in the Dec-13 timetable.

On this basis, adding a Crosshills station call into all Skipton-Bradford/Leeds services is likely to 5.6.breach the current 15 minute minimum consecutive turnaround requirement without further alterations to the timetable. In order to maintain a 15 minute figure it is possible that a skip-stopping requirement would be required on Bradford – Skipton services, whereby one hourly service calls at Crosshills and the other calls at Cononley. This would preserve the 2tph service to Leeds from Crosshills, but would mean that turnarounds at Skipton for Leeds services would still be close to the minimum required by the TPR.

Stage 2 Financial assessment

Adding Crosshills station calls into Leeds /Bradford – Skipton services is expected to increase 5.7.journey times to Cononley and Skipton by up to two minutes. An initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the number of existing passengers with extended journey times (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in Table 5-1 below.

Table 5-1 Crosshills demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Crosshills – Annual demand and revenue

Forecast demand 204,000

Through passengers affected

Ratio of through passengers to station demand

Forecast Revenue

Forecast Revenue loss

Net Revenue

Compared to some of the other station sites included in the Stage 2 assessment, the impacts on 5.8.through passengers are forecast to be relatively small. This is due to Crosshills being located towards the quieter end of the route where loads are at their lowest. This analysis assumes Crosshills would generate similar yields per journey as currently observed at Cononley.

The location of Crosshills immediately beyond the West Yorkshire boundary is a significant point. 5.9.The trip-rate forecasting methodology takes no account of relative pricing or competing stations. Given its location within Metrocard Zone 5 and the availability of free car parking, the close proximity of Steeton and Silsden to Crosshills needs to be considered when assessing potential demand at Crosshills.

Stage 2 Construction assessment

Full details of the Stage 2 Construction assessment for Crosshills are included in Appendix B. In 5.10.summary, the major constraint at this site is Kildwick Level Crossing. When the site was visited the crossing was noted to be activated frequently, due to the high frequency of trains on this route. Closure times are lengthy, leading to traffic backing up from the crossing. Any extension to barrier closure times may not be acceptable, therefore, the positioning of a station within close proximity to the crossing may not be possible. A review of the crossing protection would be required, possibly including repositioning of the Up direction protecting signal (or provision of a new signal), to allow stopping trains to enter the Up platform with the crossing still open to traffic, the crossing then being closed whilst the passengers board / alight the train. Stopping / non-stopping controls are likely to be required for this level crossing.

Further work will be required to confirm that the OLE wire heights can be adjusted, within the 5.11.constraints imposed by o/br TJC3/79, in order to maintain electrical clearances on the platforms.



Land purchase would be required on the Down side of the railway, in order to form a new station 5.12.building and car park. Some land purchase may be required on the Up side also, in order to locally widen the platform to allow a lift tower and staircase to a footbridge to be constructed.

The creation of a site access from Station Road would need to be carefully considered in terms of 5.13.the safety of this junction, given that visibility is limited for southbound traffic passing over o/br TJC3/79.



East Ardsley (Sites A and B)

Location plan


A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.14.ascertain how a station at East Ardsley (either Site A or B) could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the turnaround times for Northern Rail services at Leeds, Sheffield and Doncaster.

The current standard hourly service pattern on the route through East Ardsley consists of an 5.15.hourly local service between Doncaster and Leeds and an hourly local service between Sheffield and Leeds via Moorthorpe. In addition to these services, there are also long-distance services that operate over the route, with a half-hourly East Coast service from Leeds to London King‟s Cross and an hourly CrossCountry service that routes via York to Sheffield via Leeds. Enhancements to longer-distance services in the future could see CrossCountry services increased to half-hourly and potentially Leeds-King‟s Cross services increased to 3 trains per hour. It is envisaged that both Northern Rail operated services would call at East Ardsley in order to provide a half-hourly service frequency in the off-peak.

The Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe service has sufficient turnaround time at Leeds (~18mins) 5.16.and Sheffield (~14mins) to accommodate an additional station call at East Ardsley within the existing diagrams. The primary operational constraint for this service is the need to fit between the long distance services along the route. Towards Sheffield, the service departs Leeds immediately after an East Coast service, and by the time it diverges at Aldwarke Junction towards Rotherham Central the following CrossCountry service is immediately behind. It would not appear possible to accommodate additional station calls in this service without further alterations to the timetable. In the Leeds-bound direction, no such constraint exists as the CrossCountry service „overtakes‟ the Northern service while it routes via Rotherham Central, and



the Northern service is timed to follow an East Coast service from South Kirkby Junction into Leeds.

The Leeds-Doncaster service typically has an 8 minute turnaround at Leeds and a twenty minute 5.17.turnaround at Doncaster. This would appear sufficient to accommodate at least one additional station call within existing resources; however the primary constraint is again the interaction with long-distance services that share this route.

The Leeds-bound services are timed to depart Doncaster such that they follow the CrossCountry 5.18.service from South Kirkby Junction and arrive at Leeds with the following East Coast service immediately behind. There is therefore limited scope for additional station calls without having an impact on long-distance services. In the Doncaster-bound direction, the „flighting‟ of CrossCountry and East Coast services three minutes apart at Leeds means there appears to be sufficient capacity to accommodate additional calls at East Ardsley.

This limited analysis suggests that it may not be possible to provide East Ardsley with a half-5.19.hourly service frequency to Leeds, and would mean that the station would need to be served by Sheffield services (towards Leeds) and Doncaster services (from Leeds).


Adding East Ardsley station calls is expected to increase journey times by up to two minutes. An 5.20.initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in the tables below, with Site B performing slightly worse due to the lower demand forecast.

Table 5-2 East Ardsley (Site A) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

East Ardsley (Site A) – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Station Revenue

Forecast Through Revenue loss

Net Revenue

Table 5-3 East Ardsley (Site B) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

East Ardsley (Site B) – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Station Revenue

Forecast Through Revenue loss

Net Revenue

In both cases, the high volume of through passengers would appear to be too high relative to the 5.21.forecast demand levels for the new station. The close proximity to Leeds means trains are well loaded and this makes the case for a new station at East Ardsley much more difficult. In both cases, the forecast revenue loss due to longer journey times for through passengers is high enough to offset any revenue generated by the new station, resulting in a net revenue loss. This assumes a yield per journey at East Ardsley similar to that achieved at Outwood.



Stage 2 Construction assessment – Site A

This site could be developed in to a station site, subject to confirmation / resolution of the 5.22.following issues:-

Confirmation that the proposed site can be accommodated with no impact upon the OLE feeder station;

Further development to consider whether 211 signal can be relocated, without significant impact upon other signalling infrastructure in the area (e.g., maintaining braking distances to signals either side), or development of a staggered layout, with the Down platform located slightly further towards Wakefield, thus entirely on the south side of 211 signal;

The vertical gradient through the site and consideration, through risk assessment, whether or not this will be acceptable;

Confirmation that OLE wire heights can be adjusted, within the constraints imposed by o/br DOL2/22A, in order to maintain electrical clearances on the platforms; and

Negotiation of access from Scampston Drive and the land acquired for the car park area.

Whilst on site, consideration was given to an alternative site, immediately to the north of o/br 5.23.DOL2/22A (Station Lane / Common Lane). This area would appear to have been the approximate position of the former Ardsley Station. It was considered that this may allow the constraints imposed by 211 signal and the OLE feeder station to be overcome.

However, it is not considered that this could be developed as a site, as the subsequent 5.24.construction of the M62 (which passes over the railway) limits the available linear length of the railway along which platforms could be constructed. Measurement from satellite mapping suggests the clear distance between the two o/brs is around 85m, which would be insufficient to provide a platform long enough for a four-car train (97m required).

Stage 2 Construction assessment – Site B

It would appear feasible to construct a new station at this site. A detailed assessment is included 5.25.in Appendix B In summary, the particular constraints which require further consideration at this site are:-


Confirmation that OLE wire heights can be adjusted, within the constraints imposed by o/br DOL2/20, in order to maintain electrical clearances on the platforms

Negotiation of access from Meadow Side Road; and

Acquisition of the land required for the car park area.



East Leeds Parkway

Location plan


An operational assessment for East Leeds Parkway has not been undertaken as part of this 5.26.study as Metro are currently looking at the East of Leeds corridor (including Thorpe Park & East Leeds Parkway) in greater detail in conjunction with Network Rail and the Train Operators.

East Leeds Parkway and Micklefield stations are mutually exclusive, so from an operational 5.27.perspective the main impacts of East Leeds Parkway will be due to any increase in station calls at East Leeds Parkway over those currently timetabled at Micklefield. The planned electrification on this corridor presents an opportunity to alter service patterns and frequencies on this capacity-constrained route and means the previous studies into East Leeds Parkway, including the provision of turnback facilities, may no longer be the most appropriate solution on this corridor. ,.


Previous studies for East Leeds Parkway have recommended this scheme as a priority for 5.28.investment. As noted above, the planned electrification of this route in CP5 means that East Leeds Parkway may not be the most appropriate solution to provide extra capacity and increase catchment on this corridor.


The Stage 1 assessment did not identify any significant construction constraints for the proposed 5.29.East Leeds Parkway station site. Further analysis has not been undertaken in Stage 2, as suitable plans are already well-developed following earlier studies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --



Elland

Location plan


The proposed site of Elland station lies on a line that links the Calder Valley and North 5.30.TransPennine routes. Both of these routes are planned to undergo significant change as part of the Northern Hub package of works, and associated North TransPennine electrification. These changes will affect line speeds, journey times, service frequencies and calling patterns and a potential station at Elland is unlikely to be delivered prior to these changes coming into effect. While the level of service on the line through Elland is not envisaged to change significantly under these plans, changes elsewhere on the route are likely to be significant, and proposals for a station at Elland will need to be considered further as more detailed plans emerge. The following analysis presents an operational assessment under the current timetable.

A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.31.ascertain how a station at Elland could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Plan) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the junction margins required at either end of Brighouse section of the route (Dryclough Jn, Milner Royd Jn, Heaton Lodge East Jn and Bradley Jn) and turnaround times at Manchester Victoria.

The current off-peak service pattern on the route through Elland includes an Hourly Manchester 5.32.Victoria - Leeds service (via Dewsbury) and an hourly service between Huddersfield and Leeds via Halifax (with extensions to Selby and Wakefield at either end). In addition to these services, there are also less frequent Grand Central services between London and Bradford. It is not envisaged that these London services would call at Elland, but all the Northern Rail operated services would call at Elland, in order to provide a similar level of service as provided at Brighouse.



Analysis of the working timetable suggests that the Huddersfield-Leeds service via Halifax could 5.33.potentially accommodate a station call at Elland, by reducing some of the extended dwell time (7-8 minutes) timetabled at Halifax in both directions. Some of this dwell time will be removed when Low Moor opens, but it should be possible to also accommodate the additional call at Elland within the timetable, subject to more detailed analysis around performance.

The Manchester Victoria – Leeds service is more complicated, as beyond Heaton Lodge East 5.34.Junction it is required to fit within the (soon to be 5 trains per hour) TransPennine service between Huddersfield and Leeds. Under the current timetable, the Manchester Victoria – Leeds via Dewsbury service follows 3 minutes behind a TransPennine service at Heaton Lodge East Jn, and by arrival at Leeds it is three minutes ahead of the next TransPennine service. There is therefore limited capacity to accommodate change at the Leeds end of the route and planned electrification is unlikely to alter this conclusion, particularly when considering the planned increase in TransPennine service frequency and that Calder Valley services will remain diesel-operated

At the Manchester end, current turnarounds at Victoria for this service are tight, typically 8 5.35.minutes in the off-peak, which is already below the standard minimum specified value of 10 minutes. At the Leeds-end, the stock is diagrammed to inter-work with Leeds – Huddersfield local services, and again, turnaround times are unlikely to be sufficient to robustly accommodate an additional station call. It is envisaged that TransPennine electrification will lead to Leeds – Huddersfield local services switching to electric traction; this may present the opportunity to accommodate Elland calls within the turnaround times at Leeds following re-diagramming. The impacts of Line speed enhancements on the Calder Valley and the possibility of higher performing diesel rolling stock being deployed on the route would also need considering.


Adding Elland station calls is expected to increase journey times by at least two minutes. An 5.36.initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in Table 5-4 below.

Table 5-4 Elland demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Elland – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

Compared to some of the other station sites included in the Stage 2 assessment, these impacts 5.37.are relatively small. This is due to Elland being located at the quieter end of the Huddersfield to Leeds route where loads are at their lowest. Similarly, the loadings on the Manchester Victoria to Leeds via Dewsbury service are at their lowest between Hebden Bridge and Brighouse.

This assessment assumes that Elland would generate similar revenues per journey as Brighouse 5.38.(when excluding London demand, as Grand Central services call at Brighouse, increasing the average yield per journey)


Full details of the Stage 2 Construction assessment for Elland are included in Appendix B. In 5.39.summary, the construction of a station on this site should be possible with little impact upon operational railway infrastructure. The most difficult constraint would appear to be the topography of the site, which may lead to the station platforms being constructed at a level 5-6m



above surrounding ground level (and thus the level the station will be accessed at). Consideration will also need to be given to the most appropriate means of providing cross-platform access, either over or under the track, or possibly directly from Lowfields Way to either side of the railway.

The possibility of flooding in the local area should be considered, as this may create site access 5.40.and drainage difficulties.



Golcar (Site A)

Location plan


The proposed site of Golcar station lies on the North TransPennine line between Manchester and 5.41.Huddersfield/Leeds. The following analysis presents an operational assessment under the current timetable, with reference to planned developments including electrification of the route during CP5.

A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (May 14 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.42.ascertain how a station at Golcar could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Plan) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance.

The current off-peak service pattern on the route through the proposed Golcar site includes five 5.43.fast TransPennine Express trains an hour between Manchester and Leeds that currently make no intermediate calls between Stalybridge and Huddersfield. Local services are provided by an hourly service between Manchester and Huddersfield, with no direct service to Leeds apart from one morning peak working.

In the off-peak timetable, the line is effectively operating at capacity, with the local stopping 5.44.service operating at minimum headways (four minutes) at both ends of the route. This precludes the inclusion of a further stop at Golcar unless journey time reductions could be achieved elsewhere.

Future changes linked to the electrification of the route are likely to see longer-distance service 5.45.frequency increased further from 5tph to 6tph, taking advantage of the additional capacity provided by electrification and improved acceleration of the stopping services with electric traction. Likely service patterns for the off-peak are four fast and two semi-fast services per hour in each direction. The semi-fast services may operate as skip-stop services providing hourly calls at the intermediate stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, in addition to the hourly local all-stops service.



While the electrification of the route will increase capacity, there is also a planned increase in 5.46.TransPennine service frequencies that will take advantage of this additional capacity. At this stage in development it remains uncertain whether there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional station call at Golcar post-electrification. The most likely outcome would be an hourly station call on the Huddersfield-Manchester local service.


Adding Golcar station calls is expected to increase journey times by at least two minutes. An 5.47.initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. This assumes Golcar station calls are inserted into the hourly local service. The impacts are presented in Table 5-5 below.

Table 5-5 Golcar (A) demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Golcar (A) – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

This assessment assumes that Golcar would generate similar revenues per journey as the 5.48.nearby station at Slaithwaite. The trip-rate demand forecasts do not take any account of station-specific factors such as competition with other modes and it is not clear how much Golcar-Huddersfield demand would switch to rail given the low service frequency relative to the frequent local bus service.

The demand forecast at Golcar is consistent with demand levels at Slaithwaite and Marsden, with 5.49.Huddersfield being the dominant flow. The trip-rate analysis has used MOIRA for demand and revenue figures. The allocation of zonal Metrocard journeys to specific station-station flows is a known weakness in the MOIRA dataset, and the demand forecast at Golcar are likely to be inflated for this reason, as the MOIRA-derived trip rates include an over-allocation of Metrocard sales at Slaithwaite and Marsden.

Inserting station calls on the local stopping services means there is a relatively low impact on 5.50.through passengers. If station calls were provided by a semi-fast TransPennine service then the impact on through passengers will be significantly higher.

Taking the above into consideration it would appear unlikely that a new station at Golcar would 5.51.generate high levels of user benefits, and if through services to Leeds were to call at the station it is likely that the impact on through passengers would be prohibitively high.


Full details of the Stage 2 Construction assessment for Golcar (Site A) are included in Appendix 5.52.B. In summary, the construction of a station on this site is expected to require significant works and alterations, namely alterations to retaining walls / cutting slopes or land acquisition to provide access and it may be that positioning a station will not be possible



Haxby

Location plan


The 2013 New Stations Fund (NSF) submission for Haxby identified that inserting Haxby calls 5.53.into the TransPennine Scarborough services would not be practical due to conflicts on the single line sections of the route at Malton and York. The study identified £500k of infrastructure spend that would reduce journey times and would therefore enable Haxby calls to be accommodated without increasing the overall journey time between Scarborough and York.

Future service pattern changes linked to TransPennine electrification are likely to result in 5.54.Scarborough services reverting back to serving Blackpool North via the Calder Valley. Such a change may also include changes to rolling stock deployment on the route, which may have an impact on the timetable conclusions in the NSF submission. The current timetable is timed for Class 185s which have rapid acceleration but are unable to take advantage of the Sprinter speed differentials on the route between York and Scarborough. If rolling stock on the route was to revert back to Class 158s then the timetable and journey time conclusions from the NSF may need to be reassessed.


The 2013 NSF submission for Haxby included an economic appraisal which indicated a very 5.55.strong case for a new station at Haxby. The NSF submission was based upon a scheme BCR in excess of 6:1, while inspection of the results indicates that actually the scheme as presented in the NSF submission would have a positive financial case (revenues exceed forecast costs) and therefore a BCR is meaningless in this context. Regardless of the specifics, the case put forwards for Haxby was strong, and the less detailed analysis undertaken as part of this study would appear to reaffirm this.




The Stage 1 assessment did not identify any significant construction constraints for the proposed 5.56.Haxby station site. Further analysis has not been undertaken in Stage 2, as suitable plans are already well-developed following earlier studies and the 2013 NSF submission. The scheme at Haxby previously achieved Network Rail GRIP3 in 2008. The 2013 NSF submission included detailed cost estimates for the new station (£4.5m) -------------------------------------------------------------

---------



Hipperholme (Site B)

Location plan


The proposed site of Hipperholme station lies on the Calder Valley line between Halifax and 5.57.Bradford Interchange, with Low Moor station currently in development located between the Hipperholme site and Bradford. The Calder Valley route is planned to undergo significant change as part of the Northern Hub package of works. These changes are likely to affect line speeds, journey times, service frequencies and calling patterns and a potential station at Hipperholme is unlikely to be delivered prior to these changes coming into effect. Proposals for a station at Hipperholme will need to be considered further as more detailed plans emerge. The following analysis presents an operational assessment under the current timetable, taking account of the new station at Low Moor that is due to open in the near future.

A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.58.ascertain how a station at Hipperholme could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance.

The current off-peak service pattern on the route through Hipperholme includes two trains an 5.59.hour between Manchester Victoria and Leeds and hourly services between Huddersfield and Leeds via Halifax (with extensions to Selby and Wakefield at either end) and between Blackpool North and York. In addition to these services, there are also less frequent Grand Central services between London and Bradford. It is envisaged that either two or three of the four Northern Rail operated services would call at Hipperholme each hour (in each direction).



Analysis of the working timetable suggests that the Huddersfield-Leeds service via Halifax could 5.60.potentially accommodate a station call at Hipperholme, by reducing some of the extended dwell time (7-8 minutes) timetabled at Halifax in both directions. Some of this dwell time will be removed when Low Moor opens, but it should be possible to also accommodate an additional call at Hipperholme within the timetable, subject to more detailed analysis around performance.

The Manchester Victoria – Leeds and Blackpool – York services are more complicated, as they 5.61.provide important inter-regional links, with interactions with other services at a number of capacity-constrained locations and routes. Analysis for Low Moor provided by Metro for this study states that additional station calls at Low Moor on these inter-urban services could not be accommodated without additional rolling stock. If additional rolling stock was procured to provide station calls at Low Moor, then it is more likely that station calls could also be accommodated at Hipperholme at the same time.


Adding Hipperholme station calls is expected to increase journey times by up to two minutes in 5.62.the Halifax-bound direction and up to three minutes in the Bradford-bound direction (the line falls towards Halifax at this location). An initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. ------------------------------------------------

Table 5-6 Hipperholme demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Hipperholme – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

The line between Bradford and Halifax is a busy route with a high volume of through passengers. 5.63.Journey time impacts and associated revenue loss impacts on through journeys are high. With future service pattern changes planned under Northern Hub, it is likely that there will be greater separation between longer-distance inter-urban flows and local flows with an overall increase in service frequency along the Calder Valley. This change in service pattern may improve the case for a station at Hipperholme, if stops were only included on the slower services that would be carrying fewer longer-distance passengers. Under the current timetable, it is unlikely that a viable case for Hipperholme could be made, whether a two or three trains per hour service was provided.


From a desktop review, Site B would appear to be suitable for the development of a new station, 5.64.subject to confirmation of the following:-

Land ownership in area and the availability of land for purchase in order to create accesses to the new platforms;

Stability of the cutting slopes and their suitability for the construction of new platforms, ramps or lift shafts within them;

The position of any signalling assets in the area, particularly the suspected signal in the Down cess, towards the eastern end of the site; and

The suitability of the footpath over MRB/28 Station Road o/br for use as cross-platform access.



Laisterdyke

Location plan


The proposed site of Laisterdyke station lies on the Calder Valley line between Bradford 5.65.Interchange and Leeds. The following analysis presents an operational assessment under the current timetable.

A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.66.ascertain how a station at Laisterdyke could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Plan) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance.

The current off-peak service pattern on the route through the proposed Laisterdyke site includes 5.67.a half-hourly Manchester Victoria - Leeds service and hourly services between Huddersfield and Leeds via Halifax (with extensions to Selby and Wakefield at either end) and Blackpool North – York via Leeds. It is envisaged that a minimum of three trains per hour would call at Laisterdyke, providing a similar level of service to that at Bramley, with the Blackpool North – York service not stopping at Lasiterdyke.

Analysis of the working timetable suggests that the Huddersfield-Leeds service via Halifax could 5.68.potentially accommodate a station call at Laisterdyke, by reducing some of the extended dwell time (7-8 minutes) timetabled at Halifax in both directions. Some of this dwell time will be removed when Low Moor station opens, but it may be possible to also include a call at Lasiterdyke within the timetable, subject to more detailed analysis around performance.

The Manchester Victoria – Leeds service is more complicated. At the Manchester end, current 5.69.turnarounds at Victoria for this service are tight, often below the standard minimum specified value of 10 minutes. At the Leeds-end, the stock is diagrammed to inter-work with other services (including Leeds – Huddersfield via Halifax), and again, turnaround times are unlikely to be



sufficient to robustly accommodate an additional station call without additional resources. Planned infrastructure changes, including line speed improvements on the Calder Valley, and frequency enhancements would need to be considered in the future once firm proposals are in place.


Adding Lasiterdyke station calls is expected to increase journey times by at least two minutes. An 5.70.initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in Table 5-7 below.

Table 5-7 Laisterdyke demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Laisterdyke – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

This assessment assumes that Lasiterdyke would generate similar revenues per journey as the 5.71.nearby station at New Pudsey. While the demand forecast is high (based upon the densely-populated areas surrounding the station, particularly to the north), the average revenue per journey is quite low. This reflects the station‟s close proximity to both Leeds and Bradford, which also means there is a very high volume of through passengers. Taking the above into consideration, together with the very close proximity of Laisterdyke to the adjacent stations at New Pudsey and Bradford Interchange, it is unlikely that a new station at Lasiterdyke would generate high levels of user benefits, and these may not be sufficient to offset the negative impacts on through passengers.


Full details of the Stage 2 Construction assessment for Laisterdyke are included in Appendix B. 5.72.In summary, the construction of a station on this site Laisterdyke would appear to be feasible, subject to confirmation of whether the shunt siding is still in use and whether this could be removed / slued to provide sufficient space for the Downside platform and passenger lift.



Manningham

Location plan

The proposed site of Manningham station lies on the route between Bradford Forster Square and Shipley, almost equidistant between Frizinghall and Bradford Forster Square stations. These stations are only 1 mile and 63 chains apart, and Manningham would be around 0.9 miles from both existing stations


A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.73.ascertain how a station at Manningham could be integrated within the existing service pattern, taking note of the planned stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge that will be served by Bradford FS – Leeds services. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the turnaround times at Bradford Forster Square.

The current off-peak service pattern on the route through Manningham consists of half-hourly 5.74.services between Bradford FS and Leeds, Ilkley and Skipton. In addition to these services, there is also one East Coast train per day to/from London King‟s Cross. It is envisaged that all Northern Rail operated services would call, or at the least, 4tph, with 2tph to Leeds and 1tph to each of Ilkley and Skipton.

The ability to serve Manningham with Leeds – Bradford FS services will depend upon the final 5.75.timetable that is developed for Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, and whether additional rolling stock is introduced into the timetable to facilitate those additional stops. Without extra rolling stock being deployed as part of the Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge schemes, it won‟t be possible to also accommodate Manningham station within the existing diagrams, and extension to journey times through a stop a Manningham is likely to incur significant traincrew costs,




Adding Manningham station calls is expected to increase journey times by between one and two 5.76.minutes. An initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in Table 5-8 below (assuming a two minute time penalty to through passengers).

Table 5-8 Manningham demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Manningham – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

The above analysis assumes yields per journey at Manningham would be similar to those 5.77.currently achieved at Frizinghall. While the demand forecast is high (based upon the densely-populated areas surrounding the station), the average revenue per journey is quite low. There is also a relatively high volume of through passengers as Bradford Forster Square is one of the busiest stations in the Metro area. Taking the above into consideration, together with the very close proximity of Manningham to Frizinghall and Bradford Forster Square stations, it would appear unlikely that a new station at Manningham would generate high levels of user benefits, and these may not be sufficient to offset the negative impacts on through passengers.


It would appear feasible to construct a new station at this site. The final position will need to be 5.78.selected with regards to both the availability of non-railway owned land for purchase and the position of L3988 signal. With regards to this signal, there would appear to be three options:-

Position Up platform to the south (Bradford Forster Square) side of this signal. This would avoid moving the signal, but may affect operations in the Bradford Forster Square station, being the first signal after the platform starting signals at Bradford Forster Square. A train stopping at Manningham in the Up (northbound) direction may prevent another move taking place in the Bradford Forster Square area;

Re-position L3988 such that a platform can be positioned to the north of this signal;

Construct Up platform to the north of this signal. Although there may be space to achieve this, it should be noted that doing so would likely involve constructing the platforms adjacent to transitions in the permanent way alignment, making design and construction more complicated.

Further consideration will also be needed with regards to:- 5.79.

The vertical gradient through the site and consideration, through risk assessment, whether or not this will be acceptable; and

Confirmation that OLE wire heights can be adjusted, within the constraints imposed by o/br SBF/7, in order to maintain electrical clearances on the platforms.



Thornhill Lees

Location plan


A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.80.ascertain how a station at Thornhill Lees could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the turnaround times at Wakefield Westgate.

The current service pattern on the route through Thornhill Lees consists of an hourly service 5.81.between Wakefield Westgate and Huddersfield. In addition to these services, there is also an infrequent service between Bradford Interchange and London King‟s Cross. It is envisaged that only the hourly Northern Rail operated services would call at Thornhill Lees.

The current turnaround time at Wakefield Westgate is around 30 minutes. Within this time the 5.82.unit has to shunt between Platforms 2 and 1, however there would appear to be sufficient slack in the timings to accommodate calls at Thornhill Lees without the need for additional rolling stock.


Adding Thornhill Lees station calls is expected to increase journey times by up to two minutes. 5.83.An initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented below.



Table 5-9 Thornhill Lees demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Thornhill Lees – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

The primary concern with a station at Thornhill Leeds is the relatively low level of demand and 5.84.revenue generation forecast. This reflects the hourly service frequency and the lack of direct journey opportunities to Leeds, with the majority of journeys likely to be made to Huddersfield and Wakefield with a low yield per journey. While the impact on through passengers is not as high as some of the other sites, the low level of demand and revenue forecast is unlikely to be sufficient to justify the cost of a new station designed to modern standards.


The site would appear to be suitable for the construction of the proposed station, immediately to 5.85.the west of o/br MVN2/208 (Station Road). The principal constraint would appear to be forming access to the station, which is likely to involve some land take to either side of the railway in order to form pedestrian access (es) on to Station Road. Further detail is included in Appendix B

The history of mine working in the area should be reviewed with regards to the design of the 5.86.platform foundations. Further consideration will also be needed with regards to the vertical gradient through the site and consideration, through risk assessment, whether or not this will be acceptable.



Thorpe Park

Location plan


An operational assessment for Thorpe Park has not been undertaken for Thorpe Park as part of 5.87.this study as Metro are currently looking at the East of Leeds corridor (including Thorpe Park & East Leeds Parkway) in greater detail in conjunction with Network Rail and the Train Operators.

Under the current timetable it is unlikely that additional station calls could be accommodated 5.88.without removing calls elsewhere along the route, which may not be desirable. Electrification planned for this corridor presents an opportunity to alter service patterns and frequencies on this capacity-constrained route.


Adding Thorpe Park station calls is expected to increase journey times by between one and two 5.89.minutes assuming services that call at Thorpe Park would also call at Cross Gates. An initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented below. This assumes Thorpe Park station calls are additional calls within the timetable, with all Northern-operated services calling at the station (2tph all-day with extra services in the peaks).



Table 5-10 Thorpe Park demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Thorpe Park – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

The above results are indicative, based upon adding stops to the Northern rail services that pass 5.90.the site in the current timetable. Revenue forecasts for Thorpe Park have assumed a similar revenue per journey as currently achieved at Cross Gates. While the additional journey times do have a significant impact on forecast revenues (50% of forecast revenue would be offset by revenue loss from through passengers) the impacts aren‟t considered to be too detrimental to the overall case for the station.


The site would appear to be viable, however three principal issues require further consideration, 5.91.as all could have a significant cost impact upon the scheme.:-

The stability of the cutting slopes should be confirmed, as some localised excavation at the toe of each bank will likely be required in order to construct the platforms at this location;

The means of providing access to the site should be confirmed. It is anticipate that this will be via inclusion of lifts or ramps down from the proposed Manston Lane Link Road to the platforms, however this will need to be confirmed with that scheme, should it go ahead; and

The potential impacts upon both Manston Lane FP (MSL) and Barrowby Lane FP (MSL) level crossings should be reviewed. It is likely that the proposed station site will be within the strike-ins to these crossings, thus the warning time will be impacted and may be increased to an unacceptable level, leading to misuse of the crossing. The provision of the new Manston Lane Link Bridge may offer the opportunity to close Manston FP (MSL) level crossing, through diversion of the public right of way on to this new structure. This opportunity should be explored with Network Rail and the local Rights of Way Officer.

It should also be noted that the electrification of this route, through the provision of 25kV OLE is 5.92.proposed within the next five years. As such, the new station should be designed to accommodate electrification – for example, ensuring adequate electrical clearances to all new structures. If this site is to be developed, close liaison with Network Rail and their designers / contractors is recommended, so as to ensure that the OLE support structures are appropriately positioned so as to allow future construction of this station.



Wrenthorpe

Location plan


A review of the existing weekday off-peak timetable (Dec 13 WTT) has been undertaken to 5.93.ascertain how a station at Wrenthorpe could be integrated within the existing service pattern. This review has considered Network Rail‟s 2015 Timetable Planning Rules (TPR, formerly Rules of the Route) to understand the operational constraints that may be of relevance, in particular, the turnaround times for Northern Rail services at Leeds, Sheffield and Doncaster.

The current standard hourly service pattern on the route through Wrenthorpe consists of an 5.94.hourly local services between Doncaster and Leeds and an hourly local service between Sheffield and Leeds via Wakefield Westgate. In addition to these services, there are also long-distance services that operate over the route, with a half-hourly East Coast service from Leeds to London King‟s Cross and an hourly CrossCountry service that routes via York to Sheffield via Leeds. Enhancements to longer-distance services in the future could see CrossCountry services increased to half-hourly and potentially and Leeds-King‟s Cross services increased to 3 trains per hour. It is envisaged that both Northern Rail operated services would call at Wrenthorpe in order to provide a half-hourly service frequency in the off-peak.

The Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe service has sufficient turnaround time at Leeds (~18mins) 5.95.and Sheffield (~14mins) to accommodate an additional station call at Wrenthorpe within the existing diagrams. The primary operational constraint for this service is the need to fit between the long distance services along the route. Towards Sheffield, the service departs Leeds immediately after an East Coast service, and by the time it diverges at Aldwarke Junction towards Rotherham Central the following CrossCountry service is immediately behind. It would not appear possible to accommodate additional station calls in this service without further alterations to the timetable. In the Leeds-bound direction, no such constraint exists as the



CrossCountry service „overtakes‟ the Northern service while it routes via Rotherham Central, and the Northern service is timed to follow an East Coast service from South Kirkby Junction into Leeds.

The Leeds-Doncaster service typically has an 8 minute turnaround at Leeds and a twenty minute 5.96.turnaround at Doncaster. This would appear sufficient to accommodate at least one additional station call within existing resources; however the primary constraint is again the interaction with long-distance services that share this route.

The Leeds-bound services are timed to depart Doncaster such that they follow the CrossCountry 5.97.service from South Kirkby Junction and arrive at Leeds with the following East Coast service immediately behind. There is therefore limited scope for additional station calls without having an impact on long-distance services. In the Doncaster-bound direction, the „flighting‟ of CrossCountry and East Coast services three minutes apart at Leeds means there appears to be sufficient capacity to accommodate additional calls at Wrenthorpe.

This limited analysis suggests that it may not be possible to provide Wrenthorpe with a half-5.98.hourly service frequency to Leeds, and would mean that the station would need to be served by Sheffield services (towards Leeds) and Doncaster services (from Leeds).


Adding Wrenthorpe station calls is expected to increase journey times by up to two minutes. An 5.99.initial assessment has been undertaken to determine what the potential impact of this extended journey time will be, both in terms of the time penalty to existing passengers (user disbenefits) and the associated reduction in revenues forecast by MOIRA due to an increase in journey times. These impacts are presented in Table 5-11 below.

Table 5-11 Wrenthorpe demand and revenue (2012/13 demand levels and prices)

Wrenthorpe – Annual demand and revenue




Forecast Revenue


Net Revenue

The results for Wrenthorpe are similar to those for East Ardsley in that the high volume of through 5.100.passengers at this location are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the business case for a station. Wrenthorpe performs marginally better as it is located to the south of Outwood, meaning fewer through passenger are affected by increased journey times. Demand forecasts at Wrenthorpe are also higher than at either East Ardsley site. Nonetheless the overall conclusion remains the same as at East Ardsley – the negative impacts on through passengers would appear to be high enough to make a station in this location unviable from a business case perspective.


There are two closely-located potential sites for Wrenthorpe Station that have been considered 5.101.under the construction assessment. These are reported in detail in Appendix B. In summary Site A was identified as being the more attractive option to develop in to a new station. The particular constraints which require further consideration at this site are:-


Confirmation that OLE wire heights can be adjusted, within the constraints imposed by o/br SBF/7, in order to maintain electrical clearances on the platforms; and



Confirmation of extents of Network Rail‟s land ownership in the area, to determine whether any land purchase would be required.

Indicative Capital costs The table below presents high-level cost estimates for each of the sites that have not already 5.102.

been subject to more detailed cost estimation (both East Leeds Parkway and Haxby have previously reached GRIP3). These costs are indicative, and are based upon projected outturn costs for Kirkstall Forge, Apperley Bridge and Low Moor provided by Metro for this study. They do not include any allowance for Optimism Bias, as they are based upon anticipated outturn costs, however it is worth noting that standard OB value at GRIP1 is 66% for Capital Expenditure, The main reason for variation in costs presented below is due to costs attributed to car parking and potential access road requirements, based upon the cost breakdown provided by Metro.

The table below also summarises the main areas of risk and/or uncertainty that have been 5.103.highlighted in the Stage 2 construction assessment. These have not been taken account within the indicative costs as further more detailed study would be required to quantify the likely impacts.

Table 5-12 Indicative capital costs (2011 prices)

Station site Station requirements Indicative cost (2011 prices)

Uncertainty/Risks not costed

Crosshills

Site B

Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge

Electrification works

Car park and access road

Total indicative cost

£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£1-2m

£6.5-9m

Costs associated with level crossing

Land costs

OHLE clearance with nearby overbridge

East Ardsley

Site A



Car park


£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£0.5-1m

£6-8m

Possible relocation of signal

Possible relocation of OLE feeder


Land costs for car park

East Ardsley

Site B



Car park


£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£0.5-1m

£6-8m

Possible relocation of signal

Possible relocation of OLE feeder



Elland Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge

Car park


£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£5.5-7m

Station platforms located on embankment

May be possible to provide step-free access from street level

Possible drainage issues


Golcar Site A Two-platform unstaffed station with lifts to platforms


£5-6m

£5-6m

Negotiation of access from Britannia Road

Confirmation whether there is sufficient space





to accommodate platforms without alterations to the retaining structures

The presence of buried services crossing the railway, the alignment and depth which should be confirmed in order to determine whether the foundations of the platforms and / or any other structure will impact upon these structures;

Clarification on the purpose of the treadles identified during surveys.

Hipperholme Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge


£5-6m

£5-6m

Land costs to provide access to platforms

Stability of cutting slopes

Possible requirement for relocation of signal

Ability of overbridge to provide suitable access to platforms

Laisterdyke Two-platform unstaffed station with lifts to platforms


£5-6m

£5-6m

The vertical gradient through the site

Negotiation of access from the A6177 Laisterdyke Road;

Acquisition of the land required for the car park area (if required);

Confirmation of whether the shunt siding is still in use and whether this could be removed / slued to provide sufficient space for the Downside platform and passenger lift.

Manningham Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge


Car park


£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£0.5-1m

£6-8m

Possible requirement for relocation of signal by Up platform or location of platform on transition curve



Thornhill Lees Two-platform unstaffed station


£4.5-5m

£4.5-5m






Thorpe Park Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge


Car park and access road


£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£1-2m

£6.5-9m

Stability of cutting slopes

Uncertainty over access with potential for link road to provide

Wrenthorpe Two-platform unstaffed station with footbridge



£5-6m

£0.5-1m

£5.5-7m


Difficulties providing access for construction

Indicative Operating costs The table below presents high-level operating cost estimates for each of the sites that have not 5.104.

already been subject to more detailed cost estimation (both East Leeds Parkway and Haxby have previously reached GRIP3). These costs are indicative, and are based upon an assumed long-term charge for a new station of £37,000 (based upon the latest estimates for Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge). High-level costs are also attributed to the upkeep of station facilities that would be required by the SFO. This assumes all stations are provided with the facilities planned for Kirkstall Forge (CCTV surveillance. Passenger information displays and public address system).

The indicative operating costs do not include any allowance for Optimism Bias, as they are based 5.105.upon actual costs in most cases, however it is worth noting that standard OB value at GRIP1 is 41% for Operating Expenditure,

The operational analysis highlighted that additional rolling stock and traincrew may be required to 5.106.serve Manningham and Hipperholme (depending upon final plans to serve Kirkstall Forge/Apperley Bridge and Low Moor respectively). Indicative costs are included within the table. This assumes a 4-car Class 321 EMU would cost roughly £400k per annum to lease in 2012/13 prices and a 2-car Class 158 DMU would cost roughly £175k per annum to lease. Staff costs (for Driver and guard including employer payments) are assumed to be £88,000 per annum,

Table 5-13 Indicative operating costs (2012/13 prices)

Station site Operating Costs Indicative annual cost (2012/13 prices)

Crosshills

Site B

Long term charge

CCTV,CIS,Ticket Machine maintenance

Car Park maintenance


£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

East Ardsley

Site A

Long term charge




£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

East Ardsley

Site B

Long term charge




£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

Elland Long term charge




£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

Golcar Site A Long term charge


£37,000

£45,000



Station site Operating Costs Indicative annual cost (2012/13 prices)

Total indicative cost ~£82,000

Hipperholme Long term charge


Total indicative cost – no rolling stock/crew

Additional DMU and crew costs

£37,000

£45,000

~£87,000

~£260,000-£350,000 depending on traincrew diagrams

Laisterdyke Long term charge



Additional DMU and crew costs

£37,000

£45,000

~£82,000

~£260,000-£350,000 depending on traincrew diagrams

Manningham Long term charge




Additional EMU and crew costs

£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

~£480,000 - £880,000 depending on traincrew diagrams

Thornhill Lees Long term charge



£37,000

£45,000

~£82,000

Thorpe Park Long term charge




£37,000

£45,000

£5,000

~£87,000

Wrenthorpe Long term charge



£37,000

£45,000

~£82,000



6. Study Recommendations

The table below presents the final outcome of the two-stage assessment that has considered 6.1.over 60 potential station sites in Stage 1, with 13 locations taken forward for more detailed assessment in Stage 2. Of the 13 sites considered in Stage 2, five have been recommended for more detailed feasibility work (Crosshills Site B, Elland, Haxby, East Leeds Parkway and Thorpe Park). In the case of Haxby, a continuation of existing work to develop the business case and gain funding for is recommended on the basis that previous studies have demonstrated the case for investment at this location. East Leeds Parkway and Thorpe Park should be considered as options as part of the ongoing development of timetable options for the East of Leeds Corridor, and the preferred location would need to be identified as part of that process.

Six sites have not been recommended for further development. East Ardsley Site A has been 6.2.ruled out in favour of Site B. Hipperholme, Wrenthorpe, East Ardsley Site B, Laisterdyke and Manningham have been ruled out as the financial assessment indicates that that the likely demand forecasts are insufficient to offset the impacts on through passengers. In the case of Manningham and Golcar Site A, the Stage 2 construction assessment has highlighted potential construction issues that would increase cost and complexity, while there are also line capacity issues that affect the case for a station at Golcar.

Table 6-1 Study Recommendations

Station site Conclusion Rationale

Crosshills

Site B

Recommended for further study

The construction assessment has highlighted a potential issue with the nearby level crossing. The financial assessment has also highlighted that potential ticketing arrangements around the Metro ticketing boundary should be investigated further prior to more detailed business case work. This site has been recommended for further study, as it would appear that if the issues surrounding the level crossing can be resolved, the station would appear to have a promising case.

Elland Recommended for further study

Elland has performed well throughout the assessment. The main uncertainties focus around the potential construction costs of the station due to its elevated location and the various possible alternatives of providing step-free access to the platforms. Further study is recommended once there is greater clarity around Northern Hub works on the Calder Valley and North TPE, in order to determine the best way to provide a 2tph service at this station.

Haxby Recommended for further study

The 2013 New Stations Fund submission for Haxby presented a very strong case for the new station. It is recommended that this station should continue to be promoted in order to identify potential funding opportunities.

East Leeds Parkway

Recommended for further study (in conjunction with Thorpe Park)

Previous, detailed studies for East Leeds Parkway have presented a strong case for the new station. It is recommended that this station should continue to be promoted in order to identify potential funding opportunities considered as part of the wider East of Leeds corridor study tied win with planned electrification.

Thorpe Park Recommended for further study (In conjunction with East Leeds Parkway)

The Stage 1 demand assessment identified that the case for a station at Thorpe Park is heavily dependent upon the full development and take-up of planned employment sites in the Thorpe Park development and the ability for the station to serve as a strategic park and ride site given its close proximity to the M1.

East Ardsley Not recommended for further

The Stage 2 construction assessment has identified potential costly construction issues with this site due to its close



Station site Conclusion Rationale

Site A development proximity to an OHLE feeder station and the need to potentially relocate a signal– Site B would appear to offer a less complicated and potentially cheaper alternative.

East Ardsley

Site B

Not recommended for further development

Forecast demand levels are insufficient to offset the high level of user disbenefits and revenue loss forecast due to longer journeys for through passengers. The operational assessment has also highlighted potential difficulties in providing a half-hourly service frequency at this location, due to the interaction between local and long-distance services on this route. It remains unlikely that planned housing development in the area could generate sufficient additional demand in the future.

Golcar Site A Not recommended for further development

Potential construction and operational issues have been identified at this site. The financial assessment indicates that a station at this location would have potential, but is particularly sensitive to the allocation of Metrocard demand and revenue within the MOIRA model used to derive trip-rates.

Hipperholme Not recommended for further development

This station is located on a busy stretch of route between Bradford and Halifax. Forecast demand levels are insufficient to offset the high level of user disbenefits and revenue loss forecast due to longer journeys for through passengers. The operational assessment has highlighted that additional rolling stock may be required to provide a minimum 2tph service frequency at Hipperholme, although the final timetable strategy adopted for Low Moor may enable Hipperholme stops to be include within planned resources.

Laisterdyke Not recommended for further development

This station is located on a busy stretch of route between Bradford and Leeds. Forecast demand levels are high but are unlikely to be high enough to offset the high level of user disbenefits and revenue loss forecast due to longer journeys for through passengers. The operational assessment has highlighted that additional rolling stock would be required to provide a minimum 2tph service frequency at Laisterdyke.

Manningham Not recommended for further development

Potential construction and operational issues have been identified at this site – in particular the location of signal L3988, the nearby transition curve and the close proximity to Bradford Forster Square. The financial assessment indicates that a station at this location would have a relatively high negative impact on Bradford passengers, and potential user benefits per passenger are likely to be low due to the close proximity of both Bradford Forster Square and Frizinghall stations.

Thornhill Lees Not recommended for further development

Subject to land availability to provide access to the platforms, the Stage 2 assessment has not identified any major concerns at this site. The primary weakness of this location is the limited service frequency that can be provided (1tph) and the relatively low revenue generation due to the low service frequency and anticipated domination of short-distance trips to Wakefield and Huddersfield.

Wrenthorpe Not recommended for further development

Forecast demand levels are insufficient to offset the high level of user disbenefits and revenue loss forecast due to longer journeys for through passengers. The operational assessment has also highlighted potential difficulties in providing a half-hourly service frequency at this location, due to the interaction between local and long-distance services on this route. Access to the site is challenging, and constructing a station with limited highway access may not be feasible.



Appendix A. Stage 1 results



------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, „Carbon Critical Design‟ and the strapline „Plan Design Enable‟ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Craig White

Atkins

Bank Chambers

Faulkner Street

Manchester

M1 4EH

[email protected]

metro new railway stations study report v1.0 final

Documents