NETWORK RAIL ROUTE UTILISATION STUDY YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER - DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION COMMENTS FROM NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NYCC)

Transcription

1 NETWORK RAIL ROUTE UTILISATION STUDY YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER - DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION COMMENTS FROM NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NYCC) The lines in North Yorkshire contained within this RUS are: Route Section in North Yorkshire Freight 1 Scarborough Bridlington - Hull Scarborough to Hunmanby (incl) No 2 Scarborough to York Scarborough to just outside York No 3 York Harrogate Leeds Hammerton to Weeton (incl) No 4 Skipton to Leeds / Bradford F. Sq. Skipton to Cononley (incl) Yes 5 York Leeds Just outside York to Micklefield (excl) Yes 6 Selby Leeds Selby to Micklefield Yes 7 Selby - York Selby to just outside York Yes 8 Selby Hull Selby to just west of Wressle Yes 9 Selby Doncaster Selby to the river Went just south of Balne Yes 10 York Sheffield via Pontefract Just south of York to Sherburn in Elmet Yes 11 Leeds Knottingley Goole Whitley Bridge to Hensall (incl) Part GENERAL The RUS is well written and is clear and easy to understand, and it has much to commend it. Our initial reaction is that while it pays considerable attention to the two PTE areas which are heavily populated, it does not pay as much attention to residents of medium and small sized towns whose rail service needs are just as great as those of conurbations. The RUS is biased towards the needs and influences of the PTAs, particularly West Yorkshire. While the County Council acknowledges that considerably more passenger business is generated in PTA areas and that this high level of traffic must be catered for, the RUS does not appear to take into account the fact that many people who live outside the PTE areas commute into these areas and contribute to their economy, and that their future transport needs must be equally catered for. There are also a number of routes in North Yorkshire which do not impinge on PTE areas where potential growth is constrained by a rail service that does not meet passenger needs, and the RUS does not consider solutions to overcome them. New Stations The only new stations mentioned are those in PTE areas. In North Yorkshire s LTP for , we list five stations that we would like to see opened, but there is no mention of them in the RUS. They are Cross Hills on the Airedale line, Knaresborough East and Bilton on the Harrogate line, and Cliffe and Thorpe Willoughby in the Selby District. All of West Yorkshire s aspirations for new stations are mentioned.

2 Level Crossings There is no mention of level crossings in the RUS, but it could be that the problems caused by level crossings are outside the scope of a RUS. We had hoped to see some indication of Network Rail s priorities for their elimination. In some areas they must be the cause of at least an element of risk to robust train operation. Stations with low footfall When the RUS process started, we were asked what could be done at stations with low footfall. We suggested that calls at these stations were made into request stops, but this is not mentioned. Cross Country Services Despite the fact that nowhere in North Yorkshire is served by Cross Country Trains, we are pleased that the RUS mentions that Cross Country Trains to the South Coast were curtailed at Reading from December This makes getting to the South Coast from all of the RUS area much less convenient. We do not see it as a service improvement. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ROUTES 1) Wolds Coast Line We agree that the problems associated with the single line sections north of Bridlington are a constraint, and acknowledge the statement that this inhibits any major expansion of the service. However, we would like to know if the existing infrastructure could support an hourly service between Bridlington and Scarborough, both to encourage an increase in patronage, and to make much better connections at Seamer with the hourly service between Scarborough, York, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool and v.v. We are pursuing an improved service with Northern Rail. The RUS says that while most routes in the RUS area are RA7 RA9, and that the Wolds Coast is less than this, it does not say what limitation this imposes on either passenger or potential freight traffic. We would like to see a statement on what the low RA means in business terms; i.e. does it inhibit any freight from using the line, can line speeds be increased or are they at their maximum, or whether longer or heavier trains can or cannot be operated. 2) York Scarborough There is no mention of whether freight traffic could be introduced on this line. We assume that the RA of this line is between RA7 RA9 in view of the fact that long steam trains operate into Scarborough in the summer months. However, we would like to see a statement on whether this line has the capacity to carry a more frequent passenger service and even freight traffic. 3) Harrogate Line We agree that the long block sections between Leeds and Harrogate is a capacity constraint, as are the single line sections between Knaresborough and York. We also acknowledge that the short platforms at Knaresborough cannot be lengthened and may serve as a constraint to the operation of longer trains unless rolling stock with selective door locking is used.

3 The WY Metro proposal for a turn-back facility at Horsforth will probably relieve some overcrowding in the peaks on the Harrogate services, and the withdrawal of stops within West Yorkshire on the Harrogate trains should lead to journey time improvements, so this has our support. We are pleased that the proposals by two train operators to run direct services between Harrogate and London are included. We would like to have seen a statement on whether there is capacity to accommodate them within the existing infrastructure, or if anything needs to be done to allow them to run without jeopardising performance of the existing services. There is no mention of the proposal by West Yorkshire Metro and City of York Council to introduce Tram-Trains from 2016, subject to a satisfactory trial on the Penistone line. We would like to have seen a statement on this, and how it may affect track capacity, signalling, doubling of the single line sections, and whether direct heavy rail services could still operate (via Leeds or York) to London after tram-train operation starts. 4) Airedale Line There is no mention of the services between Leeds and Lancaster/Carlisle being strengthened or re-timetabled this was an expectation from the Lancashire & Cumbria RUS. The WY Metro proposal to operate a Keighley turn-back service is welcomed, as this should both relieve overcrowding on the Skipton services by withdrawing stops at some intermediate stations in West Yorkshire, and facilitate journey time reductions between Leeds and Skipton. We note that in the three hour peak there would be 4 semi-fast services between Leeds and Skipton (Table 5.3 AI1), but we are not sure if this means 4 trains in each hour of the evening peak, or only 4 trains in the whole of the 3-hour peak. We assume that these are electric services and that they will be augmented by Leeds to Morecambe and Carlisle services to retain a service that is not less than at present. Maybe this could be clarified in the final version of the RUS. 5) York to Leeds While the NYCC interest in this line is at Church Fenton and Ulleskelf stations, we are interested in the whole route, particularly because of the proposal to construct a new station at East Leeds Parkway close to the existing station at Micklefield, adjacent to the A1(M) and at the North Yorkshire/West Yorkshire boundary. The passenger service at Ulleskelf is infrequent, and poorly spread throughout the day. It is thus unlikely to attract more business and the low population makes a business case for a frequency improvement difficult to achieve. All we could hope for is an improvement to the spread of services each day; we have taken this up with the train operator. However at Church Fenton, there has been considerable housing development in the immediate vicinity of the station, and we would like to see the York Blackpool service call there every hour, instead of the present 2-hourly pattern. We believe this would be operationally attractive as it would standardise the present irregular arrival and departure pattern at York, thus standardising the pattern of this service on the ECML between York and Colton Junction. Our comments on the Selby to York and S&K lines are related to this. When the idea of the new station at East Leeds Parkway was raised, we were told at the time that a study revealed that just over half of North Yorkshire s population would be within a 40-minute road journey of the new station. This would include Harrogate, Ripon, Knaresborough, Malton, Selby and Tadcaster. As well as having a major effect on rail flows, it would also have a major effect road traffic flows in North Yorkshire. The County Council is therefore very keen to monitor developments on this proposal, and in terms of rail passenger traffic it has our full support.

4 6) Selby to Leeds The WY Metro proposal to operate a Micklefield turn-back service is a good idea in principle, but at morning and evening peaks we would like to see these trains extended to Selby. There is serious overcrowding from Selby going into Leeds in the morning peak, and back again in the evening peak. If the TPE services are ever short-formed, this exacerbates the already serious problem. We note that electrification from Leeds to Micklefield is mentioned, but we are disappointed that there is no mention of the electric horseshoe and spin-off projects: these being electrification of the line beyond Micklefield to Hambleton Junction on the ECML with a possible extension to Selby, and filling in the gap between Micklefield and Colton Junction on the ECML. However, we are pleased that the infrastructure east of Leeds is acknowledged as a constraint on growth. 7) Selby - York The service between Selby and York is irregular, and we would like to see this upgraded to an hourly service. Operationally, this should help with pathing on the ECML which we believe is to move towards more of a clock-face service pattern from December Some of these trains operate via Sherburn in Elmet which is currently poorly served, and we would like to see Sherburn provided with a more frequent service, whether this is by the Selby York service, or a possible new York Castleford Leeds service that we suggest elsewhere. We have made these suggestions to Northern Rail, but we would like to see a statement in the RUS as to whether capacity is available to accommodate these ideas. 8) Selby Hull Fast services between Selby and Hull are provided by TPE, Hull Trains and National Express East Coast, with stopping services being provided by Northern. The stopping services are at present extensions of the York Selby service. We are aware that since Network Rail s investment in the track layout and signalling to the port of Hull that more freight is likely to use this route, so we would like to see a statement saying if passenger service frequency on this route will be affected, and if the stopping service could be regularised at (say) a two-hourly interval pattern. The line is currently closed at night, but we would like to know if there are plans to extend the line opening hours following the freight improvements in Hull docks, and if so, whether passenger services could run later in the evening. 9) Selby - Doncaster Until Hull Trains started to operate, there was just one inconveniently timed Northern Train each way between Selby and Doncaster. The Northern train still runs, but the Hull Trains service has shown that there is a market between Selby and Doncaster. We would like the RUS to comment on track capacity so that we could approach train operators with requests for passenger service improvements. We acknowledge that the line is heavily used by freight services.

5 10) York Sheffield (via Pontefract) The service of two trains per day is very poor, and will never generate any additional business along the core section of this route between Church Fenton and Moorthorpe. We would like to know if there is capacity for an increase in service level at Sherburn in Elmet in particular, and also at Church Fenton and Ulleskelf (see comments on Leeds York section). We acknowledge that this route is heavily used by freight services. The RUS underlines the crowding problems between Leeds and Castleford; we would like to know if there is capacity to extend some Leeds Castleford trains to York, so as to give Sherburn in Elmet a direct service to Leeds, and improve service frequencies at Church Fenton and Ulleskelf. We are seeking separately Northern Rail s views on the likely business case for a Leeds Castleford York service. 11) Knottingley to Goole This service is not mentioned in the RUS. We would like to have seen some comment about whether service could be experimentally increased, as there is some pressure locally to do this; or even if a more radical approach should be taken whereby closure is considered. The present service will never generate any additional passenger traffic, so it does appear to be an expensive and possibly unnecessary use of precious rolling stock resources. Andrew Easson Policy Support Officer (Rail) Integrated Passenger Transport North Yorkshire County Council County Hall Northallerton DL7 8AH 27 November 2008