Featured

Spring update – HADRAG responds to Williams review. Plus timetable issues and Electric Charter campaign

 

180HBG Zeke

HOW SHOULD our railways be run in the future? As a campaigning rail users’ group embracing a range of views, HADRAG does not take a view on whether our national rail system should continue with largely privatised, private enterprise train operation, or whether there should be some form of social ownership or renationalisation. What many of us do think is that the present system is crazy, not necessarily because of who owns it, but because of fragmentation. We desperately need one railway that works for passengers and to provide an attractive, modern, reliable alternative to congested roads, supporting good growth and protecting the environment, locally and globally.

 

Last May we had a timetable change that was a complete mess. That must never happen again. In the North of England we have two main train operators, Northern and TransPennine Express. They run across a system operated by Network Rail, the government-owned track operator. Network Rail decides the final timetable, from a remote train planning office in Milton Keynes. Northern and TPE both have their own train planners and must bid, to some degree in mutual competition, for slots in the Network Rail plan. So that is three separate bodies of train planning expertise planning what rail users are surely entitled to see as one train service. Who cares who runs the trains (or owns it – a wholly separate matter in the fragmented railway)? We just want a timetable that is strategically planned by a regional guiding mind to meet the needs of commuters and more occasional travellers, and delivers enhancements that will make train travel more attractive, more usable.

The Williams Review is looking at the whole organisation of our railways with a view to feeding in to a government white paper this autumn. It’s a tight deadline. HADRAG responded to the “initial listening phase earlier this year, but anyone can put forward views – on franchising, the public-private debate or other issues by the end of May. See the summary of our initial response below, and our full paper here.

Meanwhile, HADRAG’s latest newsletter Halifax and Calder Valley Rail Views sets out our latest thoughts on timetable issues, and we have an update on the Electric Railway Charter with the argument swinging back from “gapped” electrification towards the need for strategic routes like the Calder Valley (as well as the Huddersfield Line “TransPennine” route) to be fully electric. – JSW

Here’s HADRAG’s summary from our response to Williams:

“There should not be a conflict between the interest of passengers and taxpayers. Taxpayers benefit from the existence of a modern and effective rail network through its ability to reduce congestion, taking people to work and delivery goods. Railways directly reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. Government financial support for rail should be seen not as subsidy but as social payment for a public service with wide social, economic and environmental benefits. Because of that, the possibilities of rail travel should be made attractive to as great a percentage of the population as possible.

Priorities should be:

  • To re-integrate a railway that is fragmented in its structure. Removal of fragmentation to put functions under one roof can reduce costs and promote effective, agile decision making. Train-operation and system operation (including timetable planning) need to be unified. For example, in the North of England a single company should be responsible for internal services, planning service patterns, devising the timetable and delivery of the service. The present system for example of separate train-planning establishments within Northern and TransPennine Express TOCs and centrally within Network Rail does not make sense.
  • Devolved structures to promote effective and prompt decisions as close as possible to the point of service delivery, responsive to passengers’ needs. Regional “track+train” operating companies may be in the private sector or may be socially or cooperatively owned. (HADRAG maintains a neutral position on the political question of private versus public ownership.)
  • Expansion of the rail network with a fares system that encourages increasing use for an increasing range of purposes – culture, leisure and community as well as work and business.”
Advertisements
Featured

What a difference a year makes. 2017 new railway celebration turned to 2018 disruption, frustration and anger

Forced into a corner by late running electrification projects and other systemic failures causing shortages of trains (and crews), last May’s Northern timetable change put promised improvements on hold. Even as a cut-down version of the original plan, May 2018 proved unworkable in operation with unprecedented disruption, delays and unreliability. The December’18 changes brought little improvement but further damaged the service for some Calder Valley line passengers compounding frustration and anger. Here’s our timetable review based on some of the comments HADRAG has submitted to the train operators. Northern has promised us a reply, which we are getting ready to chase in the new year.

 

P1070572
Flashback to Calder Valley Line train terminating at Manchester Road Station. “Stepping stone” on track to through services Bradford and Calderdale to Manchester Airport. At time of writing the stepping stone is removed, to be restored we are not quite sure when. BUT SURELY, we ask, is not a decent, reliable, fit-for-purpose service for existing users on the Calder Valley Line even more important than new links to Chester, Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Southport or Barcelona?

A YEAR ago, this blog celebrated opening of the Ordsall Chord – a new railway linking north and south Manchester. For the first time, trains from Yorkshire could run through “Man Vic” and turn left to serve Manchester’s Piccadilly and Airport stations, for points near and far beyond. And the first trains over the Ordsall Chord in December 2017 were Calder Valley services, Leeds-Man Vic trains extended just about hourly outside the peaks across the city just to Deansgate and Oxford Road stations, both stations well placed to serve city employment areas, higher education and attractions.

Sounds like a dream? This was to be a stepping stone to an hourly service from Calder Valley stations to Manchester Airport which should have happened last May. Instead, last spring’s 11th-hour replanning of the May 2018 timetable not only postponed the Airport trains but actually cut the Oxford Road service back to the traditional Victoria terminus. So anyone who’d made use, over five months, of a convenient link to the south side of the city found that link broken. At the same time our well-established and successful service to Blackpool, started by British Rail in the 1980s, was for the most part truncated to Preston. The cuts/truncations are expected to be restored and the Airport service introduced, but when this will happen still has to be confirmed. Hopefully this coming May? But given what feels like unprecedentedly bad reliability and punctuality since May 2018, we say top priority for the Northern train company (“by Arriva”) and system operator Network Rail must be to produce a timetable for the Calder Valley Line that not only works day-to-day, but also repairs damage done to service patterns last May. Said damage included the following (read on further for more detail):

  • Poor clockface patterns, including inconvenient gaps that appeared in commuter services at stations such as Sowerby Bridge.
  • The “Brighouse overtaking issue” meaning what should be a useful two Leeds-BGH trains an hour is effectively little if any better than hourly.
  • Gaps in evening services for Sowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd.

The December 2018 changes, supposedly only minor to avoid a repetition of the May omnishambles, in the event significantly altered Calder Valley cross-Leeds services and the Huddersfield-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds timings. There are some positives but also more damage in the form of broken links and a new farce on the Brighouse line:

Calderdale/Bradford-east Leeds/York: December saw restoration of Preston-Leeds services through to York (but not yet to Blackpool). These now run fast Leeds-York, as well as serving Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge giving what should be an express-quality link between the Pennine core and east-coast/west-coast main lines. HADRAG welcomed that when it appeared in the franchise specification. We did not expect the established through link between the Calder Valley line and local stations east of Leeds going through to Selby would be cut. But that is what has now happened. With Leeds-York/Selby stoppers running as separate services, anyone commuting from, say, Selby or Garforth to Bradford or Calderdale now has to change at Leeds – meaning increased journey time and walking a fair percentage of the length and/or breadth of Leeds station.

Northern say the services have been separated to improve service performance. We can understand that. But regular passengers are suffering serious inconvenience, not to mention the economic consequences. The effect on performance remains to be seen, since on the face of it more trains will be needed with the Preston-Yorks running fast and more trains needed for the separate east Leeds stoppers. HADRAG has suggested that the units needed to do this might be better deployed to provide much need extra capacity on the Calder Valley Line and perhaps restore the Blackpool link (at least off-peak).

Incidentally Northern has an incentive to run fast Leeds-York that may have more to do with potential profits than service quality. Under the system of sharing revenue between different operators over a given route, by running its own fast service Northern will automatically get a bigger cut of total revenue for the city-city (Leeds-York) flow. This has been referred to as an ORCATS raid  (google it, e.g.).

Leeds-Halifax-Huddersfield, and latest Brighouse Line farce: As a result of the cross-Leeds changes, and Leeds-Halifax-Brighouse-Huddersfield trains no longer coming through from York (as they did May-Dec’18), Northern seemed to realise it had a train coming into Leeds from Huddersfield via Bradford and waiting nearly an hour in Leeds station before setting off back – a glaring inefficiency. So just few days before the December timetable started, they saw the light and retimed Huddersfield-Halifax-Leeds trains 10 minutes earlier. This meant some good news. The Halifax-Leeds “clockface” pattern is greatly improved. now roughly 00, 11, 23 and 43 minutes past the hour – not quite even quarter-hourly but much better than what would have been a 26-minute gap then four trains in just over half an hour. It also means better connections for Low Moor off the train from Manchester and improved journey time Huddersfield-Halifax/Bradford.

But the effect on journey time in the opposite direction is a farce and a disaster. Trains from Halifax towards Huddersfield are now not only booked to wait 4 minutes in Brighouse station, but also stand for 5 minutes at Bradley Wood Junction waiting for the retimed train coming the other way off the single-track Bradley curve. OK this does not sound outrageous unless you are stuck on the train wondering when it is going to start moving, but trains Halifax-Huddersfield now take a perfectly ridiculous 34 minutes, compared with 20 minutes in the opposite direction, frustratingly inconvenient for regular travellers between Bradford and Huddersfield.

Other problems include loss of connections upper Calderdale-Huddersfield and the “Brighouse overtaking issue”. Journeys such as Sowerby Bridge-Huddersfield have been largely impracticable by rail since the May 2018 changes; previously convenient connections at Brighouse/Halifax no longer exist. On the Leeds-Brighouse corridor the franchise train service specification or TSR says there should be two trains an hour, one via Bradford, one direct via Dewsbury. But the way this has been interpreted the Leeds-Brighouse-Southport train at 20 past the hour overtakes the previous one at 07 via Bradford; it is no longer quite so bad in the opposite direction, but the upshot is that a specified service of two trains per hour is effectively little or no better than hourly. How can this be allowed?

The Brighouse line problems seem to illustrate the need for a total rethink of the Calder Valley line timetable. It seems obvious that Northern and Network Rail train planners need to work together to sort this out. (Maybe they should actually work in the same office?!) In the longer term we hope more tracks through Mirfield and into Huddersfield will enable better timetabling. But whatever the present constraints the current timetable surely can simply not be acceptable. Among Calder Valley Line stations Brighouse has shown the biggest increase in passenger footfall over ten years. Sadly by failing to design a decent timetable that operates reliably the railway appears to risk throwing this away. Dare we hope for improvement this May?

Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge now benefit from all Preston-York trains stopping but still suffer a poorly-spaced service overall. The fast to Manchester closely follows the stopper and catches it up. A half-hour gap at Sowerby Bridge between 0724 and 0753 for commuters to Leeds is a notable annoyance that was previously filled by a train at about 0745. In the evening non-stop running between Hebden Bridge and Halifax means a 2-hour gap in services back from Manchester, whilst last train back from Bradford is now half an hour earlier than before May. We raised this with Northern seven months ago. It looked easy to solve simply by inserting the additional stops in late night services when it is surely more important to get people home than meet journey time targets. But we await any improvement. Apparently Network Rail won’t agree to even minor changes – despite approving the significant alterations described above with decidedly mixed consequences for Calder Valley Line users.

It is still not clear what is planned in terms of service frequency at these stations from the big December 2019 timetable change. Sowerby Bridge station serves a potential catchment area equal in population terms to that of Hebden Bridge and Todmorden combined.

HADRAG wrote to the managing director of Northern, David Brown before the December timetable change with our detailed report setting out our Concerns, aspirations and priorities.  We have had an acknowledgement promising a reply, and we shall be chasing that up in the new year. We hear rumours of a consultation on the May 2019 timetable but await detail (or indeed an invitation to participate).

We want the franchise promises to go ahead with services to Manchester Airport and also to Chester and Liverpool, but say this must surely be done in a way that does not damage the train timetable for existing users. Restoring damage already done (including the collapse in reliability and punctuality) must be a  top priority.

We also want the promised extra train every hour between Bradford and Manchester from the end of 2019. It’s not just about another so-called “fast” service but also a better deal for intermediate stations – Mytholmroyd and Low Moor as well as that sizeable town and southwest Halifax railhead, Sowerby Bridge.

And then there is Brighouse. And Elland. Potential massive development area in lower Calderdale. Wanted: much better train service.

Signs of progress? HADRAG adds comments on December timetable

UPDATING the following piece from our Autumn newsletter we’ll be doing a full report on the December timetable changes shortly. From 10 December Preston-Leeds trains go through to York hourly with fast running east of Leeds. HADRAG supports that. What we can not support is splitting York/Selby-Leeds stopping services from Calder Valley services  at Leeds meaning passengers from stations around Garforth (east Leeds) now have to change at Leeds station to get to work or leisure destinations in Bradford and Calderdale. Northern say they are doing it to reduce delays propagate east and west across Leeds but we think it’s going to annoy a lot of regular passengers (and will require more trains to operate).

There is good news for Halifax-Leeds passengers with a much less uneven “clockface” pattern from Halifax station following retiming of the Huddersfield-Bradford-Leeds train to 23 minutes past the hour (instead of 33) Huddersfield. This deaks with one specific issue mentioned in the piece below. The trains from Huddersfield towards Bradford are now quicker with a better slot in the timetable. Unfortunately this change fouls up the “path” of the Leeds-Bradford-Huddersfield in the other direction, where a total 9 minutes of standing time in Brighouse station and at the signals, results in inflated journey times Bradford/Halifax/Brighouse into Huddersfield. We have told Northern a better solution is needed. And we have once again submitted detailed comments to their managing director David Brown on our concerns, aspirations and priorities covering the December changes, planned enhancements, a better deal for Sowerby Bridge, a decent timetable for the Brighouse line (including Elland station), and potential new services.

But top priority must be a timetable that works for existing passengers, operates reliably and repairs the damage done last May. Northern have acknowledged our submission and promised to respond. Look out for upcoming more detailed blog on this, but meanwhile the following comments from earlier this autumn are still relevant:

“Platform extension works at Calder Valley stations are signs of progress, we hope, towards longer trains, and indeed brand new ones on what we expect to become “Northern Connect” CV services to Manchester Airport, Chester and Liverpool, as well as the existing York-Blackpool route. Long campaigned for by HADRAG, the York-Blackpools now call regularly at Sowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd. Except that most of them since May have only run between Preston and Leeds. This, let’s be clear, is not a delay to an enhancement but a — temporary — cut to a preexistent service. Whilst we wait an answer as to when the full service will be restored, good news is through running to York now looks to be in the Dec’18 timetable. But with Preston-Blackpool now electrified and a continuing shortage of diesel trains, we worry this really useful service could be turning back at Preston for some time. Serving Blackpool is important — and not just for the revelling hens and stags!

Sowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd have annoying service gaps. Last train back from Bradford is half an hour earlier than before May and there is a 2-hour gap in evening trains back from Manchester. This hits people who work evenings in the cities as well as those on nights out. It looks like a problem that could be easily solved — by making a few trains stop at “SOW” and “MYT” that currently run non-stop between Halifax and Hebden Bridge. We’ve had our say but again with no clear answer from Northern.

Further ahead, Sowerby Bridge is to be a Northern Connect station. So Northern Connect trains will stop there. Here the unanswered question is “some?” or “all?” Looking at local populations it’s clear Sowerby Bridge serves a potential catchment as big as Hebden

Catching Up and Overtaking

Significant issues with the May 2018 timetable also include some increased journey times and poor clockface patterns. So trains leave Halifax for Leeds at roughly 01, 11, 33 and 43 minutes past the hour. This is far from even-interval (note 22 minute gap) and varies confusingly from hour to hour. Sowerby Bridge has 2 trains/hour to Manchester but the “fast” at “22” catches up with “06” stopper making a mockery of “half-hourly”. The real travesty is the Brighouse-Leeds corridor where the direct service via Dewsbury overtakes the one via Bradford in both directions, effectively cutting the 2 trains/hr on the franchise specification to just one. We are sure Northern do not want to operate a service this bad. We have made our views known and hope they will work with Network Rail to devise a more sensible pattern.

Electrification: Harrogate leads the way…with buses!

The Electric Railway Charter calls for smart electrification to save time, costs and disruption. Rail needs to catch up as cars and buses go green. Could pioneering bus development set the example? Andrew Whitworth reports from Harrogate.

It’s exasperating that railway electrification in England is going backwards.

Latest news on the delayed Manchester-Leeds-York plans came as an apparent (deliberate?) leak in September. The emphasis was on how difficult it would all be, despite actual proposed electrification seeming to be limited to Leeds-Huddersfield. It’s a different story in Scotland, where the fourth electrified route linking Edinburgh and Glasgow went live in July – and work progresses on the fifth route. The enterprising Scots are also wiring the Stirling to Alloa branch line. Meanwhile,

Wales has approved some innovative electric plans for the Cardiff Valleys lines using battery power to reduce the costs, timescales and disruption of electrification.

In contrast to their lamentable rail electrification policy for England, on the roads our government have set ambitious targets to switch everyone to electric cars (or at least hybrids) by 2040.

The government is also spending money now to promote low emission buses in towns and cities.

Of 13 such schemes approved in 2016, most are hybrid or electric, including a unique plan for Harrogate due to go live imminently.

Harrogate has had two battery buses since 2014, but they can only run for about 7 hours, then need an 8 hour slow charge at the depot.

Now, The Harrogate Bus Company owner Transdev is buying 8 new-generation electric single-deckers. The new battery buses are able to run for a full day, by using fast ‘opportunity charging’ whenever they’re at the bus station, which takes only 6 minutes. This is topped up by an overnight slow charge. Compared to conventional battery buses this system requires fewer vehicles, with smaller batteries -which also saves a lot of weight.

It’s an innovative idea which – together with the flexible approach in Wales, and the stability of the rolling programme that has succeeded in Scotland – must have potential to help get northern railway electrification plans back on track.

Community Opportunity

Station adoption and partnership groups showcase award-winning heritage, cultural and horticultural activity and wider community involvement. In HADRAG’s core area alone we have BrighouseSowerby Bridge and Mytholmroyd — three in a row! A “community rail partnership” for the whole line would support and complement their work, writes Richard Lysons, chair of the Friends of Littleborough Stations (FOLS) and HADRAG committee member.

Community rail lines fit local circumstances and increase involvement, helping to support growth. A Community Rail Partnership (CRP) supports a community rail line. The Penistone Line, Bentham Line and Mid Cheshire Line partnerships are notable examples.

Mid Cheshire CRP (Chester-Northwich-Manchester) joined forces Calder Valley Line volunteers in the highly successful Discover Amazing Women by Rail project. As a result our line now has a quality publication that focusses on people like the Bronte sisters, Anne Lister and Gracie Fields whilst promoting our local destinations, and encouraging rail tourism. A map shows the 29 stations along the line and its branches. Finance for the project came mostly from the Department for Transport’s Designated Community Rail Development Fund.

The Mid Cheshire CRP has been running for over 10 years and benefits from the work of energetic full time officer Sally Buttifant.

The Calder Valley Line is a long and varied route linking Yorkshire, Manchester and East Lancashire. It passes through beautiful scenery and towns of all sizes. Whilst the line is very successful and overcrowded at times, smaller unstaffed stations can be bleak, and at certain times trains are relatively empty. Fares can be a problem: cheap off-peak rover tickets are available in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, but fares soon become unappealing if one dares cross the border by train! Too many of the visitors to Eureka and the Piece Hall, right next to Halifax station, arrive by car, as do visitors to Hebden Bridge.

Along the line several highly successful station friends groups and station partnerships mobilise scores of volunteers who already work hard to improve their station environment and facilities. Some work with schools and youth groups and many are involved such activities as gardening, litter picking and Christmas activities. Some have effective sponsorship schemes with local businesses.

A typical community rail partnership covers a whole line and brings together local authorities, train operators, community groups and businesses, with common aims of promoting and enhancing stations and services, complementing and supporting the voluntary efforts of station groups. CRPs are as varied as the lines they serve. In recent months the Calder Valley Line’s rail services have come in for a lot of criticism. A community rail partnership would not solve problems that the railway itself must address, but research has shown that where such line CRPs exist revenue has risen and so has passenger satisfaction — helping to fill those emptier off-peak trains.

The Calder Valley’s “line identity” has already gained a huge boost from Amazing Women, a project initiated by the Friends of Littleborough Stations. Success was due to the creative partnership of this small friends’ group with the Association of Community Rail Partnerships (ACORP), Community Rail Lancashire, Women in Community Rail and Mid Cheshire CRP. Without professionals experienced in community rail and rail tourism, the women’s history project would not have happened.

The Calder Valley Line lends itself to green, niche and alternative tourism, following the Rochdale Canal and other waterways along its routes with rich opportunities for station-to-station walks, cycle trips — urban and rural exploration and potential access for all. There are historic cinemas in Elland, Hebden Bridge and Leeds; unusual music venues; even more links with amazing people (women and men!) and a large number of art galleries, museums and historic houses. [Some of us think every station should be an art gallery— Ed.] There are all sorts of possibilities for trails and days out exploring these themes.

Officers at Calderdale and Rochdale councils are discussing a possible CRP for the Calder Valley Line. Watch this space!

More Information

Rail Partnerships

Local Station Groups

 

Timetable must work for all

On 20th May the railway introduced major timetable changes that simply did not work. By the end of 2017 it had dawned on the railway that Bolton line electrification was not going to be ready in time. So diesels would have to be kept on the route leaving a shortage elsewhere. We gather Northern wanted the whole timetable change postponed but was refused because other operators wanted to go ahead. Which still meant major replanning at impossibly short notice. Not only were upgrades such as Calder Valley trains to Manchester Airport deferred (again), but also existing services were damaged (see Back Page). An interim report by official regulator ORR (Office of Road and Rail) blames all — train companies, Network Rail, Government and ORR — for failures to anticipate, plan, or question assurances based on optimistic assumptions. HADRAG sent submissions to the ORR consultation, and to the House of Commons Transport Committee. We gave examples of how our services were hit. And we make the point that instead of Northern, TransPennine Express, and Network Rail having their own train planners (timetablers) it might be better to have one joint office planning a timetable across the North that actually works. Works, that is, not just for the minority of passengers heading for the Airport, but for all who depend on lines like ours everyday for work, business and civilised leisure.

Amid the timetable chaos Adam Timewell, commercial franchise manager at Rail North Partnership (Transport for the North + Department for Transport) who was to have spoken at HADRAG’s June AGM, had to send apologies. We were massively grateful to Calderdale member of WYCA’s Transport Committee Cllr Dan Sutherland, and to Richard Crabtree from the WYCA rail office for joining our discussion at short notice. We’ve been engaging with WYCA on the recent Elland station consultation. We have met officers on our priorities and aspirations for service improvement and development.

And we shall continue to take up the issues with Rail North Partnership.

Halifax station – making it better – December 7th deadline for comments!

DON’T MISS YOUR CHANCE! Halifax Railway Station users have just a few more days to make their views known about ideas for transforming the station and its surroundings. Concept designs for an ambitious gateway scheme were published by Calderdale Council in March. Now (until December 7th) there is an on-line questionnaire inviting passengers to rate present facilities and prioritise a range of possible improvements. There are spaces for extended comments on what you like about the station and what you would change, and for any further suggestions or feedback on possible future developments.HFX Friay teatime 2017.05.12

HADRAG supports the broad scope of the concept designs which are truly transformational and promise make the station a centrepiece at the bottom of town linked by high quality public realm to new bus stops, the Piece Hall, Library, Industrial Museum and the town centre beyond. (See our March blogpost.) We have concerns about some aspects to do with pedestrian and vehicular access. We think taxi and drop-off facilities, and rail users’ parking should stay on the town-facing side of the station where the main entrance will be, not moved to the back involving indirect subway access. We accept that current arrangements on the road approach bridge are congested and potentially hazardous. The idea of removing the bridge and having a new concourse building next to a reopened Platform 3 is exciting and ambitious – but it has to work for train passengers. Bringing P3 back into use would reduce pressure on the congested island platform (1/2) effectively replacing platform 2. We say this must be done in a future-proof way so that a third operational rail platform could be introduced in the future to accommodate more frequent trains and new service patterns.

Here are our answers, submitted on behalf of HADRAG by Stephen Waring (Chair) on the three open-ended questions:

What do you like about Halifax station?

  • Compact layout easily navigated with only one change of level (by lift or stairs) between the entrance (including drop-off point) and platforms. Entrance is level with bottom of Horton Street giving direct access for pedestrians with minimal level-changes, despite limitations of space and traffic conflicts on present road access bridge.
  • Reasonably modern concourse and booking office with small retail unit though all limited by space.
  • Island platform (1/2) allows cross-platform connections between upper Calder Valley trains and route to Brighouse, Huddersfield etc.

What would you change?

Not in order of importance, we see need for:

(a)    Larger concourse and other covered space, and better organised space on platforms.

(b)    More space for variety of transport modes at station entrance, retaining common access point to booking office and platforms for pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, disabled and taxi/drop-off users. Better transport integration i.e. bus stops as close as possible to train platforms + encouragement of sustainable access (walking and cycling) as well as more rail users’ car parking. Car parking could be on 2 or 3 levels.

(c)     Rail users’ parking to be provided with charging points for electric vehicles.

(d)    More retail, café/bar facilities, aimed at making the station a hub of activity and an attraction in its own right.

(e)    Community rail activity to embed the modern railway in local area – art and historical displays linking with community groups, schools etc; pop-up enterprises; mini-museum of local transport history (just a few ideas!).

(f)     Better public/passenger toilets essential.

(g)    Enhanced booking office providing local and regional travel/tourist information (gateway to Halifax) plus full retailing of commuter and tourist travel products

(h)    Better links between levels, particularly if the approach bridge is to go. To guarantee access for all, lifts need to be reliable, ideally duplicated. For level changes within the proposed new building provision of escalators in addition to lifts and stairs would be desirable, particularly for those who, whilst not requiring lift access, nonetheless struggle with stairs.

(i)      Train operation future-proofing. Provision for transformed, increased, more comprehensive train services in future e.g. design of reinstated Platform 3 should to allow for three operational train platforms which could facilitate improved service patterns.

Any other suggestions/feedback

HADRAG agrees with clear need to transform the station and better integrate it with the town. We strongly support broad aim of the published (March 2018) station gateway concept designs but have concerns about the details as suggested in those designs. The final design must put rail users first in terms of providing direct, safe access between station entrances and trains, and in terms of future-proofing the design for further future expansion of train services. Specifically:

(a)    Concern about proposal in concept design to relocate rail users parking, taxi and drop off on the east side of the line with access to the station entrance via reopened underpass (Navigation Rd). Opening the underpass is welcome to create a new pedestrian link from the Nestle site to town, but access from an east-side entrance to platforms would be very indirect. Even if platform 3 is reinstated, half of passengers arriving/departing would still use the existing island platform (1/2). Access between an east-side car park and P1/2 would require walking through a subway, then up a lift/steps to footbridge level, back over the footbridge and then down another lift/steps. This would be significantly worse for train users than the present access from the road approach bridge.

Also, subways are unpopular.

A further issue arises if access from the town direction is pedestrian only: this could become a rather quiet area at night creating issues of personal security from pedestrian station users. Having taxis, drop-off and (ideally) parking close to pedestrian access would avoid this problem by ensuring activity in the station gardens area throughout opening hours.

We feel strongly therefore that taxis/drop-off and, it is hoped, rail users’ parking should remain on the west, town-facing side of the station, where they could be no more than a few steps from the new station entrance.

(b)    Assuming the approach bridge is removed and platform 3 reinstated, the floor of the proposed new concourse should be level with P3 (not below it as shown in the concept designs), which would avoid an annoying and unnecessary level change that would be counter to the object of providing level access to P3.

(c)     Proposal to “build out” Platform 3 to serve existing Platform 2 track. This appears to make no provision for the possibility of a third operational platform with an independent track. Whilst it is not yet clear whether future service patterns will require this, the possibility must not be excluded; the design must be future-proof.

Future service patterns could involve a further significant increase in service frequency, and could have more trains terminating at Halifax, or trains reversing in the station, or more connections (passengers changing trains at Halifax); an additional operational platform would also enable trains to follow each other into the station at closer headways promoting punctuality, whilst Network Rail might be able to dispense with the existing turnback siding south of the station. Rather than building out the platform, which would also require provision of an enlarged canopy, it would be better to persuade Network Rail to move the P2 track to serve P3 in its present position. This appears feasible; some signalling cables (if still in use following recent resignalling) would need to be moved but this might also be required by the build-out proposal. This would allow for a third track and associated point work to be added later when required.

– JSW