Here’s why Bradford is the key to fixing the West Yorkshire transport network

Bradford Interchange. Image: Ian Kirk/Wikimedia Commons.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the problem with the Leeds’ railway network: how it has only one station, a through station where 70 per cent of its trains terminate.

By contrast, Leeds’ neighbour Bradford has two stations, both termini – yet one of them is served almost exclusively by through trains. Returning that station to its status as a terminus could enable a radical transformation of public transport in West Yorkshire.

I don’t really know Bradford: I’ve visited a few times, and passed through on the train a couple of hundred times. What I do know is that it was once a grand northern city and a railway hub, with two large railway termini, Forster Square (aka Midland) facing north and Exchange (now Interchange) looking south.

Both have been hollowed out, their grandeur long gone. They remain termini, although proposals have been made to link the two together to create a through route.

But I’m not convinced this would help. How many passengers actually interchange between the two? I don’t imagine there are a great deal of Halifax to Ilkley or New Pusdey to Shipley passengers. (Actually now I think about it, there was one occasion last year where a Pudsey-Shipley train would have been very handy, but I was on a beer fuelled day out, so I’m not sure that counts as an economic benefit.) No, Bradford should keep its termini.

A map of West Yorkshire showing the routes and places in this article.

The good terminus

Bradford Forster Square is on the Leeds North Western Metro network, which is as close to perfect as an outer suburban network can get: Skipton and Ilkley in the west and north link with Bradford and Leeds in the south and east.

Two trains per hour (2 tph) run between each pair of places (with the exception of a Skipton to Ilkley service; that would be silly), with Shipley acting as a key interchange. Every stations has either 6 tph or 4 tph, which is pretty great. And, it’s all electrified, awesome.

I suggested last September that Leeds would be well-served if one of its twice an hour London services were extended on to Bradford: that should go into Forster Square. The Nottingham-Leeds service could also continue in this way: the timetable would still work with these changes.

Bradford Forster Square may have lost its commuter train from Morecambe, with its “Club Car” in which wealthy mill owners enjoyed a drink on their way to work. But it’s still has a good, sensible service and it is a logical place to terminate a train.

So: Bradford Forster Square is fine. On the south side of the city, though, Bradford Interchange is basically nuts.


Interchange Issues

Opened in 1850, Bradford Exchange was built as a joint effort by two companies. The Great Northern Railway ran trains from Leeds and the east, while the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway’s trains arrived from Manchester and the west. It was never designed for through trains, and after “rationalisation” in the 1970s was renamed Bradford Interchange in 1983.

Today Interchange has a solid service of 4 trains per hour from Leeds, which all head on to destinations in the west. A reciprocal 4tph run in the opposite direction, giving a total of 8tph.

This sounds reasonable, so long as you ignore the fact that the station is a terminus. Each day 136 services runs “through” Interchange, except they don’t run through at all. Every train has to slowly pull up to the buffer stop, where the driver gets out of the train and walks to the back, which then becomes the front. As she does this, the guard does it in reverse. Both of them then have to perform safety checks. Only then can a “through” train continue.

This takes a minimum of three minutes, but often four or five. Worst of all, that backwards facing seat you bagged when the train was empty in York is now propelling you forwards on a full train for two hours all the way to Blackpool.

Time to Terminate

As Bradford Interchange is a terminus station, it would work a whole deal better if trains actually terminated there. This is how that could happen.

Interchange is on the Calder Valley Line. This route runs from Leeds to Hebden Bridge, before it splits into two routes to Manchester Victoria and Blackpool North.

Truncating all the services on this route at Bradford and making everyone change there is not an option: through trains to Leeds will still be required. This can be achieved by routing some of the trains that currently reverse at Interchange along the route through Brighouse and Dewsbury.

There are 2tph that run from Manchester Victoria to Leeds, via Rochdale and  Bradford. This service provides an important link to the two big northern cities for town such as Halifax, Hebden Bridge and Todmorden. Only one of these trains should terminate at Bradford: the other should continue to run to Leeds, but be routed away from Bradford, switching to the North Transpennine route at Dewsbury. Halifax would lose out but the other towns would gain a faster service to Leeds

The hourly train that currently runs between Manchester Victoria and Leeds via Dewsbury is a stopping service. This would be switched from Leeds to Bradford to maintain the 2tph service.

The proposed changes to the Manchester Victoria trains.

The next train to consider is the hourly Blackpool to York. This is one of those hard-to-believe-it-takes-so-long trains. It’s less than 100 miles, yet takes 2h50, an average of less than 35mph. It’s not fit for purpose.

This should become a Blackpool to Bradford train. A new hourly Blackpool to Leeds train routed via Dewsbury is required. The aim should be a Leeds-Preston timing of 1h15, down from 1h42

Proposed changes to the Blackpool service.

The fourth train each hour to pass through Bradford is a slow train linking Huddersfield to Leeds via Halifax and Bradford. This snakes it’s way through Kirklees and Calderdale, stopping at every available station.

There is an argument for keeping this as a through service, to keep Halifax’s direct train to Leeds. But for reasons that will become clear I’m going for the full house: all trains terminate at Interchange. This becomes a truncated Huddersfield–Bradford stopper. A new all stations Interchange to Leeds service is added, routed via Halifax, Brighouse and Dewsbury.

Proposed changes to the stopping trains.

A New Opportunity

With all services from the west terminating at Bradford, the Interchange to Leeds via Pudsey and Bramley service becomes a separate route and a service can be drawn up on a blank piece of paper. This 10 mile route would become a prime candidate for electrification with a minimum high frequency shuttle of 6 tph.

It would also be suitable for a more radical transformation. In the last 25 years Manchester Metrolink has shown that a world class urban transit system can be created when you start converting heavy rail lines to light rail. Bradford Interchange to Leeds could be the first line in a West Yorkshire Tramway.

Extra stations/stops would be main benefit that light rail would bring to the current line. For 90 per cent of its length, it’s flanked by housing and light industry. The West Midlands Metro between Birmingham and Wolverhampton is a comparable route: it is 13 miles long, and has 26 stops.

Bradford Benefits

Look beyond the current line and the benefits of light rail really add up. A conversion from heavy to light rail in layman’s terms is a switch from trains to trams. Trams run on streets – so at Bradford, the buffer stops could be removed and trams could continue through the heart of the city to Forster Square Station.

Proposed tramway form Interchange to Exchange on Google Maps.

Trams have the advantage of taking people much closer to where they want to go: the University and The Royal Infirmary would be good targets for future extensions.

Bradford would not lose out on its rail services. Both Forster Square and Interchange would continue with their trains to Leeds, London,  Manchester and the rest.

Leeds Link

Trams and trains shouldn’t mix: this means a new route into Leeds would be required.

A mile west of Leeds station, at Holbeck Junction, the new tramway would need to bridge both the A643 and the Leeds to Bradford Forster Square railway. The tram tracks could then cross the Leeds Liverpool Canal and River Aire using the abandoned railway viaduct that once approached Leeds Central Station.

The abandoned great northern viaduct. Image: Google.

Switching to on street running, Leeds Station would be reached via Whitehall Road and Aire Street.

Route of proposed tramway to Leeds station on Google Maps.

But why terminate at Leeds station? The obvious answer to that question is that going any further gets really expensive, but I’m going to ignore that due to the massive benefits that come from pushing on.

The 1990s Leeds Supertram scheme proposed three routes, to the south, north and east of the city. Similar routes were put forward in 2005 for a trolleybus scheme.


These route should be the long term aim. To start with I would propose a short route up to the Universities and/or a route through to the Bus Station and Quarry Hill. The recent short extension of the West Midlands Metro along less than a mile of Birmingham’s streets has produced a disproportionally large 35 per cent increase in ridership. On street running to places people actually want to travel makes trams visible – and this leads to much greater usage.

The key is that the conversion of a railway line to light rail would be a gateway for trams in West Yorkshire. For the last decade, most of the modern tramways in England have expanded, while no new systems have been approved by Westminster. Replacing the trains from Bradford Interchange with trams could be the foot in the door that Leeds needs to open its streets to 21st century public transport.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Henry Ford and IKEA could provide the key to solving the housing crisis

A flatpack house designed by architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, on display at the Royal Academy, London, in 2013. Image: Getty.

For many people, the housing market is not a welcoming place. The rungs of the property ladder seem to get further and further out of reach. There are loud calls to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (and equally loud demands that they’re not built in anyone’s back yard).

If there was ever a time to introduce mass-produced affordable housing, surely that time is now.

The benefits of mass production have been well known since Henry Ford’s car factories made the Model T back in 1908. It was only made in one colour, black, for economic reasons. Not because it was the cheapest colour of paint, but because it was the colour that dried the quickest.

This allowed the production line to operate at faster, more cost effective, speeds. And ultimately, it meant the product could be sold at a more attractive cost to the customer.

This approach, where processes are tested to achieve increasingly efficient production costs, is yet to filter properly into the construction of houses. This makes sense in a way, as not everybody wants exactly the same type of house.

Historically, affordable mass-produced housing removed a large amount of customisations, to ensure final costs were controlled. But there is another way. Builders and architects have the ability to create housing that allows a level of flexibility and customisation, yet also achieves the goal of affordability.


Back in 2006, the “BoKlok” approach to affordable housing was launched to great acclaim in the UK. Literally translated from Swedish, the term means “live smart”. Originally created from a collaboration between flat-pack favourite IKEA and Swedish construction giant Skanska, the BoKlok housing approach was to allow for selected customisation to maximise individuality and choice for the customers. But at the same time, it ensured that larger house building components were duplicated or mass-produced, to bring down the overall costs.

Standard elements – wall panels, doors, windows – were made in large numbers to bring the elemental costs down. This approach ensured the costs were controlled from the initial sketch ideas through to the final design choices offered to the customers. The kitchens and bathrooms were designed to be flexible in terms of adding additional units. Draw and cupboard fronts interchangeable. Small options that provided flexibility, but did not impact on overall affordability.

It’s a simple approach that has worked very well. More than 10,000 BoKlok houses have now been built, mainly in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a small number in the UK.

But it is only part of the architectural equation. The affordable housing market is vital, but the cost of making these homes more adaptable is rarely considered.

Flexibility is key. The needs of a house’s inhabitants change. Families can grow (and shrink) and require more room, so the costs of moving house reappear. One clever response to this, in BoKlok homes, has been to allow “built in” flexibility.

Loft living

This flexibility could include a loft space that already has flooring and a built in cupboard on a lower floor which can be simply dismantled and replaced with a “flat-pack style” staircase that can be purchased and installed with minimal disruption to the existing fabric.

Weeks of builders removing walls, plastering and upheaval are replaced by a trip to the IKEA store to purchase the staircase and the booking of a subcontractor to fit it. The original design accounted for this “future option” and is built into the core of the house.

The best approach to new affordable housing should consider combinations of factors that look at design, materials and processes that have yet to be widely used in the affordable housing market.

And the construction sector needs to look over its shoulder at other market places – especially the one that Henry Ford dominated over a century ago. Today’s car manufacturers offer customised options in everything from colour to wheel size, interior gadgets to different kinds of headlamp. These options have all been accounted for in the construction and costing of each model.

The ConversationThey share a similar design “platform”, and by doing so, considerably reduce the overall cost of the base model. The benefit is quicker production with the added benefit of a cost model that allows for customisation to be included. It is a method the construction sector should adopt to produce housing where quality and affordability live happily together.

David Morton, Associate Professor in Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.