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

 
 
 
 

CityMetric is now City Monitor! Come see us at our new home

City Monitor is now live in beta at citymonitor.ai.

CityMetric is now City Monitor, a name that reflects both a ramping up of our ambitions as well as our membership in a network of like-minded publications from New Statesman Media Group. Our new site is now live in beta, so please visit us there going forward. Here’s what CityMetric readers should know about this exciting transition.  

Regular CityMetric readers may have already noticed a few changes around here since the spring. CityMetric’s beloved founding editor, Jonn Elledge, has moved on to some new adventures, and a new team has formed to take the site into the future. It’s led by yours truly – I’m Sommer Mathis, the editor-in-chief of City Monitor. Hello!

My background includes having served as the founding editor of CityLab, editor-in-chief of Atlas Obscura, and editor-in-chief of DCist, a local news publication in the District of Columbia. I’ve been reporting on and writing about cities in one way or another for the past 15 years. To me, there is no more important story in the world right now than how cities are changing and adapting to an increasingly challenging global landscape. The majority of the world’s population lives in cities, and if we’re ever going to be able to tackle the most pressing issues currently facing our planet – the climate emergency, rising inequality, the Covid-19 pandemic ­­­– cities are going to have to lead the way.

That’s why City Monitor is now a global publication dedicated to the future of cities everywhere – not just in the UK (nor for that matter just in the US, where I live). Our mission is to help our readers, many of whom are in leadership positions around the globe, navigate how cities are changing and discover what’s next in the world of urban policy. We’ll do that through original reporting, expert opinion and most crucially, a data-driven approach that emphasises evidence and rigorous analysis. We want to arm local decision-makers and those they work in concert with – whether that’s elected officials, bureaucratic leaders, policy advocates, neighbourhood activists, academics and researchers, entrepreneurs, or plain-old engaged citizens – with real insights and potential answers to tough problems. Subjects we cover include transportation, infrastructure, housing, urban design, public safety, the environment, the economy, and much more.

The City Monitor team is made up of some of the most experienced urban policy journalists in the world. Our managing editor is Adam Sneed, also a CityLab alum where he served as a senior associate editor. Before that he was a technology reporter at Politico. Allison Arieff is City Monitor’s senior editor. She was previously editorial director of the urban planning and policy think tank SPUR, as well as a contributing columnist for The New York Times. Staff writer Jake Blumgart most recently covered development, housing and politics for WHYY, the local public radio station in Philadelphia. And our data reporter is Alexandra Kanik, whose previous roles include data reporting for Louisville Public Media in Kentucky and PublicSource in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Our team will continue to grow in the coming weeks, and we’ll also be collaborating closely with our editorial colleagues across New Statesman Media Group. In fact, we’re launching a whole network of new publications, covering topics such as the clean energy transition, foreign direct investment, technology, banks and more. Many of these sectors will frequently overlap with our cities coverage, and a key part of our plan is make the most of the expertise that all of these newsrooms combined will bring to bear on our journalism.

Please visit citymonitor.ai going forward, where you can also sign up for our free email newsletter.


As for CityMetric, some of its archives have already been moved over to the new website, and the rest will follow not long after. If you’re looking for a favourite piece from CityMetric’s past, for a time you’ll still be able to find it here, but before long the whole archive will move over to City Monitor.

On behalf of the City Monitor team, I’m thrilled to invite you to come along for the ride at our new digs. You can follow City Monitor on LinkedIn and on Twitter. If you’re interested in learning more about the potential for a commercial partnership with City Monitor, please get in touch with our director of partnerships, Joe Maughan.

I want to thank and congratulate Jonn Elledge on a brilliant run. Everything we do from here on out will be building on the legacy of his work, and the community that he built here at CityMetric. Cheers, Jonn!

To our readers, on behalf of the City Monitor team, thank you from all of us for being such loyal CityMetric fans. We couldn’t have done any of this without you.

Sommer Mathis is editor-in-chief of City Monitor.