New stations

simong · Post by **simong** » Mon 22 Oct, 2012 2:18 pm

The council has agreed to the loan in principle according to the YEP: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 5045911The implication from the article, to me at least, appears to be that the developers weren't going to continue to work on the site if they didn't get help with the station requirement, which was part of their commitment when they bought the place, and it could have ended up as an empty brownfield site. I didn't realise that they had owned the place for nine years though - I remember a friend telling me how he accidentally got into their launch party at Kirkstall Abbey, which probably would have been in 2004, so it's taken them at least eight years to get the site to the state it's in, which is a couple of lifetimes for property developers.

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 23 Oct, 2012 1:25 am

simong wrote: The council has agreed to the loan in principle according to the YEP: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 5045911The implication from the article, to me at least, appears to be that the developers weren't going to continue to work on the site if they didn't get help with the station requirement, which was part of their commitment when they bought the place, and it could have ended up as an empty brownfield site. I didn't realise that they had owned the place for nine years though - I remember a friend telling me how he accidentally got into their launch party at Kirkstall Abbey, which probably would have been in 2004, so it's taken them at least eight years to get the site to the state it's in, which is a couple of lifetimes for property developers. I think a park and ride station at the old Sandoz sight near Calverley/Horsforth would alleviate a huge amount of tarffic into Leeds,rather than Apperley.Though i think its going to be housing.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Tue 23 Oct, 2012 1:57 am

quote nick="simong"]The council has agreed to the loan in principle according to the YEP: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5045911 cnosni post(incorrectly omitted by a dumb somme1916)Aye,speculative investment at the height of the property boom....it's obvious they are now unable to raise additional finance in the private sector(what a surprise)....cash flow will be their worst enemy.Even securing a council "loan"will not guarantee the future success of their involvement in this saga....more it's a case of showing some sort of confidence to their existing backers by demonstrating that LCC will back them to a point.I fear we have not heard the last of this particular story. (p.s. apologies cnosni for an incorrect "cut" of your text......really must try harder on techy stuff).

simong · Post by **simong** » Tue 23 Oct, 2012 11:43 am

cnosni wrote: I think a park and ride station at the old Sandoz sight near Calverley/Horsforth would alleviate a huge amount of tarffic into Leeds,rather than Apperley.Though i think its going to be housing. It would be much better than the Forge simply for that extra mile and a half through Kirkstall, but yes it's earmarked for a housing development, although I can't help thinking that the developers are going to have the same problems in clearing the land as the developers at the Forge - there's almost 150 years of chemicals there.

Leodian · Post by **Leodian** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 1:20 pm

In an article on the front page and on pages 6 and 7 of the Yorkshire Evening Post today (Jan 26 2013) it reports "A second railway station is set to be built in the centre of Leeds as part of the £32 billion high-speed rail plans" to be "announced next week". Currently at least there does not seem to be an online version of the article (if there is I could not find it). The newspaper article is interesting and has a few photos.

jim · Post by **jim** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 1:30 pm

The article fails to clearly identify the proposed site for the new station, only that it is "south of the river" and connected to the existing station by an "airport-style walkway". The only sensible area seems to me to be the old Leeds Wellington site, currently the station car park. I cant see any other option which could give rail access without demolishing vast tracts of South Leeds. If so, what parking provision do the planners propose?

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 1:39 pm

jim wrote: The article fails to clearly identify the proposed site for the new station, only that it is "south of the river" and connected to the existing station by an "airport-style walkway". The only sensible area seems to me to be the old Leeds Wellington site, currently the station car park. I cant see any other option which could give rail access without demolishing vast tracts of South Leeds. If so, what parking provision do the planners propose? South of the river? airport style walkway?Would certainly make me think they might have plans to reinstate the Holbeck viaduct, and once again connect it to the London line. Then build a new station to the South of City station to ease congestion.http://goo.gl/maps/Yd43LThat seems the only possible explanation to me???

Post by **cnosni** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 3:29 pm

Old Kays site perhaps?Would definiteley reinvigorate "Holbeck Urban Village"

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 3:48 pm

cnosni wrote: Old Kays site perhaps?Would definiteley reinvigorate "Holbeck Urban Village" I don't know, it doesn't really make sense to me really. I can't see how anything really fits from the description.I would have to say with it being the London high speed rail it would suggest sending those trains over the viaduct again.. I do believe the viaduct was originally taken out of service because it caused congestion at the station.The London bound trains left from platform 5 (nearest the concourse) And as you know being a driver it would stop a lot of trains from coming into, and leaving the station while the London train was pathed across the point work to gain the viaduct line. I can only think of this area of land here where a new station could be built.http://goo.gl/maps/f6vDYWhich also leads to this defunct part of the station herehttp://goo.gl/maps/BTfllAnd that wouldn't be hard to link to via an airport style walkway to this new station entrance really

jim · Post by **jim** » Sat 26 Jan, 2013 5:00 pm

I believe that another problem with the LNWR viaduct was that the curves are sharp and the clearances very limited, leading to gauging problems with the longer modern carriage stock. In any case use of the viaduct would lead only to the old NE engine shed site above Office Lock which would only hold very short trains. To extend the site to the east would involve demolition of three or four fairly recent hotels and apartment blocks.To me construction of a new HS only line via Sheffield - apparently what is intended - would be best served by using the old Midland main Line from the Wath area, practically all of it unused or otherwise available as far as Goose Hill Junction Normanton. From there double track could be laid alongside the existing Normanton/Leeds tracks to Stourton, with occasional slewing of the existing track to one side or the other to make best use of available land. Beyond that point there should be little difficulty in relaying on the site of the old goods lines to the south/west side of the existing lines, again with some slewing. Beyond the LNWR viaduct a flyover over the tracks on the north side of the Holbeck triangle would give a dedicated route to the car park/Wellington site that should be quite manageable by modern traction.The other suggested ideas seem to me to have such severe rail access and land ownership problems as to be impracticable. Lets have some more thoughts put forward.