TheYorkshire Party’s rail manifesto for the region - Summary

An inadequate transport network

Yorkshire, and the North as a whole, suffers from under-investment in transport. Infrastructure spending on transport in London and the South-East is £5426, while in Yorkshire it’s just £581 (IPPR North report 2014).

You get what you pay for. Growth follows investment as London clearly shows. A long term plan, connecting both within and outside our region, could be the catalyst for a stronger Yorkshire as part of a UK that works for all.

Why invest in rail?

Our key transport objectives are:

·         Promote sustainable economic growth across Yorkshire

·         Reduce global warming by transferring people and goods from road to rail

·         Improve community cohesion by better access to jobs, education and services 

Is High-Speed Rail the answer?

Partially - the original proposal for HS2, with a new high-speed terminus at Leeds at right-angles to the main station and a long walk away, was particularly ill-considered.  We recognise that capacity on existing north-south routes is a problem, but we must link properly to existing networks.

‘HS3’, linking Merseyside with Manchester, Leeds and the east coast is more important than a London-centric HS2, and offers greater economic and environmental benefits to Yorkshire.

We want a new east-west route, using the former Woodhead Tunnel under the Pennines – offering speed and capacity and forming part of a high-speed route via Sheffield to the south. Put simply – high-speed trains from Manchester to Leeds would use the re-opened tunnel and then head north to Leeds, with another route branching southwards via Sheffield to Birmingham and London. This ‘triangular’ junction would allow high-speed trains from the south via Sheffield to reach Leeds and continue northwards to Teesside, Newcastle and Scotland. 


The Trans-Pennine corridor was to be electrified by 2018; industry insiders now predict it will be 2021. Yorkshire Party says that TransPennine electrification is urgently needed, sooner not later

Other routes which need electrification include all of the West Yorkshire local rail network, such as the Harrogate Line (see below) and the Calder Valley route (linking Leeds, Bradford and Halifax with Rochdale and Manchester). Whilst recent announcements suggest these are going to happen, there is no clear funding commitment from Government in London. 

New routes

Beeching Cuts devastated Yorkshire's railways. The devolved Scottish Government has reopened several routes, Yorkshire has re-opened none. Our priorities for re-opening include:

·         A new link to Otley and Pool via Menston continuing to Arthington (with a new Arthington Station)  and back to Leeds: ‘The Otley Loop’, albeit re-routed. Tram-trains are one possibility (see below).

·         Skipton to Colne (allowing better links from West and North Yorkshire to the North-West)

·         Manchester to Sheffield via Woodhead

·         Malton to Pickering (creating a direct route from York to Whitby)

·         York to Beverley and Hull via Pocklington and Market Weighton

·         Bradford Cross-Rail (see below re use of ‘tram-trains’)

·         Harrogate to Northallerton (creating  a direct route from Leeds and Harrogate via Ripon to the North-East

A crucial ‘missing link’ is a rail connection to Leeds/Bradford Airport. The best solution may be  tram-trains (see below), to serve Yeadon and Rawdon as well, but all options should be considered.

New stations

As well as Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge which are already approved, we want to see Elland given priority, together with Haxby and Strensall (York), Arthington, new stations in Guiseley and Horsforth, Lightcliffe/Hipperholme and Golcar/Milnsbridge.

Light rail and tram-trains

Proven technology exists for 'tram-trains' to run on conventional railways. They could run on the Harrogate Line into Leeds (once electrified) and then run ‘on street’ to serve Headingley and the city centre. Since tram-trains 'add-on' to existing networks, they should not require any demolition work, unlike the unpopular Leeds trolley-bus plan.

It could also be a way of solving Bradford’s disconnected rail network, linking Forster Square with Bradford Interchange and allowing tram-trains to operate from Leeds via Shipley and Bradford to Halifax.

New trains, made in The North.

An expanding rail network needs new rolling stock. The ageing, inadequate ‘Pacer’ trains have no future in a modern rail network and should be replaced urgently, not in five years’ time as the Government hopes. New trains must meet demanding comfort and accessibility standards, with extra space for bikes and luggage. Furthermore, we want to see new trains built in the North of England, to create jobs and boost the economy. There is expertise in Doncaster that could be part of a new Northern railway manufacturing industry.

Full integration

The Yorkshire Party wants good connectivity between bus and train at stations, sufficient parking, interchangeable tickets, avoidance of duplication and safe, well-signed, well-lit cycle routes and paths to stations.

Sensible planning and development

Major new housing and industrial developments not served by rail should pay for new facilities to be put in, based on developer contributions; no new homes without transport improvements first.

Managing the network

Local rail services are overseen by civil servants in London. The ‘Rail North’ body needs real power, including control of the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express franchises. It should be overseen by elected regional assemblies for Yorkshire, the North-east and North-West.

Beyond privatisation

Complete privatisation offers neither value for money nor quality for passengers - but neither did BR. We support a ‘mixed economy’, with the private sector delivering longer distance open access services and a publicly-owned InterCity UK providing a balanced network of services across the country. Local rail services should be run by a not-for-dividend operator accountable to users and employees in Yorkshire and the North of England, with profits recycled into rail improvements.

Conclusion: time for the train!

Yorkshire was an early pioneer of rail transport and Leeds and Doncaster were great centres of railway engineering. It’s time for rail to play a much bigger part in our region’s economy. The Yorkshire Party is determined to fight for a new railway age: time for the train!


Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-08-24 14:35:06 +0100
    A Yorkshire Assembly sounds like a great idea for addressing transport and especially the railways, but a regional parliament for the entire north of England (Yorkshire and Lancashire to Cumbria and Northumberland) especially for transport across the area at the macro regional level would be even better. Transpennine also means Carlisle to Newcastle upon Tyne; Keswick and Penrith to Middlesbrough; Kendal to Northallerton; Lancaster to Harrogate and York which all seem to be forgotten when talking about improvements east – west across the Pennines and reversing the Beeching report cuts of the 1960s and 1970s which would be much more feasible financially if HS2 & 3 were scrapped in favour of conventional rail improvements and reinstatement.
    The north also needs to improve rail connections into the Scottish Borders, to Glasgow and Edinburgh (our nearest capital city for many of us).
    A regional parliament of The North with our existing MPs as our regional representatives would help bring about the improvements needed. It is relatively quick and easy for MPs to travel to London, but if they were inconvenienced having to travel around the north of England to attend meetings of the regional parliament, just imagine how quickly the situation would improve.
  • commented 2017-05-19 18:47:12 +0100
    The idea of reversing the Beeching-cuts sounds a great idea! For the most part, lots of the old lines have not been built over and re-building them could be easy due to the fact that they were previously railways. However, many of the lines have been subject to redevelopment. From my home in Harrogate, I know that railways have had supermarkets, housing estates, bike paths and roads built atop of them. How would the party deal with these cases? Would there be replacement properties/roads? Or would you try to work around them?

    Another point that I wanted to pick up on was the Pickering to Malton extension. As far as I know, while the NYMR has supported the principle of this extension, the implementation has caused concern.

    The quote says “…including both modern services and heritage steam operations.” The managing director of the NYMR stated in 2014 that he did not support any trains running alongside their track (Pickering – Grosmont). Of course, this makes sense as it is a heritage railway that owns the track it runs on. If a modern railway started to compete with them, the NYMR would lose. The price of it will put most passengers off travelling via steam and opt for the cheaper alternative.

    I just want to know how the Yorkshire party would tackle this and whether running “trains from York via Pickering to Whitby” would be possible without hindering the railway.

    Thanks for taking such a proactive look on the railway, though, and I look forward for the future of Yorkshire’s railways.

Find an Event Join