New Rail Head In Ribblesdale

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone,

Some of you maybe aware that Lafarge Tarmac has received planning permission to construct a siding between Helwith Bridge and Horton to serve one of their quarries. Given that I have relatives who live in the Dales I naturally think that this is a good idea however in giving planning permission the N Yorks County councillor stated that he felt that Lafarge were forced into un-necessary expense by pressure groups.

I'm interested to have an idea as to how much it will cost to install the siding which I'm assuming will be on the down line. I'm also assuming here that loaded trains would ultimately head south and that they would run north to Blea Moor in order to run around.

Any information or general comments on this development would be very welcome!

Regards,

Richmond Commuter!

 

[Darren R]

Interesting development, of which I was unaware. There are three quarries in the vicinity; which one is to receive the rail connection?

Until relatively recently (early/mid 1980s?) the northernmost quarry was served by sidings which connected with the S&C just south of (then-closed) Horton-in-Ribblesdale station. This connection did indeed face north.

Looking at Google Maps (registered trade mark!) the middle quarry also looks to have had its own railhead at some point; this appears to have been a triangular junction - but I can't be sure since I don't remember this connection.

I have often thought it ridiculous that quarries are allowed to function in a National Park just yards from a railway line, without there being a rail connection. Fair play to the Planning Authorities for once!

As for the 'burden' of extra costs on the business, I can't imagine reinstating some sidings and installing extra signalling on the line to accomodate them would be that huge - not to multi-national mining and aggregates conglomerates! Are there not government grants available that would at least go some-way towards the costs?

As an aside - this may be something of a blessing for the S&C. Sidings would require extra signalling to be installed, thereby reducing the length of the block section from Settle Junction to Blea Moor.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Interesting development, of which I was unaware. There are three quarries in the vicinity; which one is to receive the rail connection?

Until relatively recently (early/mid 1980s?) the northernmost quarry was served by sidings which connected with the S&C just south of (then-closed) Horton-in-Ribblesdale station. This connection did indeed face north.

Looking at Google Maps (registered trade mark!) the middle quarry also looks to have had its own railhead at some point; this appears to have been a triangular junction - but I can't be sure since I don't remember this connection.

I have often thought it ridiculous that quarries are allowed to function in a National Park just yards from a railway line, without there being a rail connection. Fair play to the Planning Authorities for once!

As for the 'burden' of extra costs on the business, I can't imagine reinstating some sidings and installing extra signalling on the line to accomodate them would be that huge - not to multi-national mining and aggregates conglomerates! Are there not government grants available that would at least go some-way towards the costs?

As an aside - this may be something of a blessing for the S&C. Sidings would require extra signalling to be installed, thereby reducing the length of the block section from Settle Junction to Blea Moor.

The siding will be installed at Arcow quarry although the aggregate will be transported from Dry Rigg quarry. I'm trying to work out whether the sidings will be at the original Helwith Bridge location or further up the line to Horton. I think Helwith Bridge is the triangular junction to which you are referring

I'd be interested to know whether the signalling and point work will be controlled from Settle Junction or Blea Moor. My guess would be Settle Junction.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Do we know where trains from here are likely to head?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Do we know where trains from here are likely to head?

No but I'm guessing south which is generally where most of the demand is. For a short while the sidings at Ribblehead were recently used for aggregate traffic and they too headed south, to Leeds I think.

 

[Tomnick]

It's quite common for mid-section sidings such as this proposed one to be served by a simple trailing connection off the adjacent running line, worked by a ground frame released (usually) by the box in rear (so Settle Jn if it's on the down side) and with the ability to shut a train inside if necessary (which it surely will be here). Anything more complicated, including the ability for trains to depart in the 'right' direction (if the siding's facing the wrong way) would start to push the cost up considerably!

I'm not sure where it'd be located relative to the new IB signals, and whether it'd fall into the AB section or the new IB section as a result - not that it really matters too much. If the former though, is it (generally) ok to shut trains inside at a GF in the AB section, where there's no way of proving the running line clear? At one location I know, I gather that granting of authority to shut trains inside coincided with work to move the section signal and thus bring the GF within station limits.

 

[The Planner]

Tomnick is correct, this will just sit in the existing section with a ground frame, the cost of new signalling will be too much. Will be interesting to see when they expect the trains to arrive as if it is a north facing connection the block section will be occupied for a good while as it will need to stop, get the release, propel back in, give the groundframe back and clear the section again.

 

[dysonsphere]

Out of intreast how much would it cost to include full signalling for a long loop . Im assuming a long loop siding to lock trains into to quarry with an exit signal from siding, catch points on each end of loop. 2 signals ie distant and stop for siding cw feathers for siding. On southbound line with no crossover to northbound, I seem to remember quarrys are to east of running lines. And while yore at how much extra to at least install signalling for a North to South facing crossover before loop exit. You could install crossover later if traffic justified. I put this in a laymans terms but im fairly sure im close to what is required, just have no idea of costs of such work.

 

[Tomnick]

A lot, before you even think about the practicalities of controlling such an arrangement in the middle of a long AB section.

 

[dysonsphere]

A lot, before you even think about the practicalities of controlling such an arrangement in the middle of a long AB section.

Well I was assuming such a set would enable the block to be split into 2 with a full set of signals on both lines controling traffic.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Having nearly been flattened by single vehicles and convoys of Lafarge Tarmac lorries more than once yesterday while attempting to cross the road in the centre of Settle, I hope this happens soon for the sake of the locals and tourists alike.

Reminded me of Penrith before the M6 except the lorries were smaller then.

 

[Tomnick]

Well I was assuming such a set would enable the block to be split into 2 with a full set of signals on both lines controling traffic.

You'd be talking about full track circuiting between the controlling box and the area of the new installation, plus either full track circuiting in the section in rear or a tail lamp camera or a lot of operational inconvenience - so yes, still a lot of money. Bear in mind that the section's already split in both directions by IB signals, so no real additional benefit for through traffic.

 

[CdBrux]

http://pacsplanning.yorkshiredales.org.uk/Horton in Ribblesdale C44/101/C_44_101E_ASS.pdf

I doubt the cost can be that high, the whole thing is only supposed to be operational for 6 years and then removed again!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
and reading this it seems that enviromental campaigners are behind it, not Lafarge, although it may help Lafarge extend the lifetime ofthe Arcow quarry:

http://www.pipspatch.com/2014/03/16/ydnpaplanning-committee-march-2014/

Horton-in-Ribblesdale – Permission was granted for a railway siding to be constructed at Arcow Quarry near Helwith Bridge. Stone will be transported to it from Dry Rigg Quarry.

It is likely that the railway siding will not become operational until October 2015 about seven months after the present permission to extract stone at Arcow quarry expires. Lafarge Tarmac which owns both quarries has permission to extract stone from that at Dry Rigg until 2021.

YDNPA officer, David Parish, said it was not possible to construct a siding at Dry Rigg because that would have a serious impact upon the Swarth Moor SSSI as would a new road between the two quarries or a conveyor belt link. A new habitat will be created for the great crested newts in the low lying fields between Arcow Quarry and the Settle-Carlisle line.

N Yorks County councillor Richard Welch very reluctantly proposed approving the company’s application for the railway siding and explained:“I think this is unnecessary. It’s unneeded and unwarranted and I think the company is being put to an awful financial burden to satisfy a small minority of lobbyists and campaigners. (But) if this is the way of keeping people in employment ….then I’m afraid I shall have to go with it.”

One of the objectives of the Authority’s Management Plan is to reduce road haulage from the three quarries in Ribblesdale by at least 50 per cent.

The arrival and departure of trains, all loading operations and all heavy goods vehicle traffic between Dry Rigg and Arcow will only take place from Monday to Friday each week between 7.30am and 5.30pm. There would only be one train per weekday, with each taking between three to four hours to load.

It was agreed that although, under the present agreement, the restoration scheme for Arcow Quarry would be completed by the end of June 2016 that would not now include the sidings and stockpile area. Lafarge Tarmac has indicated that it is considering submitting an application to deepen Arcow Quarry.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Tomnick is correct, this will just sit in the existing section with a ground frame, the cost of new signalling will be too much. Will be interesting to see when they expect the trains to arrive as if it is a north facing connection the block section will be occupied for a good while as it will need to stop, get the release, propel back in, give the groundframe back and clear the section again.

I'm guessing that in terms of timetabling another issue would be the Long Drag itself and that the train will be on a gradient as soon as the wheels start to turn! Not only that but assuming that the ultimate destination will be at least as far south as Leeds the loco will have to run round at Blea Moor. As you know much more about these things than me how long is that likely to take?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt the cost can be that high, ...ted in case it is needed again in the future.

 

[Darren R]

One would hope that the siding will remain in place after all the aggregate has been extracted in case it is needed again in the future.

Long-term planning? hock:

 

[RichmondCommu]

Long-term planning? hock:

I know! I tell you what we are damn lucky that no one removed the siding at Ribblehead!

 

[Darren R]

I know! I tell you what we are damn lucky that no one removed the siding at Ribblehead!

No - they removed the platform to make way for the siding!

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think it's possible to run round even at Blea Moor, at least not without some unsignalled moves! Not sure, without checking, how far north it'd have to go, but I wouldn't rule out Carlisle - possibly to return south via Shap without running round?

In terms of timings, I'd guess something like an additional ten minutes would be needed to get inside and clear through a trailing connection - that's certainly something like the timings for the similar move at Ketton. I'm sure it would take quite a while to get the loaded train on the move on a rising gradient too!

 

[RichmondCommu]

No - they removed the platform to make way for the siding!

Another act of BR railway vandalism! Why they didn't choose to place the siding on the up line where the original sidings were located is beyond me!

 

[55018ballymoss]

I don't think it's possible to run round even at Blea Moor, at least not without some unsignalled moves! Not sure, without checking, how far north it'd have to go, but I wouldn't rule out Carlisle - possibly to return south via Shap without running round?

In terms of timings, I'd guess something like an additional ten minutes would be needed to get inside and clear through a trailing connection - that's certainly something like the timings for the similar move at Ketton. I'm sure it would take quite a while to get the loaded train on the move on a rising gradient too!

Oh Tom, you were doing so well...
Correctly you mentioned that it will be a siding from the Down Main, operated by ground frame, released by Settle Junction. Trailing connection, no other crossovers or other track work. Trains will be locked in to enable other trains to pass on the Down Main until the quarry train is ready to depart.
However, it is possible to run round at Blea Moor as demonstrated by the Colas log train from Ribblehead to Chirk (FO) last year

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't think it's possible to run round even at Blea Moor, at least not without some unsignalled moves! Not sure, without checking, how far north it'd have to go, but I wouldn't rule out Carlisle - possibly to return south via Shap without running round?

In recent years anything leaving the siding at Ribblehead (mostly the Colas log trains) have run around at Blea Moor with the train parked in the loop. One can only assume that the loop is bi-directional?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh Tom, you were doing so well...
Correctly you mentioned that it will be a siding from the Down Main, operated by ground frame, released by Settle Junction. Trailing connection, no other crossovers or other track work. Trains will be locked in to enable other trains to pass on the Down Main until the quarry train is ready to depart.
However, it is possible to run round at Blea Moor as demonstrated by the Colas log train from Ribblehead to Chirk (FO) last year

You beat me to it Mr 55018!

 

[CdBrux]

In all fairness the length of time that the rail head is expected to exist won't have any influence over the cost of the installation of a set of points and the siding itself.

One would hope that the siding will remain in place after all the aggregate has been extracted in case it is needed again in the future.

The cost was not my point, the fact that it will earn the same money per year and if it is only there for 6 years (vs 12 say) then to earn the same payback it would need to be roughly half the capital cost. So the less time it is there te less it must cost in order to be the right thing to do.

The planning permission documents (I am no expert in this) seem to suggest the approval is granted on the basis once both quarries are closed in 2021 it will be removed again. Why leave something there, and presumably spend money to maintain it, if there is no obvious future need for it?

 

[Darren R]

Pardon my dumb ignorance, but why can't freights be run top-and-tailed rather than having to run-round?

 

[RichmondCommu]

The cost was not my point, the fact that it will earn the same money per year and if it is only there for 6 years (vs 12 say) then to earn the same payback it would need to be roughly half the capital cost. So the less time it is there te less it must cost in order to be the right thing to do.

But how do you suggest that Network Rail save money with the installation of the points and associated track work? The capital cost will remain the same.

The planning permission documents (I am no expert in this) seem to suggest the approval is granted on the basis once both quarries are closed in 2021 it will be removed again. Why leave something there, and presumably spend money to maintain it, if there is no obvious future need for it?

Here in the UK we have a history of getting rid of rail assets that then need to be replaced years later. An obvious example is the MML north of Wellingborough where a freight line has had to be installed at great expense.

 

[Tomnick]

Oh Tom, you were doing so well...
Correctly you mentioned that it will be a siding from the Down Main, operated by ground frame, released by Settle Junction. Trailing connection, no other crossovers or other track work. Trains will be locked in to enable other trains to pass on the Down Main until the quarry train is ready to depart.
However, it is possible to run round at Blea Moor as demonstrated by the Colas log train from Ribblehead to Chirk (FO) last year

Thanks for the correction - I was hoping someone who knew the patch would come along to dig me out . Presumably they ran round in the loop on the Up side at Blea Moor then? Is any part of it unsignalled? It's been a while since I've travelled over there!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Pardon my dumb ignorance, but why can't freights be run top-and-tailed rather than having to run-round?

I don't work in the rail industry but I'm guessing the answer would be that the additional loco could be used elsewhere. Opportunity cost springs to mind here. I think top n tail is only used where there is no opportunity to run round. However I agree that it seems a shame to run all the way to Blea Moor but I don't think you could justify the cost of installing a cross over at Helwith Bridge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for the correction - I was hoping someone who knew the patch would come along to dig me out . Presumably they ran round in the loop on the Up side at Blea Moor then? Is any part of it unsignalled? It's been a while since I've travelled over there!

Yes they did. As for the signaling I'm not sure. I watched them do this last summer and got a toot on the horn as the train accelerated out of Blea Moor. Made my day!

 

[CdBrux]

But how do you suggest that Network Rail save money with the installation of the points and associated track work? The capital cost will remain the same.

I'm perhaps not explaining myself very clearly. I don't suggest the capex can be reduced, I'm suggesting it must be relatively low in the first place as it must pay back in less than just 6 years. Or else the benefits are very high in which case why wasn't it done several years ago?

Who is paying for the cpaex, Lafarge or Network Rail?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm perhaps not explaining myself very clearly. I don't suggest the capex can be reduced, I'm suggesting it must be relatively low in the first place as it must pay back in less than just 6 years. Or else the benefits are very high in which case why wasn't it done several years ago?

Who is paying for the cpaex, Lafarge or Network Rail?

The benefits are environmental rather than anything else and permission to quarry the aggregate was only given on the basis that rail transport is used. You need to remember that all of this is happening within the boundaries of the YDNP. I would imagine that Larfarge are paying for the railway related infrastructure.

Rail infrastructure in this country tends to appear to be expensive although others would need to explain why.

 

[Emyr]

Once they've extracted all the loose stone they could start filling their well-served-big-hole-in-the-ground with refuse...

 

[CdBrux]

The benefits are environmental rather than anything else and permission to quarry the aggregate was only given on the basis that rail transport is used. ..... I would imagine that Larfarge are paying for the railway related infrastructure.

Thanks. Then the financial benefits must also be high too, else Lafarge would have been better off closing the quarry down!