North Yorkshire Strategic Transport Prospectus

[MarkRedon]

North Yorkshire County Council has published its long-term strategic transport prospectus: see https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwi29LfIx-nIAhUKHxoKHUMNAb0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk%2FFunctionsPage.aspx%3Fdsid%3D75833%26action%3DGetFileFromDB&usg=AFQjCNG4b18JMdy5x28P5rWqwmgCiF7vAQ&sig2=W0k7FZRYTZEuJo_zcCGwSA&cad=rja. It is surprisingly aspirational, although it has to be seen very much as part of an effort to get some of the Northern Powerhouse funding spread beyond the Liverpool to Hull axis and into North Yorkshire.

Long-term campaigners (you know who you are…) for the reopening of a Leeds to Harrogate to Newcastle via Ripon railway will be pleased to see its inclusion as a sought-for long-term development as part of a number of proposed railway improvements.

Our Rail Plan

Much of the railway infrastructure in the North of England is largely untouched from the Victorian era and no longer meets the demands of a Northern Powerhouse. We support the aspirations for high speed connected cities set out in The Northern Powerhouse. In line with industry practice, we have set out a High Level Conditional Output Statement and this points to the following interventions to achieve those outputs

Improving east – west connectivity - Transformational change on York – Harrogate – Leeds Line.

There is a strong business case for electrification of the line....

Improving access to High Speed and conventional rail - Maintaining and improving access to HS2 Hubs and mainline stations...

Improving long distance connectivity to the north and south - Strategic North Leeds new railway infrastructure....

....A new railway from Leeds to Harrogate, Ripon and then joining the ECML north of Northallerton will bring much needed resilience to the ECML and enable the East coast ports to expand. In the longer term (post 2030) it could also potentially help with plans and aspirations for housing and business growth in the central A1(M) / ECML corridor and it will help to enable the North East, Tees Valley and Yorkshire & Humber economies to act as a single market. Additionally it will remove three level crossings on busy A roads in Northallerton removing a major source of congestion and a constraint on the growth of North Yorkshire’s County Town.

The £210m scheme will also provide for two new stations and better connect the Leeds City Region with the North East and Scotland. Whilst delivery of this proposal in the Leeds area could potentially start in the period to 2030 later phases in North Yorkshire are likely to be delivered after 2030.

Thanks to Yorkie for improving my original post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have now had time to summarise the findings of this document.

The report puts a surprisingly strong emphasis on rail. It also – I think for the first time – gives some costed estimates of the cost of two major interventions.

Firstly, the report recommends what it describes as transformational change on the York – Harrogate - Leeds line. It holds that there is a strong business case for electrification of the line, transformation and modernisation of Harrogate station, and double tracking all of the remaining single-track sections to improve performance and resilience. It provides an estimated cost for this intervention of £170 million, although it does not provide any justification for how this figure has been arrived at. It states that the first parts of these works, funded by the county council, should be completed by 2018. It is concerned about congestion at Leeds station. It makes mention of plans by the city of York to provide an alternative north of the city approach to a new platform 12 at York station, avoiding crossing the East Coast mainline and thus providing greater resilience, increasing capacity and further reducing journey times.

Secondly, in a surprising move, the report recommends investment in what it calls strategic North Leeds new railway infrastructure. It justifies this by mentioning the consequences of failure on the ECML and which, it thinks, will become more severe when HS2 trains are routed over that infrastructure towards Newcastle and Edinburgh. The resilience argument, together with investment in rail links to ports, is held to be significant in the context of encouraging inward investment into the region:

“A new railway from Leeds to Harrogate, Ripon and then joining the ECML north of Northallerton will bring much needed resilience to the ECML and enable the East coast ports to expand. In the longer term (post 2030) it could also potentially help with plans and aspirations for housing and business growth in the central A1(M) / ECML corridor and it will help to enable the North East, Tees Valley and Yorkshire & Humber economies to act as a single market. Additionally it will remove three level crossings on busy A roads in Northallerton removing a major source of congestion and a constraint on the growth of North Yorkshire’s County Town. The £210m scheme will also provide for two new stations and better connect the Leeds City Region with the North East and Scotland. Whilst delivery of this proposal in the Leeds area could potentially start in the period to 2030 later phases in North Yorkshire are likely to be delivered after 2030.” I would comment that it looks as though the North Yorkshire planners are thinking in terms of bypassing Northallerton station in some way, at least for the new line via Ripon. It is unclear where the two stations referred to would be built, although presumably one of them would serve Ripon.

The report is keen on Parkway stations and makes a slightly worrying allusion to “the potential for the rationalisation of stations to provide one good station rather than two or three poor ones”. It seeks improved East-West rail links to Whitby in the context of the rural economy and the York Potash development. It would also like to see improved “Cross Pennine links between Craven District and East Lancashire including the potential re-opening of the Skipton – Colne railway”.

This document can therefore be politely described as highly aspirational and less politely as very, some would say unduly, optimistic in its outlook.

 

[yorksrob]

Good that they're thinking about the railway. Definitely good that they're supporting the reopening of the Ripon and Skipton - Colne lines.

I hope they would back a better service to Whitby as well (even though the line does go outside of Yorkshire for a bit).

 

[TBY-Paul]

Good that they're thinking about the railway. Definitely good that they're supporting the reopening of the Ripon and Skipton - Colne lines.

I hope they would back a better service to Whitby as well (even though the line does go outside of Yorkshire for a bit).

Theoretical, North Yorkshire Council could look into re-opening Battersby to Picton, which would be solely in North Yorkshire.
It would need a southern chord, but could be doable.

 

[yorksrob]

Theoretical, North Yorkshire Council could look into re-opening Battersby to Picton, which would be solely in North Yorkshire.
It would need a southern chord, but could be doable.

I'm sure I've seen that proposed somewhere (although probably less of a priority). Would be strange not reversing at Battersby!

 

[MarkRedon]

There is a little more information in this newspaper story:

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13933304.__230m_plan_to_reinstate_key_North_railway_line_receives_major_boost/

"Additionally it will remove three level crossings on busy A roads in Northallerton removing a major source of congestion and a constraint on the growth of North Yorkshire’s county town."

"Whilst delivery of this proposal in the Leeds area could potentially start in the period to 2030 later phases in North Yorkshire are likely to be delivered after 2030."

The council's leader, Councillor Carl Les, said he would be happy to discuss contributing towards a feasibility study with the Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group, which has lined up other financial backers.

Dr Adrian Morgan, who has campaigned for decades to see the line reinstated, said the authority's backing signalled a major step forward for the scheme, which he believes would lead to two services an hour between Darlington and Leeds.

He said: "It is a big step forward, we can now go knocking on the door of Transport for the North."

I note that the plan indicates that the new route would not necessarily correspond exactly with the previous Harrogate to Ripon and Northallerton railway. The newspaper story may be rather optimistic in suggesting that the line would serve Northallerton's existing station.

 

[deltic08]

North Yorkshire County Councillors on the whole are either disinterested in rail or clueless and without foresight in rail matters.

For rail reinstatement to even be considered in their Strategic Transport prospectus is a huge achievement for Dr Adrian Morgan and his Group.

1. Northallerton Town Council wants to abolish all four level crossings in the town due to traffic congestion these cause.

2. Network rail wants more capacity between Northallerton and Doncaster and would like a diversion route for York-Northallerton via Ripon in the event of planned or emergency closure of this section of ECML.

3. TOCs, particularly TPEx, would like to stop more trains at Northallerton but there is insufficient slack in the timetable as calling trains have to stop on the only two tracks of the ECML where line speed at this point is 125mph.

4. Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group wants to reinstate the Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton route with a connecting junction at Northallerton.

With this aim and mindful of the wishes of the other parties above, LNRRG submitted a report to the Commons Transport Select Committee suggesting the following.

1. Build two additional platforms on the east side of the current two platforms reached by a grade separated junction to the south as the ECML is on a high embankment at this point. Stopping trains to/from Teesside, southbound stopping ECML trains including those travelling to Ripon and Harrogate would use these platforms including freight to/from Teesside. The up track of these two new lines would connect directly into the up slow

2 Northbound stopping trains from York and Ripon/Harrogate travelling to Darlington and beyond would use the currently disused west facing platform face on the down island platform partly used as a car park at the north end as a down relief.

3. Divert the Teesside line further north than its current position and junction with he ECML and carry this route over the main Northallerton-Darlington road on embankment and bridge to join the current route north east of the town. This will necessitate quad tracking for about half a mile north of Northallerton station before division of both routes.

4. Due to a new grade separated junction to the south of Northallerton and a connection from the down line from Ripon up to the new down relief platform, the flat junction to the north of Northallerton and the whole of the Longlands Loop dive-under can be abolished together with four level crossings.

The Commons Transport Select Committee approved of this proposal and NYCC adopted it also. This is the new route to the north of Northallerton mentioned in the Strategic plan. Northallerton station will remain in its current position but the Teesside line will divert northwards.

 

[MarkRedon]

For rail reinstatement to even be considered in their Strategic Transport prospectus is a huge achievement for Dr Adrian Morgan and his Group.

I heartily agree.

3. TOCs, particularly TPEx, would like to stop more trains at Northallerton but there is insufficient slack in the timetable as calling trains have to stop on the only two tracks of the ECML where line speed at this point is 125mph.

4. Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group wants to reinstate the Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton route with a connecting junction at Northallerton.

With this aim and mindful of the wishes of the other parties above, LNRRG submitted a report to the Commons Transport Select Committee suggesting the following.

1. Build two additional platforms on the east side of the current two platforms reached by a grade separated junction to the south as the ECML is on a high embankment at this point. Stopping trains to/from Teesside, southbound stopping ECML trains including those travelling to Ripon and Harrogate would use these platforms including freight to/from Teesside. The up track of these two new lines would connect directly into the up slow

2 Northbound stopping trains from York and Ripon/Harrogate travelling to Darlington and beyond would use the currently disused west facing platform face on the down island platform partly used as a car park at the north end as a down relief.

3. Divert the Teesside line further north than its current position and junction with he ECML and carry this route over the main Northallerton-Darlington road on embankment and bridge to join the current route north east of the town. This will necessitate quad tracking for about half a mile north of Northallerton station before division of both routes.

I am not quite clear here in my geography. Does this not risk rendering impossible the reinstatement of Castle Hills south junction, and therefore the meaningful reconnection of the Wensleydale railway to Northallerton mainline station?

The brave construction by the Wensleydale Railway of Northallerton West station, as discussed earlier in this forum at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83025, was I think intended only as an interim solution in the hope that the means might be found at some later date to restore a connection directly from the Wensleydale line to a Northallerton mainline station platform. Northallerton West station is a useful compromise, but it is a messy walk away from Northallerton mainline station, has no parking and no real opportunity for bus access.

The current priority of the Wednesday railway is, I think, to reach Aysgarth station and thereby to provide access to Aysgarth Falls, which is one of the most significant tourist attractions in North Yorkshire. Thereafter they have to choose between pressing westwards towards Hawes or trying to find some way deeper into Northallerton and closer to the mainline station. The very exciting vision which is described earlier in this current post would make Northallerton mainline station even more well-used than it already is - annual footfall in 2013/4 about 650000, most of them travelling significant distances.

4. Due to a new grade separated junction to the south of Northallerton and a connection from the down line from Ripon up to the new down relief platform, the flat junction to the north of Northallerton and the whole of the Longlands Loop dive-under can be abolished together with four level crossings.

The Commons Transport Select Committee approved of this proposal and NYCC adopted it also. This is the new route to the north of Northallerton mentioned in the Strategic plan. Northallerton station will remain in its current position but the Teesside line will divert northwards.

How much of this significant development can squeeze into the initial industry plan for 2016, and how much must wait until CP7?

 

[deltic08]

I heartily agree.



I am not quite clear here in my geography. Does this not risk rendering impossible the reinstatement of Castle Hills south junction, and therefore the meaningful reconnection of the Wensleydale railway to Northallerton mainline station?

Perhaps a double edged sword. It would complete a link between Castle Hills South Junction and Northallerton station west side but would require running on NR metals and under the wires a short distance to a reinstated north end bay platform. Wensleydale railway would have to come to the same arrangement with NR for a couple of hundred yards as NYMR between Grosmont and Whitby.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How much of this significant development can squeeze into the initial industry plan for 2016, and how much must wait until CP7?

This end of the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement will have to wait until at least the end of CP7 due to cost of installation of grade separation unless NYCC part fund for elimination of level crossings or becomes a priority for NR.

 

[MarkRedon]

Perhaps a double edged sword. It would complete a link between Castle Hills South Junction and Northallerton station west side but would require running on NR metals and under the wires a short distance to a reinstated north end bay platform. Wensleydale railway would have to come to the same arrangement with NR for a couple of hundred yards as NYMR between Grosmont and Whitby.

This is only in part reassuring, since the fixed and ongoing costs incurring to the Wensleydale Railway of a Northallerton mainline connection would be significantly increased. The original aims of the Wensleydale Railway were very much to provide a "community service" in Wensleydale. More recently, they have concentrated on heritage operations. Reopening their Bedale to Northallerton route to passenger service has just been achieved in the cheapest way possible, by constructing Northallerton West station about a mile's rather tortuous walk to the west of the mainline station. This is a highly laudable interim solution. However, any kind of community service could only make sense if it ran to and from Northallerton mainline station with its onward connections and its more central location.

By community service I imply a real public transport service and its associated advantages such as catering for daily or weekly commuters. I am opposing the phrase "community service" to purely touristic/enthusiast – please forgive me, "playing at railways" – heritage operations. In the terms of that definition, very few British heritage railway operations provide community service. Community service should ideally provide morning, evening and Friday night/Sunday night trains. It implies a contribution from the public purse, especially if there are any significant fixed costs.

The 2016 and 2017 Project Wareham experiment by the Swanage Railway http://swanagerailway.co.uk/project-wareham is one for which I have high hopes, connecting as it does a significant seaside town (Swanage) to another market town with a mainline connection to London (Wareham).

An experiment by the Weardale Railway in operating a service into Bishop Auckland was not successful. The settlements in Weardale are small and somewhat scattered. Wensleydale could be different because there are a number of towns and tourist attractions on the route of the existing and planned railway and a very significant level of staying and day-only tourists – the latter coming from the West Yorkshire conurbation, York and to a lesser extent the Newcastle area. Particularly if and when the Wharfedale railway reaches as far west as Hawes and Garsdale, the combined potential of commuter (Northallerton and York), tourist and other passenger traffic might justify such community service. But with the best will in the world and the lowest-cost operation, the service would still not be cost-neutral and would require subsidy. That would be unremarkable in the wider scheme of things if the Wensleydale branch was a part of the national rail network. Surely there must be some way of knitting heritage railways into that network without the full costs of franchising, complex access arrangements and ORR oversight having to be borne by the heritage railway alone? Again, the Swanage Railway / Purbeck Community Rail Partnership arrangement may form some kind of a model.

This end of the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement will have to wait until at least the end of CP7 due to cost of installation of grade separation unless NYCC part fund for elimination of level crossings or becomes a priority for NR.

The initial cost of grade separation will be very significant. Some idea of the magnitude would be provided by the Stafford area improvements project, with a headline cost of the order of £250 million. Such a figure is probably in excess of the total costs of a Harrogate through Ripon to Northallerton (outskirts) railway – in other words, the total cost of Ripon reinstatement and full integration at Northallerton feel like they might easily attain half a billion pounds. The Leeds Northern Railway reinstatement group https://riponrail.wordpress.com/ is arguing both for Harrogate to Ripon and a new line through Wetherby to Ripon. If the line through Wetherby could serve Leeds, it would have very considerable commuting value.

Thinking more grandiosely – and therefore, more in line with the thinking of the likes of George Osborne and Andrew Adonis – all of this begins to make more sense if viewed as a northward and eastern extension of the Northern Powerhouse / HS3 route towards Teeside and Tyneside (and also towards Humberside, although that is the concern of East rather than North Yorkshire). Railways engineered for 160 / 200 / 225 kilometres per hour rather than 400 come much cheaper and can more readily be routed through rather than round intermediate centres of population. Cue Ripon, nicely positioned on a Leeds (for HS2) to ECML railway?

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps a double edged sword. It would complete a link between Castle Hills South Junction and Northallerton station west side but would require running on NR metals and under the wires a short distance to a reinstated north end bay platform. Wensleydale railway would have to come to the same arrangement with NR for a couple of hundred yards as NYMR between Grosmont and Whitby.

In principle, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly I guess an extra track could be laid on this link to give Wensleydale access to an extra platform at or near the west side of the NR station. This would require some extra safety management to run in proximity to the main line, but far less than would be needed to share tracks with it. It would of course also need co-operation and all sources of funding to be available at the same time to get it built!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1. Build two additional platforms on the east side of the current two platforms reached by a grade separated junction to the south as the ECML is on a high embankment at this point. Stopping trains to/from Teesside, southbound stopping ECML trains including those travelling to Ripon and Harrogate would use these platforms including freight to/from Teesside. The up track of these two new lines would connect directly into the up slow

2 Northbound stopping trains from York and Ripon/Harrogate travelling to Darlington and beyond would use the currently disused west facing platform face on the down island platform partly used as a car park at the north end as a down relief.

3. Divert the Teesside line further north than its current position and junction with he ECML and carry this route over the main Northallerton-Darlington road on embankment and bridge to join the current route north east of the town. This will necessitate quad tracking for about half a mile north of Northallerton station before division of both routes.

4. Due to a new grade separated junction to the south of Northallerton and a connection from the down line from Ripon up to the new down relief platform, the flat junction to the north of Northallerton and the whole of the Longlands Loop dive-under can be abolished together with four level crossings.

The Commons Transport Select Committee approved of this proposal and NYCC adopted it also. This is the new route to the north of Northallerton mentioned in the Strategic plan. Northallerton station will remain in its current position but the Teesside line will divert northwards.

I wonder if it would be better to extend the existing four-tracking through Northallerton and construct a flat junction to the north where the two outer tracks would diverge towards Teeside? This would give a down-down-up-up arrangement through the station, so only the outer tracks would need platforms and the inner ones could be increased above 125mph in the future.

From looking at Rail Map Online I don't think trains from Darlington to Ripon could ever have avoided crossing the Down ECML main/fast on the flat, despite the extensive flying junctions provided elsewhere. Depending on likely train frequency on the Ripon line, my suggestion could avoid the southern flying junction by making the westernmost track (excluding any Wensleydale track) bi-directional and adding a curve from Darlington to access this track via the new flyover to the north.

Would you propose having the Teesside line diverge north of the industrial estate? This would be rather more than half a mile of four-tracking.

 

[martinsh]

An experiment by the Weardale Railway in operating a service into Bishop Auckland was not successful. The settlements in Weardale are small and somewhat scattered. Wharfedale could be different because there are a number of towns and tourist attractions on the route of the existing and planned railway and a very significant level of staying and day-only tourists – the latter coming from the West Yorkshire conurbation, York and to a lesser extent the Newcastle area. Particularly if and when the Wharfedale railway reaches as far west as Hawes and Garsdale, the combined potential of commuter (Northallerton and York

The Wharfedale railway ran from Otley to ilkley !

 

[alexl92]

Can someone explain where this new railway through North Leeds would run? North Leeds is a large area with not a great deal of room...

 

[MarkRedon]

Can someone explain where this new railway through North Leeds would run? North Leeds is a large area with not a great deal of room...

There are a number of complementary, non-exclusive possibilities, many of which have been put forward by the Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement group.

1. Reopen Harrogate to Northallerton via Ripon, as already discussed in this thread. The line would exit Harrogate via the former triangular junction at Starbeck. Since part of the strategic justification of the Ripon reopening would be ECML diversions, a north to East curve would provide direct access to the Knaresborough and York line. This is the crucial starting point.
2. Reopen a railway from near Church Fenton through Wetherby to Harrogate. The exact arrangements in the Church Fenton area would need to take into account the HS2 connection to the ECML. A diversionary route would also be possible from Doncaster via Pontefract and the new line through Wetherby and Ripon back to the ECML at Northallerton.
3. Reopening the Crossgates to Wetherby railway has long been recognised as desirable from the point of view of providing a robust public transport alternative to the good road network that serves the town. It is acknowledged that this reopening would be difficult to achieve because houses have been built on the former alignment at both Bardsey and Collingham.
4. Consideration should also be given to reopening the railway between March and Spalding. Again, this would not be straightforward, as has already been highlighted elsewhere on this forum. The significance of such a reopening would be the possibility of providing a more straightforward strategic freight route from Felixstowe through Lincoln and the restored North Leeds network, completely avoiding the ECML.
5. From Northallerton, there are existing diversionary possibilities via Stockton and good onward connections to Teesport. The electric spine proposed route could be accessed via the existing railway through Moorethorpe and Sheffield. A strategic freight network giving access to all the significant east coast ports, including Tyneside, Teeside, Hull, Immingham, Felixstowe, Harwich and Thameshaven, would then be possible. It is desirable given that the biggest future strategic contribution of rail freight appears to lie in intermodal traffic as traditional bulk freight is rapidly disappearing.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Wharfedale railway ran from Otley to ilkley !

Thanks - I meant Wensleydale and typed Wharfedale, a confusion of Yorkshire rivers in my muddled brain. I have corrected it in the original post. The railway now referred to as Wharfedale is that between Ilkley and Bradford and Ilkley and Leeds.

 

[billio]

[*]Reopen a railway from near Church Fenton through Wetherby to Harrogate.

That would require quite a bit of demolition in Tadcaster. We would also enjoy the low bridge preventing large lorries and buses passing through in the Leeds direction. Although, as an alternative they can wonder around the tight corners of the town centre and go over the former level crossing.

And if you are thinking of a new route it might be wise to plan for interminable proceedings and expense in the courts.

 

[snowball]

The route through Wetherby is also a problem.

 

[DarloRich]

The report writers have done well to get NYCC to even acknowledge railways exist! However, many of the schemes suggested in this thread are ultra crayonista pie in the sky wibble fests. They simply wont happen. There is a case, of sorts for a line to Ripon. That said I personally don’t feel it stacks up at present. There is no case for a link to Northallerton. None. It would serve about 4 people, be unattractive to the TOC’s as it avoids York and unlikely to “wash its face” as a diversion or freight route and shows little or no understand of both the funding mechanism for railway projects or the financial environment within which the railways must currently operate.

North Yorkshire County Councillors on the whole are either disinterested in rail or clueless and without foresight in rail matters.

For rail reinstatement to even be considered in their Strategic Transport prospectus is a huge achievement for Dr Adrian Morgan and his Group.

Agreed!

1. Northallerton Town Council wants to abolish all four level crossings in the town due to traffic congestion these cause.

Very sensible. Northallerton is chaos if all four sets of crossings close at the same time, which they can when a freight train comes from Teesside. However I doubt they have the will or ability to fund such works. The works themselves will be complicated due to the locations and layout of the approaches to the crossings.

2. Network rail wants more capacity between Northallerton and Doncaster and would like a diversion route for York-Northallerton via Ripon in the event of planned or emergency closure of this section of ECML.

3. TOCs, particularly TPEx, would like to stop more trains at Northallerton but there is insufficient slack in the timetable as calling trains have to stop on the only two tracks of the ECML where line speed at this point is 125mph.

Please point to a document setting out the desire for NR to create a diversion route for York-Northallerton via Ripon. The Hendy report made reference to “New tracks to provide overtaking opportunities between Northallerton and Newcastle.”

4. Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group wants to reinstate the Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton route with a connecting junction at Northallerton.

I know you do. It just won’t happen. Ripon PERHAPS has the best, if slimmest case.

With this aim and mindful of the wishes of the other parties above, LNRRG submitted a report to the Commons Transport Select Committee suggesting the following.

1. Build two additional platforms on the east side of the current two platforms reached by a grade separated junction to the south as the ECML is on a high embankment at this point. Stopping trains to/from Teesside, southbound stopping ECML trains including those travelling to Ripon and Harrogate would use these platforms including freight to/from Teesside. The up track of these two new lines would connect directly into the up slow

2 Northbound stopping trains from York and Ripon/Harrogate travelling to Darlington and beyond would use the currently disused west facing platform face on the down island platform partly used as a car park at the north end as a down relief.

3. Divert the Teesside line further north than its current position and junction with he ECML and carry this route over the main Northallerton-Darlington road on embankment and bridge to join the current route north east of the town. This will necessitate quad tracking for about half a mile north of Northallerton station before division of both routes.

4. Due to a new grade separated junction to the south of Northallerton and a connection from the down line from Ripon up to the new down relief platform, the flat junction to the north of Northallerton and the whole of the Longlands Loop dive-under can be abolished together with four level crossings.

The Commons Transport Select Committee approved of this proposal and NYCC adopted it also. This is the new route to the north of Northallerton mentioned in the Strategic plan. Northallerton station will remain in its current position but the Teesside line will divert northwards.

Madness. Utter madness with no connection to the real world. How, for instance, is all of this to be paid for and by whom?

Perhaps a double edged sword. It would complete a link between Castle Hills South Junction and Northallerton station west side but would require running on NR metals and under the wires a short distance to a reinstated north end bay platform. Wensleydale railway would have to come to the same arrangement with NR for a couple of hundred yards as NYMR between Grosmont and Whitby.

Again this shows no connection with the real world of railway operations. You must see the world of difference between the Esk Valley line and the ECML

This end of the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement will have to wait until at least the end of CP7 due to cost of installation of grade separation unless NYCC part fund for elimination of level crossings or becomes a priority for NR.

The elimination of some of the level crossings ( Low Gates/ Boroughbridge Road is about all that can be delivered, and only then if NYCC pay. Romanby Road, Springwell Lane and Station road in Brompton won’t get done.

I don’t wish to be rude but a more realistic set of proposals will have more chance of coming to fruition. The costs of the options proposed are fantastic and not of this world.

BTW before anyone starts I lived in Northallerton for several years. I know the area very well.

 

[snowball]

The elimination of some of the level crossings ( Low Gates/ Boroughbridge Road is about all that can be delivered, and only then if NYCC pay. Romanby Road, Springwell Lane and Station road in Brompton won’t get done

It looks as though replacement of Boroughbridge Road LC by a road bridge would require demoltion of a number of houses. Some of the others look more practicable from that point of view.

 

[DarloRich]

It looks as though replacement of Boroughbridge Road LC by a road bridge would require demoltion of a number of houses. Some of the others look more practicable from that point of view.

The two main ones would require demolitions.

I am not sure you could get a road bridge up, over and down in the space between the Boroughbridge Road crossing and the existing mainline bridge

 

[deltic08]

The report writers have done well to get NYCC to even acknowledge railways exist! However, many of the schemes suggested in this thread are ultra crayonista pie in the sky wibble fests. They simply wont happen. There is a case, of sorts for a line to Ripon. That said I personally don’t feel it stacks up at present. There is no case for a link to Northallerton. None. It would serve about 4 people, be unattractive to the TOC’s as it avoids York and unlikely to “wash its face” as a diversion or freight route and shows little or no understand of both the funding mechanism for railway projects or the financial environment within which the railways must currently operate.

1.Avoiding York is the whole reason for reinstating through Ripon. That is why ATOC has done a feasibility/benefit cost analysis of the Ripon line as a through route.
According to the trans Pennine post electrification timetable there are to be two trains an hour from Liverpool to Newcastle. Evidently there is no capacity left between Leeds and Micklefield once East Leeds Parkway station is opened and shuttle service introduced for additional TPEx to York or East Coast services to York or Hambleton Junction. Network Rail has publicly stated this fact in the Yorkshire Post newspaper.

Very sensible. Northallerton is chaos if all four sets of crossings close at the same time, which they can when a freight train comes from Teesside. However I doubt they have the will or ability to fund such works. The works themselves will be complicated due to the locations and layout of the approaches to the crossings.

2.Nevertheless this is the plan of NYCC

Please point to a document setting out the desire for NR to create a diversion route for York-Northallerton via Ripon. The Hendy report made reference to “New tracks to provide overtaking opportunities between Northallerton and Newcastle.”

3.Network Rails 2010 Report East Coast Capacity Review and ATOCs 2009 Report Connecting Communities. Expecting 120 additional services on the York-Northallerton section every day post 2016.
Flat junctions at Northallerton and Skelton and Skelton Bridge flat junctions at York will become bottlenecks. To accommodate additional high speed passenger trains (IEP), one freight train diverted will allow two additional passenger train paths through York station. Network Rail are looking at diverting 25 freight trains daily to make room for a new East Coast timetable post 2016. Ripon is their only solution.
Track access charges for 25 freight trains daily would pay for reinstatement within 30 years, well ahead of Governments yardstick of 60 years for infrastructure projects payback.
Biomass trains from Port of Tyne and Teesport to Drax and Ferrybridge power stations deliver by the "Just in time" method as biomass cannot be stockpiled in the open. If for any reason York-Northallerton is closed, the other ports of Immingham and Liverpool could not supply additionally and the furnaces would go out. Again diverting via Ripon would be a safety net. I know Port of Tyne are concerned about this potential problem.
New tracks in the Hendy Report could mean reinstating the Leamside line for biomass trains from Port of Tyne.

Madness. Utter madness with no connection to the real world. How, for instance, is all of this to be paid for and by whom?

4. You could say the same for HS2 where the benefit/cost ratio is now 0.4 as cost has risen to £60billion. At least Ripon has an estimated BCR of 4.6 according to the ATOC study. As mentioned above, track access charges and additional passenger revenue on the ECML otherwise no expansion to meet demand in 20 years time.

Again this shows no connection with the real world of railway operations. You must see the world of difference between the Esk Valley line and the ECML

5.No difference. It will be signalled and drivers will have to obey as normal. "Private" trains are running on NR metals all over the country so why not for 200 yards here. It wouldn't be on the two East Coast lines but a new connection on the down side to a separate platform.

I don’t wish to be rude but a more realistic set of proposals will have more chance of coming to fruition. The costs of the options proposed are fantastic and not of this world.

6.You have used real world three times and yes you are being rude. Now just get over your little tantrum.

BTW before anyone starts I lived in Northallerton for several years. I know the area very well.

7.So do I

Sorry, this has come out as all highlighted so please read through for my numbered responses until I have time to sort it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It looks as though replacement of Boroughbridge Road LC by a road bridge would require demoltion of a number of houses. Some of the others look more practicable from that point of view.

With a grade separated junction to the south of Northallerton and additional lines and platforms to the immediate east of the current station, the whole of the Longlands Loop can be closed so no demolition required apart from perhaps the current booking office.

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry, this has come out as all highlighted so please read through for my numbered responses until I have time to sort it

Using your numbering:

1.Avoiding York is the whole reason for reinstating through Ripon. That is why ATOC has done a feasibility/benefit cost analysis of the Ripon line as a through route.
According to the trans Pennine post electrification timetable there are to be two trains an hour from Liverpool to Newcastle. Evidently there is no capacity left between Leeds and Micklefield once East Leeds Parkway station is opened and shuttle service introduced for additional TPEx to York or East Coast services to York or Hambleton Junction. Network Rail has publicly stated this fact in the Yorkshire Post newspaper.

Please show me some links to these studies ( source documents not media reports) setting out the case as bluntly as you do. I cant, for one moment, think that the TOC's would want to miss out York. They want extra trains THROUGH York not around it.

Someone ought to tell the Chancellor that he cant run his extra trains! I haven't seen anything from Network Rail suggesting such a timetabling issue

2. Nevertheless this is the plan of NYCC

It is part of their plan. And sensible that plan is. However it is silent as to timescales and funding. A big gap as i am sure you would agree.

3.Network Rails 2010 Report East Coast Capacity Review and ATOCs 2009 Report Connecting Communities. Expecting 120 additional services on the York-Northallerton section every day post 2016.
Flat junctions at Northallerton and Skelton and Skelton Bridge flat junctions at York will become bottlenecks. To accommodate additional high speed passenger trains (IEP), one freight train diverted will allow two additional passenger train paths through York station. Network Rail are looking at diverting 25 freight trains daily to make room for a new East Coast timetable post 2016. Ripon is their only solution.
Track access charges for 25 freight trains daily would pay for reinstatement within 30 years, well ahead of Governments yardstick of 60 years for infrastructure projects payback.
Biomass trains from Port of Tyne and Teesport to Drax and Ferrybridge power stations deliver by the "Just in time" method as biomass cannot be stockpiled in the open. If for any reason York-Northallerton is closed, the other ports of Immingham and Liverpool could not supply additionally and the furnaces would go out. Again diverting via Ripon would be a safety net. I know Port of Tyne are concerned about this potential problem.
New tracks in the Hendy Report could mean reinstating the Leamside line for biomass trains from Port of Tyne.

You cant seriously suggest that the wording of a 5 or 6 year old document, written in very different financial circumstances is the basis of your argument. I am sorry but you are very silly if you think that supports your case. What of all the recent challenges on NR funding. Have they passed you by?

The Hendy report wont mean the reopening of the Leamside line! Why would it when the freight from Tyne goes via the Cost and Yarm onto the 4 track ECML. Very little runs on the section between Newcastle and Northallerton. Your statement also shows no consideration of the vast decline in freight flows, especially coal, form the north east ports and industry.Taking Thirsk as a location after the routes (ECML and Yarm) converge there were 19 freight trains yesterday, most overnight

4.You could say the same for HS2 where the benefit/cost ratio is now 0.4 as cost has risen to £60billion. At least Ripon has an estimated BCR of 4.6 according to the ATOC study. As mentioned above, track access charges and additional passenger revenue on the ECML otherwise no expansion to meet demand in 20 years time.

You could very well say that - but this is a thread about rail strategy in North Yorkshire. A thread upon which you offer no funding solutions or verifiable reports to support your ideas.

HOW will this idea be funded?

5.No difference. It will be signalled and drivers will have to obey as normal. "Private" trains are running on NR metals all over the country so why not for 200 yards here. It wouldn't be on the two East Coast lines but a new connection on the down side to a separate platform.

You are showing you don't know what you are talking about. Go away and do some research on the topic.

6.You have used real world three times and yes you are being rude. Now just get over your little tantrum.

This is me being polite. You have never seen me be rude to people. I maintain that your connection with the real world of railway finances and construction is limited at best.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Theoretical, North Yorkshire Council could look into re-opening Battersby to Picton, which would be solely in North Yorkshire.
It would need a southern chord, but could be doable.

Wouldn't be too difficult to rebuild the line as single track to the line between Northallerton and Yarm, with a handful of stations at Stokesley, Great Broughton and at Ingleby Greenhow (the latter whose platform is in good condition, as in its still there, even though its now someones garden).

As for Ripon, the original station site now has the A61 running through it so its a case of looking for a suitable site to built a new railway station.

 

[Grumpy]

many of the schemes suggested in this thread are ultra crayonista pie in the sky wibble fests. .

How can you possibly say this. Don’t you realise that there is nearly a “full house” in the railway version of the Bullsh** Bingo game. Thus use has been made of “transformational”, “Northern Powerhouse”, ”Aspirations”, “Strategic”, “Electric spine” and “Northern hub”. All meaningless wibble.
I thought the most bizarre claim was that reopening Harrogate-Northallerton would allow the east coast ports to expand

 

[MarkRedon]

There is a case, of sorts for a line to Ripon. That said I personally don’t feel it stacks up at present. There is no case for a link to Northallerton. None.

All meaningless wibble. I thought the most bizarre claim was that reopening Harrogate-Northallerton would allow the east coast ports to expand

Dear friends. You are being rude and inconsiderate to somebody who I think has done more to actually get things done in terms of reopening railways in Britain than perhaps you have. While you tell others to do some research, you might like to do some yourselves into what is called the network effect. There is not some fixed size cake, akin to Margaret Thatcher's famously ill informed household budget analogy for national gross domestic product. Instead, there is a need to promote safer, more environmentally-friendly alternatives to road transport. Deltic08 is arguing that for a relatively small investment – certainly less than one stretch of new motorway in south Wales – the entire East Coast mainline could have a strategic freight bypass, diversionary possibilities, and crucially a resilience that you appear not to take into account. All the east coast ports could be connected to a resilient railway system without interfering with the heavy additional traffic, particularly between York, Northallerton and Newcastle, that will be in place post HS2 and NPR and before any extension toward Scotland.

I am sure that you love railways. You should perhaps argue for a relatively low-cost, rather high benefit-to-cost ratio reopening between Harrogate and Ripon and then – to achieve the network effect of which I speak – to find some way of making an operationally sensible connection to the ECML in the Northallerton area. This may well be "crayonista wibble". Since I clearly don't speak your language, I have no idea what you're talking about . I do know that you are both well informed contributors. But I also know that we should not be arguing between ourselves, we should be looking for sensible routes (literally) forward by means of informed debate rather than invective.

 

[DarloRich]

Dear friends. You are being rude and inconsiderate to somebody who I think has done more to actually get things done in terms of reopening railways in Britain than perhaps you have. While you tell others to do some research, you might like to do some yourselves into what is called the network effect. There is not some fixed size cake, akin to Margaret Thatcher's famously ill informed household budget analogy for national gross domestic product. Instead, there is a need to promote safer, more environmentally-friendly alternatives to road transport. Deltic08 is arguing that for a relatively small investment – certainly less than one stretch of new motorway in south Wales – the entire East Coast mainline could have a strategic freight bypass, diversionary possibilities, and crucially a resilience that you appear not to take into account. All the east coast ports could be connected to a resilient railway system without interfering with the heavy additional traffic, particularly between York, Northallerton and Newcastle, that will be in place post HS2 and NPR and before any extension toward Scotland.

I am sure that you love railways. You should perhaps argue for a relatively low-cost, rather high benefit-to-cost ratio reopening between Harrogate and Ripon and then – to achieve the network effect of which I speak – to find some way of making an operationally sensible connection to the ECML in the Northallerton area. This may well be "crayonista wibble". Since I clearly don't speak your language, I have no idea what you're talking about . I do know that you are both well informed contributors. But I also know that we should not be arguing between ourselves, we should be looking for sensible routes (literally) forward by means of informed debate rather than invective.

You are both arguing for a vast investment of money on a scheme that will serve few and generate little return with unclear financial benefits. The basis outlined above for a "business case" is nebulous, based on outdated information and a view of services that seems vague at best. Neither of you seem to realise the constrained financial environment the railways are currently operating in. The reclassification of NR has led to the available funding for railway infrastructure projects being limited as NR cant simply borrow more to fund interesting projects. That is only going to get worse. Have the recent reviews into NR passed you by?

Once again: Where is the money money coming from?

If my tone seems curt it is because I spend my days trying to find much smaller sums of money to deliver projects that will have a tangible benefit, today, on the current railway network and make things better for passengers (however indirectly.) It becomes somewhat frustrating to read, time and again, posts by people with no connection to that reality suggesting spending millions or billions on fluff. Perhaps i am too much in the detail - but that is my job. Perhaps yours is more "blue sky"; perhaps that is the crux of the argument?

I would love to say we should build this and other lines but I cant. I live and work in a world of pragmatism and value for money ( tax payers money don't forget. Your money and my money and his money) not evangelical fervor for pet projects. I live in a world where funding of a much smaller magnitude is turned down for projects that could make a difference today.

Until someone can show me a professional, independent business case showing tangible benefits, costs and funding streams for this idea l simply cant support it.

 

[MarkRedon]

Until someone can show me a professional, independent business case showing tangible benefits, costs and funding streams for this idea l simply cant support it.

Thank you for your considered reply. I can guess (no doubt wrongly!) from your current location and your well informed contributions who your current employer is... I wish you well in your day job and I respect the contribution that I have no doubt that you make.

I shall go off and do my homework, which I shall not complete tonight !

 

[Dr Hoo]

Back in post #19 (I think) there was reference to freight track access charges enabling payback of certain enhancements within 30 years.
I thought that freight charges basically only covered marginal wear and tear, thus making no contribution to payback whatsoever.
(I know that there is a degree of mark-up for coal but that is clearly irrelevant in terms of future traffic growth. There are also mark-ups for the one national iron ore flow, which is not on this line, and nuclear, which is a tiny proportion of overall freight traffic.)

 

[DarloRich]

Thank you for your considered reply. I can guess (no doubt wrongly!) from your current location and your well informed contributions who your current employer is... I wish you well in your day job and I respect the contribution that I have no doubt that you make.

I shall go off and do my homework, which I shall not complete tonight !

it is ok as long as the dog doesn't eat it and you conjugate the verb correctly .

It isn't that i think that there is no merit in the proposals just that with a sensible initial scope progress can be made. Getting a reopening to Ripon should be a first stage. Even that wont be within 10 years due to the financial issues faced by NR.

To do that there needs to be wide support across the whole spectrum of local/national bodies including NR and their regional directors.

 

[Grumpy]

Dear friends. You are being rude and inconsiderate to somebody who I think has done more to actually get things done in terms of reopening railways in Britain than perhaps you have. .

Mark
There are approx. 7 trains/hour in each direction between York and Northallerton. That's not a lot for a four track railway. Plenty of 2 track routes handle more. If some paid official in Local Government is suggesting a lack of capacity that needs relieving by spending hundreds of millions on building a route from Harrogate to Northallerton, then they are fair game for criticism. No matter what fancy words they dress it up in.

 

[MarkRedon]

There are approx. 7 trains/hour in each direction between York and Northallerton. That's not a lot for a four track railway.

It is generous provision and no doubt was and is intended to permit fast trains to do their greyhound racetrack best along a stretch on which there were few intermediate stations. We should be glad it has not been rationalised back to two track at some point in the lean years. A question to which I do not have a ready answer, but others probably do: approximately how many more trains might be added by classic compatible HS2 and NPR trains headed for Newcastle and Edinburgh (and maybe even Glasgow?)? Against which should be offset any possible reduction in the current ECML passenger timetable, and I fear also a diminution in freight workings.

 

[MarkRedon]

A small development: see http://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.u...-ripon-rail-link-back-on-the-agenda-1-7716211

Thus the executive of North Yorkshire County Council has approved the strategic plan which, inter alia, envisages building a railway from Harrogate through Ripon to Northallerton.

However, it is not likely to happen until after 2030.

Coun Don Mackenzie, executive member for Highways, said: “Certainly as far as the county council is concerned, any increase in the railway network in the county will be welcomed. But we have to be realistic, the line has been closed and the rails taken up for almost 50 years now.

“However, we are aware Network Rail could be interested in reopening a line that would come down through Ripon and Harrogate and also serve an additional purpose of being a diversionary route.

“I’m aware of many people in Ripon that would like to see the railway line reopened and it’s an ambition we totally support, but it would cost tens of millions of pounds to create that new line.”