When will something be done about the Whitby branch ?

[Ploughman]

Just as a bit of a flashback, this film clip appeared today.

Showing 6 car or 2 x 3car DMU's in use with mention of up to 8 car full and standing back in the 60's

 

[yorksrob]

Glaisdale to Whitby would be at capacity on that basis, and you would have challenging timetabling:
1. give each operator roughly an hour turnround in Whitby, which works for Glaisdale but then needs the journey to Middlesborough to be cut to under an hour (or you cross at Nunthorpe but add 15 minutes to the journey which is slow enough already); meanwhile the NYMR has to sit at Grosmont for 15 minutes as well to fit with their loops at Goathland and Levisham.
Of course is the Battersby Bypass line existed....
2. you give each operator 30 minutes at Whitby, which is ideal for the NYMR passengers but not for the Esk Valley. Now if the loop at Commondale was still there it would almost be doable...

I agree with you in principle, and don't like being defeatist, but can't see where the funding is coming from for the engineering work to make it possible.

Would it matter that much if the Esk valley service had a thirty minute turnaround at Whitby ? Very few passengers will stay on the train and go back.

With regard to the NYMR services waiting at Grosmont, I don't see why this would be a problem, given that it's passengers are on the train for the ride anyway.

 

[ainsworth74]

All of the loops require all trains to come to a stand too, don't they?

They do. Good old fashioned token machines controlling each block so you have to put one back in before anyone else can take a token out for that block (i.e. a Northern service from Whitby has to stop and return the token at Glaisdale before anyone else can take a token out to access the Glaisdale - Whitby block).

I don't know what track access arrangement NYMR have with Network Rail, but extending their journey times to Whitby might place their operation at a commercial disadvantage. Extending the Middlesbrough - Whitby journey time would make the service even more unattractive than it is currently.

Conventional open access so I'd assume they have all the same rights and privileges that Hull Trains or Grand Central have when it comes to changes to their access agreement.

I trust Network Rail track access charges fully cover the cost of NYMR trains using its metals between Grosmont and Whitby?

They'll pay whatever the going rate is for open access operators utilising Network Rail metals to run services (in the same way that Grand Central or Hull Trains do).

 

[yorksrob]

Even with an unlimited number of DMUs, it actually possible to fit a 2 hourly service between Middlesbrough and Whitby as well as NYMR services on the current passing places? The trains would need to meet at Grosmont in an appropriate slot, given the NYMR is also single track with only two passing loops.

All of the loops require all trains to come to a stand too, don't they? Even an hourly service can be supported on single track routes with dynamic passing loops, or double track sections of 3 miles or so, but one member has already described amendments to infrastructure as 'pie in the sky'.

In Northern Ireland, an hourly service operates on an all single track route, with passing loops, but this has resulted in some journey times being extended because of the need to stop and wait in more loops.

I don't know what track access arrangement NYMR have with Network Rail, but extending their journey times to Whitby might place their operation at a commercial disadvantage. Extending the Middlesbrough - Whitby journey time would make the service even more unattractive than it is currently.

As I mentioned in my previous post, travelling on the NYMR is a leisure activity in itself. Fifteen minutes wait at Grosmont is fifteen additional minutes in which to sell stuff to people.

Everyone wants Saturday strengthening on their line though, don't they? What about Saturday day-trippers on the diesel routes into Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield or Manchester? What about people day-tripping to the Yorkshire Coast stations, Blackpool, Saltburn or Windermere? Don't they all want adequate capacity on their DMUs on packed summer Saturdays? I would say that all of those places by definition will come higher up the priority list than Whitby does. But just because one particular person wants to get the train to Whitby, here we are having a 5 page discussion about this one branch.

The diesel routes into Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester don't all have a spare DMU sitting at the end of the line doing nothing all day.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've been talking a fair bit about the timetable on the line and what we'd like to see happen but I was also curious about what the service used to look like so I've dug out my old timetables to have a little look.

First up, for the May 1975 to May 1976 timetable period, it would seem that year round Monday to Saturday six trains each way per day between Middlesbrough and Whitby. The first train to Whitby left at 0524(!) to form a service leaving Whitby at 0650 and arriving into Middlesbrough at 0818. A departure from Middlesbrough back to Whitby left 1751 arriving back at 1916. Whilst that morning arrival is probably only just a bit too early for commuting that departure back is far to late I'd have thought. Though better than what's available at present!

Between May and September there were two additional services on offer. One running Monday to Saturday leaving Middlesbrough mid-morning at 1033 and another back from Whitby leaving at 1718. The other service was a Saturday only which left Middlesbrough mid-afternoon at 1433 and returned later in the evening at 2109 (offering a near extra hour and half in Whitby compared to the year round last train of 1924).

Three trains each way on Sundays with departures from Middlesbrough at 1040, 1135 and 1253 and returning at 1720, 1830 and 1920 so rather concentrated and they only ran until 14 September. After that there was no Sunday service presumably until the following May!

A copy of that timetable can be found below for those that are interested:



Secondly we have the 15 May to 1 October 1989 timetable where the situation Monday to Saturday is broadly similar though perhaps a touch better than back in the mid-70s. Overall during the period of the timetable there's six Middlesbrough to Whitby services Monday to Saturday and seven the other way (presumably a unit must have been dropped off during the day!).

There's still a train in the morning aimed at commuters (leaving Middlesbrough at 0513 to form a 0642 departure from Whitby arriving back into Middlesbrough at 0814 though this doesn't run at all on Bank Holidays) and one back in the evening presumably also aimed at them leaving Middlesbrough at 1715 arriving into Whitby at 1842. I'd suggest that situation in the morning has probably got no better (0814 is just to early for most I'd think) but the evening departure at 1715 is a bit more attractive. Between May and September there's one extra service each way (so seven to Whitby and eight back) leaving Middlesbrough at 1000 and returning back at 1752 from Whitby. That summer only later last train has gone however as the last train back from Whitby is now 1956.

Sundays are a bit better than before with four trains each way (and run for the whole timetable period, though I don't know if they stopped over the winter after this timetable ran out in October). They're also not quite so clustered with departures from Middlesbrough at 0935, 1110, 1220 and 1545 and from Whitby at 1148, 1518, 1628 and 1750.

A copy of that timetable is below:



Hopefully the above will be of interest! Compare and contrast with the current timetable to your hearts content

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The Esk Valley service was halved in 1991 as a unit-saving measure. Prior to that commuting was possible from the Esk Valley, as were reasonable day trips to farther destinations.

On the current timetable, an arrival into Middlesbrough can theoretically be achieved (ie setting aside box opening hours) at 0731, 0756 then not until 0909. Or a selection of those. The train for school pupils severely limits the options but is pretty much immovable - uness someone fancies suggesting changing the school times with all the impacts that has for parents, teachers and bus schedules!

Adding to Ainsworth74's analysis above:

1957 - prior to coast line closure - 6 trains per day
1958 - 15 trains in summer
1965 - Grosmont to Pickering closed
1973 - NYMR commenced
1975 - NYMR re-opened through to Pickering

mid 1980's - singled Whitby to Sleights
mid 1980's - Castleton Moor loop removed
January 1986 - singled Nunthorpe to Guisborough Junction (Middlesbrough)
1991 - passenger service halved to four trains per day
April 2007 - NYMR commence running into station
August 2014 - new track layout at Whitby with extended Platform 2

 

[MML]

Fascinating video and timetables.
The early morning train should have been scheduled 20-30 minutes later for optimum timings. I wonder why it wasn't ? Perhaps to satisfy the school run ?

Could the block between Glaisdale and Whitby be split into 2 blocks at Grosmont ? With the Whitby-Grosmont shared with NYMR and using both platforms at Whitby. What would be involved in doing this ? Would there be a benefit ?

I wonder if the guys and girls at Vivarail could be tempted to offer 3-car 230s with country seating at a favourable lease rate. Even operating the trains as 'Vivarail on behalf of Northern'. A dedicated service of modern units with a 2-hour interval service throughout the day, serviced by Vivarail locally.
It would satisfy locals and tourists, and potentially stimulate travel to the various village pubs and eateries along the line as well as Whitby itself.

The big plus for Northern would be the 156 and 158 units would be released to routes where they are more suited and the additional capacity more welcome. I'm sure the DfT wouldn't object. The franchise agreement aimed to stimulate growth in the North and offer brand new or refurbished units throughout. Use of 230s like the Marston Vale would make the branch line a unique asset rather than a forgotten backwater of the vast Northern network. Stimulating tourist and leisure activities in the region, together with satisfying the needs of locals.

 

[yorksrob]

We've been talking a fair bit about the timetable on the line and what we'd like to see happen but I was also curious about what the service used to look like so I've dug out my old timetables to have a little look.

First up, for the May 1975 to May 1976 timetable period, it would seem that year round Monday to Saturday six trains each way per day between Middlesbrough and Whitby. The first train to Whitby left at 0524(!) to form a service leaving Whitby at 0650 and arriving into Middlesbrough at 0818. A departure from Middlesbrough back to Whitby left 1751 arriving back at 1916. Whilst that morning arrival is probably only just a bit too early for commuting that departure back is far to late I'd have thought. Though better than what's available at present!

Between May and September there were two additional services on offer. One running Monday to Saturday leaving Middlesbrough mid-morning at 1033 and another back from Whitby leaving at 1718. The other service was a Saturday only which left Middlesbrough mid-afternoon at 1433 and returned later in the evening at 2109 (offering a near extra hour and half in Whitby compared to the year round last train of 1924).

Three trains each way on Sundays with departures from Middlesbrough at 1040, 1135 and 1253 and returning at 1720, 1830 and 1920 so rather concentrated and they only ran until 14 September. After that there was no Sunday service presumably until the following May!

A copy of that timetable can be found below for those that are interested:

View attachment 64580

Secondly we have the 15 May to 1 October 1989 timetable where the situation Monday to Saturday is broadly similar though perhaps a touch better than back in the mid-70s. Overall during the period of the timetable there's six Middlesbrough to Whitby services Monday to Saturday and seven the other way (presumably a unit must have been dropped off during the day!).

There's still a train in the morning aimed at commuters (leaving Middlesbrough at 0513 to form a 0642 departure from Whitby arriving back into Middlesbrough at 0814 though this doesn't run at all on Bank Holidays) and one back in the evening presumably also aimed at them leaving Middlesbrough at 1715 arriving into Whitby at 1842. I'd suggest that situation in the morning has probably got no better (0814 is just to early for most I'd think) but the evening departure at 1715 is a bit more attractive. Between May and September there's one extra service each way (so seven to Whitby and eight back) leaving Middlesbrough at 1000 and returning back at 1752 from Whitby. That summer only later last train has gone however as the last train back from Whitby is now 1956.

Sundays are a bit better than before with four trains each way (and run for the whole timetable period, though I don't know if they stopped over the winter after this timetable ran out in October). They're also not quite so clustered with departures from Middlesbrough at 0935, 1110, 1220 and 1545 and from Whitby at 1148, 1518, 1628 and 1750.

A copy of that timetable is below:

View attachment 64581

Hopefully the above will be of interest! Compare and contrast with the current timetable to your hearts content

Eight trains a day each way from your later timetable looks rather more useable to the average member of the travelling public than today's five. That aside, the operating day was still rather short.

Really they should never have gotten away with that timetable reduction, and the ambition should be to reverse it ASAP.

 

[Starmill]

Even operating the trains as 'Vivarail on behalf of Northern'. A dedicated service of modern units with a 2-hour interval service throughout the day, serviced by Vivarail locally.

Taking train crew or maintenance work away from the current Arriva Rail North staff would probably go down rather poorly with the Unions. It's also exceptionally questionable to call the fittings and fixtures 'modern' in their only current guise at WMT. Perhaps the Country layout is a lot nicer, though? But also more expensive?
Vivarail might also charge quite a lot to maintain the units in that area. How many would be required? 5?

I'm sure the DfT wouldn't object. The franchise agreement aimed to stimulate growth in the North and offer brand new or refurbished units throughout.

The DfT specifically ruled out the use of this rolling stock in their tender, so doing a U-turn would likely involve humble pie at best and a wash of bad publicity at worst.

 

[Killingworth]

How about NYMR running a shuttle Pacer service from Whitby to Battersby for all those nostalgic about these trains that have faithfully survived for over 30 years despite all the derision they've received!

 

[bramling]

Taking train crew or maintenance work away from the current Arriva Rail North staff would probably go down rather poorly with the Unions. It's also exceptionally questionable to call the fittings and fixtures 'modern' in their only current guise at WMT. Perhaps the Country layout is a lot nicer, though? But also more expensive?
Vivarail might also charge quite a lot to maintain the units in that area. How many would be required? 5?

The DfT specifically ruled out the use of this rolling stock in their tender, so doing a U-turn would likely involve humble pie at best and a wash of bad publicity at worst.

Is there really a benefit in using D-trains over Sprinters? I tend to agree with Yorksrob that the solution here is probably simply to diagram an extra unit, for sure it’s going to be inefficient at times when loadings are low, but with staffing on the route already minimal it’s not exactly breaking the bank. Naturally this relies on being able to resource one from somewhere of course, but no excuse once DMU withdrawals start happening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've been talking a fair bit about the timetable on the line and what we'd like to see happen but I was also curious about what the service used to look like so I've dug out my old timetables to have a little look.

First up, for the May 1975 to May 1976 timetable period, it would seem that year round Monday to Saturday six trains each way per day between Middlesbrough and Whitby. The first train to Whitby left at 0524(!) to form a service leaving Whitby at 0650 and arriving into Middlesbrough at 0818.

I was talking about parallels with the Conwy Valley, and that's yet another one - that too has a "crack of dawn" semifast "ECS that might as well run in service" (I doubt it's much more than one man, dog and bicycle, if that) to operate the more usefully-timed northbound morning service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there really a benefit in using D-trains over Sprinters?

There's certainly an advantage in dedicated interiors designed for branch lines, and if only they'd sort the slow door issue the EMU-like acceleration would mean an improved timetable, too.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is interesting to read some of the thoughts on this matter. On the subject of passenger loadings, it is worth remembering that the demand is driven partly by local commuting needs, but also by the tourist ones. Whitby town centre has a very large number of holiday rental properties, which means Whitby's tourist trade is not just made up of day trippers with carrier bags full of sandwiches, but people staying for long weekends & even weeks at a time. Plus Whitby hosts a myriad of events each year, all of which drive both the day & longer stay tourist trades, attracting thousands, even tens of thousands. Finally Whitby is to say the least a difficult place to reach by car, especially given the strict parking restrictions that exist around the town's streets, and lack of parking on the outskirts to even closely meet demand. So the rail links are vital for it as a town.

Clearly the most important, albeit long term solution is to deal with the Esk Valley's antiquated infrastructure. Line upgrades, better signalling, more passing loops and dealing are probably all going to be needed at some stage, either through degradation or through sheer demand. Applied over time these will allow more services to use the line, but crucially for the tourist industry allow services (even if just a couple a day) to extend beyond Middlesbrough and the North East, but to places like York & beyond, perhaps even maybe a service from London or "down south" (the fact that Scarborough retains some summer long distance services like these is not lost on the people of Whitby!). But this is all long term & aspirational.

In the short term, and as I think @yorksrob rightly says, a couple of extra paths & unit strengthening with existing and forthcoming stock is the sensible short term solution. The 230 has been mooted as an alternative "ideal" solution because it is being sold for branch line operations. And whilst the Esk Valley is a branch line, and putting aside my personal feelings about the 230, is the 230 really an ideal solution as suggested? The 230 is till really in it's early stages of proofing, and I'd say the Esk line is possibly the last place save maybe lines in Cumbria or Northern Scotland I'd want to try it out without it having seen a number of years in service. I'd imagine this line is not the easiest of lines to work, especially when the North Sea is chucking a Force 9 inland, complete with sideways rain / snow. And with long, slow sections of single track, a failure of any unit let alone one that might only be able to be recovered by another of it's type would be something of a nightmare. At least if a 15x fails, pretty much any other Northern unit in Teesside can currently be considered to help recover.

And of course there is the 230 configuration. The Marston Vale setup is basically the original sub-surface layout, with a few seats gathered around tables. It definitely would not be a good configuration for people having just arrived in Middleborough, potentially after a considerable journey, to then face an hour & a half standing up trying to keep their suitcases from rolling away in the large "circulation areas". Of course there are alternative configurations, but these as Vivarail have said will add cost & it might not be too long before the cost makes simply ordering more 195s & cascading 156/8 to the North East to strengthen existing formations just as financially viable. I'm afraid ladies and gentlemen that the 230 is not likely to see operations on the Esk Valley line, and in all honesty such talk might be better placed in the Speculative section as currently DfT will not allow Northern to procure them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And of course there is the 230 configuration. The Marston Vale setup is basically the original sub-surface layout, with a few seats gathered around tables.

It's not. It has a far larger area of transverse seating than the originals which had only two (or was it four?) bays per coach, including both table and airline seating. The areas of side-facing seating are quite small, and their retention is deliberate to allow for high loadings on the school trains (there's a parallel here) and a large number of bicycles (I suspect that would be another potential parallel; you get a lot of people cycling to catch trains on rural branch lines due to the lack of bus services, as well as for leisure, and often they cycle at both ends of their trip, and the likes of Bromptons are unaffordable due to low wages).

Have you actually been on one? I tend to observe that most strong critics of a 230 haven't, and so have no idea how good they actually are.

Think "high floor Stadler GTW on the cheap", not "repurposed Tube train".

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not. It has a far larger area of transverse seating than the originals which had only two (or was it four?) bays per coach, including both table and airline seating. The areas of side-facing seating are quite small, and their retention is deliberate to allow for high loadings on the school trains (there's a parallel here) and a large number of bicycles (I suspect that would be another potential parallel; you get a lot of people cycling to catch trains on rural branch lines due to the lack of bus services, as well as for leisure, and often they cycle at both ends of their trip, and the likes of Bromptons are unaffordable due to low wages).

Have you actually been on one? I tend to observe that most strong critics of a 230 haven't, and so have no idea how good they actually are.

Think "high floor Stadler GTW on the cheap", not "repurposed Tube train".

I've not ridden on one, but seen people's videos and whilst they look pleasant enough inside, if you chucked that configuration at me heading for the Gothic Weekend in November this year along with the kind of numbers often seen on the Esk Valley services at these kinds of times, I think I would decline and fork out for a taxi (I'd use the X93 but that would likely be stuffed to the gills too). They might be suitable small branches feeding commuter services at their ends, but in that configuration there are way too few seats & way too much standing to be even remotely attractive for people travelling distances with large amounts of luggage. A much better, and far more viable option would be to hook up a 153 onto a 156/8 on a semi-permanent basis to offer more seats & more luggage space.

And that doesn't answer my thoughts on how a 230 would deal with the worst of the North Yorkshire Moors weather that it can chuck at a train. Like I said, it is not yet fully proven on the route it has been commissioned for, let alone a very isolated line in challenging terrain. And how would you even test them on a route struggling with capacity in the first place? But this is all a moot point, because they are not likely to ever see that valley.

 

[DarloRich]

Taking train crew or maintenance work away from the current Arriva Rail North staff would probably go down rather poorly with the Unions. It's also exceptionally questionable to call the fittings and fixtures 'modern' in their only current guise at WMT. Perhaps the Country layout is a lot nicer, though? But also more expensive?
Vivarail might also charge quite a lot to maintain the units in that area. How many would be required? 5?

the on call maintenance fitters at Bletchley all wear Vivarail branded high viz. I am not sure who does the heavier maintenance but that is suggestive. Also I am not sure how you have decided that the fixtures and fittings on these trains are not "modern". The look pretty good to me and the extra passengers the new trains have generated.

Is there really a benefit in using D-trains over Sprinters? I tend to agree with Yorksrob that the solution here is probably simply to diagram an extra unit, for sure it’s going to be inefficient at times when loadings are low, but with staffing on the route already minimal it’s not exactly breaking the bank. Naturally this relies on being able to resource one from somewhere of course, but no excuse once DMU withdrawals start happening.

Agreed -

And of course there is the 230 configuration. The Marston Vale setup is basically the original sub-surface layout, with a few seats gathered around tables. It definitely would not be a good configuration for people having just arrived in Middleborough, potentially after a considerable journey, to then face an hour & a half standing up trying to keep their suitcases from rolling away in the large "circulation areas"

The layout of the Marston Vale line is "basically the original sub-surface layout with a few seats gathered around tables" is it? Have you had a chance to ride on the train yet? Have you had a look at the reliability figures recently? Touch wood the reliability curve is trending upwards after initial teething troubles. Have you seen the spike in passenger numbers? That is also trending upwards.

The trains are essentially modular inside. Vivarail can offer a choice of internals. For a line like the Esk Valley you would want more traditional seating arrangements but there are parallels ( rural villages/school loadings/high bike requirements) between the users of each line.

I think a 5 x 3 car unit with a traditional seating layout, tables, plugs, wifi, disabled access, retention toilets, even a refreshment trolley etc would be ideal for the Esk Valley. They are designed for "rough field" maintenance and could be maintained out of a "pop up" facility somewhere. (Looking at you Tees Yard!).

it wont happen, of course, because Northern ( perhaps to appease vocal but poorly informed critics such as yourself) ruled these trains out very firmly. They should have kept their options open because the delivered product is of good quality and could very easily have helped Northern deliver a better service to it's customers on rural lines like this one.

I was critical of the concept. Being a daily user of the trains has shown the quality, especially inside. It is miles ahead of the grotty 150/153 we had previously. The delivered product has totally changed my mind.

It's not. It has a far larger area of transverse seating than the originals which had only two (or was it four?) bays per coach, including both table and airline seating. The areas of side-facing seating are quite small, and their retention is deliberate to allow for high loadings on the school trains (there's a parallel here) and a large number of bicycles (I suspect that would be another potential parallel; you get a lot of people cycling to catch trains on rural branch lines due to the lack of bus services, as well as for leisure, and often they cycle at both ends of their trip, and the likes of Bromptons are unaffordable due to low wages).

Have you actually been on one? I tend to observe that most strong critics of a 230 haven't, and so have no idea how good they actually are.

Spot on!

As an addition: The transverse seating near the toilet is to allow for disabled access to the toilet and use up some space that would otherwise be lost.

 

[DarloRich]

I've not ridden on one, but seen people's videos and whilst they look pleasant enough inside, if you chucked that configuration at me heading for the Gothic Weekend in November this year along with the kind of numbers often seen on the Esk Valley services at these kinds of times, I think I would decline and fork out for a taxi (I'd use the X93 but that would likely be stuffed to the gills too). They might be suitable small branches feeding commuter services at their ends, but in that configuration there are way too few seats & way too much standing to be even remotely attractive for people travelling distances with large amounts of luggage. A much better, and far more viable option would be to hook up a 153 onto a 156/8 on a semi-permanent basis to offer more seats & more luggage space.

And that doesn't answer my thoughts on how a 230 would deal with the worst of the North Yorkshire Moors weather that it can chuck at a train. Like I said, it is not yet fully proven on the route it has been commissioned for, let alone a very isolated line in challenging terrain. And how would you even test them on a route struggling with capacity in the first place? But this is all a moot point, because they are not likely to ever see that valley.

goodness me. As stated several times IF you used these trains on the Esk Valley you would want a 3 car train with a very traditional layout. No one is suggesting that a commuter seated variant would be suitable.

Tiresomely, It is almost as if facts pass you by! Did you read the article I linked above setting out seating numbers? I will add it AGAIN to try and help you with facts:

From Rail Technology Magazine: The Class 230 D-Train will be available in different layouts with various amenities to satisfy specific needs of passengers. The vehicles will be fitted with universal access toilets, refreshment trolleys, tables, smart storage solutions and iPad holders.

The City configuration will have two and three cars per unit. The two-car vehicle will house 86 seats per unit and will offer a total passenger carrying capacity of 188. The three-car vehicle with 140 longitudinal seats will have a total capacity of 294, including standing passengers.

The Commuter variant will feature two and three cars per unit. The two-car vehicle will have 114 mixed-type seats and will accommodate 188 passengers in total. The three-car vehicle with 172 longitudinal seats will accommodate 297 passengers, while the three-car vehicle with 154 transverse seats will carry 147 standing passengers additionally.

Each train set of the Country layout will include three cars. The layout will accommodate 163 seats and offer a total capacity of 291.

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/class-230-d-train/

According to wiki a class 156 has 140 seats, a class 158 has 138 or 142 seats. A class 142 has a maximum of 121 seats ( assuming a bench seater). A class 153 has 72 seats

BTW how does a 142/144 deal with "the worst of North Yorkshire Moors weather that it can chuck at a train"? I cant imagine a 230 would be any worse!

 

[DarloRich]

We've been talking a fair bit about the timetable on the line and what we'd like to see happen but I was also curious about what the service used to look like so I've dug out my old timetables to have a little look.

Interesting - thank you.

I wonder if signal box opening hours were better in them olden days. I didn't realise there was a year round Sunday service. Has that been a constant?

 

[Bantamzen]

The layout of the Marston Vale line is "basically the original sub-surface layout with a few seats gathered around tables" is it? Have you had a chance to ride on the train yet? Have you had a look at the reliability figures recently? Touch wood the reliability curve is trending upwards after initial teething troubles. Have you seen the spike in passenger numbers? That is also trending upwards.

The trains are essentially modular inside. Vivarail can offer a choice of internals. For a line like the Esk Valley you would want more traditional seating arrangements but there are parallels ( rural villages/school loadings/high bike requirements) between the users of each line.

I think a 5 x 3 car unit with a traditional seating layout, tables, plugs, wifi, disabled access, retention toilets, even a refreshment trolley etc would be ideal for the Esk Valley. They are designed for "rough field" maintenance and could be maintained out of a "pop up" facility somewhere. (Looking at you Tees Yard!).

it wont happen, of course, because Northern ( perhaps to appease vocal but poorly informed critics such as yourself) ruled these trains out very firmly. They should have kept their options open because the delivered product is of good quality and could very easily have helped Northern deliver a better service to it's customers on rural lines like this one.

I was critical of the concept. Being a daily user of the trains has shown the quality, especially inside. It is miles ahead of the grotty 150/153 we had previously. The delivered product has totally changed my mind.

All of the potential configuration changes will attract more cost (this was pretty much said way down the 230 thread), and my point is that there may be a point where its simply not cost effective to buy a small fleet of 230s when they could simply use existing stock. Plus the 230s haven't been in operation for long, sticking them on a line where failures will cause very long delays comes at a risk. Why use stock not fully proven when you have units (156/158) that you know work the line well, and in the event of a failure can be recovered by most stock that will be the in area?

And anyway it doesn't matter what you, I or the forum in general think, nor does it matter that I have never ridden them, the franchise written by the DfT (not Northern) specified that 230s may not be used. So again it is all a moot point. And that's why continued talk of 230s on that line is pure speculation, and not based on what will happen.

 

[DarloRich]

nor does it matter that I have never ridden them,

I am afraid it does when you continue to offer your views based on nothing but supposition. It allows those views to be graded against reality.

All of the potential configuration changes will attract more cost (this was pretty much said way down the 230 thread), and my point is that there may be a point where its simply not cost effective to buy a small fleet of 230s when they could simply use existing stock. Plus the 230s haven't been in operation for long, sticking them on a line where failures will cause very long delays comes at a risk. Why use stock not fully proven when you have units (156/158) that you know work the line well, and in the event of a failure can be recovered by most stock that will be the in area?

because it may be a way of improving service provision more quickly. While internal changes will drive cost changes I cant imagine, based on some experience of rolling stock procurement, that the cost would be vast or prohibitive. Agreed that there is a risk of failure but that risk is no different to the existing risk. A train failing on the branch will close the service regardless of the train type! The mitigation is entirely similar: Send another train to drag it back

BTW - I agree it wont happen but because of decisions made during the specification of the franchise these trains were ruled out as an option. I maintain that is short sighted and is meaning Northern passengers in some areas are experiencing poorer journeys than they could be.

 

[Bantamzen]

I am afraid it does when you continue to offer your views based on nothing but supposition. It allows those views to be graded against reality.

I am unsure how my having not ridden them in any way influences the DfT decision? Perhaps you could expand? Did I get a promotion to Minister? If so cool, when do I get paid....?

because it may be a way of improving service provision more quickly. While internal changes will drive cost changes I cant imagine, based on some experience of rolling stock procurement, that the cost would be vast or prohibitive. Agreed that there is a risk of failure but that risk is no different to the existing risk. A train failing on the branch will close the service regardless of the train type! The mitigation is entirely similar: Send another train to drag it back

Northern can provision capacity improvements much more easily using what stock they have now. Even if the 230 was ordered later today, it would be some time before you could roll any improvements out. Whereas the 195s are close to service, so with some careful shuffling around I'm sure additional units could be moved eastwards to help provision capacity increases in no time at all. Whether they will or not remains to be seen of course, but it will doubtless be a lot easier. I'm afraid the aspirations of Vivarail's sales department & parts of this forum do not a reality make.

 

[30907]

Would it matter that much if the Esk valley service had a thirty minute turnaround at Whitby ? Very few passengers will stay on the train and go back.

With regard to the NYMR services waiting at Grosmont, I don't see why this would be a problem, given that it's passengers are on the train for the ride anyway.

1. the problem isn't the 30 minutes at Whitby, its the wait at Glaisdale on top of the problems at the Middlesbrough end.
I hope the NYMR and its passengers agree with you about Grosmont

 

[mlambeuk]

Seemed in 1991 alot of services were cut back in the North East, probably due to someone deciding to send the 143s down to Cardiff.

 

[yorksrob]

goodness me. As stated several times IF you used these trains on the Esk Valley you would want a 3 car train with a very traditional layout. No one is suggesting that a commuter seated variant would be suitable.

Tiresomely, It is almost as if facts pass you by! Did you read the article I linked above setting out seating numbers? I will add it AGAIN to try and help you with facts:

From Rail Technology Magazine: The Class 230 D-Train will be available in different layouts with various amenities to satisfy specific needs of passengers. The vehicles will be fitted with universal access toilets, refreshment trolleys, tables, smart storage solutions and iPad holders.

The City configuration will have two and three cars per unit. The two-car vehicle will house 86 seats per unit and will offer a total passenger carrying capacity of 188. The three-car vehicle with 140 longitudinal seats will have a total capacity of 294, including standing passengers.

The Commuter variant will feature two and three cars per unit. The two-car vehicle will have 114 mixed-type seats and will accommodate 188 passengers in total. The three-car vehicle with 172 longitudinal seats will accommodate 297 passengers, while the three-car vehicle with 154 transverse seats will carry 147 standing passengers additionally.

Each train set of the Country layout will include three cars. The layout will accommodate 163 seats and offer a total capacity of 291.

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/class-230-d-train/

According to wiki a class 156 has 140 seats, a class 158 has 138 or 142 seats. A class 142 has a maximum of 121 seats ( assuming a bench seater). A class 153 has 72 seats

BTW how does a 142/144 deal with "the worst of North Yorkshire Moors weather that it can chuck at a train"? I cant imagine a 230 would be any worse!

It's interesting that the capacity of a 156 is 140, given that the average passenger loading has been quoted as around 78, over half. Given that a comparatively high proportion of these passengers will be end to end, I suspect that these trains are generally well loaded compared to many routes.

 

[yorksrob]

1. the problem isn't the 30 minutes at Whitby, its the wait at Glaisdale on top of the problems at the Middlesbrough end.
I hope the NYMR and its passengers agree with you about Grosmont

The passengers on the NYMR aren't there for a speedy journey. I travel on lots of railtours that have to give priority to other trains, so I don't see how passengers on a steam railway are any different.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's interesting that the capacity of a 156 is 140, given that the average passenger loading has been quoted as around 78, over half. Given that a comparatively high proportion of these passengers will be end to end, I suspect that these trains are generally well loaded compared to many routes.

I've been on a few 156s that have been full from start to end, including luggage, cycles etc. Of course most of these journeys have been when events have been on, but I'm sure on good summer days the same is true as people from the North East head down to Whitby on a whim. Sticking an additional 153 (for example) would help quickly increase capacity, and maybe in time as rolling stock is shuffled around the franchise some could be strengthened to 4 car 156/158?

 

[ainsworth74]

Interesting - thank you.

No problem. Though these old timetables are dangerous it has to be said. I went looking for one thing and ended up spending about an hour looking at other things as well!

I wonder if signal box opening hours were better in them olden days. I didn't realise there was a year round Sunday service. Has that been a constant?

Yes and, in 1975 at least, there would have been more boxes as well as having better opening hours! I think boxes at Glaisdale, Castleton and possibly Battersby?

Year round Sunday services I feel as though are a relatively recent innovation on the line to be honest! I wonder if my later 1989 timetable doesn't mention the lack of a winter service as it ended in October?

 

[DarloRich]

Northern can provision capacity improvements much more easily using what stock they have now. Even if the 230 was ordered later today, it would be some time before you could roll any improvements out. Whereas the 195s are close to service, so with some careful shuffling around I'm sure additional units could be moved eastwards to help provision capacity increases in no time at all. Whether they will or not remains to be seen of course, but it will doubtless be a lot easier. I'm afraid the aspirations of Vivarail's sales department & parts of this forum do not a reality make.

can Northern offer additional units on a regular basis? Can they service demand for all lines calling out for more capacity? If so great. Lets have them. If that can happen I agree it will be much easier than a new fleet of trains. The problem is I don't think they can or will. Wont their focus be on overcrowded commuter routes into Leeds or Manchester?

Like I have said many times: I don't think the class 230 trains will ever be used on this line. The issue you fail to acknowledge is that they could be used relatively easily and that they would offer an immediate improvement in journey experience to passengers. To admit that these trains offer any benefit ( and the use on our line shows they do) seems to be painful to you. Just admit your bias and preconceptions are wrong and not based on relativity. I have admitted I was wrong. It is amusing you cant.

I am unsure how my having not ridden them in any way influences the DfT decision? Perhaps you could expand? Did I get a promotion to Minister? If so cool, when do I get paid....?

i haven't said anything of the sort. I simply say you ( and a couple of others) continue to be vocal critics of trains you have never traveled on. I think it is important to note that to help posters here grade how much weight to place on your opinion.

Yes and, in 1975 at least, there would have been more boxes as well as having better opening hours! I think boxes at Glaisdale, Castleton and possibly Battersby?

there is your main constraint.

 

[HSTEd]

Either improve the infrastructure to allow two trains per hour in each direction, formed of appropriate units.... or axe the line.

There is no point maintaining a token service that is of questionable usefulness for actual travelers - the fact that the line is sometimes heavily loaded despite this is nothing short of a miracle.