Should Thirsk station be closed in its present site?

[Halifaxlad]

Unsurprisingly I've been looking at things mainly speculative, my recent attention has turned to the line through Ripon and the potential benefits this could have upon the ECML between York and Northallerton. Obviously the line also ran to Thirsk with a connection to the ECML on the down line.

My question is, would the ECML between York and Northallerton be better off if Thirsk was taken off it ?

 

[markindurham]

My question is, would the ECML between York and Northallerton be better off if Thirsk was taken off it ?

I would say no, as Thirsk only has platforms on the Slow lines.

 

[darloscott]

My question is, would the ECML between York and Northallerton be better off if Thirsk was taken off it ?

My question is... why? It provides a decent number of passengers when I travel by TPE towards York (pretty often).

 

[Ianno87]

I would say no, as Thirsk only has platforms on the Slow lines.

Agree. Of all the capacity demands on the ECML, Thirsk is not one of them (and probably generates a relatively high amount of long distance revenue in proportion to its usage).

 

[hexagon789]

Unsurprisingly I've been looking at things mainly speculative, my recent attention has turned to the line through Ripon and the potential benefits this could have upon the ECML between York and Northallerton. Obviously the line also ran to Thirsk with a connection to the ECML on the down line.

My question is, would the ECML between York and Northallerton be better off if Thirsk was taken off it ?

No, firstly because calls at Thirsk don't impede long-distance services; secondly because Thirsk warrants a station!

Indeed I'd argue that in terms of placement in relation to the running lines it's probably one of the best sited on the ECML by having platforms only on the slow lines but with closely situated connections to and from the fasts so that trains calling there don't have to remain stuck on the slow lines for any considerable distance

 

[Ianno87]

No, firstly because calls at Thirsk don't impede long-distance services; secondly because Thirsk warrants a station!

Indeed I'd argue that in terms of placement in relation to the running lines it's probably one of the best sited on the ECML by having platforms only on the slow lines but with closely situated connections to and from the fasts so that trains calling there don't have to remain stuck on the slow lines for any considerable distance

Better yet, there is still the option of calling trains to continue on the slows north and south to stay out of the way of non-stopping trains, should this be necessary.

 

[30907]

From the header I thought you had come up with a better site on the ECML!

Melmerby to Thirsk was a main line for precisely 4 years (1848-52) according to Wikipedia, and even that, looking at Googlemaps, looks as if it was Plan B. It then spent 100 years as an insignificant branch line. The case for rebuilding it in addition to Melmerby to Northallerton would be pretty much zilch, and instead of
M to N not much better.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Just to clear things up as the title has been changed.

I just have an idea or two whereby it could be take off the slow lines, or at least the up platform.

I am in NO WAY PROPOSING TO CLOSE THE STATION!

 

[ainsworth74]

I just have an idea or two whereby it could be take off the slow lines, or at least the up platform.

Why though?

 

[JonathanH]

I think the OP is envisaging the installation of a loop with a station which takes trains closer to the centre of Thirsk than they currently run - ie "take off" = "diverge". This seems rather drastic to me and perhaps not the best use of funds although having done it, I note that it is a fair walk from Thirsk station into the town.

I guess the thought is whether a station closer to the centre of Thirsk might encourage more travel to / from York or northwards which would reduce car use.

 

[Midnight Sun]

I think the OP is envisaging the installation of a loop with a station which takes trains closer to the centre of Thirsk than they currently run - ie "take off" = "diverge". This seems rather drastic to me and perhaps not the best use of funds although having done it, I note that it is a fair walk from Thirsk station into the town.

I guess the thought is whether a station closer to the centre of Thirsk might encourage more travel to / from York or northwards which would reduce car use.

Ploughing a new loop line through the racecourse will not go down well with the locals.

 

[Halifaxlad]

My initial thoughts were interlinked with the potential reopening of the Ripon line. My later thought's weren't regarding a loop but rather two chords onto the alignment of the Leeds & Thirsk railway and a station closer to Thirsk, that could also be used by services via Ripon without impacting upon the ECML. Something like this...


This morning's thoughts were to build a new station slightly south of the existing station crossing the alignment to the old demolished Thirsk station. The existing ECML remains intact but potentially with the slow lines loops around the back of the platforms, so essentially it would be loops on the fast completely segregated from the slow!



Before anyone passes comments about cost, they're is a foot crossing for the platforms that cross both the fast and slow lines, to get a lift in on the down platform would require widening the platform and realigning the down slow. Clearly it would be easier to build a new platform and realign the slow so its adjacent to the fast.

On the up platform, you could probably get a lift in but to cross the slow to get to the car park you would need a lift or ramp that would most likely take up space in the already limited car park. Also I remember someone once saying that you can't have only one lift at a station even if they're accessible step free access to the other platform. (I don't know how true this is) So on this side you might as well just realign the up slow as well or potentially end up with a station with three lifts.

 

[JonathanH]

My initial thoughts were interlinked with the potential reopening of the Ripon line. My later thought's weren't regarding a loop but rather two chords onto the alignment of the Leeds & Thirsk railway and a station closer to Thirsk, that could also be used by services via Ripon without impacting upon the ECML. Something like this...

I'm not sure that would go down well with people making through journeys who would suffer at least ten extra minutes of travel time. It would be cheaper to offer free taxis into Thirsk town centre.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I'm not sure that would go down well with people making through journeys who would suffer at least ten extra minutes of travel time. It would be cheaper to offer free taxis into Thirsk town centre.

and that is why even I personally discounted it!

Although I do think it maybe wise to protect the land for a future chord to a potential 2nd station on the old Leeds & Thirsk alignment.

 

[hexagon789]

Better yet, there is still the option of calling trains to continue on the slows north and south to stay out of the way of non-stopping trains, should this be necessary.

Of course, I was thinking more about fast line services, but ability to continue on the slows is another useful element of the quite flexible arrangement at Thirsk in that respect

 

[DarloRich]

Unsurprisingly I've been looking at things mainly speculative, my recent attention has turned to the line through Ripon and the potential benefits this could have upon the ECML between York and Northallerton. Obviously the line also ran to Thirsk with a connection to the ECML on the down line.

My question is, would the ECML between York and Northallerton be better off if Thirsk was taken off it ?

What problem are you trying to fix? I dont see the rationale. If the Ripon line reopened ( and it wont at least not this bit) it would surely run to Northallerton

 

[Halifaxlad]

Just to clear things up, what prompted my thoughts about Ripon is that the ECML between York and Northallerton is the straightest in the country and yet it has only one station 21 miles away from York and 7 miles away from Northallerton where the Middlesborough line joins.

Clearly if your going to speed up any part of the rail network, the flatter and straigher the better. To me it just seemed rather silly to have fast services slow down everything on your slow lines, especially when it may be possible to take them off the slow lines altogether, so your slow can essentially become two (faster) slow lines.

When I was looking at the Ripon line nearby it got me thinking if it could be changed, initally by using the Ripon line as it was once. (I discounted this idea later as although it could work with minimal impact from the North it would be far worse from York.) Naturally I was thinking of reinstating the line to the centre of Thirsk as well so that some services from Middlesborough could run to Thirsk without touching the ECML.

Also whilst looking at Thirsk it became apparent that to remove the foot crossing, would require a substantial rebuild of half the station and realignment of the down slow. I'm all for 140mph and I can't imagine this happening with foot crossings in place. With so much undeveloped land below the existing station, naturally if you wanted to raise line speeds across all four tracks then that is the best location for a new station, that could even use the existing overbridge as pedestrian access.