Theoretical Northallerton Station Upgrade

[Confgent]

This firmly belongs to the speculative section of the forum and all ideas expressed are merely my own non-expert musings!

Northallerton is known to be a key limiting factor in terms of ECML capacity. Attached is my proposed redevelopment of Northallerton to help address this issue whilst also providing infrastructure for more local services. Is this, to any extent, a conceivable solution to the capacity problem? Are the local service enhancements possible as well? Would the cost be astronomical or broadly feasible?

Most importantly, removing the Redcar to Manchester TPE service from the ECML by building a through platform on the avoiding line to the west of the current station. This removes the need for points to be changed north of the station and releases more capacity on the ECML. I'm unsure how this would affect freight operations to/from Middlesbrough, however it seems freight usage is fairly low.

Secondly, provision of a bay platform to enable the Wensleydale Railway to terminate could be incorporated. I believe connecting the heritage line into Northallerton would be hugely beneficial for the line and tourism in the area. Although Leeming Bar is well connected by road, a Northallerton terminus provides many more public transport connections as well as being an attractive destination for a day out itself. Reinstating the curve, as illustrated below, could allow easy access to the bay platform. It appears the curve originally joined the ECML but if it were to join the avoiding line instead this would keep it completely separate. Obviously, the problem is cost but perhaps if it were considered along with the through platform that would minimise costs.

Finally, and a tad more fancifully, a second bay platform could be built to accommodate a Northallerton-Stockton Northern service. Complete with new/reinstated stations at Northallerton Town, Brompton, Welbury (definitely not really but have to give my village a mention!), Yarm (at old site) and Hartburn. Not sure of the demand on this corridor but I would imagine thsi would alleviate congestion issues in Northallerton and Yarm particularly.

The new platforms could be linked up to the existing subway. The car park could be extended (I'm unsure of the importance of the warehouse that currently sits on the site) with access to the south added.

Any thoughts/insights will be appreciated!

 

[Bigman]

Makes sense to take the Middlesbrough stoppers off the main line. I also like the idea of a direct link to the Wensleydale which makes it easier for those who do not have cars to get access to the railway.

 

[EastisECML]

I remember late last year seeing various options being considered and one of them simply had the down/down/up/up four track arrangement continuing through Northallerton station, with the platforms being on the outer two tracks. And on the northern edge of the town the outer (slow) down track would dive under/cimb over the fast tracks and meet up with the up slow track to head to Middlesbrough.

There were also proposals for Darlington which was similar, with the current platforms being for northbound trains. And on the otherside of the through tracks another island platform for southbound trains, and parallel to that a couple of terminating platforms for Tees Valley trains. I assume Bishop Auckland trains are intended to run into the north bound platforms and turn back.

 

[waverley47]

The problem with putting platforms on the lower lines is the two level crossings. It wouldn't be acceptable for the two level crossings in the middle of the town to be down for even longer with slow trains stopping and leaving from a low level station, hence the long time desire for a flyover and potentially abandoning the low level route.

Annoyingly there isn't room for a bridge or underpass to solve this issue in the town centre.

 

[HST43257]

It’d be an expensive job, but I think they should close (or mainly not use) the existing platforms. The TPE service off the mainline is step 1, but HS overtaking ECML regular IC stuff has to be possible. A flyover would have to be built north of the station somewhere. Not sure honestly.

Its about 335 metres from 1 LC to another, so there’s some room for acceleration, especially with 5 car Novas on MBR/Redcar/Saltburn runs. Keep the car park and have an island platform at the lower level.

 

[YorksLad12]

The problem with putting platforms on the lower lines is the two level crossings. It wouldn't be acceptable for the two level crossings in the middle of the town to be down for even longer with slow trains stopping and leaving from a low level station, hence the long time desire for a flyover and potentially abandoning the low level route.

Annoyingly there isn't room for a bridge or underpass to solve this issue in the town centre.

I'd have thought the problem would be that the northbound lower level platform would be in homeowners' back gardens, if you wanted to fully move the station down to the lower level, keeping the high level track for through express services. Unless I've read the map incorrectly, or we're suggesting other track alterations as well...?

 

[zwk500]

I'd have thought the problem would be that the northbound lower level platform would be in homeowners' back gardens, if you wanted to fully move the station down to the lower level, keeping the high level track for through express services. Unless I've read the map incorrectly, or we're suggesting other track alterations as well...?

Tbf, the OP doesn't indicate a Northbound Low Level platform. However, without moving the low level lines the northbound platforms would be in homeowner' back rooms, let alone gardens. Hence NR's suggestion to 4-track the high level lines with a new flyover north of the town, and to close the short link line. The longer low-level line has been suggested for retention to regulate freight. It wouldn't be impossible to slue the low level lines over a few meters, but would be a tight turn.

 

[Bristol LHS]

I like the link with the Wensleydale Railway - often thought they could run a feeder service from Leyburn down through Bedale and Leeming to connect with the London trains. One that arrived at Northallerton at 0740 to connect with the Grand Central would be ideal and I suspect would be well used. I’d also reinstate Northallerton - Ripon - Leeds, but that’s just me.

Others have pointed out the issue with the level crossings, which I think is a real limiting factor. I also think the loss of the station carpark would be a problem given Northallerton’s wide catchment and the amount of rail heading going on there. Difficult to see where else it could go - there were lots of objections when the county council tried to even slightly expand their staff car park at county hall opposite.

 

[Halifaxlad]

These are the options published by Network Rail for Northallerton on page 21 of their 'Church Fenton to Newcastle Strategic Advice' published last year in April 2020!
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...Fenton-to-Newcastle-Strategic-Advice-2020.pdf

1 New platforms on the
Eaglescliffe lines
Construction of new platforms on the Eaglescliffe lines would enable stopping passenger trains to/from Teesside to
avoid calling on the fast lines. Services calling at Northallerton to/from the Darlington direction would still be
required to stop on the fast lines however, and analysis for NPR has established that this is likely to restrict the
railway’s ability to deliver the full train service tested. Further, the impacts on level crossings would require mitigation
(see section F.03.02).

2 Two additional tracks
through Northallerton
station, new platform-faces
on the new lines
Extension of the existing Up and Down Slow lines from the south through Northallerton station would allow
platform-faces to be added to the new slow lines on the outside of the existing alignment. This would free capacity
for non-stopping services and remove passenger calls from the existing platform-faces, which would have a safety
benefit. This option has been developed through CMSP and has a high order of magnitude cost. Analysis of the
capacity implications has determined that northbound trains crossing the southbound lines towards Eaglescliffe
would restrict the railway’s ability to deliver growth in demand.

3 As prior option (2), with
grade separated access to
Eaglescliffe lines north of
the station
The prior two options would not enable the full train service planned by NPR to be delivered. Even without NPR,
growth in demand on the ECML requires additional trains. This would be enabled by continuing the slow lines
through Northallerton station to re-join the fast lines north of the station, with a new dive-under or fly-over
connection to the north of the station, from the northbound line to the Eaglescliffe lines. Initial development work
for this option has been undertaken as part of NPR and has a very high order of magnitude cost.

4 New station on four-track
section to the south
Construction of a new station, with platforms on the existing slow lines to the south of the existing station, could
facilitate growth in demand by allowing passenger trains to call on the slow lines regardless of origin and destination.
However, moving the station away from the town centre is likely to have a detrimental impact on the town’s
economic development.

Option 3 is the only one with a diagram as shown below.

 

[30907]

Thanks Halifaxlad for the options.

Mitigation of the Low Level LC problem might not be so difficult if only the Down line were used across them, and all Up trains were routed via a new Up Slow platform. Half the number of freights, replaced by northbound passengers - probably more of them, but clearing the crossings faster.
If the Up Low Level is used to regulate trains, then provide a freight loop North of the station (as far as the A167 bridge should be plenty, and it would be largely on redundant formation).
You still have down main line trains stopping on the Fast but that's max 2tph.

 

[waverley47]

Thanks Halifaxlad for the options.

Mitigation of the Low Level LC problem might not be so difficult if only the Down line were used across them, and all Up trains were routed via a new Up Slow platform. Half the number of freights, replaced by northbound passengers - probably more of them, but clearing the crossings faster.
If the Up Low Level is used to regulate trains, then provide a freight loop North of the station (as far as the A167 bridge should be plenty, and it would be largely on redundant formation).
You still have down main line trains stopping on the Fast but that's max 2tph.

So these issues and indeed the proposals have been kicking around for a while now. The main red lines are that no significant increase in LC downtime is acceptable, as it cuts the town in two and there are safety issues with it being down (or even scheduled for being down, regardless of whether paths are used or not) for longer than about twenty minutes per hour.

The other red line is not necessarily down passenger trains crossing the up fast, but also blocking the down fast while they wait to cross. Northallerton isnt super busy, but it's growing, and increasing numbers of trains post HS2, and with extra services to Middlesbrough, the capacity here is going to become a real issue.

Currently the grade separated freight route works, but you couldn't schedule passenger trains down it, as they'd have to run slow line from Thirsk, and you miss the station. You couldn't build platforms there either, as that puts more trains slowing and stopping in between the LCs, breaking the first problem. The first proposed solution recognises this. As noted, it also doesn't solve the problem of stopping on the fast lines.

The second proposed solution solves the problem of stopping on the fast line, however down trains still have to cross the up fast, again eating capacity.

Grade separation to the north of the station would be good, but then you're moving the freight paths into a situation where they're interacting with passenger trains.

It's all a bit complex for what at face value appears to be a minimal importance provincial junction

 

[D6130]

Assuming that all freight trains to and from the Eaglescliffe line use the avoiding diveunder - which they do in normal circumstances - there is only one conflicting move per hour by TPE services, plus one GC and possibly eventually LNER Middlesbrough service every couple of hours. Would it really justify the huge expense and disruption caused? I think that the money would be better spent eliminating the Newark flat crossing, although I'm all in favour of building a bay platform and spur for the Wensleydale Railway, if space can be found for alternative car parking.

 

[Halifaxlad]

A fly over to the North of the station would require at least 2.7km (1.67m) miles of new track just to connect it to the Middlesborough line, that without accounting for the decent towards the station.

Don't forget if Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton reopens it could become a lot busier.

Personally I think the best solution maybe to single and sink the avoiding line.

 

[HST43257]

I think that the money would be better spent eliminating the Newark flat crossing.

As in, the route which gets 1tph in each direction crossing the ECML, compared to the 1-2 (soon 2-3) tph at Northallerton?

There’s 2 options for me.

Option 1:
Loops with platforms on either side on the high level, with a low level platform on the Middlesbrough bound line. London bound platform would be a loop all the way from NTR High Jn to Longlands Jn.

Option 2:
No platforms on high level, 2 on low - taking some of car park (multi storey built on remaining part). Chord back up to ECML at north end with flyover/diveunder.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Since they're is only one other station between York and Darlington i.e. Thirsk and with Darlington station being on the left hand side and services through York also predominately on the left.

What about having the fast lines on the left and the slow lines on the right between York & Darlington ?

Then at Northallerton you could possibly put a island platform in, it would need some fair earth works mind you for the station.

 

[zwk500]

Since they're is only one other station between York and Darlington i.e. Thirsk and with Darlington station being on the left hand side and services through York also predominately on the left.

What about having the fast lines on the left and the slow lines on the right between York & Darlington ?

Then at Northallerton you could possibly put a island platform in, it would need some fair earth works mind you for the station.

Enormous cost for no benefit unless you also put flyovers in at Darlington and Skelton Bridge Jn. Paired by direction allows very effective regulation at Thirsk and Tollerton and avoids conflicting moves at Northallerton. Darlington and York are both lower speed so the penalty is far lower than it would be at Northallerton for the crossing move.

There's also suggestions for an Up platform at Darlington to resolve the crossing issue there.

 

[Halifaxlad]

They're wouldn't need to be any crossing moves at Northallerton if the dive under is used for the occassional fast service to Middlesborough which was generally the point of my suggestion.

Unless Im mistaken everything stops at York so I don't know why you would a flyover in at Skelton Bridge Jn.

As for Darlington I would switch them back round North of the station out in the countryside. Regarding Darlington Station I would put in a new platform parallel with the existing up platform in the train shed where they're used to be a line, make it into the up platform, make the existing up into the down.

 

[30907]

Currently the grade separated freight route works, but you couldn't schedule passenger trains down it, as they'd have to run slow line from Thirsk, and you miss the station. You couldn't build platforms there either, as that puts more trains slowing and stopping in between the LCs, breaking the first problem.

My mistake, I hadn't spotted there was a third LC on the A167.
It looks to me as though you could build a footbridge there and a road bridge at Mill Lane. Springwell Lane is much more difficult but I assume much less busy.

 

[HST43257]

Unless Im mistaken everything stops at York so I don't know why you would a flyover in at Skelton Bridge Jn.

Unfortunately, frequent(ish) freight exists. Quite hard to work it all at Skelton Bridge.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I have previously thought about a dive under they're in a past at Skelton Jct. I think its got a good case on its own and would like to see it anyway.

Regarding the level crossing issue I don't see why the line couldn't be sunk but if you wanted to put platforms on it whilst keeping it double track I could see a problem in that, since they're isn't much room on the West side of the line.

 

[Ploughman]

Unfortunately, frequent(ish) freight exists. Quite hard to work it all at Skelton Bridge.

The proposal that I heard about 15 - 20 years ago was for the Up Slow to be put on a flyover then joining the Freight lines South of Skelton Bridge.
This would remove the conflict of Freights blocking the Up and Down fast lines as they were crossed over.

 

[zwk500]

They're wouldn't need to be any crossing moves at Northallerton if the dive under is used for the occassional fast service to Middlesborough which was generally the point of my suggestion.

If you stop on the low level route you risk blocking the crossing (especially during disruption). Not insurmountable, but needs a sack of cash

Unless Im mistaken everything stops at York so I don't know why you would a flyover in at Skelton Bridge Jn.

If you have down freight traffic conflicting with Up High-speed traffic, sooner or later you're going to have a problem. You weren't particularly clear which side 'left' and 'right' referred to.

As for Darlington I would switch them back round North of the station out in the countryside.

V. expensive, requires large land take to avoid speed penalty for the fast lines carrying HS2 traffic. And pointless, if you don't resolve the conflicts of Eaglescliffe trains crossing the fasts on the flat, as the junction margins are already 5 mins or so. Paired by direction is very efficient, especially for varied stopping patterns at Thirsk. Why break it? You can use the low level line to give you the grade-separation for crossing Down Slow to Yarm, and 1tph across a flat junction is manageable

I have previously thought about a dive under they're in a past at Skelton Jct. I think its got a good case on its own and would like to see it anyway.

There's separate proposals regarding additional lines and possible flyovers in the same document that had the Northallerton proposals.

Regarding the level crossing issue I don't see why the line couldn't be sunk but if you wanted to put platforms on it whilst keeping it double track I could see a problem in that, since they're isn't much room on the West side of the line.

What's the water table like? And how long will the good people of Northallerton tolerate their town being cut into two while NR dig out 3 roads, all the services, the ground and then build a gigantic concrete trench, cover it over and reinstate the services and roads?

 

[Halifaxlad]

V. expensive, requires large land take to avoid speed penalty for the fast lines carrying HS2 traffic. And pointless, if you don't resolve the conflicts of Eaglescliffe trains crossing the fasts on the flat, as the junction margins are already 5 mins or so. Paired by direction is very efficient, especially for varied stopping patterns at Thirsk. Why break it? You can use the low level line to give you the grade-separation for crossing Down Slow to Yarm, and 1tph across a flat junction is manageable

Actually I forgot four tracking only extends to just south of Northallerton station so a flyover or dive under would actually be rather useless.

Thinking about it again, the Down platform could remain on the down fast or it could be put on a long loop with high speed turnouts!

Up stopping services could be routed on the Up slow, since they also stop at Thirsk. Making the Up fast - Up slow the only conflict at Northallerton with the Down slow line.

The services that use the Down slow could just then run on the Down fast. Don't forget I would also take the Down platform at Thirsk out of use by putting a platform back, on what is currently the Up fast line which I would become the Down slow line.

 

[billio]

I would suggest s new station built a few hundred yards north of the existing station at the point where the Darlington lines cross over the low level line.
The low level line would be abandoned and converted to a new road servicing the station (running under it) and routed between the level crossings at the A167 (Boroughbridge Rd), B1333, Springwell Lane, and A167 (Darlington Rd) bridge. This new road would not only service the station but provide a bypass of the town centre for traffic on the A167.
There would be four tracks through the site of the old station to the new station and from there to about a mile north of the new station where a new line to Eaglescliffe would diverge east to the original Eaglescliffe line. Here there would be a flyover for the Eaglescliffe down line. This would require about 2.5 miles of new line.
The station would have only two platforms, each on the outer slow lines. The fast (inner) lines would not have platforms. There woud be appropriate switches between fast and slow lines before and after the station.
The 4-track railway should be capable of accommodation on the existing formation. The station could be on waste land and existing farmland to the west of the line. The new line towards the existing Eaglescliffe line runs across farmland.

For the railway, this proposal provides the simplest solution for track and operation. Allows a new railway station with wider platforms, no fast running though the platforms and has potential for increased car parking as required.
For Northallerton,the proposal removes all level crossings and provides a relief road avoiding the town centre.

 

[zwk500]

There would be four tracks through the site of the old station to the new station and from there to about a mile north of the new station where a new line to Eaglescliffe would diverge east to the original Eaglescliffe line. Here there would be a flyover for the Eaglescliffe down line. This would require about 2.5 miles of new line.

What happens to the connection with the heritage line at Redmire?

For the railway, this proposal provides the simplest solution for track and operation. Allows a new railway station with wider platforms, no fast running though the platforms and has potential for increased car parking as required.
For Northallerton,the proposal removes all level crossings and provides a relief road avoiding the town centre.

Simplest in terms of track and operation, but costliest in terms of planning and building - new lines involve things like public inquiries. You can achieve the same effect by singling the low level line to Down-direction only, singling the east link line to up only, build a platform on the low level next to the station car park and rebuild the Up side to have an Up Fast and Up slow through to Longlands. All within the existing railway boundary, provides full grade separation and reduces the level crossing risk as you now only have trains in one direction, which means the total closure time should be reduced. Provide crossovers south of the station (roughly where Longlands Junction is today) to permit regulation of trains between Northallerton and Thirsk and you don't even have to build a loop.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a double track railway is usually c.8m wide but can be narrower in places, and the standard width of a road lane is 3.5m, which leaves you with 0.5m either side (or 1m on 1 side) for footpaths, drainage, margin, signage etc.

 

[waverley47]

I would suggest s new station built a few hundred yards north of the existing station at the point where the Darlington lines cross over the low level line.
The low level line would be abandoned and converted to a new road servicing the station (running under it) and routed between the level crossings at the A167 (Boroughbridge Rd), B1333, Springwell Lane, and A167 (Darlington Rd) bridge. This new road would not only service the station but provide a bypass of the town centre for traffic on the A167.
There would be four tracks through the site of the old station to the new station and from there to about a mile north of the new station where a new line to Eaglescliffe would diverge east to the original Eaglescliffe line. Here there would be a flyover for the Eaglescliffe down line. This would require about 2.5 miles of new line.
The station would have only two platforms, each on the outer slow lines. The fast (inner) lines would not have platforms. There woud be appropriate switches between fast and slow lines before and after the station.
The 4-track railway should be capable of accommodation on the existing formation. The station could be on waste land and existing farmland to the west of the line. The new line towards the existing Eaglescliffe line runs across farmland.

For the railway, this proposal provides the simplest solution for track and operation. Allows a new railway station with wider platforms, no fast running though the platforms and has potential for increased car parking as required.
For Northallerton,the proposal removes all level crossings and provides a relief road avoiding the town centre.

As in option 4 in the above mentioned NR plan?

 

[billio]

Option 4 moves the station to the south of the existing one which moves it away from the town centre and would require a new access road (possibly a southern bypass). I was proposing moving the station to the north.

With regard to the width of the existing line being suitable for a new road, from looking at an aerial photograph (OS Maps) it looks like there would be room alongside the existing railway line to accommodate the road.

Removal of the low-level line and it's level-crossings is something the council and local inhabitants would love.

 

[zwk500]

With regard to the width of the existing line being suitable for a new road, from looking at an aerial photograph (OS Maps) it looks like there would be room alongside the existing railway line to accommodate the road.

At the southernmost level crossing, the road including footpaths is about 12m wide and the total ballast shoulder is about 8m wide. There may be room, but it will be involve some land purchase and earthworks to clear the width.

Removal of the low-level line and it's level-crossings is something the council and local inhabitants would love.

I'm sure. But will they love a brand new line rising 12m above the local ground level in open countryside?

 

[Halifaxlad]

I would suggest s new station built a few hundred yards north of the existing station at the point where the Darlington lines cross over the low level line.
The low level line would be abandoned and converted to a new road servicing the station (running under it) and routed between the level crossings at the A167 (Boroughbridge Rd), B1333, Springwell Lane, and A167 (Darlington Rd) bridge. This new road would not only service the station but provide a bypass of the town centre for traffic on the A167.
There would be four tracks through the site of the old station to the new station and from there to about a mile north of the new station where a new line to Eaglescliffe would diverge east to the original Eaglescliffe line. Here there would be a flyover for the Eaglescliffe down line. This would require about 2.5 miles of new line.
The station would have only two platforms, each on the outer slow lines. The fast (inner) lines would not have platforms. There woud be appropriate switches between fast and slow lines before and after the station.
The 4-track railway should be capable of accommodation on the existing formation. The station could be on waste land and existing farmland to the west of the line. The new line towards the existing Eaglescliffe line runs across farmland.

For the railway, this proposal provides the simplest solution for track and operation. Allows a new railway station with wider platforms, no fast running though the platforms and has potential for increased car parking as required.
For Northallerton,the proposal removes all level crossings and provides a relief road avoiding the town centre.

Even I like that idea but I wouldn't move the station.

My suggestion was borne out of the realization that this 2.5 mile bit of new line is going to be very expensive.

But what I in particular like about switching York to Northallerton from being paired by speed rather than by direction is that it would also allow the accessibility issue to be sorted out at Thirsk without moving/building a brand new station!

Also York is already ideal as the fast services already serve the left hand side of the station.

 

[waverley47]

Even I like that idea but I wouldn't move the station.

My suggestion was borne out of the realization that this 2.5 mile bit of new line is going to be very expensive.

But what I in particular like about switching York to Northallerton from being paired by speed rather than by direction is that it would also allow the accessibility issue to be sorted out at Thirsk without moving/building a brand new station!

Also York is already ideal as the fast services already serve the left hand side of the station.

Paired by use is never going to happen on the northern ECML.

Too much along here switches back and forth from slows to fasts, not least anything stopping at Thirsk moving onto the fasts to avoid being caught behind the frequent 60mph coal and biomass.

There is an argument that you could rebuild Thirsk with four platforms, but then what would be the point?

Platforms on the fasts mean you have the lovely side effect of parking trains bang in the middle of one of the longest 125 running sections in the country. Platforms on the slow mean exactly the same as what's there now, only suddenly you have conflicting moves to contend with as well.

Platforms on both could work, but you'd still have one of the two mentioned above problems to contend with.

Also what about freight that doesn't go via Darlington? Would you want that to conflict across one of the fast lines to continue its journey? Granted that happens already at Skelton Bridge Jn, but it's not thing to have that problem a mile down the line from York and another to have that in the middle of a fast, straight section where everything moves along at max speed.

Sure, you could go for grade separation, but how expensive would that be? If you couldn't do it at Leadburn Jn, you'd never manage to convince the treasury that Northallerton would be worth it.