Theoretical Northallerton Station Upgrade

[zwk500]

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!

I explained in Post #25 how you get a completely conflict free station that only requires moderate rebuilding of the Up side.

Immediately north of York it reduces to 2-tracks, then from Skelton Jn there's a couple of miles or so of 4-track with the slows on the west of the fasts, before the Up Slow transitions at Skelton Bridge Jn. I don't see why paired by use with the slows on the east side gives any advantage at all. You solve a non-existant problem at Northallerton and create a much bigger problem at Skelton Bridge Jn.

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

Not quite: York station is paired by route. Trains from Leeds use the higher-numbered platforms and trains from Doncaster use the lower-numbered side (where available). Freight running via Sherburn will tend to use either side depending on how their path works and what they do at Colton Jn. And the York avoiding line is only accessible from the Leeds lines, so trains going to York Yard or being kept out of the station need to be on the Down/West side at Skelton Bridge or Colton North Jn.

On a side note, which side is left and right in your posts? Left and Right are dependent on the POV being defined first. Could I ask for clarity please can you use East/West or Up/Down, in this context?

 

[Halifaxlad]

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.

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.

Im not sure who's suggesting having Thirsk with four platforms at all!

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.

I don't see why freight that doesn't go via Darlington would be a problem, nor why you would think it would cross the fast line anywhere near Northallerton ?

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.

That's generally what prompted my suggestion in the first place, i.e to avoid the need for expensive grade separation that is unlikely to be passed by the treasury!

 

[waverley47]

I don't see why freight that doesn't go via Darlington would be a problem, nor why you would think it would cross the fast line anywhere near Northallerton ?

Ah that was a typo, should have said that does go via Darlington.

The Thirsk four platforming is somewhat that an argument that could be made for four tracking, and moreso because it doesn't really matter either way, but if you're doing any rebuilding, you may as well just bite the bullet and go for the four

 

[Halifaxlad]

Ah that was a typo, should have said that does go via Darlington.

I thought that at first then I thought Ill just go with what you said.

My thoughts on freight:

Well the line above Northallerton is used by both fast and slow freight and passenger trains.

I remember reading something about high speed freight not so long ago but neither can I remember where it was or what it was.

The existing dive under could be kept and reconfigured so that it only uses one crossing. Although this would end up crossing the car park. (Don't like the idea, but its an idea)

Personally I would rather send it on the down fast, preferably at high speed. Im not sure if freight on the down is empty or not, perhaps yourself or someone with more knowledge could confirm or deny ?

As from freight on the Up line, a simply crossover would suffice which would only conflict with traffic on the Down slow line.

Regarding Thirsk, the station needs lifts the Up platforms appear wide enough but the Down platforms certainly don't look it without building out towards the Down fast. Which I suspect may not be possible and most certainly won't be practical. Apart from that I don't think it needs any other major improvement.

Just to add: adding lifts allows the existing barrow crossing that crosses the Up slow, the Up fast and the Down fast to be permanently closed!

 

[30907]

The existing dive under could be kept and reconfigured so that it only uses one crossing. Although this would end up crossing the car park.

Do you mean that the Down Slow/Yarm (whatever it's officially called) would continue at high level next to the main line as far as Mill Lane then drop down to the diveunder? If so, I fear the new-looking houses just North of Mill Lane LC would be in the way - and it is probably unacceptably steep too.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Do you mean that the Down Slow/Yarm (whatever it's officially called) would continue at high level next to the main line as far as Mill Lane then drop down to the diveunder? If so, I fear the new-looking houses just North of Mill Lane LC would be in the way - and it is probably unacceptably steep too.

That idea (that Im not keen on) is to use the existing Up dive under, cross Boroughbridge road before rejoining the line near Romanby Rd, it wouldn't have any impact upon the new houses! Mill Lane might be a sticking point.



Its about 511m from the existing dive under South of the station. Im not sure what gradient would be possible but in comparison the distance between the dive under North of the station to the junction with the Up lines is only about 453m.

The above is for getting rid of one level crossing, obviously the alternative is to use the two existing crossings and install a much shorter (less complicated) chord back up to the ECML like this...



I do prefer level crossing less options! Although keeping the level crossing route in might be good if the Ripon line is ever reopened. It has been accepted into the third round of the 'Restoring Your Railway' Fund!

 

[Bristol LHS]

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.

I understand the local MP may have some influence with them.

Meeting convened by Rishi Sunak agrees to seek Northallerton crossings solution

Rail and council chiefs have agreed to investigate potential solutions to the congestion caused by Northallerton’s three level crossings.

www.rishisunak.com

 

[Ploughman]

Is there an option of leaving the railway as is, but tunneling or bridging the roads?

 

[zwk500]

Is there an option of leaving the railway as is, but tunneling or bridging the roads?

Not really, because you've got the railway on 2 levels and housing tight up to both road and rail.

 

[30907]

That idea (that Im not keen on) is to use the existing Up dive under, cross Boroughbridge road before rejoining the line near Romanby Rd, it wouldn't have any impact upon the new houses! Mill Lane might be a sticking point.

View attachment 95328

Its about 511m from the existing dive under South of the station. Im not sure what gradient would be possible but in comparison the distance between the dive under North of the station to the junction with the Up lines is only about 453m.

The above is for getting rid of one level crossing, obviously the alternative is to use the two existing crossings and install a much shorter (less complicated) chord back up to the ECML like this...

View attachment 95329

I do prefer level crossing less options! Although keeping the level crossing route in might be good if the Ripon line is ever reopened. It has been accepted into the third round of the 'Restoring Your Railway' Fund!

Thanks, I obviously misunderstood what you were about. You are talking about the hypothetical situation of tracks paired by use, and moves from the Down East towards Darlington passing under the West pair?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Thanks, I obviously misunderstood what you were about. You are talking about the hypothetical situation of tracks paired by use, and moves from the Down East towards Darlington passing under the West pair?

Most certainly hypothetical or crayonista!

Yes the Down Slow to the Down fast without having to cross the Up fast!

I'm intrigued to know how many freights head through Northallerton and Darlington on the Down lines but in particular if they are laden or unladen loads, if anyone can help ?