Freight has been doing that when it works best for donkeys years.
The flyover will be an order of magnitude cheaper than changing the line to pair by use rather than direction.
Sorry perhaps I'm confused? I thought the proposal was to change the current track layout between Skelton Junction (York) and Longlands Junction (Northallerton) from paired by direction (down slow, down fast, up fast, up slow) to paired by use (up fast, down fast, up slow, down slow)?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't really give a monkeys about Thirsk because the reason this plan falls over is the extraordinarily high cost of making the necessary changes to infrastructure versus a simple flyover at Northallerton. As per my original comment on this thread:
What speed do you intend to have on the new Down Fast? (Current down slow, which is 60mph at the moment)
Back in the day there were two through tracks between Platform 3 and 5 at York, I think they were removed at electrification, would there be any advantage in restoring one or both (Thinking particularly the southbound one)
In theory yes. However trying to tie it onto the existing layout at either end and the modifications to signals and OLE needed make it more money than its worth.
IF you got the right layout, the ability to split work on 5 and to recess freight without blocking 3 would be handy, but totally agree with you on the throat, speeds etc hence the 'more money than its worth' assessment
Absolutely 100% yes work has done. NR don't write a public document suggesting major infrastructure change without having tested it to see the benefits.
The people making that assessment are people who have experience of such schemes as railway professionals. Notably, the proposals for York in the document you link do NOT include a through line between 3 and 5. They do include new platforms, which will be incredibly helpful (but might require some work done to the IECC).
There is a massive difference between a like-for-like replacement and having to redesign the system for new track positions. It's cheaper to make changes to the layout when you'd have to renew anyway but it's still more expensive to change than to renew.
Future service growth would need to be assessed, especially the impact on passenger services of different layouts at Northallerton. In particular, removing the Level crossings (as is a potential option) will have an impact because freights now have to go through the station rather than avoiding the platforms.
I'm referring to the people on this forum who are explaining that it's not as simple as you think.
A pantograph head isn't very wide.
I don't know why you are insisting this work hasn't been done at any level.
You've implied it would be easier than a flyover.
You've missed my point - it's fine where it is. However, if you move the track even by just a foot or so, the wires would no longer line up with the pantograph, and you'd have to redesign the OLE.
As has been said upthread, the crossing move across the Fast lines isn't really a problem at Skelton Bridge Jn. Also, at the southern end of York the avoiding lines don't connect to the Normanton lines so you'd end up having to cross all the freight back across the (comparatively busier) lines at Colton North Jn if it was aiming for Doncaster.