What could be done to make the Whitby line better?

[deltic08]

Transdev buses literally aren't competing against the trains, so how can you compare the passenger usage?
Do you really think that people would rather take a 1tp4h service compared to an hourly bus?

How are the buses not competing if you say they are quicker, cheaper, more comfortable, more frequent and operate between the same towns?

It appears that more than 0.1% prefer the 1tp4h train

 

[RT4038]

How are the buses not competing if you say they are quicker, cheaper, more comfortable, more frequent and operate between the same towns?

It appears that more than 0.1% prefer the 1tp4h train

Possibly because Transdev buses only compete obliquely - i.e. for a York-Whitby journey, which is shorter in distance by bus than rail via Middlesbrough and requires no change of vehicle. Between Middlesbrough and Whitby it is Arriva buses, is it not?

 

[deltic08]

Possibly because Transdev buses only compete obliquely - i.e. for a York-Whitby journey, which is shorter in distance by bus than rail via Middlesbrough and requires no change of vehicle. Between Middlesbrough and Whitby it is Arriva buses, is it not?

No idea as I have never used a bus to Whitby.

I thought posters were implying that the Middlesbrough to Whitby buses were Transdev.

 

[RT4038]

No idea as I have never used a bus to Whitby.

I thought posters were implying that the Middlesbrough to Whitby buses were Transdev.

With respect, I think it is you who has misunderstood post #116, which says that the Transdev buses [on Service 840 Leeds-York-Whitby] are really good to ride on, and that funding ( presumably a fraction of that which would be required for any upgrade of Whitby line service ) could be used to upgrade the current Middlesbrough-Whitby bus service to that standard.

 

[yorksrob]

I have used the Middlesbrough Whitby bus, and it is a decent enough service. It is still quite a long way to be bouncing around on the bus, and I think that adding tables, more padded seats etc, as with the Coastliner, would be unlikely to clinch many more passengers from the train than those who already prefer the bus. Don't forget, York to Whitby is a lot less direct than Middlesbrough to Whitby by train.

I would say that the £2 fare scheme has more potential to switch passengers from train to bus, however, that has already been going for several months and the train to Whitby is still busy from my experience this weekend just gone.

From my observations there seems to be a fair amount of demand to whitby from the intermediate stations collectively, and these wouldn't be able to be served by the bus route.

@Yankee54 is correct to say that the Middlesbrough - Whitby bus is already competing for the end - to - end market. Both modes will serve different people and the one isn't, and won't be an adequate substitute for the other.

 

[30907]

Yes, I read that as well.

Of course, on weekdays that train has been four carriages for sometime anyway for the school children.

It says something about the state of rolling stock provision if Northern are having to withdraw services to strengthen a train. Should have kept some 153's afterall !

I think it's a question of keeping total rolling stock mileage down as the unit has generally been available but not regularly used.
It also presumably saves on crewing one round trip, and given that the Commondale commuter train was never likely to earn its subsidy anyway (apologies to Alan Williams et al), it makes overall sense.

And yes, on the days when 4 cars are not enough, I would love to see a mid-morning relief and late-afternoon return, but without some infrastructure expenditure (at least the additional token section to Grosmont) and negotiations with the NYMR it won't happen.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's a question of keeping total rolling stock mileage down as the unit has generally been available but not regularly used.
It also presumably saves on crewing one round trip, and given that the Commondale commuter train was never likely to earn its subsidy anyway (apologies to Alan Williams et al), it makes overall sense.

And yes, on the days when 4 cars are not enough, I would love to see a mid-morning relief and late-afternoon return, but without some infrastructure expenditure (at least the additional token section to Grosmont) and negotiations with the NYMR it won't happen.

I think that rather than the reliefs, the line needs that 2 hourly service to make it attractive as a transport option.

That improvement to the infrastructure needs to take place and take account of the NYMR. There's no point putting in extra token sections if we're still beholden to the NYMR.

 

[deltic08]

With respect, I think it is you who has misunderstood post #116, which says that the Transdev buses are really good to ride on, and that funding could be used to upgrade the current Middlesbrough-Whitby bus service to that standard.

I have already stated that I misunderstood but nevertheless the Middlesbrough-Whitby bus is directly competing with the train whoever operates it.

 

[stevieinselby]

I don't think abandoning Battersby would be worth the funding.

Far better to put a loop or some double track somewhere to enable a 2 hour frequency.

Between Nunthorpe and Whitby, trains can already pass at Battersby and Glaisdale, so no engineering needed to run two trains on the line (except possibly some remedial maintenance if the second line has not been used for some time).
But it may be disproportionately expensive, if it means not just adding an additional train and crew, but also reopening a signal box – I'm assuming that with only one train ever in steam between Nunthorpe and Grosmont that there won't be any signalling used on that section at the moment, but reopening a passing loop would scotch that saving.

 

[Starmill]

Many feel the same so putting on more buses is futile.

Really? That's a very bold claim! More bus services would make no difference at all? And how many people other than you does this go for exactly?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2023 ==

Is this demonstrably true in absolute? For instance, presumably National Express wouldn't make any money on daytime coaches if it were.

It's unquestionably wrong. Otherwise bus routes like the 843 Leeds - Scarborough, X43 Burnley - Manchester and 36 Leeds - Harrogate wouldn't be viable without any end-to-end traffic at all. They absolutely are viable however...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2023 ==

If the Transdev buses to Whitby are as good as you say, why is anybody using the train?

Because the Transdev buses don't serve Middlesbrough and Darlington, but the trains do?

 

[zwk500]

Between Nunthorpe and Whitby, trains can already pass at Battersby and Glaisdale, so no engineering needed to run two trains on the line (except possibly some remedial maintenance if the second line has not been used for some time).
But it may be disproportionately expensive, if it means not just adding an additional train and crew, but also reopening a signal box – I'm assuming that with only one train ever in steam between Nunthorpe and Grosmont that there won't be any signalling used on that section at the moment, but reopening a passing loop would scotch that saving.

Nunthorpe box controls the token instruments at Battersby and Glaisdale (and presumably the intermediate instrument at Grosmont) through No Signaller Token Remote. There's no signal boxes to reopen - Whitby and Grosmont are Ground frames and require the token to operate.

 

[Starmill]

I have already stated that I misunderstood but nevertheless the Middlesbrough-Whitby bus is directly competing with the train whoever operates it.

The Arriva bus already carries far more passengers than the train does anyway.

 

[stevieinselby]

Yes? Otherwise no stations between Great Ayton and Grosmont would be served by any trains at all, as there's no reason for any more people than that to use them. Incidentally skipping all of those stops would save more time than building a new chord.

Battersby has unusually low patronage even by the standards of this line, being joint last along with Kildale, with about 1.5k/yr (2019/20 figures). The next station up is Commondale with 2.5k, but other stations are much better used, eg Lealholm has 15k and Glaisdale over 20k. If Battersby were to be skipped, it would save about 7 minutes off the journey and would disadvantage very few people – to make a similar time saving by skipping other stations that the train has to pass through regardless, you would have to skip several stations and you would be cutting off vastly more passengers. (Not that I'm convinced that the engineering needed to bypass Battersby would be worthwhile)

 

[billio]

The Arriva (Middlesbrough - Whitby) bus already carries far more passengers than the train does anyway.

Don't forget the other Middlesbrough - Whitby service (4) running through Redcar, Saltburn and Loftus. This service stops just outside Saltburn station, much more convenient than the tramp through the centre of Middlesbrough.

 

[yorksrob]

Between Nunthorpe and Whitby, trains can already pass at Battersby and Glaisdale, so no engineering needed to run two trains on the line (except possibly some remedial maintenance if the second line has not been used for some time).
But it may be disproportionately expensive, if it means not just adding an additional train and crew, but also reopening a signal box – I'm assuming that with only one train ever in steam between Nunthorpe and Grosmont that there won't be any signalling used on that section at the moment, but reopening a passing loop would scotch that saving.

I suppose the issue is where the track is shared with the NYMR services.

 

[yorkie]

Reopened to allow @yorksrob to post an update

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks @yorkie

I was just pondering a possible solution to the crowded Whitby end of the line.

To recap, the NYMR has paths on the line and these trains operate to the benefit of both Whitby and the preserved railway.

However, the National Rail service is inadequate for the route and needs to be improved from the current train every four hours to something actually useable.

Would a possible solution be to provide a traditional block post between Grosmont and Whitby. This could be staffed by the NYMR when they wanted to run trains on the section and the rest of the time, it could be switched out, allowing NR to run a train every two hours.

Obviously this would be an extra staffing commitment for the NYMR, however NR could assist by providing training and certification to the staff to operate signalling, maybe a second hand signal box from elsewhere on the network, and possibly a contribution to the staff costs - which would be a lot less than a normal signal box as it would only need to operate when the NYMR was running on that section.

The only obstacle I can think of would be how this would interact with the RETB signalling on the rest of the line. Perhaps our signalling experts could advise !

 

[zwk500]

Would a possible solution be to provide a traditional block post between Grosmont and Whitby.

In short, yes. There is already an intermediate token instrument at Grosmont, and it would be possible in theory to change it to a short section token. However it would need the signalling of the connection to the NYMR reviewing, as the hypothetical consequences of a SPAD at Grosmont are dramatically more serious now that trains can approach in both directions on the single line. Not a show-stopper by any means, but an additional cost.

This could be staffed by the NYMR when they wanted to run trains on the section and the rest of the time, it could be switched out, allowing NR to run a train every two hours.

Obviously this would be an extra staffing commitment for the NYMR, however NR could assist by providing training and certification to the staff to operate signalling, maybe a second hand signal box from elsewhere on the network, and possibly a contribution to the staff costs - which would be a lot less than a normal signal box as it would only need to operate when the NYMR was running on that section.

Staffing of Signalling used by NR trains under contract to the NYMR is extremely unlikely to be acceptable to either party. The financial implications for the NYMR and the Operational risk to NR would be very serious. Far more likely would be for the NYMR to contribute towards the additional signalling shift for an NR signaller, as railtours do when they require boxes to be switched in outside of normal operating hours. However, see below:

The only obstacle I can think of would be how this would interact with the RETB signalling on the rest of the line. Perhaps our signalling experts could advise !

Unless I've massively missed something, the line is No Signaller Token Remote, not RETB. NSTR has physical token machines but is released from (in this case) Nunthorpe controlling the entire line. I don't know whether any NSTR line has 'long section' working but there is, in theory, no reason why you could not have Glaisdale-Whitby as a long section with Glaisdale-Grosmont and Grosmont-Whitby as short sections. Some method of control would be needed to ensure the Glaisdale-Grosmont token was not issued to a train that would then end up in a mexican stand-off.

If RETB was introduced on the line, it would be far, far simpler to just give the NYMR a portable RETB unit and have Long/Short section working between Glaisdale, Grosmont and Whitby than to have an actual block post.

 

[ainsworth74]

Unless I've massively missed something, the line is No Signaller Token Remote, not RETB. NSTR has physical token machines but is released from (in this case) Nunthorpe controlling the entire line. I don't know whether any NSTR line has 'long section' working but there is, in theory, no reason why you could not have Glaisdale-Whitby as a long section with Glaisdale-Grosmont and Grosmont-Whitby as short sections. Some method of control would be needed to ensure the Glaisdale-Grosmont token was not issued to a train that would then end up in a mexican stand-off.

If RETB was introduced on the line, it would be far, far simpler to just give the NYMR a portable RETB unit and have Long/Short section working between Glaisdale, Grosmont and Whitby than to have an actual block post.

As you say it's token machines remotely by Nunthorpe box which, it should be noted, to my understanding is already at (if not a little bit beyond) the capacity of the current signaller that works that box. I've heard some suggestion it would need regrading if anything was done which further increased the workload of that box.

 

[zwk500]

As you say it's token machines remotely by Nunthorpe box which, it should be noted, to my understanding is already at (if not a little bit beyond) the capacity of the current signaller that works that box. I've heard some suggestion it would need regrading if anything was done which further increased the workload of that box.

Would it be possible to have a second signaller to Monitor Battersby-Whitby on NYMR running days, and maintain a single signaller when the short section isn't required?

 

[yorksrob]

In short, yes. There is already an intermediate token instrument at Grosmont, and it would be possible in theory to change it to a short section token. However it would need the signalling of the connection to the NYMR reviewing, as the hypothetical consequences of a SPAD at Grosmont are dramatically more serious now that trains can approach in both directions on the single line. Not a show-stopper by any means, but an additional cost.

Staffing of Signalling used by NR trains under contract to the NYMR is extremely unlikely to be acceptable to either party. The financial implications for the NYMR and the Operational risk to NR would be very serious. Far more likely would be for the NYMR to contribute towards the additional signalling shift for an NR signaller, as railtours do when they require boxes to be switched in outside of normal operating hours. However, see below:

Unless I've massively missed something, the line is No Signaller Token Remote, not RETB. NSTR has physical token machines but is released from (in this case) Nunthorpe controlling the entire line. I don't know whether any NSTR line has 'long section' working but there is, in theory, no reason why you could not have Glaisdale-Whitby as a long section with Glaisdale-Grosmont and Grosmont-Whitby as short sections. Some method of control would be needed to ensure the Glaisdale-Grosmont token was not issued to a train that would then end up in a mexican stand-off.

If RETB was introduced on the line, it would be far, far simpler to just give the NYMR a portable RETB unit and have Long/Short section working between Glaisdale, Grosmont and Whitby than to have an actual block post.

Thanks, that's a very comprehensive reply.

The review of the signalling at Grosmont would be a one-off investment, which is potentially easier to source than ongoing revenue.

NYMR contributing to extra signalling shifts might be a way forward. However, they might find it easier to provide volunteer labour than hard cash !

Apologies, I might be out of date with RETB - the new system has probably replaced it !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2023 ==

As you say it's token machines remotely by Nunthorpe box which, it should be noted, to my understanding is already at (if not a little bit beyond) the capacity of the current signaller that works that box. I've heard some suggestion it would need regrading if anything was done which further increased the workload of that box.

I know @zwk500 has addressed this, but I suppose the question is, whether NYMR personnel could be brought in to reduce this burden when they're using the section, rather than adding to the NR signalling cost.

 

[ainsworth74]

Would it be possible to have a second signaller to Monitor Battersby-Whitby on NYMR running days, and maintain a single signaller when the short section isn't required?

Pass! That's beyond my knowledge of signalling arrangements sadly.

Apologies, I might be out of date with RETB - the new system has probably replaced it !

The existing system is arguably older as the token machines are 19th century originals, though the telephones used to communicate with Nunthorpe box are probably from the 1980s to be fair To be clear the line has never had RETB. It went from boxes controlling passing points with token machines to token machines being monitored remotely by Nunthorpe box.

That being said apparently the equipment is becoming increasingly unreliable. Token's not being released requiring the attention of S&T (I am informed that you absolutely must not force a token machine so percussive maintenance via the driver is not permitted) is apparently an increasing issue.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks, that's a very comprehensive reply.

Not a problem.

The review of the signalling at Grosmont would be a one-off investment, which is potentially easier to source than ongoing revenue.

Very true, and the NYMR could conceivably commission the investigation, although if any changes are required it will likely be multi-million pounds so probably beyond the NYMR.

NYMR contributing to extra signalling shifts might be a way forward. However, they might find it easier to provide volunteer labour than hard cash !

Not to find volunteers who are willing to be trained and maintain competence to NR's standards! Note that the Spa Valley Railway is obliged to use NR-Approved contractors on the section adjacent to the NR line.

Apologies, I might be out of date with RETB - the new system has probably replaced it !

My understanding is that the Esk Valley Line has never been RETB. It gets proposed at various points as it's a very cheap system to operate and suits the line well, but because it would require cash to fit the trains with the RETB equipment it doesn't get too far.

so percussive maintenance via the driver is not permitted

I love this phrase!

 

[yorksrob]

Pass! That's beyond my knowledge of signalling arrangements sadly.

The existing system is arguably older as the token machines are 19th century originals, though the telephones used to communicate with Nunthorpe box are probably from the 1980s to be fair To be clear the line has never had RETB. It went from boxes controlling passing points with token machines to token machines being monitored remotely by Nunthorpe box.

That being said apparently the equipment is becoming increasingly unreliable. Token's not being released requiring the attention of S&T (I am informed that you absolutely must not force a token machine so percussive maintenance via the driver is not permitted) is apparently an increasing issue.

Thanks. I read somewhere that it had RETB, but then again I have seen the cabinets with the token machines in them, now you mention it.

I presume "percussive maintenance" equates to "give it a whack" !

 

[ainsworth74]

I presume "percussive maintenance" equates to "give it a whack" !

Spot on

 

[yorksrob]

Not a problem.

Very true, and the NYMR could conceivably commission the investigation, although if any changes are required it will likely be multi-million pounds so probably beyond the NYMR.

Not to find volunteers who are willing to be trained and maintain competence to NR's standards! Note that the Spa Valley Railway is obliged to use NR-Approved contractors on the section adjacent to the NR line.

My understanding is that the Esk Valley Line has never been RETB. It gets proposed at various points as it's a very cheap system to operate and suits the line well, but because it would require cash to fit the trains with the RETB equipment it doesn't get too far.

I love this phrase!

Ah yes, I suppose NYMR could commission a review but they wouldn't really gain anything as its the line from Battersby that would gain the extra diagram.

I must admit, I've no idea how onerous a volunteer signaller on the NYMR would find it to upgrade to NR competency !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2023 ==

Spot on

I used to have a hi-fi which worked in much the same way !

 

[30907]

As far as I can see, the only remotely likely development would be a separate token section Grosmont-Glaisdale, subject to zwk500's comments. It would make some difference at moderate cost.

Meanwhile, looking at the present timetable, I would think that cooperation between the two operators would allow two additional NT round trips leaving Middlesborough late morning and mid afternoon (I am assuming that NYMR have permanently cut their 5th round trip at teatime, as it doesn’t show up for Spring Bank week?), which would cover the principal flows.
You would of course need an extra unit, but the forum money tree will pay

 

[HSTEd]

My understanding is that the Esk Valley Line has never been RETB. It gets proposed at various points as it's a very cheap system to operate and suits the line well, but because it would require cash to fit the trains with the RETB equipment it doesn't get too far.

I'm honestly surprised it wasn't fitted for RETB in the Late BR era.

Perhaps the signalling system was not staff intensive enough to justify immediately replacement and was not old enough to be up for replacement otherwise?

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm honestly surprised it wasn't fitted for RETB in the Late BR era.

Perhaps the signalling system was not staff intensive enough to justify immediately replacement and was not old enough to be up for replacement otherwise?

It's an interesting one isn't it? The final simplification to the lines current infrastructure took place in the 1980s (I believe, open to correction) so would have been in the time frame for RETB you'd have thought. Presumably BR felt that it was cheaper and easier to simply use spring loaded points at the passing loops and put the already extant token machines in cabinets with a telephone to Nunthorpe (which is single staffed).

 

[yorksrob]

I'm honestly surprised it wasn't fitted for RETB in the Late BR era.

Perhaps the signalling system was not staff intensive enough to justify immediately replacement and was not old enough to be up for replacement otherwise?

It's an interesting one isn't it? The final simplification to the lines current infrastructure took place in the 1980s (I believe, open to correction) so would have been in the time frame for RETB you'd have thought. Presumably BR felt that it was cheaper and easier to simply use spring loaded points at the passing loops and put the already extant token machines in cabinets with a telephone to Nunthorpe (which is single staffed).

It is interesting. The route would have seemed a shoe-in for it !

I suppose, coming back to my original point, it must make inserting an additional block post easier !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2023 ==

I must admit, I certainly feel that there's more scope for getting a decent service on the Whitby line without prohibitive infrastructure costs, than I did before reopening this thread.