Interesting update on the Whitby line

[yorksrob]

I thought I would post the following update on the Whitby line and the funds allocated to it from the Boulby mine works.

This comes courtesy of a FOI request to North Yorkshire Council from the Whitby Community Network in July this year.

The executive summary of the response is as follows:

- NYC have partially claimed the funds and will continue to do so.
- They believe that the funds allocated will be sufficient to enable the eight trains a day each way.
- Dependant on the design process, they envisage that the eight trains a day should be in place by around 2027.

So all in all, excellent news, particularly since things had gone alarmingly quiet on this front - Whitby may finally be on the verge of getting its rightful railway service back.

Woodsmith Mine and S106 funds for improved rail services – Whitby Community Network CIC

www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org

In 2015 North Yorkshire County Council was party to an S106 agreement with York Potash Ltd (at the time, currently Anglo American) for provision of a Rail Infrastructure Contribution. This was for “provision of up to £4,550,000 (index linked) towards the cost of infrastructure upgrades required to facilitate the Rail Services on the Middlesbrough to Whitby rail line”. It additionally stated “In the event that the Rail Infrastructure Contribution provides insufficient funds to procure an additional four services between Middlesbrough and Whitby to use its reasonable endeavours to investigate and apply for all alternative sources of funding”.

Please define

Whether the payment of the agreed sum has been paid to North Yorkshire Council in line with these terms? If it has not been paid, please define when it will be paid by?
What infrastructure upgrades have been facilitated by these funds?
Whether the funding was indeed judged sufficient to to provide the desired 8 daily services between Whitby and Middlesbrough? If the answer is that it was not sufficient, whether NYC has applied for suitable additional funding to provide these 8 daily services?
By which date the Whitby to Middlesbrough line will provide the 8 daily services?
The reply from NYC was as follows

"Partial payment of the S106 sums have already been drawn down by NYC and the current expectation is that the remaining funds will be drawdown this year.

The S106 funds have facilitated local line speed enhancements and it is currently expected that the remaining infrastructure upgrades will be delivered over the next two years.
Work on detailed design and costs on the planned infrastructure upgrades is being finalised this year, however the current expectation is that the S106 funds will be sufficient to facilitate the desired 8 daily services.

The current expectation for a start of service date for the 8 daily services is June 2027 however that date is indicative and subject to the detailed design and costs work being finalised, and an agreed programme of works with Network Rail to deliver the infrastructure upgrades."

 

[DarloRich]

Does the extracted material to go out via underground conveyor direct to Teesport?

Hopefully this work will help improve the passenger service to Whitby - it is such a lvely place - but the journey will still be a slow one

 

[Jan Mayen]

What would be the optimum departure times for the eight a day from Whitby? Presumably 6am then every two hours until 8pm?
Would there be capacity for the NYMR as well?

 

[yorksrob]

Does the extracted material to go out via underground conveyor direct to Teesport?

Hopefully this work will help improve the passenger service to Whitby - it is such a lvely place - but the journey will still be a slow one

I'm not sure to be honest. I don't think it goes by rail anyway.

What would be the optimum departure times for the eight a day from Whitby? Presumably 6am then every two hours until 8pm?
Would there be capacity for the NYMR as well?

The Whitby Community Network seems keen for a timetable that better suits people working on Teeside - so presumably an earlier train to Middlesbrough (they tried this a couple of years ago but that was very, very early !).

For me, something leaving Whitby between the 15:57 and 19:42 would be good for day trips.

Ideally something nearer to a two hourly interval would be best, but not sure how that would affect the school run.

 

[hacman]

They've built a tunnel with conveyors the full distance to the port for the mine's production, so I don't think any of it will ever travel by rail.

Always seemed a strange choice to me, as surely the amount spent on that tunnel could have easily paid for very substantial upgrades to the line which would have been more than sufficient for the freight flow, and facilitated a much-improved passenger service/experience too.

That said, from what I read the mine is not exactly proving to be a sound financial operation in general.

 

[John R]

Always seemed a strange choice to me, as surely the amount spent on that tunnel could have easily paid for very substantial upgrades to the line which would have been more than sufficient for the fright flow

Is that the extra traffic for the goth Halloween event in Whitby?

 

[Geeves]

Key contractor cutting 360 jobs on delayed £7bn Yorkshire mine in 'devastating' move

One of the main contractors on a £7bn Yorkshire mine project is cutting hundreds of jobs on the scheme, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

From the gist of this post it seems Anglo American are yet to actually start the mining element despite the huge tunnel to the port

All in all it was smart move to have the railway funds in place independent of the mine actually ever doing anything!

 

[30907]

What would be the optimum departure times for the eight a day from Whitby? Presumably 6am then every two hours until 8pm?
Would there be capacity for the NYMR as well?

The NYMR needs to he part of it, and I assume signalling work at Grosmont is par5 of the plan. Beyond that, it would depend on what else can be provided for the money. The logic would be to see what could be done with a second unit out all day.

 

[yorksrob]

They've built a tunnel with conveyors the full distance to the port for the mine's production, so I don't think any of it will ever travel by rail.

Always seemed a strange choice to me, as surely the amount spent on that tunnel could have easily paid for very substantial upgrades to the line which would have been more than sufficient for the fright flow, and facilitated a much-improved passenger service/experience too.

That said, from what I read the mine is not exactly proving to be a sound financial operation in general.

Key contractor cutting 360 jobs on delayed £7bn Yorkshire mine in 'devastating' move

One of the main contractors on a £7bn Yorkshire mine project is cutting hundreds of jobs on the scheme, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

From the gist of this post it seems Anglo American are yet to actually start the mining element despite the huge tunnel to the port

All in all it was smart move to have the railway funds in place independent of the mine actually ever doing anything!

The tunnel will still enable a lot of lorries to be kept off of the road.

As mentioned, the key thing for railway passengers is that the funding has been secured at the start and is being drawn down.

The NYMR needs to he part of it, and I assume signalling work at Grosmont is par5 of the plan. Beyond that, it would depend on what else can be provided for the money. The logic would be to see what could be done with a second unit out all day.

I think I read that the line used to have an 8 trains a day service before being softened up for privatisation. I'm guessing that these would have been at the optimum times of day.

NYMR services would need to be included in the pattern. Presumably part of the funding would enable the two services to follow eachother in and out of Whitby.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Isn't this area where Alan Willaims of Modern Railway fame lives? If so I am looking forward to if/when he writes an article about this in MR.

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't this area where Alan Willaims of Modern Railway fame lives? If so I am looking forward to if/when he writes an article about this in MR.

It is indeed, and he often writes about the line.

I think he might be involved with the local user group.

 

[Iskra]

This is excellent news for the Esk Valley line, but I hope it isn’t to the NYMR’s detriment.

 

[Blockman]

It is indeed, and he often writes about the line.

I think he might be involved with the local user group.

The user group is now "The Esk Valley Railway Development Company", and Alan Williams is the Chairman of the Board. His wife is General Manager. See: https://www.eskvalleyrailway.co.uk/board-of-directors/:

Digressing slightly, Alan Williams has his own railway, "The Moorlands Railway", in the grounds of his property near Staintondale. It's open this Sunday, 1st September, with funds raised going to charity. See: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2024/0...arity-running-day-returns-this-september.html Definitely worth a visit!

 

[dk1]

Isn't this area where Alan Willaims of Modern Railway fame lives? If so I am looking forward to if/when he writes an article about this in MR.

Instead of Effingham Junction

 

[ainsworth74]

I think I read that the line used to have an 8 trains a day service before being softened up for privatisation. I'm guessing that these would have been at the optimum times of day.

I think it was less "softening up" and more "BR didn't have enough DMUs so something had to give". It was around that time that the majority of the Darlington - Hartlepool services went and for the same reason.

Good news though! I've always been a fan of the Whitby branch getting a better service, as long as someone other than the taxpayer was picking up the tab!

Does anyone know what this refers to though?

We can but hope that the comments made by Northern Rail at the September 2023 WCN meeting of journey times dropping to nearer 1 hour after Battersby Junction changes turns out to be true.

I'd not heard about any plans for changes at Battersby Junction and the time saving seems substantial which would suggest a significant piece of work?

 

[Bald Rick]

Always seemed a strange choice to me, as surely the amount spent on that tunnel could have easily paid for very substantial upgrades to the line which would have been more than sufficient for the fright flow, and facilitated a much-improved passenger service/experience too.

Tunneling for a conveyor is somewhat cheaper than tunelling for a railway. Much smaller cross section (cheaper TBM; much cheaper materials in; much, much, cheaper to deal with materials out); no need to provide heavy duty ventilation, no need to provide regular escape shafts that can accommodate a couple of thousand people, no need to have an alignment suited to all the above plus passenger comfort. The operational costs will be far, far cheaper than a railway, and it will be far more reliable.

 

[unslet]

I gather that retb signalling is to be used,the hand operated points at Grosmont and Whitby will be mechanised and the bay at Battersby reinstated. Nunthorpe box will be retained and,as stated,up to 8 return journeys introduced. The preparatory work to begin in 2025.

 

[yorksrob]

Good news though! I've always been a fan of the Whitby branch getting a better service, as long as someone other than the taxpayer was picking up the tab!

Does anyone know what this refers to though?

TBH I'd say that the town needs a proper train service regardless of how its funded, however a private contribution is obviously better.

I'm sure there was some talk of by-passing Battersby Junction altogether with a curve at one point, but this always seemed like overkill to me.

 

[Blockman]

I gather that retb signalling is to be used,the hand operated points at Grosmont and Whitby will be mechanised and the bay at Battersby reinstated. Nunthorpe box will be retained and,as stated,up to 8 return journeys introduced. The preparatory work to begin in 2025.

RETB and not ETCS,? That's interesting, given that ETCS is supposed to be the future for signalling systems.

RETB or ECTS would cause additional expense for the NYMR though, having to fit additional equipment into several locos if running to Whitby from Grosmont is to continue. Track Circuit Block with axle counters (like the East Suffolk line where it replaced RETB) would avoid that. Might be a cheaper option too.

 

[ainsworth74]

RETB and not ETCS,? That's interesting, given that ETCS is supposed to be the future for signalling systems.

RETB or ECTS would cause additional expense for the NYMR though, having to fit additional equipment into several locos if running to Whitby from Grosmont is to continue. Track Circuit Block with axle counters (like the East Suffolk line where it replaced RETB) would avoid that. Might be a cheaper option too.

Yes RETB seemed an odd choice to me. Though one advantage is that you can get portable RETB sets so the NYMR wouldn't need to fit their locos with the equipment just have a couple of portable sets and swap between locos that are doing the Whitby services. Northern might prefer to do the same as well considering fitting the entire fleet that works around here with RETB equipment wouldn't be cheap either and would be more flexible than having a sub-fleet fitted.

 

[Belperpete]

RETB would be a sensible choice, as it is (or was) cheap. Certainly a lot cheaper than ETCS or TCB. And visiting locos (such as from the NYMR) don't need any fitment, as they can just carry a portable unit, as was practice on the Cambrian before it was converted to ETCS.

However, where are they going to get RETB from? It is obsolete, which is why it was replaced on the Cambrian and the East Suffolk. There are still some lines in Scotland still using it, but I don't think anyone is making new equipment. I seem to recall that it was developed by BR Research, not sure who they are now. I can vaguely remember awhile back when some minor change needed making to one of the RETB schemes, there was an industry-wide call to try and find signal engineers who knew anything about programming RETB.

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't see the point of having an ETCS island for however long it will take to reach Middlesbrough. This would just be a project killing expense.

 

[Harpo]

it would be simple enough to have TCB/colour lights on the jointly worked section and RETB elsewhere, but....

My simplistic understanding of RETB is that it has no fixed detection whereas ETCS L1/2 and TCB both do, so there'd be extra cost to having a TCB section.

Power supplies for fixed signals and fixed detection plus the cost of signalling structures were where NR originally anticipated ETCS offering a unit cost saving of about a third over lights on sticks.

 

[Blockman]

RETB would be a sensible choice, as it is (or was) cheap. Certainly a lot cheaper than ETCS or TCB. And visiting locos (such as from the NYMR) don't need any fitment, as they can just carry a portable unit, as was practice on the Cambrian before it was converted to ETCS.

However, where are they going to get RETB from? It is obsolete, which is why it was replaced on the Cambrian and the East Suffolk. There are still some lines in Scotland still using it, but I don't think anyone is making new equipment. I seem to recall that it was developed by BR Research, not sure who they are now. I can vaguely remember awhile back when some minor change needed making to one of the RETB schemes, there was an industry-wide call to try and find signal engineers who knew anything about programming RETB.

Like you, I thought that RETB was obsolete, but I've just discovered that Park Signalling did an upgrade of the RETB in Scotland a few years ago. Maybe they could provide the equipment.

 

[Bald Rick]

The RETB frequencies are not available in the east of england, (hence why it was replaced in Suffolk) so this seems unlikely…

 

[Belperpete]

it would be simple enough to have TCB/colour lights on the jointly worked section and RETB elsewhere, but....

My simplistic understanding of RETB is that it has no fixed detection whereas ETCS L1/2 and TCB both do, so there'd be extra cost to having a TCB section.

Power supplies for fixed signals and fixed detection plus the cost of signalling structures were where NR originally anticipated ETCS offering a unit cost saving of about a third over lights on sticks.

Correct, RETB doesn't require track circuits or axle counters. ETCS does require axle counters, as fiited all along the Cambrian. The much vaunted level 3, which would do away with them, hasn't yet come to anything, except on a few metro lines, due to practical issues with train position reporting and proof of train completeness.

Apart from the radio coverage, all that RETB requires is a power supply at each passing loop. Originally this just powered the point indicator. But upgrades also included things like TPWS.

 

[Railsigns]

The RETB frequencies are not available in the east of england, (hence why it was replaced in Suffolk) so this seems unlikely…

It needn't be an issue. The loss of the RETB radio frequencies in Scotland was managed by renewing the radio infrastructure and using a different sub-band of the Band III frequency spectrum.

 

[Belperpete]

Like you, I thought that RETB was obsolete, but I've just discovered that Park Signalling did an upgrade of the RETB in Scotland a few years ago. Maybe they could provide the equipment.

Park Signalling have done a lot of work to upgrade RETB. I think that they have completely renewed the train borne equipment, for example. And have provided a means of driving TPWS by listening to the radio messages. And I think the original trailable points have been replaced by motor points, again by eavesdropping on the radio messages to control the points. And they changed the radio channels that the system uses, so that the Scottish lines could continue to use it. So I think Park could probably manage all the train borne and trackside kit.

The issue I see is with the Control Centre equipment. As far as I am aware, all the RETB schemes are still based on SSI, which is also obsolete. Not sure if either Siemens (ex Westinghouse) or Alstom (ex GEC) are still making SSI. While the RETB software could probably be ported over to a more modern interlocking, in the same kind of way as Smartlock and Westlock can run SSI Data, the work involved in doing this would be phenomenally expensive as a one-off. Perhaps the intention is to reuse an SSI that has been recovered from elsewhere ( there have been a number of schemes where SSIs have been replaced by something more modern).

 

[Blockman]

Park Signalling have done a lot of work to upgrade RETB. I think that they have completely renewed the train borne equipment, for example. And have provided a means of driving TPWS by listening to the radio messages. And I think the original trailable points have been replaced by motor points, again by eavesdropping on the radio messages to control the points. And they changed the radio channels that the system uses, so that the Scottish lines could continue to use it. So I think Park could probably manage all the train borne and trackside kit.

The issue I see is with the Control Centre equipment. As far as I am aware, all the RETB schemes are still based on SSI, which is also obsolete. Not sure if either Siemens (ex Westinghouse) or Alstom (ex GEC) are still making SSI. While the RETB software could probably be ported over to a more modern interlocking, in the same kind of way as Smartlock and Westlock can run SSI Data, the work involved in doing this would be phenomenally expensive as a one-off. Perhaps the intention is to reuse an SSI that has been recovered from elsewhere ( there have been a number of schemes where SSIs have been replaced by something more modern).

Thanks. Interesting stuff. I suppose we'll just have to wait until more definite details emerge.

 

[Railsigns]

Park Signalling have done a lot of work to upgrade RETB. I think that they have completely renewed the train borne equipment, for example.

Comms Design Ltd. produced the new RETB Cab Display Radios.

And I think the original trailable points have been replaced by motor points, again by eavesdropping on the radio messages to control the points.

That has not yet been done.