Saltburn to Darlington via Middlesbrough electrification business case?

[HSTEd]

In case of resignalling of the line to Whitby, which is going to be necessary sooner or later, you could shave off signalling equipment by building the curve.

It eliminates equipment positioned in an annoying location, and reduces the number of SEU necessary to do the work.

Given resignalling capacity is in extremely short supply, anything that can simplify a layout would be justifiable.

EDIT:
Multiple token changes have been estimated to increase journey times by seven minutes alone.

But if Saltburn can't justify electrification, I doubt Whitby can, so probably off topic.

 

[Trainlog]

I think the only real investment you want on Whitby is the ability to run one train every other hour which theoretically is doable now I believe apart from between Grosmont and Whitby where I think NYMR mean that National Rail couldn't run at a greater frequency. So if anything it's that section you want to spend precious money on, not shaving a few minutes off Great Ayton - Kildale.

In terms of the NYMR, why not reach a compromise where National Rail services operate at a much higher frequency on weekdays, as you say, but on weekends, let the NYMR operate its services from Grosmont to Whitby as normal?

The Grosmont-Whitby section is still a good highlight of visiting the NYMR and allows the railway to go from somewhere to somewhere (Pickering - Grosmont-Whitby shuttle).

 

[Grimsby town]

For what it's worth, Network Rail commissioned an outline design for a CLC upgrade project including electrification, re-signalling and platform length increasing. I talked a bit about how the electrification was planned to work here. The study won some kind of award for being fairly innovative with OLE clearance design but then in end the project was canned mainly because there became too much uncertainty over whether or not NPR is real, whether or not Freightliner are moving their terminal and also the consequences of Oxford Rd remodelling. All these factors mean it was deemed not possible to adequately figure out how CLC should be invested in any further.

CLC's problem is that it's not a freight or fast intercity line which are far less likely to be suitable for battery power. It also suffers from the fact the inter-regional/inter-city services that do operate over the CLC couldn't be made fully electric without significant additional electrification.

On the other hand Northallerton to Saltburn has freight flows (that might need additional electrification). It has intercity services to Manchester Airport and London that could be converted to fully electric trains once TRU is electrified. It also provides a potential recharging point for the Durham Coast line/Whitby trains which have very few potential charging points currently.

I'm not convinced fully electrifying Northallerton to Saltburn is the solution but I am fully convinced that some form of electrification is going to be needed in that area. Northallerton-Middlesborough and Middlesbrough-Stillington-Ferryhill would be my favoured scheme in the area, assuming that provides enough for charging local battery powered services.

 

[HSTEd]

On the other hand Northallerton to Saltburn has freight flows (that might need additional electrification). It has intercity services to Manchester Airport and London that could be converted to fully electric trains once TRU is electrified. It also provides a potential recharging point for the Durham Coast line/Whitby trains which have very few potential charging points currently.

As far as I can tell almost all of the freight operations are short shuttles between the Boulby mine complex and various facilities near Middlesbrough/Teesport.

All of those could probably run by a battery locomotive if necessary.

 

[stevieinselby]

Yes I've never been particularly persuaded that removing the reversal at Battersby as being an especially good use of precious resources on a tertiary route. I reckon if Battersby was seen to be a capacity issue it would be easier and cheaper to install a second platform so you weren't completely constrained to first train in/last train out. But really the gains there are so marginal as to not be worth it.

I think the only real investment you want on Whitby is the ability to run one train every other hour which theoretically is doable now I believe apart from between Grosmont and Whitby where I think NYMR mean that National Rail couldn't run at a greater frequency. So if anything it's that section you want to spend precious money on, not shaving a few minutes off Great Ayton - Kildale.

With passing loops already in place at Nunthorpe and Glaisdale, there is infrastructure in place to allow more frequent services, and as you say the single track line between Grosmont and Whitby being shared with NYMR is likely to be the limiting factor. Unfortunately the spacing of those two loops isn't conducive to a regular 2-hourly service as they're a little bit too close together (so cutting the corner at Battersby wouldn't help, it would just mean trains waiting even longer at the next loop!).

 

[deltic08]

Isn't NR looking at removing the reversal at Battersby ?

I think you may want to take that into consideration.

I don't think the intention is to remove the station and reversal for local trains. I thought the curve was for through freight and charter passenger trains to avoid reversing or top and tailing. Also through trains could wait on the curve to pass local trains using Battersby station.

Can anybody explain why the first level crossing out of Battersby on the Whitby line is restricted to 20mph even though it has half barriers. There are plenty of other half barrier level crossings with much higher speed restrictions. The level crossing the other side of Kildale is an open crossing with a higher speed of 35mph. This is not logical.

 

[stevieinselby]

I don't think the intention is to remove the station and reversal for local trains. I thought the curve was for through freight and charter passenger trains to avoid reversing or top and tailing. Also through trains could wait on the curve to pass local trains using Battersby station.

There is no freight using the Esk Valley Line and it's hard to imagine what potential demand for freight there might be. I can't believe that a very occasional charter train would give enough justification for that kind of engineering work, not when that capacity could be put to far better use elsewhere.

 

[deltic08]

There is no freight using the Esk Valley Line and it's hard to imagine what potential demand for freight there might be. I can't believe that a very occasional charter train would give enough justification for that kind of engineering work, not when that capacity could be put to far better use elsewhere.

Not regularly but there is freight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can anybody explain why the first level crossing out of Battersby on the Whitby line is restricted to 20mph even though it has half barriers. There are plenty of other half barrier level crossings with much higher speed restrictions. The level crossing the other side of Kildale is an open crossing with a higher speed of 35mph. This is not logical.

It will be down to the risk profile of the crossing, which could be any of sightlines for drivers of both rail and road vehicles, levels of road traffic, sun angles (eg the one at Battersby will get low winter sun at dawn for road drivers, the one at Kildale won’t get low sun at all), history of misue, and many other possible factors

 

[deltic08]

It will be down to the risk profile of the crossing, which could be any of sightlines for drivers of both rail and road vehicles, levels of road traffic, sun angles (eg the one at Battersby will get low winter sun at dawn for road drivers, the one at Kildale won’t get low sun at all), history of misue, and many other possible factors

The road at the Battersby half barrier crossing is East/West and railway is dead straight either side. I know quite a few level crossings on the Berk and Hants where the line is East/West with road traffic moving in a south direction will experience the same problems with low Winter sun but line speed is 90mph with half barriers.

I have just watched a video of new sliding barriers at Nunthorpe operating today for the first time. They are closed longer then need be as the train has to stop to give up the token from Battersby on the opposite side of the crossing to the platforms. Token exchange occurs at Whitby, Glaisdale, Battersby and Nunthorpe taking longer than necessary as mostly done by the driver having to leave his cab. North Yorkshire CC recently paid for tokenless block to be introduced Between Poppleton and Knaresborough to save a few minutes, so that 2tph could be introduced, costing £4M less than was allocated. This is about the sum needed for conversion of the Whitby line.