These are interesting figures but more details are surely needed - For example, of the £18,000 from army traffic a fair amount (majority?) must have been for rail usage elsewhere than the Ripon line? And even in 1961 did pick-up goods trains cover their costs?
Why more details? We have researched for the last 40 years building a case for reinstatement. What makes you think it was from elsewhere? it was purely from the two camps in Ripon for travel warrants for personnel, whole troop trains and equipment/vehicles brought into and out of Ripon goods yard by the daily pickup goods. Revenue from the pickup goods train did not go through Ripon booking office but Beeching added it to the line operating costs.
The camps had their own railway system until after the war leaving the Ripon line about 2 miles south of Ripon station. It opened before WW1 and closed just after WW2
In reply to Bishops, there was a bus service from Ripon station to Fountains Abbey that stopped when the line closed
Comments like this completely undermine my confidence in the other arguments. The line was making a profit if you count the income from the large customers that were a) handled centrally and b) have now closed down. I know advocates are supposed to use the rule of best evidence, but this is simply misdirection because it loads in revenue that could never be part of a modern day business case.
That's a pity, because I think there is a reasonable case for improving links to Ripon, and that this would be better done by rail than by upgrading the A61.
One Ripon army camp is still open but everything has to use road transport since the line closed The army had choice as an option was removed.
There was a teacher training College in Ripon about 20 minutes walk from the station with 800 students. Many used the railway for trips into Harrogate, Leeds and Darlington but used the train for weekends away to see parents. After the railway closed numbers applying for places declined until in 2003 the College closed as students could no longer get back to Ripon from distant railheads. My wife lectured there and lost her job. The College contributed £4 million ponds to the local economy. The last Principal told me that the college closed as the railway was not there.
Moving the goalpost I see. You would have had more credibility if you acknowledged those houses in the first place.
A diverted Leeds - Newcastle via Ripon would be overtaken by services via York, probably to the tune of 30 minutes, rendering such a service completely useless for through journeys.
Plus having a reversal between the north and south sides of Leeds station is capacity destructive. Yes LNER do it currently every other hour, but the station layout cannot afford any more such moves.
Not at all. I was saying that on the ground there is not a kink in the former trackbed now. The houses were not build on the trackbed. Not everyone wants to travel to York or through York. There are plenty of trains each hour via York. It would be a through service for Harrogate, (100,000 pop) and Ripon, (18,000 and rising) and wo. This route is 12 miles shorter than via York and would have been competitive with this route when we started the campaign in 1987. If the line was reinstated, Harrogate-Ripon would be 90mph and Ripon-Northallerton 10mph as it virtually straight. Leeds-Harrogate could be upgraded to 75mph as newish signaling was installed for this speed. So times of services this via Harrogate would be less than 10 minutes slower than via York.
I reply to Zomboid please read what I have just written.
The track bed was between the trees and the houses property boundary. No kink. There was a level crossing behind the camera where this road crossed the line. There was no curve as in the photo. It was a 90% junction.
Aerial shows the roadway to the front of the houses to part of the alignment
View attachment 210948
Moving to towards Ripon its clear the route is well lost and terminating at the end of the available track bed is around 1.5km from the market place, a 15 to 22 minute walk. A radical solution with money no object would be bridge the bypass, knock down some industrial units. bridge some car parks like the GC are doing at Loughborough and provide a station nearer.
View attachment 210949****
All the top photo shows a line of trees and not the trackbed. If you look carefully to immediately north of the houses there is a low three arch viaduct just visible that lines up with the road in front of the houses. I am not saying that the houses are safe from demolition but no kink in the ground. Arup spent a lot of time on route optioneering but could not find an alternate route.
The railway crossed Boroughbridge Road on a metal bridge which is now somewhere in Filey as it was listed being original 1846. It will be bridged again. As I said before the bridge over the River Skell and embankment here was built 3 tracks wide which is sufficient width for a single track railway and road. the road is wider than it need be. The proposed station site is only 8 minutes walk from/to the city centre. Again it is all the work of Arup. They costed a single track viaduct type bridge from south of Boroughbridge road to north of the Skell at £7m at 2005 prices.
