Beeching's cuts

[yorkie]

Only if we demolish what's in the way

Yes, and you know how many houses are in the way, don't you?

 

[Nick W]

Yes, and you know how many houses are in the way, don't you?

Not to mention the road on the alignment and school at Huntingdon, and they don't even get a station?

 

[yorkie]

Not to mention the road on the alignment and school at Huntingdon, and they don't even get a station?

Ah, so you didn't read the article! Thought as much. :roll: It's the usual assumptions then.

"The line would reconnect into the Scarborough to York line just south of Haxby instead of Bootham Junction. Only 2 houses would need to be demolished - both in Market Weighton.."

 

[Techniquest]

I read this lot last night, due to a low battery in the laptop (couldn't be bothered to charge it up either) I had to wait until now to reply.

What I most want to know is why Nick W is completely obsessed with three things:

1) Re-opening the York - Beverley line as a tram line (even I know that's a **** idea, and I've not read the article linked to, nor do I know a lot about the area).

2) ONLY re-opening lines on freight merit.

3) Desire of an IC service from Felixstowe to somewhere (I assume London).

Trams work on hilly sections of Sheffield and Nottingham. Yes, that much I do know from experience (storming around Sheffield's hills on a tram is a lot like being on a rollercoaster). However, the hills that are under discussion here, that need to be overcome, are of a very different scale, of a very different layout. Sheffield may have some steep roads and so forth, but these will be absolutely nothing compared to the high hills and (possibly, I'm purely guessing) mountains of sorts that the York - Beverley route would need to conquer.

Trams WILL NOT WORK in rural East Yorkshire!

You are obsessed (this post is primarily aimed at Nick W, in case it's not obvious) with new routes having to have a lot of freight on them to make them work. On certain levels, that is a good way to look at what routes should be re-opened. HOWEVER, not every single route should create benefits only for freight. In the UK we are lucky that passenger trains are, generally, put first. In the USA, freight is dominant on the rails and severe delays (imagine 6-hour delays as the norm) to passenger services is allowed and expected. York - Beverley re-opening would be incredibly handy. As it has been said, the A1079 is too congested and is notoriously dangerous (I've never had to use it, thankfully, but I'll take yorkie and Max's words for it!). This means that there has to be an awful lot of passenger traffic on that road. It has already been said that a LOT of that traffic goes to York for onwards travel because public transport in East Yorkshire is dire. Without looking at any maps or in my atlas, I know that Beverley to York would allow faster travel from that area to York. And no, not everyone will go to York only. Fact is that a lot of passengers drive/get driven to York for onward IC travel. In the modern world, where emissions have to be lowered to fight global warming, this is far too unacceptable. What is York supposed to do over the next few years as ever more cars and other vehicles take to the roads? They will not be able to keep expanding car parks to take the demand. The ONLY solution, looking at just this thread, is to re-build the York - Beverley route.

Finally, what is the obsession with IC services to/from Felixstowe? Is there REALLY a demand for such services? Do 200 people every day buy Felixstowe - London Terminals Saver Returns? No? Thought not. You will not be getting a through IC service any time soon to/from Felixstowe. Nor am I. Nor are many, many conurbations. Deal with it.

 

[Nick W]

Ah, so you didn't read the article! Thought as much. :roll: It's the usual assumptions then.

"The line would reconnect into the Scarborough to York line just south of Haxby instead of Bootham Junction. Only 2 houses would need to be demolished - both in Market Weighton.."

That may be what the public want to hear. I want a detailed map of where the new alignment will be given the length of the detour now involved. Suddenly the route might be as along as via Selby. If you want to go onwards towards scotland etc you will waste time changing ends at York. Suddenly the existing route is more favourable for intercity services, so why build another intercity route?

The line will not serve certain places on the route where people might still choose to go to york or hull by car: Neither Leconfield or Cherry Burton wuold be served without a long walk, Shiptonthorpe would get a small by-pass round, Brunby gets missed, Pocklington now gets a parkway station unless Yorkie wants to pay about £100,000 per metre for a tunnel. Now we get to Stamford bridge, which gets a by-pass railway and a parkway station, unless we demolish houses or build a tunnel.
We now need to build a brand new viaduct rather than restore the existing one over the river.

I'll leave Yorkie to come up with the rest of the route but I'd follow the old route to Huntington, serve the existing park-and-ride, and then figure out how we can serve York best, perhaps getting some contribution from local businesses at the time.

What I most want to know is why Nick W is completely obsessed with three things:

1) Re-opening the York - Beverley line as a medium-light rail line (even I know that's a **** idea, and I've not read the article linked to, nor do I know a lot about the area).

Because
a) it saves a lot of demolition
b) this is not going to have any freight
c) we can serve more places
d) we can deliver people closer to where they want in york without them having to take a bus, or not as far a bus
e) we don't take up any paths at the York end
f) we still reach the station
g) we might just make overall profit from local York people
h) we can expand into Hull
i) we are competing with a 60mph road not a motorway
j) intercity services north are unlikely to use this route as by the time you've changed ends, the other route will be quicker overall

2) ONLY re-opening lines on freight merit.

Passenger heavy-railway services really only work effectively if there is a lot of people, and a distant onward destination is served such as scotland. Again if there is a market for trains from Hull to places north of york, why aren't there any currently?

Otherwise people will prefer frequency. Look at London Undeground, not 90mph, but yet it's frequency and ability to take people where they want attacts people to it. 60-75mph tramtrains could do the same.

3) Desire of an IC service from Felixstowe to somewhere (I assume London).

This has happened in the past, with the date of the map posted by metroland, but will not happen again in the current time and context.

Trams WILL NOT WORK in rural East Yorkshire!

By engineering the line at 25kv for sections where the tramtrain is a train and switching to 750v or 1500v just before on-road running, using automatic technology, the tramtrains will be given more power to reach higher speeds, ideally 75mph, and reduce the amount of feeder stations required over the country side. Southern region has already showed us that we could actually just use 1500v for the whole route and still achieve faster running, but with more feeder stations.

You are obsessed (this post is primarily aimed at Nick W, in case it's not obvious) with new routes having to have a lot of freight on them to make them work. On certain levels, that is a good way to look at what routes should be re-opened. HOWEVER, not every single route should create benefits only for freight.

Do you think the orgininal railway would have been built if there would be no freight?

As it has been said, the A1079 is too congested and is notoriously dangerous (I've never had to use it, thankfully, but I'll take yorkie and Max's words for it!). This means that there has to be an awful lot of passenger traffic on that road.

Well let's find the best solution to that problem together.

This means that there has to be an awful lot of passenger traffic on that road. It has already been said that a LOT of that traffic goes to York for onwards travel because public transport in East Yorkshire is dire. Without looking at any maps or in my atlas, I know that Beverley to York would allow faster travel from that area to York. And no, not everyone will go to York only. Fact is that a lot of passengers drive/get driven to York for onward IC travel.

At least they'd be able to spend less than 10 minutes waiting for a tramtrain that will take them to York station evenually.

In the modern world, where emissions have to be lowered to fight global warming, this is far too unacceptable.

Let's run 50mph trams then rather than 90mph trains which will use more energy. Or we could aim for 75mph, the happy medium.

What is York supposed to do over the next few years as ever more cars and other vehicles take to the roads? They will not be able to keep expanding car parks to take the demand.

They could install a transport system that will drop people off on the roads rather than at a station.

The ONLY solution, looking at just this thread, is to re-build the York - Beverley route.

Not true, we've already established that we could dual-carrigeway the road. There's also my prefered solution.

 

[Mintona]

Not knowing the area, I am not really in a position to comment. However, a few things have struck me.

1. If there are enough lorries on the road that overtaking is dangerous, surely there is a possible market for freight on the line?

2. Nick, you say about how much it will cost to build tunnels. Either your tramtrain will also need tunnels, or it will need to have similarities to a funicular railway and go up and over the hills?

3. Isn't getting traffic off roads really the best thing to do? Rather than dual-carriageway it? Good suggestion. Put more cars on the road. Mess up the earth even more. Make speeds higher, which undoubtedly will result in more accidents although it sounds the road suffers from this quite a lot already)


Nick, you live in Felixstowe. Yorkie lives in York. We're discussing York! Isn't someone who lives there going to know more about what is really right for the area, than someone who lives 200ish miles away?

 

[Donny Dave]

Just backing up the point about the A1079. It is packed with lorries. From the docks in Hull, there is 2 choices.

• Through Hull and onto the A63, or....
• Through the North side of Hull and onto the A1079.

Also, on both routes, there is a large number of commuters, so a re-opening of the line would prove beneficial.

 

[Max]

Nick as it's been pointed out you don't live in East Yorkshire, you live in Felixstowe. Looking at the contour lines on an OS map, the gradients look pretty steep in places. A tram-train would NO WAY be suitable for this route!

Cherry burton could fairly easily be served by a small detour off the original alignment, but I do agree, this would be a good addition to the route, as I have friends who live there, and the current bus service is very poor so there is definitely a market for travel to Hull, York and even Beverley. From what I can see, the original alignment also passes right next to Shiptonthorpe and Brunby, so I don't see what the problem is here.

I'm not 100% on what they could do in Pocklington and Stamford Bridge, but a tunnel is rubbish as the land here is pretty flat - how on earth would that work? I think the original alignment could be mostly kept in Pocklington, with a small diversion to the north-west of the station (although there are a couple of schools in this area - not sure how far their fields stretch). Houses will probably have to be demolished in Stamford Bridge, otherwise a parkway station is still more attractive than:

- Heavy traffic around York at rush hour
- Hefty parking charges in York city centre

Let's live in the real word, 50mph is extremely slow. The route needs at least 75-80mph, and the diversion to the Scarborough line is nowhere near the huge diversion via Selby.

 

[Techniquest]

I think you really need to live in a rural area with either **** public transport or no railway line (the latter really for me) to see how logical it is to build the York - Beverley line again! Something Nick W won't manage living down in Felixstowe!

 

[Nick W]

Not knowing the area, I am not really in a position to comment. However, a few things have struck me.

1. If there are enough lorries on the road that overtaking is dangerous, surely there is a possible market for freight on the line?

Depends if the distance is great enough and if the other line is full up of freight.

2. Nick, you say about how much it will cost to build tunnels. Either your tramtrain will also need tunnels, or it will need to have similarities to a funicular railway and go up and over the hills?

It will go on the roads, as established, the "tram" bit.

3. Isn't getting traffic off roads really the best thing to do? Rather than dual-carriageway it? Good suggestion. Put more cars on the road. Mess up the earth even more. Make speeds higher, which undoubtedly will result in more accidents although it sounds the road suffers from this quite a lot already)

Nick, you live in Felixstowe. Yorkie lives in York. We're discussing York! Isn't someone who lives there going to know more about what is really right for the area, than someone who lives 200ish miles away?

I live in a place with an hourly service, and a dual carraigeway. I think I know what people prefer to use. Give us a tramtrain every 10 minutes that feeds into ipswich town centre, well up go passenger numbers.

Yorkie lives in a big place, I live in a place served by a rural line.

Anyway I think you'll find the safest roads in Britain are motorways not 20mph areas, so you're very uninformed.

Nick as it's been pointed out you don't live in East Yorkshire, you live in Felixstowe. Looking at the contour lines on an OS map, the gradients look pretty steep in places. A tram-train would NO WAY be suitable for this route!

Then forget any local hauled trains.

Cherry burton could fairly easily be served by a small detour off the original alignment, but I do agree, this would be a good addition to the route, as I have friends who live there, and the current bus service is very poor so there is definitely a market for travel to Hull, York and even Beverley. From what I can see, the original alignment also passes right next to Shiptonthorpe and Brunby, so I don't see what the problem is here.

Glad you agree with what my idea aims to achieve.

I'm not 100% on what they could do in Pocklington and Stamford Bridge, but a tunnel is rubbish as the land here is pretty flat - how on earth would that work? I think the original alignment could be mostly kept in Pocklington, with a small diversion to the north-west of the station (although there are a couple of schools in this area - not sure how far their fields stretch). Houses will probably have to be demolished in Stamford Bridge, otherwise a parkway station is still more attractive than:
- Heavy traffic around York at rush hour
- Hefty parking charges in York city centre

Flat land? Hills? What am I up against?

What's wrong with my idea of going on roads to the centre of all places served including york?

Let's live in the real word, 50mph is extremely slow. The route needs at least 75-80mph, and the diversion to the Scarborough line is nowhere near the huge diversion via Selby.

My 75mph branch line averages 38-40mph. My intercity line averages 50-60mph.

You're forgetting how long it takes to turn a long train around...

I think you really need to live in a rural area with either **** public transport or no railway line (the latter really for me) to see how logical it is to build the York - Beverley line again! Something Nick W won't manage living down in Felixstowe!

Yes and I want to serve as many places as possible, not bypass most places with a few parkways...
I want them to have 6 tramtrains per hour, not 20 trains max per day.

 

[Max]

Sigh Nick you don't seem to understand that this would never work. There isn't the demand for 6 services per hour, a half-hourly service would seem much more sensible. And 'tram-trains' aren't going to have the capacity required at peak times. You'll end up with passengers hanging around because they can't fit on the train.

Also, I really don't see the point in running on roads - what is wrong with the original alignment? Surely this still won't solve the problems of the odd-house on the track-bed.

 

[Donny Dave]

Right, let me get this straight....

Nick wants to cause massive amounts of disruption to traffic in various towns and cities just so a few people can get right to the center....

York station is in the middle of York, and Hull station is in Hull City Center. Both have very good bus links. Why the need for trams through the streets???? :?

 

[Nick W]

Sigh Nick you don't seem to understand that this would never work. There isn't the demand for 6 services per hour, a half-hourly service would seem much more sensible. And 'tram-trains' aren't going to have the capacity required at peak times. You'll end up with passengers hanging around because they can't fit on the train.

There isn't demand for 6tph but then at peak times the passengers won't be able to fit on

Funny in London the DLR seems to manage in peak times, mostly 2 coaches.

Also, I really don't see the point in running on roads - what is wrong with the original alignment? Surely this still won't solve the problems of the odd-house on the track-bed.

Aside from a lot more houses than Yorkie seems to think, there's the issue of pathing. Also half-hourly isn't gonna convince everyone not to drive, especially if they have a walk at either end.

York station is in the middle of York, and Hull station is in Hull City Center. Both have very good bus links. Why the need for trams through the streets????

Passengers would rather just stay on the same thing, even if means a longer journey but no need to change from train to bus.

 

[Donny Dave]

Now I am confused :?

Your calling for a frequency of 6 trams an hour, and now your saying there isn't the demand....

Also, something else I have though of. Where will the trams terminate? There is no room in Beverly, Hull or York. They cannot run on Network Rail, so is it going to be parkway stations on the edge of the towns/cities then buses into the center? Or....

Dig up large bits of each place so there can be a loop around each town/city?

 

[Nick W]

Where will the trams terminate? There is no room in Beverly, Hull or York. They cannot run on Network Rail,

Says who?

so is it going to be parkway stations on the edge of the towns/cities then buses into the center? Or....

Dig up large bits of each place so there can be a loop around each town/city?

Yes similar to edinburgh the roads will have to be dug up and utilities moved. This means there will never be road works on the route. hurrar!

 

[Donny Dave]

Have you ever driven round Beverly, Hull or York? I have....

You'll never get near the center of any of them because of the amount of traffic. Where is it all going to go while the roads are dug up for your tram system?

Also, another thing to consider, cost....

How much will your tram system cost?
How much will a simple re-instatement of the original line cost?
Who is going to pay for it?

And another thing. Why would people want to travel on a tram that stops here, there and everywhere in between when the direct line goes from Beverly - York where they can get of the train there, and simply get on another to where ever they are going?

This discussion was about saving time for people from Hull and Beverly in getting to York and onward connections from there. With your tram system, the journey time would be increased as the trams have to stop for traffic and the lots of tram stops. If your tram system was to get the go ahead, I can see it being a white elephant, as it would still be quicker to go by car from York to Beverly and Hull....

 

[Nick W]

Have you ever driven round Beverly, Hull or York? I have....

You'll never get near the center of any of them because of the amount of traffic. Where is it all going to go while the roads are dug up for your tram system?

Guess by having 4 or 5 stops in York we'll beat somr of the traffic then. There's also priority measures.

Also, another thing to consider, cost....

How much will your tram system cost?
How much will a simple re-instatement of the original line cost?
Who is going to pay for it?

Far less than any other alternative other than parkway stations.

And another thing. Why would people want to travel on a tram that stops here, there and everywhere in between when the direct line goes from Beverly - York where they can get of the train there, and simply get on another to where ever they are going?

Because not everyone wants to go nedding at york or hull station. True some people will want to go beyond York, but we can have intercity services from Hull which end up facing north, via selby. Perhaps we should work on the junctions involved.

This discussion was about saving time for people from Hull and Beverly in getting to York and onward connections from there. With your tram system, the journey time would be increased as the trams have to stop for traffic and the lots of tram stops. If your tram system was to get the go ahead, I can see it being a white elephant, as it would still be quicker to go by car from York to Beverly and Hull....

Yes, and by the time you've found a car park... oh well i might as well have walked to the tram stop, waited no more than 10 minutes and got there.

Not to mention that at least one park and ride will be served by trams instead of busses with my route....

 

[yorkie]

It's getting silly now.

Nick - just look at a map. Within seconds you should realise that this is, as Metroland stated, an inter-urban route.

As what I "think" about only 2 houses being demolished, no - this is not what I think - this is what is stated as fact in the article. The study has been done, they know what is required.

Because not everyone wants to go nedding at york or hull station. True some people will want to go beyond York, but we can have intercity services from Hull which end up facing north, via selby. Perhaps we should work on the junctions involved.

Some of the statements are truly bizarre, and this one is no exception. The first point is a dig at enthusiasts and is not relevant here, so I will ignore. The 2nd point about InterCity services via Selby is ridiculous. The route via Selby is a long way round and is absolutely not an "InterCity" route. The idea of having Hull-Edinburgh trains via Selby/York is daft, as is your Felixstowe to London InterCity idea. The fact is that some routes are best served as 'feeder' lines into IC lines, and this is one of them.

It's funny how you think the long way round should have InterCity services, yet the shorter route should have trams!

You could probably average nearly 60mph with a few stops and achieve an end-to-end journey time of 40 minutes, and that would really get people out of their cars, especially as Hull and York stations are both quite central and the cost of parking in York is huge and road congestion is a major problem.

Run it as a tram line with loads of deviations and you're probably looking at 1 hour 30 minutes, so people doing end-to-end journeys won't bother with it - they may as well go via Selby or drive.

 

[Nick W]

Ok I look forward to a non-profit making, 2-hourly service on a line with so many detours it's almost as long as going via selby, and has parkway stations that mean people have to factor an extra 15 minutes walk on average.

 

[yorkie]

Ok I look forward to a non-profit making, 2-hourly service on a line with so many detours it's almost as long as going via selby, and has parkway stations that mean people have to factor an extra 15 minutes walk on average.

1. Railways are not run for profit. If this line is not build the road will end up being upgraded for sure, and I can't see a road making a profit, can you?
2. What parkway stations?
3. If a station is a parkway, why would people walk to it? Parkway suggests most people would drive there.

 

[Techniquest]

Yes and I want to serve as many places as possible, not bypass most places with a few parkways...
I want them to have 6 tramtrains per hour, not 20 trains max per day.

20 trains a day?! I know of IC routes that have less trains per day per direction than that as it is!

Main example would be Hereford - Birmingham. OK, it's not 'classed' as an IC route, but really deserves to be upgraded and returned to the status it had prior to the 1980s. This has an upper maximum of 13 trains a day. This route serves some of the largest parts of the South-Western and Western Midlands. Examples? OK: Hereford, Ledbury, Malvern (this place even has TWO stations!), Worcester, Droitwich, Bromsgrove (which is even looking at getting a whole new and better station!), University (no, not full of students going here but a LOT of people go here for major medical appointments) and, of course, Birmingham.

But it's not just the places it serves directly that is important. This route is used by an awful lot of people to connect onto the Marches line (ie, between Newport and Crewe) for connections to places like Newport, Cwmbran, Abergavenny, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury and even connections onwards via the Heart of Wales. You'd use this route if you were wanting to go from, say, Worcester Foregate Street (a station thankfully in the middle of the city centre. And yes, it gets very busy) to Bridgend, changing most obviously at Hereford.

The point I'm making is that this is a 55-mile line that really should be upgraded back to double track (between Malvern Wells and Shelwick Junction, where the single lines are) and classified as a true IC route. It is also important to note after Worcester the line also branches off towards Cheltenham Spa in one direction and in another towards Oxford and London. None of these lines get anywhere near 13 trains a day. Yet Nick W thinks that 20 trains a day between York and Beverley would be inferior. I'd be laughing if I had such a good rail service!

The idea of putting a tram line over the direct way and an IC service via Selby is just mental. Beverley - Hull - Selby - York would take ages, certainly this would not be classed as an IC route whatsoever!

Not liking the idea of putting in parkway stations along the route and preferring to take down more existing housing/infrastructure just to put trams in is also mental. As has already been said, a tram would be inferior to a DMU.

Let's look at the tram idea for a moment. You're in Beverley, wanting to go to York because you wish to visit The Edinburgh Festival. After getting some food and drink for the long journey in Beverley town centre, you decide to jump on the newly-opened tram line. After all, it's the most direct way you can get to York geographically. A train is also in the town station going towards Scarborough, but you know this takes ages. Since the tram goes the most direct way, it surely can't take that long.

Now, since the tram station is at a park-and-ride station on the outside of the town centre (after all, it couldn't be built in the town centre due to the traffic involved), you decide to jump on a bus to the station. This first of all takes ages due to heavy traffic. You start to get very bored already, but you're optimistic. Besides, you've left the car at home and don't have to drive through the traffic and waste a lot of petrol. With the cost of petrol at the moment, that has to be a good thing!

Eventually your bus has fought its way to the tram station. One tram left as your bus entered the parking site, but not to worry, your timetable reveals another tram in 15 more minutes. Crack open that drink, the heat is making you thirsty.

The tram now pulls in, with a trickle of passengers alighting. Ahh, it's midday, that's probably why it's empty. Your ticket is bought from a ticket machine (no conductor at the moment as he costs money and this tram line was expensive). You were surprised how much your ticket cost, an awful lot for a 35 mile journey. You buy a single to save some cash and due to the fact you can't buy a return that will be valid in 4 days' time when you come back from Edinburgh. Off you go on the tram, which is carrying a handful of passengers only. You wonder why, but the thought escapes your mind as your driver hits the throttle into maximum. You don't know it, but all of the other passengers that were due to catch the same tram were on the bus you saw in the corner of your eye as your tram took the curve towards York.

Many stops later, and after a lengthy period of time, you finally reach Market Weighton. Hurrah. We stop in the village centre. As the bus service is appaling about a dozen people join the tram. You think this tram line must be good if a dozen people board a single tram at a time which is now well into the afternoon. What you don't know is the amount of housing and infrastructure that got destroyed for the privilege of running 3/4-empty trams all day. Off you go again, and you check your timetable to see when the tram is due to arrive into York. It is still a long way away yet, but huzzah! Your tram is apparently an express service, running faster now to York than before. Even with this good news, you discover that the connection onto your mainline train at York is going to be very tight.

You eventually arrive into York, having crawled through heavy afternoon traffic. You wonder why this is, considering the tram is frequent and everything. What you don't know is that the tram line caused a lot of roadworks during construction and that a lot of people in York, unsurprisingly, go elsewhere apart from the station. This is the traffic you were stuck behind. You thank your lucky stars you aren't going any further on a tram for the duration, and that your mainline train is only 5 minutes away from departure time. But you suddenly realise that with a considerable amount of luggage it is a long trek over the station now in 5 minutes to cross over the footage to the other side of the station and onto the connecting train. Then you suddenly remember you had to collect your advance-purchase ticket from the machine. You have just 3.5 minutes to go. Your train has arrived dead on-time, with the doors opening to allow you to board. Only you are at the ticket machine getting the ticket still.

You eventually get the ticket to print, now it's a rush to get to the train before it goes. You get down the stairs off the bridge and the doors shut, as they should, a few moments before the train's advertised departure time. The train leaves exactly on time without you. Now you're in a pickle, as you missed your booked train. Your only option is now to buy a new, walk-up Saver Return to Edinburgh. This is much more expensive than your original bargain ticket. Off you go back to the platform to catch the following, but slower, train. You have to change now at Newcastle with a 20 minute wait for the next train, with a much later arrival than originally planned into Edinburgh.

It's now well into the evening and you've finally checked into your bargain accommodation. You're exhausted and swear you will never, ever get the tram again, with the return journey being via a lift home from York with a friend. You may be contributing to the road's busy state, but it's far quicker than the tram...

Now let's quickly consider it with a mainline train. In Beverley town centre, got your supplies, find your next train to York via Market Weighton is only 20 minutes away. Job done. York's only 45 minutes away, fantastic. Your train soon pulls in, picks up its passengers, branches off the Scarborough line and heads for York. 43 minutes later (you are amazed that you arrive a little early thanks to being pathed ahead of another train), you arrive in York with a nice 30-minute connection onto your express train to Edinburgh. Plenty of time to pick up that cheap ticket now! You walk slowly (after all, that luggage is heavy!) over the bridge to your train and casually watch it arrive on-time and leave on-time. Once on-board, there's no changes on this train so it's time to relax and enjoy the fast journey. On the way out of York, you see your train going back to Beverley, thanking your lucky stars that it didn't end up as a tram. Once into Edinburgh, on-time as well, you check into your bargain accommodation in the late afternoon and head to the festivites and the pub. Job done.

Which sounds better altogether to you?

 

[Max]

Ok I look forward to a non-profit making, 2-hourly service on a line with so many detours it's almost as long as going via selby, and has parkway stations that mean people have to factor an extra 15 minutes walk on average.

Nick it's clearly not going to be a 2 hour frequency, more like 30 minutes. Also, the 'detours' you talk of are extremely minor - have you looked at the map? Hull-York via Market Weighton is around 35 miles whereas Hull-York via Selby is around 50 miles! Clearly any deviations on the Market Weighton line would have to be extremely major to make up for that 15 mile difference, and frankly we're not looking at deviations of this nature.

Secondly, this parkway station thing is daft. In the vast majority of cases the stations are very central (Hull, Beverley, Market Weighton, Pocklington, York), and where they aren't they're probably about 3 minutes drive from the town centre. This hardly warrrants the name 'parkway' - Howden station for example is 2 miles out of the town centre, but isn't called 'Howden Parkway'. It's also pretty well used, and has a good service to Hull, Selby and even London.

And this 3 minutes drive plus 5 minutes wait time at the station (approx) plus train journey is still going to work out cheaper and quicker than driving, and also saves the hassle. Commuters hate driving in peak time traffic, getting stuck in endless queues and at traffic lights. This stress is removed when taking the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The idea of putting a tram line over the direct way and an IC service via Selby is just mental. Beverley - Hull - Selby - York would take ages, certainly this would not be classed as an IC route whatsoever!

As I said earlier there is one train that does this - the 0645, but it doesn't arrive into York until 0820 - a 1 hour 35 minute journey!

It's a very slow way round, trust me

 

[Techniquest]

As I said earlier there is one train that does this - the 0645, but it doesn't arrive into York until 0820 - a 1 hour 35 minute journey!

It's a very slow way round, trust me

Aye, I did see that post. I don't doubt it's a long journey! Doncaster - Hull on a 222 is a bloody long enough journey! Even via Seamer it would be a faster journey I daresay...

 

[Max]

I don't doubt it's a long journey! Doncaster - Hull on a 222 is a bloody long enough journey!

I always think it passes really quickly, I guess I'm just used to it! To be honest, considering via Selby is a much longer way round than via Goole, it's suprising that it only takes about 5 minutes longer that way (and in some cases the same amount of time!).

 

[Ascot]

1. Railways are not run for profit. If this line is not build the road will end up being upgraded for sure, and I can't see a road making a profit, can you?

Thought it was for Profit, que Mr Beeching

 

[Guinness]

1. If there are enough lorries on the road that overtaking is dangerous, surely there is a possible market for freight on the line?

Depends on a couple of points. If most of these lorries are all going to the same place such as a Container/Intermodal Yard then perhaps there is a case for Rail. However if these Lorries are all going to different destinations such as Factories or Distribution Centres then there is no case for Rail. It's simply a too complex a network to create using rail.

Back to your original point, the road should be improved.

 

[Nick W]

1. Railways are not run for profit. If this line is not build the road will end up being upgraded for sure, and I can't see a road making a profit, can you?
2. What parkway stations?
3. If a station is a parkway, why would people walk to it? Parkway suggests most people would drive there.

1. Tell GNER that :P
2. The parkway stations we have to build to avoid demolition of houses. Unless we build an underground railway in the places en-route.
3. I'm trying to reduce emmisions and car use. Now you want everyone to drive to the station?

Very nice story, may I point out that the most reliable transport system in London has on-street running though croydon town centre. Yup, more reliable than the underground, even more than the DLR...

In Beverley town centre, got your supplies, find your next train to York via Market Weighton is only 20 minutes away. Job done. York's only 45 minutes away, fantastic. Your train soon pulls in, picks up its passengers, branches off the Scarborough line and heads for York. 43 minutes later (you are amazed that you arrive a little early thanks to being pathed ahead of another train), you arrive in York with a nice 30-minute connection onto your express train to Edinburgh.

It's already 1hr 5 minutes then? For 35 miles? That's under 35mph. So if my tram trains average 40mph (hopefully their full speed will be 75mph (or 90mph in some American cities)), and have a maximum of 10 minutes wait, I will just about beat the train

Hull-York via Market Weighton is around 35 miles whereas Hull-York via Selby is around 50 miles! Clearly any deviations on the Market Weighton line would have to be extremely major to make up for that 15 mile difference, and frankly we're not looking at deviations of this nature.

When I looked at the map yesterday I reckoned it'd be at least 5 miles lost
before we reach stamford bridge. The yorkie deviation avoiding huntingdon could easily add 10 miles. I still haven't had a proposed route west of stamford brige; is someone embarrassed about how many miles it adds?

 

[Max]

Nick. Listen up. Beverley is a heavily congested town with very narrow streets and very little open space for development. Look at a streetmap of the town and tell me where you would run a tram-line and build a station. Same with Market Weighton, Pocklington and Stamford Bridge. They're not massive urban areas, just towns. Trams are not designed for rural inter-urban lines. They are designed for large urban areas such as London (aka. Croydon Tramlink!).

Trams would bring these towns to a standstill and for what benefit? There are already perfectly good stations/dimantled stations in the middle of these places. With all these stupid deviations to little villages, and with a fairly poor maximum speed I could see trams taking at least an hour. Then what would the incentive be for potential customers?

I don't know where you get the figure of 10 miles from, having looked at the map I really can't see why it would the so much. Why the hell do we need a 10 minute frequency? It's not a heavily populated urban area, it's very rural!! Why do you not see that such a frequency is extremely excessive?

Chaz - it's not that easy, it's not a situation where you can just click your fingers and a 4 lane road appear. There are several villages which would have to be bypassed for this to work, meaning that most of this wouldn't be an upgrade, more like a total new-build! This would take years to get off the ground. I have seen some very good road upgrades, namely the A46 in Lincolnshire (between Lincoln and Newark), which was upgraded to a dual carriageway, vastly improving safety and helping traffic flow. But this only had to by-pass one village, it is very straight and flat and is only 10 miles long. The A1079 is quite windy between Beverley and Market Weighton. It's hilly and the overall length of the route is about 30 miles. An upgrade would: cost a vast amount of money; take a very long time to build; require many new alignments in places; further increase traffic along the road therefore create further CO2 emissions and contribute more to global warming. In this day and age we don't want to be encouraging further road use, it's madness!

 

[Ascot]

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2383/beverleyil0.jpg

As requested Ma'am

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/3397/yorktostamfordbridgehq8.jpg

York to Stamford Bridge as well as asked

 

[Max]

That last one doesn't show the route...