Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Oh FFS! The table on the S&C I found completely backed up your story, much to my own surprise! Why are you determined for the world to be fighting against you?
Have a look at the early 1990's timetable and ask yourself, if such a service was justified then, why has it been deemed acceptable to have a vastly inferior one in the intervening years when passenger numbers broadly have doubled.
Maybe it's not deemed acceptable for today's numbers, but any potential solution is deemed disproportionate given the negative impacts elsewhere. It's an unfortunate attitude, but one which the current legal structure is largely responsible for (so take it up with the DfT, not Northern management).
Oh FFS! The table on the S&C I found completely backed up your story, much to my own surprise! Why are you determined for the world to be fighting against you?
Maybe it's not deemed acceptable for today's numbers, but any potential solution is deemed disproportionate given the negative impacts elsewhere. It's an unfortunate attitude, but one which the current legal structure is largely responsible for (so take it up with the DfT, not Northern management).
I don’t think people are against the Whitby line at all. However a largely rural route with seasonal traffic cannot possibly take priority over other ‘all year round busier’ routes.
I don’t doubt that extra resources and capacity are required at specific times of the year but where do you suggest they come from? During these unknown Financial Times for the railway they will most likely need to be cost neutral and certainly not impacting on any other routes?
When the class 600’s come along there is the possibility that additional unit resources could be supplied at these specific times but bear in mind they will be spoken for on other routes once the class 600’s enter service so the chances are still low.
Oh FFS! The table on the S&C I found completely backed up your story, much to my own surprise! Why are you determined for the world to be fighting against you?
Maybe it's not deemed acceptable for today's numbers, but any potential solution is deemed disproportionate given the negative impacts elsewhere. It's an unfortunate attitude, but one which the current legal structure is largely responsible for (so take it up with the DfT, not Northern management).
From the point of view of Whitby's and North Yorkshire's tourism industry, I suspect that 5 NYMR services a day represent a very good use of the infrastructure.
Without the proposed additional token exchange point at Grosmont, but with some juggling of the timetable, it might be possible to add an 0800 or 1130 ex MBO (but not both) returning 1745, which would be a poor use of resources even if it fitted with passenger demand at busy times. Even with the new token point it isn't going to be hugely better.
My primary concern is capacity. According to MR, the seating capacity of a 3 carriage 600 unit will be similar to a 2 car 156 or 158. This is a major concern.
A 2 carriage 158 or 156 unit on the Whitby line is often full and standing. We're repeating the mistake of not accompanying renewals with capacity enhancements.
TBH I'd rather stand on a 321/600. The seats are impossible to get comfortable in because they're about 6 or 9 inches too low so your legs end up at an awkward angle. Mad worse by having to play footsie with the person opposite in the facing bays.
TBH I'd rather stand on a 321/600. The seats are impossible to get comfortable in because they're about 6 or 9 inches too low so your legs end up at an awkward angle. Mad worse by having to play footsie with the person opposite in the facing bays.
I don’t think people are against the Whitby line at all. However a largely rural route with seasonal traffic cannot possibly take priority over other ‘all year round busier’ routes.
I don’t doubt that extra resources and capacity are required at specific times of the year but where do you suggest they come from? During these unknown Financial Times for the railway they will most likely need to be cost neutral and certainly not impacting on any other routes?
When the class 600’s come along there is the possibility that additional unit resources could be supplied at these specific times but bear in mind they will be spoken for on other routes once the class 600’s enter service so the chances are still low.
I think it's more the fact that the service has been paired down so much in excess of other rural routes such as the S&C and even the Bentham line. There's simply no excuse for the way in which the service has deteriorated while passenger usage generally has been increasing.
What's happened to the grant money from the mine ? If the local council are shaving difficulty administering it, where is the support from the industry ?
I also don't buy the "where are the resources coming from" argument. Plenty of serviceable 144's have been sent to scrap and the 153's are soon to go off lease. If the industry can get rid of serviceable stock, there should be no excuse for capacity issues.
I also don't buy the "where are the resources coming from" argument. Plenty of serviceable 144's have been sent to scrap and the 153's are soon to go off lease. If the industry can get rid of serviceable stock, there should be no excuse for capacity issues.
144’s are not suitable for the modern railway. Look at 144012. It had so little capacity due to the PRM mods and it doesn’t matter what you do on the inside, it still rode badly. A class 600 will ride well and will have more seats than a 144.
153’s are being replaced by 156’s so there’s an increase there.
Whatever you've looked up doesn't negate the factv that there other posters to corroborate my experience.
A couple of years ago when the line had it's own diagram, I used to see the pacer on a Saturday stabled at Middlesbrough in the morning and in the evening when I returned. It rarely seemed to be used to strengthen summer saturday services which were predictably full and standing.
Have a look at the early 1990's timetable and ask yourself, if such a service was justified then, why has it been deemed acceptable to have a vastly inferior one in the intervening years when passenger numbers broadly have doubled.
It's not surprising that many people say the same thing.
If we look again at the fact that 135,000 passengers could all fit into the summer holidays, then in such a scenario then there would only ever be eyewitnesses of how busy the summer services are and no one giving evidence of the totally empty trains.
As such it's not that everyone doubts you and the others who have similar experiences, rather it's that such observations are always likely to be skewed towards reporting of the busiest services.
On a slightly different example, not all XC Voyagers are busy, it's just that the busiest ones are used by most people and so are likely to report busy trains.
If the busiest 1/3 of XC services carry 2/3rds of the passengers, then we'd expect to see 2 reports of busy services for every one where it's reported as not busy.
If we used those reports we'd think that we'd need to lengthen trains on 2/3rds of trains, however only 1/3rd need extra capacity.
Aside from the discussion about the suitability of the Class 600 for the Esk Valley line, Alstom are yet to complete (or even start work on?) the prototype unit, and given the issues with the Class 230 and 769 conversions, I'm a little bit on the skeptical slide about this project.
I seem to remember a similar claim over packed out S&C services all year round a few months ago. The reality is of course that there are a few busy trains during the peak times of the year (summer and Xmas) but mostly they are way under capacity (I work the route all year round at all times of day so am in a position to give a more accurate reading of the situation).
I pretty much imagine that this is the same on the Whitby route so will take most of what is said with a pinch of salt.
That's around 185 passengers a day leaving Whitby by those figures
The capacity of a 156 is 163 (according to Wiki) and if you've ever encountered the 16:00 on a weekday, that's pretty much taken up by the schoolkids. If you add in day trippers, local travellers in the other unit on that train, plus those coming back on the evening train, plus any who are travelling outwards in the morning, then that 185 passengers leaving Whitby a day looks extremely ropey to me
Those 185 passengers a day look "ropey" to you because you seem to be choosing (only) a day where there's school kids but yet the full amount of day trippers that you get in the summer holidays!
Put it another way, I've only encountered a full and standing train once between Middlesborough and York (due to a football match) yet that's not taken as a reason why the route shouldn't have a decent hourly service. What is so special about the Whitby line that the fact that it isn't full and standing every hour of every day, is somehow justification for it having a deeply inadequate service that most other routes wouldn't put up with ?
Well, I can only speak from my own experience. You frequenrtly fail to acknowledge that when I note that certain services on the line are very busy, other forum members corroborate my experience
I'm sure that some services on a branch line to a seaside town are busy, of course there will
What you fail to acknowledge is that, if there are 135,000 passengers a year (thirty something passengers per train on average) and some individual services with over 135 passengers then that means that there must be a lot of other services where the passenger numbers are pretty low - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge this - there are a lot of midweek days in winter when passenger numbers must be "sub optimal"
we know that until the 1990's, the Whitby line had a far better all-day round service, which was cut back ruthlessly to make Regional Railways' finances look better in the run up to John Major's privatisation experiment. The resultant poor level of service on the line seems, to some extent have been "baked in" ever since, but one has to ask whether that exercise is a suitable determinant for the level of service provided in 2021.
Have a look at the early 1990's timetable and ask yourself, if such a service was justified then, why has it been deemed acceptable to have a vastly inferior one in the intervening years when passenger numbers broadly have doubled.
Well, if the average passenger numbers on a train at Whitby are thirtysomething and passenger numbers at Whitby are double what they were in the early 1990s, and those passenger numbers in the early 1990s were spread over significantly more trains then doesn't that suggest that the line was ripe for service reductions back then?
Agreed - nobody's "against" it, but when someone starts a thread suggesting that the line is so amazingly busy that three coach trains won't be able to cope with most journeys then it deserves challenging
There's a big difference to "someone starts a thread demanding that the Whitby line is closed down" and "someone starts a thread complaining that a three coach train won't be big enough at a station with an average of thirtysomething passengers"
144’s are not suitable for the modern railway. Look at 144012. It had so little capacity due to the PRM mods and it doesn’t matter what you do on the inside, it still rode badly. A class 600 will ride well and will have more seats than a 144.
153’s are being replaced by 156’s so there’s an increase there.
144's would be fine to strenthen services already run with "suitable" stock. People seem to forget that that crowding is one of the greatest factors making a service not suitable or inaccessible to people.
It's not surprising that many people say the same thing.
If we look again at the fact that 135,000 passengers could all fit into the summer holidays, then in such a scenario then there would only ever be eyewitnesses of how busy the summer services are and no one giving evidence of the totally empty trains.
As such it's not that everyone doubts you and the others who have similar experiences, rather it's that such observations are always likely to be skewed towards reporting of the busiest services.
On a slightly different example, not all XC Voyagers are busy, it's just that the busiest ones are used by most people and so are likely to report busy trains.
If the busiest 1/3 of XC services carry 2/3rds of the passengers, then we'd expect to see 2 reports of busy services for every one where it's reported as not busy.
If we used those reports we'd think that we'd need to lengthen trains on 2/3rds of trains, however only 1/3rd need extra capacity.
I don't doubt what you say, and I'm not sure that there's anything that can be said to counter it, except to say that if lots of people are saying that services are overcrowded at various times, then it is a problem.
Pre Covid there were undoubtedly quiet trains on Cross Country and TPE, yet I don't think anyone would have denied that those services had an overcrowding problem.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Those 185 passengers a day look "ropey" to you because you seem to be choosing (only) a day where there's school kids but yet the full amount of day trippers that you get in the summer holidays!
"A day where there are school kids" There are a high proportion of days where there are school kids, and you don't need the full amount of day trippers that you get in the summer holidays to have busy services. I've been on those trains on week days and in winter, and those numbers of thirty passengers seem more suited to those times than the summer season where passengers are much higher. And that's without even contemplating the school traffic.
What you fail to acknowledge is that, if there are 135,000 passengers a year (thirty something passengers per train on average) and some individual services with over 135 passengers then that means that there must be a lot of other services where the passenger numbers are pretty low - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge this - there are a lot of midweek days in winter when passenger numbers must be "sub optimal"
The key is that I'm highly sceptical about the £135 passengers a year to begin with. As I have said above, I have been on mid week and winter days and for those
the 30 passengers per train (excepting the school trains) seems about right. But definitely not as an average.
But at the same time, on most routes you will get counter-peak flows, mid day services and early mornings which will drag passenger loadings down. This is not generally accepted as an excuse to sit back and allow heavy overcrowding at the busier times. Even if nothing is done, it is at least acknowledged as a problem.
Well, if the average passenger numbers on a train at Whitby are thirtysomething and passenger numbers at Whitby are double what they were in the early 1990s, and those passenger numbers in the early 1990s were spread over significantly more trains then doesn't that suggest that the line was ripe for service reductions back then?
That's not what I'm saying and you know it. The doubling has been over the network as a whole where services have been maintained and improved. The potential for the Whitby line has undoubtedly been restricted by the destruction of it's all-day service and will have prevented the route from enjoying the sort of resurgence that other routes with maintained services will have experienced.
Just to bring this thread back on track (hydrogen trains) I note that Northern have announced that they are withdrawing the proposed May timetable change to remove the onward services beyond Middlesbrough to Sunderland, Newcastle and Hexham. This means that plan to have the Whitby service as a self contained shuttle (using hydrogen power) may need a rethink.
Just to bring this thread back on track (hydrogen trains) I note that Northern have announced that they are withdrawing the proposed May timetable change to remove the onward services beyond Middlesbrough to Sunderland, Newcastle and Hexham. This means that plan to have the Whitby service as a self contained shuttle (using hydrogen power) may need a rethink.
Just to bring this thread back on track (hydrogen trains) I note that Northern have announced that they are withdrawing the proposed May timetable change to remove the onward services beyond Middlesbrough to Sunderland, Newcastle and Hexham. This means that plan to have the Whitby service as a self contained shuttle (using hydrogen power) may need a rethink.
I note that there do usually seem to be a good few staying on the train at Middlesbrough when I get off.
From my point of view, a self contained service only really has merit of it makes it easier to have the necessary capacity. At present, the current diagrams do allow for the 16:00 back to be four carriages, so that ought to be retained.
I note that there do usually seem to be a good few staying on the train at Middlesbrough when I get off.
From my point of view, a self contained service only really has merit of it makes it easier to have the necessary capacity. At present, the current diagrams do allow for the 16:00 back to be four carriages, so that ought to be retained.
The main objections to the proposal was that onward travel beyond Middlesbrough could result in up to 50 min wait for a connection at Middlesbrough. There is currently a demand for through services from Whitby to Newcastle and vice versa.
The main objections to the proposal was that onward travel beyond Middlesbrough could result in up to 50 min wait for a connection at Middlesbrough. There is currently a demand for through services from Whitby to Newcastle and vice versa.
Yes, I can see that. Coming from the south, I usually have a long connection time at Middlesbrough.
The risk with the self contained approach is that they shove a 156 on it and forget about it all day. At least with the current situation we get 4 carriages on the 16:00 return working.
1600 Whitby to Middlesbrough is only 4 cars because one gets coupled on at Middlesbrough for 1404 Whitby. Theres no reason to think this wouldn't be planned if the service were a shuttle on the branch.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
