Improving the lines around Hull

[NoMorePacers]

As a resident of that city in the North people like to pretend doesn’t exist (I mean the Government does that with Yorkshire as a whole, but Hull more so), I’ve formed the opinion that the lines serving it are pretty poorly utilised, in terms of their maximum capability.

Specifically I’m referring to things like speed limits. The Selby-Hull line has a speed limit of 75mph in most parts, with some 90mph (even then that’s only Sprinter speeds, so TPE services for example could only dream of reaching them). Considering that a good two thirds to three quarters of the line is completely straight, that is quite frankly pathetic.

I do not see how the line cannot be upgraded to 125mph running for the majority of its distance. Also, if I may, it would be nice if our electrification could be put back in the agenda.

You could probably uprate the Goole and Yorkshire Coast lines to 90mph in decent chunks, as well as doubling Bridlington - Scarborough in full to possibly run a half hourly service along the full length.

Thoughts?

 

[Ploughman]

Is the problem with speed the amount of crossings along the route?

 

[30907]

Is the problem with speed the amount of crossings along the route?

And/or the route being over rather marshy land?

Can't see any justification for half-hourly beyond Brid.

 

[Ploughman]

Another factor against speed on the Brough - Gilberdyke stretch may be the Vertical profile of the line especially around the river bridges.
The horizontal alignment may be straight but the vertical certainly isn't.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Is the problem with speed the amount of crossings along the route?

There are level crossings on the ECML where the maximum speed is far higher than 75 mph.

 

[NoMorePacers]

There are level crossings on the ECML where the maximum speed is far higher than 75 mph.

Hitchin to Peterborough has plenty (probably as much as Selby to Hull does) and that's mostly 125mph.

 

[Ploughman]

I don't just mean controlled Level crosssings but numerous farm crossings.

Just counted up all the crosssings listed in the Railtrack NE Crossings book.
For HUL1 - Hull - Gilberdyke = 51 of all types.
For HUL2 - Gilberdyke - Selby = 61 again of all types.

I admit that some of these crossings may have been closed in the 25 years since I was issued the book.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are level crossings on the ECML where the maximum speed is far higher than 75 mph.

Hitchin to Peterborough has plenty (probably as much as Selby to Hull does) and that's mostly 125mph.

I don't just mean controlled Level crosssings but numerous farm crossings.

Just counted up all the crosssings listed in the Railtrack NE Crossings book.
For HUL1 - Hull - Gilberdyke = 51 of all types.
For HUL2 - Gilberdyke - Selby = 61 again of all types.

I admit that some of these crossings may have been closed in the 25 years since I was issued the book.

On the current list there are 50 between Selby and Hull, and 18 between Hitchin and Peterborough.

All level crossings where the linespeed is to be upgraded to above 100mph must have protection interlocked to the signalling - ie full Manually Controlled barriers (of some form) for public highways, and a minimum of Miniature Red / Green warning lights with gates for all other crossing types.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

On the current list there are 50 between Selby and Hull, and 18 between Hitchin and Peterborough.

All level crossings where the linespeed is to be upgraded to above 100mph must have protection interlocked to the signalling - ie full Manually Controlled barriers (of some form) for public highways, and a minimum of Miniature Red / Green warning lights with gates for all other crossing types.

There's probably little requirement for speeds above 100mph between Selby and Hull even though the route alignment is every bit as straight as the southern half of the ECML. If the maximum line speed were set at 100mph, thereby avoiding the legal obligations outlined, how much would it cost to improve the route to that extent?

 

[Bald Rick]

There's probably little requirement for speeds above 100mph between Selby and Hull even though the route alignment is every bit as straight as the southern half of the ECML. If the maximum line speed were set at 100mph, thereby avoiding the legal obligations outlined, how much would it cost to improve the route to that extent?

I guess most of the track would need replacing, as would a decent proportion of what’s under the track in order to keep the rails in the right place (bridges, embankments, drainage, culverts). All the signalling would need at least moving, probably replacing. Most of the level crossings would need upgrading to ensure sufficient sighting time and/or mitigating against increased risk. Probably above £100m.

 

[IanXC]

I have a recollection that the resignalling of Ferriby to nearly Howden made passive provision for upgraded linespeeds. For instance there were a number of crossing closures, with the exception of Crabley Creek all the road crossings are MCB-OD, and of course the signalling is four aspect.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I guess most of the track would need replacing, as would a decent proportion of what’s under the track in order to keep the rails in the right place (bridges, embankments, drainage, culverts). All the signalling would need at least moving, probably replacing. Most of the level crossings would need upgrading to ensure sufficient sighting time and/or mitigating against increased risk. Probably above £100m.

£100 million is a lot to spend on a not especially busy stretch of railway. However, contrary to my usual penny-pinching attitude, I do think our country should spend year-by-year a manageable sum gradually to bring all well-aligned routes across flat landscapes up to 100 mph line speeds.

 

[cactustwirly]

As a resident of that city in the North people like to pretend doesn’t exist (I mean the Government does that with Yorkshire as a whole, but Hull more so), I’ve formed the opinion that the lines serving it are pretty poorly utilised, in terms of their maximum capability.

Specifically I’m referring to things like speed limits. The Selby-Hull line has a speed limit of 75mph in most parts, with some 90mph (even then that’s only Sprinter speeds, so TPE services for example could only dream of reaching them). Considering that a good two thirds to three quarters of the line is completely straight, that is quite frankly pathetic.

I do not see how the line cannot be upgraded to 125mph running for the majority of its distance. Also, if I may, it would be nice if our electrification could be put back in the agenda.

You could probably uprate the Goole and Yorkshire Coast lines to 90mph in decent chunks, as well as doubling Bridlington - Scarborough in full to possibly run a half hourly service along the full length.

Thoughts?

Why?
How much would all that cost, vs the cost benefit?
Would it not be more cost effective to electrify suburban routes in Leeds/West Yorks and Manchester?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Why?
How much would all that cost, vs the cost benefit?
Would it not be more cost effective to electrify suburban routes in Leeds/West Yorks and Manchester?

Why do people climb Mount Everest? Because it's there. Why do people want long, straight sections of railway across flat landscapes to be used for fairly high speed running at, say, 100mph? Because it's there and because its potential is not being exploited.

To people who feel this way, many of the arguments about value for money ring very hollow indeed. They notice the much larger sums that are spent, seemingly quite casually, on projects to improve the capability of lines that have already been upgraded. They want other, secondary, neglected lines to be brought to a standard achieved in the 1960s on the main lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why do people climb Mount Everest? Because it's there. Why do people want long, straight sections of railway across flat landscapes to be used for fairly high speed running at, say, 100mph? Because it's there and because its potential is not being exploited.

People who climb Everest tend to pay for it themselves.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

People who climb Everest tend to pay for it themselves.

True, but if they're British they tend also to pay through taxation for railway upgrades.

I'm trying to be neutral here. Obviously I know about benefit/cost ratios, the need to prioritise and the requirement for value for money etc. etc. I also know that when B.R moved from '50s speeds (about 70mph) to '60s speeds (100mph) they won back large numbers of customers. I believe a similar result on a smaller scale could be achieved today on well-aligned secondary routes between fairly large conurbations.