NYMR bridge issue: possible solutions, including a temporary platform?

[D6130]

Moderator note: Split from

NYMR news and updates.

So I have created a thread 'severn valley railway news and updates' so I thought I would create one for this line - I want to start off with a question about 926 Repton: How long has it been TPWS fitted as when I visited for a week over Easter, she hooked onto the back of the 31 heading from...

www.railforums.co.uk

Help Us Restore Bridge 42

Passenger and freight trains have crossed Bridge 42 at Grosmont for 180 years. Now it needs your help. Your donation will repair its stone and brick arches, keeping the line safe and open for everyone who travels with us.

www.nymr.co.uk

Without Bridge 42, trains simply cannot run to Whitby and Grosmont.

Is there any chance of a temporary platform being built close to the depot for top-n-tail working to and from Pickering?

 

[Harvester]

Is there any chance of a temporary platform being built close to the depot for top-n-tail working to and from Pickering?

I was also wondering if this would be possible, and if not, could top-n-tail workings be run from Pickering to the depot area at Grosmont with no disembarking? This would still give a decent round trip over the line, including the impressive climb back to Goathland!

 

[Belperpete]

Providing a temporary platform would not be cheap, and would use money that could otherwise be spent on the bridge. Top and tailing every train all the way from Pickering would likewise be expensive.

The ideal solution would be to run-round outside the depot, if the track layout can be easily modified to suit. If not, draw the train up parallel with the MPD and put a replacement loco on the back of the train for the return journey. The loco that had brought the train there would then be detached, and after the train had departed sent to the MPD, and readied for the next train. The second loco could alternatively be added at Goathland, so that trains would only be top and tailed beyond there, rather than all the way from Pickering.

A number of railways have used such manoeuvres for terminii where a run round isn't available for some reason.

 

[35B]

Is there any chance of a temporary platform being built close to the depot for top-n-tail working to and from Pickering?

Why would you? The key issue for NYMR is that the bridge closure prevents running to Whitby. That has become the core traffic on the line, and has at a stroke been rendered undeliverable.

Assuming this won't be fixed quickly, the railway management need to work out how to a) pay for the work that will be required and b) find a means of operating that will deliver the maximum possible income. They already have an expensive choice to make between running top & tail to Goathland, or reinstating the pointwork at the south end that allows the use of the loop south of the station to run round trains*. They also have to consider how they manage their fleet given that there is no access to the shed from the south end.

It's hard to see what spending money on a temporary platform will do to generate sufficient additional traffic to cover the costs for any except enthusiasts.

* - The station is on a gradient of 1:138, steeping to 1:49 off the north end of the platform. The standard requirement for a station is 1:500, and one of the operating restrictions is that carriages cannot be left in the station without being attached to a locomotive.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would it not be simpler to just make some temporary alterations to the signalling/operating procedures at goathland to allow running round?

I don't know the exact details of the signalling there but just based on my experience from KWVR at damems junction when we have had long engineering blockades.

 

[35B]

Would it not be simpler to just make some temporary alterations to the signalling/operating procedures at goathland to allow running round?

I don't know the exact details of the signalling there but just based on my experience from KWVR at damems junction when we have had long engineering blockades.

It might - but the gradient is itself an important restriction on what may be allowed to happen.

 

[Belperpete]

They already have an expensive choice to make between running top & tail to Goathland, or reinstating the pointwork at the south end that allows the use of the loop south of the station to run round trains*. They also have to consider how they manage their fleet given that there is no access to the shed from the south end.

It's hard to see what spending money on a temporary platform will do to generate sufficient additional traffic to cover the costs for any except enthusiasts.

* - The station is on a gradient of 1:138, steeping to 1:49 off the north end of the platform. The standard requirement for a station is 1:500, and one of the operating restrictions is that carriages cannot be left in the station without being attached to a locomotive.

According to a previous poster, they have already slewed the track to solve the depot access issue?

Are you saying that it is not currently possible to run round or pass trains at Goathland, due to the condition of the points?

Having a replacement loco solves the run round issue. You attach the new loco to the Pickering end of the train before you detach the incoming loco from the Grosmont end of the train. So there is always a loco attached to the coaches. The incoming loco then gets fuelled and water, ready to be the replacement loco for the next arrival.

Assuming that the railway has a loco in steam on standby in case of failure, you don't actually need any extra locos for this method of working. The loco that is laying over, waiting for the next train to arrive, also acts as your standby loco. This method of working also only requires one usable point, rather than a full run round loop.

 

[35B]

According to a previous poster, they have already slewed the track to solve the depot access issue?

Are you saying that it is not currently possible to run round or pass trains at Goathland, due to the condition of the points?

Having a replacement loco solves the run round issue. You attach the new loco to the Pickering end of the train before you detach the incoming loco from the Grosmont end of the train. So there is always a loco attached to the coaches. The incoming loco then gets fuelled and water, ready to be the replacement loco for the next arrival.

Assuming that the railway has a loco in steam on standby in case of failure, you don't actually need any extra locos for this method of working. The loco that is laying over, waiting for the next train to arrive, also acts as your standby loco. This method of working also only requires one usable point, rather than a full run round loop.

I don’t believe Goathland is signalled to allow this mode of operation, but stand to correction. It also requires two locomotives where running round at Grosmont would allow use of a single locomotive.

The slew at the shed has been reversed and raises its own safety issues - not least direct access to shed sidings off the bottom of the 1:49.

I think these issues ought to be soluble, but require a quality of thinking that hasn’t been particularly evident from NYMR management in recent years, and where cash is very tight (the reason why the loop south of Goathland has been plain lined). In particular, it requires the flexibility to focus on the attraction of the line south of Goathland when attention has primarily been on the Whitby operation.

 

[Belperpete]

I don’t believe Goathland is signalled to allow this mode of operation, but stand to correction. It also requires two locomotives where running round at Grosmont would allow use of a single locomotive.

Agreed. But as I said, if you have a standby engine in steam , you can use that to take the train back, and the incoming loco then acts as the standby. In which case, you don't need any more locos in steam.

The slew at the shed has been reversed and raises its own safety issues - not least direct access to shed sidings off the bottom of the 1:49.

I would be more concerned if the shed sidings led direct to the top of the 1:49! Presumably they have slewed the running line into the MPD headhunt, giving direct access from the running line from Goathland into the shed? However, there does surely need to be trapping protection between the shed lines and any line on which passenger trains run. Are there any points or sidings left at Goathland that could provide such protection?

If the loop has been plain lined, does that mean Goathland is no longer a block post / staff station?

Is there any track plan available on line for the NYMR? I couldn't even find a route map on their website !

 

[30907]

If the loop has been plain lined, does that mean Goathland is no longer a block post / staff station?

The reference is (thank you, Google Earth!) to the long siding south of the station, not the crossing loop at the station.

 

[35B]

I would be more concerned if the shed sidings led direct to the top of the 1:49! Presumably they have slewed the running line into the MPD headhunt, giving direct access from the running line from Goathland into the shed? However, there does surely need to be trapping protection between the shed lines and any line on which passenger trains run. Are there any points or sidings left at Goathland that could provide such protection?

No. Once a vehicle has joined the single line at the north of Goathland station, there is no such protection.

On your wider question about the track layout, there is a siding on the former down line south of Goathland station which (as @30907 correctly notes) is formed as a loop, feeding into the down platform loop. The access to that down loop has been plain lined, removing the former single slip which gave access to the station siding.

At the north end, the down line goes into a sand drag, while the up (and uphill!) line runs uninterrupted from the points at the north end of Grosmont tunnel to the loop.

Agreed. But as I said, if you have a standby engine in steam , you can use that to take the train back, and the incoming loco then acts as the standby. In which case, you don't need any more locos in steam.

If there is somewhere to place that locomotive, and the shunting can be signalled. It also requires a crew to be idle for (typically) the hour between trains and removes the possibility of a one engine in steam service.

 

[Belperpete]

If there is somewhere to place that locomotive, and the shunting can be signalled.

If there is still a passing loop, then you place the loco in the loop. Train arrives, you signal the loco out of the loop, hopefully using the same signal you would as if passing trains. You then signal the loco back onto the train, using hand signals if necessary (it is only a shunt move). Then you signal the arriving loco off the other end of the train, into the loop, again using hand signals if necessary.

It is a method that several railways I know have used when unable to run round at a terminus.

It also requires a crew to be idle for (typically) the hour between trains and removes the possibility of a one engine in steam service.

Agreed, but is still better than topping and tailing, which would require a second crew active the whole time, and also isn't one engine in steam.

 

[35B]

If there is still a passing loop, then you place the loco in the loop. Train arrives, you signal the loco out of the loop, hopefully using the same signal you would as if passing trains. You then signal the loco back onto the train, using hand signals if necessary (it is only a shunt move). Then you signal the arriving loco off the other end of the train, into the loop, again using hand signals if necessary.

It is a method that several railways I know have used when unable to run round at a terminus.


Agreed, but is still better than topping and tailing, which would require a second crew active the whole time, and also isn't one engine in steam.

The catch is that Goathland is not signalled to allow "wrong way" departures of the sort that this would require.

 

[Belperpete]

The catch is that Goathland is not signalled to allow "wrong way" departures of the sort that this would require.

There are two obvious solutions to this:
1) put a temporary stop board at the end of the platform, and the signalman flags the train out, the same as would happen if there were a signal there that has failed

2) train arrives, attach second loco to the Pickering end, signal train out towards Grosmont, signal train back in to Pickering-direction platform, detach incoming loco, train departs, leaving incoming loco in Pickering platform to wait for next train.

Flagging of passenger trains would not be acceptable on a long term basis, but should be for a short term. The NYMR apparently don't know how long the bridge is likely to be out of use.

 

[Harpo]

The answer to ‘possible solutions’ is cash but…….

The NYMR apparently don't know how long the bridge is likely to be out of use.

Or isn’t saying, in the same way that the appeal fund has no publicly stated target.

The NYMR’s management seems to have done all that it can to disenfranchise its volunteers and supporters recently, shifting from transparent heritage railway, to something altogether different.

Let’s hope that it doesn’t cause this current challenge to be insurmountable.

Help Us Restore Bridge 42

Passenger and freight trains have crossed Bridge 42 at Grosmont for 180 years. Now it needs your help. Your donation will repair its stone and brick arches, keeping the line safe and open for everyone who travels with us.

www.nymr.co.uk

 

[30907]

There are two obvious solutions to this:
1) put a temporary stop board at the end of the platform, and the signalman flags the train out, the same as would happen if there were a signal there that has failed

2) train arrives, attach second loco to the Pickering end, signal train out towards Grosmont, signal train back in to Pickering-direction platform, detach incoming loco, train departs, leaving incoming loco in Pickering platform to wait for next train.

Small detail: you would want to shunt at the Pickering end not down the 1 in 49

 

[Belperpete]

Small detail: you would want to shunt at the Pickering end not down the 1 in 49

Agreed, but I suggested the shunt as a way of avoiding unsignalled moves. If you are going to shunt "bang road" out of the platform towards Pickering, you might as well just depart that way.

 

[35B]

The key point is not that any of these ideas are good or bad, but that there is a station that is not signalled to support them, and is on a significant gradient. The layout was also designed to support use of the down loop for running round but this has been rendered useless because the single slip at the south end of the loop became life expired, and no replacement could be provided.

 

[Belperpete]

The key point is not that any of these ideas are good or bad, but that there is a station that is not signalled to support them, and is on a significant gradient.

That is when a signalman proves their worth, when dealing with failures and moves that aren't signalled. A signalman must be able to cope with such moves.

However, thinking about this more, I think the assumption that it is not possible to run round at Goathland needs to be questioned. When the Welsh Highland Railway was reopened, there was much talk that trains would not be permitted to terminate at Beddgelert, which is on an even steeper gradient than Goathland (about 1 in 40 I understand). However, trains regularly terminate and run round at Beddgelert. So, if trains can do that at Beddgelert, why not at Goathland? There must surely be other stations on steep gradients where trains run round?

I can understand an instruction that effectively banned running round in the platforms at Goathland when there was a safer way of doing it using the down loop, that isn't on the steep gradient. But now that option isn't available, that instruction needs to be looked at again. Just blindly and unquestioningly following some ancient rule, when the situation has changed, seems a bit stupid.

There must surely be ways of running around in Goathland safely. Such as perhaps by having two braked coaches in each train, and requiring that both be applied before the loco is detached?

Having to top and tail every train between Pickering and Goathland would be needlessly expensive, as each loco would be hauling another loco's dead weight around. Not only extra fuel costs, but extra mileage and maintenance, crewing costs, etc. Surely every avenue to avoid that should be explored.

 

[35B]

That is when a signalman proves their worth, when dealing with failures and moves that aren't signalled. A signalman must be able to cope with such moves.

However, thinking about this more, I think the assumption that it is not possible to run round at Goathland needs to be questioned. When the Welsh Highland Railway was reopened, there was much talk that trains would not be permitted to terminate at Beddgelert, which is on an even steeper gradient than Goathland (about 1 in 40 I understand). However, trains regularly terminate and run round at Beddgelert. So, if trains can do that at Beddgelert, why not at Goathland? There must surely be other stations on steep gradients where trains run round?

I can understand an instruction that effectively banned running round in the platforms at Goathland when there was a safer way of doing it using the down loop, that isn't on the steep gradient. But now that option isn't available, that instruction needs to be looked at again. Just blindly and unquestioningly following some ancient rule, when the situation has changed, seems a bit stupid.

There must surely be ways of running around in Goathland safely. Such as perhaps by having two braked coaches in each train, and requiring that both be applied before the loco is detached?

Having to top and tail every train between Pickering and Goathland would be needlessly expensive, as each loco would be hauling another loco's dead weight around. Not only extra fuel costs, but extra mileage and maintenance, crewing costs, etc. Surely every avenue to avoid that should be explored.

My point is not that it can't be done, but that there is a burden of historically approved practice that has to be set aside to allow the sort of changes being discussed. That raises issues in terms of both regulatory approval and the capability of the NYMR management to make the changes required when their focus over the last decade or more has been to focus on the "park & ride" operation to Whitby, and to focus away from the "internal" operation.

 

[Belperpete]

My point is not that it can't be done, but that there is a burden of historically approved practice that has to be set aside to allow the sort of changes being discussed. That raises issues in terms of both regulatory approval and the capability of the NYMR management to make the changes required when their focus over the last decade or more has been to focus on the "park & ride" operation to Whitby, and to focus away from the "internal" operation.

What regulatory approval would be needed? My understanding is that you don't need to get approval for a change in the way an existing railway operates. You do need to be able to demonstrate that it has been properly considered and implemented. The days when HMRI had to approve each new siding and signalling alteration are long gone.

As to the capability of the NYMR management to persuade its staff and supporters to accept change, I am not doubting that there will be a legion of died in the wool types who will automatically just say "can't do that" to any new way of working. But just following that dinosaur thinking risks costing the railway a lot of money, just at a time when it can least afford it.

 

[35B]

What regulatory approval would be needed? My understanding is that you don't need to get approval for a change in the way an existing railway operates. You do need to be able to demonstrate that it has been properly considered and implemented. The days when HMRI had to approve each new siding and signalling alteration are long gone.

As to the capability of the NYMR management to persuade its staff and supporters to accept change, I am not doubting that there will be a legion of died in the wool types who will automatically just say "can't do that" to any new way of working. But just following that dinosaur thinking risks costing the railway a lot of money, just at a time when it can least afford it.

That may be a large part of the issue.