NYMR & Whitby

[Tomnick]

I agree that splitting the block section at Grosmont would be a sensible way to release more capacity (not a signal box, just another token section remotely supervised from Nunthorpe). I understand that this was ruled out on cost grounds though? That said, there's not very much to it at all. The only practical difficulty that I can see is the arrangement around Grosmont (Battersby line) platform itself, and where exactly each section would end.

Then again, the cost would probably fade into insignificance compared to the cost of trying to adjust the signalling at Battersby (worked automatically by arriving trains) to reinstate the second platform!

 

[yorksrob]

I was under the impression that Battersby was already available for trains to pass with both reversing into the existing platform ?

 

[Tomnick]

They can indeed, no problem at all for a unit crossing a unit - apologies, I misread the intention of the suggestion above!

 

[Harpers Tate]

Maybe it's because a signal box would need to be staffed permanently whereas the new platform doesn't.

No signalboxes anywhere else past Nunthorpe, so I doubt Grosmont would need to be any different. Traincrew self-service for tokens etc, under remote supervision.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

They can indeed, no problem at all for a unit crossing a unit - apologies, I misread the intention of the suggestion above!

First in, last out is the set up at Battersby I think.

 

[Tomnick]

It is indeed - the second train arrives on top of the first, in the only remaining platform.

 

[davetheguard]

Great opportunity, without adding track, would be seized by adding Grosmont as a block post. At present neither NYMR, or Northern, can enter the section Glaisdale-Whitby station curtilage unless the section is completely clear. So NYMR train enters section any Northern has to wait at Glaisdale until NYMR inside at Whitby, likewise no NYMR service can enter the section until an outbound Northern has arrived at Glaisdale and surrendered the token. If there was a Grosmont block the number of services could be increased quite substantially.
For Esk Valley services reinstating the second platform at Battersby would give another cross over opportunity, again adding service increase possibilities without any further double tracking.

I hadn't realised Glaisdale rather than Grosmont was the block post.

How does that work for a NYMR train to Whitby; does someone have to drive from Grosmont to Glaisdale to release an electic token from the instrument, and then back to Grosmont to give it to the train driver?

 

[Tomnick]

Thankfully (for them) not - there's an additional intermediate instrument at Grosmont, from which a token can be obtained. The principle of a normal token section, whereby only one token may be 'out' at any one time, and a second one physically can't be obtained (from either instrument) until the first has been restored at one end or the other, is simply extended to include the intermediate instruments. The same principle applies at the Whitby end - NYMR trains can be 'shut inside' the second platform at Whitby (by restoring the token to the instrument at the new ground frame) to allow a unit to run from Glaisdale and return. Indeed, a two car unit can be similarly dealt with in the existing platform - effectively, but not physically, 'shut inside' by restoring the token.

 

[ffm]

As Tomnick says, no need for a signalbox (indeed there will be none anywhere within a few years anyway!) and there is an intermediate block instrument at Grosmont, but the section is still to Glaisdale. This means that no other train can be in the section at any time, NYMR trains cannot depart Whitby until any Northern service has left section at Glaisdale, or depart Grosmont until out of section at Glaisdale, or Whitby. This is a major restriction upon the NYMR timetable and any additional services at that end of the line.
Battersby can have 2 trains in the platform, as long as they are short enough......

 

[Rail Ranger]

fireftrm,

In its recent Press Release for the commissioning of the first phase of the Manchester Regional Operating Centre (ROC) at Ashburys (to control the Huyton area), Network Rail said it would take 20 years to fully commission the Manchester ROC.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Great opportunity, without adding track, would be seized by adding Grosmont as a block post. At present neither NYMR, or Northern, can enter the section Glaisdale-Whitby station curtilage unless the section is completely clear. So NYMR train enters section any Northern has to wait at Glaisdale until NYMR inside at Whitby, likewise no NYMR service can enter the section until an outbound Northern has arrived at Glaisdale and surrendered the token. If there was a Grosmont block the number of services could be increased quite substantially.
For Esk Valley services reinstating the second platform at Battersby would give another cross over opportunity, again adding service increase possibilities without any further double tracking.

I agree, both of these suggestions would make sense and should not cost too much money. Would bring a lot of benefits.

(How have the new NYMR services been running since the new platform opened at Whitby?)

 

[ffm]

fireftrm,

In its recent Press Release for the commissioning of the first phase of the Manchester Regional Operating Centre (ROC) at Ashburys (to control the Huyton area), Network Rail said it would take 20 years to fully commission the Manchester ROC.

And your point is? Manchester is not going to cover the North East anyway, that will be York......

 

[Rail Ranger]

firefrtm,

My comment was in response to your comment that there wouldn't be any signal boxes left soon.

 

[ffm]

OK so soon there will be very few signalboxes left, some will be still around in 20 years, but very very few

 

[button_boxer]

Great opportunity, without adding track, would be seized by adding Grosmont as a block post. At present neither NYMR, or Northern, can enter the section Glaisdale-Whitby station curtilage unless the section is completely clear. So NYMR train enters section any Northern has to wait at Glaisdale until NYMR inside at Whitby, likewise no NYMR service can enter the section until an outbound Northern has arrived at Glaisdale and surrendered the token. If there was a Grosmont block the number of services could be increased quite substantially.
For Esk Valley services reinstating the second platform at Battersby would give another cross over opportunity, again adding service increase possibilities without any further double tracking.

It'd be a bit more complex than simply splitting the block as Glasidale appears (from Google aerial views) to be the nearest passing loop to Whitby on the Esk Valley line. A NYMR service leaving Whitby would only need to hold a token as far as Grosmont but an Esk Valley service would need both the Whitby-Grosmont and the Grosmont-Glasidale tokens before it can safely leave Whitby. There'd be similar complexity going the other way - the signalling can't allow you to end up in a situation where you get two NR trains nose to nose at Grosmont unable to pass...

 

[ffm]

You do not have to have a passing loop to have a token block. With a block at Grosmont two trains could be travelling in the same direction, in separate blocks. Also a train could enter the Gr-Whitby block as soon as it s vacated by one entering the Gr-Gl section, as could happen in reverse.So capacity can be freed up between Grosmont and Whitby