Pairing York to Northallerton by speed ?

[Halifaxlad]

Currently York to Northallerton is paired by direction. I'm curious how hard would it be to pair this section by speed with fast lines on the left and the slows on the right ?

Also the associated operating issues that this may have.

 

[achmelvic]

What would be the benefit? Assume it'd need rebuild of Thirsk station?

 

[Halifaxlad]

What would be the benefit? Assume it'd need rebuild of Thirsk station?

It would be an alternative to the proposed expensive flyover at Northallerton!

As for Thirsk, that station could really do with a rebuild which wouldn't be much as if the slow lines were on the Eastern side it would only mean bringing the platform edge facing what is currently the up fast line back into use. Probably be cheaper too (station wise) than this new footbridge and x amount of lifts that are to be built!

 

[swt_passenger]

It would be an alternative to the proposed expensive flyover at Northallerton!

As for Thirsk, that station could really do with a rebuild which wouldn't be much as if the slow lines were on the Eastern side it would only mean bringing the platform edge facing what is currently the up fast line back into use. Probably be cheaper too (station wise) than this new footbridge and x amount of lifts that are to be built!

Do your slow lines only go to Teesside? If so how do they get through Northallerton? If not how do stoppers get to Darlington?

Is fast on the left and slow on the right, (as you describe it), workable through York, and south of York?

 

[ainsworth74]

It would be an alternative to the proposed expensive flyover at Northallerton!

Well a) I'm quite certain that this plan would make any grade separation at Northallerton look like small change and b) I'm not actually clear how it would solve the problem in the first place and indeed might actually make things worse...

 

[yorksrob]

What side would the fast lines be on ?

If on the East, you'd probably still need to grade seperate Nortallerton.
If on the West, you'd probably need to grade separate Colton Junction due to all the regional stuff coming from Leeds.

 

[Halifaxlad]

What side would the fast lines be on ?

If on the East, you'd probably still need to grade seperate Nortallerton.
If on the West, you'd probably need to grade separate Colton Junction due to all the regional stuff coming from Leeds.

The West!

I think its more beneficial to have grade separation at Colton than at Northallerton!

Fundamentally when I started this thread I was hoping for more discussion about where fast and slow services should cross and where any investment should be!

 

[Ianno87]

Let's start from what the "problem" is. Which I see as being freights etc on the Up Slow having to cross everything at Skelton Bridge Jn to get to the York Station avoiding lines.

How big a problem actually is that? A couple of freight trains per hour, versus something like 6-8 passenger trains each way? You can't run many more passenger trains without a major capacity intervention north of Northallerton.

So you building something here doesn't resolve a capacity constraint elsewhere.

Plus not every Up freight wants to go via the avoiding lines - sometimes it is less conflicting to go straight through the Station (Platform 3) then onto the Normanton Lines at Colton Jn.


The benefit of the current pairing by direction is enabling TPE etc services to call at Thirsk and then weave around Slower freights, without conflicting with trains in the opposite direction.

 

[zwk500]

Fundamentally when I started this thread I was hoping for more discussion about where fast and slow services should cross and where any investment should be!

With the best will in the world, that wasn't at all indicated in your thread title or first post.

Pairing by use would still require a complete rebuild of Northallerton, so you aren't saving any money but instead making a difficult but manageable job incredibly complicated. Thirsk to be rebuilt, 3 junctions remodelled, OLE, formation and Signalling all to be redone.

You'd want crossovers at least at Skelton Bridge, Thirsk and Longlands Jn, but it may well be worth keeping Tollerton in as well so that you can start stacking trains outside of York if there are problems at either Leeds or Doncaster.
The investment should be targeted where the problem is - which is Northallerton. Cheapest, easiest and quickest solution is a flyover north of the station. Surprise, surprise, that's what NR has proposed.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Pairing by use would still require a complete rebuild of Northallerton, so you aren't saving any money but instead making a difficult but manageable job incredibly complicated. Thirsk to be rebuilt, 3 junctions remodelled, OLE, formation and Signalling all to be redone.

Whatever happens Northallerton will eventually be rebuilt anyway which is pretty much a given! As for saving money I don't know why you think any of my thoughts are about that, when my comments clearly are about looking at the issues along the stretch from York to Northallerton as one rather than in isolation from one another. Rebuilding Thirsk is hardly a major issue see post 3!

Cheapest, easiest and quickest solution is a flyover north of the station.

Believe it or not that isn't the cheapest, nor is it the easiest or quickest solution that has been considered!

 

[ABB125]

Believe it or not that isn't the cheapest, nor is it the easiest or quickest solution that has been considered!

What is the cheapest/quickest option?

 

[Ianno87]

What is the cheapest/quickest option?

Doing nothing.

 

[mike57]

I think the slow lines to the west could be made to work, but I am not sure that it would be better. Thirsk rebuild, fettling existing southbound slow over nearly 30 miles, you've still got Northallerton to sort out, and the difficulties of moving services from Fast to Slow over the route, seems like a lot of expense for very little benefit, as I see it only benefit would be southbound freights being able to use the York avoiding line without crossing the lines outside York. If this move is seen to be a problem then a flyover north of York to address it, much less work than the pair by speed option. I would rather alter Northallerton so that it is 4 track through the station, with outer platforms on the 'slows' so that calling services can be kept out of the way of through services, and the ability to switch from slow to fast just to the south of the station. I think there is space if you demolished the northbound platform, but the cost may mean its not value for money.

 

[Halifaxlad]

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...Fenton-to-Newcastle-Strategic-Advice-2020.pdf
Page 22 for those interested.

At the end of the day this is only an idea, hence I wondered what the issues may be.

Alternatively regarding Thirsk, it may be easier to address that issue by constructing new platforms on the outside of the slows!

If you're not aware regarding Thirsk, it is likely to end up with 3/4 lifts and a new footbridge simply to provide step free access which I personally think is a bit ridiculous! I

For this flyover at Northallerton you are looking at around 2 miles of track!

Its only recently reading about how millions are to be spent at Thirsk that got me thinking about this route between York & Northallerton again.

 

[zwk500]

Alternatively regarding Thirsk, it may be easier to address that issue by constructing new platforms on the outside of the slows!
If you're not aware regarding Thirsk, it is likely to end up with 3/4 lifts and a new footbridge simply to provide step free access which I personally think is a bit ridiculous!

So your solution to a couple of extra lifts is to make the operational railway much less resilient and introduce unecessary conflict? Constructing platforms on the outside of the slows would be better, but that is more expensive than the bridge and would require more land and time, for very marginal benefit unless you also demolish the islands and straighten the track out.

For this flyover at Northallerton you are looking at around 2 miles of track!
Its only recently reading about how millions are to be spent at Thirsk that got me thinking about this route between York & Northallerton again.

You solution to spending millions on Thirsk is to spend many, many more millions on a totally different problem? If the lines are paired by use, you'll still need 3 lifts to access Thirsk station (because there will have to be at least one platform face in the 10-foot). Northallerton is the problem, south of there works actually very well. Why fix the bit that isn't broken to avoid fixing the bit that is?

 

[Halifaxlad]

zwk500​

I think you keep missing my point of looking it as a whole rather than separate issues in isolation!

Anyway as for Thirsk, obviously if platforms were put on the outside the best way would be to demolish the existing islands and straighten out the track!

 

[mike57]

Just a question, why do you need 3 lifts to serve the two platforms at Thirsk, theres a drop off point with 5 steps to the west, this could be made into a ramp, you would only need to move a litter bin and a bench, then you only need 2 lifts, and provide 2 disabled parking spaces

 

[DanNCL]

Just a question, why do you need 3 lifts to serve the two platforms at Thirsk, theres a drop off point with 5 steps to the west, this could be made into a ramp, you would only need to move a litter bin and a bench, then you only need 2 lifts, and provide 2 disabled parking spaces

One for the northbound platform, one for the southbound platform, and one to connect the footbridge to the car park next to the southbound platform.

 

[zwk500]

I think you keep missing my point of looking it as a whole rather than separate issues in isolation!

Ok then, what problem are you trying to solve? One sentence statement please.

 

[Halifaxlad]

One for the northbound platform, one for the southbound platform, and one to connect the footbridge to the car park next to the southbound platform.

Good luck constructing a lift for the Northbound platform as there doesn't appear to be much room!


Which is why earlier I said 3/4 lifts as I suspect this new footbridge will be further down the platform and independant from the existing structure.

 

[DanNCL]

Good luck constructing a lift for the Northbound platform as there doesn't appear to be much room!

View attachment 104731
Which is why earlier I said 3/4 lifts as I suspect this new footbridge will be further down the platform and independant from the existing structure.

You probably could just about fit one in the small gap between the footbridge and the road bridge, but it would require the barrow crossing to be closed before work on constructing the lift shaft began as it’s have to be built where the access path to the barrow crossing currently is.

 

[zwk500]

You probably could just about fit one in the small gap between the footbridge and the road bridge, but it would require the barrow crossing to be closed before work on constructing the lift shaft began as it’s have to be built where the access path to the barrow crossing currently is.

Isn't that barrow crossing a RRAP? Tbh I don't see the issue with a new bridge - the current one protrudes into the car park, has steps at either end, isn't covered and is fairly narrow. Building a new bridge at the far end of the building on the southbound platform gives lots of room for Lifts and stairs, lets the car park be rejigged and brings the opportunity for a covered footbridge that is wide enough for 2 wheelchairs to pass each other. Moving it north also potentially helps with Pedestrian flow on the platforms by encouraging people to spread out from the middle rather than having to walk to one end.

 

[DanNCL]

Isn't that barrow crossing a RRAP?

RRAP?

 

[yorkie]

I am not convinced by this.

However if there is a need to do something about conflicting movements at Northallerton, it may be feasible to open up a platform on what is currently the freight avoiding northbound line? This would allow passenger trains towards Sunderland/Middlesbrough to avoid crossing Up ECML trains on the flat. I've no idea how feasible this is, though.

And if there is a need to do something about conflicting movements at Skelton, it would almost certainly be cheaper to build a flyover to take the Up Slow over the Down Fast, than to do as proposed in the opening post in this thread. At present, freight trains can wait their turn for a gap in passenger traffic; I don't think the volume of traffic is such that this is a big problem?

 

[zwk500]

RRAP?

Road Rail (vehicle) Access Point

 

[mike57]

One for the northbound platform, one for the southbound platform, and one to connect the footbridge to the car park next to the southbound platform.

But thats my point, you could move the disabled parking spaces to the west side and create a level access with 2 lifts to the platforms from there because there is room to create a short ramp and create a few disabled spaces if you move the bin and bench, disabled access doesn't have to be from east side. Cheaper, and easier for the user as only 1 lift move needed instead of 2.

 

[Ianno87]

I am not convinced by this.

However if there is a need to do something about conflicting movements at Northallerton, it may be feasible to open up a platform on what is currently the freight avoiding northbound line? This would allow passenger trains towards Sunderland/Middlesbrough to avoid crossing Up ECML trains on the flat. I've no idea how feasible this is, though.

The problem with that is the impact on the level crossing by routeing more trains that way.

 

[swt_passenger]

The problem with that is the impact on the level crossing by routeing more trains that way.

That’s the very problem that NR explain in the source linked in post#14.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The reason that the ECML has always worked vastly better than the WCML (between London and Rugby at least) and the MML (between London and Bedford) is that the two lines in the same direction are paired. Crossing something from fast to slow or vice versa required no conflicting move to a train in the opposite direction.

The WCML almost should have been built that way - if you could have found a way to make that so.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The reason that the ECML has always worked vastly better than the WCML (between London and Rugby at least) and the MML (between London and Bedford) is that the two lines in the same direction are paired. Crossing something from fast to slow or vice versa required no conflicting move to a train in the opposite direction.

The WCML almost should have been built that way - if you could have found a way to make that so.

It also works very well because there is a dive under at Northallerton which was built around the 20s/30s which as we all know removes the need for conflicting movements.

Apart from the aspirations of network rail to remove the road/rail conflict this causes I.e effectively splitting the town into two there is limited to no clearance for overhead wires, which is another problem since so many people want to electrify pretty much most of the rail network.

Anyway freight services do have to cross below York anyway and now it looks like they might be re-routed through the main train shed!

It's merely just a thought about which would be better considering the x amount of millions it will be for this proposed 2/2.5 mile flyover at Northallerton.