Single lead junction for Scarborough line at York

[edwin_m]

It depends on what you are looking to achieve.
If you want a relief line more than a route away from 3 without being routed into 4 or the other way around.
Platform 3 is rather long. The best but most expensive would be a sissor cross over. Its compact and works well but maintenance is very high on them.

That's what was there before the 1990ish re-signaling I think.

 

[ElectroSoldier]

Indeed.
It was the reason it was taken out. I think it was the cost to benefit was seen as being to high

 

[Senex]

But did the plans for the York simplification and re-signalling envisage anything even remotely like the present levels of traffic through York, or was it a classic scheme of the time with minimal provision for traffic growth?

 

[John Webb]

That's what was there before the 1990ish re-signaling I think.

Yes, both old Platforms 8 and 9 (respectively now 3-4 and 5) both had scissor crossovers to the through lines in the 1951 arrangements; they may have been there beforehand.
The two Scarborough lines across the river bridge had both trailing and facing crossovers in 1980, the Waterworks crossing for the Scarborough goods lines having been removed in 1974.
The rationalisation giving rise to the single lead junction under discussion was circa 1989 with the introduction of the York IECC and subsequent electrification of the ECML. This also included the removal of the through lines and the present arrangement of platforms 3 and 4.
I don't think that anyone has pointed out the similar arrangement for Skelton Junction for the Harrogate line?
(Information from "Britain's Railway Super Centres - York" by Ken Appleby, Ian Allan, 1993, ISBN 0 7110 2072 8. This includes full track plans for the 1951 and 1989 works. It was published after the 1989 works so includes some photos of the rearrangements and York IECC.)

I suspect Senex's observation may be correct!

 

[ElectroSoldier]

You're joking!
I dont think anybody really imagined railways would be as popular as they are right now.
Growth is ridiculous. the APT and then Class 390 were developed because a separate high speed passenger service was prohibitively expensive, now they are building it because its worth it.