VTEC Middlesbrough - London route

[Suraggu]

I seam to remember talk of the Middlesbrough service being a split/attach at Darlington service. I think, the idea was that the Middlesbrough service wouldn't need anything larger than a 5 car set, and by splitting/attaching at Darlington it would reduce the need for an extra path on the ECML.

That is bang on the money, plus NR/VTEC didnt like the idea of attaching/detaching at York station due to the curved nature of the platforms and how busy York is for train movements.

Middlesbrough services would only require a 5 car and attach/detach to a 5 car at Darlington which is the path of the KGX -Middlesbrough/Newcastle 'stopper" every 2 hours.

This was also drafted for the KGX -Lincoln/Harrogate via Leeds 2 hourly service attaching/detaching at Newark Northgate.

 

[43074]

That is bang on the money, plus NR/VTEC didnt like the idea of attaching/detaching at York station due to the curved nature of the platforms and how busy York is for train movements.

Middlesbrough services would only require a 5 car and attach/detach to a 5 car at Darlington which is the path of the KGX -Middlesbrough/Newcastle 'stopper" every 2 hours.

This was also drafted for the KGX -Lincoln/Harrogate via Leeds 2 hourly service attaching/detaching at Newark Northgate.

All this talk of splitting and joining looks like a recipe for disaster, is this actually likely to happen or was it just a proposal at some point?

 

[YorkshireBear]

All this talk of splitting and joining looks like a recipe for disaster, is this actually likely to happen or was it just a proposal at some point?

Recipe for disaster why exactly?

 

[Darandio]

Recipe for disaster why exactly?

Not exactly a disaster, but an extended platform occupation and then a conflicting move over on to the branch which in itself is single tracked initially and can often get bottlenecked when one of the Saltburn services are running late.

It's far less hassle to just have one set going via Yarm, but you can also see why splitting at Darlington is more desirable.

 

[DarloRich]

I hope so. Yarm Viaduct needs more love.

eh?

As others have said the only likely route is via Yarm as its unlikely that they would run into Darlington and reverse which would add a large amount journey time.

The stopping pattern will be interesting as Thornaby will certainly be a stop but I can't see Eaglescliffe being a stop.

no it wouldn't - the speeds on the Northallerton - Yarm line are very low. Assuming the Boro services dont need more thna 5 cars I bet it is considered "safer" operationally to attach at Darlo rather than York

Wonderful! I bet VTEC will steal some customers from Grand Central. GC are so inferior compared to VTEC, I mean their seats are still the 2002 FGW ones!

Those of us in the adult world are more worried about price than the seats. It is clear you are a Virgin fan boy but, please, do try to look beyond that. GC offer a good service for a decent price, especially at short notice.

Not exactly a disaster, but an extended platform occupation and then a conflicting move over on to the branch which in itself is single tracked initially and can often get bottlenecked when one of the Saltburn services are running late.

It's far less hassle to just have one set going via Yarm, but you can also see why splitting at Darlington is more desirable.

it is going to take a bit of operational jiggery pokery but it shouldn't be beyond human intelligence to make it work.

 

[Darandio]

it is going to take a bit of operational jiggery pokery but it shouldn't be beyond human intelligence to make it work.

Indeed.

Or we may finally get the east side bays and have less conflict on Saltburn terminators. Or am I asking too much?

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed.

Or we may finally get the east side bays and have less conflict on Saltburn terminators. Or am I asking too much?

we don't need those - they will be disconnected and a long way from the station proper.

 

[TBY-Paul]

It will probably be via Yarm, but via Darlington would actually be quicker due to the crippling speed restrictions on the Yarm Route.
York-Middlesbro' is 57 mins on a 185.
York-Darlo is 27 mins on a 91.
Darlo-Middlesbro' is 25 mins on an all shacks 142.
Even allowing for a 5 min turn round at Darlo, giving the same 57 mins journey time, it would be quicker because of the lack of stops between Darlo and Middlesbro'.

You used a slightly flawed comparison. A TPE 185 uses the slow line from Northallerton to York because it stops at Thirsk.

Using Realtime I get the following (Eaglescliffe -York times):-

EAG-DAR = 14-17*mins, DAR-NTR-YRK =31mins, Total 45-48* mins.
(* it's timetabled to take 3mins longer EAG-DAR than DAR-EAG)

EAG-NTR = 17-19**mins, NTR-YRK 18mins = Total 35-37mins.
(** timetabled 2mins longer southbound, than northbound)

Once you add the 9 mins it takes to get from Middlesbrough to Eaglescliffe, you come out with:-

MBR-YRK (via DAR) 54-57mins + time it takes to do a reversal/attach/split etc.
MBR-YRK (via YRM) 44-46mins.

Although it can feel like the train is ambling between Eaglescliffe & Northallerton, it only takes a few minutes more than it takes to get from Eaglescliffe to Darlington.

Indeed.

Or we may finally get the east side bays and have less conflict on Saltburn terminators. Or am I asking too much?

we don't need those - they will be disconnected and a long way from the station proper.

Yes we do, the conflicting movements are the reason the Tees Valley has such poor rail services. Nothing is allowed to interfere with people moving North to South/South to North on the ECML.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes we do, the conflicting movements are the reason the Tees Valley has such poor rail services. Nothing is allowed to interfere with people moving North to South/South to North on the ECML.

No it isnt and 5 or 6 London trains wont justify the required expense ( overlooking how they connect in south facing bays to trains coming from the north). The supporting Tees valley metro plans are also [pie in the sky. They wont happen. There is, generally, a half hourly service each way between Darlington and Middlesbrough, there is a roughly hourly TPE service from Middlesbrough to York and a decent if irregular GC service.

personally i would send the Middlesbrough trains straight to Northallerton then onto the slow lines to York but I can understand why the operators don't want the risk of bunging up York with attaching movements.

 

[TBY-Paul]

No it isnt and 5 or 6 London trains wont justify the required expense ( overlooking how they connect in south facing bays to trains coming from the north). The supporting Tees valley metro plans are also [pie in the sky. They wont happen. There is, generally, a half hourly service each way between Darlington and Middlesbrough, there is a roughly hourly TPE service from Middlesbrough to York and a decent if irregular GC service.

You seam to be trying to link the extra platforms at Darlington to the VTEC Middlesbrough service. I don't think the need for extra platforms have anything to do with the new VTEC service to Middlesbrough.

The Tees Valley transport needs do not just consist of Darlington & Middlesbrough & how they connect to the ECML. There are other places that need better rail links, not just to the big places of Newcastle, York, Leeds etc. but between them. Places like Stockton, Yarm, Redcar, Nunthorpe, Hartlepool etc.

Although having access to the ECML at Darlington is an asset, it comes at a cost to local services. The extra proposed platforms would help address some of those local service provision problems, but not all of them. Incidentally the problem is only going to get worse once HS2/NPR services start using an "upgraded" ECML north of York. If, and it's a big If, as part of the ECML upgrades for HS2/NPR, the junction at Ferryhill Sth was grade separated, you could end up with extra pair of North/South lines to improve capacity between Northallerton & Ferryhill, but that's all in the future.

personally i would send the Middlesbrough trains straight to Northallerton then onto the slow lines to York but I can understand why the operators don't want the risk of bunging up York with attaching movements.

Thinking outside the Box (as an interim measure), the proposed Middlesbrough service is going to be an addition to the Newcastle-King's Cross stopping services, by it's very nature, the NCL-KGX is not time critical as an end to end journey service, so :-
a) why not upgrade the Stillington line, sending the service via Eaglescliffe and attach/split there. All fast North/South (and vice versa)services would still go via Darlington, and in effect Darlington would be the overtaking route for quicker services between Newcastle & Northallerton.

or

b) Have a 5 car unit come from Sunderland via Hartlepool, and again attach/split at Eaglescliffe, but this would need an extra path south of Northallerton unless the NCL stopper was changed to Sunderland stopper(if you see what I mean). I not sure this option would go down well with Grand Central.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is nothing about Darlington or splitting and joining in the ORR contract direction letter. The Middlesbrough route is described as 'via Northallerton and Yarm', the calling pattern is only ever shown off the mainline as Northallerton and Thornaby, (and Middlesborough obviously) and vice versa in the various tables.

http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/24440/vtec-taa-redacted.pdf

The ORR info was mentioned in an earlier post, but I thought it might be an idea to find a link to it.

 

[43074]

Recipe for disaster why exactly?

I just fail to see how the ECML can operate anywhere near reliably enough for splitting and joining to work, especially with the huge increase in services proposed which will just mean the service collapses like a stack of cards should anything go wrong. Also most of VTECs customers are leisure travellers and they don't want to be worrying about whether or not they're in the correct portion for 2 and a half hours. In essence it just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I just fail to see how the ECML can operate anywhere near reliably enough for splitting and joining to work, especially with the huge increase in services proposed which will just mean the service collapses like a stack of cards should anything go wrong. Also most of VTECs customers are leisure travellers and they don't want to be worrying about whether or not they're in the correct portion for 2 and a half hours. In essence it just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

I disagree. Splitting joining should only take place at the extremities. Perhaps Doncaster will need an additional island for it to be reliable I admit.

Also they do not need to worry, people arrive ages before their train at Kings Cross usually, especially leisure travellers. If Great Western can do it Virgin can. Its not difficult and regularly done all over Germany (and many other European Countries)

 

[Bornin1980s]

So, the franchise specification called for a service via Yarm, but two former employees remember plans to go via Darlington? In any case, according to Gazettelive the start of the service has been put back to 2021. With the franchise renegotiation, might it be necessary to cancel this and other extra services, returning some of the Hitachis to the leaser?

Personally, what I could use is a later weekday service from York. About 21:30 would be good. Are Transpennine proposing any later services?

 

[adrock1976]

I disagree. Splitting joining should only take place at the extremities. Perhaps Doncaster will need an additional island for it to be reliable I admit.

Also they do not need to worry, people arrive ages before their train at Kings Cross usually, especially leisure travellers. If Great Western can do it Virgin can. Its not difficult and regularly done all over Germany (and many other European Countries)

I have never seen IC125s being split or joined in my lifetime.

Is the point that I've bolded above meant to be interpreted as Great Western splitting and joining the new Hitachi fleet? If so, they have not done that yet in regular timetabled service as the Hitachi fleet is not in passenger service at this moment in time.

 

[Suraggu]

There is nothing about Darlington or splitting and joining in the ORR contract direction letter. The Middlesbrough route is described as 'via Northallerton and Yarm', the calling pattern is only ever shown off the mainline as Northallerton and Thornaby, (and Middlesborough obviously) and vice versa in the various tables.

http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/24440/vtec-taa-redacted.pdf

The ORR info was mentioned in an earlier post, but I thought it might be an idea to find a link to it.

I remember seeing them as well but VTEC were obviously considering amendments at the time I saw the published document (around mid 2015).
Bit with VTEC/NR/DfT all getting in a hissy with each other it looks extremely likely plans will drastically change.

 

[43074]

I disagree. Splitting joining should only take place at the extremities. Perhaps Doncaster will need an additional island for it to be reliable I admit.

Also they do not need to worry, people arrive ages before their train at Kings Cross usually, especially leisure travellers. If Great Western can do it Virgin can. Its not difficult and regularly done all over Germany (and many other European Countries)

Great Westerns system will be very much like the Kings Lynn operation, i.e. 10 coaches to Oxford with 5 to Worcester, two portions coming together from two different origins is not how Great Western works. It might not be difficult but it adds an element of complication which should be avoided where possible, particularly on Intercity routes.

 

[Paul Duck]

So, the franchise specification called for a service via Yarm, but two former employees remember plans to go via Darlington? In any case, according to Gazettelive the start of the service has been put back to 2021. With the franchise renegotiation, might it be necessary to cancel this and other extra services, returning some of the Hitachis to the leaser?

Personally, what I could use is a later weekday service from York. About 21:30 would be good. Are Transpennine proposing any later services?

Should be a 2115 from York to Middlesbrough from this December. Going on the documents I've got at Eaglescliffe of the DFT website earlier this year.

 

[DarloRich]

You seam to be trying to link the extra platforms at Darlington to the VTEC Middlesbrough service. I don't think the need for extra platforms have anything to do with the new VTEC service to Middlesbrough.

You are right - there is no need for these platforms.

The Tees Valley transport needs do not just consist of Darlington & Middlesbrough & how they connect to the ECML. There are other places that need better rail links, not just to the big places of Newcastle, York, Leeds etc. but between them. Places like Stockton, Yarm, Redcar, Nunthorpe, Hartlepool etc.

All small towns, most with significant economic disadvantages and at least one of them the backside of England with little demand for services to London.

Although having access to the ECML at Darlington is an asset, it comes at a cost to local services. The extra proposed platforms would help address some of those local service provision problems, but not all of them. Incidentally the problem is only going to get worse once HS2/NPR services start using an "upgraded" ECML north of York. If, and it's a big If, as part of the ECML upgrades for HS2/NPR, the junction at Ferryhill Sth was grade separated, you could end up with extra pair of North/South lines to improve capacity between Northallerton & Ferryhill, but that's all in the future.

that simply isnt going to happen any time soon - if ever. The money does not, at the moment, exist to deliver it.

Thinking outside the Box (as an interim measure), the proposed Middlesbrough service is going to be an addition to the Newcastle-King's Cross stopping services, by it's very nature, the NCL-KGX is not time critical as an end to end journey service, so :-
a) why not upgrade the Stillington line, sending the service via Eaglescliffe and attach/split there. All fast North/South (and vice versa)services would still go via Darlington, and in effect Darlington would be the overtaking route for quicker services between Newcastle & Northallerton.

Why would you do that? The service from Newcastle is time critical v plane. Your plan simply means the train service is non competitive before we consider the economic impacts.

b) Have a 5 car unit come from Sunderland via Hartlepool, and again attach/split at Eaglescliffe, but this would need an extra path south of Northallerton unless the NCL stopper was changed to Sunderland stopper(if you see what I mean). I not sure this option would go down well with Grand Central.

Passenger volume and thus profit for the operator not a consideration then?

 

[FQTV]

Why would you do that? The service from Newcastle is time critical v plane. Your plan simply means the train service is non competitive before we consider the economic impacts.

I think that this point is a fairly commonly-held misconception, and may even be in part the cause of some of the ECML's commercial woes.

Depending on service, around about 80% of BA's load to and from Newcastle will be connecting, not Origin & Destination (O&D) passengers.

With only six weekday services in each direction, as few as 180 air passengers per direction per day could be commencing and terminating at Newcastle.

O&D loads can be higher on the early southbound BA1321, as it almost guarantees being able to be in town for an 09:00 start. That currently is an 06:05 from Newcastle. By rail, that would be an 04:45 or, at a push, 05:25 from Newcastle.

The up Scotsman is the only service that VTEC really seems to want to market to a 'time-critical' audience, but then that doesn't reach King's Cross until 09:40, making 10:00 meetings a push.

In any event, I suspect that TBY-Paul was referring to services which already take up 43 minutes longer than the Scotsman as being less time-critical.

Ultimately, it's frequency and reliability, as well as intermediate pick-ups that are the railway's strongest card. Attempting to conquest from air between Newcastle and London is largely pointless.

The situation ex Edinburgh is quite different, despite the longer rail journey time, as O&D volumes and proportions are higher between there and London, meaning that the railway has more to play for. Rail operators have, of course, long known this and offered aggressively-priced products that are not available on shorter flows.

 

[Starmill]

You are right - there is no need for these platforms.

No need to remove the double conflict between the down fast and an up calling train? Really? And no need to remove the conflict between any up service and a terminating service from Middlesbrough? Really? Show your working!

Oh and NB you have got to fit your franchise requirement for an hourly service from Bishop Auckland to Middlesbrough on top of the new Edinburgh non-stop trains on the mainline too, 2 TransPennine services in every hour, any freight and a First East Coast service. Good luck. Off you go.

 

[DarloRich]

No need to remove the double conflict between the down fast and an up calling train? Really? And no need to remove the conflict between any up service and a terminating service from Middlesbrough? Really? Show your working!

Oh and NB you have got to fit your franchise requirement for an hourly service from Bishop Auckland to Middlesbrough on top of the new Edinburgh non-stop trains on the mainline too, 2 TransPennine services in every hour, any freight and a First East Coast service. Good luck. Off you go.

ok then clever clogs - find me the money. Good luck. Off you go.

BTW new south facing bays built in the existing station car park wont help fit hourly Bishop Auckland - Middlesbrough services into the time table or in fact any of the services you suggest. Nor will they help fix any of the crossing moves unless a new line is laid from the existing Darlington South Junction.

That will require moving a large berm or embankment designed to screen the residents in the houses on the former Cleveland Bridge site from the railway. it also needs some bridging works on Smithfield Road - none of that is an insurmountable challenge but it all adds to the cost.

However the only issue that investment fixes is removing the crossing movement from the up Saltburn to the down main/station area at Darlington South. It fixes none of the other conflicts set out above which btw have existed since time began.

My point is that south facing bays are not the answer to the question. What would be of use is another through platform.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If you go London - Middlesbrough via Newcastle you could call at Sunderland and Eaglescliffe and nab some customers off of GC!

 

[Darandio]

If you go London - Middlesbrough via Newcastle you could call at Sunderland and Eaglescliffe and nab some customers off of GC!

Stagecoach really aren't bothered about Eaglescliffe.

Even if they were, any customers they did 'nab' would end up going back to Grand Central because they would be priced off Virgin services.

 

[Paul Duck]

Stagecoach really aren't bothered about Eaglescliffe.

Even if they were, any customers they did 'nab' would end up going back to Grand Central because they would be priced off Virgin services.

I expect initially that Grand Central will lose a few passengers from Eaglescliffe has many travel over from the other side of Middlesbrough to use the station for London. Like you say some may come back if Grand Central pricing remains competitive. Be interesting when we get there to see the impact on our passenger figures.

Wonder how they are going to fit these extra services in to Middlesbrough station alongside existing services. Surely going to need a crossover installing to access Platform 1 from the West. VTEC told us that they will more than likely be straight in and back out to London at Middlesbrough.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Stagecoach really aren't bothered about Eaglescliffe.

Even if they were, any customers they did 'nab' would end up going back to Grand Central because they would be priced off Virgin services.

Oh. Ok. But VTEC trains are considerably nicer, they provide a much more comfortable journey. In my opinion.

 

[Darandio]

Wonder how they are going to fit these extra services in to Middlesbrough station alongside existing services. Surely going to need a crossover installing to access Platform 1 from the West. VTEC told us that they will more than likely be straight in and back out to London at Middlesbrough.

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how they work it.

I've never seen anything mentioned about infrastructure though. If there isn't anything forthcoming I assume more often than not they will use the current method of the Whitby line for reversal or if arriving late just head straight back out from platform 2.

As you'll know, TPE/Northern also use the Western Dock siding to switch platforms as well, but i'm not sure if this is long enough for the stock that will be used on VTEC services?

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how they work it.

I've never seen anything mentioned about infrastructure though. If there isn't anything forthcoming I assume more often than not they will use the current method of the Whitby line for reversal or if arriving late just head straight back out from platform 2.

As you'll know, TPE/Northern also use the Western Dock siding to switch platforms as well, but i'm not sure if this is long enough for the stock that will be used on VTEC services?

There are proposals somewhere for longer/more berthing sidings in the station area.

If only there was a large and poorly used yard just a few miles away that has loads of space for storing trains and stuff. Imagine if there was a depot there.................

 

[Darandio]

There are proposals somewhere for longer/more berthing sidings in the station area.

Ahh, I hadn't seen it.

If only there was a large and poorly used yard just a few miles away that has loads of space for storing trains and stuff. Imagine if there was a depot there.................

What is the deal with that now anyway? All the talk of closing, clearing and de-contaminating, yet there are more wagons stored now than there have been for many years.

Not that I think that is even needed, there is room for a couple of full length sets right next to the station, it's just the current access issue that requires a three point turn to get in there when terminating at platform 2. As Paul says above, adding a down-up crossover next to the west dock would pretty much solve this immediately.

 

[DarloRich]

Ahh, I hadn't seen it.

Only proposals mind you. Proposals need money to become anything more

What is the deal with that now anyway? All the talk of closing, clearing and de-contaminating, yet there are more wagons stored now than there have been for many years.

Tees Yard seems to be a DBS strategic Storage Location and is very full of moribund wagons. The depot area was cleared for redevelopment but nothing more has happened. Christ knows what is under the ground!

personally I would stick a couple of roads in there ( like Tyne) and use the existing land better. Wont happen of course.............