When will something be done about the Whitby branch ?

[ainsworth74]

there is your main constraint.

Well, now there's only one box at Nunthorpe so it's just about whether Network Rail can jigger the shifts to allow an earlier start of service. So in some ways that does make it easier. The impression I have is that Network Rai's response is that it certainly isn't impossible but they don't know if they can manage it in the requested timescale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either improve the infrastructure to allow two trains per hour in each direction, formed of appropriate units.... or axe the line.

You'd close half the network if you used 2tph as the base for when it's worth bothering. I would suggest, however, that all lines and stations should have a service of at least 0.5tph over a minimum operating day of around 0700 to 2100 otherwise their utility is very much called into question, possibly excepting the Far North and West Highland Lines due to their unusual nature.

There is no point maintaining a token service that is of questionable usefulness for actual travelers - the fact that the line is sometimes heavily loaded despite this is nothing short of a miracle.

If the trains are heavily loaded then it's hard to say it's of questionable usefulness!

 

[HSTEd]

You'd close half the network if you used 2tph as the base for when it's worth bothering.

Well then we need to pursue the British Rail concept behind Sprinterisation to its logical conclusion - more cheaper to run trains.

If the trains are heavily loaded then it's hard to say it's of questionable usefulness!

Maintaining lines as a day out for tourists who only appear for a short portion of the year means the line is of questionable usefulness despite being heavily loaded.

You can't build a business case out of seasonal travelers.

 

[option]

As far as I'm aware before the NYMR started taking up paths between Grosmont and Whitby there was sufficient capacity to run a roughly two hourly service between Middlesbrough and Whitby. So the infrastructure is already capable of running a more frequent service. If the NYMR weren't there....

Are the NYMR services really an issue?
Even in the summer season, the Whitby departures are only 10:00, 12:45, 14:00, 16:40, 18:00

If they are an issue;
There's some 3tracking into Whitby station, but it doesn't appear to have the signalling to be flexibly used.
Would breaking the section at Grosmont change things?
A loop at Ruswarp or Sleights?


If there's a relatively cheap, fixed price thing that could be done, maybe it could then be jointly funded by the relevant bodies (NR, NYMR, NYCC etc). Could even do some crowdfunding.

 

[Bantamzen]

can Northern offer additional units on a regular basis? Can they service demand for all lines calling out for more capacity? If so great. Lets have them. If that can happen I agree it will be much easier than a new fleet of trains. The problem is I don't think they can or will. Wont their focus be on overcrowded commuter routes into Leeds or Manchester?

That will depend on what stock Northern consider the North East also needs. There has been, quite rightly some criticism on here previously that the North East tends to lag behind on improvements behind other areas in the franchise. If they provision for more units then, potentially more capacity could be used on the Esk line, especially if diagrams are interworked. If they can improve capacity using similar stock across the board, that has to be one of the better options.

Like I have said many times: I don't think the class 230 trains will ever be used on this line. The issue you fail to acknowledge is that they could be used relatively easily and that they would offer an immediate improvement in journey experience to passengers. To admit that these trains offer any benefit ( and the use on our line shows they do) seems to be painful to you. Just admit your bias and preconceptions are wrong and not based on relativity. I have admitted I was wrong. It is amusing you cant.

I said earlier I was leaving my preconceptions on the 230 behind on this particular thread, my queries on their suitability have been around being used on a long isolated line, which is prone to some of Yorkshire's harshest weather & the logistical challenges that would need to be overcome just to even test them. None of which you've really attempted to answer, so I don't need to admit anything at this stage. You also mentioned the 142 use on this line, to which all I can answer is that if one of those rocked up at Middlesbrough I would be beating an even hastier retreat to the local taxi rank.

i haven't said anything of the sort. I simply say you ( and a couple of others) continue to be vocal critics of trains you have never traveled on. I think it is important to note that to help posters here grade how much weight to place on your opinion.

On a forum that almost literally thrives on speculative criticism, I am really not really worried about being called out on being cynical without travelling on them. I'm sure they look really nice inside, especially with that all important circulating space that seems to be a lauded-over feature. But on the outside they are near 40 year old units, re-purposed & refitted, ex LU subsurface stock, which took some 5 years in the making. When someone on the relevant thread called it garden shed engineering, I totally agreed, that's exactly what it is. Vivarail were taking a quick punt on scrapyard-bound units, presumably aimed at the Northern franchise, but did not convince (so I wasn't the only one sceptical). There were plenty of good reasons why they didn't, chucking converted D-Stock at the Pacer replacement problem, itself a low-cost, medium term only solution which was used well beyond it's intended life-span would have been a political disaster, and would have driven even more criticism against the franchise. So it wasn't chosen, and sooner or later some are going to have to get over this disappointment. The 230s might well find more purpose somewhere on the UK network, but they have long been the instant go-to solution for this forum. I still remain far from convinced that they are, especially when much simplistic, easier to deliver solutions lie within existing stocks. Sorry.

 

[DarloRich]

Well, now there's only one box at Nunthorpe so it's just about whether Network Rail can jigger the shifts to allow an earlier start of service. So in some ways that does make it easier. The impression I have is that Network Rai's response is that it certainly isn't impossible but they don't know if they can manage it in the requested timescale.

i doubt in can in the time suggested

 

[DarloRich]

That will depend on what stock Northern consider the North East also needs. There has been, quite rightly some criticism on here previously that the North East tends to lag behind on improvements behind other areas in the franchise. If they provision for more units then, potentially more capacity could be used on the Esk line, especially if diagrams are interworked. If they can improve capacity using similar stock across the board, that has to be one of the better options.

I agree. I just don't think it will happen.

I said earlier I was leaving my preconceptions on the 230 behind on this particular thread, my queries on their suitability have been around being used on a long isolated line, which is prone to some of Yorkshire's harshest weather & the logistical challenges that would need to be overcome just to even test them. None of which you've really attempted to answer, so I don't need to admit anything at this stage. You also mentioned the 142 use on this line, to which all I can answer is that if one of those rocked up at Middlesbrough I would be beating an even hastier retreat to the local taxi rank.

you aren't interested in answers unless they confirm your bias.

You raised an issue about seating. I showed you were wrong. You raised an issue about risk. I set out how the risk was no different from today. Testing is an issue but could be over come with some careful thought. Now you are focusing on weather. I don't know how the trains will fare with the "Yorkshire's harshest weather" (?) but i suspect it will be no different to any other train in that if the line is blocked the train wont run! Perhaps you would like to use this killer point to help you: the trains have no bins.

Frankly I cant be bothered trying to discuss with you as it is tiresome and quite boring. Your views are stuck, based as they are on nothing, and wont change. I will continue to point out you have never ridden on these trains so that posters can grade your opinion.

On a forum that almost literally thrives on speculative criticism, I am really not really worried about being called out on being cynical without travelling on them. I'm sure they look really nice inside, especially with that all important circulating space that seems to be a lauded-over feature. But on the outside they are near 40 year old units, re-purposed & refitted, ex LU subsurface stock, which took some 5 years in the making. When someone on the relevant thread called it garden shed engineering, I totally agreed, that's exactly what it is. Vivarail were taking a quick punt on scrapyard-bound units, presumably aimed at the Northern franchise, but did not convince (so I wasn't the only one sceptical). There were plenty of good reasons why they didn't, chucking converted D-Stock at the Pacer replacement problem, itself a low-cost, medium term only solution which was used well beyond it's intended life-span would have been a political disaster, and would have driven even more criticism against the franchise. So it wasn't chosen, and sooner or later some are going to have to get over this disappointment. The 230s might well find more purpose somewhere on the UK network, but they have long been the instant go-to solution for this forum. I still remain far from convinced that they are, especially when much simplistic, easier to deliver solutions lie within existing stocks. Sorry.

Sigh. the inability to admit a mistake is both hilarious and infuriating. Hopefully this exchange will allow posters to grade the quality of your opinion and the ground upon which it is based. If you had traveled on the trains, instead of basing your opinion on preconception, you would know that not only does the interior look good but that it is good and miles better than what we had previously.

I shall leave it there as it is like banging your head against a wall trying to get you to change your mind and look at things objectively.

 

[Bantamzen]

I shall leave it there as it is like banging your head against a wall trying to get you to change your mind and look at things objectively.

I'm choosing to ignore the insults, but curious as to why you feel the need to change my mind? If I don't like them, I don't like them. They look nice inside but that is not enough, they need to be able to the jobs that may be asked of them. I don't think they can, I think Northern would want to use them far more extensively than just tootling about on a few branch lines, and until they've seen extensive use you can't argue they are capable of this. We've done this before over on the relevant thread.

 

[scarby]

I would just like to take up the point made by some that current passenger numbers don't justify an enhanced service.

There are hardly going to be people flocking to use the trains for "ordinary" purposes when the service is so thin.

In the 21st century people expect to be able to go where they want when they want, within reason, and four trains a day just doesn't cut it. People today expect something approaching a "turn up and go" service, and while of course we don't expect a train on this line every 30 minutes, every 3-4 hours just isn't going to meet most day-to-day needs.

Let's suppose one needs to go into Whitby for some commercial need, it doesn't matter what specifically. One arrives at 11.51, which is fine, but matters take slightly longer to attend to than planned, and aren't done until 16.15, just after the 16.00 has departed. The next service isn't until 19.34, which clearly just isn't going to be remotely acceptable for most people.

 

[30907]

Well then we need to pursue the British Rail concept behind Sprinterisation to its logical conclusion - more cheaper to run trains.


Maintaining lines as a day out for tourists who only appear for a short portion of the year means the line is of questionable usefulness despite being heavily loaded.

You can't build a business case out of seasonal travelers.

The key reason for the Esk Valley line beyond Nunthorpe is the schools traffic which requires a 156 or similar. Round that is fitted
- a couple of trains suitable for daytrippers which can load very heavily
- a couple of trains that are useful for long-distance travellers which are normally quiet.

Are the NYMR services really an issue?
Even in the summer season, the Whitby departures are only 10:00, 12:45, 14:00, 16:40, 18:00

If they are an issue;
There's some 3tracking into Whitby station, but it doesn't appear to have the signalling to be flexibly used.
Would breaking the section at Grosmont change things?
A loop at Ruswarp or Sleights?


If there's a relatively cheap, fixed price thing that could be done, maybe it could then be jointly funded by the relevant bodies (NR, NYMR, NYCC etc). Could even do some crowdfunding.

There are only sidings outside Whitby.
An additional token instrument on the main line at Grosmont would make little difference.
Anything else would cost a lot, sorry! Shame...

 

[yorksrob]

I've been on a few 156s that have been full from start to end, including luggage, cycles etc. Of course most of these journeys have been when events have been on, but I'm sure on good summer days the same is true as people from the North East head down to Whitby on a whim. Sticking an additional 153 (for example) would help quickly increase capacity, and maybe in time as rolling stock is shuffled around the franchise some could be strengthened to 4 car 156/158?

That sounds like a sensible ambition.

can Northern offer additional units on a regular basis? Can they service demand for all lines calling out for more capacity? If so great. Lets have them. If that can happen I agree it will be much easier than a new fleet of trains. The problem is I don't think they can or will. Wont their focus be on overcrowded commuter routes into Leeds or Manchester?

Like I have said many times: I don't think the class 230 trains will ever be used on this line. The issue you fail to acknowledge is that they could be used relatively easily and that they would offer an immediate improvement in journey experience to passengers. To admit that these trains offer any benefit ( and the use on our line shows they do) seems to be painful to you. Just admit your bias and preconceptions are wrong and not based on relativity. I have admitted I was wrong. It is amusing you cant.



i haven't said anything of the sort. I simply say you ( and a couple of others) continue to be vocal critics of trains you have never traveled on. I think it is important to note that to help posters here grade how much weight to place on your opinion.



there is your main constraint.

Well, in terms of rolling stock, there's the 142 that stops in Middlesborough all day. Then there are the 153's that are set to go off-lease.

Either improve the infrastructure to allow two trains per hour in each direction, formed of appropriate units.... or axe the line.

There is no point maintaining a token service that is of questionable usefulness for actual travelers - the fact that the line is sometimes heavily loaded despite this is nothing short of a miracle.

Which suggests its at least useful enough to justify retention at the very least

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The latest Esk Valley Railway newsletter - see link below - suggest that the extra train will give an arrival into Middlesbrough before 0800. This would mean an outward trip at 0450 ex Middlesbrough.

Strangely, they (the EVR) seem surprised at this early arrival time and consider it to be unsuitable. Have they not looked into it before? You can cross the school train at three locations: Nunthorpe, giving an 0731 arrival into Middlesbrough; Battersby, giving an 0756 arrival (and one train will have to be first in/last out with a long turn reversal time); or Glaisdale, giving an 0909 arrival.

There really is no alternative without signalling & track works.

http://www.eskvalleyrailway.co.uk/newsletter.html

Looking at the 1983 summer timetable, it was possible to achieve a near hourly service for part of the day, but that was with proper signal boxes. Introduction of No Signalman Token Remote, where the driver leaves the train to exchange tokens in a machine sat in a cabinet on the platform adds three minutes each time.

You can get close to an hourly frequency today but it would be tight and therefore probably not a good idea from a reliability perspective. Also you now have the NYMR services which use up capacity Grosmont to Whitby.

 

[yorksrob]

Well then we need to pursue the British Rail concept behind Sprinterisation to its logical conclusion - more cheaper to run trains.


Maintaining lines as a day out for tourists who only appear for a short portion of the year means the line is of questionable usefulness despite being heavily loaded.

You can't build a business case out of seasonal travelers.

Here we are on this old canard again.

A paying customer is a paying customer, whether they're a daytripper or an overpaid businessman. The economies of towns like Whitby require daytrippers, so we can't keep thinking of them as optional extras.

 

[HSTEd]

Here we are on this old canard again.

A paying customer is a paying customer, whether they're a daytripper or an overpaid businessman. The economies of towns like Whitby require daytrippers, so we can't keep thinking of them as optional extras.

The "overpaid businessman" will do it most days of the year
The daytripper will do it in summer only, and only then once or twice.

One is considerably more useful to the railway in terms of generating net income than the other.

 

[yorksrob]

The key reason for the Esk Valley line beyond Nunthorpe is the schools traffic which requires a 156 or similar. Round that is fitted
- a couple of trains suitable for daytrippers which can load very heavily
- a couple of trains that are useful for long-distance travellers which are normally quiet.





There are only sidings outside Whitby.
An additional token instrument on the main line at Grosmont would make little difference.
Anything else would cost a lot, sorry! Shame...

I'm not sure what the snide 'sorry! Shame...' comment is for.

One wonders what sort of a railway system some of the 'enthisiasts' on here actually want.

 

[geoffk]

mid 1980's - singled Whitby to Sleights
mid 1980's - Castleton Moor loop removed
January 1986 - singled Nunthorpe to Guisborough Junction (Middlesbrough)
1991 - passenger service halved to four trains per day
April 2007 - NYMR commence running into station
August 2014 - new track layout at Whitby with extended Platform 2

From this, it seems that the period from the mid 80s until 2007 was a lean time for the line. Weren't there other cuts in the NE in 1991, for example the Darlington - Hartlepool service coming off? The franchise requirement was then based on this reduced level of service.

 

[yorksrob]

The "overpaid businessman" will do it most days of the year
The daytripper will do it in summer only, and only then once or twice.

One is considerably more useful to the railway in terms of generating net income than the other.

Apart from the fact that the totality of the daytrippers are the ones filling up the trains, not the overpaid businessmen.

 

[Bantamzen]

The "overpaid businessman" will do it most days of the year
The daytripper will do it in summer only, and only then once or twice.

One is considerably more useful to the railway in terms of generating net income than the other.

Actually the day trippers are a fairly frequent additional from early in the year to late in the year specially when there are events on. And there are the long weekenders, and those staying longer.....

 

[yorksrob]

The latest Esk Valley Railway newsletter - see link below - suggest that the extra train will give an arrival into Middlesbrough before 0800. This would mean an outward trip at 0450 ex Middlesbrough.

Strangely, they (the EVR) seem surprised at this early arrival time and consider it to be unsuitable. Have they not looked into it before? You can cross the school train at three locations: Nunthorpe, giving an 0731 arrival into Middlesbrough; Battersby, giving an 0756 arrival (and one train will have to be first in/last out with a long turn reversal time); or Glaisdale, giving an 0909 arrival.

There really is no alternative without signalling & track works.

http://www.eskvalleyrailway.co.uk/newsletter.html

Looking at the 1983 summer timetable, it was possible to achieve a near hourly service for part of the day, but that was with proper signal boxes. Introduction of No Signalman Token Remote, where the driver leaves the train to exchange tokens in a machine sat in a cabinet on the platform adds three minutes each time.

You can get close to an hourly frequency today but it would be tight and therefore probably not a good idea from a reliability perspective. Also you now have the NYMR services which use up capacity Grosmont to Whitby.

Arguably we don't need hourly.Two hourly would be a substantial improvement.

 

[Bantamzen]

Arguably we don't need hourly.Two hourly would be a substantial improvement.

I agree, this would be a good enough level to satisfy current demand & at least some of the suppressed demand currently clogging up roads & car parks around Whitby.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Arguably we don't need hourly.Two hourly would be a substantial improvement.

I wasn't proposing an hourly service, rather that a substantially improved timetable, over the current one, is entirely possible through 'timetabling measures' rather than 'infrastructure measures' such as new curves, re-instated loops, sections of double track etc.

The summer 1983 timetable was essentially two-hourly with some gaps filled. Ex Middlesbrough 0938, 1042 and 1142 giving a range of services for daytrippers rather than the current 'everyone onto a single train at 1020'. Ex Whitby at 0653, 0910, 1110, 1315, 1522, 1610, 1715, 1820 and 1925. Nicely providing a good range of departures from Whitby to meet day-tripper needs.

As has been suggested, the most immediate and easiest solution is to strengthen the existing 1020 Middlesbrough departure. Perhaps utilising the unit which arrives Middlebrough ECS ex Nunthorpe at 1002 and has no apparent work for the remainder of the day.
Beyond that, timetable enhancements in marginal time, such as the proposed commuter service (which does not require additional rolling stock). Similarly a later evening service, as is provided on summer Fridays.

As an awful suggestion, Arriva now seem to get a decent bus up the valley, road vehicles having moved on since the 1960's. Perhaps the schoolkids could now go by bus instead and the line be closed! Or handed over to preservation!

 

[HSTEd]

Apart from the fact that the totality of the daytrippers are the ones filling up the trains, not the overpaid businessmen.

The daytrippers as it is could be accomodated on coaches far more cheaply than trains.

The right solution to every problem is not necessarily the rail solution, as much as it pains me to say it.

And if daytrippers are worth keeping the line open for, providing a regular service that connects to the rest of the system is likely to see explosive growth, as was seen on the Falmouth line after the opening of the Penryn loop.
Seven or so diagrams of 2-car Class 230s and a handful of Penryn esque loops is not going to cost an astronomical amount, especially compared to many hair-brained schemes for reopening that are often mooted by enthusiasts, campaigners and politicians alike.

 

[Starmill]

As has been suggested, the most immediate and easiest solution is to strengthen the existing 1020 Middlesbrough departure. Perhaps utilising the unit which arrives Middlebrough ECS ex Nunthorpe at 1002 and has no apparent work for the remainder of the day.

This point has been raised time and time and time again. One assumes that the unit is not left there for a giggle? Are we quite sure that it is not in fact the only daily spare available in the area, and that as a result diagramming it in might adversely affect reliability, by taking away all cover for a failure? Isn't the usual refrain when there is a cancellation or short form as a result of a failure that the company should have greater resilience in their train availability? Furthermore, are we quite sure that the unit in question does not have another job at any point later the same day? Maybe we could get some facts in before jollily doing planning's job for them? Using it all day would also increase its mileage which would presumably need to be accounted for.

 

[Starmill]

The right solution to every problem is not necessarily the rail solution, as much as it pains me to say it.

Unfortunately this is something that many people simply cannot accept.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I agree, this would be a good enough level to satisfy current demand & at least some of the suppressed demand currently clogging up roads & car parks around Whitby.

I'm not convinced that any (realistic) levels of improved rail service would attract many car users. Some for sure as traffic and parking is bad. But the convenience of the car for visiting several locations in the day means it will always be the mode of choice. For example, just popping up to Sandsend then back down to Robin Hood's Bay requires Antarctic Expedition levels of planning to achieve by public transport, never mind the cost of Arriva single fares.

 

[Starmill]

I'm not convinced that any (realistic) levels of improved rail service would attract many car users.

I agree. Even on 8 trains a day, only those without access to a car, or railway enthusiasts, are ever likely to use the train to Whitby; many of the former group will be using the Yorkshire Coastliner, too. And there's a lot of work to do to get up to 8 daily trains.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This point has been raised time and time and time again. One assumes that the unit is not left there for a giggle? Are we quite sure that it is not in fact the only daily spare available in the area, and that as a result diagramming it in might adversely affect reliability, by taking away all cover for a failure? Isn't the usual refrain when there is a cancellation or short form as a result of a failure that the company should have greater resilience in their train availability? Furthermore, are we quite sure that the unit in question does not have another job at any point later the same day? Maybe we could get some facts in before jollily doing planning's job for them? Using it all day would also increase its mileage which would presumably need to be accounted for.

Dear me, touched another nerve?
Hence my use of the word 'apparent'.

 

[R G NOW.]

Is there a Whitby rail user group set up to promote the line. Then they would lobby network rail and the council to get improvements.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not convinced that any (realistic) levels of improved rail service would attract many car users. Some for sure as traffic and parking is bad. But the convenience of the car for visiting several locations in the day means it will always be the mode of choice. For example, just popping up to Sandsend then back down to Robin Hood's Bay requires Antarctic Expedition levels of planning to achieve by public transport, never mind the cost of Arriva single fares.

Hmmm not sure about the Antarctic Expedition levels, 30 seconds at a timetable and an Arriva day ticket can sort that out. I know, my wife and I have done it many times!

Convincing car owners to use the train is always a challenge, but in recent years the number of tourists pouring into Whitby has caused all sorts of problems on the roads, including forcing the closure of the swing bridge. Extra capacity and/or a more regular service gives local councils, businesses and Arriva to find ways to attract more punters through deals.

 

[Clip]

To somewhere like Whitby you will get a lot of seasonal and weekend traffic. When I mentioned that Saturday was full and standing, even for a day with patchy weather, an independant traveller corroborated my observations on this thread.

It is interesting to read some of the thoughts on this matter. On the subject of passenger loadings, it is worth remembering that the demand is driven partly by local commuting needs, but also by the tourist ones. Whitby town centre has a very large number of holiday rental properties, which means Whitby's tourist trade is not just made up of day trippers with carrier bags full of sandwiches, but people staying for long weekends & even weeks at a time. Plus Whitby hosts a myriad of events each year, all of which drive both the day & longer stay tourist trades, attracting thousands, even tens of thousands. Finally Whitby is to say the least a difficult place to reach by car, especially given the strict parking restrictions that exist around the town's streets, and lack of parking on the outskirts to even closely meet demand. So the rail links are vital for it as a town.

Do people think that we dont know whitby at all and what goes on there and that the town is a tourist destination?? Always find these replies to be strange and possibly insulting to our intelligence

@Clip did say that the route averaged 95 per train. Even with the Saturday peaks, that doesn't suggest to me that many will be almost empty.

Thats an average though - if the saturday peaks are as rammed as you say and the school runs are included - averaged out then there must be some empty trains out there