York platform reinstatement

[Andy78uk]

I've noticed that on numerous occasions that the train to and from Harrogate sometimes starts and/or terminates at platform 11 at York station. The train maybe also be sat there for a short time, which then takes that platform out of use for a time for longer through trains to use.

Would there a be case to reinstate the neighbouring platform that shares the bay with platform 8, and use both of these for the Harrogate services?




This is just a thought!

Cheers

 

[Halish Railway]

I've noticed that on numerous occasions that the train to and from Harrogate sometimes starts and/or terminates at platform 11 at York station. The train maybe also be sat there for a short time, which then takes that platform out of use for a time for longer through trains to use.

Would there a be case to reinstate the neighbouring platform that shares the bay with platform 8, and use both of these for the Harrogate services?

The plan, if and when it happens is to run into platform 11 or a new platform 12 on a dedicated third approach track, removing conflicting movements with services using the East Coast Mainline.

 

[IanXC]

I've noticed that on numerous occasions that the train to and from Harrogate sometimes starts and/or terminates at platform 11 at York station. The train maybe also be sat there for a short time, which then takes that platform out of use for a time for longer through trains to use.

Would there a be case to reinstate the neighbouring platform that shares the bay with platform 8, and use both of these for the Harrogate services?




This is just a thought!

Cheers

Since the December 2025 timetable change the timings of Harrogate trains have changed such that they can both use platform 8 anyway. Reinstating the bay platform opposite platform 8 would not have resolved the issue in the old timetable anyway as both trains would need to pass through the new set of points required for the reinstated bay with insufficient margin between them anyway.

The York third line scheme would have resulted in Harrogate trains presenting such that they'd be back in platform 9/10/11, since a crossover was taken out of the spec which would have allowed them to access platform 8. We will have to wait and see whether that scheme is resurrected and in exactly what form.

 

[bluenoxid]

The plan, if and when it happens is to run into platform 11 or a new platform 12 on a dedicated third approach track, removing conflicting movements with services using the East Coast Mainline.

Thinking this through, would a Penryn approach be suitable for platform 11, splitting the platform in two. I appreciate that York bound trains would have to be managed through approach control if they are using the Harrogate end of the platform.

Edit. Just had a thought that this could be challenging depending on how trains are expected to be timetabled once a third track is introduced.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Thinking this through, would a Penryn approach be suitable for platform 11, splitting the platform in two. I appreciate that York bound trains would have to be managed through approach control if they are using the Harrogate end of the platform.

Edit. Just had a thought that this could be challenging depending on how trains are expected to be timetabled once a third track is introduced.

The third track has been cancelled by the Treasury mid construction.

 

[IanXC]

The third track has been cancelled by the Treasury mid construction.

Don't rule out the idea that the recently funded "capacity upgrades" at York include this work being completed.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think it would be wise reinstating it so that it could be used instead of Platform 8 which is less than half the width.

Since its not an actual plan perhaps you should rename this thread to 'How about reinstating the disused bay platform next to platform 8' ?

A while ago I was thinking about reinstating this disused bay and rejoining it to platform 6, creating another through platform in the main train shed as historically it was I believed.

That way platfom 11 could be dedicated for Harrogate line services without the need to cross over to platform 8.

 

[John Webb]

A while ago I was thinking about reinstating this disused bay and rejoining it to platform 6, creating another through platform in the main train shed as historically it was I believed....

From diagrams and photos in "Britain's Rail Super Centres - York" by Ken Appleby (Ian Allan, 1993) (and allowing for various platform renumberings) I don't think these were ever joined together. There were always two bays towards Leeds and two towards Harrogate and Northallerton.

 

[BrianW]

The third track has been cancelled by the Treasury mid construction.

This doesn't sound like very good practice- can you point to something that backs this up?

 

[ainsworth74]

This doesn't sound like very good practice- can you point to something that backs this up?

It was officially "paused" (which most people, not unreasonably in my opinion, took to mean cancelled) last July when the Government announced their list of infrastructure upgrades.

York Area Capacity and Performance

The York Area Capacity and performance project has been paused until the wider strategy for the ECML – aligned with Northern Powerhouse Rail aspirations – can be developed further. The benefits to passengers of the York scheme would only be realised as part of a wider package of investment on the East Coast Main Line, which seeks to increase capacity between York and Newcastle. This will be kept under review so that the scheme can be delivered in the most effective way in future.

Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs

Commuters and businesses to benefit from quicker journeys as more than 50 road and rail upgrades are agreed.

www.gov.uk

I'm not sure shovels were actively impacting the ground at the time it was paused however. We'll see if it re-appears phoenix like from the ashes. Certainly something needs to be done with York's northern approaches. Seems to be very regular that something gets delayed waiting for something else.

 

[skyhigh]

I'm not sure shovels were actively impacting the ground at the time it was paused however.

I believe work had actually started - there was definitely work in the area that doesn't seem to tie in with anything else that has now stopped. There is a row of new OHLE masts in the right position for another line that I can't see being installed for any other reason.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It was officially "paused" (which most people, not unreasonably in my opinion, took to mean cancelled) last July when the Government announced their list of infrastructure upgrades.

Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs

Commuters and businesses to benefit from quicker journeys as more than 50 road and rail upgrades are agreed.

www.gov.uk

I'm not sure shovels were actively impacting the ground at the time it was paused however. We'll see if it re-appears phoenix like from the ashes. Certainly something needs to be done with York's northern approaches. Seems to be very regular that something gets delayed waiting for something else.

There is no source for it that I can find.

However the work was paused about not many days before a major possession planned for this project, it was close enough that LNER could not change their plans to reinstate services (TPE, XC and Northern could however which is what allowed it to be so obvious that work had been cancelled at short notice). The best evidence for this, are the track components and OLE steelwork that were at site ready to be installed now with weeds growing round them (as referenced by @skyhigh in post #11). The OLE masts are easiest to see as they are next to the piles that were meant to hold them. All of that information could, and was, deduced at the time but is hard to pick out the relevant bits now as it was so long ago.

 

[Halifaxlad]

From diagrams and photos in "Britain's Rail Super Centres - York" by Ken Appleby (Ian Allan, 1993) (and allowing for various platform renumberings) I don't think these were ever joined together. There were always two bays towards Leeds and two towards Harrogate and Northallerton.

If you look at the following diagram reproduced here but taken from the Heritage statement associated with the planning application 19/00535/FULM which can be viewed on York Councils website, it shows the station layout prior to the platforms on the West and before there was even a footbridge.



Originally acesss to the West plaform was via the two subways that still exist albeit with ramps rather than steps and lifts as indicated here.

 

[John Webb]

If you look at the following diagram reproduced here but taken from the Heritage statement associated with the planning application 19/00535/FULM which can be viewed on York Councils website, it shows the station layout prior to the platforms on the West and before there was even a footbridge.

View attachment 197718

Originally acesss to the West plaform was via the two subways that still exist albeit with ramps rather than steps and lifts as indicated here.

Fascinating! That doesn't get a mention in the book I mentioned in my post. Rereading it, the book states that the bays were there from the start!
I wonder if the drawing is from the earliest design of the station?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Fascinating! That doesn't get a mention in the book I mentioned in my post. Rereading it, the book states that the bays were there from the start!
I wonder if the drawing is from the earliest design of the station?

There are photos too although no panoramic views. Initially there was no footbridge just subways, the came a footbridge, then came the footbridge in the centre where it is today.

 

[Senex]

Highly-detailed plans from the Ordnance Survey of 1889 (published in 1891) on the NLS web-site at https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287184, https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287199, and https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287247, from the 1:500 plan (Sheets Yorkshire CLXXIV.6.18, CLXXIV.6.23, and CLXXIV.10.3).

 

[John Webb]

Highly-detailed plans from the Ordnance Survey of 1889 (published in 1891) on the NLS web-site at https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287184, https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287199, and https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287247, from the 1:500 plan (Sheets Yorkshire CLXXIV.6.18, CLXXIV.6.23, and CLXXIV.10.3).

The 'New' station was built in 1877. I assume that's when the diagram posted by Halifaxlad must date from. It seems that the bays had been formed by 1890 to get onto the maps you've linked to. Shame the NLS site doesn't have detailed maps from the 1880s.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think we are deviating here.

 

[John Webb]

I think we are deviating here.

Possibly - but nevertheless understanding the history behind something can sometimes lead to a better understanding of the present in order to give sensible answers to questions that are raised.
It's a great shame that the 'third line' referred to in some posts above didn't get properly underway - I would have thought this to be a better solution than the expense of rejoining the bay lines to make through roads.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Possibly - but nevertheless understanding the history behind something can sometimes lead to a better understanding of the present in order to give sensible answers to questions that are raised.
It's a great shame that the 'third line' referred to in some posts above didn't get properly underway - I would have thought this to be a better solution than the expense of rejoining the bay lines to make through roads.

I understand that certain circumstances although I wouldn't have said that is the case here. Even if they weren't historically joined there isn't anything really that would prevent them, apart from the steps to the footbridge which could be moved to be on the outside of the station wall and a brand new set of steps down to the currently disused platform.

My suggestion of joining/rejoining the bays isn't at the expense of a third line. It is an alternative to spending millions on yet another island platform which is in a later phase. The whole point of the 3rd line is so that Harrogate services don't have to crossover and interact with ECML services.



Diagram taken from 'Church Fenton to Newcastle Strategic Advice' 2020
www.networkrail.co.uk/our-work/long-term-planning/

A while ago I was thinking along the lines of constructing a new line over the ECML to join with the Scarborough line, that way Harrogate services could use the underused Scarborough bay platforms whilst removing the need to navigate the narrow station footbridge all the time.

 

[MatthewHutton]

There is no source for it that I can find.

However the work was paused about not many days before a major possession planned for this project, it was close enough that LNER could not change their plans to reinstate services (TPE, XC and Northern could however which is what allowed it to be so obvious that work had been cancelled at short notice). The best evidence for this, are the track components and OLE steelwork that were at site ready to be installed now with weeds growing round them (as referenced by @skyhigh in post #11). The OLE masts are easiest to see as they are next to the piles that were meant to hold them. All of that information could, and was, deduced at the time but is hard to pick out the relevant bits now as it was so long ago.

Absolutely insane

 

[John Webb]

.....My suggestion of joining/rejoining the bays isn't at the expense of a third line. It is an alternative to spending millions on yet another island platform which is in a later phase.....

Ah! Thanks for the clarification - I hadn't appreciated there was a further island platform proposed! Your suggestion might be as cost-effective, therefore.

 

[IanXC]

I understand that certain circumstances although I wouldn't have said that is the case here. Even if they weren't historically joined there isn't anything really that would prevent them, apart from the steps to the footbridge which could be moved to be on the outside of the station wall and a brand new set of steps down to the currently disused platform.

My suggestion of joining/rejoining the bays isn't at the expense of a third line. It is an alternative to spending millions on yet another island platform which is in a later phase. The whole point of the 3rd line is so that Harrogate services don't have to crossover and interact with ECML services.

View attachment 197794

Diagram taken from 'Church Fenton to Newcastle Strategic Advice' 2020
www.networkrail.co.uk/our-work/long-term-planning/

A while ago I was thinking along the lines of constructing a new line over the ECML to join with the Scarborough line, that way Harrogate services could use the underused Scarborough bay platforms whilst removing the need to navigate the narrow station footbridge all the time.

While that appears to work at the north end (if we put aside how little space there is for a flyover to platform 2), from the south all you'd do is create a new set of conflicts. Northern services from Leeds (which TRU seems to suggest we can expect a frequency increase on) and services from Blackpool, plus any "core TRU" services that have been mooted from time to time (I guess one of the Newcastles is likely to be that for a time at least), all these will end up having to cross from the Leeds lines right over to platforms 1, 0 and A.

The land for the p12/13 island is safeguarded in any case, and I would suggest if removing Harrogate services from the through lines, and removing the conflicts to get to p8 was a priority, then building a bay platform 12 would achieve those things at a much lower cost.

 

[ainsworth74]

While that appears to work at the north end (if we put aside how little space there is for a flyover to platform 2), from the south all you'd do is create a new set of conflicts. Northern services from Leeds (which TRU seems to suggest we can expect a frequency increase on) and services from Blackpool, plus any "core TRU" services that have been mooted from time to time (I guess one of the Newcastles is likely to be that for a time at least), all these will end up having to cross from the Leeds lines right over to platforms 1, 0 and A.

I reckon we just need to dream a little bit bigger. Think Bermondsey dive-under but on the approach to York from the south to take those services under the ECML and avoid the conflicting moves accessing platforms 1, 0 and A! Could call it the Holgate dive-under

 

[Halifaxlad]

While that appears to work at the north end (if we put aside how little space there is for a flyover to platform 2), from the south all you'd do is create a new set of conflicts. Northern services from Leeds (which TRU seems to suggest we can expect a frequency increase on) and services from Blackpool, plus any "core TRU" services that have been mooted from time to time (I guess one of the Newcastles is likely to be that for a time at least), all these will end up having to cross from the Leeds lines right over to platforms 1, 0 and A.

The land for the p12/13 island is safeguarded in any case, and I would suggest if removing Harrogate services from the through lines, and removing the conflicts to get to p8 was a priority, then building a bay platform 12 would achieve those things at a much lower cost.

I think those conflicts occurs anyway!

Of course it would need evaluating, that goes without saving but I think it's worthy of consideration.

I don't see the need to build anymore platforms when the exisiting ones could be rationlised. (Aside from reinstating disused ones)

 

[YorksLad12]

The land for the p12/13 island is safeguarded in any case,

Is it still? There's buildings quite close to P11. Problem with York is that it's on a fairly hefty curve, otherwise you could slide the (modern-ish) P10/P11 island a bit closer to P9 to make some space on the west. Pity "P8B" (what was P12, looking at an old photo I came across on the interweb) couldn't be used. But I do agree with the idea of separating the via Knaresborough services out from anything else that says Leeds, to reduce passenger confusion.

I reckon we just need to dream a little bit bigger. Think Bermondsey dive-under but on the approach to York from the south to take those services under the ECML and avoid the conflicting moves accessing platforms 1, 0 and A! Could call it the Holgate dive-under

Holgate Canal, given the flood risk

Out of interest, how are services at York grouped? I know we have to/from Scarborough on platforms 2 and 4, to/from Sheffield (and Hull?) on P1, via Knaresborough on P8 and sometimes P11 but the rest seem to be a mixed bag. The LNER fast southbound calls at P5 to allow cross-platform access to P6 for the LNER stopper, for example, but they've also used P5 and P9 northbound (as have XC and TPE). Or are they not grouped at all, and I'm looking for a pattern where none exists?

 

[IanXC]

I think those conflicts occurs anyway!

Of course it would need evaluating, that goes without saving but I think it's worthy of consideration.

I don't see the need to build anymore platforms when the exisiting ones could be rationlised. (Aside from reinstating disused ones)

There are indeed such conflicts at the moment, but that is the very reason why you will find Northern Blackpool and Leeds stopping services on platforms 10 and 11 - this being related to the existing terminating usage of platforms 6 and 7. If those terminating platforms were not available and platforms 1, 0 and A were used for this purpose, you'd actually make the problem worse.

There will be something to be gained when LNER's York terminators are extended to Middlesbrough, which will create capacity on platforms 6 and 7.

It sounds simple, but the answer to creating more through platform capacity, is to stop using the through platforms for terminating trains. From the south end that probably means platform 0 (assuming the mooted increase of XC terminating trains goes ahead), then post LNER extensions to Middlesbrough, you broadly have:

p1/0
XC services via Doncaster - at the right side of the formation for the Main lines at Colton
NT services to Hull - at the right side for services direct via Hambleton and to access the Normanton lines at Colton

p6/7
NT services via Leeds - with direct exit to the Leeds lines, but also flexibility to get to the Mains/Normantons if needed
Huddersfield via Castleford services - in the correct place for the Normanton lines either via the Mains or the Leeds lines

At that stage you have minimised your conflicts, and removed the need for terminating trains to stand on the through platforms. Ergo, you don't need more through platforms, you just need to free up the ones you already have.

From the north it is a bit more awkward as Harrogate services would have to cross the Down route for the ECML to access p8, hence my suggestion of a bay platform 12.

Of course the advantage is that these p0 and p12 could be significantly built off line, and other than inserting a new set of points for each, even if disruptive access is required, only take one existing platform out of use temporarily. They also both do not need any additional footbridge construction.

Is it still? There's buildings quite close to P11. Problem with York is that it's on a fairly hefty curve, otherwise you could slide the (modern-ish) P10/P11 island a bit closer to P9 to make some space on the west. Pity "P8B" (what was P12, looking at an old photo I came across on the interweb) couldn't be used. But I do agree with the idea of separating the via Knaresborough services out from anything else that says Leeds, to reduce passenger confusion.

The land is now more protected than it ever has been. When York Central construction gets underway and the old IECC building is demolished, a greater slice of land will not have buildings on it than is the case currently.

 

[YorksLad12]

The land is now more protected than it ever has been. When York Central construction gets underway and the old IECC building is demolished, a greater slice of land will not have buildings on it than is the case currently.

Ta. Didn't realise that that building was going. Odd station, York, in having space for bays alongside platforms 1, 2 and 8, but no desire to reinstate them. Whereas in Leeds, we're slowly creeping back into Wellington (one platform every 20 years).