york through tracks

[AlterEgo]

Yes indeed, why not make a resignalling, remodelling and electrification scheme more complex and expensive when there may be (.. pauses to gaze at crystal ball..) possible unforseen future uses? Alternatively, why not save the taxpayer some cash when there is absolutely definitely no foreseen use for these lines at the time it was planned 25 years ago?

Sorry, it was a more general question. I wasn't aware that they were removed for that reason. I do still wonder why lines such as Bletchley - Verney Jn have only part of the track lifted, seemingly in such an arbitrary fasion.

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry, it was a more general question. I wasn't aware that they were removed for that reason. I do still wonder why lines such as Bletchley - Verney Jn have only part of the track lifted, seemingly in such an arbitrary fasion.

No doubt becuase the scrap fairies have been at it rather than NR!

 

[Ploughman]

When York was remodelled, Leeds ACE (Area Civil Engineers) was given the work.
They approached each of the operating divisions and asked what they would like to see at York for their traffic.
Responses were of varying quality from professional drawings to back of a fag packet sketches. The one thing they all had in common was a total disregard for anyone elses requirements.
Intercity wanted 2 through platforms. Freight wanted the York avoiding lines, Parcels wanted a platform etc.
When the designs were produced there was a lot of OK we'll pay for that bit but not that as we don't use that bit.
In all the whole project was a compromise and the result was what we have now.

Only now do we find work proceeding to return 4 tracks under Holgate Bridge to the Station.
The whole story was written up in a paper for the Permanent Way Institute by Mike Collins. I don't know if anyone has access to a copy. I lost mine.

 

[LE Greys]

A possible solution, which may be difficult, which is a mid-measure and cheaper than re-modelling York Station for a through road may be the installation of new signalling and remodeling Skelton Bridge Jnc with a crossover to get trains directly out onto the "Down" fast from the slow.

Only now do we find work proceeding to return 4 tracks under Holgate Bridge to the Station.
The whole story was written up in a paper for the Permanent Way Institute by Mike Collins. I don't know if anyone has access to a copy. I lost mine.

I believe they might be looking at doing that shortly. The general idea would be to start with the old Parcels Spur, extending that to connect to the Down Leeds and adding a couple of crossovers to link it into Platform 9 (and possibly the south bays as well. At the other end, there might just be room between the running lines and the TPX shed to fit an extra running line, roughly following the old loco line, with an extra crossover from Platform 8. This would eventually connect with the Down Slow at Poppleton Junction.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . .
Only now do we find work proceeding to return 4 tracks under Holgate Bridge to the Station. . . .

Yes indeed, the need to provide (re-instate?) 4 running lines between the south end of York Station and Holgate Junction is far more important in terms of network capacity than this discussion about the through roads in the station. There are many conflicting moves every day because of the single lead in/out between the station and the Leeds lines.
Its long overdue, and is scheduled in CP4. Yes, I know - we're now well into CP4 and nothing has happened - it does seem to have been left 'till last, but work is scheduled to begin at the end of this month (May '11), hopefully. But look! The local residents are complaining!

Now, back to Centre Lines:

Is that also the reasons why the centre line between platforms 2 and 3 at Newcastle were removed too?

If the through line in Newcastle remained (and it was well used by freight and the odd ECS), then any train using it would have conflicted with (either or both, dependng on how the re-alignmnent was designed) the full-length trains using paltforms 2 and/or 3.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes indeed, the need to provide (re-instate?) 4 running lines between the south end of York Station and Holgate Junction is far more important in terms of network capacity than this discussion about the through roads in the station...

...Its long overdue, and is scheduled in CP4. Yes, I know - we're now well into CP4 and nothing has happened - it does seem to have been left 'till last, but work is scheduled to begin at the end of this month (May '11), hopefully. But look! The local residents are complaining!

It has already started - back in April, according to NR. The work is projected to be finished in October, with the timetable being amended at the December change.

CP4 runs from April 2009 until the end of March 2014 - so the work will be finished exactly half way through CP4 - therefore I reckon your 'left 'til last' is a blatant exaggeration!

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...RAVEL-DISRUPTION-1703/SearchCategoryID-4.aspx

 

[paul1609]

Surely whats needed is a short section of high speed line avoiding York all together it could head north from Colton Junction rejoining the ECML north of York.
It need only be around 8 miles in length. With a line speed of 140mph throughout and grade seperated junctions it would slash journeytimes by about 20 mins.

 

[Ploughman]

That has been proposed.
Leaving the current alignment near Colton then roughly following the York bypass to the western side of York and rejoining the ECML around Skelton Bridge.
I saw the initial proposal about 6 years back. Nothing heard since.

 

[caliwag]

Nothing appears to be happening in Holgate...there's a fenced off compound in the waste land where the round house stood,
Thought they might have used all the bank holidays to make impact...apparently August BH now!! Ho hum

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely whats needed is a short section of high speed line avoiding York all together it could head north from Colton Junction rejoining the ECML north of York.
It need only be around 8 miles in length. With a line speed of 140mph throughout and grade seperated junctions it would slash journeytimes by about 20 mins.

For one train a day! Although travelling by train well in excess of light speed would be fun.

(The journey time for the c15 miles between Colton Jn and Tollerton Jn non-stop is 11 mins, so not sure how a new line would save 20, or even 4)

 

[paul1609]

i dont have any timings but 15 miles in 11 mins is an average of nearly 82 mph, Im surprised that this is possible with the ladder outside and the run through York Station. I was under the impression that the linespeed through the station was no more than 30 to 40 mph?
My plan would eliminate the York Stop from 1 tph of the London to Scotland services which would become first stop Newcastle.

 

[LE Greys]

That has been proposed.
Leaving the current alignment near Colton then roughly following the York bypass to the western side of York and rejoining the ECML around Skelton Bridge.
I saw the initial proposal about 6 years back. Nothing heard since.

The alternative proposed in the 1980s (at least seen in a book about Intercity by one of its former managers) was to run a tunnel roughly underneath the NRM and the river, then surface somewhere to the north. Doing that gave a potential speed of up to 200 mph, although 155 was proposed, so that they could use IC250, sending the IC225s to the MML.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I was under the impression that the linespeed through the station was no more than 30 to 40 mph? . . .

You are quite correct!
30mph on all through roads.
60 mph on the Down approaches for a mile to the south dropping to 40 at Holgate Jn.
60 mph on the Up approaches for a mile to the north (Skelton Jn), dropping to 50 before the approach crossovers.

As with all such proposals, the requirements of the different stakeholders (long distance non-stop, long-distance stoppers, local through stoppers, local terminatiing services, freight and train-care movements) will never converge on anything as straightforward as a simple bypass!

Nevermind the cost - just look at the lack of consensus!

 

[YorkshireBear]

surely it would be useful, freights could use it alot fo the time as i doubt many trains will want to skip york. A few EC trains and that would be it surely?

 

[4SRKT]

i dont have any timings but 15 miles in 11 mins is an average of nearly 82 mph, Im surprised that this is possible with the ladder outside and the run through York Station. I was under the impression that the linespeed through the station was no more than 30 to 40 mph?

Whatever it actually is, it's less than 20 minutes, so a 20 minute saving is impossible. I would say 10 at the very most, which is hardly 'slashing' journey times given that any train not stopping at York will be non-stop Kings Cross > Newcastle, for which 10 minutes is 5-6% of the journey time.

My plan would eliminate the York Stop from 1 tph of the London to Scotland services which would become first stop Newcastle.

Completely ignoring the huge trade York does, in its own right, as the railhead for an enormous hinterland, and as the main Inter City railway hub for Northern England.

 

[swt_passenger]

There must be some significance behind the fact that the only non stop train is southbound, and that's presumably because they are very confident it will leave Newcastle full enough to cover its costs. But in the evening peak people travel over a much wider time period - it's only an assumption but I think they reckon a similar non-stop northbound train wouldn't load adequately.

 

[TomBoyRacer]

I don't really see the point of reinstating the through roads at York. I think the cost vs benefit isn't there.
Due to the way that resignalling and electrification was carried out in 1989/90, the current track layout at both ends would have to be significantly altered to accommodate the overlap that would be required beyond the signal at both ends (assuming this is to be a bi-directional line). Assuming a 180yd overlap at the south end would need somewhere to diverge trains from platforms 3 and 5 unless you wanted to prevent running trains into 3 or using a reduced overlap and bringing Southbound trains in on a delayed yellow. the set of points at the south end of 5 could be used but this will snooker any trains approaching from the south. The same problem exists at the North end especially with the flat crossing.

With that in mind, the only through road that I could see getting built would be one for stabling empty stock with a short overlap and catch points - and there are better places to do this in the York area.

There is also the way that the OLE structures are arranged as they would be in the way for much of the run through the station and not to mention the footbridge.

If the requirement had remained back in the day for the through tracks to be retained then i'm sure they would have built a layout that could have allowed it but without major upheaval I think it's not going to happen.

Which brings me on to my final point - I just don't think there is the need when you consider how many non stop trains go through. If anything I would rather see an upgrading of holgate to provide a higher speed connection to the goods lines and perhaps an easing of the curves to allow a high linespeed, say 30mph instead of what it currently is.

 

[4SRKT]

The through roads were beneficial when there was freight coming off the Scarborough line (Foss Islands, Rowntrees, Derwent Valley). They were also useful because Liverpool > Scarborough workings changed engines at York and the second loco could sit in a centre road awaiting the arrival of the train. I doubt much benefit was gained to the Flying Scotsman which didn't stop there. The radius is very tight anyway (more so than now before the centre roads were taken out), so if anything the southbound FS could have gone faster through platform 8A (modern 3) than through the centre.

The big benefit of removing the roads and shortening platform 9 (modern 5) is the sweep of the curve is now much more gentle than it was.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely whats needed is a short section of high speed line avoiding York all together it could head north from Colton Junction rejoining the ECML north of York.
It need only be around 8 miles in length. With a line speed of 140mph throughout and grade seperated junctions it would slash journeytimes by about 20 mins.

Seems a waste of money to me. It would cost millions for a minimal improvement and wouldn't open up any new market to the railway. Infact, it would remove journey opportunities since York is the main interchange point for central Britain

If through lines are needed for overtaking, a more suitable solution would be to re-instate the up line through York, but use the avoiding line for down through trains.

 

[NightatLaira]

I still think there is the easy future possibility of building an 'single bay platform' running southwards from the footbridge between modern day platforms 3 and 5. You could just about fit it in without moving any OLE equipment and access points could be added from the existing footbridge and subways.

It could be used as a terminating platform for short length trains that currently use the platforms 1, 6 and 7 - freeing-up extra paths in the process.

 

[Jonny]

There must be some significance behind the fact that the only non stop train is southbound, and that's presumably because they are very confident it will leave Newcastle full enough to cover its costs. But in the evening peak people travel over a much wider time period - it's only an assumption but I think they reckon a similar non-stop northbound train wouldn't load adequately.

The thing is that, with East Coast's restrictions on ALRs (seriously, yes!) and off-peak tickets, the "splitting" point will become Newcastle, whereas it was York before. Splitting tickets is much harder to do (legally) on a non-stop train. Hint hint...

 

[PR102]

They got rid of the through lines because it was CHEAP, the whole of the ECML was done on, what, £106m, if my memory is correct? Even in the 1980's that is very cheap is it not?

As well as all the complications discussed by everyone, they didn;t have the money for anything other than single side-of-the-line pylons, necessitating the need to get rid of a lot of four track formation right the way up and down the ECML.

 

[Bald Rick]

They got rid of the through lines because it was CHEAP, the whole of the ECML was done on, what, £106m, if my memory is correct? Even in the 1980's that is very cheap is it not?

As well as all the complications discussed by everyone, they didn;t have the money for anything other than single side-of-the-line pylons, necessitating the need to get rid of a lot of four track formation right the way up and down the ECML.

Rather ill informed. ECML was authorised at c£300m in 1984, based on new Cl89 locos and some new MkIII coaches supplemented with HST trailer conversions. It finished up at well over half a billion outturn in 1991 with the Class 91s and fleet of MkIVs we have today. That's roughly £1bn in today's cash, which is admittedly still a bargain, albeit for no increase in capacity.

On a track mile basis it is less cost to electrify lines with headspans (as most of the 4 track sections of the ECML and MML are for example) than "single side-of-the-line pylons". It is however more expensive to electrify 4 tracks than 2, and where some tracks are rarely used, what's the point of wasting money? It is fair to say that when the ECML electrification was planned in the early 80s, there was absolutely no forseeable need for 4 tracks Huntingdon - Peterboro' or centre roads at York. Indeed arguably it is the same today.

 

[142094]

Some of the 4 track between Newcastle and Durham and Newcastle and Morpeth was cut down to 3 tracks, which arguably would be quite beneficial today. Certainly 4 tracks between Newcastle and Heaton due to the increase in freight movements from the north and ECS workings.