Newcastle-York rail investment options: what are your thoughts?

[Andyjs247]

With the major part of the station being Grade II* Listed any works will need to be carefully considered. Either way the station will need to be maintained so it makes sense to make good use of the existing structure. I don’t know the station well enough but could an additional through platform face (Platform 0) be accommodated within the main train shed opposite Platform 1 on the Down/Up Passenger Loop? Or would it only be possible outside. I know what I would prefer.

Due to the diamond crossing there is no access from York to Platforms 1,2 or 3 without first crossing onto the Up Main. I would imagine this would be a priority for replaced with more standard turnouts. Another problem with the current layout is that Darlington South Junction is only a single lead preventing parallel moves. The Bishop Auckland / Middlesbrough / Saltburn through services generally cross at Darlington and fitting these around the 6tph that stop between York and Newcastle can be challenging. The turnaround at Bishop Auckland is also quite short.

If the Bishop Auckland-Darlington portion became a shuttle I imagine reinstatement of one or both northern bays Platforms 5-6 would be required. The southern bay platforms 2 and 3 are perhaps under-used during the day but are used for stabling overnight and will be full.

 

[MarkyT]

I don't really see the need for bay platforms at the north end of Darlington shed, as Bishop Auckland trains would have a through platform moreorless to themselves under this scheme. If they continue running to Middlesbrough then capacity could be maximized by having them pass on the junction. The journey time to Bishop Auckland is about 26min so this could be arranged with an hourly service.

But I think the ECML crossing is a single lead and would remain so under the scheme, so we are stuck with one ECML path lost in each direction for every Bishop-Saltburn in either direction. If something like that ever happened then the Middlesbrough-Bishop Auckland service would occupy two platforms at Darlington simultaneously for a short period - but these would have to be through platforms so there would still be no use for bays.

This concern is what my counter-proposal shown in post https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ns-what-are-your-thoughts.203151/post-4840913 is meant to address, leaving down mainline calls on platform #4 while accomodating Bishop Auckland - Saltburn trains in both direction on platform #1, which is split into two sections by a new scissors crossover within the trainshed. This splits the crossing movements into two, crossing each mainline direction separately, with a movement between #1 and the Middlesbrough line at the south end being possible simultaneously with an arrival into #4 from the south. It could also accommodate notional trains arriving at Darlington from Middlesbrough in #1 going to Newcastle via Durham in parallel with a northbound mainline arrival at #1.

 

[ainsworth74]

With the major part of the station being Grade II* Listed any works will need to be carefully considered. Either way the station will need to be maintained so it makes sense to make good use of the existing structure. I don’t know the station well enough but could an additional through platform face (Platform 0) be accommodated within the main train shed opposite Platform 1 on the Down/Up Passenger Loop? Or would it only be possible outside. I know what I would prefer.

It has been looked at in the past I believe but has eventually been discounted. There isn't really room within the trainshed for a platform without knocking through the wall in some way and it's possible there's room outside the train shed but then that doesn't really help with the conflicting moves all that much (arguably it might actually make them worse). Hence the current plan for installing additional capacity on the other side of the mainline to reduce conflicting movements and boosting capacity.

If the Bishop Auckland-Darlington portion became a shuttle I imagine reinstatement of one or both northern bays Platforms 5-6 would be required.

It doesn't really. Bishop services would have nearly free reign of the existing platform 4 which will be more than sufficient for a shuttle service.

 

[edwin_m]

With the major part of the station being Grade II* Listed any works will need to be carefully considered. Either way the station will need to be maintained so it makes sense to make good use of the existing structure. I don’t know the station well enough but could an additional through platform face (Platform 0) be accommodated within the main train shed opposite Platform 1 on the Down/Up Passenger Loop? Or would it only be possible outside. I know what I would prefer.

Any arrangement with more platforms in the shed doesn't solve the fundamental problem of Up ECML trains having to cross over the Down Main and back, with conflict increasing as there are more trains in total and more of them don't stop.

Due to the diamond crossing there is no access from York to Platforms 1,2 or 3 without first crossing onto the Up Main. I would imagine this would be a priority for replaced with more standard turnouts. Another problem with the current layout is that Darlington South Junction is only a single lead preventing parallel moves.

1-3 are connected to one track so only one train can go in or out of any of them at a time, but there haven't been any diamonds since at least 1991 and the conflict you mention does not exist.

This concern is what my counter proposal shown in post https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ns-what-are-your-thoughts.203151/post-4840913 is meant to address, leaving down mainline calls on platform 1 and accomodating Bishop Auckland - Saltburn trains in both direction on platform 4, which is split into two sections by a new scissors crossover within the trainshed. This splits the crossing movements into two, crossing each mainline direction separately, with a movement between #4 and the Middlesbrough line at the south end being possible simultaneously with an arrival into #1 from the south. It could also accommodate notional trains arriving at Darlington from Middlesbrough in #4 going to Newcastle via Durham in parallel with a mainline arrival in #1.

I think you may have your platforms wrong way round. 1 is to the east of the shed (so the new platforms will result in some out-of-sequence numbering).

 

[MarkyT]

I think you may have your platforms wrong way round. 1 is to the east of the shed (so the new platforms will result in some out-of-sequence numbering).

My apologies for any confusion; you are quite correct! I was using my phone on the go when I wrote that (not driving!) and didn't have easy access or time to view other diagrams to confirm my misconception about current numbering. I have edited that post. Whatever layout is chosen, it might be a good idea in the final scheme to adjust platform numbering to a logical sequence across the layout, as I believe is now being planned at Kings Cross to be rid of #0 and (most importantly!) to get #9 3/4 in the correct relative position.

 

[edwin_m]

My apologies for any confusion; you are quite correct! I was using my phone on the go when I wrote that (not driving!) and didn't have easy access or time to view other diagrams to confirm my misconception about current numbering. I have edited that post. Whatever layout is chosen, it might be a good idea in the final scheme to adjust platform numbering to a logical sequence across the layout, as I believe is now being planned at Kings Cross to be rid of #0 and (most importantly!) to get #9 3/4 in the correct relative position.

No problem. I actually thought they were that way round, with 1 nearest the town, until I found I was getting confused by other posts and went to check.

I fail to understand why anyone should have considered keeping the KX platform numbering through the current re-modelling - a major re-signaling is the obvious time to tidy this up (unless you're in Cardiff and your platform number signs are listed). I'm not sure if Darlington is going to be a major change to the existing layout or just adding the new bit and leaving the rest more or less as it is.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure if Darlington is going to be a major change to the existing layout or just adding the new bit and leaving the rest more or less as it is.

I believe the only significant change being proposed is to increase the speed into and out of P1 (the new primary northbound platform). Otherwise I believe the intent is to keep the layout unchanged.