Planning approval for Potash Mine could mean more services Middlesbrough - Whitby?

[Topgun333]

Yesterday's planning approval for a new potash mine near Whitby could mean 4 additional return trains each day between Middlesboro and Whitby.


http://m.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/b...s-1-5m-investment-for-rail-services-1-5848870

Mine company pledges £1.5m investment for rail services

York Potash, the firm behind the controversial mine earmarked for development at Sneatonthorpe, has pledged to plough £1.5 million worth of funding into putting on four extra return train services per day.

They would be on the timetable all year round and run on the Esk Valley railway line from Middlesbrough to Whitby.

Existing services would not be affected and the new services would coincide with shift change times at the proposed mine at 6am, 2pm and 10pm.

York Potash says it would allow another route for potential workers in the Esk Valley and beyond to travel to access the company’s park and ride service and get to the mine.

The move would provide a benefit to the town by allowing more services to Middlesbrough via James Cook Hospital and could benefit the night time economy by having a late night service from Whitby....

 

[Harpers Tate]

I wonder if that two-year old suggestion is still part of the deal. And whether, if so, Northern's Random Unit Generator will source a WYPTE-funded 3-car 144 for the rolling stock.

Personally, I have preferred to see an undertaking to massively fund a de-rationalisation of the route to accommodate any extra services, with - as required - real signalling, more sections (eg at Grosmont, and you know why I say that), reinstatement of passing places and a Battersby bypass.

 

[DarloRich]

Well the planning authority approved the proposals 8 to 7 last night so perhaps we could look there to find out.

Any extra passenger services must be a good thing but last time i looked the proposal for the extracted material was for it to be transported by conveyor to Teesside!

 

[E&W Lucas]

It's sad this this proposal doesn't seem to have been given even the most basic scrutiny.
£1.5 million is chicken feed in railway terms, and I can't see it funding anything like the infrastructure work, that's required to run additional services on the EVL. I'd like to see how these services will fit in, amongst those which already run. Whitby - Glaisdale is one single line section. One train in it at a time. It doesn't give you a whole lot of scope for running extra services.

 

[DarloRich]

It's sad this this proposal doesn't seem to have been given even the most basic scrutiny.
£1.5 million is chicken feed in railway terms, and I can't see it funding anything like the infrastructure work, that's required to run additional services on the EVL. I'd like to see how these services will fit in, amongst those which already run. Whitby - Glaisdale is one single line section. One train in it at a time. It doesn't give you a whole lot of scope for running extra services.

i need to check the planning conditions but assume the £1.5m is to fund (or part fund) the rolling stock and staff costs.

 

[E&W Lucas]

So all it can mean is lengthened services?

There are no paths to run any more. Certainly at the times indicated.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's sad this this proposal doesn't seem to have been given even the most basic scrutiny.
£1.5 million is chicken feed in railway terms, and I can't see it funding anything like the infrastructure work, that's required to run additional services on the EVL. I'd like to see how these services will fit in, amongst those which already run. Whitby - Glaisdale is one single line section. One train in it at a time. It doesn't give you a whole lot of scope for running extra services.

Other than the steam services in high summer, has there been much of an increase in services on the route since the mid 1990s? I remember a 'Close Up North' documentary on BBC Yorkshire around then which focused on the poor service on the line. At the time the standard service was run by 2 142s coupled together and it was said that splitting them to double the frequency would need another crew which there was no funding for, and even if there had been, a single unit would've been unsuitable for the school train. IIRC they then discussed whether the 141s (which had recently been stored at Doncaster following the Airedale electrification) could be used.

Essentially what I'm asking is, what is the maximum frequency that could be provided for within the constraints of the existing infrastructure?

 

[jimm]

Latest figure for rail support, cited in the mine company's planning case dated last month, is "up to £6.75m", though does not say over what period that would be provided, nor specifically what it would be spent on but on the basis that the £1.5m previously cited was to be spread over three years, with £500,000 a year being allocated, the new figure could indicate other expenditure is also on the table, not least extra infrastructure to provide capacity for the extra trains.

Figure is from Page 34 of the document under the heading Safeguarding Tourism.

http://yorkpotash.co.uk/site/assets/files/1872/yp_summary_doc_web.pdf

 

[30907]

what I'm asking is, what is the maximum frequency that could be provided for within the constraints of the existing infrastructure?

Service level between Nunthorpe and Grosmont has been the same since the cutbacks of 25 years ago.

The infrastructure allows about a 75 minute frequency, using Battersby as a crossing point, or 90 minutes using Nunthorpe. You have to allow for the NYMR in that, of course.

Between Nunthorpe and Middlesbrough, where there is real potential because of the new hospital etc, you could go just about go half hourly.

 

[TBY-Paul]

I believe there's something included in the Northern ITT that involves the new franchisee having to do something if the planning application was approved. Somebody a bit cleverer that me might be able to find the relevant information (if it's relevant).

 

[Harpers Tate]

I suspect that Battersby could not readily be used any longer as a passing point for passenger services; the last time I looked (through a train window) it appeared to me that only one platform facing was usable.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Sticking to facts, here's the daily service at present. Remember it's a single line, and the first passing place is Glaisdale. More trains, is going to require more infrastructure:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WTB/2015/07/02/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[jimm]

I believe there's something included in the Northern ITT that involves the new franchisee having to do something if the planning application was approved. Somebody a bit cleverer that me might be able to find the relevant information (if it's relevant).

The specific points in the ITT are as follows. There was no suggestion that they were tied to planning consent being given for the potash mine, as none of these would appear to need any extra/reactivated infrastructure, which will clearly be the case if they are going to go back something akin to the pre-1980s timetable, which I think was seven services each way Whitby-Middlesbrough on weekdays and nine each way on summer Saturdays.

• Middlesbrough-Whitby: We have specified an extra Northern train from Whitby in the morning by December 2019, timed to enable people served by this route to travel to work in Middlesbrough

• Middlesbrough-Nunthorpe: There are currently no Sunday services between these locations for part of the year. We have specified that there will be an hourly Northern service between Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe all year round by December 2017, with these additional services providing improved connectivity with James Cook University Hospital.

• Whitby-Middlesbrough: There are currently Northern services on Sundays on this route for part of the year only. By December 2017, the route will have Sunday services all year round.

 

[E&W Lucas]

• Middlesbrough-Whitby: We have specified an extra Northern train from Whitby in the morning by December 2019, timed to enable people served by this route to travel to work in Middlesbrough

• Middlesbrough-Nunthorpe: There are currently no Sunday services between these locations for part of the year. We have specified that there will be an hourly Northern service between Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe all year round by December 2017, with these additional services providing improved connectivity with James Cook University Hospital.

• Whitby-Middlesbrough: There are currently Northern services on Sundays on this route for part of the year only. By December 2017, the route will have Sunday services all year round.

So for the midweek option, that's either going to mean one extra very early Down service, to return as indicated, or more likely, I suspect a unit left in Whitby overnight, and a crew taxied across to work it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I suspect that Battersby could not readily be used any longer as a passing point for passenger services; the last time I looked (through a train window) it appeared to me that only one platform facing was usable.

IIRC it is possible to have two trains in the platform at Battersby at one time, so you can pass by bringing one train in on top of the other one.

Using Glaisdale and Nunthorpe alone you could have a train every 120 minutes from Whitby- Nunthorpe-Glaisdale is 45 minutes and Glaisdale-Whitby is 30 minutes. Certainly a two-train service (as opposed to the one-train service we've had since the early 90s) would be perfectly possible.

As for what you'd use, North Yorks CC specify that every child must have a seat on the schools train (which they pay towards), which is why it's now a 156 on the line. The other one could be anything from the Northern Random Unit Generator, although it'd probably be another 156 that can work in multiple if something breaks down.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Using Glaisdale and Nunthorpe alone you could have a train every 120 minutes from Whitby- Nunthorpe-Glaisdale is 45 minutes and Glaisdale-Whitby is 30 minutes. Certainly a two-train service (as opposed to the one-train service we've had since the early 90s) would be perfectly possible.

You've forgotten the other user of the route. There is already a "second" service operating. I would suggest that seven Mk 1 coaches full of tourists, offers greater economic benefits, than another 156 trundling up and down.

As for section times, Glaisdale - Whitby is effectively an hour (What goes in, has to come back), unless you "lock in" a service in the new second platform at Whitby, and effectively pass trains there.

 

[Skutter]

I suspect that Battersby could not readily be used any longer as a passing point for passenger services; the last time I looked (through a train window) it appeared to me that only one platform facing was usable.

You can pass two trains at Battersby, and it's done every Sunday morning at the moment. But there's a big time penalty for the first-in last-out train which has to be booked for 15 minutes at Battersby.

The two time constraints are waiting for the TPWS to time out (5 minutes for successive trains on the same line) and ringing up the signaller at Nunthorpe to exchange tokens (4 or 5 minutes when passing, and no two trains on the branch can be booked to phone at the same time)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You've forgotten the other user of the route. There is already a "second" service operating. I would suggest that seven Mk 1 coaches full of tourists, offers greater economic benefits, than another 156 trundling up and down.

As for section times, Glaisdale - Whitby is effectively an hour (What goes in, has to come back), unless you "lock in" a service in the new second platform at Whitby, and effectively pass trains there.

The current timetable has the "lock in" at Whitby, but it's not ideal for the NYMR service. The problems are that the Middlesbrough-Whitby running time is only just enough to allow a single unit to serve the branch; and the Glaisdale-Whitby section is a bit too long to easily allow a 2nd service through while the 1st turns around at Whitby. Add the 2-platform limit at Middlesbrough and there's no way to timetable an increase in the service.

As far as I can see what's needed is better signalling, so the drivers aren't telephoning Nunthorpe box and fetching big brass keys for 8-10 minutes every trip; and powered points so the NYMR services aren't trudging up and down to ground frames for 8 minutes either.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Supposing that funding became available to allow infrastructure improvements, what would be the options, and the costs thereof, that would allow a clockface hourly service (which really should be the minimum service on any route with significant populations either end or significant tourist potential in my opinion, and which the Esk Valley line really fulfils both of those conditions)?

 

[DarloRich]

I think what people need to do is look at the planning conditions when the actual paperwork is released by the local authority. That will stipulate what, if anything, the potash mining company must do in relation to transport.

 

[jimm]

I think what people need to do is look at the planning conditions when the actual paperwork is released by the local authority. That will stipulate what, if anything, the potash mining company must do in relation to transport.

All the paperwork related to the planning application is here
http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/planning/york-potash

The following details of the proposed funding there would be for the Esk Valley Line under the Section 106 agreement are given in Appendix L at this link

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/planning/york-potash/Combined-Appendices-for-website.pdf

and are as follows:

Rail Service contribution: Up to £2.25 million - £1,500k over 3 years, £750k extra if needed
Additional rail services between Middlesbrough and Whitby
Construction and operational traffic impacts. Impact on tourism economy.
CIL compliant – this mitigation measure would provide an alternative form of travel for visitors to the National Park. It is considered to be directly related to the development as it would reduce pressure on the A171 where the majority of traffic impacts will be experienced. The funding amount follows discussion between the applicant and the railway company. It is a useful mitigation measure which goes some way towards addressing the residual harmful impacts.

Rail Infrastructure contribution: Up to £4.5 million
Funding for infrastructure upgrades
CIL compliant – as above: infrastructure upgrades would be needed to avoid additional services having a negative impact on tourism services provided by North Yorkshire Moors Railway.

Further to that, the report to the planning committee members says the extra trains need to be in place for the mine construction period and adds that "up to four additional services" between Middlesbrough and Whitby should start by December 2017.

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/pl...-Potash-Special-Planning-Committee-Report.pdf

So looks like most of the infrastructure upgrades are going to be focused on Grosmont-Whitby, but spending some of the money to address the various other constraints Skutter mentions would surely help as well, though I assume Network Rail must have set out some sort of shopping list for them to arrive at the £4.5m figure in the first place

 

[Buttsy]

Wasn't Sleights to Whitby double back in the late 70s? I think there was a loop at Castleton Moor around about the same time too? Redoubling around the Selights area would help both a more frequent service to Whitby and the NYMR, though I appreciate that more trains would have to pass at Batterby rather than Glaisdale.

Are the Bog Hall sidings still extant? If so, one of those could be used to double track further out of Whitby and allow more flexibility.

 

[jimm]

Wasn't Sleights to Whitby double back in the late 70s? I think there was a loop at Castleton Moor around about the same time too? Redoubling around the Selights area would help both a more frequent service to Whitby and the NYMR, though I appreciate that more trains would have to pass at Batterby rather than Glaisdale.

Are the Bog Hall sidings still extant? If so, one of those could be used to double track further out of Whitby and allow more flexibility.

There was double track between Whitby and Sleights and a loop at Castleton Moor into the 1980s but I'm not sure of exact dates for their removal.

Picture on this page of 55002 exchanging tokens at Castleton Moor in 1981 on an excursion returning to Newcastle from Whitby, while passing a Class 101.

http://www.image-archive.org.uk/?cat=79&paged=3

The Castleton loop was certainly gone by 1983, as seen in a picture of a 101 on this page

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page42.htm

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sticking the passing loop back in at Sleights would be a good start, and I can't imagine it would be that costly- the second platform is still extant. If you can cut the section time down from Grosmont to Whitby, you can have the NYMR and Northern Rail operating quite happily together.

 

[Stats]

I believe there's something included in the Northern ITT that involves the new franchisee having to do something if the planning application was approved. Somebody a bit cleverer that me might be able to find the relevant information (if it's relevant).

Not in the ITT but the draft franchise agreement contains a provision that the franchisee will provide all reasonable assistance to deliver the required infrastructure and signalling upgrades to enable the additional 4 services each way to operate. The services will be implemented by way of a variation to the train service requirement.

 

[DarloRich]

All the paperwork related to the planning application is here
http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/planning/york-potash

The following details of the proposed funding there would be for the Esk Valley Line under the Section 106 agreement are given in Appendix L at this link

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/planning/york-potash/Combined-Appendices-for-website.pdf

WOW - they are much quicker at getting their determination out than they once were

 

[crispy1978]

I'm not very engineering-savvy, but installing a couple of passing loops at various stations by creating a second platform would seem to be a much cheaper option than installing a second rail for an extensive distance? Yes, I know there would be signalling to deal with, as opposed to the current token system - but I'd imagine it's much more doable on a cheaper budget?

 

[Ploughman]

It is not a good idea to install a passing loop at a station, as that would entail a second platform and a compliant means of gaining access from one to the other.
A lot less hassle to install a new loop out in the open.

 

[Buttsy]

Double track away from platforms is generally cheaper. For the money you get for re-instating a second platform, you could buy a mile or two of double track away from a station, rather than the 200yds at the platform. (Very rough figures). for this length of loop, signalling may be more expensive as you would probably have to lose the 'non-signalman key token' (if that is the correct term) way of operation.

 

[Tomnick]

From a little bit of a study that I did a few months ago, my view is that a crossing loop at (or around) Castleton would be much more useful than one at Sleights. That, along with a new curve and station at Battersby to replace the current arrangement (and better serve the village itself) would work out quite nicely for a balanced Esk Valley service. I'd imagine that resignalling, in some form, would be necessary by then anyway - the current signalling arrangements wouldn't be suitable for anything much more intensive than at present - and splitting the current Glaisdale - Whitby section at Grosmont should provide more than enough capacity for NYMR services to fit over that section whilst the Esk Valley services are further west (at present, there's no chance of sneaking an NYMR service through between Up and Down Esk Valley services crossing at Glaisdale, because the token section would be almost continuously occupied by those services).