Whitby to York Rail Link

Apparently, one of the Dear Leader's supporters is prepared to fund a feasibility study into the Rillington-Pickering reinstatement, although I don't know if it includes reconnecting to the NYMR, which will be the first expensive bit (to be followed by all the mods needed on the NYMR and EVL to create the extra paths needed.) Given the the new platform at Whitby cost £2M I shudder to think what a couple of extra passing loops will be. The Mouchel Report of 2000 suggested a figure of £30M was quoted for the overall project, I bet it'll be a lot more now, and for a population of around 23,000, most of whom will never set foot on a train!

 

Saved my fingers there .....

 

This seems yet another thread where there is a debate to be had but it is monopolised by the "dialogue of the deaf" scenario with contributions from those whose minds are made up. I always felt that it a great pity that the NYMR was unable to save the route south of Pickering but those were different times. In particular, there was antipathy to the retention of the level crossings in Pickering that may not now be shared by the locals. There would of course be the DfT's views on level crossings to consider but these are always a matter of risk assessment and full-barrier crossings on a low-speed section of line across lesser main roads need not be an impossible arrangement. If the town had an A170 by-pass the relief that such would give, allied to the creation of a rail service south, would be highly likely to turn minds.

However, we must bear in mind that the NYMR is in control from Pickering to Grosmont and any suggestion of its being ousted for re-connection of the national rail network would be totally politically unacceptable. The reinstatement could therefore only take place either as an arms-length NYMR scheme or under some sort of partnership agreement. To me, it would not seem impossible that the NYMR might be willing to work trains to Malton as it does to Whitby and, in exchange, accept some level of through running by others. There would have to be commercial arrangements which the NYMR saw were both to its advantage and would preserve its particular product. No "normal" service would be viable with the 25mph limit currently in force under the LRO. I believe that the line speed in BR days was 45mph and such a limit might achieve the "Faster to York" aspirations. It would of course have an impact on the heritage operations but I am sure that legally it could be done. I believe that the WSR has a LRO of 25mph for steam-hauled trains and 40mph for DMUs (although it not excercised such).

Turning to the route from Middlesbrough to Whitby, there are several speed restrictions which have been exposed recently as perhaps no longer required but there seems no real will to tackle these. The big one is Battersby and it would be quite feasible to construct a north to east chord which would not be an outlandish intrusion into the landscape. The reduction in distance, elimination of the station and reversal allowance could take ten minutes off journeys; improvements elsewhere could take off another five and all would add to the attraction of rail as a normal means of transport. The biggest help would of course be the doubling of the current four trains a day service which is quite laughable.

Ideas should never be dismissed either because of the lack of any obvious source of funding, nor the entrenched position of current parties. Aspirations develop over the years. Who would have thought 50 years ago that the founding of the WHR(1964)Ltd. would, by tortuous routes, lead to the reconstruction of not just the entire railway, but the extra piece to Caernarfon, within 50 years? As I have made clear, I am quite disinterested in the "sides" to the debate but welcome rational discussion of where we might go in the future.

 

Of course, reinstating Battersby-Picton with a new east-south chord at Picton wouldn't be impossible either.

 

Or simply write a letter to whoever you are worried about believing him (councils, local paper) confirming it is nothing to do with you, and reminding them of the £m and visitor numbers the.NYMR attracts...

 

I'm totally in favour of reinstating abandoned rail infrastructure - just look at the Borders railway to see what can be done. But you have to admit that there are many more potential schemes that would out weigh this one in terms of demand. So I still don't see it happening any time in the forseeable future unless a) private funding is forthcoming and b) a feasibility study proves it to be an economic proposition. Then you just need to get planning permission etc, and access to paths on NR and NYMR.

 

I think that the line speed on the NYMR in BR days was 40mph, but I also think that higher speeds are not really compatible with a heritage operation. to run the heritage stock at 40mph normally requires secondary door locking and stewarding every coach, in other words 6 additional members of staff per train for the present 7 coach trains (assuming the Guard is one). That's not viable, and the alternative of running two lots of trains at different speeds would be a timetabling nightmare on a single line. Let's face it, Whitby has arail link to the rest of the country, it doesn't need a second one, the population isn't there to justify it.

 

I should imagine that any feasibility study produced by that lot would prove beyond peradventure that booting out the NYMR would turn every citizen of Whitby into a millionaire overnight.

 

And while you are it, complain about the more immediate and self-inflicted way of reducing passenger numbers through holding diesel galas.

Seriously, it is an interesting debate for those of us with no particular affiliations other than considering the NYMR to be a very fine railway. It evokes memories of the FR v WHR, where the WHR concept only became wholesome to the FR once the FR was in control. I am intrigued to know whether this principle holds for other heritage railways e.g. if someone came along and said they would like to reinstate a line between Matlock and Buxton?

 

I'll start by declaring my interest - I'm one of an increasing number blocked from the Facebook group for (repeatedly, admittedly) trying to present an alternative view, not against the proposal to reinstate the Pickering to Rillington line (quite the opposite, in fact), but rather in support of other options that - whether the line from Rillington was to be reinstated or not - would almost certainly prove more viable and therefore more likely to receive funding. A fairly quick look at the Esk Valley line suggests that it'd be possible to provide five or six through services to York, as extensions of TPE services requiring just one additional diagram, with relatively little infrastructure investment required (resignalling, abolition of Battersby Jn as outlined above and provision of a crossing loop at Castleton). Each could have journey times not far in excess of two hours if not calling at most of the smaller stations. That'll be broadly similar, if not quite a bit better, than what could ever be achieved via Pickering, and for a fraction of the cost of the investment that'd be required (north of Pickering alone) for that option. I'm yet to see anyone on the group disprove that - all that's been said, equally repeatedly, is that Pickering to Rillington reinstatement is specifically what the 950+ signing the petition (titled "Whitby to York rail link") have signed in support of, not generally an improved service to Whitby by the most feasible means possible, and suggesting that I was confusing the issue by bringing "costs and BCRs" into it.

Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this group's efforts are, ultimately, damaging the prospects for an improved service for Whitby, damaging their own cause of a Pickering to Rillington reinstatement and damaging the credibility of such campaign groups generally.

 

He tweeted not long ago that a "Conspiracy of hate from within NYMR seeks to vilify & threaten my very existence". He's an attention seeking troll. Ignore him.

 

He thinks that the NYMR is trying to kill him. Just bear that in mind and all will be well.

Failing that, get a friendly solicitor to send him an unfriendly letter.

 

If the "campaign of hate" from the NYMR side (in reality Facebook /Email correspondence pointing out the ludricrous nature of his scheme, and that he is a complete idiot) is threatening to kill him, the cut and thrust of local politics will surely finish him off!

 

seen all this before,since nymr owns the trackbed and some surrounding land iwould think that this is a nonstarter,also some of the track around beck hole is built
in the middle of the trackbed and there has been erosion the possibility of double track reinstatement would seem to be impossible,also who pays for the track to be put back on the original position.Who pays for the land needed on the original route to rillington,at least one house/station owner has reinstated track and has arailway carriage on it.I also cannot see Dot allowing at least 2 level crossings in pickering,the traffic system seems to be bad enough already.I would welcome an answer on these points,thank you

 

For anyone without access to Facebook - here are their aims and objectives - all very transparent and open to examination ............

"This is a BRAND NEW facebook group to raise awareness of a scheme to reinstate the Rillington to Pickering section of track. An investor was approached in relation to his moving operations to Whitby .The generation of new jobs would,potentially at least increase commuter traffic in the area by however many jobs are created or moved to the facility. With this in mind various options are being explored and costed to lessen the effect of vehicular traffic to the area. So whilst this is a facebook group with me and the other admins sat in chairs at home. A major new investor to North Yorkshire is looking at ways to invest in the prosperity,job creation,and communities from Rillington to Whitby that surely is one of the most positive things to come to the area in a long time.So negativity is not appreciated on this group for that very reason. Non -disclosure by the investors and contractors whilst delicate negotiations and studies are under way should be accepted until we can know more.All potentially damaging comments will be removed If major investment pulls out of North Yorkshire on the back of negative publicity from people in Leicester. Reigate etc. You won't have anything to worry about, North Yorkshire will have lost out on something amazing.
We have no affiliation,interest or connection with any group of this nature past or present. This is a fresh start we will not enter into discussion on previous administrations or matters arising .

So join us now and stick around this is going to be an interesting project for all concerned."

File under 'Fiction' I'd say ...

 

That's a whopper! It reads like one of those Nigerian lottery scam letters.

 

Schemes these days are all about BCR (benefit:cost ratio), and all major works are planned at least 10 years in advance. This seems to be lost on many people proposing schemes insofar as they let the costs run out of control in the planning stage.

There are good reasons why cars and buses provide better transport solutions in rural areas. If I were a transport consultant and someone asked me what could be improved in North Yorkshire the first thing I'd do is have a look at the bus routes/times to see if they could be improved, e.g. by more frequent/earlier/later running buses. Subsidised timetabled taxis to some rural areas.

The answer "destroy the most important tourist attraction in the area" adds disbenefits to the equation, which is clearly not a good idea.

People who fail the Dunning-Kruger test should really be told to be quiet. It doesn't help those people e.g. Railfuture who campaign for schemes if there are others who are clearly nuts.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, it's the first cuckoo of spring.

 

I saw this idea elsewhere today on this topic, after that gem about tilting trains was brought up - this can all be easily solved. Get one or two of the TBMs that have been used for Crossrail and bore new tunnels from south of Pickering all the way to Whitby. This is a win-win situation - not only does the NYMR remain untouched as a major tourism draw for the area, but you also eliminate those pesky curves for the commuter trains, thus allowing increased speeds to Whitby. Who could possibly object to that?

 

This seems similar to the project mouth music espoused by the Sharpness Branch Revivalists, or Beaver Valley Railway some time ago. Nothing heard further on that, either.