York roundhouses - site open today and tomorrow

Network Rail are opening the cleared site of two of York's 1864 roundhouses (before covering them with a training facility) in the engineers' turning triangle:

Network Rail

I think we'll all watch this space with interest!

Foxy

 

We were all promised by Network Rail's public liars department that the facility to turn locos would be fully protected in the development scheme. And - nothing of the sort. The triangle is now closed and turning has to take place at Milford.

And people wonder why I despair when the network is in the hands of these muppets! QED Glyn and others - QED!

 

The map must be dated earlier than 1877. The present York station opened in that year.

 

Is this an assumption or have you had it confirmed?

Chris

 

Page 76 of the June issue of Railway magazine states that Network Rail's application to lift the engineers tringle at York has been withdrawn after incorrect assumptions had been made about the proposed alternative operational arrangments.

 

So what are the plans for the two roundhouses ? They attracted much interest on the Tornado charter to York last week as they were only just across the track. I did hear someone say last year that there was a possibility of a turntable reinstatement in one of them and that a public viewing area for the NRM would be added to watch charters turn. Was this just idle speculation or is something interesting planned ?

 

I presume the remains will be obliterated by the new development after the archeological recording is complete. Provision of a replacement loco turning facility is apparently a planning condition, but full details have not yet been agreed.

On a vaguely related theme, wasn't there another turntable outside the old York railway museum? What is there now?

 

Given the undertaking made by Network Rail about turning facilities, has anyone else had the letter from York City Planners about the meeting to consider this application, and is anyone intending to attend or take up the opportunity to ensure that honouring this undertaking is part of the final application and will be part of the conditions of any final consent?

 

That's what the 'network change' process is for. No doubt WCRC and DBS will make sure that a suitable alternative is provided, i've seen no suggestion there wont be.

Chris

 

I see the York Council planners have approved the NR development but the press release is silent on the replacement for the turning facility.

 

I have tried reading the documents provided with the decision but can find no such specific condition and no mention in the Transport Reports amongst the 192 documents which are very big on bikes and buses, but not rail aspects. Then I got bored and fell asleep!

I have accordingly emailed York planners

 

York City planners have advised me that Network Rail told them that there is a statutory obligation to be able to turn locos at York. The planners accepted this at face value and granted consent.

I have asked them to request NR to supply details of their intentions as the Network Change procedure to withdraw the facility has been instigated, of which I am fully aware, but unlike Mr 125 above I do not trust in goodwill compromise after working with and experiencing twenty years of Railtrack/Network Rail, management, and being unaware of any concessions agreed by NR in the meantime, am seeking verifiable fact.

We are all aware of the Milford trip for turning purposes. Surely this is not to become the standard procedure.

Yet again an instance of where a joined up charter industry could have made its voice heard - One day they will wake up and smell the coffee!

 

...but as you say yourself Network Rail have a 'statutory obligation' to provide an alternative acceptable to DBS and WCRC who rejected the initial proposal - i think its pretty clear they intend to hold Network Rail to both their word and their legal obligation and IMO they should be allowed to get on with it - i certainly see no cause for concern at the moment, but perhaps James could update us to keep people's minds at rest?

Chris

 

Yes NR have inherited the Statutory Obligations applied on privatisation. And they pay just the same lip service to them. Hemingfield Tunnel, Br 29 at Harrogate, the Ouse Bridge at York - and many more failures to keep the railway in a condition fit to carry the traffic offering at vesting date can be set down as mute testimony to the fact that expecting compliance is like waiting for Hell to freeze over.

 

NR have a statutory duty to maintain the network, but come and look at the state of the track around my locality, which is on the main Kent Coast line to London Victoria and you will see that they don't even bother with that! In addition to unequal rail top heights there is more vegetation in the four foot for sheep to graze than on the north Yorkshire Moors.

 

Frank, you will indeed be waiting a very long time if your hoping for an end to the 'failures' that prevent the railway carrying the traffic on offer at all times - temporary weight, speed and gauging restrictions, emergency engineering works and plenty else are inevitable when running an old, busy network with limited resources. Blaming them on NR paying 'lip service' to their statutory obligations seems a tad unfair.

Chris

 

Not when you look at their balance sheet, contract management performance, and yet, bonuses paid to directors it doesn't. No matter from which direction you look at it the privatised railway is a legal and operational shambles