The LNER Encyclopedia

Now far be it for me to defend what good old Dr. B did, but we can now put a very lovely silver lining to all his closers.....




For if he had not closed these lines, we would have no where to run our preserved heritage, from those ashes has risen many a phionex, and for this site in perticular the basis of this thread the NYMR, also both the GCR's (hopefully one day just one GCR) Preservation lines are a massive industry, in tourism, manufacturing and employ some serious number of people

Now I am too young to know about the 'good old days' born into a blue diesel generation, and have grown an interest in steam which can boarder on perverse according to my wife, and there are members on here younger than I, but I am so grateful for the chance to experiance living steam, which without these lines I couldnt and they would be static lifeless exhibites in a museum

Now back on the OP subject, great news, NYMR is one of my favorite lines, I havent had the chance to visit for a few years due to work comitments, but am planning a week long holiday up the homeland of Yorkshire in July and plan to spend a day getting a face of sulphur & soot from window hanging, and I still need to see the new train shed at Pickering Station, and something else is happing around then too......so bring it on, more steam into Whitby is a big thumbs up from me

oOo

Brian

(and sorry for my seriously bad spelling, spell checker seams to have gone AWOL)

Think the Beeching debate is worthy of a seperate thread .
Back to the thread topic what exactly are they going to do at Whitby and what difference will it make ?

Currently the situation at Whitby is a single platform and no run round in place.
To achieve this a train has to arrive, offload all passengers then set back into Bog Hall sidings.
There it can be run round, maybe await a Northern Rail service to come and go. The with the engine having completed its R/R move the train can then be propelled back into the station, load up and depart.
This of course all takes time and trying to slot in with Northern rail services into Whitby.
Ideally a NYMR service can enter and depart Whitby between a Northern service leaving the section at Glaisdale and another coming back from Middlesborough entering the Battersby _ Glaisdale section.

The proposal in place is to reinstate Platform 2 at Whitby by the installation of a turnout leading to P2.
P2 will have a separate run round capability totally within Whitby station. The capacity will be sufficient for the longest loco in service nationally with 8 coaches.
The connection to Bog Hall sidings will in future be from P2 only.
P1 will continue to be used by Northern services.
P2 will be not only for any NYMR service but for any other operator.

The alterations, it is planned, will enable NYMR services to increase from 3 per day to 5.

Thanks Bryan , so I assume they are going to extend existing platform 2 as from memory its quite short, as well as lay the new trackwork ?
Craig

Yes
The existing remains of P2 will be alongside the loco runround.
A new platform will be constructed ramped off the end of it.

So will the loco runround be in the centre of the station? That will be nice to give the station some semblance of iys former glory. The thing I don't understand is that the article implies about £800, 000 is earmarked for the scheme and I cannot see how that would rebuild the platform let alone the trackwork?

PinzaC55 wrote:So will the loco runround be in the centre of the station? That will be nice to give the station some semblance of iys former glory. The thing I don't understand is that the article implies about £800, 000 is earmarked for the scheme and I cannot see how that would rebuild the platform let alone the trackwork?

This grant was just the final bit of the jigsaw. The rest of the finance has already been raised from other bodies, including Network Rail.

Sawdust.

Total cost is put at ca. 1.4M, and the project is uniue in that NYMR volunteers are set to do much, if not all, of the trackwork under NR supervision, which should reduce costs considerably. On top of this, to make the new arrangement work properly, the NYMR will need to complete the resignalling of Grosmont to allow trains to cross there, which they cannot at present. When it is all finished I think Grosmont will be one of the busiest 'boxes in the preservation world.

Hopefully this will be the first in a series of grants to upgrade the Esk Valley as a whole and not just between Grosmont and Whitby. First off perhaps a loop at Sleights as re-instating the other line would be prohibitably expensive not to mention pretty well impossible, returning it to a double track formation. Then re-instate the one at Castleton, plus the bay platform trackwork and signalling at Battersby making 4 passing loops on the line [Battersby, Glaisdale, Caslteton and Sleights]. Mind you re-doubling the line from Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe would be the only section I'd put back as there has been quite an increase in housing 'tween the two and there's "talk" of a new station on the line for the new Hospital the name of which slips my mind near the line.

It's called the James Cook University Hospital, in Middlesbrough.
Trevor

A new railway station definetly happening at James Cook Hospital , I believe it will be busy if their is enough trains !
in news-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-18191156

2392 wrote:Hopefully this will be the first in a series of grants to upgrade the Esk Valley as a whole and not just between Grosmont and Whitby. First off perhaps a loop at Sleights as re-instating the other line would be prohibitably expensive not to mention pretty well impossible, returning it to a double track formation. Then re-instate the one at Castleton, plus the bay platform trackwork and signalling at Battersby making 4 passing loops on the line [Battersby, Glaisdale, Caslteton and Sleights]. Mind you re-doubling the line from Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe would be the only section I'd put back as there has been quite an increase in housing 'tween the two and there's "talk" of a new station on the line for the new Hospital the name of which slips my mind near the line.

Reinstating passing loops (and therefore second platforms) would be vastly expensive and highly unlikely, though it would have made sense if the potash from the new mine had been sent out by rail which sadly it doesn't look as though it will be.
The most effective upgrade to the Esk Valley branch would be to build a chord line bypassing Battersby but again this looks unlikely without potash traffic.

Goathingham wrote:It's called the James Cook University Hospital, in Middlesbrough.
Trevor

The first plans for the new South Cleveland Hospital were to be built on what ground is now Riverside Stadium (Middlesbrough FC) , however after much disscusion it was decided because of road access and the rail link it would be built in the grounds ajoining St Lukes hospital .

To aid confusion for our southern forum members the hospital later gained universitary standards , hence the name change .

mr B

PinzaC55 wrote:

2392 wrote:Hopefully this will be the first in a series of grants to upgrade the Esk Valley as a whole and not just between Grosmont and Whitby. First off perhaps a loop at Sleights as re-instating the other line would be prohibitably expensive not to mention pretty well impossible, returning it to a double track formation. Then re-instate the one at Castleton, plus the bay platform trackwork and signalling at Battersby making 4 passing loops on the line [Battersby, Glaisdale, Caslteton and Sleights]. Mind you re-doubling the line from Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe would be the only section I'd put back as there has been quite an increase in housing 'tween the two and there's "talk" of a new station on the line for the new Hospital the name of which slips my mind near the line.

Reinstating passing loops (and therefore second platforms) would be vastly expensive and highly unlikely, though it would have made sense if the potash from the new mine had been sent out by rail which sadly it doesn't look as though it will be.
The most effective upgrade to the Esk Valley branch would be to build a chord line bypassing Battersby but again this looks unlikely without potash traffic.

The only place when major work would be needed on a platform would be Castleton as whilst it still exist would need a lot of work as for Sleights the other platform is in reasonable condition and at Battersby it would be the old Bay platform which forms the other side of the current platform and it's the trackbed there that would need the work as it's so overgrown with trees and bushes etc.

The only place when major work would be needed on a platform would be Castleton as whilst it still exist would need a lot of work

I thought the Up platform at Castleton was wood and had been demolished as soon as the loop was abolished