Whitby- Scarborough line

[moorlander]

I do not know if many of u are aware.

That following news in local papers and on websites.

There is a possibility of a brand new potash mine opening somewhere between Whitby and Scarborough. It is not an extension of the Boulby plant, but a completely different company in another area along the coast.

Therefore could we speculate about the need for a rail link if the potash plant was built ?

 

Will we see Class 70s hauling 100 ton hoppers across the Larpool viaduct, where i walked as a kid to school !

April fool or commercial viability ,the reopening of a rail-link, should the mine become operational.

[Fat Controller]

No speculation about a rail link- the National Park authority will insist on it. The alternatives to rail to the site would be either conveyor-belt or pipeline to a railhead on an existing railway. There was a piece in one of the 'professional' mags (Rail Professional or Modern Railways) before April 1st, which would seem to knock speculation about jokes on the head.

Amongst other works required would be construction of a chord at Battersby, to avoid run-round and reversal, and possible modification to existing signalling arrangements.

[jamie92208]

Wouldn't it be easier to just extend the Boulby line and avoid Battersby altogether or is the trackbed too obstructed. I'm afraid I don't know the area well enough.

 

Jamie

[DVLR Dave]

I think that extending the Boulby line would be extremely difficult. if not impossible-it would require the rebuilding of the viaduct at Staithes and two at Sandsend, re-aligning the track-bed away from the cliff edge north of Sandsend, and finding room for the railway south of Sandsend, where the road now occupies the former track-bed. Any train from Hawsker would have to reverse twice at Whitby, so there would be little to be gained by a chord at Battersby.

 

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

I think that extending the Boulby line would be extremely difficult. if not impossible-it would require the rebuilding of the viaduct at Staithes and two at Sandsend, re-aligning the track-bed away from the cliff edge north of Sandsend, and finding room for the railway south of Sandsend, where the road now occupies the former track-bed. Any train from Hawsker would have to reverse twice at Whitby, so there would be little to be gained by a chord at Battersby.

 

 

David

 

Two reversals = train not turned; three reversals = train turned - which might not suit the customer. And avoiding reversal at Battersby would offer a good potential time saving which might well justify provision of a chord. But overall it is a scheme requiring major investment and when it comes down to it the cost of that will have to be accounted for in the cost of the product/its profitability (but it might help reduce the amount of road salt this country seems to be importing nowadays - I wonder if the local Council etc would allow that out by road in th depths of a hard winter?).

[James]

There is a possibility of a brand new potash mine opening somewhere between Whitby and Scarborough. It is not an extension of the Boulby plant, but a completely different company in another area along the coast.

There was a proposal a good number of years ago which would have retained the line to Hawsker as has been mentioned - always thought it would make a nice might have been layout!

 

What could make more sense could be a conveyor on the old formation to a loading point. It would be much cheaper and could be very discreet too.

[Maniac Pony]

From all the details in the Whitby Gazette, i got a different impression and expect this to be located south of Whitby (more likely south of Robin Hood's Bay). Hence I'd be more likely to expect them to reopen the Scarborough to Whitby line from the Scarborough end. I'm not over familiar with the situation at Scarborough these days, anyone know if the route has been built on in Scarborough? As nice as it would be, I can't see it carrying passengers, just as the Boulby routes doesn't through Lofthouse etc. Neither could I see it conveniently being extended as far as Whitby West Cliff, or Prospect Hill Junction for that matter!

 

Given the success of Potash mining in the area, I could see it doing well.

[cunningduck]

I'm not over familiar with the situation at Scarborough these days, anyone know if the route has been built on in Scarborough?

 

Yep, Sainsburys, Click here and see the old trackbed entering Sainsburys in the Northwest corner (or the bakery).

[Boris]

I have to say that I suspect that you have missed the rebuilding of the 4th viaduct on what is now Whitby Golf Course.

 

Having done some rooting, there was a proposal apparently the last time this idea was mooted (late 60s to early 70s?) that the potash could be reduced to some form of slurry and pumped somewhere a little more convenient. The problem is that the Esk Valley isn't set up for freight operations (or much in the way of intensive train services) at the moment, and there are a number of quite long sections with DOKT. Running around a train at Glaisdale is a pig of a job with both tokens being required at some point for the operation, not to mention that the loop at Battersby isn't all that big, 30ish SLU if memory serves, and farting about with the shunt key is quite slow. As well as the 2 hours for a loco hauled train from Whitby to Middlesbrough being a pain.

 

As you point out, there is no easy way here without some serious spending taking place.

 

Change of tack, wasn't Falsgrave Tunnel filled with concrete a few years back?

[APOLLO]

Stayed at Whitby last year in a rented house right under Larpool Viaduct. It would be nice to see trains crossing over it again.

 

 

 

Brit15

[The Stationmaster]

I have to say that I suspect that you have missed the rebuilding of the 4th viaduct on what is now Whitby Golf Course.

 

Having done some rooting, there was a proposal apparently the last time this idea was mooted (late 60s to early 70s?) that the potash could be reduced to some form of slurry and pumped somewhere a little more convenient. The problem is that the Esk Valley isn't set up for freight operations (or much in the way of intensive train services) at the moment, and there are a number of quite long sections with DOKT. Running around a train at Glaisdale is a pig of a job with both tokens being required at some point for the operation, not to mention that the loop at Battersby isn't all that big, 30ish SLU if memory serves, and farting about with the shunt key is quite slow. As well as the 2 hours for a loco hauled train from Whitby to Middlesbrough being a pain.

 

As you point out, there is no easy way here without some serious spending taking place.

 

Change of tack, wasn't Falsgrave Tunnel filled with concrete a few years back?

 

 

 

I don't know about the tunnel but there is a brand new brick built signalling equipment building on the formation at the Falsgrave end of the tunnel. From a quick look at Google Maps the clearest part of the formation is from Prospect Hill at Whitby to just short of Robin Hoods Bay station site (which is a car park - plus some small business from what I can recall when in the area last year). One report has mentioned building (is it actually a reinstatement?) an avoiding curve at Battersby. The rest of it would just amount to someone paying for what is needed and that cost would probably fall partially on Network Rail and partly on the mining operation - logically perhaps something akin to Boulby with the infrastructure 'beyond' Whitby station to the loading site being owned by the mine operator. But whatever it is the number will be followed by (at least) 6 noughts.

[Boris]

There was no avoiding curve at Battersby, it would be a total new build, and would involve the resignalling of the 2 sections of line as well.

[The Stationmaster]

There was no avoiding curve at Battersby, it would be a total new build, and would involve the resignalling of the 2 sections of line as well.

 

Thanks for that - at least it looks like an easy job to build one judging by aerial pics. There would be a need for fairly comprehensive signalling work in any event as I suspect some additional loops might be needed although they could possibly get away with using the a new curve at Battersby as one of them. From what I've seen between Grosmont and Whitby the track doesn't look too bad but I don't know about the rest of the branch west of Grosmont so there might well be some permanent way expenditure. As with all such things the equation is very simple - does the money which will be earnt provide an adequate return on the investment? Although prices change the maths are usually pretty simple once the expensive business of surveys and planning/design are out of the way - assuming they are prepared to invest money to find out what it will cost.

[Edwin_m]

Battersby wouldn't be a big job - no buildings in the way. Although there is an overbridge and a crossing on the bits of track that would be replaced, these are simply farmers accesses so provided the curve is kept to a tight radius like the existing, they could be re-routed to avoid building any new bridges on the new section. You'd build a new halt near the curve and close the existing stub end, with the residents of the handful of houses near the existing station having to go an extra half mile or so to catch their train.

 

As Boris suggests, Battersby is signalled as a passing station. It would be pretty straightforward to link the single line token machines on either side, reducing the passing stations by one, and although I haven't checked the detail this would probably still allow something similar to the present desultory passenger service to continue and the freight to run at night.

 

If freight was to operate during the daytime then current UK signalling principles would need at least one of the existing loops to be lengthened (or replaced by a longer one somewhere else). There may be a wizard wheeze to avoid this but I'm not going into it here! According to latest Modern Railways the NYMR trains use all spare capacity between Grosmont and Whitby so at least one new loop would be needed here if the two are to run at the same time.

[The Stationmaster]

Of course we don't know anything about quantities (assuming that it even happens) but I think you could probably forget restricting operations to night time only because it just wouldn't be economic. If there is enough justification to build the mine in the first place then it will be a continuous process needing to shift out both potash and salt (a by-product but very handy on roads in the winter) so we are probably looking at 5-6 trains a day and wagon/loco/crew utilisation will drive it to a 24hr-ish working pattern in order to keep it efficient. The other side of that coin is obviously going to be infrastructure spend but I suspect it would be the most likely option - if it happens at all that is.

[Boris]

There would be quite a lot of opposition from various parties to losing the loop at Battersby, surely they could just relay the last few miles back to Picton and rejoin the ECML?

[James]

which is a car park - plus some small business from what I can recall when in the area last year

Indeed it is - the station is quite well preserved; even the signal box is still in good condition.

 

From what I've seen between Grosmont and Whitby the track doesn't look too bad but I don't know about the rest of the branch west of Grosmont so there might well be some permanent way expenditure.

It's not that long since much of the line was renewed by GrantRail - Mike you may recall a small mishap with a gantry on one of the bridges... So the formation should be sound still so any additional works shouldn't be too much of a head ache.

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed it is - the station is quite well preserved; even the signal box is still in good condition.

 

 

It's not that long since much of the line was renewed by GrantRail - Mike you may recall a small mishap with a gantry on one of the bridges... So the formation should be sound still so any additional works shouldn't be too much of a head ache.

 

Ah, I remember that - oops! If they were to use similar wagons to the Boulby operation the route would need to be up to RA 8 standards although looking back at my few pics of Grosmont - Whitby the ballast/sleeepers/rail look to be probably capable of that although I don't know about structures. Referring to Boris' point the route between Battersby and Picton has been built over in several places and is crossed, apparently on the level (?) by a couple of main roads so although it would avoid the need for a reversal in the vicinity of Middlesborough (assuming the product goes to the same place as that from Boulby) it does look like a more expensive option from the land take, compensation, and engineering viewpoint.

 

 

[James]

Ah, I remember that - oops!

A sorely missed friend was operating the gantry which got itself in a little bit of trouble! I don't think he appreciated hanging over the river like that!

 

would avoid the need for a reversal in the vicinity of Middlesborough (assuming the product goes to the same place as that from Boulby) it does look like a more expensive option from the land take, compensation, and engineering viewpoint.

Having witness the constant stream of imported coal heading into Scunthorpe Steelworks a reversal shouldn't be too bad - they have to run round three times to get in and out of the coal handling plant. This is several times a day to. Firstly they come of the main and run round to head back to the terminal, once through there they run round again before having to run round for the final time to ready themselves for the return trip to Immingham. At one time they were using Class 47s as super shunters to take wagons through the terminal releasing the mainline loco to take empties straight back.

 

In the first instance it is probably more economically sound to have an extra run round than risk more money on major works.

[The Stationmaster]

A sorely missed friend was operating the gantry which got itself in a little bit of trouble! I don't think he appreciated hanging over the river like that!

 

 

Having witness the constant stream of imported coal heading into Scunthorpe Steelworks a reversal shouldn't be too bad - they have to run round three times to get in and out of the coal handling plant. This is several times a day to. Firstly they come of the main and run round to head back to the terminal, once through there they run round again before having to run round for the final time to ready themselves for the return trip to Immingham. At one time they were using Class 47s as super shunters to take wagons through the terminal releasing the mainline loco to take empties straight back.

 

In the first instance it is probably more economically sound to have an extra run round than risk more money on major works.

 

I don't think a need to run-round is any sort of problem at all, and it's only once if there's a chord at Battersby. When I did the Didcot scheme an alternative west entrance to the power station was considered but rejected on various grounds and - after doing a live test on the cheapest alternative (great fun having your own 'private' loaded mgr train and a Class 60 'to play with') - I devised a nice little way of doing the job which works beautifully to this day (even if it did cost a few quid on infrastructure changes).

[Edwin_m]

A curve at Middlesbrough for direct access between the Whitby line and the east is a non-starter IMHO. A quick look at Bing maps shows a major structure would be needed to cross the A66 dual carriageway and probably some of the other fairly major roads nearby. Although the area is empty on the satellite photo the presence of new roads suggests it is about to be developed (and may have been by now). You'd also impact on a chemical works and probably some houses too.

 

As it stands the trains would have to run through the platform at Middlesbrough, probably running round somewhere further west rather than here. The current track layout is operationally horrible so remodelling would be needed for any daytime freight service, but that will probably happen sooner or later in any case.

[Worsdell forever]

As it stands the trains would have to run through the platform at Middlesbrough, probably running round somewhere further west rather than here. The current track layout is operationally horrible so remodelling would be needed for any daytime freight service, but that will probably happen sooner or later in any case.

 

Current Boulby trains reverse in the very east end of Tees yard to go into Middlesbrough goods and I'm sure the ones to Teesport must do something similar further east.

 

The new mine is at the moment just pushing around and selling numbers but as there is a seam of Polyhalite (slow release fertilizer that can be used in 'organic' situations) the same as they are digging drifts down for at Boulby at the moment it may be worthwhile, this seam is between 40 and 60 metres thick. NYMNP will no doubt stipulate rail transport and Whitby would be by far the easiest route as going by scarborough as well as getting through, is taking it even further away from where it can be either be exported or processed as there will be a plant built on Teesside to deal with the Boulby Polyhalite.

[packetlos]

Seems rail has has lost out to a mega 35km pipeline to teeside here.

[MarkC]

This was always going to happen, I'm afraid - it's a lot cheaper to put in a pipeline than to rebuild/upgrade the coast line and Esk Valley lines, and probably quicker. Also, once the pipe is in, nature very quickly reclaims the ground above it - see the ethylene gas pipeline that runs between Grangemouth on the Forth & the Teesside area as a good example.

 

Also, the pipeline isn't going to be dependent on weather, and we know how bad THAT can get on the Moors...

 

Mark

[edcayton]

Seems rail has has lost out to a mega 35km pipeline to teeside here.

 

 

I hope it is better "screened" by the existing woodland than the Glaxo site in Stevenage is! Before they built that they sent local residents some pretty "artist's impressions" of a pretty little factory nestling in the shade of some large trees. The reality is somewhat different 20some years on.

 

Ed