Very short length of single track

[melmerby]

Hi all

 

Trains leaving York station for Scarborough etc. traverse a very short section of single line in an otherwise double track line immediately after crossing the river bridge.

It cannot be much more than the length of a coach or loco.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZaJAsdJTVcRjSZX6A

 

It's not for clearance purposes as the trackbed is more than wide enough.

 

Why is it there?

[Phil Bullock]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Hi all

 

Trains leaving York station for Scarborough etc. traverse a very short section of single line in an otherwise double track line immediately after crossing the river bridge.

It cannot be much more than the length of a coach or loco.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZaJAsdJTVcRjSZX6A

 

It's not for clearance purposes as the trackbed is more than wide enough.

 

Why is it there?

 
Most infrastructure efficient way to allow trains to/from all bays access to either running line? 

[Wheatley]

To save the additional maintainance costs associated with two crossovers to allow access to platforms 2, 4 and 5 and the maintenance siding. That would require two extra sets of switches and the line capacity does not justify them. 

 

It was a cost saving measure when the station was remodelled for electrification but there has (so far) been no requirement to change it. 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Hi all

 

Trains leaving York station for Scarborough etc. traverse a very short section of single line in an otherwise double track line immediately after crossing the river bridge.

It cannot be much more than the length of a coach or loco.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZaJAsdJTVcRjSZX6A

 

It's not for clearance purposes as the trackbed is more than wide enough.

 

Why is it there?

There was a thread about it here, just appears to be the most efficient layout following rationalisation in the 1980s

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102230-information-about-scarborough-bridge-track-layout-york/

[andyman7]

Yep, looking at Google Earth it's a classic 1980s pointwork simplification job - using straightforward turnout components rather than bespoke crossing parts, with capacity constraint not considered an issue

[melmerby]

Thanks all and the link from Mr Woodenhead

There would also be some freight, looking at RTT, so more than 1TPH in each direction.

Still seems to be an unnecesary constraint at almost the station throat.

[Bucoops]

Interesting place for an electricity substation - over the tracks!

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/York/@53.9651233,-1.0899168,55m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4878c340e19865f1:0x4774ab898a54e4d1!8m2!3d53.9599651!4d-1.0872979

 

A few hundred yards further down the line from the short single bit.

[31A]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Thanks all and the link from Mr Woodenhead

There would also be some freight, looking at RTT, so more than 1TPH in each direction.

Still seems to be an unnecesary constraint at almost the station throat.

 

There isn't really any freight on the Scarborough line.  I think Trans Pennine have some paths in for light engine moves for driver training on the Class 68s; in practice they don't always run  The only other non passenger trains would be the Rail Head Treatment Trains which ran about once daily in the Autumn, but will probably have finished now.

Edited December 20, 2021 by 31A

[melmerby]

29 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

There isn't really any freight on the Scarborough line.  I think Trans Pennine have some paths in for light engine moves for driver training on the Class 68s; in practice they don't always run  The only other non passenger trains would be the Rail Head Treatment Trains which ran about once daily in the Autumn, but will probably have finished now.

Is this a RHTT? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H04845/2021-12-20/detailed

 

And the light engine trainer? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C04855/2021-12-20/detailed

[Dungrange]

44 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Is this a RHTT? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H04845/2021-12-20/detailed

 

And the light engine trainer? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C04855/2021-12-20/detailed

 

The second one has the train reporting code 0T95.  The leading zero implies a light engine, although the path is timed for a 160 tonne trailing load, so presumably it can also be used to tow a dead locomotive.

 

The first one does look like it could be the RHTT as it doesn't seem to serve any freight terminal.  It operates to Ferriby and then returns, so if it isn't a RHTT, it's probably a path for some other Network Rail test train.  It seems to be timed for 60 mph running with a trailing load of up to 715 tonnes.  Since it's marked runs as required it's simply reserving a path for whatever needs to run.

[RichardT]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

Interesting place for an electricity substation - over the tracks!

Originally this was going to be Bootham station - never actually built so the raft over the tracks intended for the station building was eventually re-purposed.

 

Richard T

[iands]

The last 'regular' freights over that section of line would have been the daily (except Sunday) pick-up to and from Rowntree's (now Nestle), and they finished in the late 80s (I think?). 

[31A]

10 hours ago, melmerby said:

Is this a RHTT? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H04845/2021-12-20/detailed

 

And the light engine trainer? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C04855/2021-12-20/detailed

Yes, and yes.

 

The RHTT runs from and to York Thrall Europa which is the name in the system for what used to be York Carriage Works, and is now the Network Rail Holgate Engineering Works, where they keep the RHTT wagons and various other Network Rail vehicles.  I must admit I thought their season normally finished at the December timetable change (which was w.e.f. 12th Dec), but perhaps conditions have been such that they have carried on operating, or maybe it's just that the paths haven't been taken out.

 

On this occasion the Trans Pennine driver training trip seems to have operated, but very often they don't - I suppose it just depends on whether they have drivers that need training or not.  Very often the locos (Class 68s) can be seen in the siding behind Platform 2 at York station.

[russ p]

Wasn't there tanks to Malton and Scarborough until the 90s?

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, Wheatley said:

To save the additional maintainance costs associated with two crossovers to allow access to platforms 2, 4 and 5 and the maintenance siding. That would require two extra sets of switches and the line capacity does not justify them. 

 

It was a cost saving measure when the station was remodelled for electrification but there has (so far) been no requirement to change it. 

 

The same setup was installed at East Grinstead for much the same reasons when that got 3rd rail in 1987.

 

It was altered back to a standard set of crossovers and a double track a couple of years when the platforms were extended northwards to handle 12 car 700s

[iands]

4 hours ago, russ p said:

Wasn't there tanks to Malton and Scarborough until the 90s?

H Russ,

I've found an Eastern Region Freight Train Services document for 30 Sep 1985 to 11 May 1986, which is obviously a bit earlier than what you quoted, but the details may still have been valid for the 90s. The document shows there was no 'regular' service you mentioned, but under the section headed Agreed Pathways for Special Trains is shown a path (MFX) for a York - Scarborough 'Petroleum' train.

[298]

On 20/12/2021 at 18:38, melmerby said:

Hi all

 

Trains leaving York station for Scarborough etc. traverse a very short section of single line in an otherwise double track line immediately after crossing the river bridge.

It cannot be much more than the length of a coach or loco.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZaJAsdJTVcRjSZX6A

 

It's not for clearance purposes as the trackbed is more than wide enough.

 

Why is it there?

I've seen it covered in this cab ride video at 47:20- https://youtu.be/1H2SYziYtHg - the reason being the then condition of the bridge and ensuring there weren't two trains on it at the same time. It obviously hasn't been updated since.

[Innerhome]

For an interesting example of minimal use of points and crossings - have a look at Ely North Junction - where the Norwich and Lynn lines both come down to single track to join the March lines - and the loop which allows a West to East move has also been singled - but is still bi directional.

I seem to remember an accident at a Scottish region station at a junction which had been reduced to single lead crossovers in the 1980s - which I think at the time resulted in a moratorium on rationalising to single lead - and indeed at Ely resulted in the loop - which had already been singled - being restricted to one direction only with trains having to reverse at Ely. 

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Innerhome said:

For an interesting example of minimal use of points and crossings - have a look at Ely North Junction - where the Norwich and Lynn lines both come down to single track to join the March lines - and the loop which allows a West to East move has also been singled - but is still bi directional.

I seem to remember an accident at a Scottish region station at a junction which had been reduced to single lead crossovers in the 1980s - which I think at the time resulted in a moratorium on rationalising to single lead - and indeed at Ely resulted in the loop - which had already been singled - being restricted to one direction only with trains having to reverse at Ely. 

There were several single lead junction accidents, including Newton and Bellgrove in the Glasgow suburbs.  Single leads have largely gone out of fashion, partly for safety reasons and partly because of capacity - to minimise conflicts on a flat junction you need to timetable trains on the same route in opposite directions to pass on the junction, which they can't do if there's only one track.  A single lead and a double lead junction (with a crossover) both need four switches, so it's not obvious that the former saves much money, though it is probably less maintenance than a traditional double junction with a diamond.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

There were several single lead junction accidents, including Newton and Bellgrove in the Glasgow suburbs.  Single leads have largely gone out of fashion, partly for safety reasons and partly because of capacity - to minimise conflicts on a flat junction you need to timetable trains on the same route in opposite directions to pass on the junction, which they can't do if there's only one track.  A single lead and a double lead junction (with a crossover) both need four switches, so it's not obvious that the former saves much money, though it is probably less maintenance than a traditional double junction with a diamond.

 

Technical innovations like TPWS and DRAs in cabs have largely eliminated the safety risks of such layouts - the reason they don't tend to be used theses days is more about the capacity / throughput limits they create.

[keefer]

Bellgrove was the one I was thinking of, where the driver acted on the guard's 'right away' buzzer without checking the signal was clear and entered the single track section.

This 'ding ding and away' was, in itself, becoming a problem, drivers taking it to mean 'Go', when all it officially meant was platform duties were complete and the train was ready to go.

Edited December 27, 2021 by keefer

[john new]

On 22/12/2021 at 13:45, 298 said:

I've seen it covered in this cab ride video at 47:20- https://youtu.be/1H2SYziYtHg - the reason being the then condition of the bridge and ensuring there weren't two trains on it at the same time. It obviously hasn't been updated since.

Weymouth also has a two into one on the approach, a short distance of single line, then a 3 platform station. An alternative to Freezer’s classic Minories track design to produce the same result.

[Titan]

41 minutes ago, keefer said:

Bellgrove was the one I was thinking of, where the driver acted on the guard's 'right away' buzzer without checking the signal was clear and entered the single track section.

This 'ding ding and away' was, in itself, becoming a problem, drivers taking it to mean 'Go', when all it officially meant was platform duties were complete and the train was ready to go.

 

Yes, there was a change in the rule book after that - the guard was not supposed to give right away unless the signal had a proceed aspect. Even without this incident, in the era of slam door trains I would have thought it was bad practice as a late passenger could open a door after the right away was given, thus rendering the train unready to depart.

[caradoc]

9 minutes ago, Titan said:

Yes, there was a change in the rule book after that - the guard was not supposed to give right away unless the signal had a proceed aspect.

 

While Bellgrove (6th March 1989) was a 'ding-ding and away' accident, IIRC the Rule Book change came as a result of Paisley Gilmour St (16th April 1979), another head-on collision. 

 

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

Single leads have largely gone out of fashion, partly for safety reasons and partly because of capacity

 

Indeed, and some in Scotland have reverted from single lead to double line junctions, eg Newton, Midcalder Jc and Busby Jc - But not Bellgrove ! However, as phil-b259 says, the safety risk has been largely eliminated. 

 

 

[keefer]

Just read more about it and while that was true, the guard checking the signal was 'where practicable'  and the buzzer only meant the train was ready to start - also, whether he did or not, it was still the driver's responsibility to check the signal.

It was, unfortunately, one of those situations which became a bit confused, not helped by the Rules being slightly ambiguous.