If anyone can remember my original post of the 6th August about this.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/3503ec3cde57411b/a06d579fe6f7093f?q=Savage&rnum=1&hl=en#a06d579fe6f7093f

I now have a copy of the SRA report that sparked The Journals article, and
it covers the whole ECML and is dated June 2005.

If anyone wants a copy, email me at:

kingbboogalooatbtopenworlddotcom


-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

"Boogaloo" <morebeer@anytime.please> wrote in message 
news:deqct5$t3d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> If anyone can remember my original post of the 6th August about this.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/3503ec3cde57411b/a06d579fe6f7093f?q=Savage&rnum=1&hl=en#a06d579fe6f7093f
>
> I now have a copy of the SRA report that sparked The Journals article, and
> it covers the whole ECML and is dated June 2005.
>
> If anyone wants a copy, email me at:
>
> kingbboogalooatbtopenworlddotcom


An outline of the cuts can be found here:

http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=3621

</plug>

:(

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

"Boogaloo" <morebeer@anytime.please> wrote in message
news:deqct5$t3d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> If anyone can remember my original post of the 6th August about this.
>
>

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/3503ec3cde57411b/a06d579fe6f7093f?q=Savage&rnum=1&hl=en#a06d579fe6f7093f

>
> I now have a copy of the SRA report that sparked The Journals article, and
> it covers the whole ECML and is dated June 2005.
>
> If anyone wants a copy, email me at:
>


Yes apparently it is connected with the ECML Route Utilisation Strategy and
not the Northern Rail review... according to insiders at Northern who say
they knew this for some time! (some journos got the wrong end of the stick
on this!)

TM

"Rich Mackin"  wrote in message 
news:kd3Qe.1028$x4.52@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> An outline of the cuts can be found here:
>
> http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=3621



It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any more, 
isn't it? Without actually closing it.


Regards,

S.

"Stuart Smith"  wrote in message 
news:bL3Qe.97465$G8.40044@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Rich Mackin"  wrote in message 
> news:kd3Qe.1028$x4.52@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> An outline of the cuts can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=3621
>
>
> It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any 
> more, isn't it? Without actually closing it.


Indeed... whenever I travel the line, services are well-loaded. Doesn't seem 
that long ago that Whitby had two platforms and regular services to/from 
Darlington... I'd love to know how this comes under the ECML RUS.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

The document Im referring to does not relate to cuts on Northern (other than
a proposal to cut the Newcastle-Morpeth/Chathill service) but is a review of
the ECML which proposes cuts to Virgin and TPE services to Newcastle.

-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

"Boogaloo" <morebeer@anytime.please> wrote in message 
news:deqi25$8k9$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> The document Im referring to does not relate to cuts on Northern (other 
> than
> a proposal to cut the Newcastle-Morpeth/Chathill service) but is a review 
> of
> the ECML which proposes cuts to Virgin and TPE services to Newcastle.


Ah, so SRA/DfT have two complete shaftings for the north-east planned... :/

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:08:39 GMT, "Stuart Smith"
 wrote:


>It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any more, 
>isn't it? Without actually closing it.


Probably one return trip.

It's more the *actual* closures that are alarming; there are several
in that list.  Turning through routes into branches is also likely to
kill patronage so they can be, umm, closed later anyway.

I hate to think what might go on the North Western side...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:08:39 GMT, "Stuart Smith"
 wrote:


>
>"Rich Mackin"  wrote in message 
>news:kd3Qe.1028$x4.52@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> An outline of the cuts can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=3621
>
>
>It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any more, 
>isn't it? Without actually closing it.


They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
open for so many years already, too.

The trains are fairly empty in winter, but the ones I travelled on
last week were full and standing for much of the way.

As I've posted before, there's lots going on to try to secure the
line's future, and I still refuse to share a certain uk.r poster's
pessimism!

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:24:51 +0100, Mike Roebuck
 wrote:


>They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
>train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
>realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
>open for so many years already, too.


Didn't the Council replace it with buses for some time as a protest
over the low-capacity units being involved?  If they can do it once...

That said, I suspect the "reduction" may involve withdrawal of
everything apart from the Mon-Fri term-time school trains.

OTOH, the plans may be, like the GW RUS, an extreme option which will
be toned down to peoples' great relief when the objections come
rolling in.  Some stations, and perhaps routes, will nonetheless
close.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:24:51 +0100, Mike Roebuck
> wrote:
>
>>They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
>>train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
>>realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
>>open for so many years already, too.
>
>Didn't the Council replace it with buses for some time as a protest
>over the low-capacity units being involved?  If they can do it once...



The only thing stopping the council from providing school buses is
money.  100% of the cost of buses would fall to the local council.

Using rail means that most of the cost is paid for by the Department
for Transport via subsidy to Northern Rail.  There is absolutely no
practical reason why buses cannot be used.

Having said all that, I would like to see Whitby remain connected to
the national rail network, but via Pickering and Malton.  The cost of
re-opening Malton to Pickering was assessed several years ago at a
mere 19 million.  It would be a wise investment, in view of the
savings obtainable by closing the Grosmont - Middlesbrough line.

This is the sort of strategic decision that the SRA should have made.
Unfortunately the idiots at the top had other ideas, and spent their
time meddling with things in which an organisation concerned with
strategy should never have taken even the slightest interest.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:43119379.1455382@news.tesco.net...

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:24:51 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>  wrote:
>
>>They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
>>train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
>>realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
>>open for so many years already, too.
>
> Didn't the Council replace it with buses for some time as a protest
> over the low-capacity units being involved?  If they can do it once...


There were concerns over seating capacity when the Class 144s regularly used 
on the route during the week were refurbished - the new Chapman seating 
would mean an overall loss. Some children are now transported by bus while 
the majority still use the train, now a Class 156. Interestingly, during 
heavy snow earlier this year, the bus was unable to get through to Whitby 
while the train was unhindered!


> That said, I suspect the "reduction" may involve withdrawal of
> everything apart from the Mon-Fri term-time school trains.


I would hope not, as the line is still popular with tourists and walkers.

Whatever happened to this Community Rail idea anyway??

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:29:06 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>news:43119379.1455382@news.tesco.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:24:51 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
>>>train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
>>>realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
>>>open for so many years already, too.
>>
>> Didn't the Council replace it with buses for some time as a protest
>> over the low-capacity units being involved?  If they can do it once...
>
>There were concerns over seating capacity when the Class 144s regularly used 
>on the route during the week were refurbished - the new Chapman seating 
>would mean an overall loss. Some children are now transported by bus while 
>the majority still use the train, now a Class 156. Interestingly, during 
>heavy snow earlier this year, the bus was unable to get through to Whitby 
>while the train was unhindered!
>

The 156 has the same number of setas as a 3-car 144 with Chapman
seats. The problem with capacity is only due to the Council's
insistence that every child must have a seat.

The road network along the route of the railway is such that taking
the schoolchildren by bus is difficult (though not impossible) and
would take much longer than by train.  We are not talking about wide
city roads here. Some of these roads are narrow country lanes, and
they do not always run parallel with the railway.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:24:48 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:24:51 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>> wrote:
>>
>>>They can't easily close it, as the 150 or so schoolkids who use the
>>>train to get from the villages to and from school in Whitby have no
>>>realistic alternative by road. I assume this is what has kept the line
>>>open for so many years already, too.
>>
>>Didn't the Council replace it with buses for some time as a protest
>>over the low-capacity units being involved?  If they can do it once...
>
snip

>
>Having said all that, I would like to see Whitby remain connected to
>the national rail network, but via Pickering and Malton.  The cost of
>re-opening Malton to Pickering was assessed several years ago at a
>mere 19 million.  It would be a wise investment, in view of the
>savings obtainable by closing the Grosmont - Middlesbrough line.


This is correct, but there is no money available, nor is there likely
to be, given current Government policy. Add to this the not
inconsiderable obstacle of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and it
starts to look more impossible than unlikely.


>
>This is the sort of strategic decision that the SRA should have made.
>Unfortunately the idiots at the top had other ideas, and spent their
>time meddling with things in which an organisation concerned with
>strategy should never have taken even the slightest interest.


I don't see what influenece the SRA could have had over the NYMR,
sorry.


-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Stuart Smith wrote:


> It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any more, 
> isn't it? Without actually closing it.


   Cut the service back to Midds to Battersby and give the rest over to 
the NYMR? You could almost justify an hourly service - indeed, you could 
almost do this with one unit as the current timetable shows about 23 
minutes between the M & B. Maybe a few linespeed improvements and an 
extra station or two before Ormesby and it could be a useful service. 
Develop a P&R service and bus links to Guisbrough at Nunthorpe maybe 
also. You could even run a fast bus service to Whitby from there as an 
alternative to the train run. The NYMR would then have the option to run 
some services for locals and have a much extended 'network' for their 
preserved services.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:21 +0100, Mike Roebuck
 wrote:


>The 156 has the same number of setas as a 3-car 144 with Chapman
>seats. The problem with capacity is only due to the Council's
>insistence that every child must have a seat.


In an area like that, I do not consider that an unreasonable thing to
insist upon.  Indeed, the *only* place on the railway I don't consider
it a reasonable assertion is London, for fairly obvious reasons.


>The road network along the route of the railway is such that taking
>the schoolchildren by bus is difficult (though not impossible) and
>would take much longer than by train.  We are not talking about wide
>city roads here. Some of these roads are narrow country lanes, and
>they do not always run parallel with the railway.


Do bus routes need to run parallel with the (arbitrary) railway line
in order to serve the schools concerned?  Would school minibuses be a
better investment?  Should the schools even be relocated?  An extreme
option, but one that does have precedents.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message 
news:c1h3h19qnvvubsj5jj78hddb7rgotifmn9@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:24:48 +0100, Tony   Polson 
> wrote:
>>Having said all that, I would like to see Whitby remain connected to
>>the national rail network, but via Pickering and Malton.  The cost of
>>re-opening Malton to Pickering was assessed several years ago at a
>>mere 19 million.  It would be a wise investment, in view of the
>>savings obtainable by closing the Grosmont - Middlesbrough line.
>
> This is correct, but there is no money available, nor is there likely
> to be, given current Government policy. Add to this the not
> inconsiderable obstacle of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and it
> starts to look more impossible than unlikely.


What if SRA/Northern were to pay NYMR for running rights over their metals? 
Would the NYMR (or any heritage line) want to turn down that potential 
income?

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:34:32 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>What if SRA/Northern were to pay NYMR for running rights over their metals? 
>Would the NYMR (or any heritage line) want to turn down that potential 
>income?


Or could they even be interested in a straight swap, if the economics
made sense?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:34:32 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message 
>news:c1h3h19qnvvubsj5jj78hddb7rgotifmn9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:24:48 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>> wrote:
>>>Having said all that, I would like to see Whitby remain connected to
>>>the national rail network, but via Pickering and Malton.  The cost of
>>>re-opening Malton to Pickering was assessed several years ago at a
>>>mere 19 million.  It would be a wise investment, in view of the
>>>savings obtainable by closing the Grosmont - Middlesbrough line.
>>
>> This is correct, but there is no money available, nor is there likely
>> to be, given current Government policy. Add to this the not
>> inconsiderable obstacle of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and it
>> starts to look more impossible than unlikely.
>
>What if SRA/Northern were to pay NYMR for running rights over their metals? 
>Would the NYMR (or any heritage line) want to turn down that potential 
>income?


The NYMR is single track, limited to 25 mph, and run by an
organisation whose (successful) business interests are geometrically
opposed to the idea of full integration with a national timetable.

IMO, it's a non-starter.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:22:46 GMT, Stephen Hughes 
wrote:


>Stuart Smith wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to imagine how they can cut Middlesbrough to Whitby any more, 
>> isn't it? Without actually closing it.
>
>   Cut the service back to Midds to Battersby and give the rest over to 
>the NYMR? You could almost justify an hourly service - indeed, you could 
>almost do this with one unit as the current timetable shows about 23 
>minutes between the M & B. Maybe a few linespeed improvements and an 
>extra station or two before Ormesby and it could be a useful service. 
>Develop a P&R service and bus links to Guisbrough at Nunthorpe maybe 
>also. You could even run a fast bus service to Whitby from there as an 
>alternative to the train run. The NYMR would then have the option to run 
>some services for locals and have a much extended 'network' for their 
>preserved services.


Not with current legislation restricting them to 25 mph running, I'm
afraid.

Get that changed at source (and not before time, IMO) and you might
have an idea there.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Mike Roebuck wrote:


> Not with current legislation restricting them to 25 mph running, I'm
> afraid.


   I thought something had been / was going to be done about that? ISTR 
reading that while in the past all lines had to be maintained to 
mainline standard this was going to be changed so minor lines could be 
run more cheaply? If the NYMR operates this section as a TOC then surely 
linespeed is down to NR and the stock being certified to run on these lines?

Mike Roebuck  wrote:

>
>This is correct, but there is no money available, nor is there likely
>to be, given current Government policy. 


An organisation with a brief to act strategically, one which had a
very large budget, could easily have made such a decision.


>Add to this the not
>inconsiderable obstacle of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and it
>starts to look more impossible than unlikely.


The NYMR was an opportunity, not an obstacle.  It wasn't remotely an
obstacle, as the NYMR was supportive of the proposal, which included
through services to Whitby over NYMR metals.

Mike Roebuck  wrote:


>The NYMR is single track, limited to 25 mph, and run by an
>organisation whose (successful) business interests are geometrically
>opposed to the idea of full integration with a national timetable.


On the contrary, the NYMR favoured the idea, and the study included
looking at how the NYMR and national rail services could be
integrated.


>IMO, it's a non-starter.


See above!

;-)

Stephen Hughes  wrote:


>Cut the service back to Midds to Battersby and give the rest over to 
>the NYMR? You could almost justify an hourly service - indeed, you could 
>almost do this with one unit as the current timetable shows about 23 
>minutes between the M & B. Maybe a few linespeed improvements and an 
>extra station or two before Ormesby and it could be a useful service. 
>Develop a P&R service and bus links to Guisbrough at Nunthorpe maybe 
>also. You could even run a fast bus service to Whitby from there as an 
>alternative to the train run. The NYMR would then have the option to run 
>some services for locals and have a much extended 'network' for their 
>preserved services.



.... a "network" that no preserved railway could possibly afford.

Looking at the proposed closures, such as Barton-on-Humber,
Gainsborough - Barnetby and Knottingley-Goole, all these have pretty
useless services (and have done so for many years). Being a cynic, I
suspect they had been set up for closure by BR long ago but no-one
dared during the upheaval of privatisation. Now we've got Two-Jags and
Co in power for the next few years, and the Railways Act 2005 to make
closures nice and easy, they can repay all those people in
Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the North East who voted for them by
shafting them.

As I said in a post on the previous thread, a Labour government knows
it can shaft these areas big-time because people will still vote for
them.

The silly thing is that no-one has learned the lessons of the past.
Closures lose even more money because the disused infrastructure still
has to be maintained but there is now no income of any sort to cover
it.

Anyway, what are all these thoughtless people doing travelling by
train? They should be driving and therefore making more money for the
Treasury rather than demanding subsidies for their train services.
Can't they see how the Treasury is suffering because they selfishly
don't want to drive?

Drive - your Treasury needs you!!

:-)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:53:30 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


> Mike Roebuck  wrote:
>
>> The NYMR is single track, limited to 25 mph, and run by an
>> organisation whose (successful) business interests are geometrically
>> opposed to the idea of full integration with a national timetable.
>
> On the contrary, the NYMR favoured the idea, and the study included
> looking at how the NYMR and national rail services could be
> integrated.


Ive heard a rumour recently that the NYMR are considering forming a TOC  
and operating the entire Middlesborough- Whitby branch as a micro  
franchise under the "Community Railways" Model.

Paul

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:37:47 +0100, "paul Hutchinson"
 wrote:


>Ive heard a rumour recently that the NYMR are considering forming a TOC  
>and operating the entire Middlesborough- Whitby branch as a micro  
>franchise under the "Community Railways" Model.


If subsidy is withdrawn, they'll have a job.  With their current
bumbling, I give the Wensleydale at most another year, for example.

If the Council are interested in coughing up, OTOH, especially if they
want to keep their school trains, they may be onto something.  It
could perhaps be the first German-style totally locally managed light
rail setup?

Of course, DfT Rail could sabotage the whole thing by lifting the
track as soon as they got their way...I recall that this was how the
Beeching closures were handled, so no-one could prove the Government
wrong on any of them.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 28 Aug 2005 12:51:33 -0700,
billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:


>As I said in a post on the previous thread, a Labour government knows
>it can shaft these areas big-time because people will still vote for
>them.


And the other lot knows it can do the same because they still won't
vote for them...

-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

On 28 Aug 2005 12:51:33 -0700,
billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:


>Looking at the proposed closures, such as Barton-on-Humber,
>Gainsborough - Barnetby and Knottingley-Goole, all these have pretty
>useless services (and have done so for many years). 


Barton-on-Humber to Cleethorpes appears to be hourly to two-hourly.
That doesn't strike me as useless, nor particularly abnormal for the
kind of service it is.

Maybe a more useful idea would be to run a 153 from Barton to the
junction with the Cleethorpes bit, join with a unit from Cleethorpes
and send it off somewhere more in demand?  Or is Hull the main
destination (seeing as there's a totally unrelated bus link included
in the timetable).

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

<billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com   wrote:


> As I said in a post on the previous thread, a Labour government knows
> it can shaft these areas big-time because people will still vote for
> them.


Brigg & Goole is a (Labour) marginal seat

Scarborough & Whitby was won back by the Tories this year, but is highly
marginal.

Not an area where electoral considerations can be completely dismissed.

Chris

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:34:32 UTC, "Rich Mackin" 
 wrote:

: What if SRA/Northern were to pay NYMR for running rights over their metals? 

Perhaps the NYMR should just be renationalised without compensation to
its owners, as so many here have urged for Railtrack and the TOCs?

Ian
: 


--

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:19:05 UTC, Mike Roebuck 
 wrote:

: Not with current legislation restricting them to 25 mph running, I'm
: afraid.

Isn't it old legislation - Light Railways Act - which has the 25mph 
restriction? Dump the LRO, get a T&W Order instead and they can go as 
fast as the HSE/RI will let them ...

Ian


--

On 28 Aug 2005 23:06:58 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>Perhaps the NYMR should just be renationalised without compensation to
>its owners, as so many here have urged for Railtrack and the TOCs?


The best way to renationalise the TOCs is to allow their franchises to
expire.  This would not require, nor justify, compensation to anyone.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

This is the route utilisation strategy for the ECML.

There is a story about this in today's Guardian (see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1558325,00.html)
which says that a SRA working paper is available on the rail
regulators website - have had a quick look this morning and can't see
anything.

There is also the SRA's NE regional planning assessment, which was
issued in consultants output form at least a year ago.  This is
similarly bad news, declining to consider local aspirations such as
Ashington, Blyth & Tyne (better by bus) or Leamside (withdraw planning
protection of the route) and proposing the end of heavy rail services
between Sunderland and Newcastle, and the closure of Dunston and
Blaydon stations.

Malcolm Chainey
Stocksfield, Northumberland


On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:54:29 +0000 (UTC), "Boogaloo"
<morebeer@anytime.please> wrote:


>If anyone can remember my original post of the 6th August about this.
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/3503ec3cde57411b/a06d579fe6f7093f?q=Savage&rnum=1&hl=en#a06d579fe6f7093f
>
>I now have a copy of the SRA report that sparked The Journals article, and
>it covers the whole ECML and is dated June 2005.
>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:07:05 GMT, Malcolm Chainey
 wrote:


>proposing the end of heavy rail services
>between Sunderland and Newcastle


I don't see the problem with that.  The Metro on its own should be
able to provide a better service if nothing gets in its way.

The thing that worries me about the list we've seen is the number of
outright line closures involved.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote

>
> Barton-on-Humber to Cleethorpes appears to be hourly to two-hourly.
> That doesn't strike me as useless, nor particularly abnormal for the
> kind of service it is.
>
> Maybe a more useful idea would be to run a 153 from Barton to the
> junction with the Cleethorpes bit, join with a unit from Cleethorpes
> and send it off somewhere more in demand?  Or is Hull the main
> destination (seeing as there's a totally unrelated bus link included
> in the timetable).
>

The Barton-on-Humber branch really lost its raison d'etre when the Humber
Bridge opened. Before then the service was Cleethorpes to New Holland Pier,
connecting with the Humber ferry, with a separate Barton-on-Humber - New
Holland shuttle. It was then changed to the current arrangement, with a bus
over the bridge between Barton-on-Humber and Hull, though over the years the
train service has been reduced from hourly to 2-hourly.

Peter

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:07:05 GMT, Malcolm Chainey
> wrote:
>
>>proposing the end of heavy rail services
>>between Sunderland and Newcastle
>
>I don't see the problem with that.  The Metro on its own should be
>able to provide a better service if nothing gets in its way.



I disagree.  The problem is that a substantial amount of traffic on
that line is heading for the Metro Centre.  

Paradoxically, the Metro does not serve the Metro Centre, so
passengers from stations on the Sunderland-Newcastle line would have
to change from Metro to heavy rail in order to reach the Metro Centre.

The answer would be to extend the Metro to the Metro Centre.  At the
same time, the Metro system could be extended to serve parts of
Newcastle and Gateshead that are currently badly served by rail, or
are not served at all.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:32:32 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>An outline of the cuts can be found here:
>http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=3621


Which says, inter alia: "Sheffield to Adwick: Terminating at Doncaster
from Sheffield". What's that got to do with the SRA? It's a PTE
sponsored service. I don't deny that the trains are very lightly
loaded north of Doncaster, but any decision on their future will be
taken in Sheffield, not London.

(Ideally, of course, these trains would run through to Leeds, but
there aren't the paths beyond South Kirkby Junction.).
-- 
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:54:04 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>The Barton-on-Humber branch really lost its raison d'etre when the Humber
>Bridge opened. Before then the service was Cleethorpes to New Holland Pier,
>connecting with the Humber ferry, with a separate Barton-on-Humber - New
>Holland shuttle.


These trains might do a bit more business if they connected with the
Manchester Airport trains at Habrough (and if more of the Airport
trains actually called at Habrough of course).
-- 
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Dean Lane 
wrote:


>Which says, inter alia: "Sheffield to Adwick: Terminating at Doncaster
>from Sheffield". What's that got to do with the SRA? It's a PTE
>sponsored service. I don't deny that the trains are very lightly
>loaded north of Doncaster, but any decision on their future will be
>taken in Sheffield, not London.


Didn't the Railways Act remove the juristiction of PTEs to object to
such things, and pretty much relegate them to evening and Sunday bus
contractor status (unless you're Merseytravel)?

This was one of the most stupid decisions possible.  IMO, PTEs should
be entirely and exclusively responsible for the funding and planning
of services running entirely within their boundaries, and the
ticketing available thereon, subject of course to fitting reasonably
around other services.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Dean Lane 
> wrote:
> 
> >Which says, inter alia: "Sheffield to Adwick: Terminating at Doncaster
> >from Sheffield". What's that got to do with the SRA? It's a PTE
> >sponsored service. I don't deny that the trains are very lightly
> >loaded north of Doncaster, but any decision on their future will be
> >taken in Sheffield, not London.


sorry, not true, the PTE may specify what it wants, but that does not  ean
the SRA will allow it, and in this case, although I missed the previous
post to which this was a reply, I guess this is to do with the ECML RUS
and the paths for KX-Leeds trains north of Donny.

The SRA/DfT has total power over what runs, no matter what the PTes might
want - they do not pay for these services, and if the SRA/DfT sees a
better use of track capacity, and subsidy, it wins!

AB

>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Dean Lane wrote:


> Which says, inter alia: "Sheffield to Adwick: Terminating at Doncaster
> from Sheffield". What's that got to do with the SRA? 


For that matter, have the SRA ever done anything that was "strategic"? 
(everything I've read about seems to be tactical detail, as opposed to 
being "strategic" as I thought that term was meant to be used).

> I don't see the problem with that.  The Metro on its own should be
> able to provide a better service if nothing gets in its way.


OK between Newcastle-Sunderland Metro has gives you longer journey times,
worse rolling stock, by that  mean no toilets, no bikes, limited luggage
space, no staff, no revenue protection [1]. Hows that a better service?

However there is one benefit of the Metro for Newcastle-Sunderland
passengers, you now get one extra train an hour off peak with the Metro. Pre
Metro days on the line you had a 10 minute frequency in the peaks, now its a
10 minute frequency with the Metro. Off peak you had at least four trains,
now Metro gives you five (and that will remain at five from December). In
the evenings Metro gives you four trains per hour, before hand you had
three.

[1] It is not cost effective for NEXUS (there words to there own staff) to
send its Revenue Protection Teams on to the Sunderland line as they will
catch more and make more money at Monument.

-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:53:30 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Mike Roebuck  wrote:
>
>>The NYMR is single track, limited to 25 mph, and run by an
>>organisation whose (successful) business interests are geometrically
>>opposed to the idea of full integration with a national timetable.
>
>On the contrary, the NYMR favoured the idea, and the study included
>looking at how the NYMR and national rail services could be
>integrated.
>
>>IMO, it's a non-starter.
>
>See above!
>
>;-)


(Smiley noted).

I haven't looked at the study in detail, but I do know for a fact that
NYCC have put it firmly on the back burner.

I don't see how the NYMR could be integrated into a regular York -
Whitby service without at least doubling some of it. There is
absolutely no spare capacity over the single line on certain days of
the year. Much of its business comes from coach parties who are there
for the "Heartbeat" experience. These won't suddenly turn into through
passengers to and from York. They also won't go away if the demand for
such a through service from York were sufficient to fill an hourly
service.

Even if you solved the seating capacity problem, would the demand be
there for, say, an hourly steam-hauled service from York to Whitby,
taking existing paths over the NYMR, and running at 25 mph from
Pickering to Grosmont (bearing in mind that steam is already permitted
on all the existing bits of track along that route)? I don't see
Pacers solving the problems, somehow.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:34:32 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message 
>news:c1h3h19qnvvubsj5jj78hddb7rgotifmn9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:24:48 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>> wrote:
>>>Having said all that, I would like to see Whitby remain connected to
>>>the national rail network, but via Pickering and Malton.  The cost of
>>>re-opening Malton to Pickering was assessed several years ago at a
>>>mere 19 million.  It would be a wise investment, in view of the
>>>savings obtainable by closing the Grosmont - Middlesbrough line.
>>
>> This is correct, but there is no money available, nor is there likely
>> to be, given current Government policy. Add to this the not
>> inconsiderable obstacle of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and it
>> starts to look more impossible than unlikely.
>
>What if SRA/Northern were to pay NYMR for running rights over their metals? 
>Would the NYMR (or any heritage line) want to turn down that potential 
>income?


See my response to Tony Polson. Even if the DfT wanted to pay for
running rights, there isn't enough spare capacity unless you either
change some rules or invest a lot of money.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:45:02 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>For that matter, have the SRA ever done anything that was "strategic"? 
>(everything I've read about seems to be tactical detail, as opposed to 
>being "strategic" as I thought that term was meant to be used).


Alan, the whole thing about the SRA was that it was not Strategic and
had no Authority. If the Treasury said no, then that was it.  As far
as I can see it has only ever said that something will not be done.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper  wrote:

>
>Alan, the whole thing about the SRA was that it was not Strategic and
>had no Authority. If the Treasury said no, then that was it. 



Please provide specific examples of SRA decisions that you believe
were vetoed by the Treasury.  

I believe there weren't *any*.

Mike Roebuck  wrote:

>
>I haven't looked at the study in detail, but I do know for a fact that
>NYCC have put it firmly on the back burner.


That's because NYCC have no budget for this scheme.  The subsidy for
the Middlesbrough-Whitby line was the responsibility of the SRA, and
it would have been very unjust to expect NYCC to pay for it without
benefitting from any of the savings. 


>I don't see how the NYMR could be integrated into a regular York -
>Whitby service without at least doubling some of it. 

<snip>

>Even if you solved the seating capacity problem, would the demand be
>there for, say, an hourly steam-hauled service from York to Whitby,
>taking existing paths over the NYMR, and running at 25 mph from
>Pickering to Grosmont (bearing in mind that steam is already permitted
>on all the existing bits of track along that route)? I don't see
>Pacers solving the problems, somehow.


You should read the study before condemning it.  All these issues were
examined, and solutions were proposed.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able
to keep the copy I read but, as far as I recall, all your concerns
were addressed.

In article , Mike Roebuck
 wrote:


> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:53:30 +0100, Tony   Polson 
> wrote:
> 
> >Mike Roebuck  wrote:
> >
> >>The NYMR is single track, limited to 25 mph, and run by an
> >>organisation whose (successful) business interests are geometrically
> >>opposed to the idea of full integration with a national timetable.
> >
> >On the contrary, the NYMR favoured the idea, and the study included
> >looking at how the NYMR and national rail services could be
> >integrated.
> >
> >>IMO, it's a non-starter.
> >
> >See above!
> >
> >;-)
> 
> (Smiley noted).
> 
> I haven't looked at the study in detail, but I do know for a fact that
> NYCC have put it firmly on the back burner.
> 


no, the SRA has put it formly out of court, for the NYCC the buisness case
stacks up as its No.1 rail priority, but the SRA/goverment won't fund it
because it does not stack up in their, dare I say London-centric, eyes.

AB

Tony Polson wrote:


> ... a "network" that no preserved railway could possibly afford.


   Maybe, but maybe not. It would open them up to a much larger market 
as currently it's difficult to get to them and parking is not exactly 
easy anywhere along the line. With a direct link in to Midds and scope 
for better road access they could drastically increase visitor numbers.

   Granted the actual traffic on the line won't bring in that much, but 
every little helps... They may even qualify for some funding I'd have 
thought for providing services on the Esk Valley.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:12:53 +0100, Mike Roebuck
 wrote:


>
>I don't see how the NYMR could be integrated into a regular York -
>Whitby service without at least doubling some of it.


Maybe they could get the old New Bridge - Levisham second track back
from the bottom of the English Channel.
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

Tony Polson wrote:

> Terry Harper  wrote:
> 
>>Alan, the whole thing about the SRA was that it was not Strategic and
>>had no Authority. If the Treasury said no, then that was it. 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide specific examples of SRA decisions that you believe
> were vetoed by the Treasury.  
> 
> I believe there weren't *any*.


Well we know the Sir Humphreys of this world don't employ anything as 
crude as a treasury veto to ensure new infrastructure doesn't happen.

"Boogaloo" <morebeer@anytime.please> wrote in message 
news:devslk$21u$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> However there is one benefit of the Metro for Newcastle-Sunderland
> passengers, you now get one extra train an hour off peak with the Metro.


There's also the benefit of being able to get right into Newcastle city 
centre. Unfortunately to do it you have to endure a journey that seems to 
take forever.


Regards,

Stuart.

Bridlington - Scarborough:

Closing this doesn't sound very sensible. The line speed is slower than 
the southern stretch but it has had its signalling modernised and trains 
are usually busy whenever I have used them. The track appears to receive 
fairly minimal maintenance anyway since it is a purely Sprinter railway 
so one wonders what the savings are through closure. Bridlington, Filey 
and Scarborough are not small places and generate significant traffic. 
Maybe it's just seen as the powers that be as a line that's only busy in 
summer and therefore not worth retaining?

Hull - York:

This service desperately needs improvement. With the direct route shut a 
better service could be offered via Selby if stops were made at only 
York, Selby, Howden, Brough, Ferriby, Hessle and Hull. Possibly Sherburn 
as well if running that way. IMHO Wressle, Eastrington and Broomfleet 
stations should close and stops should be concentrated on the stations 
above. Currently Ferriby and Hessle, which could be busy stations if a 
decent service were offered, are under-served. A regular and frequent 
service here might relieve congestion in York station's car park for 
those travelling northwards! Also 90mph/100mph stock should be used to 
take advantage of line speeds and maybe some 158s will be available to 
achieve this when TPX get their new DMUs. A 45min journey time should be 
an aspiration.

Ben.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:02:07 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Terry Harper  wrote:
>>
>>Alan, the whole thing about the SRA was that it was not Strategic and
>>had no Authority. If the Treasury said no, then that was it. 
>
>
>Please provide specific examples of SRA decisions that you believe
>were vetoed by the Treasury.  
>
>I believe there weren't *any*.


If you mean that the SRA made no decisions, then I agree with you.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:22:24 +0000 (UTC), wottoast@btopenworld.com
(Andy Bunburry) wrote:


>In article , Mike Roebuck
> wrote:

>> 
>> I haven't looked at the study in detail, but I do know for a fact that
>> NYCC have put it firmly on the back burner.
>> 
>
>no, the SRA has put it formly out of court, for the NYCC the buisness case
>stacks up as its No.1 rail priority, but the SRA/goverment won't fund it
>because it does not stack up in their, dare I say London-centric, eyes.


My informant is a NYCC employee. I'll stick to my understanding of the
situation, thanks very much.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

In article , Mike Roebuck
 wrote:


> My informant is a NYCC employee. I'll stick to my understanding of the
> situation, thanks very much.


and I bet my informant is a higher ranking manager, the funding is the
issue, and the SRA (controls the) funds, not the county council. The CC
sees a big market here at a reasonable cost, but the SRA/DfT is not in
line re-opening mode while it has so many other things to do with its
over-burdened budget.

AB

wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:


>In article , Mike Roebuck
> wrote:
>
>> My informant is a NYCC employee. I'll stick to my understanding of the
>> situation, thanks very much.
>
>and I bet my informant is a higher ranking manager, the funding is the
>issue, and the SRA (controls the) funds, not the county council. The CC
>sees a big market here at a reasonable cost, but the SRA/DfT is not in
>line re-opening mode while it has so many other things to do with its
>over-burdened budget.



Absolutely right.  It is all about money.  

Most things are.

;-)

Stephen Hughes  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> ... a "network" that no preserved railway could possibly afford.
>
>   Maybe, but maybe not. It would open them up to a much larger market 
>as currently it's difficult to get to them and parking is not exactly 
>easy anywhere along the line. With a direct link in to Midds and scope 
>for better road access they could drastically increase visitor numbers.



In your dreams.  The additional costs would be massive for very little
return.



>   Granted the actual traffic on the line won't bring in that much, but 
>every little helps... They may even qualify for some funding I'd have 
>thought for providing services on the Esk Valley.



Thus perpetuating the current, crazy, totally unviable situation.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:13:26 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:
>
>>In article , Mike Roebuck
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My informant is a NYCC employee. I'll stick to my understanding of the
>>> situation, thanks very much.
>>
>>and I bet my informant is a higher ranking manager, the funding is the
>>issue, and the SRA (controls the) funds, not the county council. The CC
>>sees a big market here at a reasonable cost, but the SRA/DfT is not in
>>line re-opening mode while it has so many other things to do with its
>>over-burdened budget.
>
>
>Absolutely right.  It is all about money.  
>
>Most things are.
>
>;-)


I didn't say it wasn't about money, just that it was an NYCC decision,
not necessarily an SRA one.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into a slanging match about this.

I'm off to Dorset for a few days to cool off :-)

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Neil Williams wrote:


> Do bus routes need to run parallel with the (arbitrary) railway line
> in order to serve the schools concerned? 


The villages in the area are mostly along the railway line, for
obvious historical reasons. None of them are on a main road, and few
have good access to a main road. So even if there were several smaller
buses used, running fast up the A171 then turning off to serve just a
couple of villages, they would still spend a long time on narrow,
winding lanes.


> Would school minibuses be a better investment?  Should the schools 
> even be relocated?  An extreme option, but one that does have 
> precedents.


School minibuses need drivers. I'm sure the schools do have a few
minibuses, but not enough to provide this level of service.

There is certainly no call for the schools to be relocated. There are
secondary schools in Stokesley and Whitby. Between Sleights and Great
Ayton - ie, along the bit of the line that is difficult to access by
road - there is nothing larger than a small village. There is little -
if any - suitable land for a school, and it would be completely
impractical to build one:

• It would be too small to offer a useful range of courses and 
  activities.
• It would result in a lot of disruption to the existing schools in 
  Whitby, leading to a reduction in the number of pupils and 
  concomitant loss of funding and amenities.
• Access from surrounding villages would still be by very minor road.
• Access to more distant facilities - eg school trips, sports matches 
  etc - would be more difficult.
• Very restricted road access could make the school inaccessible in 
  even moderate winter weather.

In other words, a complete non-starter even before you look at the
financial implications.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Ben Thompson wrote:


> Bridlington - Scarborough:
> 
> Closing this doesn't sound very sensible.


Not in the slightest. The additional cost of keeping the through line
open can't be that much, and provide a useful link for both local
residents and the large numbers of tourists.


> Hull - York:
> 
> This service desperately needs improvement. With the direct route shut 
> a better service could be offered via Selby if stops were made at only 
> York, Selby, Howden, Brough, Ferriby, Hessle and Hull. Possibly 
> Sherburn as well if running that way.


The problem with running via Sherburn is that it adds a minimum of 5
minutes to the journey time, and often more. The direct buses from
Selby to York only take 45 minutes, so a journey time by train of more
than 30 minutes is simply not competitive once you take into account
the distance from York station to the city centre and the higher fares
on the train than the bus.

A huge downside to the service at the moment is that, on the morning
peak service at least, it _always_ gets a bum path into York. Every
time I have been on that train it has waited outside York for ages and
then arrived at least 5 minutes late, often more. 


> Wressle, Eastrington and Broomfleet stations should close and stops 
> should be concentrated on the stations above. 


Agreed. The number of passengers from those stations is minimal, and
has minimal potential. Sherburn, Church Fenton and Ulleskelf aren't
busy but they do have the potential to generate much greater ridership
with a more regular and frequent service.


> A 45min journey time should be an aspiration.


The current best time of 56/58 minutes calls at Hull, Brough, Selby
and York only.

If you are adding stops at Hessle, Ferriby and Howden, that's another
5 minutes or so. Leaving you over 15 minutes, or 25%, to knock off to
hit 45 minutes. Even with 100mph stock and linespeed, that is not
possible. If Sherburn is a requirement then it is nowhere near
possible.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D  wrote:


>Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> Do bus routes need to run parallel with the (arbitrary) railway line
>> in order to serve the schools concerned? 
>
>The villages in the area are mostly along the railway line, for
>obvious historical reasons. None of them are on a main road, and few
>have good access to a main road. So even if there were several smaller
>buses used, running fast up the A171 then turning off to serve just a
>couple of villages, they would still spend a long time on narrow,
>winding lanes.



Having regularly driven in the Esk Valley over a six year period I am
confidently state that these alleged "narrow, winding lanes" are no
worse than many of the routes that are routinely traversed by buses
across the North Yorkshire Moors, and a whole lot better than some.

It indicates a very urban view that all roads need to be 25 feet wide,
near straight and level before buses are allowed to run on them.  The
existing bus services in the Esk Valley and elsewhere in the North
Yorkshire Moors run perfectly reliably on these roads throughout the
year.  To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:21 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> The 156 has the same number of setas as a 3-car 144 with Chapman
> seats. 


<pedant>

No 144 (or indeed, ex-ATN 156/153) is fitted with seats manufactued by 
Chapman (or, later, Bombardier). The seats fitted to 144s, ex-ATN 156s 
and 153s, as well as Scotrail 158s is a Richmond design.

If you're not convinced - each Richmond seat is branded so on the arm 
rest joint.

</pedant>

Philip.

Ben Thompson wrote:

> Bridlington - Scarborough:
> 
> Closing this doesn't sound very sensible. The line speed is slower than 
> the southern stretch but it has had its signalling modernised and trains 
> are usually busy whenever I have used them. The track appears to receive 
> fairly minimal maintenance anyway since it is a purely Sprinter railway 
> so one wonders what the savings are through closure. Bridlington, Filey 
> and Scarborough are not small places and generate significant traffic. 
> Maybe it's just seen as the powers that be as a line that's only busy in 
> summer and therefore not worth retaining?


As a resident of East Yorkshire I wouldn't personally miss the 
Bridlington - Seamer route. Filey does see 75 000 passegers a year though.

Bridington - Beverley - Hull is an important (and busy) commuter route 
for the area and that's where services need to be concentrated. Arram 
station is hopelessly underused (2154 per year versus adjacent 
Beverley's 550 000 and Hutton Cranswick's 35 000) and should be closed 
however. I'd imagine it'd be cheaper to put the 6 passengers a day to 
Arram in a taxi.

Beverley desperatly needs investment in parking, staffing, information 
and facilities.


> Hull - York:
> 
> This service desperately needs improvement.

Indeed.

> With the direct route shut a 
> better service could be offered via Selby if stops were made at only 
> York, Selby, Howden, Brough, Ferriby, Hessle and Hull. Possibly Sherburn 
> as well if running that way. IMHO Wressle, Eastrington and Broomfleet 
> stations should close and stops should be concentrated on the stations 
> above.

 > Currently Ferriby and Hessle, which could be busy stations if a
 > decent service were offered, are under-served


Unfortuantly Wressle has only just had it's platforms totally rebulit, 
but I agree it should be closed - as should Eastrington which is useless 
(if the usage of Eastrington was doubled it would only see just under 3 
passengers a day. That's just not worth it when you could be developing 
nearby Howden). The service at Howden should be developed. The recent 
stops at Howden by Hull Trains have been very popular and there are 
plans to expand the station car park. Further local services are needed.

Ferriby station has a lot of potential, but I don't agree about Hessle. 
Hessle station is out on a limb - no where near the centre of the 
village, no real parking space and not near any useful bus route. I'd 
keep its currently hourly Doncaster stopper service only. Instead, I'd 
stop the York service at Gilberdyke which sees more passengers per year 
than both Hessle and Ferriby but still only has an hourly service.

[snip]


> Also 90mph/100mph stock should be used to 
> take advantage of line speeds and maybe some 158s will be available to 
> achieve this when TPX get their new DMUs. A 45min journey time should be 
> an aspiration.


Problem is that the 90mph speed limit is only for Sprinters. This means 
that the new Transpennine 185s and The Hull Trains 222s (or GNER HST) 
can't take advantage of it. That leaves the few 158s that Northern 
operate that can - a stupid situation I think.

Anyway 90mph on the up line is only available between Hull and Melton 
and Gilberdyke to Howden (elsewhere it's 70/75mph). This saves only a 
slightly less than 1 minute on the Hull - Brough running time. For the 
last 6 months there's been a TSR on the up line near Hessle anyway 
(originally 20mph, now 50mph) which pretty much neutralises any 90mph 
advantage.

Philip.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:23:27 +0100, Philip Hardy
 wrote:


>Problem is that the 90mph speed limit is only for Sprinters. This means 
>that the new Transpennine 185s and The Hull Trains 222s (or GNER HST) 
>can't take advantage of it. That leaves the few 158s that Northern 
>operate that can - a stupid situation I think.


While I can understand the heavyweight track-munching 222s not getting
SP speed limits, I can't see why the 185 shouldn't, as surely it's
really nothing more than a glorified Sprinter?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Philip Hardy"  wrote in message 
news:5ZydnbqIfem00LneSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...

>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:21 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The 156 has the same number of setas as a 3-car 144 with Chapman
>> seats.
>
> <pedant>
>
> No 144 (or indeed, ex-ATN 156/153) is fitted with seats manufactued by 
> Chapman (or, later, Bombardier). The seats fitted to 144s, ex-ATN 156s and 
> 153s, as well as Scotrail 158s is a Richmond design.
>

I thought that Scotrail 158s still had the original seats.

PF

In article ,
Neil Williams  wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:23:27 +0100, Philip Hardy
> wrote:
>
>>Problem is that the 90mph speed limit is only for Sprinters. This means 
>>that the new Transpennine 185s and The Hull Trains 222s (or GNER HST) 
>>can't take advantage of it. That leaves the few 158s that Northern 
>>operate that can - a stupid situation I think.
>
>While I can understand the heavyweight track-munching 222s not getting
>SP speed limits, I can't see why the 185 shouldn't, as surely it's
>really nothing more than a glorified Sprinter?


22x uses the old BR advanced suburban bogie, 185 uses standard 
EuroTrackPounders - and there have been reports (in ModRail)
of Desiros being notably hard on the track, probably for just this
reason.

The 22x, while heavy, at least uses BR expertise in track-kindly bogies.
The 185, also heavy, doesn't. Yet another reason why, in a sane world,
TPx would have gone for the 170bis.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Philip Hardy wrote:


> As a resident of East Yorkshire I wouldn't personally miss the 
> Bridlington - Seamer route. Filey does see 75 000 passegers a year though.
> 
> Bridington - Beverley - Hull is an important (and busy) commuter route 
> for the area and that's where services need to be concentrated. Arram 
> station is hopelessly underused (2154 per year versus adjacent 
> Beverley's 550 000 and Hutton Cranswick's 35 000) and should be closed 
> however. I'd imagine it'd be cheaper to put the 6 passengers a day to 
> Arram in a taxi.


This is the current situation though, On winter Sundays no trains serve 
Filey, many services terminate at Bridlington or Beverley and the last 
train only goes to Beverley. I agree that Arram is not a useful station: 
the road access to it is very poor.


> Beverley desperatly needs investment in parking, staffing, information 
> and facilities.


Yes, let me suggest some improvements:

1. Ticket office open in time for first service of the day which 
connects with the GNER London service, or at least replace the Sportis 
machines which don't hold many fares. There simply isn't time on this 
first service to sell tickets to all customers if some of them have to 
be looked up in the fares manual.

2. An information system other than the inadequate speaker system from 
Hull which is mostly automated.

3. A working station clock, new radio-controlled digital ones would be nice.

4. Second ticket office window on platform 1 as many people simply don't 
go near the ticket office on the way to their train.

5. Car parking is more difficult and is a more general problem in the 
town. There is some space behind the station but who owns the land?


> Ferriby station has a lot of potential, but I don't agree about Hessle. 
> Hessle station is out on a limb - no where near the centre of the 
> village, no real parking space and not near any useful bus route. I'd 
> keep its currently hourly Doncaster stopper service only. Instead, I'd 
> stop the York service at Gilberdyke which sees more passengers per year 
> than both Hessle and Ferriby but still only has an hourly service.


I agree with the point about Hessle not being close to the centre of the 
town. However it is in a residential area and a lot nearer to Anlaby, 
Kirk Ella and indeed Hessle centre than Brough or Hull are. It is 
probably true, however, that most people in West Hull have cars and can 
drive to Brough or, just as likely, Doncaster. I don't think the lack of 
bus route is a big issue for the majority of people in the area.


> Problem is that the 90mph speed limit is only for Sprinters. This means 
> that the new Transpennine 185s and The Hull Trains 222s (or GNER HST) 
> can't take advantage of it. That leaves the few 158s that Northern 
> operate that can - a stupid situation I think.


I believe the class 170 can take advantage of 'SP' limits. If the 185 
cannot, how does this affect running on the core Leeds to Manchester route?


> Anyway 90mph on the up line is only available between Hull and Melton 
> and Gilberdyke to Howden (elsewhere it's 70/75mph). This saves only a 
> slightly less than 1 minute on the Hull - Brough running time. For the 
> last 6 months there's been a TSR on the up line near Hessle anyway 
> (originally 20mph, now 50mph) which pretty much neutralises any 90mph 
> advantage.


Yes but 125mph is available (potentially) from York to Hambleton 
Junction assuming the ECML is used which I believe it should be if at 
all possible.

Ben.

Peter Fox wrote:


> I thought that Scotrail 158s still had the original seats.


The ones sent to ATN did. The ones kept in Scotland were refurbished.

Ben Thompson wrote:

> Philip Hardy wrote:
> 

[snip]

>> Beverley desperatly needs investment in parking, staffing, information 
>> and facilities.
> 
> 
> Yes, let me suggest some improvements:
> 
> 1. Ticket office open in time for first service of the day which 
> connects with the GNER London service, or at least replace the Sportis 
> machines which don't hold many fares. There simply isn't time on this 
> first service to sell tickets to all customers if some of them have to 
> be looked up in the fares manual.
> 


How about an earlier service to connect with the 06:25 Hull - London 
(Hull Trains)? I agree extended ticket office opening hours is the first 
thing Beverley needs.


> 2. An information system other than the inadequate speaker system from 
> Hull which is mostly automated.


Quite. As part of their franchise Transpennine Express are replacing the 
PIS systems at their stations, which includes Hull. Wonder what that'll 
mean for the long line PA.


> 
> 3. A working station clock, new radio-controlled digital ones would be 
> nice.
> 
> 4. Second ticket office window on platform 1 as many people simply don't 
> go near the ticket office on the way to their train.
> 
> 5. Car parking is more difficult and is a more general problem in the 
> town. There is some space behind the station but who owns the land?
> 
>> Ferriby station has a lot of potential, but I don't agree about 
>> Hessle. Hessle station is out on a limb - no where near the centre of 
>> the village, no real parking space and not near any useful bus route. 
>> I'd keep its currently hourly Doncaster stopper service only. Instead, 
>> I'd stop the York service at Gilberdyke which sees more passengers per 
>> year than both Hessle and Ferriby but still only has an hourly service.
> 
> 
> I agree with the point about Hessle not being close to the centre of the 
> town. However it is in a residential area and a lot nearer to Anlaby, 
> Kirk Ella and indeed Hessle centre than Brough or Hull are. It is 
> probably true, however, that most people in West Hull have cars and can 
> drive to Brough or, just as likely, Doncaster. I don't think the lack of 
> bus route is a big issue for the majority of people in the area.


Brough is basicly a Hull and Western Suburbs Parkway station. Most 
people around here (Willerby) use it. Don't know of anyone that drives 
to Donny though. I believe TPX and the local council are to increase the 
parking space at Brough.


> 
>> Problem is that the 90mph speed limit is only for Sprinters. This 
>> means that the new Transpennine 185s and The Hull Trains 222s (or GNER 
>> HST) can't take advantage of it. That leaves the few 158s that 
>> Northern operate that can - a stupid situation I think.
> 
> 
> I believe the class 170 can take advantage of 'SP' limits. 


It can. I didn't mention it because they don't reach Hull any longer.


> If the 185 
> cannot, how does this affect running on the core Leeds to Manchester route?

Quite.

> 
>> Anyway 90mph on the up line is only available between Hull and Melton 
>> and Gilberdyke to Howden (elsewhere it's 70/75mph). This saves only a 
>> slightly less than 1 minute on the Hull - Brough running time. For the 
>> last 6 months there's been a TSR on the up line near Hessle anyway 
>> (originally 20mph, now 50mph) which pretty much neutralises any 90mph 
>> advantage.
> 
> 
> Yes but 125mph is available (potentially) from York to Hambleton 
> Junction assuming the ECML is used which I believe it should be if at 
> all possible.
> 


125mph running over that small section might save you 2 minutes tops.


Philip.

"Philip Hardy"  wrote in message 
news:wOGcnV4oDJBJj7jeSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...

> Peter Fox wrote:
>
>> I thought that Scotrail 158s still had the original seats.
>
> The ones sent to ATN did. The ones kept in Scotland were refurbished.


I only see the Northern ones. They were in a shocking state.

Peter Fox

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:23:27 +0100, Philip Hardy
 wrote:


>Arram 
>station is hopelessly underused (2154 per year versus adjacent 
>Beverley's 550 000 and Hutton Cranswick's 35 000) and should be closed 
>however. I'd imagine it'd be cheaper to put the 6 passengers a day to 
>Arram in a taxi.


ISTR 10-15 years ago there was a plan to get rid of the peak trains
which stopped there, as hardly anyone used it. Then it was allegedly
pointed out that the people who did use it were almost all
schoolchildren, who all needed the peak trains. No-one was using it
off-peak.
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:28:42 +0100, Philip Hardy
 wrote:


>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:21 +0100, Mike Roebuck
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The 156 has the same number of setas as a 3-car 144 with Chapman
>> seats. 
>
><pedant>
>
>No 144 (or indeed, ex-ATN 156/153) is fitted with seats manufactued by 
>Chapman (or, later, Bombardier). The seats fitted to 144s, ex-ATN 156s 
>and 153s, as well as Scotrail 158s is a Richmond design.
>
>If you're not convinced - each Richmond seat is branded so on the arm 
>rest joint.


 You're right, I just mixed up the manufacturer's names. However, my
point about seat numbers remains.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet