How could you build extra platforms at York?

[Meerkat]

I was reading in Modern Railways that Network Rail are suggesting a new island platform beyond 10/11 on land they have safeguarded (is the IECC closed yet?)
Wouldn‘t it be better to push 6/7/8 through into through platforms inside the big roof rather than more remote outside platforms for intercity services? Obviously this might require some pragmatism by the heritage folk but come on, it’s a station first, museum second!
If Harrogate needs a bay it could be built on the northwest side where I assume the new western entrance will be, reducing crossing moves with through trains.

 

[DB]

I was reading in Modern Railways that Network Rail are suggesting a new island platform beyond 10/11 on land they have safeguarded (is the IECC closed yet?)
Wouldn‘t it be better to push 6/7/8 through into through platforms inside the big roof rather than more remote outside platforms for intercity services? Obviously this might require some pragmatism by the heritage folk but come on, it’s a station first, museum second!
If Harrogate needs a bay it could be built on the northwest side where I assume the new western entrance will be, reducing crossing moves with through trains.

Making 6/7/8 into through platforms would be very difficult as it's where the stairs come down, and that wouldn't actually give any additional platforms - and all of those three are well used.

If more through platforms are actually needed it would make far more sense to build new ones if there is space (would require demolition of IECC).

There are also empty bays beside platforms 1 and 8, but no point in reinstating them if the issue is with through trains.

 

[Ianno87]

The bays are definitely useful as bays, not just for Harrogate (e.g. the LNER terminator from King's Cross, stoppers from Leeds, etc.). Heritage issues aside, it would really mess up the passenger circulation in the congested area where the stairs come down. It's not clear where replacement stairs could be landed. Another island is the most logical.

 

[Neptune]

The only real solution is the new island platform. It doesn’t matter if Intercity trains have to stop outside the roof, they do that now anyway and there are very few stations with overall roofs so I suspect nobody really cares about that. Timekeeping and capacity is the priority over anything else which is what I suspect passengers prefer.

The bays see lots of services laying over each hour and also units can be stabled in them which is operationally convenient. The loss of the circulation area between them and the need to move the staircase would also be a major headache.

The plans in place should work fine without impacting inside the trainshed.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Here is a "hair brained" idea:
Add platforms to the "avoiding line" to the west. Would need a ~360m extension to the footbridge. (Travelators, like at certain Airports - but more reliable - possibly).

 

[DB]

Here is a "hair brained" idea:
Add platforms to the "avoiding line" to the west. Would need a ~360m extension to the footbridge. (Travelators, like at certain Airports - but more reliable - possibly).

That would rather defeat the object of an 'avoiding' line (which most freight uses)!. I'm not actually sure where any platforms could go anyway - the ROC is close beside the line for the first bit, and that's massive. It would end up being a separate station ten minutes' walk away, somewhere near the footbridge by the Freighliner wagon shed - really not practical.

 

[YorksLad12]

Is that the plan that also suggested building new west-facing bays near platform 1 (I think they were called X and Y in the diagram)?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Is that the plan that also suggested building new west-facing bays near platform 1 (I think they were called X and Y in the diagram)?

wasn’t it 0 and A? But yes there were plans to do so.

 

[DB]

wasn’t it 0 and A? But yes there were plans to do so.

There's already a platform there, so it wouldn't be difficult - they'd just need to move the bike racks somewhere else, and probably lose a row of spaces in the car park for the approach lines.

Is there really a need for two more bay platforms though?

 

[paul1609]

What about a short new 125 mph line from Copmanthorpe alongside the route of the York Northern Bypass to regain the ECML at Poppleton?
The York Deviation could allow considerable time savings on the London to Newcastle service eliminating the current time wasting stop at a minor regional junction.
York would continue to served by the stopping regional express services to Kings Cross.

 

[DB]

York is hardly a "minor regional junction" - and it serves as ain interchange for quite a lot of flows. Cut these out and it will put even more pressure on the already severely crowded Leeds station - really not a good idea.

 

[paul1609]

York is hardly a "minor regional junction" - and it serves as ain interchange for quite a lot of flows. Cut these out and it will put even more pressure on the already severely crowded Leeds station - really not a good idea.

Id suggest that the only interchange thats really necessary at York is to the Scarborough or Harrogate lines neither of which are major flows and easily accommodated on alternative services. All the stations north of York now have direct XC and TPE services to leeds etc
I agree its an important Education and Tourist Centre but the mantra that everything must stop there is long past its sell by date.

 

[DB]

Id suggest that the only interchange thats really necessary at York is to the Scarborough or Harrogate lines neither of which are major flows and easily accommodated on alternative services. All the stations north of York now have direct XC and TPE services to leeds etc
I agree its an important Education and Tourist Centre but the mantra that everything must stop there is long past its sell by date.

At some times of year there are significant flows to Scarborough - really not a good idea to push even more of that onto Leeds. Plus York itself has significant traffic into and out.

I really can't see what would be gained by cutting out stops there - the time saving wouldn't be that significant, and traffic to Newcastle and Edinburgh is not sufficient to fill a 9-car train for most of the time - and indeed the Flying Scotsman service never looked particularly heavily loaded when I used to see it pass through York regularly a couple of years ago (it was the only one which didn't stop there).

Your suggestion would also degrade the service to the south, and it would remove some/all of the non-stop services from York to London, leaving the stoppers which take longer.

 

[geordieblue]

What about a short new 125 mph line from Copmanthorpe alongside the route of the York Northern Bypass to regain the ECML at Poppleton?
The York Deviation could allow considerable time savings on the London to Newcastle service eliminating the current time wasting stop at a minor regional junction.
York would continue to served by the stopping regional express services to Kings Cross.

In 18/19 the minor regional junction of York served 9.9 million passengers, whilst Newcastle had a mere 8.9 million...

 

[Ianno87]

York is hardly a "minor regional junction" - and it serves as ain interchange for quite a lot of flows. Cut these out and it will put even more pressure on the already severely crowded Leeds station - really not a good idea.

York is a significant destination (including for international visitors) and railhead in its own right.

 

[swt_passenger]

At some times of year there are significant flows to Scarborough - really not a good idea to push even more of that onto Leeds. Plus York itself has significant traffic into and out.

I really can't see what would be gained by cutting out stops there - the time saving wouldn't be that significant, and traffic to Newcastle and Edinburgh is not sufficient to fill a 9-car train for most of the time - and indeed the Flying Scotsman service never looked particularly heavily loaded when I used to see it pass through York regularly a couple of years ago (it was the only one which didn't stop there).

Your suggestion would also degrade the service to the south, and it would remove some/all of the non-stop services from York to London, leaving the stoppers which take longer.

They already did intend to run alternate Kings Cross to Newcastle and Edinburgh trains non-stop through York. Maybe they'd get away with a 5 car 801...

 

[YorksLad12]

wasn’t it 0 and A? But yes there were plans to do so.

That sounds more likely!

There's already a platform there, so it wouldn't be difficult - they'd just need to move the bike racks somewhere else, and probably lose a row of spaces in the car park for the approach lines.

Is there really a need for two more bay platforms though?

I'm not au fait with how York works, but I guess it depends on the platform lengths and pathing (so probably not a new home for Leeds stoppers). More flexibility and potentially more services. Wish we could do that at Leeds but the only space is north of the new P0.

 

[30907]

That sounds more likely!

I'm not au fait with how York works, but I guess it depends on the platform lengths and pathing (so probably not a new home for Leeds stoppers). More flexibility and potentially more services. Wish we could do that at Leeds but the only space is north of the new P0.

The idea (did I read it somewhere?) is to keep 7/8 for Leeds route terminators, with others using 1 and below, reduces conflicts.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

One key issue is that everything coming from the Doncaster direction (I mean Intercity, not the random Hull shuttles that don’t go via Sherburn) all go ‘West’ out of York, and yet there’s some crossing moves on the Scarborough side that come from the Leeds lines.

You still end up with crossing moves north and south of the station, which proves difficult. York realistically doesn’t need extra platforms, it needs a better timetable. It would almost be better to put a couple of ‘long bats’ on the West side of 11, reduce the stair size slightly and then make the bay platform next to the Down Main (5, so is 8 one of the bays?) into a through line, thus allowing both the current “in Shed” through lines to be used in the London direction, then the new down and the existing down non-island platform outside the wall (9?) can be down direction, and then TPE effectively get exclusive use of the existing island (10 and 11?) for up and down traffic on the 3tph towards Newcastle and Middlesbrough.

 

[yorkie]

What about a short new 125 mph line from Copmanthorpe alongside the route of the York Northern Bypass to regain the ECML at Poppleton?

You'd be looking more at Colton Jn to Tollerton as you'd surely have to go west of Rufforth. And Colton Jn would have to be a flying junction to avoid conflicting movements, and ideally so would Tollerton (to make it properly useful for freight I'd argue you'd need a flying junction at both and with connections to all lines at Colton Jn).

The cost would be astronomical, so you can rule it out instantly.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You'd be looking more at Colton Jn to Tollerton as you'd surely have to go west of Rufforth. And Colton Jn would have to be a flying junction to avoid conflicting movements, and ideally so would Tollerton (to make it properly useful for freight I'd argue you'd need a flying junction at both and with connections to all lines at Colton Jn).

The cost would be astronomical, so you can rule it out instantly.

The only possible there is to put a third track down between Skelton and York, resulting in the Poppleton stuff being kept independent; and if it’s a bi-di three-line job you can make effective regulating decisions to the minute. The same realistically could apply between York Yard South or Holgate and York, so again making it far more flexible and not forcing stuff into preset lines immediately on leaving the station.

The main thing would be a chord of some short (grade separated) at Skelton to allow Up Slow to Avoider.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What about a short new 125 mph line from Copmanthorpe alongside the route of the York Northern Bypass to regain the ECML at Poppleton?
The York Deviation could allow considerable time savings on the London to Newcastle service eliminating the current time wasting stop at a minor regional junction.
York would continue to served by the stopping regional express services to Kings Cross.

On first reading of this post I thought you were being sarcasiic but your subsequent posts suggest otherwise. York by itself may not appear to be a "big city" but in railway terms it's a railhead for a surprisingly large area of the Vale of York. Just look at the sparseness of local stations in the area and the complete lack of a line in the sector between the Selby and Scarborough directions. If it had survived Beeching the Beverley via Pocklington line would surely now be thriving. And many ECML services experience considerable "churn" during their York calls. It would actually be more sensible to suggest that no service should ever miss out York.

 

[edwin_m]

If there is a benefit in bypassing York, then might as well go the whole hog and extend HS2 along the approximate line of the M1 to cut off the corner and join the ECML somewhere in the Thirsk-Northallerton area. That would save about 20min.

The only possible there is to put a third track down between Skelton and York, resulting in the Poppleton stuff being kept independent; and if it’s a bi-di three-line job you can make effective regulating decisions to the minute. The same realistically could apply between York Yard South or Holgate and York, so again making it far more flexible and not forcing stuff into preset lines immediately on leaving the station.

The main thing would be a chord of some short (grade separated) at Skelton to allow Up Slow to Avoider.

I believe the third track to Skelton (junction) is part of the plan, and a connection as you describe at Skelton (bridge) is a long-term aspiration.

 

[ABB125]

If there is a benefit in bypassing York, then might as well go the whole hog and extend HS2 along the approximate line of the M1 to cut off the corner and join the ECML somewhere in the Thirsk-Northallerton area. That would save about 20min.

<pedant>Surely you mean the A1(M)?</pedant>
That's also what I would do, but we'll have to wait for HS2 itself to open first!

 

[DB]

The idea (did I read it somewhere?) is to keep 7/8 for Leeds route terminators, with others using 1 and below, reduces conflicts.

Are there enough services for that? The only trains terminating from a southern direction apart from those from or via Leeds (e.g. Blackpool ones) are the Hull/Selby services, and there aren't a lot of them, and the London ones.

Platforms 6 and 7 are long enough for a 9-car IEP, which 1 isn't, and I don't think that beside it would be either - unless they made major changes invlving taking out a good chunk of the car park.

 

[trebor79]

What about another raft of tracks and platforms above the existing ones inside the main shed?

 

[edwin_m]

What about another raft of tracks and platforms above the existing ones inside the main shed?

*** cuts to shot of local heritage officer having kittens ***

 

[Ianno87]

*** cuts to shot of local heritage officer having kittens ***

That, and turning the York station environment into Birmingham New Street...

 

[ABB125]

What about another raft of tracks and platforms above the existing ones inside the main shed?

Or have a York U-Bahn with underground platforms...

I'll leave it to others to suggest which lines would run into this new tunnel!

 

[dazzler]

Or have a York U-Bahn with underground platforms...

...and the 5 year (minimum) delay for the archaeological investigations which seem to precede **all** building works in York!