Should Bridlington be served by long distance trains?

[Killingworth]

Perhaps adding the Selby-Market Weighton-Driffield line to the 'Restoring your Railway' projects would facilitate better links for Bridlington?

A jest, of course. On summer Saturday mornings in the 1950s I watched trains on that route every 15 minutes from the West Riding (although nowadays that would be mostly South Yorkshire). They went to Butlins at Filey as well as Bridlington and Scarborough and the return trips were in the afternoon. By the 1960s cars and coaches had killed that traffic and use for the line. I changed from trainspotting to coach watching, dozens of them.

 

[bramling]

Surely Leeds people to Bridlington and Sheffield to Cleethorpes!

I was always of the belief Leeds went to Scarborough. I can’t see that many people choosing to subject themselves to an extra hour of travelling when already passing one seaside town.

Which is why I can’t really see Brid catching on for the rail-based seaside days out, except for local journeys already served with through trains.

Where rail could perhaps improve is by offering a handful of suitably timed through trains to cater for people going to stay in Brid, but I’d imagine that’s still relatively niche, and of course fairly useless in the winter.

A good connection at Scarborough or Seamer would be my priority, and plenty of capacity on the Leeds - Scarborough service to support this.

 

[6Gman]

As the the thread title says, should there be more than just local and regional rail services going to Bridlington?

I can't remember any form of TPE service in the privatised era running to Bridlington, although I'm guessing there may have been a skeleton service at some point in the early years? Nonetheless it seems to be the forgotten seaside town as far as TPE is concerned, with Scarborough and Cleethorpes being rather overserved from far distance and questionable passenger market places like Liverpool and Manchester.

Would it be a good idea if either the Scarborough or the Cleethorpes service (whichever is quicker) instead ran at a bi-hourly pattern, with Bridlington served in the other hour? Whilst I doubt there is much market from Liverpool, perhaps there may be something stronger from Manchester? Also it would provide an additional fast service from either Leeds or Sheffield.

Going further afield, is there a strong market for a London service in a similar arrangement to the Sunderland, Bradford, Halifax, Blackpool and Shrewsbury services?

Population of Bridlington - 33,000
Population of Scarborough - 62,000
Population of Cleethorpes + Grimsby - 39,000 + 134,000

So why divert away from the larger places to serve the smaller?

 

[Bevan Price]

IF the Hope Valley route ever gets an additional fast service, there would be some logic in extending the Bridlington/Hull - Sheffield services to Manchester, but some of the other suggested changes do not seem sensible. In particular, if you used the Hull avoiding line, you would lose the majority of the potential passenger numbers.

 

[Killingworth]

IF the Hope Valley route ever gets an additional fast service, there would be some logic in extending the Bridlington/Hull - Sheffield services to Manchester, but some of the other suggested changes do not seem sensible. In particular, if you used the Hull avoiding line, you would lose the majority of the potential passenger numbers.

If it ever gets an extra service it doesn't need another that trails off across the country ensuring that those who are in the later stages regularly get late or cancelled trains!

 

[tbtc]

That's interesting, I always thought Bridlington has been the go-to place for Sheffielders over the 50 years or so, in a similar way Blackpool has been for Manchester people?

I dont think the people of Brid would swap their direct Sheffield service to one to Leeds, the last time it was suggested a couple of years ago there was a lot of complaints. The important connection on the Sheffield service is Doncaster, as London, Birmingham & West Country all need a change there, and for those destinations Leeds would be a long way round. Currently for Leeds you change in Hull, for Manchester you would still have to change in either Leeds or Hull, and most people would choose Hull, easier change, and on at the start of the service if you dont have seats booked.

Fair enough - and I'm certainly happy with Sheffield keeping it's service to the North Yorkshire coast - I just thought that Leeds would be more of a "draw" for Bridlington people

It's one of those situations where there are various hourly services (e.g. York/ Halifax/ Manchester/ Doncaster and Sheffield all have hourly trains into Hull) but they can't all run through to Bridlington/ Filey - much better to have a simple hourly service on each route - and if that means that York gets an hourly Bridlington service whilst Bradford/ Manchester both see their services terminate at Hull (along with the slow service from Doncaster and the London services) then that's much better use of resources...

...the alternative would be messy "let's give everywhere some direct services to Bridlington/ Filey, which means randomly timed gaps and reliability problems" - generally I'm more in favour of simple service patterns with clock face services rather than irregular services to try to retain direct links between far flung places (see also Cross Country, TPE, Castlefield...)

 

[Grumpy]

I understood that Northern were to introduce a York-Scarborough service. If they could link that to their Scarborough-Hull service that would give a through service to York from Brid (and Beverley, Driffield, Filey etc) at no significant extra cost. Similarly linking it at York to the Northern trains to Leeds would further improve matters.

 

[IanXC]

I understood that Northern were to introduce a York-Scarborough service. If they could link that to their Scarborough-Hull service that would give a through service to York from Brid (and Beverley, Driffield, Filey etc) at no significant extra cost. Similarly linking it at York to the Northern trains to Leeds would further improve matters.

So the Sheffield - Hull - Scarborough then goes onwards to York, and then to Leeds? Sheffield to Leeds via Hull and Scarborough?!

 

[mike57]

Fair enough - and I'm certainly happy with Sheffield keeping it's service to the North Yorkshire coast - I just thought that Leeds would be more of a "draw" for Bridlington people

I suspect it all comes down to transport links. Train wise W Yorkshire is now a difficult journey to Brid. S Yorkshire has a good service now, 1 tph to Brid and Filey, carrying on to Scarborough. In the 60's there would be summer trains from W Yorkshire, but nowadays if you want a day at the seaside by train from Leeds then the logical choice is Scarborourgh, Going the other way a major shopping trip by train from Brid will probably be Meadowhall, because its direct.

A lot of people retire to the area from W Yorkshire, both our neighbours have made that move, the road links are as good or better than Scarbourough's from the W Yorkshire area, both Brid and Scarborough are at the end of fairly busy single carriageway roads but the A64 east of York is a notorious bottleneck, where as Brid means getting on the A614 from the M62 near Howden which is less fraught.

I dont think better rail links to W Yorkshire would change things much, as you will always have to go via Hull and this makes journey times uncompetetive. The route via Seamer involves a reversal in Scarborough, but there would be a lot of benefit in integrating the new Northern York - Scarborough service with the Scarborough - Brid - Hull - S York service, not as a through working but a proper connection with enough time to cover minor delays. The current arrangements are abysimal with regular 55 min waits, but this has been a problem for years, with zero co-operation between Northern and TPE. I have lost count of the times I have been pulling into Seamer just as the connecting train doors are shutting. Before the Scarbourough Hull service went hourly the 4.30 ish arrival from York would then become a taxi at Scarboough due to the two hour wait.

 

[JKF]

Fair enough - and I'm certainly happy with Sheffield keeping it's service to the North Yorkshire coast - I just thought that Leeds would be more of a "draw" for Bridlington people

Bridlington seemed to be the most popular destination for Leeds people to go to the seaside when I was living there (1989-2015) as I think it’s the closest resort, but it wasn’t a journey you did on the train. Scarborough was also popular but a bit of a longer journey. My memory of it from a few years back was that it was a bit shabby and brash, bars with loud music etc.

 

[Halifaxlad]

If Selby to Driffield via Market Weighton was ever reinstated (Some sections on a new alignment) then I could see Bridlington potentially becomming equally as useful as Scarborough.

 

[mike57]

If Selby to Driffield via Market Weighton was ever reinstated (Some sections on a new alignment) then I could see Bridlington potentially becomming equally as useful as Scarborough.

I think the chances of this happening are remote (as in winning the euromillions remote), Really it would only benefit Filey, Bridlington and Driffield, and the population is just not big enough, or the demand great enough to justify it. Beverley York has a much stronger case and that is still little more than aspiration at the moment. If demand changed dramatically to justify through services to West Yorkshire then the route using the curve avoiding Hull by the stadium would be the solution, as the infrastructure is in place, and with the right rolling stock you have differential speed limits between the outskirts of Hull and Selby giving 90mph along a good bit of it

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think the chances of this happening are remote (as in winning the euromillions remote), Really it would only benefit Filey, Bridlington and Driffield, and the population is just not big enough, or the demand great enough to justify it. Beverley York has a much stronger case and that is still little more than aspiration at the moment. If demand changed dramatically to justify through services to West Yorkshire then the route using the curve avoiding Hull by the stadium would be the solution, as the infrastructure is in place, and with the right rolling stock you have differential speed limits between the outskirts of Hull and Selby giving 90mph along a good bit of it

I wouldn't just reinstate it for the benefit of Bridlington but first to Beverley and primarily as an alternative route to Hull.

Ideally to Beverley double track but then a single track line to Driffield to connect to Bridlington which is about 13.3 miles from Market Weighton.

 

[30907]

I wouldn't just reinstate it for the benefit of Bridlington but first to Beverley and primarily as an alternative route to Hull.

Ideally to Beverley double track but then a single track line to Driffield to connect to Bridlington which is about 13.3 miles from Market Weighton.

So York-Beverley plus Market W-Driffield? Can't see the second ever happening, given the difficulty making progress with the first, sorry.

Back to Leeds: ideally Brid's second hourly service should go there not York, but you've got to make the two timetables fit which currently they don't.

 

[adrock1976]

This has got me thinking that the coast line could be promoted as a scenic line, similar to Scotrail promoting West Highland, Borders, and north of Inverness.

During the summer, there could be a special train running from Blackpool/Preston to Bridlington/Scarborough, calling Blackburn, Hebden Bridge, Mirfield, Wakefield Kirkgate, either Castleford or Pontefract Monkhill, Selby, Brough, Beverley, Bridlington, Filey.

The train could have First Class dining.

 

[JonathanH]

This has got me thinking that the coast line could be promoted as a scenic line, similar to Scotrail promoting West Highland, Borders, and north of Inverness.

During the summer, there could be a special train running from Blackpool/Preston to Bridlington/Scarborough, calling Blackburn, Hebden Bridge, Mirfield, Wakefield Kirkgate, either Castleford or Pontefract Monkhill, Selby, Brough, Beverley, Bridlington, Filey.

The train could have First Class dining.

Yes, but there will be a reason why the Scarborough Spa Express is not the Bridlington Coast Express. If this sort of thing had a market, WCRC might have tried it. As it is their two regular summer services go to Scarborough and Carlisle with first class dining and seem to be reasonably popular.

 

[Killingworth]

Yes, but there will be a reason why the Scarborough Spa Express is not the Bridlington Coast Express. If this sort of thing had a market, WCRC might have tried it. As it is their two regular summer services go to Scarborough and Carlisle with first class dining and seem to be reasonably popular.

Partially down to the single track sections?

 

[IanXC]

The current arrangements are abysimal with regular 55 min waits, but this has been a problem for years, with zero co-operation between Northern and TPE. I have lost count of the times I have been pulling into Seamer just as the connecting train doors are shutting. Before the Scarbourough Hull service went hourly the 4.30 ish arrival from York would then become a taxi at Scarboough due to the two hour wait.

Prior to the pandemic the timetable was built around providing a connection at Seamer. 'Zero co-operation' seems a little harsh!

I think what you're actually getting at is that the railway will no longer consider holding connections for theoretical passengers; there has to be knowledge of passengers making a connection for a hold to be considered.

 

[Philip]

Perhaps it deserves a separate thread, but the other glaring ommision on the TPE network is Sunderland; I think when the frequency from Manchester to Newcastle was half hourly, this extra would have been better serving Sunderland.

 

[Killingworth]

Perhaps it deserves a separate thread, but the other glaring ommision on the TPE network is Sunderland; I think when the frequency from Manchester to Newcastle was half hourly, this extra would have been better serving Sunderland.

Checking current timings and actual use of trains for 2019/20 it maybe easier to see why this hasn't happened. (Sunderland sees about the same numbers as both Grimsby and Scunthorpe, with Cleethorpes about half that number. TPE is the main provider.)

Chickens and eggs. Although a large city Sunderland hasn't a history of intensive long distance rail use. The one through London service via Newcastle is quicker to York than Grand Central. Maybe an hourly through Manchester service would bring numbers, so an interesting speculation; surely one TOCs must have looked at?

 

[Neptune]

Perhaps it deserves a separate thread, but the other glaring ommision on the TPE network is Sunderland; I think when the frequency from Manchester to Newcastle was half hourly, this extra would have been better serving Sunderland.

Bridlington, Sunderland…. where next?

What have you got against decent connecting services? Why do you believe every average sized place needs direct links to everywhere?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Bridlington, Sunderland…. where next?

What have you got against decent connecting services? Why do you believe every average sized place needs direct links to everywhere?

Frequency is far more important than direct links

Which is why i hated the idea of cutting services to Cleethorpes

 

[Neptune]

Frequency is far more important than direct links

Quite, alongside robust connections. Some posters on here won’t be happy until we have complete gridlock on the network due to all these hypothetically needed direct trains.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Quite, alongside robust connections. Some posters on here won’t be happy until we have complete gridlock on the network due to all these hypothetically needed direct trains.

Historically lots of direct links to everywhere were the trend but over time it was changed to higher frequency services but less variety. If you want more people to travel by rail you need higher frequencies not more direct links as Philip seems to think is the best way

 

[Neptune]

Historically lots of direct links to everywhere were the trend but over time it was changed to higher frequency services but less variety. If you want more people to travel by rail you need higher frequencies not more direct links as Philip seems to think is the best way

Sadly it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

 

[mike57]

Prior to the pandemic the timetable was built around providing a connection at Seamer. 'Zero co-operation' seems a little harsh!

I think what you're actually getting at is that the railway will no longer consider holding connections for theoretical passengers; there has to be knowledge of passengers making a connection for a hold to be considered.

Have to say lack of co-operation was my experience prior to covid, and I had the delay repay and taxis from Scarborough to prove it. Some connections very tight, 3-5 mins, which doesn't give any leeway, and TPE guards very frustrated when a few minutes late and not being able to hold the service down the coast. On two occasions doors shutting on coast service after TPE has pulled in, but before doors on TPE released.

 

[Philip]

Historically lots of direct links to everywhere were the trend but over time it was changed to higher frequency services but less variety. If you want more people to travel by rail you need higher frequencies not more direct links as Philip seems to think is the best way

In that case why not cut all through services from the North TPE to Manchester Airport? The likelihood is that a good connection would be available at Piccadilly so why not terminate them all there and free up some unit capacity and track capacity in the line to Manchester Airport?

 

[JonathanH]

In that case why not cut all through services from the North TPE to Manchester Airport? The likelihood is that a good connection would be available at Piccadilly so why not terminate them all there and free up some unit capacity and track capacity in the line to Manchester Airport?

The difference would appear to be that a concentration of people are on the train at the Manchester Airport end of the route so people from Huddersfield, Leeds, York all benefit whereas at the Bridlington end the services have fanned out.

Hull is an easier place to change than Manchester Piccadilly (as of course is Huddersfield).

In reality the only reason to run the trains to Manchester Airport is because there are suitable terminating platforms there. Many have argued that TransPennine Express should not be at Manchester Airport at all (as you point out).

 

[mike57]

In that case why not cut all through services from the North TPE to Manchester Airport? The likelihood is that a good connection would be available at Piccadilly so why not terminate them all there and free up some unit capacity and track capacity in the line to Manchester Airport?

I agree, 4 trains per hour terminating in low platform numbers at Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, with just one per hour via Victoria and then Liverpool. Get them off Castlefield, and no conflicts outside Piccadilly. There also looks to be room to build a platform 0 at Piccadilly. Idealy Man Airport would be a self contained 'airport express' but services from the North and West would probably still to run through.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

In that case why not cut all through services from the North TPE to Manchester Airport? The likelihood is that a good connection would be available at Piccadilly so why not terminate them all there and free up some unit capacity and track capacity in the line to Manchester Airport?

tbh that's a good point. Most people get off at Piccadilly and Victoria.

In that case why not cut all through services from the North TPE to Manchester Airport? The likelihood is that a good connection would be available at Piccadilly so why not terminate them all there and free up some unit capacity and track capacity in the line to Manchester Airport?

But the point is lots of direct trains doesn't encourage more use, frequency does.