What could be done to make the Whitby line better?

[richardderby]

interesting that Northern are running trial 'limited stop' services between Darlington/ Middlesborough/ Whitby on New Years Day 2024, perhaps some limited stop service is what the line needs..
2E01 - 0953 Middlesbrough to Whitby 1114
2E02 - 1125 Whitby to Darlington 1310
2E03 - 1422 Darlington to Whitby 1611
2E04 - 1622 Whitby to Middlesbrough 1742

New Year's Day 2024 in the North East

Those from foreign climes may not be aware that in the North East on New Year's Day there are no local rail services as both Northern and TY Metro do not operate a service (something which dates back into at least BR times I believe) meaning that its only regional and long distance operators...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

interesting that Northern are running trial 'limited stop' services between Darlington/ Middlesborough/ Whitby on New Years Day 2024, perhaps some limited stop service is what the line needs..
2E01 - 0953 Middlesbrough to Whitby 1114
2E02 - 1125 Whitby to Darlington 1310
2E03 - 1422 Darlington to Whitby 1611
2E04 - 1622 Whitby to Middlesbrough 1742

New Year's Day 2024 in the North East

Those from foreign climes may not be aware that in the North East on New Year's Day there are no local rail services as both Northern and TY Metro do not operate a service (something which dates back into at least BR times I believe) meaning that its only regional and long distance operators...

www.railforums.co.uk

That's certainly interesting and a step forward - although my understanding is that the route traditionally hasn't had a service on New Years Day.

I'm not sure that the intermediate stops have traditionally put people off in the summer, for example.

 

[zwk500]

I'm honestly surprised it wasn't fitted for RETB in the Late BR era.

Perhaps the signalling system was not staff intensive enough to justify immediately replacement and was not old enough to be up for replacement otherwise?

According to railsigns.co.uk, NSTR was developed at around the same time as RETB, and has the advantage that there were token instruments available and to hand, and the trains needed no extra equipment. As the Whitby line would be operated by 1 signaller whether NSTR or RETB there wasn't any gains on that front, and it meant nunthorpe could be maintained as a fringe box and thus avoid any complications with whatever the signalling arrangements were at Middlesbrough at the time.
There may also have been concerns about radio coverage, and as the Whitby line does serve actual settlements (even if quite small ones) maintenance access may not have been the concern it is in, say, Rannoch Moor.

I suppose, coming back to my original point, it must make inserting an additional block post easier !

I suspect, but do not know for sure, that adding the data into RETB for a short section token would be easier than adding a physical token instrument for NSTR. Especially with the complication of the Ground Frames, signal box and NYMR movements. However I don't know the Grosmont NYMR/NR boundary arrangements inside out and haven't got the time to read the thread back at the moment so couldn't say exactly what extra would be needed. It's certainly possible, although I'd say it's beyond the ability of the NYMR to offer more than a token (geddit?) contribution towards the costs.

 

[yorksrob]

According to railsigns.co.uk, NSTR was developed at around the same time as RETB, and has the advantage that there were token instruments available and to hand, and the trains needed no extra equipment. As the Whitby line would be operated by 1 signaller whether NSTR or RETB there wasn't any gains on that front, and it meant nunthorpe could be maintained as a fringe box and thus avoid any complications with whatever the signalling arrangements were at Middlesbrough at the time.
There may also have been concerns about radio coverage, and as the Whitby line does serve actual settlements (even if quite small ones) maintenance access may not have been the concern it is in, say, Rannoch Moor.

I suspect, but do not know for sure, that adding the data into RETB for a short section token would be easier than adding a physical token instrument for NSTR. Especially with the complication of the Ground Frames, signal box and NYMR movements. However I don't know the Grosmont NYMR/NR boundary arrangements inside out and haven't got the time to read the thread back at the moment so couldn't say exactly what extra would be needed. It's certainly possible, although I'd say it's beyond the ability of the NYMR to offer more than a token (geddit?) contribution towards the costs.

Like the pun

Since NYMR only run on the main line on a limited number of days per year, an NR contribution could go further !

Afterall, NYMR has several signal boxes to staff. One extra - with NR help could be doable.

 

[30907]

Like the pun

Since NYMR only run on the main line on a limited number of days per year, an NR contribution could go further !

Afterall, NYMR has several signal boxes to staff. One extra - with NR help could be doable.

As it is NT who would be operating any extras not NYMR, they would have to budget for any extra cost.

 

[yorksrob]

As it is NT who would be operating any extras not NYMR, they would have to budget for any extra cost.

But, if we had a government that was genuinely interested in levelling up - this would be a comparatively cheap, quick win.

And you could publicise it on Countryfile. Get John Craven on it, we'll be away

Thanks for the replies.

I'm now more optimistic that we could one day achieve a half decent train service on the Whitby main line without massive infrastructure works.